Any chance of Patrick Willis falling?

[dbair1967]

Just enough so we can make a reasonable trade up for him?

This guy is awesome and we could use an up and coming star at ILB.

I can dream can't I?

we have ILB's on this team...no need for another one unless its as a backup


David

 

[jobberone]

Well, I personally have no issues throwing first round money at one of the three best safeties. I don't think FS is as big an issue as pass rush, but the top three strike me as elite athletes. The question then becomes, is this still a Parcells rule draft (i.e. no first round safeties) and will one of the top three even be around?

At DT, we have Amobi Okoye (gone by #10), Alan Branch (falling maybe, but probably gone by 15), and Tank Tyler (1st - 4th round, depending on source, with character issues). Tank has a pass rushing burst but I'm with silverbear here; I don't want Tank in the first.

Outside of Jarvis Moss, the elite pass rushing defensive ends are gone by pick 15. So will Jarvis be gone too?

Now at OLB, there are possibilities through the the heart of the draft. Someone was talking about Zac DeOssie, but Zac et al aren't first round choices, and that's the outside rush, not inside. (Zac, btw, has me pumped we could get some outside pass rush in rounds 2-4).

So you're left by elimination with ILB and with Willis, who is by all accounts an excellent blitzer. I can't say he's an obvious fit, but he's no worse a fit than drafting, say, a CB with the idea of moving Henry to FS, and a better fit than drafting a WR into our strongest position.

Anyway, do enough of this and you can appreciate Jerry Jones saying they'll be looking at BPA at position 22.

David.

I agree with all that although we have slightly different priorities.

I don't think drafting a CB in round one is ever a problem unless you have 3 or more starting CBs on the roster tying up big money for multiple years each.

I just don't see ILB as big a problem as pass rush, FS, or even NT.

But I'm not saying I would die with the pick. I wouldn't even say Willis is a bad pick at 22. He's a good pick there. I just see bigger needs.

Again Dallas will do great if they just don't reach.

 

[jobberone]

I'm not quite as high as others here on Willis, but I'm betting he'll go somewhere in the second tier simply because he's the best ILB in an otherwise weak crop. I don't think we'll be served up the choice come #22.

That being said, it's also a good possibility that he'll be a better pro than collegiate player.

He's the best ILB in the draft and has great character. He'll do very well if he stays healthy. I think he will be a better pro than collegian, too.

 

[Big Country]

He's survived a lot in his life and seemingly turned out to be a tremendous person... Check out the YouTube link ... Awesome!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_bM4sEmaFLQ

 

[McCordsville Cowboy]

we have ILB's on this team...no need for another one unless its as a backup


David

I guess your content with "Number 56 looked lost out there".....

 

[dwmyers]

I agree with all that although we have slightly different priorities.

I don't think drafting a CB in round one is ever a problem unless you have 3 or more starting CBs on the roster tying up big money for multiple years each.

I just don't see ILB as big a problem as pass rush, FS, or even NT.

But I'm not saying I would die with the pick. I wouldn't even say Willis is a bad pick at 22. He's a good pick there. I just see bigger needs.

Again Dallas will do great if they just don't reach.

There is a very real chance that by the 20s, the *value* in this draft will be at CB and WR. However, I think as a mental exercise, you have to figure out what the needs of the team really are. To me it appears first to be pass rush, and then overall depth.

Bill and Jerry were putting teams together that could win it all. They did it in 2005 and again in 2006. The constantly sacrificed depth, and it cost them in 2005 when Flo went down, and it cost them in 2006 when the defense unraveled.

If Jerry is correct and we're good enough in all areas to consider BPA as a draft strategy, then we're good enough to start building depth in areas we know will need it.

David.

 

[lspain1]

This draft seems to find a pretty complete Cowboys team. Everyone's draft lists are variations on the theme of either "depth" or "the future." Few expect any of this draft class to step into a starting role, but we can hope we will select players capable of challenging for a starting role this year or next. So, whether it is OL, NT, FS, LB, or WR, all possibilities are open. The challenge for the scouts and draft team, is to find the "value" picks at every point in the draft. Truly a BPA kind of draft.

This draft seems to be deep at WR and deep in the secondary. I haven't heard many 'deep' statements at NT or LB. I expect there to be good values on the OL, but not in the 1st round.

So my question for the forum is.....if a position is not "deep" does that mean a starting caliber player doesn't exist or does it mean that you must select the position early if you are to have any chance at all to get a good player? Since we are competing with 31 other teams for the same talent pool what is a good strategy for a BPA draft?

I think the Eagles would say picking OL or DL is always a good strategy. I don't know what others would say. Suggestions?

 

[CalCBFan]

It would not suprise me if we traded OUT of the 1st this year, for a 1st next year, then use the TWO 1sts next year to get that RB from Arkansas, ala 3 years ago when we traded w/ Buffalo...

 

[CM Duck]

Willis is an ILB, they should look at Posluzny, Timmons, or Spencer for WOLB.

isn't that Carp's spot? he looked pretty good IMO in the playoff game. I'd rather them get an ILB to possibly replace James. But, the more I hear about this Meachum(sp?) kid the more I like him at 22. But, we shall find out....

 

[ThreeSportStar80]

Just enough so we can make a reasonable trade up for him?

This guy is awesome and we could use an up and coming star at ILB.

I can dream can't I?

You do know the Cowboys paid big money to Bradie James and Adoyle....

 

[jobberone]

There is a very real chance that by the 20s, the *value* in this draft will be at CB and WR. However, I think as a mental exercise, you have to figure out what the needs of the team really are. To me it appears first to be pass rush, and then overall depth.

Bill and Jerry were putting teams together that could win it all. They did it in 2005 and again in 2006. The constantly sacrificed depth, and it cost them in 2005 when Flo went down, and it cost them in 2006 when the defense unraveled.

If Jerry is correct and we're good enough in all areas to consider BPA as a draft strategy, then we're good enough to start building depth in areas we know will need it. Maybe Watkins is the answer.

David.

Well I disagree here with the depth problem being greater than coverage.

I think what many of us, including you, are saying we need a pass rush.

However, I think we also have a coverage problem. Yes the DBs will be better with a decent pass rush. They may even look fairly good. But the better teams will find a way to pick on our coverage if it doesn't get better.

I don't think Roy is getting any better. At least not significantly. He needs to do more of the things he does best.

But he is not going to get near the LOS often and us not get burned if the FS and nickel/dime backs don't play better. Henry will be some better with his leg healed. I don't think any of the current other CBs are going to magically play near starter quality. Glenn may play at or above some but there is a reason he's a third corner.

That leaves Watkins to upgrade the unit. Maybe he plays a good deal better. Maybe if you put that in with a healthier Henry and the better pass rush we play well enough in coverage. All we need is to avoid meltdowns. We don't need a Baltimore defense. We're finally scoring points and 27 a game should be enough.

Or do you want to hedge your bet by drafting a FS or CB in the draft. Then you can wait in camp for Watkins and your new DB to perform with your improved pass rush and new schemes and what not. If Watkins plays up to snuff you have depth. If Watkins isn't quite what you want then you fall back on your new guy. And if you're afraid of your new guy and/or Watkins playing back there all the time you find a veteran FS.

I don't want to go into a supposed SB contending year counting on an unproven player to fill a big hole. That's like wishing we had RT covered before finding Colombo.

 

[dwmyers]

Well I disagree here with the depth problem being greater than coverage.

I think what many of us, including you, are saying we need a pass rush.

However, I think we also have a coverage problem. Yes the DBs will be better with a decent pass rush. They may even look fairly good. But the better teams will find a way to pick on our coverage if it doesn't get better.

I don't think Roy is getting any better. At least not significantly. He needs to do more of the things he does best.

But he is not going to get near the LOS often and us not get burned if the FS and nickel/dime backs don't play better. Henry will be some better with his leg healed. I don't think any of the current other CBs are going to magically play near starter quality. Glenn may play at or above some but there is a reason he's a third corner.

That leaves Watkins to upgrade the unit. Maybe he plays a good deal better. Maybe if you put that in with a healthier Henry and the better pass rush we play well enough in coverage. All we need is to avoid meltdowns. We don't need a Baltimore defense. We're finally scoring points and 27 a game should be enough.

Or do you want to hedge your bet by drafting a FS or CB in the draft. Then you can wait in camp for Watkins and your new DB to perform with your improved pass rush and new schemes and what not. If Watkins plays up to snuff you have depth. If Watkins isn't quite what you want then you fall back on your new guy. And if you're afraid of your new guy and/or Watkins playing back there all the time you find a veteran FS.

I don't want to go into a supposed SB contending year counting on an unproven player to fill a big hole. That's like wishing we had RT covered before finding Colombo.

Well, a couple things. First, the quote of my quote, adding the phrase I didn't say, "Maybe Watkins is the answer", isn't accurate, because that's not what I said or meant. I /deliberately/ didn't say anything about FS because I'm not sure.

It's clear to me Patrick Watkins is fast enough but it's not clear to me if he's responsive enough. Is he going to make enough plays on the ball to prevent receptions? I said nothing about the issue because at one level it's beyond my ken to determine if Watkins has progressed enough to do the job. I'd like to think he has, but there is no way we can be competitive and have a repeat of the first Philadelphia game.

This *may* be a Charlie Waters situation where he's gotten us burned once or twice but he's going to grow into the job. In that case, paying someone millions of dollars to do what Watkins can do is a waste of resources. Or this may be a situation where he'll be able to do the job 3-4 years from now, in which case talent there *now* is necessary.

The only people who can judge his progress and have a chance of being right are our defensive coaches. We have a HC, a defensve coordinator and a DB coach capable of judging him.

Having said that, Jerry Jones's comments are the only hint into the Cowboy's thinking about safety in the draft. The one comment we get about safety and WR is moderately negative. For the time being, my (Cowboys) draft rules disallow 1st round S and 1st round WR. Ireland has also spoken but the most I get from him is a "business as usual" tone.

Ultimately, what my thinking is really doesn't count. I can feel that the first three safeties are great athletes and I'd draft them. It won't mean anything if the draft is conducted by a set of Parcells rules which place DBs as draft candidates only once round 2 begins.

David.

 

[jobberone]

Well, a couple things. First, the quote of my quote, adding the phrase I didn't say, "Maybe Watkins is the answer", isn't accurate, because that's not what I said or meant. I /deliberately/ didn't say anything about FS because I'm not sure.

It's clear to me Patrick Watkins is fast enough but it's not clear to me if he's responsive enough. Is he going to make enough plays on the ball to prevent receptions? I said nothing about the issue because at one level it's beyond my ken to determine if Watkins has progressed enough to do the job. I'd like to think he has, but there is no way we can be competitive and have a repeat of the first Philadelphia game.

This *may* be a Charlie Waters situation where he's gotten us burned once or twice but he's going to grow into the job. In that case, paying someone millions of dollars to do what Watkins can do is a waste of resources. Or this may be a situation where he'll be able to do the job 3-4 years from now, in which case talent there *now* is necessary.

The only people who can judge his progress and have a chance of being right are our defensive coaches. We have a HC, a defensve coordinator and a DB coach capable of judging him.

Having said that, Jerry Jones's comments are the only hint into the Cowboy's thinking about safety in the draft. The one comment we get about safety and WR is moderately negative. For the time being, my (Cowboys) draft rules disallow 1st round S and 1st round WR. Ireland has also spoken but the most I get from him is a "business as usual" tone.

Ultimately, what my thinking is really doesn't count. I can feel that the first three safeties are great athletes and I'd draft them. It won't mean anything if the draft is conducted by a set of Parcells rules which place DBs as draft candidates only once round 2 begins.

David.

Sorry if I created confusion. It wasn't deliberate.

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you said. I hope I haven't been argumentative.

I want a FS (or DB) drafted very early but that's just me. Whether that's the way to go is unknowable at present. As you know the draft is a lot of quasi-objective guesswork and a lot like Deal or No Deal. Luck.

We seem to think much alike in regards the draft.

Just a little difference in prioritizing needs. We seem to both see the same needs. That's not bragging as they must seem much to me as you; they're fairly obvious.

I just hope Jerry stays the course and drafts conservatively. Bill should have added to his knowledge and abilities. At least I hope so.

Enjoyed the 'talk'.

 

[dwmyers]

We seem to think much alike in regards the draft.

You work hard at being logical and rational and it makes you a pleasure to speak with. I've enjoyed your posts on a variety of topics.

Even if I disagree with you, at least you make your case make sense. That, to me, is the best kind of analysis.



David.

 

[dbair1967]

I guess your content with "Number 56 looked lost out there".....

no, but I am content with the new coaching staff getting the most out of the defensive talent here, and James was very good in 2005

David

 

[Hostile]

You work hard at being logical and rational and it makes you a pleasure to speak with. I've enjoyed your posts on a variety of topics.

Even if I disagree with you, at least you make your case make sense. That, to me, is the best kind of analysis.



David.

Doc has always been like that. One of my favorite posters as are you. Good debate both of you.

 

[Crown Royal]

no, but I am content with the new coaching staff getting the most out of the defensive talent here, and James was very good in 2005

David

I promise I am not trying to start an internets argument or debate or anything here, but I have always wondered about this.

I've never yet been impressed with James and have been wondering why everyone thought he was so great for a long time now. He was awful at WLB when we were still 4-3,

In 2005, I thought he was adequate, but not very good. I felt like his issues were often masked by the fact that The Shanle was even worse.

In early 2006, I created a thread somewhere asking why he didn't look good and why, oh why, were we resigning him? I was immediately met with ridicule.

My point is - I've never felt that James is anything more than adequate, and is an Al Singleton level journeyman.

my $.02

 

[Crown Royal]

BTW lemme clarify what I mean by adequate:

Solid, not too many screwups. No great plays and not a game changer, but not someone who would get you beat.

Now don't get me wrong - I'd be fine with his level of play in 2005 last year. But I just feel like I've seen more bad play in his career than that one good year.

 

[dbair1967]

I promise I am not trying to start an internets argument or debate or anything here, but I have always wondered about this.

I've never yet been impressed with James and have been wondering why everyone thought he was so great for a long time now. He was awful at WLB when we were still 4-3,

In 2005, I thought he was adequate, but not very good. I felt like his issues were often masked by the fact that The Shanle was even worse.

In early 2006, I created a thread somewhere asking why he didn't look good and why, oh why, were we resigning him? I was immediately met with ridicule.

My point is - I've never felt that James is anything more than adequate, and is an Al Singleton level journeyman.

my $.02

he's an ILB in a 3-4 defense....find me 3 or 4 of them in any 3-4 scheme that are real difference makers...are there any?

and thats why it doesnt matter...most good defensive coaches wouldnt have 2 down ILB's on the field in obvious passing situations anyway

David

David

 

[Crown Royal]

he's an ILB in a 3-4 defense....find me 3 or 4 of them in any 3-4 scheme that are real difference makers...are there any?

and thats why it doesnt matter...most good defensive coaches wouldnt have 2 down ILB's on the field in obvious passing situations anyway

David

David

I agree - seldom are they difference makers - until they start playing poorly. Right now James has one decent year, a crappy year at ILB, a crappy split-time year at WLB and a zero anything his rookie year.

Thus I think we could try to improve the position.

(That being said - in response to this thread, I don't think we do so in the draft. I think we could do something with what we have).