Draft Would You Rather Have?

rocyaice said:

For the record Crawford wasn’t bad initially. He was actually solid. I’d take another Crawford of 5 years ago.

Click to expand...

Crawford wouldn't have been bad if he didnt start or get paid and was just a depth piece

Hennessy_King said:

Crawford wouldn't have been bad if he didnt start or get paid and was just a depth piece

Click to expand...

Agreed. And mind you, it’s not Crawford’s fault the Jones’ boys overpaid him. I don’t begrudge him for taking the money.

but if Crawford was making like 4-5 mil per year, a solid fair number for a high quality rotational guy. Then fans wouldn’t have cared. Because that’s what he was. A high quality rotational guy. Nothing more though.

Twisted Dawg said:

The Golston pick really diminished the potential of that trade.

Click to expand...

Agreed. All the apologists keep saying Golston is going to set a hard edge and improve our run defense.

Dude is a hair shy of 6’6” and weighs in under 270. That’s rail thin as far LEs go.

Tyrone Crawford he is not. Crawford was a compact 6’4” 290.

Hennessy_King said:

Crawford wouldn't have been bad if he didnt start or get paid and was just a depth piece

Click to expand...

Man I don’t know last year he was just bad even as a depth piece....

rocyaice said:

Man I don’t know last year he was just bad even as a depth piece....

Click to expand...

Yeah. I think his hips are toast. Which is why he was awful last year and then retired.

Hennessy_King said:

If I gave you 2 options before the draft which would you take.

Option A: Jaycee Horn and Nick Bolton
OR
Option B: Micah Parsons, Kelvin Joseph, and picked up an extra 3rd Chauncey Golston

Click to expand...

Surtain, Moehrig...I would give up the last 3rd rounder to have moved up in 2nd one spot and grab moehrig....

I think they knew all along the CB's would be gone, especially when CAR traded for Darnold.

That's why they tried to trade up to the 6 spot but that wasn't for Parsons or they wouldn't have traded out of the 10 spot and risked losing him.

Think about the divisions CAR and DEN play in and what they have to face. And ATL just upped the ante adding Pitts, as if what they already had with receivers wasn't tough enough. The defending SB champs with the GOAT QB and a hell of a receiving corps remained intact. Unlike past SB champs, they didn't get dismantled. Then there's the Saints.

DEN gets Mahomes and now Herbert and Carr is no slouch for 6 of their games and stopping the pass is job 1.

There was no lights out pass rusher for either of these teams which is unusual in the top 10, so they had to do the next best thing and get the best CB's.

The Cowboys knew they had to go up to have a shot at either of those CB's and the teams at 6-9 were having none of it. I do believe at some point within the two weeks leading up to the draft, they realized that and the worst thing that happened to their plan was Sewell falling to DET. They were the best trade opportunity and would have given them their choice of the CB's. Sewell falling ended their hopes and Parsons was the fall back. CIN not taking Sewell and taking the best WR off the board made Parsons a Cowboy.

Nothing wrong with Parsons, but their Achilles in pass D is the secondary and they know it. On the plus side of that, they did arrange to get Smith to the Eagles and not the Giants, where he might be more dangerous.

Would not surprise me to see the Cowboys do something about Gilmore or Sherman or even Thomas because they cannot feel confident with Diggs, Joseph and Brown as the 3 CB's. Even if they do play in the NFC East.

Bobhaze said:

The problem I see with this FOs approach to the draft is this: it seems to me like they just “draft good players” based on what’s available, rather than having a strong plan, philosophy of what they are looking for and stick to that plan over multiple years. To these guys, it’s a year to year thing, depending on who’s HC or DC.

The Jones boys draft like fantasy football owners. Just get some good players. That’s a very difficult approach to win a championship with.

Click to expand...

Since I was a kid the Steelers have drafted, signed, and traded for the same types of players. When you think Steelers you know what they will be offensively and defensively. Same with the Ravens, Dallas........

Bobhaze said:

The problem I see with this FOs approach to the draft is this: it seems to me like they just “draft good players” based on what’s available, rather than having a strong plan, philosophy of what they are looking for and stick to that plan over multiple years. To these guys, it’s a year to year thing, depending on who’s HC or DC.

The Jones boys draft like fantasy football owners. Just get some good players. That’s a very difficult approach to win a championship with.

Click to expand...

THIS!!!!!! I was trying to explain this to my father. lol. The Steelers have been drafting the same players, signing the same type of free agents, and running the same scheme for as long as I can remember. They don't change schemes based on a coach. They base their coach on someone who fits their philosophy. You know exactly what a "Steeler" looks like. There is none of that in Dallas.

P.S. It was painful writing that Steeler lovefest. I was only trying to prove a point. Please excuse me as I go throw up now.

Hennessy_King said:

If I gave you 2 options before the draft which would you take.

Option A: Jaycee Horn and Nick Bolton
OR
Option B: Micah Parsons, Kelvin Joseph, and picked up an extra 3rd Chauncey Golston

Click to expand...

Presented this way I would have to go with B, but is this really a fair choice? The extra 3rd round pick, Golston, wasn't gotten because Dallas passed up on drafting Horn. They traded down and took Parsons because Horn was not available. If Denver had taken Fields instead of Surtain, who would Dallas have drafted, Parsons, or Surtain? I think we know the answer is Surtain, at 10.

Once Denver took Surtain, Dallas traded down because their targets were gone. At that point with Fields and Mac Jones on the board, I would have called Chicago and New England to see if I could work out a deal to move down. If the only deal they could make was with the Eagles then the choice was Slater or Parsons. or some other player like Phillips. I would have taken Slater. Not because Parsons isn't a good player but because I think offensive line is a bigger need than LB. The NFC East is full of top rated DTs. Having a stout offensive line is an imperative for Dallas. Lining up Connor Williams next to Tyler Biadasz scares me.

I think Parsons has the potential to help Dallas. The NFC East also has some fast RBs, like Barkley, Gibson and Sanders. Parsons has the ability to cut these guys off before they get too far upfield in the open. But I would rather control the ball with Zeke behind a powerful offensive line to help the defense. Just my opinion. That are a lot of ways to get through a draft successfully.

Creeper said:

Presented this way I would have to go with B, but is this really a fair choice? The extra 3rd round pick, Golston, wasn't gotten because Dallas passed up on drafting Horn. They traded down and took Parsons because Horn was not available. If Denver had taken Fields instead of Surtain, who would Dallas have drafted, Parsons, or Surtain? I think we know the answer is Surtain, at 10.

Once Denver took Surtain, Dallas traded down because their targets were gone. At that point with Fields and Mac Jones on the board, I would have called Chicago and New England to see if I could work out a deal to move down. If the only deal they could make was with the Eagles then the choice was Slater or Parsons. or some other player like Phillips. I would have taken Slater. Not because Parsons isn't a good player but because I think offensive line is a bigger need than LB. The NFC East is full of top rated DTs. Having a stout offensive line is an imperative for Dallas. Lining up Connor Williams next to Tyler Biadasz scares me.

I think Parsons has the potential to help Dallas. The NFC East also has some fast RBs, like Barkley, Gibson and Sanders. Parsons has the ability to cut these guys off before they get too far upfield in the open. But I would rather control the ball with Zeke behind a powerful offensive line to help the defense. Just my opinion. That are a lot of ways to get through a draft successfully.

Click to expand...

So if you take golston off then what option do you like better?

Bobhaze said:

The problem I see with this FOs approach to the draft is this: it seems to me like they just “draft good players” based on what’s available, rather than having a strong plan, philosophy of what they are looking for and stick to that plan over multiple years. To these guys, it’s a year to year thing, depending on who’s HC or DC.

The Jones boys draft like fantasy football owners. Just get some good players. That’s a very difficult approach to win a championship with.

Click to expand...

It feels to me like the Cowboys organization has little knowledge of or interest in defense. And rather having a philosophy of what they believe in, they shift to whatever defensive coordinator they bring in.

B

Bobhaze said:

The problem I see with this FOs approach to the draft is this: it seems to me like they just “draft good players” based on what’s available, rather than having a strong plan, philosophy of what they are looking for and stick to that plan over multiple years. To these guys, it’s a year to year thing, depending on who’s HC or DC.

The Jones boys draft like fantasy football owners. Just get some good players. That’s a very difficult approach to win a championship with.

Click to expand...

100% agree Bob! This could have gone from an "OK" draft to a really good one if they had been at least a little aggressive.

Hennessy_King said:

So if you take golston off then what option do you like better?

Click to expand...

The options were Parsons and Joseph or two other players available at 12 and 44. As I stated, I would rather have taken Slater over Parsons, and I was not a fan of drafting either player before the draft. My preference would have been to trade down to around 20 and go from there. At 44, I thought the best choices for Dallas were Joseph and Asante Samuel Jr. but if the Cowboys had taken, JOK or Azeez Ojulari I don't think they could have been faulted because both players dropped out of the first and were good value picks. Of course that would have left them without a CB but this is why they need to use free agency to address big holes in the roster. Then they can go BPA in the draft.

Hennessy_King said:

Crawford wouldn't have been bad if he didnt start or get paid and was just a depth piece

Click to expand...

Crawford was bad because he didn't have the size to play inside. Taking on guys 40-60 lbs heavier than him all the time caused him to be injured, all the time.
Crawford just couldn't stand up to the punishment inside, and most fail to realize it shortened his career.

Creeper said:

The options were Parsons and Joseph or two other players available at 12 and 44. As I stated, I would rather have taken Slater over Parsons, and I was not a fan of drafting either player before the draft. My preference would have been to trade down to around 20 and go from there. At 44, I thought the best choices for Dallas were Joseph and Asante Samuel Jr. but if the Cowboys had taken, JOK or Azeez Ojulari I don't think they could have been faulted because both players dropped out of the first and were good value picks. Of course that would have left them without a CB but this is why they need to use free agency to address big holes in the roster. Then they can go BPA in the draft.

Click to expand...

So you wanted to take a backup swing tackle 12th overall? Looking back at it i think the picks help the team this year.

Star Guard_31 said:

Agreed. All the apologists keep saying Golston is going to set a hard edge and improve our run defense.

Dude is a hair shy of 6’6” and weighs in under 270. That’s rail thin as far LEs go.

Tyrone Crawford he is not. Crawford was a compact 6’4” 290.

Click to expand...

.

Absolute wasted pick by an incompetent coaching staff.

Hennessy_King said:

So you wanted to take a backup swing tackle 12th overall? Looking back at it i think the picks help the team this year.

Click to expand...

No,t I would pick a starting LG with All-Pro potential who can move to tackle if one of starting tackles gets injured again - and he can take over when Smith calls it quits in a couple of years.

CowboysFaninHouston said:

Surtain, Moehrig...I would give up the last 3rd rounder to have moved up in 2nd one spot and grab moehrig....

Click to expand...

You would have needed to trade 44 to move up for Surtain.

morasp said:

B all day, they would have had to trade up to get Horn.

Click to expand...

Yea the real hypothetical should be just Horn, or Parsons, Joseph and Golston. It would have taken at least a 2nd to get Carolina or Denver to trade away from their guy.