Cowboys plan to take QB at 4?

[Idgit]

You are right about that - our situation is pretty rare. But lets open it up beyond top 5 (franchise) to the first round in general. If we're supposed to believe Lynch is a realistic option (trade down or not) - I can think of countless examples of teams passing on first round QBs while their starter is 35+.

I think you and I are on the same page in this regard: Franchise guy is a no-brainer. If you think you're getting the next Tony Romo or better, you get him, despite the short-term loss. I'd trade a lot more than the #4 to magically make Tony 25 years old again.

That said, in the franchise guy scenario, I'd trade Tony. If your guy isn't far enough along to play today, he's not a franchise guy. If he is, no riding the fence. Start the next chapter today. Lose a couple extra games while he's learning and cash in on those higher picks. Get what you can for Tony. Avoid the locker room drama. Band-Aid - clean off.

It sounds like the difference between us here is a function of how the team's graded the prospect, then. I don't have a hard and fast rule, but I'd probably take any player we had rated in the top dozen or so players in the draft at the 4 spot if I needed a QB. Those guys like Bridgewater or Carr who I might have just outside my first round grades (and by that I still mean 18-32 or so overall in a draft class), I'd wait a year as it's normally not too expensive to get in position for the 4th or so best QB in a class if that's what you want to do.

Many years, I'd be ok with a burning a pick there if I had years to develop the guy the way Denver did Osweiler or NE did Garropolo. This year, though, there's not really that guy there. There's Lynch, who I think many people regard as a cut above that tier of player, and then there's stupid Connor Cook that nobody likes.

In the franchise scenario, though, we can't really trade Tony until 2018, so it's moot. We'd have to double up and endure the cat fighting for a couple years. Again, though, that's not the end of the world.

 

[Stash]

History lesson 101: Top veteran QBs all over the league just watched Manning go to Denver and win SB. No top five QB in over a decade asked to sit over a year. Romo very aware of both. I know cause I just text him lol.

How long do you think you'll make it here before the mod's catch on to your act?

 

[ConceptCoop]

Do the homework.

Look into how many of the playoff teams had 1st round quarterbacks.

Check out the well-researched work from FootballOutsiders that shows how much worse the odds of finding a quarterback worth a damn are after the first round.

Take a look at what the Eagles are willing to pay Sam frickin' Bradford just so they have somebody!

How about the shiny trophy that Baltimore got from Joe Flacco before that contract? Think they want to give that back and get their money back?

Owners make more than enough money outside of the salary cap. It's already a can't lose business investment. Why do you think billionaires line up to get into it? Because even if you lose on the field, you win at the bank.

Any quarterback can bust, just like each and every other player. If you want to avoid busts at all costs. Don't draft at all. But the fact is that you can't get one anywhere else. I don't care how well you've managed your cap or how much room you have. Teams that even think they have one never let them go. You can have all the cap money in the world and it's useless. You'll never get one.

The draft is the only place where you can. And if this trade didn't make it clear enough for you, it's time to take the blinders off and reassess what it is you're watching.

My opinion has nothing to do with you; no need to take it personally.

We get a 1st round pick every single year. I'm not arguing against eventually using a pick on a QB in the first round.

Did you know that one QB drafted in the top 5 has won a SB for the team that drafted him, since John Elway in 1999? It's not top 5 or bust.

 

[ConceptCoop]

And not having one at all guarantees you suck.

Do your homework and come back better informed on the subject.

Is our goal not to suck or to win SBs?

Can we tone down the snark and cut the personal attacks, please? I'm too old for that.

 

[Romotil45]

How long do you think you'll make it here before the mod's catch on to your act?

It a Joke RELAX. I even remembered to say Lol time. I keep forgetting that sarcasim as humor doesn't come off well on social media. I didn't text him. He sitting right here with me LOL.

 

[Stash]

My opinion has nothing to do with you; no need to take it personally.

Nothing personal. I can disagree and have a debate without it being anything else. I just take issue when people refuse to look at the facts and instead cherry pick examples here and there as if it helps their case. It doesn't. It just further shows their ignorance of the subject matter.

We get a 1st round pick every single year. I'm not arguing against eventually using a pick on a QB in the first round.

But if you're assuming that one will simply be there and the opportunity will just present itself, you're either short-sighted or under-educated on the realities of the situation.

Did you know that one QB drafted in the top 5 has won a SB for the team that drafted him, since John Elway in 1999? It's not top 5 or bust.

Really?

Look into the last name Manning and get back to me.

 

[ConceptCoop]

Look into the last name Manning and get back to me.

Peyton Manning (Colts)
Eli Manning (Chargers)

Even if we count Eli - and I think that makes perfect sense - that's 2 in almost 20 years.

 

[ConceptCoop]

But if you're assuming that one will simply be there and the opportunity will just present itself, you're either short-sighted or under-educated on the realities of the situation.

Again, I'm too old for the personal attacks. I'm no longer interested in having a conversation with you. I hope you can respect that.

 

[Stash]

Is our goal not to suck or to win SBs?

Can we tone down the snark and cut the personal attacks, please? I'm too old for that.

Sorry if the facts of the matter upset your sensibilities but as I've repeatedly said, facts and research show it to be the case.

 

[Stash]

Peyton Manning (Colts)
Eli Manning (Chargers)

Even if we count Eli - and I think that makes perfect sense - that's 2 in almost 20 years.

And it factually refutes the claim you were previously attempting to make. One which is now making you look like a dishonest person making false claims.

I'm all for having informed conversations and debates but what I am not interested in is people misrepresenting facts to support their argument.

 

[Stash]

Again, I'm too old for the personal attacks. I'm no longer interested in having a conversation with you. I hope you can respect that.

That's fine. I'm nit attacking you personally, just the holes in your claims. If you can't handle differences of opinion, this probably isn't the place for you anyway.

I didn't appreciate your claim of top 5 quarterbacks winning Super Bowls which was clearly inaccurate.

I prefer conversations with people who support their claims or positions with facts.

 

[Romotil45]

Do the homework.

Look into how many of the playoff teams had 1st round quarterbacks.

Check out the well-researched work from FootballOutsiders that shows how much worse the odds of finding a quarterback worth a damn are after the first round.

Take a look at what the Eagles are willing to pay Sam frickin' Bradford just so they have somebody!

How about the shiny trophy that Baltimore got from Joe Flacco before that contract? Think they want to give that back and get their money back?

Owners make more than enough money outside of the salary cap. It's already a can't lose business investment. Why do you think billionaires line up to get into it? Because even if you lose on the field, you win at the bank.

Any quarterback can bust, just like each and every other player. If you want to avoid busts at all costs. Don't draft at all. But the fact is that you can't get one anywhere else. I don't care how well you've managed your cap or how much room you have. Teams that even think they have one never let them go. You can have all the cap money in the world and it's useless. You'll never get one.

The draft is the only place where you can. And if this trade didn't make it clear enough for you, it's time to take the blinders off and reassess what it is you're watching.

I've done the homework I am aware of the fact that 1st rd Qb do better statistically however I am convinced part of that is a team commitment to said player. If you commit to a 3rd guy that's has the tools he could do just as well however most team move on too quickly from 3rd guys who struggle a little as most do. However team have more patience with first rd guys. In reality neither Wentz/Goff are locks and defense is what we really need. Get a developmental guy in the 3rd to groom might surprise you.

 

[ConceptCoop]

...

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Zero top QB prospects sit for more than a year. It hasn't happened in more than a decade. No offense, but I think if sitting them for a year+ was the best way to groom them, the NFL would have figured that out by now.

For a long time, the Salary Cap was the main reason teams went away from this. You just couldn't afford it. Now that it's slotted, it's not as big of a deal. The NFL is no longer paying Rookies more money then proven players. I that we will eventually see the NFL start to go back to this practice. I too believe that it's the best way to develop players.

As great as Troy was, we almost ruined him. Think about that. What would have happened if Troy would have turned out like Carr?

 

[ConceptCoop]

For a long time, the Salary Cap was the main reason teams went away from this. You just couldn't afford it. Now that it's slotted, it's not as big of a deal. The NFL is no longer paying Rookies more money then proven players. I that we will eventually see the NFL start to go back to this practice. I too believe that it's the best way to develop players.

As great as Troy was, we almost ruined him. Think about that. What would have happened if Troy would have turned out like Carr?

I think the cap is a valid argument. We'll see if teams move that way.

I think developing a guy and not letting him get killed are two different things. That Texans offensive line might have damaged veterans QBs.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

My opinion has nothing to do with you; no need to take it personally.

We get a 1st round pick every single year. I'm not arguing against eventually using a pick on a QB in the first round.

Did you know that one QB drafted in the top 5 has won a SB for the team that drafted him, since John Elway in 1999? It's not top 5 or bust.

But is this because too many of them were rushed into the league as starters or is it because the cap implications of those guys, till just recently, have been such that it's very difficult to draft a top 5 QB and surround him with the pieces he needs to win a championship or is it because they just weren't that good?

 

[Romotil45]

For a long time, the Salary Cap was the main reason teams went away from this. You just couldn't afford it. Now that it's slotted, it's not as big of a deal. The NFL is no longer paying Rookies more money then proven players. I that we will eventually see the NFL start to go back to this practice. I too believe that it's the best way to develop players.

As great as Troy was, we almost ruined him. Think about that. What would have happened if Troy would have turned out like Carr?

That might be true the new structure for Rookies might offset the trend some however. We also understand human psychology. Romo is a competitor he wants his SB's and he wants HOF. Are we commited to the same ? Historically over last decade 1st round top five QB's do not sit longer than a year. That sends Romo the message we are not all in on getting him his SB's HOF etc. This knowledge changes a persons loyalty. Romo wants to win now so draft defense 1# priority or trade him. Send him the message " we are all in to win with Romo now"

 

[ConceptCoop]

But is this because too many of them were rushed into the league as starters or is it because the cap implications of those guys, till just recently, have been such that it's very difficult to draft a top 5 QB and surround him with the pieces he needs to win a championship or is it because they just weren't that good?

It's hard to say. I do think building the core around the QB is taxing, resource wise. The cap likely paid a part, but only over the first 5 seasons. Random variance.

And I honestly don't point the stat out to suggest it's a bad practice to draft a QB top 5. I just wanted to point out that it's not the only route to a Super Bowl.

 

[Sydla]

Zero top QB prospects sit for more than a year. It hasn't happened in more than a decade. No offense, but I think if sitting them for a year+ was the best way to groom them, the NFL would have figured that out by now.

Technically Rodgers sat for Favre less than a decade ago.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

That might be true the new structure for Rookies might offset the trend some however. We also understand human psychology. Romo is a competitor he wants his SB's and he wants HOF. Are we commited to the same ? Historically over last decade 1st round top five QB's do not sit longer than a year. That sends Romo the message we are not all in on getting him his SB's HOF etc. This knowledge changes a persons loyalty. Romo wants to win now so draft defense 1# priority or trade him. Send him the message " we are all in to win with Romo now"

I don't think that Tony would view this that way. Tony is the starter for as long as he can play at a high level. If the day comes where he can't do that then the game takes care of that itself and Tony does not strike me as a guy who doesn't understand this.