BPA or Need in the draft?

[Scotman]

With all the talk of drafting a CB, RB or WR, I can't help but think this might not be a good strategy. Perhaps we will get lucky and there will be good value at our given draft positions, but perhaps not.

While I would love for the best player available (BPA) to also be a position of need for us when it is our turn to hand in the card, it may not be so.

So let's say something crazy happens (and it always does) that Branden Albert, the OG from Virginia, or maybe Ryan Clady, the OT from Boise State were to fall to 22.

If you did not have a decent trade partner, would you reach for a position of need or take someone who is falling at a position that isn't considered a need?

For me, I'd take a player that had fallen more often than not. I always think that every position on the team is only one injury away from being a position of need. Injuries happen every year.

Your thoughts?

 

[big dog cowboy]

I hate to reach for a position of need. But, IMO, we need a CB. Regardless of how the Pacman situation turns out.

 

[dbair1967]

I hate to reach for a position of need. But, IMO, we need a CB. Regardless of how the Pacman situation turns out.

I'll bet anyone on here if the Pac Trash deal goes down we wont take a CB in round one..might take a safety, but not a CB

I dont buy that getting him has no affect on the draft plans, if thats true why do they seem so insistent on getting a deal done BEFORE the draft?- Answer, SO THEY DONT HAVE TO TAKE A CB IN THE FIRST RD

David

 

[ddh33]

I usually prefer a marriage of both. Either/or always feels a little too simplistic for me. Get yourself in good spots to address your needs by taking the best available.

Actually, I think the board should be setting up pretty well for Dallas to be able to do exactly that.

 

[SDogo]

I'll bet anyone on here if the Pac Trash deal goes down we wont take a CB in round one..might take a safety, but not a CB

I dont buy that getting him has no affect on the draft plans, if thats true why do they seem so insistent on getting a deal done BEFORE the draft?- Answer, SO THEY DONT HAVE TO TAKE A CB IN THE FIRST RD

David

If the PacMan deal gets done you can almost put money on Kenny Phillips in Round 1 or an attempted move down for Tyrell Johnson in the early 2nd.

 

[dbair1967]

If the PacMan deal gets done you can almost put money on Kenny Phillips in Round 1 or an attempted move down for Tyrell Johnson in the early 2nd.

I wouldnt be surprised at that at all

David

 

[Paniolo22]

It needs to kind of be a combination of both. We take a look at our top 5 needs, and go with the best player from there.

 

[TEUFELI]

I'll bet anyone on here if the Pac Trash deal goes down we wont take a CB in round one..might take a safety, but not a CB

I dont buy that getting him has no affect on the draft plans, if thats true why do they seem so insistent on getting a deal done BEFORE the draft?- Answer, SO THEY DONT HAVE TO TAKE A CB IN THE FIRST RD

David

Disagree.

And there are numerous other reasons for the deal to get done before the draft. Not the least of which is that our 2007 draft picks can be a part of the trade. Woulda thought this was obvious but.... .

I would agree that if we do land pac, a safety would make more sense, but remember a few things. A henry and T new both had lingering injuries all yr. Pacman is not currently reinstated. We lost our # 3 & 4 corners. So I think, even if we take Pac, we take a cb early, maybe not at 22, but before the 3rd rd.

 

[dbair1967]

Disagree.

And there are numerous other reasons for the deal to get done before the draft. Not the least of which is that our 2007 draft picks can be a part of the trade. Woulda thought this was obvious but.... .

I would agree that if we do land pac, a safety would make more sense, but remember a few things. A henry and T new both had lingering injuries all yr. Pacman is not currently reinstated. We lost our # 3 & 4 corners. So I think, even if we take Pac, we take a cb early, maybe not at 22, but before the 3rd rd.

I dont think Tennessee sees getting a late 2nd day pick from us as critical to their draft plans

and it really works out BETTER for them if they wait to trade him, because once he's reinstated there'd probably be more interest, driving up the price they could ask...I'm pretty sure they'd rather have a 3rd/4th next yr or a quality player in return than our 5th or 6th this yr....hell some desperate team might give them even more than that if they failed to get a decent CB prospect in the draft

David

 

[jswalker1981]

I don't think us getting Pacman would mean we don't draft a corner. Remember that Jerry said that Pacman would be a luxury. Now, you could chalk that up to Jerry driving down the price or whatever, but I still think that just because if/when we get Pacman, it won't stop us from drafting corner.

 

[Cowboy Junkie]

I am always for drafting the BPA, but ties are broken by need.

 

[iceberg]

With all the talk of drafting a CB, RB or WR, I can't help but think this might not be a good strategy. Perhaps we will get lucky and there will be good value at our given draft positions, but perhaps not.

While I would love for the best player available (BPA) to also be a position of need for us when it is our turn to hand in the card, it may not be so.

So let's say something crazy happens (and it always does) that Branden Albert, the OG from Virginia, or maybe Ryan Clady, the OT from Boise State were to fall to 22.

If you did not have a decent trade partner, would you reach for a position of need or take someone who is falling at a position that isn't considered a need?

For me, I'd take a player that had fallen more often than not. I always think that every position on the team is only one injury away from being a position of need. Injuries happen every year.

Your thoughts?

my thoughts are this is a stupid extreme.

we don't need some players. we do need others.

bpa is some fantasy people chase. but you don't built by bpa. you may as well roll the dice at that point.

that said, you do target needs vs. talent.

we need a cb, a rb and a wr.

day 1 will revolve around that. doesn't matter a top OL may slip. doesn't matter a TE screams take me - who won't. maybe not even in day 1.

we have to fill needs. we trade down if we feel it's the right move. we reach for the same reasons.

fans are the ones who get too caught up in value at spot

 

[ThatsmyQB]

I hate to reach for a position of need. But, IMO, we need a CB. Regardless of how the Pacman situation turns out.

BUT you don't NEED to pick that C.B. with the #22 pick though, we have our STARTERS in place so it's not that we need to use the #22 pick OR even a 1st round pick on a C.B., ESPECIALLY if we get Pacman.

I feel if Brandon Albert is there, I'd pick him in a HEARTBEAT, could take over an upgrade Kosier at L.G. and in a few more years he takes over at L.T. for Flozell, so while it is BPA it ALSO fills a current need (although not really a need, an upgrade) and fills a FUTURE need at L.T., so why not grab our future L.T. who can play L.G. in the meantime?
I think we have enough positions of need that we won't have to reach for anyone, since we can take the best available R.B./W.R./C.B. and even safety or Guard if need be, so we won't be REACHING at all no matter what.

 

[Eskimo]

With all the talk of drafting a CB, RB or WR, I can't help but think this might not be a good strategy. Perhaps we will get lucky and there will be good value at our given draft positions, but perhaps not.

While I would love for the best player available (BPA) to also be a position of need for us when it is our turn to hand in the card, it may not be so.

So let's say something crazy happens (and it always does) that Branden Albert, the OG from Virginia, or maybe Ryan Clady, the OT from Boise State were to fall to 22.

If you did not have a decent trade partner, would you reach for a position of need or take someone who is falling at a position that isn't considered a need?

For me, I'd take a player that had fallen more often than not. I always think that every position on the team is only one injury away from being a position of need. Injuries happen every year.

Your thoughts?

Is Clady an LT? If so, we gave Flo a long-term deal so there is no spot for him here. We already have spent 3 picks on candidates to fill the RT position.

Albert would be more of a consideration as the money invested in Kosier is small and he could be a big improvement and possible first year starter and future Pro Bowler. Kosier can then be traded or be a backup at several positions.

Anyhow, both needs could be met in this draft as we need CBs and RBs and this draft is strong in both areas.

 

[ThatsmyQB]

I don't think us getting Pacman would mean we don't draft a corner. Remember that Jerry said that Pacman would be a luxury. Now, you could chalk that up to Jerry driving down the price or whatever, but I still think that just because if/when we get Pacman, it won't stop us from drafting corner.

No it wouldn't but it CERTAINLY would not make C.B. in round 1 as important.
If we get Pacman, we can wait till round 2 or even 3 to take a C.B. which gives us more options on draft day that if he top corners are off the board we dont' have to reach.

 

[jjktkk]

I'll bet anyone on here if the Pac Trash deal goes down we wont take a CB in round one..might take a safety, but not a CB

I dont buy that getting him has no affect on the draft plans, if thats true why do they seem so insistent on getting a deal done BEFORE the draft?- Answer, SO THEY DONT HAVE TO TAKE A CB IN THE FIRST RD

David[/quote

The safety postion in this years draft is weaker than the cb class. I'm not sure but either Espn, or the TSN draft magazine stated that there is no safety in this year's draft that is rated a 1st round grade.

:starspin

 

[ajk23az]

For some reason, I am REALLY liking Kenny Phillips wearing the :starspin

 

[Hailmary]

I'll bet anyone on here if the Pac Trash deal goes down we wont take a CB in round one..might take a safety, but not a CB

I dont buy that getting him has no affect on the draft plans, if thats true why do they seem so insistent on getting a deal done BEFORE the draft?- Answer, SO THEY DONT HAVE TO TAKE A CB IN THE FIRST RD

David

If we do end up signing pacman before the draft, I think there is a very good chance that we still take a CB in the first. What I think it will affect most is when we take the 2nd CB. If pacman's on board before the draft, we may elect to take one late second day. If we don't end up w/ him, we may end up taking that 2nd CB in rds 3 or 4.

 

[Sarge]

I hate to reach for a position of need. But, IMO, we need a CB. Regardless of how the Pacman situation turns out.

:signmast:

 

[Doomsday101]

With all the talk of drafting a CB, RB or WR, I can't help but think this might not be a good strategy. Perhaps we will get lucky and there will be good value at our given draft positions, but perhaps not.

While I would love for the best player available (BPA) to also be a position of need for us when it is our turn to hand in the card, it may not be so.

So let's say something crazy happens (and it always does) that Branden Albert, the OG from Virginia, or maybe Ryan Clady, the OT from Boise State were to fall to 22.

If you did not have a decent trade partner, would you reach for a position of need or take someone who is falling at a position that isn't considered a need?

For me, I'd take a player that had fallen more often than not. I always think that every position on the team is only one injury away from being a position of need. Injuries happen every year.

Your thoughts?

I think it has to be both. BPA who fills a need. I feel the 3 major spots for Dallas will be CB,RB and WR I think you draft the BPA with those 3 position n mind