DeCastro at 14 is stupid

[TheCount]

It would IMHO be stupid to take a player at 14 whose position hasn't been drafted that high since 1997. And Chris Naeole was really good for the Aints but he didnt see a ton of wins in his career.

For the record:
Taking a kicker r1 or r2 is stupid.
Taking a punter r1 or r2 or r3 is stupid.
Taking a deep snapper in the first 5 rounds is stupid.
Drafting special teamers (thanks Larry Lacewell) in r1 or r2 is stupid.

And Taking an OC or OG in the top 15 picks is stupid.

Your argument keeps getting more and more melodramatic. Jamarus Russel, David Carr and Matt Hasselback were all taken #1 and didn't see many wins, clearly QB's shouldn't be taken #1, that would be stupid. Someone should get the Colts on the phone.

 

[jterrell]

lol, you keep putting all these little caveats into your "definitive statements" to escape rebuttle.

Why 14 exactly? Why the past decade? Maybe because a guard was taken at 17 just last year, another taken at 16 in 2004 and one taken 10th overall in 97?

You can state your opinion without acting like a guard at 14 is so preposterously unthinkable that it will actively keep us from success.

That's all I'm saying. If DeCastro doesn't grade out at being worthy of selection that high, then he doesn't. But listening to what "scouts are saying", 2 months from the draft may not be the best idea.

ROFL!!! By "definitive statements" you mean facts right???

OMG I am so terribly fail for using facts. LOL.

Again, show me the teams who use top 15 picks on OGs and their rate of success? We can go back to Naeolo all you want. Does that somehow make you feel better to talk about a guy who averaged about 5 wins a year for his career??? The NFL is changing. The 1960's Green bay Packers certainly loved their OGs. Is that somehow relevant to today?

I am not saying it would guarantee failure, I am saying there are a lot of people on the boards who would do what NFL GMs won't.

Would it be smart to take DeCastro 1st overall? Where exactly is it too high? for me about 18 is as high as I would draft a guard based upon how the NFL values OGs. I have zero desire to overpay for a guy I can get 4 picks later.

As to over-reacting about early scouting quips, you are absolutely correct. But I am not basing my take on scouting reports. I am basing it upon positional analysis. It is the reverse. People suggesting we take DeCastro 14 are suggesting he is a generational player at his position.

End of the day I just hope the thread survives til draft day. When DeCastro goes about 18-20 perhaps people will realize what I meant.

 

[Doomsday101]

It would IMHO be stupid to take a player at 14 whose position hasn't been drafted that high since 1997. And Chris Naeole was really good for the Aints but he didnt see a ton of wins in his career.

For the record:
Taking a kicker r1 or r2 is stupid.
Taking a punter r1 or r2 or r3 is stupid.
Taking a deep snapper in the first 5 rounds is stupid.
Drafting special teamers (thanks Larry Lacewell) in r1 or r2 is stupid.

And Taking an OC or OG in the top 15 picks is stupid.

I would agree kicker,punter, deep snappers or guys who are brought in just for special teams in high rounds is stupid.

Getting a full time starter on the interior line is not stupid. I look at the quality of the players in the draft not just the position. You say well some say DeCastro is not that good? Most say he is that good that is why so many have him rated as highly as they do.

 

[jterrell]

Your argument keeps getting more and more melodramatic. Jamarus Russel, David Carr and Matt Hasselback were all taken #1 and didn't see many wins, clearly QB's shouldn't be taken #1, that would be stupid. Someone should get the Colts on the phone.

And you still don't have a point.
You still trying to look up the definition of fact?

If you disagree with a point feel free to offer anything of use in debating it.

 

[TheCount]

ROFL!!! By "definitive statements" you mean facts right???

OMG I am so terribly fail for using facts. LOL.

Again, show me the teams who use top 15 picks on OGs and their rate of success? We can go back to Naeolo all you want. Does that somehow make you feel better to talk about a guy who averaged about 5 wins a year for his career??? The NFL is changing. The 1960's Green bay Packers certainly loved their OGs. Is that somehow relevant to today?

I am not saying it would guarantee failure, I am saying there are a lot of people on the boards who would do what NFL GMs won't.

Would it be smart to take DeCastro 1st overall? Where exactly is it too high? for me about 18 is as high as I would draft a guard based upon how the NFL values OGs. I have zero desire to overpay for a guy I can get 4 picks later.

As to over-reacting about early scouting quips, you are absolutely correct. But I am not basing my take on scouting reports. I am basing it upon positional analysis. It is the reverse. People suggesting we take DeCastro 14 are suggesting he is a generational player at his position.

End of the day I just hope the thread survives til draft day. When DeCastro goes about 18-20 perhaps people will realize what I meant.

Hey, I stated a fact too. Lots of terrible QB's taken #1 overall, therefore, it must be a fact they shouldn't be taken that high. Boom. This is easy, I like facts!

 

[realtick]

It would IMHO be stupid to take a player at 14 whose position hasn't been drafted that high since 1997. And Chris Naeole was really good for the Aints but he didnt see a ton of wins in his career.

And Taking an OC or OG in the top 15 picks is stupid.

Yes, we shouldn't take a OG at #14 because other teams during different drafts with different needs with entirely different groups of prospects decided not to take an OG at #14.

Your point would make incrementally more sense if you could first prove that every team drafting at #14 from the past 15-20 years (or whatever time range you're using) had an obvious need for an OG, but chose to bypass one.

The Count is right. Your philosophy on why not to take an OG at #14 is logically the first cousin of "well, Jamarcus Russell was a bust taken #1 overall....therefore, we shouldn't take any QB #1 overall anymore."

 

[realtick]

I would agree kicker,punter, deep snappers or guys who are brought in just for special teams in high rounds is stupid.

Getting a full time starter on the interior line is not stupid. I look at the quality of the players in the draft not just the position. You say well some say DeCastro is not that good? Most say he is that good that is why so many have him rated as highly as they do.

Exactly, if you're telling me I can get a starter at any position for the next decade at pick #14, I do it in a heartbeat.

And before the obvious retort "well, how do you know he'll (DeCastro) will be a starter for the next decade..."

That argument can be applied for any player and any position you want to select at #14, not just DeCastro.

 

[Doomsday101]

Exactly, if you're telling me I can get a starter at any position for the next decade at pick #14, I do it in a heartbeat.

And before the obvious retore "well, how do you know he'll (DeCastro) will be a starter for the next decade..."

That argument can be applied for any player and any position you want to select at #14, not just DeCastro.

I agree. As I have pointed out I like Upshaw and Ingram but out of the 3 I think DeCastro is more of a sure bet than they are. I don't say that to diminish my feeling on Upshaw or Ingram. But honestly if you put those 3 guys in front of me and asked which is the most likely to become a top NFL player I would have to say DeCastro

 

[jterrell]

I would agree kicker,punter, deep snappers or guys who are brought in just for special teams in high rounds is stupid.

Getting a full time starter on the interior line is not stupid. I look at the quality of the players in the draft not just the position. You say well some say DeCastro is not that good? Most say he is that good that is why so many have him rated as highly as they do.

There are 22 starting position on the field and you have to place premiums on some positions. Interior OL rate low on that list of 22 positions.

My take is you can not target interior OL in the top 15 picks of the NFL draft. Not unless you have all the other positions adequately filled.

Doesn't mean you couldn't trade down and still take an OG but I wouldn't take one that high.

Generally teams who have taken an OG/OC above pick 20 have lots of high draft picks on their roster. Dallas does not. Dallas needs a a difference maker at pick 14 and on this roster. An OG to me is not going to be a true difference maker.

The newest mocks all seem to have us taking Kirkpatrick. That makes sense at 14 if they believe he can really cover.

 

[jterrell]

Hey, I stated a fact too. Lots of terrible QB's taken #1 overall, therefore, it must be a fact they shouldn't be taken that high. Boom. This is easy, I like facts!

You really need to look up fact in the dictionary again.

It isn't that hard.

Lots of QBs taken 1st overall have been failures. FACT.

Teams shouldn't do it? Not a fact.

Teams have done it and have both succeeded and failed at it. FACT.
Teams have not drafted an OG at pick 14 or higher in over a decade. FACT.

You still lose except now Troy Aikman hates you and wants to to spend a month washing the roid rash off Mandarich's back.

 

[Doomsday101]

There are 22 starting position on the field and you have to place premiums on some positions. Interior OL rate low on that list of 22 positions.

My take is you can not target interior OL in the top 15 picks of the NFL draft. Not unless you have all the other positions adequately filled.

Doesn't mean you couldn't trade down and still take an OG but I wouldn't take one that high.

Generally teams who have taken an OG/OC above pick 20 have lots of high draft picks on their roster. Dallas does not. Dallas needs a a difference maker at pick 14 and on this roster. An OG to me is not going to be a true difference maker.

The newest mocks all seem to have us taking Kirkpatrick. That makes sense at 14 if they believe he can really cover.

I like Kirkpatrick. Again as far as DeCastro I like him as well at 14 and as I just mentioned above I think out of many of the names that will be around at 14 I think DeCastro is more likely to have bigger success at the next level then many of them. As far as a differance maker? I disagree, I think building a OL that can take on the top teams who have killed our front line is a big differance maker. In my view Dallas need damn good talent and DeCastro is my view is damn good talent. To me this is like the stupid comments of RB are a dime a dozen. Sure avg RB are a dime a dozen great player are not.

 

[realtick]

You really need to look up fact in the dictionary again.

It isn't that hard.

Lots of QBs taken 1st overall have been failures. FACT.

Teams shouldn't do it? Not a fact.

Teams have done it and have both succeeded and failed at it. FACT.
Teams have not drafted an OG at pick 14 or higher in over a decade. FACT.

You still lose except now Troy Aikman hates you and wants to to spend a month washing the roid rash off Mandarich's back.

Spewing historical facts isn't a trump card.

How you interpret the information, what you conclude from it and what you prescribe from the data is what is important.

You said "teams have not drafted an OG at pick 14 or higher in over a decade. FACT."

So what? Can you tell us why that has any relevance to the Dallas Cowboys as of Feb 8, 2011, and the current needs of the team?

 

[TheCount]

You still lose except now Troy Aikman hates you and wants to to spend a month washing the roid rash off Mandarich's back.

You've officially jumped the shark, congratulations. I have no idea what you're blabbering about now.

My issue with your statement is that you use facts and clauses to escape rebuttal, and you're still doing it. Just state your opinion and move on, don't pretend what a team did in the past 365 days completely defines what's possible on the 366th day.

 

[realtick]

You've officially jumped the shark, congratulations. I have no idea what you're blabbering about now.

My issue with your statement is that you use facts and clauses to escape rebuttal, and you're still doing it. Just state your opinion and move on, don't pretend what a team did in the past 365 days completely defines what's possible on the 366th day.

 

[Zaxor]

You've officially jumped the shark, congratulations. I have no idea what you're blabbering about now.

My issue with your statement is that you use facts and clauses to escape rebuttal, and you're still doing it. Just state your opinion and move on, don't pretend what a team did in the past 365 days completely defines what's possible on the 366th day.

<a href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-W0IwARQtxGQ/Tww5RVFJUtI/AAAAAAAAABw/jicJYHi2TLY/s1600/jumping-the-shark%255B1%255D.jpg" target="_blank">

are you both doing this on purpose or don't you understand his point is that at the 14th pick in the draft you do not take a guard as it is not one of the premium positions.

QB, T, CB ,DE(OLB), ILB are hard to find and therfor premium picks are used on them as your odds are better of getting a good one. Where as guards can be found all over the draft without having to spend a premium pick on them

 

[Oh_Canada]

Mike Iupati was the 17th pick by SF and has been a big pay off for them as well

Yes...but the Niners are hardly a juggernaut offensively...defense is what got them one fumble away from a Super Bowl date.

 

[realtick]

are you both doing this on purpose or don't you understand his point is that at the 14th pick in the draft you do not take a guard as it is not one of the premium positions.

QB, T, CB ,DE(OLB), ILB are hard to find and therfor premium picks are used on them as your odds are better of getting a good one. Where as guards can be found all over the draft without having to spend a premium pick on them

It's a picture meant to be humerous.

I understand the point that both of you are trying to make.

I don't agree with it. I've responded to him rebutting his argument. He hasn't responded, so I'll ask you. Who says "you do not take a guard as it is not one of the premium positions?"

Also, can you unfurl the scroll of all the great interior offensive linemen we have grabbed late in the draft, in say what, the past 10-15 years?

 

[realtick]

Yes...but the Niners are hardly a juggernaut offensively...defense is what got them one fumble away from a Super Bowl date.

Despite his relatively good year, Alex Smith isn't Aaron Rogers and can you name any of the 49ers receivers outside of Michael Crabtree? Their offense is primarily a power run offense and they are darn good at that. So it's a bit misguided to infer the 49ers' lack of offense on Lupati.

 

[Doomsday101]

are you both doing this on purpose or don't you understand his point is that at the 14th pick in the draft you do not take a guard as it is not one of the premium positions.

QB, T, CB ,DE(OLB), ILB are hard to find and therfor premium picks are used on them as your odds are better of getting a good one. Where as guards can be found all over the draft without having to spend a premium pick on them

as a general rule that has been the case there have also been exception to the rule. To hold this rule up as if it is writen in stone is foolish. Steven Hutchinson was a G taken middle of the 1st rd and has lived up to the expectations. Many scouts are comparing DeCastro to that of Hutchinson.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

are you both doing this on purpose or don't you understand his point is that at the 14th pick in the draft you do not take a guard as it is not one of the premium positions.

QB, T, CB ,DE(OLB), ILB are hard to find and therfor premium picks are used on them as your odds are better of getting a good one. Where as guards can be found all over the draft without having to spend a premium pick on them

It's not that QB, T, CB, DE (OLB), ILB are hard to find, it's just that teams tend to "rush" to get those folks earlier on in the draft rather than later, so their perceived value is higher.

Now that doesn't mean those positions are in actuality more important (other than QB). For decades baseball managers thought that a speedy, base-stealing type of player should be batting lead-off. But statistic folks have shown that on-base-percentage in more important than stolen bases.

The result it that how things are perceived is not necessarily the truth.

And yes guards can be found all over the draft, but if you have a gem like DeCastro or Pouncey or one of the other top-flight interior lineman then taking them before another team does could be considered a solid move.

DeCastro seems to be special for the position. I don't consider Upshaw or Ingram to be special. They're good players, but they haven't had comparisons made to the very best 3-4 OLBer's of the last decade, like DeCastro has been compared to the very best guards.