First round pick still about limiting downside...

[NorthwestDallas40]

Crystal.

Here's your own quote. Where you poked holes in the others and settled on Elliott:

Your first round pick -- whether 4 or 24 -- should be about limiting downside, not necessarily swinging for the fences and missing (see Zack Martin vs. Johnny Manziel). Any good GM will agree. You lose your job when you miss on #1s. I like both Ramsey and Bosa, and would be fine with either, but they have downside that Zeke does not have. If Ramsey cannot play CB at the NFL level, a S at #4 just is not worth it. And if Bosa has some maturity and drug issues, we know how that goes (also, an interesting piece of trivia: both his dad and his uncle were drafted in the first round, and were out of the league after 3 years). So, I will not be upset if it's Zeke, who by all accounts has no holes, and you transform the offense in the same way Gurley transformed the Rams.

First "fixated" now "settled." All I've said dude is that Elliott has least bust potential of the three. But feel free to write something else so you can have the last word and "win" this ridiculous and irrelevant argument you've started with me.

 

[Stash]

First "fixated" now "settled." All I've said dude is that Elliott has least bust potential of the three. But feel free to write something else so you can have the last word and "win" this ridiculous and irrelevant argument you've started with me.

So you started a thread and simply expected everyone to fall over agreeing with whatever you said? If that was your expectation, that's on you. If you express an opinion, be prepared that others might not agree with it.

Nobody's "starting an argument" with you. I'm having a conversation and debate with you. You're not the 'victim' of anything. I simply disagree with the 'Zeke!' train movement and choose to express that. I point out the negatives of that move that some, like you, apparently can't handle and would rather cover your eyes and ears to, because it mucks up the dream.

The fact is that every player has both positives and negatives, based on all of the factors involved.

 

[dstew60105]

Your first round pick -- whether 4 or 24 -- should be about limiting downside, not necessarily swinging for the fences and missing (see Zack Martin vs. Johnny Manziel). Any good GM will agree. You lose your job when you miss on #1s. I like both Ramsey and Bosa, and would be fine with either, but they have downside that Zeke does not have. If Ramsey cannot play CB at the NFL level, a S at #4 just is not worth it. And if Bosa has some maturity and drug issues, we know how that goes (also, an interesting piece of trivia: both his dad and his uncle were drafted in the first round, and were out of the league after 3 years). So, I will not be upset if it's Zeke, who by all accounts has no holes, and you transform the offense in the same way Gurley transformed the Rams.

Eric Berry is a key to KC's defense and he went 5th overall.

 

[AmishCowboy]

I just feel at his age (20) and position he plays, Bosa will have the longest career and might be out safest pick

 

[casmith07]

Zeke isn't free of party or maturity issues either. I don't get why this is so quickly whitewashed for him but not other draft considerations.

lol @ use of the term "white wash" in this instance. 10/10.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

So you started a thread and simply expected everyone to fall over agreeing with whatever you said? If that was your expectation, that's on you. If you express an opinion, be prepared that others might not agree with it.

Nobody's "starting an argument" with you. I'm having a conversation and debate with you. You're not the 'victim' of anything. I simply disagree with the 'Zeke!' train movement and choose to express that. I point out the negatives of that move that some, like you, apparently can't handle and would rather cover your eyes and ears to, because it mucks up the dream.

The fact is that every player has both positives and negatives, based on all of the factors involved.

Difference between expressing a contrary opinion and attacking the poster which you continue to do... Learn how to express an opinion rather than telling someone they are blind and can't see yours

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

It's funny where people are saying we can't take OL because it will be too much money invested in the OL. Ultimately it doesn't matter where you spend the money, it's going to be spent someway, somehow. If you spend a lot in the OL, then you spend less in other areas. New England has gone cheap on WR's for years, hardly ever paying even average money at that spot. They have been bargain bin shoppers at RB as well, just signing so-so vets or taking them in the mid to later rounds.

The benefit of having an OL full of studs is that you should be able to spend less at QB, RB, TE and WR. If they can dominate people with the run and protect the QB, you don't need all stars around them. Our teams for the last significant portion of time has paid the skill players and tried to get by cheap on the OL. It hasn't been very effective. I like the chances of going the other way. Legitimately how long does Romo have? With his injury history and style of play, you can't really count on him for more than a year or two. So when the bill hits on the OL, we will likely be dealing with a low QB salary.

The other thing is, Tunsil likely will be the best player available when it is our pick, and LT is a premium position. Dallas needs to sell the idea that they are going to take Tunsil, because if they don't they aren't building any trade value. If teams have no reason to think Dallas will take Tunsil, then our trade value dips and teams will just look at making a deal with the team behind us.

 

[dueyhemlock]

Legitimately how long does Romo have? With his injury history and style of play, you can't really count on him for more than a year or two. So when the bill hits on the OL, we will likely be dealing with a low QB salary.

Tony's our most valued asset. Adding another premium building block helps protect that and hopefully helps extend his playing career.

The other thing is, Tunsil likely will be the best player available when it is our pick, and LT is a premium position. Dallas needs to sell the idea that they are going to take Tunsil, because if they don't they aren't building any trade value. If teams have no reason to think Dallas will take Tunsil, then our trade value dips and teams will just look at making a deal with the team behind us.

Agreed, the treat has to be out there. Other teams have to be fearful of losing out on their targeted player. If not, then **** them. We'll build the Great Wall of China / Dallas and impose our will.

 

[Stash]

Difference between expressing a contrary opinion and attacking the poster which you continue to do... Learn how to express an opinion rather than telling someone they are blind and can't see yours

I haven't "attacked" you anywhere here. If you consider expressing a contrary opinion "attacking", a message board isn't the place for you. You should hang with people who will only agree with your ideas and point of view and stay off the internet.

Learn how to handle differences of opinion and realize that not everybody is going to agree with your ideas. If you can't, you shouldn't start threads expressing them.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

I haven't "attacked" you anywhere here. If you consider expressing a contrary opinion "attacking", a message board isn't the place for you. You should hang with people who will only agree with your ideas and point of view and stay off the internet.

Learn how to handle differences of opinion and realize that not everybody is going to agree with your ideas. If you can't, you shouldn't start threads expressing them.

Dude read your first post where you said I had "blinders" on. That is directed at poster, not the poster's opinion. But OK, you win, Beavis. Have the last word...

 

[Stash]

Dude read your first post where you said I had "blinders" on. That is directed at poster, not the poster's opinion. But OK, you win, Beavis. Have the last word...

Lighten up bud. Don't take a difference of opinion so personally. I'm trying to disagree with you and show you the downside of drafting Ezekiel Elliott. I'm sorry the facts of the decision upset you.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

Lighten up bud. Don't take a difference of opinion so personally. I'm trying to disagree with you and show you the downside of drafting Ezekiel Elliott. I'm sorry the facts of the decision upset you.

Not taking it personally, just trying to help you get "likes" on more than 33% of your posts...

 

[Stash]

Not taking it personally, just trying to help you get "likes" on more than 33% of your posts...

Thanks, appreciate it!

 

[gimmesix]

Your first round pick -- whether 4 or 24 -- should be about limiting downside, not necessarily swinging for the fences and missing (see Zack Martin vs. Johnny Manziel). Any good GM will agree. You lose your job when you miss on #1s. I like both Ramsey and Bosa, and would be fine with either, but they have downside that Zeke does not have. If Ramsey cannot play CB at the NFL level, a S at #4 just is not worth it. And if Bosa has some maturity and drug issues, we know how that goes (also, an interesting piece of trivia: both his dad and his uncle were drafted in the first round, and were out of the league after 3 years). So, I will not be upset if it's Zeke, who by all accounts has no holes, and you transform the offense in the same way Gurley transformed the Rams.

As long as there is no drug issue, I really don't see any downside with Bosa.

After worst, you end up with a solid starting DE IMO.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

As long as there is no drug issue, I really don't see any downside with Bosa.

After worst, you end up with a solid starting DE IMO.

I like Bosa and if there are no drug issues, I'd be fine with him. But looking at him, and hearing how he speaks, I have my concerns about him and drugs. But that's just my hunch. He could just be a big dumb football player. Which is fine.

 

[gimmesix]

I like Bosa and if there are no drug issues, I'd be fine with him. But looking at him, and hearing how he speaks, I have my concerns about him and drugs. But that's just my hunch. He could just be a big dumb football player. Which is fine.

Honestly, I think the drug thing has been oversold on this forum. I mean, I've read several profiles and drug concerns do not get mentioned like with other players.

It seems to me that drug problems have been exaggerated as a reason not to take him. There's no real evidence of a problem, which is why draft analysts don't mention it.

 

[gimmesix]

I like Bosa and if there are no drug issues, I'd be fine with him. But looking at him, and hearing how he speaks, I have my concerns about him and drugs. But that's just my hunch. He could just be a big dumb football player. Which is fine.

I mean, the best that anyone has on drug issues seem to be rumors.

Former Ohio State standouts Joey Bosa and Ezekiel Elliott are two of the most intriguing names in the 2016 NFL Draft class and both have what it takes to be NFL stars, but there still appear to be some concerns. Per Charlie Campbell of WalterFootball, multiple teams are concerned that both Bosa and Elliott are hard partiers and may experiment with hard drugs.

To be fair, neither Bosa nor Elliott tested positive for ecstasy or molly to the public’s knowledge. However, Bosa was suspended for the first game of the 2016 season for what he claimed was refusal to take a drug test. His reason was that he would have tested positive for adderall, which he takes for ADD, but Ohio State never clarified why Bosa was suspended.

Thus, since Bosa admitted that he liked attending raves, teams are of the belief that he didn’t take the drug test because he knew it would come back hot. But Bosa also said that after being roommates with Elliott for a while, he had to get his own place because of Elliott partying at their shared apartment regularly.

Other Ohio State players confirmed this, thus the concern was born.

No positive tests for drugs. No reason given for his suspension, etc. Just the fact that he said he liked to attend raves.

Maybe he would have been better off not saying that if that's all they have to go on.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

I mean, the best that anyone has on drug issues seem to be rumors.



No positive tests for drugs. No reason given for his suspension, etc. Just the fact that he said he liked to attend raves.

Maybe he would have been better off not saying that if that's all they have to go on.

I believe that Bosa refused a drug test to start the year, which counted as a positive test. So they suspended him. He said he refused the test because he would test positive for adderall for his ADHD. But people were skeptical. So slightly more than a rumor, but I take your point.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

Honestly, I think the drug thing has been oversold on this forum. I mean, I've read several profiles and drug concerns do not get mentioned like with other players.

It seems to me that drug problems have been exaggerated as a reason not to take him. There's no real evidence of a problem, which is why draft analysts don't mention it.

I agree there is not evidence of a problem, but we've been cursed with DE's and drugs

 

[gimmesix]

I agree there is not evidence of a problem, but we've been cursed with DE's and drugs

I agree with that, and if Dallas chooses to take Bosa, I hope they've investigated it thoroughly. (Of course, I want them to do that with any player they are considering, especially at 4.)