Any Interest in MIke Evans?

[Floatyworm]

Michael Irvin...nuff said.

We already got an 88 in Bryant. We need Alvin Harper 2.0

 

[TwoDeep3]

We already got an 88 in Bryant. We need Alvin Harper 2.0

You never cease to amaze me at your complete lack of understanding about logic, Floatyworm.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Saw a group of mocks that had him going at 9 to Beefalo and 12 to the Giants.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2014/mock-drafts

Yet there was one where he went to the Ravens after Dallas.

So what if...

Donald is gone.

Zach martin is gone.

Ha Ha Clinton-Dix is gone.

And Mike slips.

Can you imagine the offense with Evans and Dez, and TWill coming out of the slot?

I know, this team needs defense. And there could be plenty of time to fill that need. Especially if Ware hauls butt and they save a ton of money. FA could fill a need and maybe even retain Hatcher.

I really like offense, but that is beside the point.

So, any interest? Or is this a trade down scenario, which pouts my feet to sleep because of the notion you get two god players instead of one.

oh no not again. can you imagine the offense with 3 WRs!!! and we are going to be unstoppable because we have 3 good WRs. in the mean time the defense can't stop anybody, like we did against GB, Denver, Chicago, NO and give up 40+ points. yeah, lets try and win games in a shootout, because god knows that has worked in the past.

if mike evans is there, somebody is willing to pay a good price to move up to get him, so lets trade down and get a good defensive player. with our cap we need as many draft picks as possible.

no to mike evans, because the last thing we need to make us better is another WR or TE.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

After watching Alshon Jeffery play this year, yes I do want Evans. Over Haha, Pryor, Jernigan etc. wouldn't mind a trade down if someone really wanted to jump the ravens for him though.

and winning shootouts has worked so well in the past as opposed to having a good defense. did you watch the superbowl? what happened to the best offense ever?

 

[Common Sense]

oh no not again. can you imagine the offense with 3 WRs!!! and we are going to be unstoppable because we have 3 good WRs. in the mean time the defense can't stop anybody, like we did against GB, Denver, Chicago, NO and give up 40+ points. yeah, lets try and win games in a shootout, because god knows that has worked in the past.

if mike evans is there, somebody is willing to pay a good price to move up to get him, so lets trade down and get a good defensive player. with our cap we need as many draft picks as possible.

no to mike evans, because the last thing we need to make us better is another WR or TE.

You guys are severely overrating this team's talent at WR. If Evans is on the board and there is decent defensive or OL talent in the 20s-range, you try to trade down. But what if no one is willing to trade up? Do you reach or do you take one of the top WRs in the draft and have a solid, young receiving core and leverage against Dez in contract negotiations?

 

[tyke1doe]

BPA, perhaps.

Or do you subscribe to drafting for need?

Both.
However, I don't feel that Mike Evans will be better than what we need.
If he's the next Jerry Rice, okay, then you take him.
But what he will offer isn't going to help us like drafting a defender would.
And no matter how many weapons you give Romo, if you could a philosophy that continues to put the ball in Romo's hands, you're going to get the same results, especially if you don't have a defense who can stop anyone.

Besides, receivers don't put teams over the top.

If we want to be entertaining (which apparently Jerry Jones wants to do) and run a fly-free-and-fancy offense, then you grab a receiver.

But if you want to get to the championship, you build your team on defense.

 

[garyv]

Not any interest in Evans. we have Defensive needs and Free Agent Receivers can be easily attainable.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

look at the superbowl winners, one common thread is good defenses. even NO, GB didn't make it over the hump and lost in the playoffs, until they fixed their defenses. look at the giants and their anemic offense? how about Denver and the best offense ever....and new England before that going against the giants defense that rose to the occasion.


adding more offensive power is not going to make us any better. we have to address the defense, one of the worst in NFL history and the worst in cowboys history. Evans is not going to make us a superbowl contending team.

would like us to lose a lot of games 45-42 or win a lot of games 21-17.

 

[tyke1doe]

You guys are severely overrating this team's talent at WR. If Evans is on the board and there is decent defensive or OL talent in the 20s-range, you try to trade down. But what if no one is willing to trade up? Do you reach or do you take one of the top WRs in the draft and have a solid, young receiving core and leverage against Dez in contract negotiations?

That's why you pay a scouting staff, i.e., to find those gems so you don't have to reach and take a player at a position that really doesn't impact the ultimate goal of getting to a Super Bowl.

That's why you hire a scouting staff to find contributors at receiver in lower rounds.

 

[Deep_South]

Terrance had a good rookie year and I think he will get better this year. Dez is a world-class receiver, and we have two tight ends who can catch the ball and some slot guys, too. As much as I would love to have Mike Evans, I think we should trade down if he is there at 16 - which I highly doubt - and get something from someone who wants him. We need to improve the defense much more than we need to take the best player available, unless it is a QB who we are 100% certain will develop into a starter. We just couldn't pass that up with Tony's recent health issues. We need to obtain NFL caliber players on the DL and at safety, and we need OL depth.

 

[big dog cowboy]

So, any interest? Or is this a trade down scenario

We need a WR to replace Miles. But not at 16. Trade down.

 

[Floatyworm]

You never cease to amaze me at your complete lack of understanding about logic, Floatyworm.

Did you watch the combine Jerry? Of course you didn't. Did you make it to your fantasy football championship 3 years in a row like me? No you didn't. Trust me. Mike Evans isn't the answer. He isn't a freak show. And in 4 years he will be JAG.

 

[Common Sense]

That's why you pay a scouting staff, i.e., to find those gems so you don't have to reach and take a player at a position that really doesn't impact the ultimate goal of getting to a Super Bowl.

That's why you hire a scouting staff to find contributors at receiver in lower rounds.

Insisting on only finding diamonds in the rough is part of what has destroyed this team's depth in the past. If Evans is the best player on the board and their isn't a trade partner available, you take him.

 

[Doomsday101]

We need a WR to replace Miles. But not at 16. Trade down.

Miles was pretty much replaced last year. Dallas may add late in the draft or UDF. I think both Beasley and Harris showed they would work at that 3rd and 4th WR with Dez and Williams on the outside.

 

[RonSpringsdaman20]

lol..
ff....hahahaha.

 

[tyke1doe]

I remember when the Patriots (who desperately needed a receiver) had their pick of David Terrell at receiver.
Everyone had pencilled him in as the Patriots' choice.

So when it came New England's pick, the Patriots went with Richard Seymour. Terrell was higher rated than Seymour, but the Patriots (being the smart team that they are) picked defense rather than offense.

The Bears went on to select Terrell who subsequently bombed in Chicago. Seymour was a key cog to Super Bowl championships for New England.

Morale of the story: Pick defense or a receiver, especially if you're trying to reach the Super Bowl unless, of course, Jerry Ricecake is available.
And have a staff competent enough to locate receiver talent lower in the draft.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Did you watch the combine Jerry? Of course you didn't. Did you make it to your fantasy football championship 3 years in a row like me? No you didn't. Trust me. Mike Evans isn't the answer. He isn't a freak show. And in 4 years he will be JAG.

You're so right.

But I did find a Tecmo Bowl game in pristine condition, bought it and played an entire season and won the British Open. Does that count?

 

[TwoDeep3]

Insisting on only finding diamonds in the rough is part of what has destroyed this team's depth in the past. If Evans is the best player on the board and their isn't a trade partner available, you take him.

Also wrecked Landry's Cowboy's and Brandt reached a great deal.

 

[cowboyschmps3]

I also wouldn't mind if we did add something if any on the defensive side of the ball through Free-Agency

 

[tyke1doe]

Insisting on only finding diamonds in the rough is part of what has destroyed this team's depth in the past. If Evans is the best player on the board and their isn't a trade partner available, you take him.

Finding diamonds in the rough isn't what has doomed this team. Not firing those not finding the diamonds in the rough are what has doomed this team.

How is it that teams like the Seahawks and the 49ers and the Packers and the Giants can find these diamonds in the rough but we can't?

Moreover, receiver isn't the position that puts you over the top anymore, if it ever did.

And we already have good receivers.

We need defense in the worst way.

Mike Evans would be a luxury. We're really not at a place we can afford luxuries.