Clarity forming on who Dallas will pick at #4

[Manwiththeplan]

Jack might not even get picked in the first.

he may not, but Jacksonville has been one of the teams that supposedly likes him

 

[LocimusPrime]

You could draft defense all seven rounds, and you won't have Denver's defense.

That's a 3-4 year project.

With free agency you can do it in 2-3 just like denver did

 

[texbumthelife]

This whole notion that A. a ballhawk has to have interceptions is just not correct and B. that a safety or corner have to be a "ballhawk" to be good is just nonsense.

.

No one made this argument! You keep arguing it with yourself. Even those of us who don't think Ramsey is a ball-hawk have said he's still a good to great player.

 

[BlindFaith]

We are talking about college. Jalen Ramsey hasn't played a down in the NFL as far as I know. We are projecting what guys did in college to the NFL. To assume a guy who had three picks in his career will suddenly be a ball hawk against better competition, makes little to no sense.

Kurt Coleman had 9 interceptions in 4 years at Ohio State. Last year in the NFL he tied for second with 7. He was a 7th round pick.
Marcus Williams had 6 ints in 2 years at Utah. Last year in the NFL he was third with 6. He was undrafted.

Both of these guys averaged between 2 and 3 ints a year in college. Neither of them considered elite by any measure. Both last year were top 5 in picks.

Yet you're trying to tell me that Ramsey, who is considered by many to be the best overall player in this draft won't be able to get interceptions because he can't flip his hips?

Ok then.

 

[texbumthelife]

So what do we call a guy who knocks the ball away or covers so well that other teams just don't through his way? That's right, shutdown corner. And Ramsey has the ability to be just that.

Yes, he could be a shut-down guy and he STILL wouldn't be a ball-hawk, which is the argument. An argument you've done absolutely nothing to disprove so now your grasping for straws and other arguments.

 

[BlindFaith]

neither kurt coleman or marcus Williams have been consistent enough to call them ball hawks. this spike in ints could easily be the exception, not the rule, but if they put up similar numbers next year, then they would be. also if you've been following the thread, no one has said you have to be a ball hawk to be good. it has been said several times that Ramsey could be great, but he's no ball hawk, which was mentioned due to the ed reed comparisons.

It's been said many, many times that Ramsey shouldn't be the pick because he isn't a "ballhawk". Whatever that means. Because now I guess you can be a ballhawk one year and not the next. So confusing.

 

[Eddie]

I still contend that if you fix your D line, you fix your secondary at the same time. If you fix your secondary.......it doesn't do anything to fix your D line. It just seems like a waste to me. A great D line can make an average secondary look great.

You beat me to it. Pass rush fixes the 2ndary issues. Not the other way around.

We've been drafting from the back end for the past 15 years to no avail.

 

[texbumthelife]

Kurt Coleman had 9 interceptions in 4 years at Ohio State. Last year in the NFL he tied for second with 7. He was a 7th round pick.
Marcus Williams had 6 ints in 2 years at Utah. Last year in the NFL he was third with 6. He was undrafted.

Both of these guys averaged between 2 and 3 ints a year in college. Neither of them considered elite by any measure. Both last year were top 5 in picks.

Yet you're trying to tell me that Ramsey, who is considered by many to be the best overall player in this draft won't be able to get interceptions because he can't flip his hips?

Ok then.

No, I am telling you Jalen Ramsey HAS NOT in his college career been a ball-hawk. Period. It's not even up for discussion. It's a fact. Therefor, based on that, I won't put a lot of faith in him suddenly becoming one in the NFL. That is the only thing I am, or have been arguing, no matter how hard you keep trying to confuse the discussion.

Jalen Ramsey has not been a ball-hawk, therefor I don't expect him to suddenly become one.
Even if he doesn't become a ball-hawk, he may still become a very good player, maybe even a shutdown corner.

These things are mutually exclusive. Pointing out the exceptions to undercut the rule, in this case, is futile. Every dog has its day and every rule it's exception. I may win the lottery buying one ticket every ten years, but I have a much better chance of winning it by playing a thousand tickets every drawing.

 

[texbumthelife]

It's been said many, many times that Ramsey shouldn't be the pick because he isn't a "ballhawk". Whatever that means. Because now I guess you can be a ballhawk one year and not the next. So confusing.

Someone in this thread made the bold statement that Jalen Ramsey would be a ball-hawk like Ed Reed. That's where this all started. I am not sure what other threads you're referencing, but you seem to be compiling some amalgamation of comments from other threads and trying to argue them all here at once.

 

[texbumthelife]

It's been said many, many times that Ramsey shouldn't be the pick because he isn't a "ballhawk". Whatever that means. Because now I guess you can be a ballhawk one year and not the next. So confusing.

No, one year with many picks does not make you a ball-hawk. Just like one year with high sack totals doesn't make you a sack machine. Don't undermine everyone's intelligence by playing the extremes and outliers.

In regards to Ramsey, if you can stay on topic for one post, he doesn't have a history of being a ball-hawk, so it doesn't make much sense to assume he will suddenly become one.

 

[Manster68]

Passing up Ezekiel Elliott is a big mistake. No disrespect to Ramsey, but Elliott will make everyone around him better (like Murray did).
MY BIGGEST FEAR is that Elliott ends up in New York with the Giants. I have a bad feeling that if Elliott is wearing Big Blue, Eli might have two more rings.

Elliott is special.

 

[BlindFaith]

Someone in this thread made the bold statement that Jalen Ramsey would be a ball-hawk like Ed Reed. That's where this all started. I am not sure what other threads you're referencing, but you seem to be compiling some amalgamation of comments from other threads and trying to argue them all here at once.

Maybe. It's been a long day.

As long as we agree that he has the potential to be a great CB and worthy of the number 4 pick in this draft, I agree with you.

I personally think that he will get interceptions and reach the mythical status of ballhawk in his career.

 

[Pessimist_cowboy]

Passing up Ezekiel Elliott is a big mistake. No disrespect to Ramsey, but Elliott will make everyone around him better (like Murray did).
MY BIGGEST FEAR is that Elliott ends up in New York with the Giants. I have a bad feeling that if Elliott is wearing Big Blue, Eli might have two more rings.

Elliott is special.

I agree I would hate passing on Zeke. He is just meant to be a Cowboy . Would be so perfect in our scheme behind our line. This franchise has never won anything without a special RB. Staubach had Dorset , Aikman with Emmitt. Bring Zeke in!

 

[BlindFaith]

No, one year with many picks does not make you a ball-hawk. Just like one year with high sack totals doesn't make you a sack machine. Don't undermine everyone's intelligence by playing the extremes and outliers.

In regards to Ramsey, if you can stay on topic for one post, he doesn't have a history of being a ball-hawk, so it doesn't make much sense to assume he will suddenly become one.

Ok, I get it. Ballhawk doesn't mean just interceptions. You have to consistently, year after year get interceptions to be a ballhawk. It's perfectly clear now. Can anybody update wiktionary?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I agree with it will be Ramsey. I just don't see us going gaga for a RB, no matter who it is, but obviously not my call.

The Ramsey pick frightens me. His production in college simply wasn't worthy of the #4 pick. And we are supposedly going to play him at safety? I just don't get it. Drafting a player at #4, and then changing his position seems highly risky to me. Especially for a guy that has stone hands.

But this isn't the Jerry Jones Cowboys anymore. Its Stephens show, and Stephen is about dollars and cents. We have two CB's that will be free agents next year, and free agent corners are very expensive. Thats why we will take Ramsey I believe.

Saying he has stone hands isn't really accurate.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

It's been said many, many times that Ramsey shouldn't be the pick because he isn't a "ballhawk". Whatever that means.

Saying Ramsey shouldn't be the pick at #4 is not the same as saying he isn't good. Some people don't believe a CB warrants a top 5 pick, I personally tend to believe that in order for them to be worth the pick, they need to be proficient at forcing turnovers, and the stats show that he is not. I don't believe there even are "shut down" corners in today's NFL, so while he may allow less passes then most other CBs, I just can't see him being worth the pick unless he's a guy that gets ints. I wouldn't even say he has to be a ball hawk, again that word was only used to refute the Ed Reed comparisons.

Because now I guess you can be a ballhawk one year and not the next. So confusing.

Can you be an elite QB one year and then not the next? Not sure why that is confusing. Peyton Manning was an elite QB in what 2013 and 2014, not so much in 2015. Or if you want an apples to apples comparison, Deangelo Hall was a ball hawk, he got old and is no longer one, so yes you can be a ballhawk one year and not the next, sometimes you're just in the zone for a season. Sometimes you're a guy like Richard Sherman who sustains it over several season, sometime you're a guy like Ed Reed and you've done it for so long, that even when you're having a down year teams avoid airing it out enough that you still impact a QBs decisions. It rarely happens the other way, outside of a spike in production, which is why I doubt Ramsey will be worth #4.

 

[Pessimist_cowboy]

it comes down to who'd you rather have. A lesser version of Marshall Faulk or a lesser version of Ed Reed?

For THIS team I'm taking the RB. He has all the tools around him to succeed right away. A vet QB , Great OL, Great WR. You take Ramsey and he's going to need more pieces around him and it'll take a couple years. By then Romo will be gone and wasted his career.

 

[JohnsKey19]

I believe the situation at 4 is as cloudy as ever.

1. SD does not appear to be as locked in with Tunsil as inially thought. They could trade down to a spot where they feel comfortable knowing they'll get either Tunsil or Stanley. Or perhaps they take someone else. So who SD takes or who they trade down with obviously affects Dallas.

2. I'm not buying Dallas telegraphing their intentions at 4 as much as we're hearing. While there may be some truth to the rumors, I'd bet 2 of the rumored guys aren't even on their radar and at least one guy completely flying under the radar is squarely in the conversation. Taking a blind stab at it, I think a trade-down materializes late tomorrow and Dallas moves down somewhere between 6-9.

 

[texbumthelife]

Saying Ramsey shouldn't be the pick at #4 is not the same as saying he isn't good. Some people don't believe a CB warrants a top 5 pick, I personally tend to believe that in order for them to be worth the pick, they need to be proficient at forcing turnovers, and the stats show that he is not. I don't believe there even are "shut down" corners in today's NFL, so while he may allow less passes then most other CBs, I just can't see him being worth the pick unless he's a guy that gets ints. I wouldn't even say he has to be a ball hawk, again that word was only used to refute the Ed Reed comparisons.



Can you be an elite QB one year and then not the next? Not sure why that is confusing. Peyton Manning was an elite QB in what 2013 and 2014, not so much in 2015. Or if you want an apples to apples comparison, Deangelo Hall was a ball hawk, he got old and is no longer one, so yes you can be a ballhawk one year and not the next, sometimes you're just in the zone for a season. Sometimes you're a guy like Richard Sherman who sustains it over several season, sometime you're a guy like Ed Reed and you've done it for so long, that even when you're having a down year teams avoid airing it out enough that you still impact a QBs decisions. It rarely happens the other way, outside of a spike in production, which is why I doubt Ramsey will be worth #4.

I applaud your effort. I am through with this discussion. It's pointless to argue with someone who just refuses to see reason and legitimacy and resorts to extremes and exceptions instead. Good luck.

 

[texbumthelife]

I believe the situation at 4 is as cloudy as ever.

1. SD does not appear to be as locked in with Tunsil as inially thought. They could trade down to a spot where they feel comfortable knowing they'll get either Tunsil or Stanley. Or perhaps they take someone else. So who SD takes or who they trade down with obviously affects Dallas.

2. I'm not buying Dallas telegraphing their intentions at 4 as much as we're hearing. While there may be some truth to the rumors, I'd bet 2 of the rumored guys aren't even on their radar and at least one guy completely flying under the radar is squarely in the conversation. Taking a blind stab at it, I think a trade-down materializes late tomorrow and Dallas moves down somewhere between 6-9.

Yeah, I have made that Stanley argument a few times too. They could trade down just a few slots, still get and elite OT prospect and possibly pick up another second rounder. They could even decide to go Conklin and still be getting a very good OL prospect.