Draft Musings - March 29

[Direwolf63]

The team had every intention of making him the starter but he held out (Brees stunk in '03) and reported to camp too late. Even then he was always going to be the starter as evidenced by them saying bye bye to Brees even after he made the Pro Bowl. The Cowboys are already on record saying that Romo is the long term starter, so they would be drafting a backup at 4. Which would be mind-numbingly stupid (Note that this is separate from whether counting on Romo to start 4-5 years is a good move, I am just going on the facts as given).

Anybody who believes Romo will last 4-5 years is, in your words, mind numbingly stupid. He has 2 years left.

The time to get the next QB ready is today. To get the best guy, as all studies show, is at the top of the draft.

 

[LandryFan]

Those post-combine rankings are fairly reasonable, and I don't think either of the 2 will be a bust.
But everyone wants an elite franchise QB who is also durable -- that's where the uncertainty lies.

I really don't think the 'Boys are going there anyway -- Romo will be expected to be kept upright by an even better OL, and there has been no reason to fret about his arm or wheels.

My guess is they'll roll the dice with a mid-round QB, trade down from #4 unless Ramsey is there, and try to land as many system blue-chip guys as possible, relying on their own evaluations.

Very interesting draft, as usual.

I posted something similar to this in another thread in which the topic was similar, but one factor not being given much consideration to by fans is age. Wentz is almost two years older than Goff. If the two are extremely close talent-wise, then potentially two more years of player availability has to be worthy of carrying significant weight in the evaluation process, it would seem. Twenty-one year old Goff vs 23 year old Wentz? Hmmm....

 

[Doc50]

I posted something similar to this in another thread in which the topic was similar, but one factor not being given much consideration to by fans is age. Wentz is almost two years older than Goff. If the two are extremely close talent-wise, then potentially two more years of player availability has to be worthy of carrying significant weight in the evaluation process, it would seem. Twenty-one year old Goff vs 23 year old Wentz? Hmmm....

Right. That's one of the reasons the Tyron Smith pick was a no-brainer -- the dude was dominant and only 20.

 

[gimmesix]

Those post-combine rankings are fairly reasonable, and I don't think either of the 2 will be a bust.
But everyone wants an elite franchise QB who is also durable -- that's where the uncertainty lies.

I really don't think the 'Boys are going there anyway -- Romo will be expected to be kept upright by an even better OL, and there has been no reason to fret about his arm or wheels.

My guess is they'll roll the dice with a mid-round QB, trade down from #4 unless Ramsey is there, and try to land as many system blue-chip guys as possible, relying on their own evaluations.

Very interesting draft, as usual.

That's the thing. I want an elite whatever with the No. 4 pick. I truly don't care what position it is, but when you draft No. 4 you've got to take your best shot at an elite, franchise talent. You can't really afford to miss like we did with Claiborne (sixth pick 2012).

I'd say worst-case, you need to end up with someone like Terence Newman (fifth, 2003) or Russell Maryland (first, 1991) while shooting for someone like Randy White (second, 1975), Tony Dorsett (second, 1977) or Lee Roy Jordan (sixth, 1963).

Obviously, if you believe there is a Troy Aikman at the QB position, you go after that guy if he's available when you pick.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Anybody who believes Romo will last 4-5 years is, in your words, mind numbingly stupid. He has 2 years left.

The time to get the next QB ready is today. To get the best guy, as all studies show, is at the top of the draft.

It's not happening. Time to move on.

 

[gimmesix]

Right. That's one of the reasons the Tyron Smith pick was a no-brainer -- the dude was dominant and only 20.

2011 turned out to be a pretty strong draft at the top, with three QBs (Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder) being the only real misses in the top 12. We really couldn't have gone wrong unless we had taken one of those QBs.

The rest of the top 12 were Cam Newton, Von Miller, Marcell Dareus, A.J. Green, Patrick Peterson, Julio Jones, Aldon Smith, Tyron Smith and J.J. Watt.

I hope the player we get in the top five this year turns out to be of that quality.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

Phillip Rivers backed up Drew Brees his rookie year.

Well that certainly disproves the OPs stance!

 

[gimmesix]

Anybody who believes Romo will last 4-5 years is, in your words, mind numbingly stupid. He has 2 years left.

The time to get the next QB ready is today. To get the best guy, as all studies show, is at the top of the draft.

If he has two years left, then why do we have to get the next QB ready today? The part I have trouble understanding is why this is a "must" move now when it doesn't really become a "must" move until Romo is done.

There's nothing I've seen that indicates that a first-round QB has to spend two years as an understudy to be successful.

I don't have a problem drafting a QB and letting him do that. I just don't understand why we have to do that. It's not something that is really that commonplace as most teams with franchise QBs wait until they're done before replacing them. (Green Bay is an exception, but then it wasn't exactly like they went chasing after Favre's replacement in the draft, with Rodgers falling to them at 24. Rivers is a fair example with San Diego, but considering Drew Brees only started four years with the Chargers, it appears they were not sold on him as their future.)

I think some of the overreaction to the need to draft Romo's replacement now is the result of Jerry botching it so badly when it came time to replace Aikman. Some of it is an overreaction to last year's backup QBs playing so poorly (which, to me, is more of a reason to improve the rest of the team. And some of it is an overreaction to Romo missing most of the season (which has happened to him twice in the 10 years he's been starting, with both times coming in the past six years .... nevermind that he missed only two starts in the four years between those times).

 

[Doc50]

2011 turned out to be a pretty strong draft at the top, with three QBs (Jake Locker, Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder) being the only real misses in the top 12. We really couldn't have gone wrong unless we had taken one of those QBs.

The rest of the top 12 were Cam Newton, Von Miller, Marcell Dareus, A.J. Green, Patrick Peterson, Julio Jones, Aldon Smith, Tyron Smith and J.J. Watt.

I hope the player we get in the top five this year turns out to be of that quality.

One the strongest top 12's ever, in retrospect (which is what really matters), except where? -- QB -- historically the most risk/reward dilemma.

The scouting departments had better be good.

 

[Doc50]

That's the thing. I want an elite whatever with the No. 4 pick. I truly don't care what position it is, but when you draft No. 4 you've got to take your best shot at an elite, franchise talent. You can't really afford to miss like we did with Claiborne (sixth pick 2012).

I'd say worst-case, you need to end up with someone like Terence Newman (fifth, 2003) or Russell Maryland (first, 1991) while shooting for someone like Randy White (second, 1975), Tony Dorsett (second, 1977) or Lee Roy Jordan (sixth, 1963).

Obviously, if you believe there is a Troy Aikman at the QB position, you go after that guy if he's available when you pick.

Are there more than 5 or 6 elite players in this draft? Some say only 3.

Not too strong at the top.

 

[gimmesix]

One the strongest top 12's ever, in retrospect (which is what really matters), except where? -- QB -- historically the most risk/reward dilemma.

The scouting departments had better be good.

I'm with you there. I don't care who the pick is as long as the scouts come through with the best possible player that we can get at No. 4. That player needs to be a stalwart for this team for the foreseeable future.

No pressure, scouts.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I think that what drives the thought process of a QB this year is draft placement. I don't want to be in a position of drafting in the top 5 or even top 20 any time soon. If we are a playoff team and I think we could be over the next few years, the price it might take to move up to get a Franchise QB would be extremely expensive. That's key IMO.

 

[Direwolf63]

If he has two years left, then why do we have to get the next QB ready today? The part I have trouble understanding is why this is a "must" move now when it doesn't really become a "must" move until Romo is done.

There's nothing I've seen that indicates that a first-round QB has to spend two years as an understudy to be successful.

I don't have a problem drafting a QB and letting him do that. I just don't understand why we have to do that. It's not something that is really that commonplace as most teams with franchise QBs wait until their done before replacing them. (Green Bay is an exception, but then it wasn't exactly like they went chasing after his replacement in the draft, with Rodgers falling to them at 24.)

I think some of the overreaction to the need to draft Romo's replacement now is the result of Jerry botching it so badly when it came time to replace Aikman. Some of it is an overreaction to last year's backup QBs playing so poorly (which, to me, is more of a reason to improve the rest of the team. And some of it is an overreaction to Romo missing most of the season (which has happened to him twice in the 10 years he's been starting, with both times coming in the past six years .... nevermind that he missed only two starts in the four years between those times).

It's called long term planning.

Responsible management in any organization plans not just for tomorrow or next week, but for years ahead. 2016 won't be the last year the NFL will be around. If somebody nukes the US after the 2016 season, I guess you can roll the dice with Tony Romo.

But if not, waiting around until Romo is finished, THEN looking for his replacement is shortsighted and irresponsible. Romo's had multiple back surgeries and multiple clavicle fractures and is 36 years old. These facts alone should be enough for any responsible management team to come to the conclusion that it's time to look long term at the position.

Studies have also shown that the place to find successful franchise QB's are at the top of the draft. Anything after the second round are mostly long term backup material. So unless you plan to continually draft in the top 5, now is a unique opportunity to grab the top rated QB. Of course, if you want to continually finish 4-12, then you can wait for future drafts to find your guy.

So why do you get your next QB today? It's called responsible long term planning. Something the Cowboys management has shown none of.

 

[Doc50]

It's called long term planning.

Responsible management in any organization plans not just for tomorrow or next week, but for years ahead. 2016 won't be the last year the NFL will be around. If somebody nukes the US after the 2016 season, I guess you can roll the dice with Tony Romo.

But if not, waiting around until Romo is finished, THEN looking for his replacement is shortsighted and irresponsible. Romo's had multiple back surgeries and multiple clavicle fractures and is 36 years old. These facts alone should be enough for any responsible management team to come to the conclusion that it's time to look long term at the position.

Studies have also shown that the place to find successful franchise QB's are at the top of the draft. Anything after the second round are mostly long term backup material. So unless you plan to continually draft in the top 5, now is a unique opportunity to grab the top rated QB. Of course, if you want to continually finish 4-12, then you can wait for future drafts to find your guy.

So why do you get your next QB today? It's called responsible long term planning. Something the Cowboys management has shown none of.

I'd cut the FO a little slack regarding the OL, and also the evolution of value contracts, as opposed to bidding wars.

 

[gimmesix]

Are there more than 5 or 6 elite players in this draft? Some say only 3.

Not too strong at the top.

I think there are more than 5 to 6 elite players, but the tough part is figuring out who they are.

The 2014 draft had at least seven "elite" players in the first round (based on making the Pro Bowl). However, none of those players, including our Zack Martin, went in the top four and only two in the top 10.

2013 has produced nine first-round Pro Bowlers, including our Travis Frederick, but only one of those players was taken in the top 12.

2012 was better in that regard as three of the top four players have made the Pro Bowl.

Now, I don't hold the Pro Bowl as defining who is elite (RGIII was one of the players who made it, but has then fallen to mediocre), but I think it shows that there are always talented players there for the taking. The team just has to find them.

That's also why I won't be upset if Dallas grabs someone at No. 4 who is not expected by draft pundits to go that high. The team has to trust its scouting department to find it one of those guys.

 

[gimmesix]

It's called long term planning.

Responsible management in any organization plans not just for tomorrow or next week, but for years ahead. 2016 won't be the last year the NFL will be around. If somebody nukes the US after the 2016 season, I guess you can roll the dice with Tony Romo.

But if not, waiting around until Romo is finished, THEN looking for his replacement is shortsighted and irresponsible. Romo's had multiple back surgeries and multiple clavicle fractures and is 36 years old. These facts alone should be enough for any responsible management team to come to the conclusion that it's time to look long term at the position.

Studies have also shown that the place to find successful franchise QB's are at the top of the draft. Anything after the second round are mostly long term backup material. So unless you plan to continually draft in the top 5, now is a unique opportunity to grab the top rated QB. Of course, if you want to continually finish 4-12, then you can wait for future drafts to find your guy.

So why do you get your next QB today? It's called responsible long term planning. Something the Cowboys management has shown none of.

So, responsible long-term planning is practiced by very few teams when it comes to the QB position, yet you want Dallas to be one of those exceptions? If the Cowboys like other teams don't value taking a QB when they already have a franchise QB, then they are not being responsible?

I'm sorry that most teams believe that as long as their franchise QB is still breathing then it's not time to bring in his eventual replacement. I consider that not getting ahead of yourself. I don't believe the NFL to be a game where you spend too much time thinking about the future because you don't know how tomorrow is going to turn out.

 

[Direwolf63]

I'd cut the FO a little slack regarding the OL, and also the evolution of value contracts, as opposed to bidding wars.

But what about the most important position in all of professional sports? They won the Powerball Lottery with the UDFA Romo. What other success have they had at that position since Troy Aikman retired? As Stash said, it's been an enormous dumpster fire.

It's nice that they have put together a nice o-line. Or don't overpay free agents. Peachy.

But what about the QB position. Dak Prescott? Christian Hackenberg? Please.

Cowboys fans deserve the best. You can only find the best QB's at the top of the draft. Studies have shown this. And if Jerry evaluators tell him there is a QB who can potentially carry the torch for 12-15 years, it would be irresponsible for Jerry to not take him.

 

[Doc50]

I think there are more than 5 to 6 elite players, but the tough part is figuring out who they are.

The 2014 draft had at least seven "elite" players in the first round (based on making the Pro Bowl). However, none of those players, including our Zack Martin, went in the top four and only two in the top 10.

2013 has produced nine first-round Pro Bowlers, including our Travis Frederick, but only one of those players was taken in the top 12.

2012 was better in that regard as three of the top four players have made the Pro Bowl.

Now, I don't hold the Pro Bowl as defining who is elite (RGIII was one of the players who made it, but has then fallen to mediocre), but I think it shows that there are always talented players there for the taking. The team just has to find them.

That's also why I won't be upset if Dallas grabs someone at No. 4 who is not expected by draft pundits to go that high. The team has to trust its scouting department to find it one of those guys.

Well that's where Dallas has always thought they could get cute, and take a basketballer or 2, dating all the way back to Schram & Landry.
Heck, Staubach was an iffy pick, since he was likely to be over the hill by the the time he finished his Navy commitment.

With the scouting services so advanced and widespread these days, and all the multimedia sources of film and info, it's less common that anyone goes unnoticed or incompletely evaluated. It comes down to keen judgement skills and system knowledge.

 

[Doc50]

But what about the most important position in all of professional sports? They won the Powerball Lottery with the UDFA Romo. What other success have they had at that position since Troy Aikman retired? As Stash said, it's been an enormous dumpster fire.

It's nice that they have put together a nice o-line. Or don't overpay free agents. Peachy.

But what about the QB position. Dak Prescott? Christian Hackenberg? Please.

Cowboys fans deserve the best. You can only find the best QB's at the top of the draft. Studies have shown this. And if Jerry evaluators tell him there is a QB who can potentially carry the torch for 12-15 years, it would be irresponsible for Jerry to not take him.

I'm with you, Rx.

But others (including JJ) think that a guy who's a bit raw can be had for less, create less angst with the top pick on such a crapshoot position, learn under Romo, and blossom into the franchise guy in 3 years. Might work, might not.

We own no stock in the Cowboy organization, and we shouldn't think less of ourselves if they lose.

I can watch anyone gamble and be amused at the game, regardless of the outcome. I have never damaged a TV, but I used to be a bear on post-loss Mondays; life is too short.

 

[ConceptCoop]

Why? Ten percent of our 1st round pick is 180 points which is equal to a mid third round pick. This is the type of draft, by most accounts, where the real value lies in the second third, and fourth rounds. That said, it also depends on if you're trying to sell your pick or if your pick is being sought by others. Each scenario has a drastically different influences on the value that can be obtained.

It depends on how the points come. I'm not suggesting I'd trade the 4 for the 5, obviously.