Dane Brugler on our pick at 24

[stilltheguru]

I'd like to introduce you to our owner/GM and his dopey son................

It's funny. I've seen Dez Bryant comps and Deebo Samuel. If there was a Dez/Deebo hybrid he'd be a CONSENSUS top 10 pick.

 

[Sydla]

It's funny. I've seen Dez Bryant comps and Deebo Samuel. If there was a Dez/Deebo hybrid he'd be a CONSENSUS top 10 pick.

LOL. Yep.

 

[baltcowboy]

Burks is rated in the same range as Green and Z Johnson. We are talking about a gap of many 4-8 players, at best here. It's not like Burks is a Top 5 talent and Kenyon Green is the 45th rated prospect.

Using yet another first round pick on a WR is just dumb roster management. What did we win with all that investment in the WR last year? Nada. Because the OL fell apart and the defense still had some flaws.

But yeah. Take that WR again in the first round.

I never seen any draft Nick have them on the same line. Burks is considered by most a 1st round prospect. The guards are second rounders. Take the best player you will be ok in the long run.

 

[Sydla]

I never seen any draft Nick have them on the same line. Burks is considered by most a 1st round prospect. The guards are second rounders. Take the best player you will be ok in the long run.

Huh? Green has been in almost all first round mocks, in that 20ish range just like Burks. PFF has Green, Johnson and Tyler Smith above Burks on their big board. Draft Network has Burks behind Green and Johnson as well. Daniel Jeremiah has Burks 21 and Green 28, hardly a big gap. So again, let's not act like Burks is some uber-talented, highly rated kid and some of the other names like the OL and DL are 2nd round scrubs here.

In other words, you can't say with any certainty that Burks is clearly the BPA here.

It's just bad roster management using that many first round picks in such a short period on WRs. It just is. Especially when the franchise's mantra is that they don't fix the roster in FA, they do it in the draft. It would be one thing if this team was a WR away from competing but they have massive holes along the OL, DL, for example.

Three top level WRs last year won us squat. But yeah, let's try that again.

 

[tyke1doe]

I hope we don't take a receiver in the first round.
If we do, what will happen is that we'll light up the score boards during the regular season, get to the post season where games are won in the trenches and, AGAIN, get thoroughly exposed.
You win with strong offensive and defensive lines.
When are we going to understand this?

 

[CowboyRoy]

So what's your choice here?

My post was in response to one poster preferring to draft OL in the first and that no FA's can fill voids as only JAGS remain. I responded that you could draft Burks in round one, then draft one in round 2-3 and sign a vet FA if needed.

One of them has to work

This will take a few years. We’re going to need a tackle, guard and possible center. If you can get a stud guard now, do it. Wrs are useless until we fix the line.

ones we have taken in 2nd and 3rd rounds are busts.

 

[Aven8]

The suddenness of that ‘news’ on Green leads me to believe that it’s something thrown out there by people hoping he falls.

Broaddus has said that he thinks they prefer Green over Zion. Just looking at the tape IMO Green has quicker feet and is more athletic, and Zion is a mauler type. He actually reminds me of Leonard Davis a lot.

 

[gimmesix]

That would mean the Cowboys have used THREE first round picks in four years on WRs. That's not a smart way to build a roster, especially when you tell your fanbase you sit out FA because you build your roster through the draft.

But it's also a product of building your roster through the draft. You either have to pay big money for your own or replenish through the draft if you don't see FA as anything more than a roster filler. Ideally, you hit on a player like Fehoko last year and he replaces the player you let go because you were paying him too much. But we know that's actually rare. If we draft a receiver in the first round (or even the second), then our top three receivers next year would be players we drafted (possibly this year depending on how Washington plays). I think the team would see that as a success and exactly what it wants to do.

In particular right now, if they strengthen their offensive line in this draft and they strengthen their receiving corps or at least make it equal to what we lost, I think they would be happy with that and it would support the "build your roster through the draft" mentality. Starting on the line would be all draft picks by us and a UDFA.

 

[Carson]

Broaddus has said that he thinks they prefer Green over Zion. Just looking at the tape IMO Green has quicker feet and is more athletic, and Zion is a mauler type. He actually reminds me of Leonard Davis a lot.

Broaddus tweeted out that he does not think Dallas is in on Linderbaum as well

 

[gimmesix]

For me it's mainly picking a WR in the first round. I didn't hate the Lamb pick because he was one of the top 2 or 3 in the draft and he dropped to us, and I didn't see an alternative at 17. Burks isn't going to have to drop, and he'll probably be there in the early 2nd. He's a borderline tier 2 WR.

Whether I'm right or wrong about any WR isn't the point however. I don't care if they all turn out to be all pros. If we use another 1st rounder this year on a WR that makes what, 3 in the last 5 years? That's not helping any team that needs help on the LOS. That's something teams like the Detroit lions do.

I don't know. I look at it as we have holes (some bigger than others). This isn't considered a strong receiver class at the very top, but it's supposed to be rich in depth around where we draft in the first. It so happens there are also some offensive linemen who seem to be rated around that point. I won't be upset with taking a receiver who is rated higher than other players available because that's still an area of need, especially with Gallup expected to miss time.

Last year, our glaring need was corner and we were going to take one over the best defensive player available. That's the wrong way to do it. I'd feel the same way if the OL rated around our spot or gone and we took the next-best OL over a higher-rated WR, and vice-versa. I also would not like it if a higher-ranked player at another position was available and we took either a WR or OL instead. However, if the receiver is our best option, then I see no reason to be upset with that.

Now, I don't know if Burks deserves to be rated in that area, but I'm not going to get mad if Dallas does feel he's a value there. If the value proves to be wrong, I'll complain about it then, but I don't see a reason to do it now since none of us know how it will turn out. Again, nothing wrong with stating misgivings about a player, but for any of us to act like we know a player is going to be either a good pick or bad pick is silly.

 

[gimmesix]

Why are you scolding someone for their opinion, lol? If someone likes a player or not, telling them “you don’t know that (whether they’ll be good or not) is silly.

So is scolding someone about their opinion about an opinion is it not? I just get kind of fed up with the laptop scouts who spend hours on the draft instead of months to years acting like they know how a player is going to turn out. It would be like me spending a little time on webmd and believing my diagnosis for your problem is the right no matter what the doctor says. Now, I can diagnose your problem based on what I see, and I might even get it right, but that doesn't make me an expert and I shouldn't behave like I'm one. That's all.

Every year we go through this exercise when each year every internet scout on here is proven wrong. That, and some fans acting like we're going to find starters in every round. Both of those extremes just don't make any sense to me. Sorry if that offends you.

 

[Flamma]

I don't know. I look at it as we have holes (some bigger than others). This isn't considered a strong receiver class at the very top, but it's supposed to be rich in depth around where we draft in the first. It so happens there are also some offensive linemen who seem to be rated around that point. I won't be upset with taking a receiver who is rated higher than other players available because that's still an area of need, especially with Gallup expected to miss time.

Last year, our glaring need was corner and we were going to take one over the best defensive player available. That's the wrong way to do it. I'd feel the same way if the OL rated around our spot or gone and we took the next-best OL over a higher-rated WR, and vice-versa. I also would not like it if a higher-ranked player at another position was available and we took either a WR or OL instead. However, if the receiver is our best option, then I see no reason to be upset with that.

Now, I don't know if Burks deserves to be rated in that area, but I'm not going to get mad if Dallas does feel he's a value there. If the value proves to be wrong, I'll complain about it then, but I don't see a reason to do it now since none of us know how it will turn out. Again, nothing wrong with stating misgivings about a player, but for any of us to act like we know a player is going to be either a good pick or bad pick is silly.

I agree with your logic in general. I just don't value the position the same as I would others. I'd have to have multiple picks in the first round, or a WR would have to stand out like a beacon for me to like the pick. Not just be ranked marginally better. WRs are tinsel on a Christmas tree, sprinkles on ice cream, the wax on your new car. I'm not going to value them the same as I would do the actual items. I played football my entire youth. I played WR.

 

[gimmesix]

I agree with your logic in general. I just don't value the position the same as I would others. I'd have to have multiple picks in the first round, or a WR would have to stand out like a beacon for me to like the pick. Not just be ranked marginally better. WRs are tinsel on a Christmas tree, sprinkles on ice cream, the wax on your new car. I'm not going to value them the same as I would do the actual items. I played football my entire youth. I played WR.

Don't think that's unfair. I just don't see a reason for a face-palm. He might turn out to be a great player and improve our receiving corps. I'm OK with that. Is it what I would do with the pick? Probably not. I think fixing the offensive line should be the priority (unless some player drops that we can't overlook) and the receiver depth in this class is good enough that we can get a No. 2 or at least No. 3 in the second round, maybe the third (but I don't really count on third-rounders since it gets to be a bit of a roll of the dice at that point).

I'd likely go with Zion Johnson or Kenyon Green in the first (based on players expected to be there) and probably whoever the best receiver to fall to us in the second (Alec Pierce intrigues me, but some have him as more of a third-rounder). Obviously, again, if some unicorn falls to us, then you've got to take him and hope you can address those positions of need later.