Draft Musings - March 29

[Super_Kazuya]

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.

That's what people refuse to get... NOBODY spends high first draft picks on QBs to sit on the bench and do nothing. It's a myth. But because a decade ago the Packers used a LOW first round pick and miscalculated when Favre was going to retire, suddenly it's a no-brainer NFL strategy. Except no one ever does it. Why? Because it's a stupid thing to do. Brees, Manning and Brady are all older than Romo. Like Romo, they know that the end is near, but they don't know exactly when it will be. What did their teams do? They all have used day 2 draft picks (Osweiller, Garoppolo, Grayson) to bring in talent to compete for the backup position. They didn't stupidly blow a once in a decade #4 pick on a community college player from North Dakota whose position is already filled. Heck, as many things as this team does wrong, I'm thankful that we are not going to do something THAT stupid. And no other team would either.

 

[LandryFan]

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

Maybe I misunderstood...I thought you were saying you would accept 90% trade chart value in this draft for a given pick. If that were the case, our first rounder is worth 1800, and you would accept 90% of that which would be 1620. That 180 point difference is a mid third rounder. At any rate, if someone came knockin' on my door for a trade, they would have to pay at least chart value, and probably more. On the other hand, if I were the one looking for a trade partner, then I would certainly consider giving up some value in the deal (but not 10%).
All that said, having the fourth pick in this draft would require a lot for me to drop any lower than the 10th pick. Just my opinion, but that's about where the talent seems to drop off a bit. The one scenario that really intrigues me is the Rams at 15. If they were to give me 15, 43, and 45 for my 4, I would have to look very hard at that. The only way I probably wouldn't do that deal is if I have one of the QB's labeled as a franchise guy and he's sitting there for me to take. In that case, there's probably not a feasible deal that I would accept.

 

[Western]

That's what people refuse to get... NOBODY spends high first draft picks on QBs to sit on the bench and do nothing. It's a myth. But because a decade ago the Packers used a LOW first round pick and miscalculated when Favre was going to retire, suddenly it's a no-brainer NFL strategy. Except no one ever does it. Why? Because it's a stupid thing to do. Brees, Manning and Brady are all older than Romo. Like Romo, they know that the end is near, but they don't know exactly when it will be. What did their teams do? They all have used day 2 draft picks (Osweiller, Garoppolo, Grayson) to bring in talent to compete for the backup position. They didn't stupidly blow a once in a decade #4 pick on a community college player from North Dakota whose position is already filled. Heck, as many things as this team does wrong, I'm thankful that we are not going to do something THAT stupid. And no other team would either.

You assume Romo will play every game in 2016.
I do not.
You assume Romo will be injury-free and play at a high level in 2016.
I do not.
You assume Romo will no longer have any physical limitations or aliments which causes errors on the playing field (see the Carolina game on Thanksgiving last year).
I do not.

Brees, Manning, and Brady all have multiple playoff wins and Super Bowl victories.
Romo does not.
Those teams had proven playoff and Super Bowl success with their current QB and thus they could afford to draft 2nd round QB's.

2 playoff victories in 10 years for Romo does not elevate him to the level of those other QB's -- injecting those other QB's into to the debate is irrelevant.

By the way, Eli Manning was drafted no. 1. overall and sat on the bench, while Kurt Warner started for the NY Giants in 2004.
And the 2004 Kurt Warner was a more proven success that the current Tony Romo.
So yes, you can spend a high pick on a QB and have him sit on the bench.

 

[ConceptCoop]

Maybe I misunderstood...I thought you were saying you would accept 90% trade chart value in this draft for a given pick. If that were the case, our first rounder is worth 1800, and you would accept 90% of that which would be 1620. That 180 point difference is a mid third rounder. At any rate, if someone came knockin' on my door for a trade, they would have to pay at least chart value, and probably more. On the other hand, if I were the one looking for a trade partner, then I would certainly consider giving up some value in the deal (but not 10%).
All that said, having the fourth pick in this draft would require a lot for me to drop any lower than the 10th pick. Just my opinion, but that's about where the talent seems to drop off a bit. The one scenario that really intrigues me is the Rams at 15. If they were to give me 15, 43, and 45 for my 4, I would have to look very hard at that. The only way I probably wouldn't do that deal is if I have one of the QB's labeled as a franchise guy and he's sitting there for me to take. In that case, there's probably not a feasible deal that I would accept.

My point was that the 4th pick is less valuable this year than most. Thus, the chart value is likely overstated. I'd take less to move down from the 4 than I would most years. I didn't intend for my 90-95% comment to be taken as gospel, as I haven't looked at the chart for some time. But I'd gladly take 90-95% of what I'd demand for the pick most years.

 

[Stash]

OK, I'll bite. What starting quality QB was available on the waiver wire or UDFA that could have stepped in as a quality starter when Romo went down?

That sounds like a useless journey through speculation land with nothing more than point-counterpoint based on guesses. Quarterbacks like Hoyer and Fitzpatrick were switching teams while guys like Colt McCoy were available as free agents last year too. This team made the choice to stick with Weeden and continue to waste time on a guy like Vaughan.

And its kind of a trick question, in hindsight I think the team would have been better off starting Kellen Moore as soon as Romo went down. But Weeden is a guy that looks terrific in practice, no body predicted that he would turn into a checkdown machine in live action.

And maybe the Checkdown Charlie routine was a byproduct of what lousy coaches were giving him to work with? It's hard to simply point the finger at Weeden when he actually showed he could play for the Texans. And the fact is that it goes far beyond Weeden. It extends to each and every quarterback not named Romo. Brad Johnson didn't win. Kitna didn't win. Orton didn't win. Weeden didn't win. Cassel didn't win. None of them did. There comes a time when you stop pointing the finger at every player and start pointing it at the coaches and decision makers.

 

[LandryFan]

My point was that the 4th pick is less valuable this year than most. Thus, the chart value is likely overstated. I'd take less to move down from the 4 than I would most years. I didn't intend for my 90-95% comment to be taken as gospel, as I haven't looked at the chart for some time. But I'd gladly take 90-95% of what I'd demand for the pick most years.

Ok, I understand what you're saying now. I don't agree, but I follow your logic.

 

[ConceptCoop]

You assume Romo will play every game in 2016.
I do not.
You assume Romo will be injury-free and play at a high level in 2016.
I do not.
You assume Romo will no longer have any physical limitations or aliments which causes errors on the playing field (see the Carolina game on Thanksgiving last year).
I do not.

Brees, Manning, and Brady all have multiple playoff wins and Super Bowl victories.
Romo does not.
Those teams had proven playoff and Super Bowl success with their current QB and thus they could afford to draft 2nd round QB's.

2 playoff victories in 10 years for Romo does not elevate him to the level of those other QB's -- injecting those other QB's into to the debate is irrelevant.

By the way, Eli Manning was drafted no. 1. overall and sat on the bench, while Kurt Warner started for the NY Giants in 2004.
And the 2004 Kurt Warner was a more proven success that the current Tony Romo.
So yes, you can spend a high pick on a QB and have him sit on the bench.

Eli isn't a good comp because the Giants were a bad team and clearly playing for the future. And Wentz/Goff aren't in the same league as Eli as a prospect.

If we've decided that we can't win a championship with Romo - as it appears you have - then we should trade him and start the rebuild today. If we think a championship is a reasonable aspiration over the next 2-3 seasons, then we should wait on a QB and strengthen our chances during that window.

Romo not playing all 16 games next year should not determine what we do with a premium draft pick. Open the wallet and pay a backup, then. It's not like we're winning next year with Goff or Wentz anyway.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

You assume Romo will play every game in 2016.
I do not.
You assume Romo will be injury-free and play at a high level in 2016.
I do not.
You assume Romo will no longer have any physical limitations or aliments which causes errors on the playing field (see the Carolina game on Thanksgiving last year).
I do not.

Brees, Manning, and Brady all have multiple playoff wins and Super Bowl victories.
Romo does not.
Those teams had proven playoff and Super Bowl success with their current QB and thus they could afford to draft 2nd round QB's.

2 playoff victories in 10 years for Romo does not elevate him to the level of those other QB's -- injecting those other QB's into to the debate is irrelevant.

By the way, Eli Manning was drafted no. 1. overall and sat on the bench, while Kurt Warner started for the NY Giants in 2004.
And the 2004 Kurt Warner was a more proven success that the current Tony Romo.
So yes, you can spend a high pick on a QB and have him sit on the bench.

I have no idea what this rambling is about... is this English? What does Romo have to do with anything? The quarterback position is filled for the next 4-5 years, regardless of who it is. If Romo was retiring at the end of this year or even 2017 then that would be different. That declaration was made by Jerry, not me. Take your rambling to him.
Eli was drafted to be the starter, not the backup. Kurt Warner was sat down midway through the first season and Eli has literally started every game since. No team in NFL history has been stupid enough to draft a backup with a #4 pick and we won't be the first.

 

[Hoov]

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.

Probably some feel this way because they can't stomach the thought of another season similar to last - which may happed if romo were to get hurt early. Drafting a QB early gives hope that the team can win without romo ?

 

[Western]

I have no idea what this rambling is about... is this English? What does Romo have to do with anything? The quarterback position is filled for the next 4-5 years, regardless of who it is. If Romo was retiring at the end of this year or even 2017 then that would be different. That declaration was made by Jerry, not me. Take your rambling to him.
Eli was drafted to be the starter, not the backup. Kurt Warner was sat down midway through the first season and Eli has literally started every game since. No team in NFL history has been stupid enough to draft a backup with a #4 pick and we won't be the first.

A quality organization proactively addresses needs on a team via the drafting the best player available at that particular selection.
Goff or Wentz will see playing time in 2016 (like Manning with the Giants in 2004) and either will be the starter in 2017 (like Manning for the 2005 Giants).
Romo is done, but by all means keep drinking Jerry's Kool-Aid.

Is that English enough for you?

 

[ConceptCoop]

Romo is done...

Even if you believe this, the Cowboys clearly don't.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

A quality organization proactively addressing needs on a team via the drafting the best player available at that particular selection.
Goff or Wentz will see playing time in 2016 (like Manning with the Giants in 2004) and either will be the starter in 2017 (like Manning for the 2005 Giants).
Romo is done, but by all means keep drinking Jerry's Kool-Aid.

Is that English enough for you?

Thanks for the psychic reading, Miss Cleo. I'd like to see you bet even a nickel of your own money that Romo won't be starting in 2017, but even you don't believe the dreck that comes out of your own mouth. You're all talk, like most on here.

 

[gimmesix]

Probably some feel this way because they can't stomach the thought of another season similar to last - which may happed if romo were to get hurt early. Drafting a QB early gives hope that the team can win without romo ?

I'm sure it is, but I don't think overreacting to what happened last season is a valid reason to want a QB of the future at all costs.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Romo is done

Wait, when did this happen?

 

[Mr Cowboy]

lol- I don't always reply to you for obvious reasons.

All I stated was who is the idiot if they bust. The answer is the GM, not the self perceived protagonist fan.

it will be the same ones who trade to the 6th spot to draft the next Deion Sanders...... or do you really believe that only first round QBs bust?

 

[LatinMind]

If the Browns pick Wentz and we pass on Goff, the FO are fools, plain and simple. The only way I would pass is if some team gives me a great trade offer. If it is the Rams than I want their 2016 1st, 2017 1st, and both 2016 2nds. Maybe too much but I am greedy and based on previous years trade (Commanders trade for Griffin; Eagles proposed trade for Mariotta) I think it would be fair.

What has Goff done other then beat up on the bottom talent in the Pac12 and MW competition? 11td to 9 int in pac12 this yr. College is full of QBs who throw for a ton of yrds in a spread offense that throws 45-60 times a game.

 

[Kaiser]

That sounds like a useless journey through speculation land with nothing more than point-counterpoint based on guesses.

OK, now I'm confused. What here is NOT speculation with nothing more than point-counterpoint based on guesses? Did I click on the wrong web site?

I kid, I kid...

 

[Stash]

OK, now I'm confused. What here is NOT speculation with nothing more than point-counterpoint based on guesses? Did I click on the wrong web site?

I kid, I kid...

Any talk about quarterbacks who were available last year.

 

[Kaiser]

Any talk about quarterbacks who were available last year.

Actually saying you wanted to pay Fitzpatrick more than 3.25 MM to be a backup and mostly likely carry a clipboard all year is speculation, along with the idea that you could have forced him to sign with Dallas in the first place if he wanted to play for another team.

 

[Stash]

Actually saying you wanted to pay Fitzpatrick more than 3.25 MM to be a backup and mostly likely carry a clipboard all year is speculation, along with the idea that you could have forced him to sign with Dallas in the first place if he wanted to play for another team.

He didn't have a choice. He was traded from the Texans, not a free agent.