DCFanatic - First round mock - V1.0

[dcfanatic]

 

[Rampage]

did i miss a show tonight, DC?

 

[TheCount]

I'd be pretty misrable if we took Nate Allen in the 1st, but a good mock overall.

 

[speedkilz88]

If that's how it falls they better trade into the early 2nd.

 

[Alexander]

I'd be pretty misrable if we took Nate Allen in the 1st, but a good mock overall.

Why?

He has good range and is one of the few "ball-hawk" FS in this draft along with Burnett. There are also rumors I have read that more than one team has him with a first round grade (on a par with Mays).

It might be one of those choices that looks like a reach on paper, but teams probably rank him higher than popular opinion, which has him as a second or third round choice.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

That would be kind of a bummer to take Allen with that #27, but if they can't trade back then they might as well get their guy.

 

[Alexander]

That would be kind of a bummer to take Allen with that #27, but if they can't trade back then they might as well get their guy.

I think trading down is foolish unless you have at least three or four players you know you want and would be happy with. If you have one target, it limits your chances.

We saw what happened with the Brady Quinn trade. Jones had to trade back into the first to get Spencer. The same thing happened when Quincy Carter was drafted. We traded down, and then had to give picks back to move ahead of Oakland and Minnesota when Jerry Jones understood that he was on their radar.

It is almost as if there is a worry about perception of a reach. If you trust your board, who cares?

 

[jobberone]

That's not a bad pick at 27. It's not the best value. Much better to drop down into the top of the second for that pick but that might not be an option.

 

[TheSport78]

If that's the way the 1st round plays out, and Jerry cannot make a deal to trade out of the first, the pick has to be Rodger Saffold, Jared Odrick or Nate Allen.

 

[DFWJC]

I think trading down is foolish unless you have at least three or four players you know you want and would be happy with. If you have one target, it limits your chances.

Yeah, we have gotten too cute in the past. There are several good reasons to trade down, but many bad ones too.

The good
Obviously, if you're sitting at 27 and you don't have anyone left on your board valued that high (or within a few slots) it makes sense to trade down. I don't see that happening this year b/c there should be plenty of players left worthy of low 1st round picks...if we want them.

The next scenario is more likely is this draft:

If you still have 5-6 players that all are close to equally good to pick at 27, then trading down is a wise move if it's not too many slots (not 20+). But if there are only two guys left worthy of 27 and you trade down 10+ slots, well, that's getting a bit too cute and not worth the high risk.

 

[Alexander]

Yeah, we have gotten too cute in the past. There are several good reasons to trade down, but many bad ones too.

The good
Obviously, if you're sitting at 27 and you don't have anyone left on your board valued that high (or within a few slots) it makes sense to trade down. I don't see that happening this year b/c there should be plenty of players left worthy of low 1st round picks...if we want them.

The next scenario is more likely is this draft:

If you still have 5-6 players that all are close to equally good to pick at 27, then trading down is a wise move if it's not too many slots (not 20+). But if there are only two guys left worthy of 27 and you trade down 10+ slots, well, that's getting a bit too cute and not worth the high risk.

I would only accept a trade down if it drastically improves our position, either this year or next. Is adding an extra second (or more likely a third and fifth) worth moving down into the second? I don't think it is. We have been burned too many times in the past. I even remember when we traded down thinking we could have Brackens and ended up with Kavika Pittman. It is always a risk.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

I think trading down is foolish unless you have at least three or four players you know you want and would be happy with. If you have one target, it limits your chances.

We saw what happened with the Brady Quinn trade. Jones had to trade back into the first to get Spencer. The same thing happened when Quincy Carter was drafted. We traded down, and then had to give picks back to move ahead of Oakland and Minnesota when Jerry Jones understood that he was on their radar.

It is almost as if there is a worry about perception of a reach. If you trust your board, who cares?

I agree with you for the most part. My only concern with grabbing Allen, at least from what I have read, is that Dallas doesn't have a first round grade on him (only Berry, Thomas and Mayes). That would mean that, at least according to their board, they would be reaching for him (especially with McCourty still there for the taking). This is very deep draft this year and I would imagine that Dallas would have quite a few players that they would still want if they go back about ten spots.

Having said all of that, if they feel that he is the best player then I would have no problems if they picked him. I personally believe that he has a great skill set and will help solidify the secondary. Heck, I don't even know why I am debating it because I really want the guy in a Dallas uniform.

 

[DFWJC]

I would only accept a trade down if it drastically improves our position, either this year or next. Is adding an extra second (or more likely a third and fifth) worth moving down into the second? I don't think it is. We have been burned too many times in the past. I even remember when we traded down thinking we could have Brackens and ended up with Kavika Pittman. It is always a risk.

Like I said, you would have to have multiple players that you rank about the same, so the risk of missing on a specific player would not be a factor. You don't know if a move down (or up) is worth it until the draft is occurring. The scenario you describe would not fit either of my descriptions for trading down.

If that scenario is not there, then don't don't do it. If it is, by all means a high second rounder has HUGE value (just look at who is taken every year in the 2nd) so it is clearly worth having IF the trade off is very low.

 

[CanuckCowboysFan]

I'd be pretty misrable if we took Nate Allen in the 1st, but a good mock overall.

why? If he runs a sub 4.5 forty in a couple days, he's solidified his spot in the 1st round IMO. He's greatest question is his straight line speed. I would rather have this guy then Thomas, I'm going to take some heat for it but I friggin love this guy.

 

[CanuckCowboysFan]

My only concern with grabbing Allen, at least from what I have read, is that Dallas doesn't have a first round grade on him (only Berry, Thomas and Mayes). .

Where'd you read that? You have a link?

 

[Alexander]

why? If he runs a sub 4.5 forty in a couple days, he's solidified his spot in the 1st round IMO. He's greatest question is his straight line speed. I would rather have this guy then Thomas, I'm going to take some heat for it but I friggin love this guy.

Allen is a true free safety, unlike Thomas who apparently some teams do not necessarily view as a durable centerfielder. He has the size and as you said, the speed was the question. Once his Pro Day results hit, there will probably be a change in how he is viewed.

The thing that is interesting about him is that things are very quiet. He is not getting much publicity in terms of going on visits and getting private workouts. That tends to be a player who pops up and surprises with where he gets chosen on draft day. Again, I have read quite a bit about how he is growing in status (along with Murphy, his teammate).

 

[CanuckCowboysFan]

Allen is a true free safety, unlike Thomas who apparently some teams do not necessarily view as a durable centerfielder. He has the size and as you said, the speed was the question. Once his Pro Day results hit, there will probably be a change in how he is viewed.

The thing that is interesting about him is that things are very quiet. He is not getting much publicity in terms of going on visits and getting private workouts. That tends to be a player who pops up and surprises with where he gets chosen on draft day. Again, I have read quite a bit about how he is growing in status (along with Murphy, his teammate).

Yeah, it is a bit surprising that he has no private workout but not many safeties in this class do. The only one I've read about is ET. I might be wrong but haven't seen/read anything. Again, I think if he runs a sub 4.4, he'll go in the 1st, possibly to Dallas. If he runs in the 4.5 that won't do anything to his stock, but I'm 100% sure he won't be there in the 2nd. I like him that much more because of Jenkins and the USF program. Line him up on the same side as Jenkins and this D is well on there way.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

Where'd you read that? You have a link?

Here is a blurb from Calvin Watkins under "Also of Note" in the attached link.

Also of note: The Cowboys gave first-round grades on safeties Taylor Mays, Eric Berry and Earl Thomas.

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/cowboys/post/_/id/4667219/cowboys-owners-meeting-wrapup

Honestly, I read a better analysis of this somewhere, but for the life of me I can't remember where.

 

[Gaede]

I'm starting to wonder about Allen. Everyone says he's a centerfielder ballhawk, but his stats in college say the opposite. Very few PBUs and INTs as well.

I like the guy and would like to see us pick him up for sure, but I'm just wondering if maybe there's a little bit of mislead hype behind his ability. We need someone to make plays in the secondary, besides Jenkins, but Allen doesn't appear to have the stats that would indicate he is that guy

 

[TheCount]

Why?

He has good range and is one of the few "ball-hawk" FS in this draft along with Burnett. There are also rumors I have read that more than one team has him with a first round grade (on a par with Mays).

It might be one of those choices that looks like a reach on paper, but teams probably rank him higher than popular opinion, which has him as a second or third round choice.

I think he's an early 2nd guy, you don't take a guy at 27 overall just because you don't have a pick in the early 2nd round.

I like Allen a lot, but not enough to abandon draft strategy for. Is he so much better than Morgan Burnett or Major Wright? I'm not so sure.

why? If he runs a sub 4.5 forty in a couple days, he's solidified his spot in the 1st round IMO. He's greatest question is his straight line speed. I would rather have this guy then Thomas, I'm going to take some heat for it but I friggin love this guy.

Earl Thomas is definitely more special of a talent than Nate Allen. I struggle to see how you'd take Allen over Thomas if the two were available.