Escobar pick really only makes sense if

[Next Years Champ]

I keep going back to last year's pick of Escobar and scratching my head and wondering why they would take him when there were a couple of highly rated guards on the board (including Warford) when we were on the clock and selected Escobar. We could have avoided paying Water's salary last year by taking a guy like Warford.

In my mind about the only way that the Escobar pick makes sense is if Jason Witten's days (and cap hit) are numbered and we were looking for his replacement.

Bingo..

For once..

..maybe the team actually was planning to replace Witten..

..but I can't see that this year.

 

[Future]

Tell me again how it's stupid to draft two quality interior linemen with your first two picks.

tell me how its good to go C G with your first two

 

[Derinyar]

If you want to argue about defensive line depth and what we drafted the argument isn't we didn't have enough depth, the argument is that we ignored our board entirely and passed up someone that had an very high grade on the board. After a scope one would assume Spencer should have been healthy. After almost a year off for a hernia one should assume that Ratliff should be healthy. Crawford and Bass are what amounts to depth in this NFL, and they both got hurt early in camp. So find any team that has the depth to soak up 2 starters and the top two backups at a position group go down all at once. It's like saying that we should have enough depth on the offensive line to have Smith, Leary, Parnell and Weems all go down at once. The salary cap NFL team can't have that happen, unless they are phenomenally lucky, and survive it. The fact that the coaching staff found guys like Hayden and Selvie should be enough to prove at least a bit that they know what a DL for their scheme looked like. Supposedly they didn't want Floyd, I'll give the benefit of a doubt.

Same thing with Warford. I had heard a good number of draft shows talk about him very well. I would have liked us to draft him. Our offensive coaches didn't like what they figured he would bring inside our current scheme, at least for where most in this thread were wanting him drafted. After seeing what they did with the line this year and the center they drafted, wouldn't you say they should get some benefit of a doubt also?

What it comes down to for me is this, the team has actually drafted pretty well the last three years. I think they tend to go best player available when they come up. That tends to annoy a good portion of the fan base and a lot of the national analysts because they grade a draft based on their board/need charts. IIRC we drafted Dez when we didn't really need a stud WR because we thought he was the best talent on the board. We drafted Smith pretty quick after giving Free a big deal coming off of a good year, probably not a dire need for a RT at where we were picking. When you go into the draft with the mindset of I must get a DE that's where you wind up drafting guys like Eb Ekuban. The only position where I think you might let need trump pure talent a little bit is at QB. But people wanting to draft a QB and set them for 2-3 years right now have forgotten about how the new CBA works. You have to have a very good answer about your 1st round QB by the end of season three, because you have to make a guaranteed option decision then.

 

[RS12]

If by legit you mean:

*A 31-year old DE who hasn't looked right in two years.
*A 32-year old DT who hadn't played in two years.
*A 31-year old DT on the final year of his contract who's been a career backup.
*A 29-year old DE who was injured, on the last year of his contract, and recorded his first 10+ sack season.

then I agree, they looked legit.

Hello

 

[Hoofbite]

Wow.

Just wow.

I was going to say the 49ers but then I remembered they spent 2 first rounders in 2010, not a first and a second.

 

[jterrell]

Wrong, again try reading comprehension. The poster said that Dline wasn't a priority because we were loaded upfront. The reality of that was false. Going into the draft most experts mentioned the new scheme, lack of depth and age/contracts. All were true. Just because a D coach and the team skipped it doesn't mean it wasn't reality. It also bore out when injuries hit and we had no one to help.

The question was basic. Did we have enough Dline compared to taking TE,. The answer is easy. No. All you're doing is showing why we are in this constant predicament....they don't do the right thing. The fact that they though Dline was a plus, despite the obvious, shows why we are always 8-8. Under your theory..."if the Cowboys says it, its good enough for me." Wake up.

I'm not sure why there are people who call themselves fans and yet argue until they're blue in the face about things that were obviously wrong. If you think 4 guys around and over 30 with injuries, contract issues, etc aren't a concern then you are blindly listening to Jerry and nodding your head. Depth was an obvious issue and the articles and analysis I posted already stated as such in detail. This isn't random opinion, this is/was well known fact.

Again, from nfl.com right after draft, cite a few pages back

The question was basic and you failed to answer it correctly all the same.
One possible Cowboys 2 Deep at DL entering 2013:
Spencer, Crawford
Hatcher, Bass
Ratliff, Hayden
Ware, Wilber

That is AS GOOD AS ANYONE OUTSIDE SEATTLE.

Yes, the team had foreseeable issues with some older vets... Ware tailing off, Ratliff going MIA... fair.
But Spencer missing 15 games? Bass the year? Crawford the year?

If Dallas drafts Manziel at 16, brings Orton back and of course plans to start Romo thye'd have the most resources in the NFL invested at QB yet... they are still only 3 injuries away from a street QB.
At DL they had HALF the 2 deep go down with injuries. No team in football can properly prepare for that.
Again Dallas liked it's depth just fine.
They like Bass and like Crawford.
It wasn't even a given Hatcher would start.
And Ware was dominating Tyron Smith in practice and hardly looking done.

The argument is absolutely asinine.
It is saying we should draft guys early who may not be able to make the team because they can make the team if we suffer injuries.

 

[jterrell]

Who was the third quality guard on the roster once Waters went down? Waters' cap hit is too high and is a luxury that we cannot afford given our cap situation. I do agree that notwithstanding the foregoing that our line was adequate in the second half of the season.

Bern, who rated a top 20 OG was the 3rd OG.
Leary was a 1st year starter who was spotty but certainly earned the right to start next year.

Do you seriously want to suggest we should have used a 2nd round pick on a 4th OG?

 

[jterrell]

A smart team that wanted to fix the oline.

So the OL didn't get fixed?

What all positional groups do you rate ahead of OL for the Dallas Cowboys?

 

[Tawney88]

I keep going back to last year's pick of Escobar and scratching my head and wondering why they would take him when there were a couple of highly rated guards on the board (including Warford) when we were on the clock and selected Escobar. We could have avoided paying Water's salary last year by taking a guy like Warford.

In my mind about the only way that the Escobar pick makes sense is if Jason Witten's days (and cap hit) are numbered and we were looking for his replacement.

You are trying to make sense of decisions made be a man who has no idea what he is doing. Jerry is a moron. Move on that's why we wasted a pick on Escobar, and Bennett and Fasano before that. The man has no idea how to build a team.

 

[theSHOW]

They didn't believe that Warford was a good fit in their Zone Blocking Scheme. They hired to coaches to implement that scheme, Callahan and Frank Pollack. The ZBS is one of the reasons that Doug Free was better this year. It allowed him to function in a way that he can't function as a power blocker.

You wouldn't draft a 3-4 NT if you're a 4-3 team and you wouldn't change from 4-3 to a 3-4 just because 1 player is available in the draft that fits the other scheme.

I knew there was some reason and I appreciate your news about his strengths vs the current scheme. I believe you may have commented about the type of blocker before this also. But to me when it is 3rd and 1 you need a power guard to run behind. And don't get me wrong CZ, I am hopeful for an Escobar Sighting this next season on every series.

 

[xwalker]

I knew there was some reason and I appreciate your news about his strengths vs the current scheme. I believe you may have commented about the type of blocker before this also. But to me when it is 3rd and 1 you need a power guard to run behind. And don't get me wrong CZ, I am hopeful for an Escobar Sighting this next season on every series.

There are Guards in the upcoming draft that are very powerful and could function in the ZBS. Cyril Richardson played LT and Guard in college. You can't play LT without really good athleticism. At 6-5, 340 he is very powerful. If David Yankey enters the draft, he also played OT and Guard and is very powerful. There are the types that you want because they can play in either a ZBS or man-blocking scheme. You can run behind them in short yardage situations.

 

[Risen Star]

I was going to say the 49ers but then I remembered they spent 2 first rounders in 2010, not a first and a second.

We already know Frederick and Warford are legit top young players in the NFL at their position.

It would have been "stupid" for the Cowboys to draft them both with their top two picks.

 

[wick]

I don't see Witten slipping at all. What's there to lose for him, physically? He's got to be one of the slower tight ends in the league already. I would guess he can remain at his current level of production into his mid-30s.

 

[TheCount]

tell me how its good to go C G with your first two

As opposed to Center, Backup TE?

There's nothing wrong with spending a 1st and 2nd on a guard. What would it have changed? Would we have gone 7-9? 6-10?

 

[Risen Star]

You acquire talent in the draft. You don't look back in 5 years and ask why you didn't draft the perennial pro bowl G Larry Warford. Why wasn't he on our board? Oh yeah, we wanted to run a zone scheme at the time.

Does anybody believe Tyron Smith, Ronald Leary and Travis Frederick wouldn't excel in a man scheme? I don't either. Add Larry Warford and you have yourself one of the best young lines in the game. All it would have cost was the loss of Lurch.

We tried being clever and ended up with a vastly inferior player at a much less critical position on the field.

 

[Risen Star]

As opposed to Center, Backup TE?

There's nothing wrong with spending a 1st and 2nd on a guard. What would it have changed? Would we have gone 7-9? 6-10?

Not worth responding. When I see a fan who undervalues the line play, I just Deniro smile, say "okay" and hope he goes away.

 

[TheCount]

Not worth responding. When I see a fan who undervalues the line play, I just Deniro smile, say "okay" and hope he goes away.

It's amazing the amount of people that think you can play with garbage in the trenches and win games with WR's and Cornerbacks.

 

[visionary]

If by legit you mean:

*A 31-year old DE who hasn't looked right in two years.
*A 32-year old DT who hadn't played in two years.
*A 31-year old DT on the final year of his contract who's been a career backup.
*A 29-year old DE who was injured, on the last year of his contract, and recorded his first 10+ sack season.

then I agree, they looked legit.

You are talking to Jerry's biggest fan so don't expect logic to have any effect

 

[Hoofbite]

As opposed to Center, Backup TE?

There's nothing wrong with spending a 1st and 2nd on a guard. What would it have changed? Would we have gone 7-9? 6-10?

You spend money where and draft picks where you need to. You'd be an idiot not to address the weakest parts of your team because of some perceived irrationality in taking 2 OL at the top of the draft.

 

[TheCount]

You spend money where and draft picks where you need to. You'd be an idiot not to address the weakest parts of your team because of some perceived irrationality in taking 2 OL at the top of the draft.

Why would that be irrational exactly?

I fail to see how saying, "We have a good opportunity to address the OL by adding two pieces." is irrational but "I refuse to draft 2 OL in a row" is somehow rational.