CZ POLL Do you want the Cowboys to draft offense or defense with first pick?

[Reality]

Do you want the Cowboys to draft offense or defense with first pick?

 

[Stash]

Defense, but with a qualifier. That defensive player needs to be ranked close to or above an offensive player.

 

[shabazz]

Defense if it’s there at value, but if not trade down

 

[fredp22]

BPA- regardless of side

 

[morasp]

There aren't that many CBs ready to start this year. Even Surtain would probably take some time to adjust.

 

[DoctorChicken]

BPA

I’d be fine with Surtain, Horn, Pitts, Waddle, Sewell... a lot of good players will be there.

I’d prefer a trade down and Moehrig/Holland, though.

 

[Silver N Blue]

D Fence

 

[Bullflop]

I'd like nothing better than to see Sewell fall to us -- it'd be just a matter of time 'til he's needed, if history is any clue!

 

[Rockport]

The Cowboys need DEFENSE, DEFENSE and more DEFENSE.

 

[JustChip]

Prefer defense, but if Pitts is there, you have to strongly consider taking him. This defense will be better if the offense can sustain drives & score TDs instead of FGs. And passing on him gives NY an Philly the opportunity to take him. The defense will be helped not having to face him twice a year. The best scenario would be a trade down IF you caveat that the trading partner must take Pitts.

 

[CowboyRoy]

There aren't that many CBs ready to start this year. Even Surtain would probably take some time to adjust.

That is nothing but total bs.

 

[Ring Leader]

If we go Offense it will be Sewell, Pitts or Slater. I'd take the first 2 over any defender in the draft. Even Slater wouldn't totally bum me out if we have him rated higher than Surtain and company. Then go Defense the rest of the way unless it's Pitts at #10, then we would still need an OT no later than the 4th round.

 

[Zekeats]

Shoulda done 10 players instead of offense defense.
Pitts
Sewell
Slater
Horn
Surtain
Barmore
Parsons
Collins
Farley
JOK

 

[fivetwos]

Defense, but with a qualifier. That defensive player needs to be ranked close to or above an offensive player.

When you take a close look, and even account for a surprise or two, that's next to impossible to be the case.

I would put it at at least 80% that BPA is an offensive player.

They really need to get out of 10 to fix that, but the two OT are two of the best players in the whole draft.

Do we run away from that?

Every year there seems to be a DT in the 10-15 range, but of course not this one.

Any of the edge guys would be a complete reach vs what's virtually guaranteed to be there on offense.

It can pretty much be defined as not catching a break.

We are destined to be ridiculously unbalanced (it's already that way) as far as allocation of assets and cap dollars.

 

[Stash]

When you take a close look, and even account for a surprise or two, that's next to impossible to be the case.

I would put it at at least 80% that BPA is an offensive player.

They really need to get out of 10 to fix that, but the two OT are two of the best players in the whole draft.

Do we run away from that?

Every year there seems to be a DT in the 10-15 range, but of course not this one.

Any of the edge guys would be a complete reach vs what's virtually guaranteed to be there on offense.

It can pretty much be defined as not catching a break.

We are destined to be ridiculously unbalanced (it's already that way) as far as allocation of assets and cap dollars.

That may very well be the case, but I wouldn’t want to force a trade down either. If a franchise left tackle is the best value? Take him. And be glad that you have an option/replacement for the oft-injured Tyron Smith. The position is getting paid a ton and guys are traded for nice draft hauls. Certainly valued.

 

[CWR]

Surtain or Pitts. If we have our choice I'd be happy either way.

 

[morasp]

That is nothing but total bs.

It'll be Surtain or Horn and either one would be an upgrade over last year and a step in the right direction on defense.

 

[JW82]

Defense, but with a qualifier. That defensive player needs to be ranked close to or above an offensive player.

thats the issue. Thats the only reason I chose Offense. I’ll take a star Tackle or TE over a solid Defender. And it appears to be how they line up at 10. But I am OK trading down and picking up extra picks and taking a defender.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I don't want defense for just the 1st pick. The first 3 picks or 3 of the first 4 picks need to be on defense.

 

[fivetwos]

That may very well be the case, but I wouldn’t want to force a trade down either. If a franchise left tackle is the best value? Take him. And be glad that you have an option/replacement for the oft-injured Tyron Smith. The position is getting paid a ton and guys are traded for nice draft hauls. Certainly valued.

I hear ya and tend to agree.

Things always look very different even a year or two down the line, and you can't be hurting at LT when you passed on one in the draft not so long beforehand.

Thing is, teams don't generally draft for need...or at least they shouldn't....but we tend to look at the draft as the main way to improve.

So...our main source of acquiring talent ideally does not account for need.

Something seems wrong there.

Maybe it's just about catching breaks, which doesn't appear to be our strong point either.