If Sewell & Pitts fall who do you take?

hendog86 said:

Sewell. Period

Click to expand...

The more I consider it, the more I agree with you -- securing an ideal protector for Dak would soundly support his career.

Yes

If Pitts is available you have to go with him.

He's the best player in the draft and it's not even really that close.

Adreme said:

While this scenario is somewhat implausible you would take Pitts as Seawell is at best going to be your starting Guard for at least 1-2 seasons and a G is not worth it more than a TE.

Click to expand...

You might choose spelling his name correctly, before issuing advice about him . . .

Bullflop said:

You might choose spelling his name correctly, before issuing advice about him . . .

Click to expand...

Eh you can blame my phone's auto correct, but that does not change anything. The honest board is always BPA at a position of need. BPA is just a cute phrase said by GMs but all the good ones are BPA at positions of need.

Adreme said:

Eh you can blame my phone's auto correct, but that does not change anything. The honest board is always BPA at a position of need. BPA is just a cute phrase said by GMs but all the good ones are BPA at positions of need.

Click to expand...

There's a considerable need, considering the fact that Tyron hasn't put in a complete season for the last three years.

It may get worse. There's been a multitude of injuries nagging him, including shoulder, back, neck, elbow, knee, etc.

Bullflop said:

There's a considerable need, considering the fact that Tyron hasn't put in a complete season for the last three years.

It may get worse. There's been a multitude of injuries nagging him, including shoulder, back, neck, elbow, knee, etc.

Click to expand...

It is not a considerable need because there is no scenario where the depth does not read him as a backup T until an injury occurs. It is a nice thing to have but is far from a need. If I were listing needs for the Cowboys T is not even top 5 on position groups (every defensive position, then TE, THEN T). Basically meaning your 10th pick is either a benchwarmer or a mediocre guard versus a generational talent. It is not even a close call.

I would take the tackle if there is no Defense. TE the cowboys are fine, they are not dynamic but they don't have to be. With both OT coming off injuries and the rumors around both of them and the severity of the injuries Sewell would be a great insurance policy. But I would still rather go defense CB/Edge 1st round

If you could take a flashy, immature, local QB who can't play....or a HOF guard....who do you take if you're Jerry Jones?

Things like that are why I accept the kids' cheapness.

We all want Jerry to take more chances, but who knows what this team might look like if it were him alone calling the shots?

Probably a lot closer to the Campo rosters than what they currently field.

This is a tough one.lets say the cowboys do a similar rating of players like NFL.com.Pitts is ranked no 2 and Sewell is ranked outside of the top 10.would anyone want us to jump the no 2 player on our board to draft a player not in our top 10?,this may haunt us like Randy Moss situation.

Adreme said:

It is not a considerable need because there is no scenario where the depth does not read him as a backup T until an injury occurs. It is a nice thing to have but is far from a need. If I were listing needs for the Cowboys T is not even top 5 on position groups (every defensive position, then TE, THEN T). Basically meaning your 10th pick is either a benchwarmer or a mediocre guard versus a generational talent. It is not even a close call.

Click to expand...

By your own definition, TE isn't actually a need, either. The TEs that we already have in house are more than adequately suited to serve all of our needs there. Let's also be aware that Sewell would be much more suitable as a guard than Williams or McGovern is now. They simply haven't proven to be adequate in pass protection to justify their roster spots as starters. Both are simply more suited to serve as backups than as starters.

The Quest for Six said:

Smith can't stay healthy any more with his lower back issues, you better protect your franchise QB's blindside, Sewell is the choice and it isn't a hard choice

Click to expand...

I was adamant that the Cowboys take Def with their first three picks, but I am warming up to the idea of taking Sewell if he is there.

Thread asks who I take while the first post asks who they take.

I think they, Booger, takes Pitts. It's splash and he's all about that.

If that's me and I'm paying my QB 160M, it's not even a choice, I take Sewell or Slater over Pitts.

Add to that a 15M RB and I need my TE to block because I've already got 3 pass catching WR's and only 1 ball.

Bullflop said:

By your own definition, TE isn't actually a need, either. The TEs that we already have in house are more than adequately suited to serve all of our needs there. Let's also be aware that Sewell would be much more suitable as a guard than Williams or McGovern is now. They simply haven't proven to be adequate in pass protection to justify their roster spots as starters. Both are simply more suited to serve as backups than as starters.

Click to expand...

The Dallas Cowboys OLine starters are top 10 in the league and that is a conservative estimate. The Dallas Cowboys TE starters are bottom 10 in the league and that is probably being generous. Just because you have a player does not make them any good.

Basically if you draft Pitts you are drafting a generational talent that will be dominating defenses for the next 12 years and is a day 1 starter for sure. If you go Sewell, then you are looking at someone who might be a full-time starter by year 3 and may or may not reach that level, but even if he is you get him cheap for 2 years before it gets expensive in a hurry.

I’m probably taking the tight end. But if I had a choice of anybody I’m going with the linebacker

Adreme said:

The Dallas Cowboys OLine starters are top 10 in the league and that is a conservative estimate. The Dallas Cowboys TE starters are bottom 10 in the league and that is probably being generous. Just because you have a player does not make them any good.

Basically if you draft Pitts you are drafting a generational talent that will be dominating defenses for the next 12 years and is a day 1 starter for sure. If you go Sewell, then you are looking at someone who might be a full-time starter by year 3 and may or may not reach that level, but even if he is you get him cheap for 2 years before it gets expensive in a hurry.

Click to expand...

Good luck with your wishful aspirations of getting Pitts. Chances of that are minimal at best. Your estimations of what our TEs are now is strictly a projection of your agenda-based guesswork. If you think Sewell isn't likely to be a starter 'til year three, that's just another example of your agenda taking precedence. Chances of Pitts belonging to Dallas are nil, without moving up to do so. Considering our needs being so great for a defensive draft, the cost of moving up to secure a TE just wouldn't be worth it. If it pleases you to dream, be my guest. It won't happen, by anything resembling practical thinking.

Bullflop said:

Good luck with your wishful aspirations of getting Pitts. Chances of that are minimal at best, to be sure. Your estimations of what our TEs are now is strictly a projection of your agenda-based guesswork. If you think Sewell isn't likely to be a starter 'til year three, that's just another example of your agenda taking precedence. Chances of Pitts belonging to Dallas are nil, without moving up to do so. Considering our needs being so great for a defensive draft, the cost of moving up to secure a TE just wouldn't be worth it. If it pleases you to dream, be my guest. It won't happen.

Click to expand...

First off, my first post in this thread said this entire exercise was a waste of time as both players will be gone by 10.

Second off, my projection of the TEs is based purely on their production and their production has not been great. Every team in the NFL has a Blake Jarwin and by that I mean that player that fans are absolutely convinced could have a breakout if he just got an opportunity. However, there is a reason nobody else can name them because they have not done anything and they rarely ever do. As it stands the Cowboys have low-end starters at TE and are both easily replaceable. That is not an agenda, that is simply what their production has shown them to be.

Finally, when you look at the Tackles for Cowboys you see a player who has made Pro Bowls and 2x first team all pro, and another player who has also elevated himself and just signed a fairly sizable extension that makes him uncuttable for the next 2 seasons. Again that is what their production has shown them to be. This means your 10th pick will not play at his natural position unless an injury occurs. You are spending the 10th pick on a backup T/starting G (who probably will not be great at G just because of his skillset being far more favorable to T). This is not an agenda. They have actual accolades. I am not looking at what current NFL players "could" be, I am looking at what they are.

Sewel and say goodbye to Tyron Smith

Adreme said:

The Dallas Cowboys OLine starters are top 10 in the league and that is a conservative estimate. The Dallas Cowboys TE starters are bottom 10 in the league and that is probably being generous. Just because you have a player does not make them any good.

Basically if you draft Pitts you are drafting a generational talent that will be dominating defenses for the next 12 years and is a day 1 starter for sure. If you go Sewell, then you are looking at someone who might be a full-time starter by year 3 and may or may not reach that level, but even if he is you get him cheap for 2 years before it gets expensive in a hurry.

Click to expand...

Or, tyron goes down, sewell goes in and dominats and you admit it was a great pick. Sewell could just as easily turn out to be the more valuable pick, I know you can see that. Lots of guys dominate college and never live up to the hype, it's a gamble period.

MountaineerCowboy said:

If Pitts is available you have to go with him.

He's the best player in the draft and it's not even really that close.

Click to expand...

Lawrence is the best player in the draft, and it's not close.

I swear, how do you guys get this wrong so consistently?

There is very little distance between Pitts/Parsons/Sewell/Chase/Surtain. Might want to get a different info source, yours is misleading you!!!!!!!!