News: Cowboys Draft Dilemma: Winning Now Or Later?

[Sydla]

One then identifies at quarterback who has enough raw talent and with a quick delivery, to develop. Just as the team did with Tony Romo.

In reality, the Cowboys got lucky with Romo. It's exceptionally rare that a UDFA becomes a Top 10 NFL QB. If your strategy is just wait until Romo finally breaks down and then just go and grab some guy with raw talent to develop, you are likely staring at a really long rough patch in Cowboys football.

 

[MrPhil]

One then identifies at quarterback who has enough raw talent and with a quick delivery, to develop. Just as the team did with Tony Romo.

Troy Aikman's last year with us was 2000 I believe and we signed Romo as an UDFA in 2003. Romo did not start a game until 2006. That is 3-6 years between franchise QBs depending on how you want to look at it. I contend that finding Romo as an UDFA was blind luck. Are you suggesting that signing Romo as an UDFA 3 years after Aikman retired was all part of a master plan and that no other QBs in the previous 3 years were worthy of development? I find that very hard to believe.

 

[conner01]

There's no dilemma. The way people talk about quarterback is like we will never have a shot at drafting one again. These aren't once in a lifetime prospects at Qb. Go and get a top 5 player don't settle for one.

Going and getting one is very expensive. Ask the skins
I don't get the thinking that drafting a QB changes your chances of winning now
One player at 4 is not going to dramatically change this team and that's what we're talking about
You can draft a QB and still have a good off season and help the team this year

 

[CCBoy]

Troy Aikman's last year with us was 2000 I believe and we signed Romo as an UDFA in 2003. Romo did not start a game until 2006. That is 3-6 years between franchise QBs depending on how you want to look at it. I contend that finding Romo as an UDFA was blind luck. Are you suggesting that signing Romo as an UDFA 3 years after Aikman retired was all part of a master plan and that no other QBs in the previous 3 years were worthy of development? I find that very hard to believe.

What is forgotten here, is that Bill Parcells took the reigns and first went with Bledsoe and then Vinny Testaverde...his choices for a QB.

Not hap hazard chaos after the fact.

As to believability, study of quarterback skills are much more advanced today, than then. But the requirements for success, are similar. Parcells wanted Tony Romo in the wings, and developed him in an old school way...not but the 'new world order' of substituting chaos rebound for old fashioned seeing potential and then doing the hard work to fully develop the player. Go figure why today, there is so much doubt. It's not a quick or 'in way' for satisfaction.

 

[CCBoy]

Going and getting one is very expensive. Ask the skins
I don't get the thinking that drafting a QB changes your chances of winning now
One player at 4 is not going to dramatically change this team and that's what we're talking about
You can draft a QB and still have a good off season and help the team this year

Simply stated...Daniel Snyder.

 

[Sydla]

What is forgotten here, is that Bill Parcells took the reigns and first went with Bledsoe and then Vinny Testaverde...his choices for a QB.

Not hap hazard chaos after the fact.

As to believability, study of quarterback skills are much more advanced today, than then. But the requirements for success, are similar. Parcells wanted Tony Romo in the wings, and developed him in an old school way...not but the 'new world order' of substituting chaos rebound for old fashioned seeing potential and then doing the hard work to fully develop the player. Go figure why today, there is so much doubt. It's not a quick or 'in way' for satisfaction.

You realize you just proved his point, right?

 

[CCBoy]

You realize you just proved his point, right?

No, I expanded topic, and you betray being a ring tapper. Right?

 

[Vinnie2u]

The biggest issue holding this team back the last 20 years.... Is thinking that we're 1-2 players away from a Super Bowl. This led to Galloway and Roy Williams trade. Drafting Skill positions instead of the trenches. Holding on to a .500 coach cause we almost there.. Draft a QB and look to the future. The Romo, Witten, Ware era is over..

 

[Sydla]

No, I expanded topic, and you betray being a ring tapper. Right?

LOL. Expanded the topic.

 

[Western]

You build around the top talent levels, and expect younger players to step up.

Bill Parcells stated it bluntly...you try to win, now.

You want a blueprint, here is a blueprint:

New England Patriots were 2 -14 in 1992 (In 2015, Dallas was 4 - 12, a measly 2 game difference).
In 1993, Bill Parcells became head coach for New England.
In 1993 draft, Bill Parcells drafted franchise QB Drew Bledsoe as the No. 1 in the draft.
In 1996, New England played in Super Bowl.
When you rebuild, you rebuild with QB's.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Going and getting one is very expensive. Ask the skins
I don't get the thinking that drafting a QB changes your chances of winning now
One player at 4 is not going to dramatically change this team and that's what we're talking about
You can draft a QB and still have a good off season and help the team this year

It doesn't but I just get the impression that you are settling for quarterback here. Like if all of these quarterbacks came out last season none of them are going ahead of Mariotta and Winston. They pale in comparison. IMO, these quarterbacks are what Derek Carr and Teddy Bridgewater were and those were a late 1st and 2nd round pick. And those organizations are in love with them and rightfully so. Like would I rather have Blake Bortles with the 3rd pick in the draft or Derek Carr with the 2nd round pick?

Speaking only for myself, if a QB is available at #4 that the scouts grade as a Top 5 pick, you take him no questions asked simply due to the importance of the position. I concede your point about these QB not being once in a lifetime type prospects simply because the odds of that being the case any given year are very small.

That said, it seems, based on what I have read, that next years QB class may be worse than this years. So how long do we wait to try to find our next franchise QB? Do we wait until a particular draft class is deemed good enough? Do we wait until Romo hangs em up? Do we wait until we have another Top 5 pick? Do we continually spend mid-to-late round picks hoping to find the next Brady? Again speaking only for myself, part of the frustration is that this organization has shown itself to be pitiful when it comes to transition plans at the QB position. Look at their track record after Aikman.....ugly. How many of our current star players' careers are we going to waste while they try to figure out what to do with the QB position post-Romo?

There is no way to validate this assertion but I would bet that if organizations like New England or Denver or Arizona found themselves in our position (star QB late in their career, missed most of previous season with injuries, Top 5 pick) they would take a QB if one graded out to be worth it.

All of this is moot if there is no QB worth the pick at #4, and if that is the case, I will fully support a DE, LB or S, but so far everything I have seen or read tells me that either Wentz or Goff are worth the #4 pick.

Well if they have these QB's on the board as legit top 5 pick then they should take them. I just don't see that. This is just like that Cam Newton class where teams were just settling for the Christin Ponder's and Jake Lockers because Cam was off the board.

I just can't see how these quarterbacks are higher their board then Jack or a Ramsey is.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

You want a blueprint, here is a blueprint:

New England Patriots were 2 -14 in 1992 (In 2015, Dallas was 4 - 12, a measly 2 game difference).
In 1993, Bill Parcells became head coach for New England.
In 1993 draft, Bill Parcells drafted franchise QB Drew Bledsoe as the No. 1 in the draft.
In 1996, New England played in Super Bowl.
When you rebuild, you rebuild with QB's.

So you have to go back 20 years to find a example of that blueprint being used? This team isn't rebuilding to begin with. They have a team full of veterans and a still solid quarterback. That Patriots "blueprint" doesn't fit the one we are trying to follow.

 

[darthseinfeld]

You dont draft at all with a win now mentality

 

[LittleD]

A two year window is what we have here...no excuses accepted.

(side note: Little D, I have enjoyed your additions on site)

Thanks so much. I enjoy the discussion and banter. We can all be civil even in disagreement. I think you write really well.

 

[Western]

So you have to go back 20 years to find a example of that blueprint being used? This team isn't rebuilding to begin with. They have a team full of veterans and a still solid quarterback. That Patriots "blueprint" doesn't fit the one we are trying to follow.

He used Bill Parcells as a "win-now" example, without any evidence.
I used Bill Parcells with evidence and proven results, that drafting a QB is the first stage of rebuilding, to completely undermine his original premise.
If a team has 4 wins and 12 losses, it is failed by all measures.
Because -- wins and losses is all that matters.

 

[LittleD]

So you have to go back 20 years to find a example of that blueprint being used? This team isn't rebuilding to begin with. They have a team full of veterans and a still solid quarterback. That Patriots "blueprint" doesn't fit the one we are trying to follow.

The Pats just extended Brady for 2 more additional years. He will be 40+ if he plays till 2019. Romo has missed a lot of games and
Jerry thinks he started late and will remain late until the dance is over. He's probably wrong by a year but, why select a high QB to sit
on the bench. He will get an experienced QB to back Romo up for 2-3 years. Jerry is beating his own drum and he wants that
trophy just once more before heading to that retirement ranch in the sky.

 

[Dhragon]

It doesn't but I just get the impression that you are settling for quarterback here. Like if all of these quarterbacks came out last season none of them are going ahead of Mariotta and Winston. They pale in comparison. IMO, these quarterbacks are what Derek Carr and Teddy Bridgewater were and those were a late 1st and 2nd round pick. And those organizations are in love with them and rightfully so. Like would I rather have Blake Bortles with the 3rd pick in the draft or Derek Carr with the 2nd round pick?




Well if they have these QB's on the board as legit top 5 pick then they should take them. I just don't see that. This is just like that Cam Newton class where teams were just settling for the Christin Ponder's and Jake Lockers because Cam was off the board.

I just can't see how these quarterbacks are higher their board then Jack or a Ramsey is.

If you hit with the QB, it's a much bigger jackpot than hitting with a DB or LB. You are never going to get a 100% for sure franchise QB in the draft. You have to play the best odds. So while Wentz or Goff or Lynch might not be as great of odds as a Luck, there is still much better odds than drafting some mid-round dude.

 

[MrPhil]

What is forgotten here, is that Bill Parcells took the reigns and first went with Bledsoe and then Vinny Testaverde...his choices for a QB.

Not hap hazard chaos after the fact.

As to believability, study of quarterback skills are much more advanced today, than then. But the requirements for success, are similar. Parcells wanted Tony Romo in the wings, and developed him in an old school way...not but the 'new world order' of substituting chaos rebound for old fashioned seeing potential and then doing the hard work to fully develop the player. Go figure why today, there is so much doubt. It's not a quick or 'in way' for satisfaction.

All due respect, we will have to agree to disagree. What you see as a well thought out plan, I see as a couple of desperation band-aids involving QBs at the end of their careers followed by winning the draft lottery. To think that this "plan" can be repeated at will is extremely naïve, no offense.

 

[CCBoy]

He used Bill Parcells as a "win-now" example, without any evidence.
I used Bill Parcells with evidence and proven results, that drafting a QB is the first stage of rebuilding, to completely undermine his original premise.
If a team has 4 wins and 12 losses, it is failed by all measures.
Because -- wins and losses is all that matters.

Not everyone here has grown up in the last decade or two around here. Maybe you ALSO should view where that Bledsoe ended up and how many playoffs that Bill took Dallas to play in...just for the record, on the check off lists.

As to cherry picking on the check offs..two seasons ago...14 wins. Last season, and using your variable of franchise QB...without Romo...4 wins. But he is back this season...but Bill Parcells coined the phrase, you are what you are. This past season, no top receiver and franchise quarterback...that's all.

 

[CCBoy]

All due respect, we will have to agree to disagree. What you see as a well thought out plan, I see as a couple of desperation band-aids involving QBs at the end of their careers followed by winning the draft lottery. To think that this "plan" can be repeated at will is extremely naïve, no offense.

Oh, a ton of people will fly off on the proposition that Bill Parcells was the laughing stock of the NFL when with Dallas....you bet on a carte blanche disagreement on base levels of credability.