I know we need to draft offensive linemen, but ....

[Verdict]

I know we need to draft offensive linemen early and often. Hopefully our OL needs will match up well with the best player available. But what if it doesn't?

This situation seems remarkably similar to our quest to fill the 4-3 defensive end void that we just kept trying to fill years ago. We seemed to bump players up our draft board based on need and we ended up with mediocre players as a result. So I don't think we should force the pick.

Conversely, when we went outside the box and have drafted players based on the best player available strategy (when it wasn't our most glaring need) we have ended up with players like Dez Bryant, Shaun Lee, Bruce Carter and DeMarco Murry, who are the core of this team.

There is no magic formula to follow but if the top OL guys are gone I hope they stick to their draft board and draft the best football player that is available to them for the most part.

It is also notable that when we have traded up to get a player like Bryant or Lee (and arguably Claiborne) we have ended up with a quality player as a result.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

I 100% concur.

 

[neosapien23]

I agree and will go a step further. No more trying to get cute and be smarter than everyone else. Just take known football players. Taking small school projects like Ansah, Ball,Williams the linebacker, Wilber, and Arkin look like it has burned the boys. No telling yet if Matt Johnson is an overreach yet. Just take known football players that can contrinute now. Jerry gets in trouble when he tries to outsmart everyone. Picking projects like these guys should be in the 5th through 7th rounds. Don't take projects with early picks (1-4).

 

[Sasquatch]

Whatever way we ultimately go, we should end up with a decent player at 18 thsi year, whether it fills an immediate need or a future one.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I 100% concur.

But you also 100% concurred with doing whatever it took to sign Romo, at all costs, is that not correct?

How then can you not be in favor of drafting heavy at OL early?

 

[xwalker]

I know we need to draft offensive linemen early and often. Hopefully our OL needs will match up well with the best player available. But what if it doesn't?

This situation seems remarkably similar to our quest to fill the 4-3 defensive end void that we just kept trying to fill years ago. We seemed to bump players up our draft board based on need and we ended up with mediocre players as a result. So I don't think we should force the pick.

Conversely, when we went outside the box and have drafted players based on the best player available strategy (when it wasn't our most glaring need) we have ended up with players like Dez Bryant, Shaun Lee, Bruce Carter and DeMarco Murry, who are the core of this team.

There is no magic formula to follow but if the top OL guys are gone I hope they stick to their draft board and draft the best football player that is available to them for the most part.

It is also notable that when we have traded up to get a player like Bryant or Lee (and arguably Claiborne) we have ended up with a quality player as a result.

Yes, BPA is good; however, looking at this draft specifically, it is highly likely that an OL is within a few picks of being the BPA at just about any draft spot. In other words, you could pick an OL at any pick and it is doubtful to be a reach.

You can't just blame drafting for need on picks like Shante Carver. That was just a terrible player evaluation. If you can't evaluate players properly, then any draft strategy is going to fail.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

But you also 100% concurred with doing whatever it took to sign Romo, at all costs, is that not correct?

How then can you not be in favor of drafting heavy at OL early?

I don't really understand what you mean. Great value in the OLine can be found in round two...heck, I looked, and every tackle taken in the second round last year ended up starting for their respective teams. And I'm certainly not opposed to taking OLine in the first -- Cooper and Warmack are both very high on my board. But if Star is sitting there at 18, I'd take him over Cooper or Warmack. And if both are off the board, I'd take BPA over reaching for someone like Fluker.

 

[DFWJC]

I think the current philosophy is to have what they call a clean draft--or one that does not force positions into picks.

 

[DFWJC]

Yes, BPA is good; however, looking at this draft specifically, it is highly likely that an OL is within a few picks of being the BPA at just about any draft spot. In other words, you could pick an OL at any pick and it is doubtful to be a reach.

You can't just blame drafting for need on picks like Shante Carver. That was just a terrible player evaluation. If you can't evaluate players properly, then any draft strategy is going to fail.

This. Seems logical, but probably needs to be mentioned every so often anyway

 

[visionary]

Yes, BPA is good; however, looking at this draft specifically, it is highly likely that an OL is within a few picks of being the BPA at just about any draft spot. In other words, you could pick an OL at any pick and it is doubtful to be a reach.

You can't just blame drafting for need on picks like Shante Carver. That was just a terrible player evaluation. If you can't evaluate players properly, then any draft strategy is going to fail.

been saying this but this smple concept seems to be betond the comprehension of several posters

this year in the draft there will be real value at positions of need where we pick

lets do our homework and not go for the shiny toy

 

[TheRomoSexual]

been saying this but this smple concept seems to be betond the comprehension of several posters

this year in the draft there will be real value at positions of need where we pick

lets do our homework and not go for the shiny toy

What you are saying (i.e. that we should completely write off certain positions) is not what he is saying (i.e. we will likely find good value at any point for olinemen). Again, read what is written, and stop using the "shiny toy" line. It's stupid.

 

[visionary]

What you are saying (i.e. that we should completely write off certain positions) is not what he is saying (i.e. we will likely find good value at any point for olinemen). Again, read what is written, and stop using the "shiny toy" line. It's stupid.

english not your first language or is comprehension the issue?

i will try to speak more slowly....... next....... time...... 'kay

BTW, your post was "lacking in substance" per usual

 

[TheRomoSexual]

english not your first language or is comprehension the issue?

i will try to speak more slowly....... next....... time...... 'kay

BTW, your post was "lacking in substance" per usual

Ha, couldn't think of an actual response eh? It's fine, happens all the time.

 

[TheCount]

I agree but will add that the bust rate for 1st round guards is extraordinarily low. I'm not going into the draft with my mind set on one particular position or player, but I certainly have preferences.

 

[Picksix]

Yes, BPA is good; however, looking at this draft specifically, it is highly likely that an OL is within a few picks of being the BPA at just about any draft spot. In other words, you could pick an OL at any pick and it is doubtful to be a reach.

You can't just blame drafting for need on picks like Shante Carver. That was just a terrible player evaluation. If you can't evaluate players properly, then any draft strategy is going to fail.

I don't think he's limiting it to Shante Carver. There was also Kavika Pittman and Ebenezer Ekuban. Even Greg Ellis could be thrown in there. He was a very good, solid player for many years, but was he worth the 8th pick in the draft, and could we have gotten someone just as productive (and not nearly as high maintenance) a round or two later?

What he's saying is what a lot of us say, you included, in that we shouldn't get caught up in thinking we need to draft a specific position in the first round, unless that's the best player to draft. Note I didn't say BPA, but the player that fits the best at that spot. And I believe you're correct in asserting that there will be quality, valuable OL throughout the draft.

 

[Idgit]

It's almost always the case that your team can use 6-7 good players at any position. You take the best value at your pick and don't worry about it. Positional needs are best addressed elsewhere.

DL, for example. We found a quality 1 tech in the 7th round supplemental draft in Josh Brent. Might we have gotten a better player overall at that position in the first round that year? Probably. We took Dez in the first that year (2010) despite having Austin and Roy Williams as starters already, and it turned out the dropoff between Brent and that first round DT (the next two off the board were Dan Williams to AZ and Jared Odrick to MIA, for point of comparison) wasn't all that significant.

In terms of value, you're going to be better off taking the guy without regard to his position.

I'm not sure how we all might evaluate the linemen we have now if they were coming out in this draft with their current skill sets. Personally, I think our RT candidates would probably be rated as 3-4th round prospects. To me, the incremental improvement you get by taking a guy at that position in the first or second round ought to be pretty significant. Especially considering there are better starting-quality players still available on the street. Once we get down past the third round level, I don't see all that much point in trying to specifically add players to that position group if we're not going to outright improve it immediately. At that point, you're better off taking guys at other positions you think are most likely to blossom into quality starters for you down the road.

As with any team, overall, consistency of the roster matters more than star players do. Once you have a roster full of consistent NFL starters, you look at where you can add uniquely skilled players to make things tough on the other guys. And then your skill guys have to go out there and execute. We've got the skill guys. We've got a focus on execution. We don't have a consistently good roster yet because we're thin on real NFL quality starters at a handful of positions. Of the three, though, that's the easiest problem to address.

 

[Verdict]

Yes, BPA is good; however, looking at this draft specifically, it is highly likely that an OL is within a few picks of being the BPA at just about any draft spot. In other words, you could pick an OL at any pick and it is doubtful to be a reach.

You can't just blame drafting for need on picks like Shante Carver. That was just a terrible player evaluation. If you can't evaluate players properly, then any draft strategy is going to fail.

I agree with what you are saying to some degree. But here is the other side of the coin. If the Big 3 offensive tackles are all gone by our pick, and Cooper is gone, then, in reality there is not an offensive lineman that fits our scheme that is worthy of the #18 pick.

In actuality, there is a good chance that all of the defensive linemen who are worthy of the #18 pick will also be gone by that time. Then what?

Taking an offensive lineman at #18 who is not worthy of our pick, or does not fit in our scheme (unless we plan on changing our scheme back to a power scheme) is a really bad idea.

Moreover if we draft a defensive lineman with our first round selection, who will they beat out to start? The answer is likely no one.

 

[Tobal]

The thing about this draft is there should be good value on the oline everywhere you pick. There are alot of oline guys and they are all over the place.

Safety is the same way, everyone is all over the world on the safeties. The only thing people agree on is that there atrer alot of good safeties.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't really understand what you mean. Great value in the OLine can be found in round two...heck, I looked, and every tackle taken in the second round last year ended up starting for their respective teams. And I'm certainly not opposed to taking OLine in the first -- Cooper and Warmack are both very high on my board. But if Star is sitting there at 18, I'd take him over Cooper or Warmack. And if both are off the board, I'd take BPA over reaching for someone like Fluker.

This is not accurate. The problem here is that we are not talking about Value. We are talking about the best players. In the 1st rd., the quality of OL is going to be better then the quality in the 2nd and so on. Now, you can say that there is value at the position in every round and that's true but it's not what is being discussed.

I don't agree with the attitude that we should not do all we can to protect Romo and try to win in the next few years. I didn't agree with signing Romo to a long, expensive contract but it's done now. Now, we have to do all we can to try and make it work and that means improving the OL. I can't see how anybody who was in favor of signing Romo to that deal could see it otherwise.

 

[AsthmaField]

This is not accurate. The problem here is that we are not talking about Value. We are talking about the best players. In the 1st rd., the quality of OL is going to be better then the quality in the 2nd and so on. Now, you can say that there is value at the position in every round and that's true but it's not what is being discussed.

I don't agree with the attitude that we should not do all we can to protect Romo and try to win in the next few years. I didn't agree with signing Romo to a long, expensive contract but it's done now. Now, we have to do all we can to try and make it work and that means improving the OL. I can't see how anybody who was in favor of signing Romo to that deal could see it otherwise.

Well, I view it this way:

Romo was our best QB option going forward... by far. So it made sense to sign him and keep him here the rest of his career.

BPA in the draft is separate from that in my mind. In a scenario where Star Lotulelei falls to pick 18 and both Warmack and Cooper are gone as well as all 3 of the big OT's... it should be a no brainer to take Star Lotulelei with our pick and not reach for someone like DJ Fluker over Star.

Your contention that Fluker is probably better than any OT in round 2 and back is completely correct... however, Dallas would be fools for passing on an exceptional talent at DT to take an average (IMO) talent at OT simply because they signed Romo to a contract. You would be getting Romo the best OL that way... but you are passing on much better talent simply because it isn't at a position that you have targeted.

It would be crazy. You take the rare talent (BPA) and move on. Particularly since DT is also an area of need. We are far from set along the interior DL.