If Free remains at guard, the Cowboys may be finished at OLine for a while

[TheRomoSexual]

Well said.

It really wasn't. It was a one-line, unoriginal cliche unsupported by statistics or substance. So, I guess right up your alley.

 

[jobberone]

I want an emphasis on where it matters most. The line of scrimmage.

When the team starts prioritizing that over 20 yards away from the line of scrimmage, they'll get better.

I'd be totally against picking totally for need just as I'm against picking the BPA every pick. You have to pick the right player at the right time which ain't easy. Fred wasn't the BPA when picked but he was the BPA for the OL esp the interior that Dallas needed and I was more than good with the pick. In fact that was a great pick esp if Fred is a starter. I was good with the second pick which I could argue either way as a need and BPA pick. I would go into a draft with a strategy but it would be flexible.

 

[Risen Star]

I'd be totally against picking totally for need just as I'm against picking the BPA every pick. You have to pick the right player at the right time which ain't easy. Fred wasn't the BPA when picked but he was the BPA for the OL esp the interior that Dallas needed and I was more than good with the pick. In fact that was a great pick esp if Fred is a starter. I was good with the second pick which I could argue either way as a need and BPA pick. I would go into a draft with a strategy but it would be flexible.

I wouldn't have any interest in that when it comes to the draft. To me, there is one way to do it and that's to take the best value. Need wouldn't even enter my mind unless the players are graded the same.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I wouldn't have any interest in that when it comes to the draft. To me, there is one way to do it and that's to take the best value. Need wouldn't even enter my mind unless the players are graded the same.

yea, that doesn't really work in real life. almost like communism, great on paper, but doesn't really work

 

[Toruk_Makto]

i am with you man
i would venture to suggest that many of the same posters applauding our solid CBs back then are the ones applauding our solid OL now

Oh be serious. Almost anything OL related on these boards is negative (with good reason given our history).

There was some optimism after the HoF game but since then it's been doom and gloom.

Way to create a strawman you can argue against.

 

[Kevinicus]

Good, now there are no excuses for Romo winning a SB and throwing bad INT's.

Yeah, he needs to learn to throw the good interceptions like everyone else.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

yea, that doesn't really work in real life. almost like communism, great on paper, but doesn't really work

Yeah, except for the fact that it does work.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Yeah, except for the fact that it does work.

not the way Risen seems to be advocating. Taking a LB with our first pick, would've been a complete waste, taking a CB that was the BPA would've been a complete waste. unless you trump up the value of the positions you need, it wouldn't work. No one always drafts the top player on their board at every pick. If so, there would be some team that gets every pick in, within 10 or so seconds.

 

[jobberone]

I wouldn't have any interest in that when it comes to the draft. To me, there is one way to do it and that's to take the best value. Need wouldn't even enter my mind unless the players are graded the same.

Hypothetical. You just signed Romo to a new contract as in like now. No matter how you look at it he's guaranteed 55 mil over 4 years. You have a great backup you can keep for another 3 years. You're very happy at QB. When it's your turn to pick the BPA is a QB and he's definitely better than the next guy. The next tier has a LT you love and a DL you're also like and both positions are real needs. You're telling me you take the QB no matter what?

 

[Plankton]

Hypothetical. You just signed Romo to a new contract as in like now. No matter how you look at it he's guaranteed 55 mil over 4 years. You have a great backup you can keep for another 3 years. You're very happy at QB. When it's your turn to pick the BPA is a QB and he's definitely better than the next guy. The next tier has a LT you love and a DL you're also like and both positions are real needs. You're telling me you take the QB no matter what?

Chances are, some other team likes the QB as well, and you can trade out.

 

[jobberone]

Chances are, some other team likes the QB as well, and you can trade out.

That's not part of this here hypothetical. And you can't count on that happening.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Chances are, some other team likes the QB as well, and you can trade out.

and if you can't trade out, then what?

 

[Texas_Pete]

I'm no OL guru, but Free at RG and Parnell at RT could work.

As LT/RT, Free had to deal with elite pass rushers all the time (and def at practice everyday). There are no interior linemen that are of D Ware's caliber as a pass rusher. And I think he'd be able to hold his own against a blitzing LB or DB too. So, in passing situations, I don't expect to see someone coming up the gut and immediately be in Romo's face like we've seen for years. In running situations, TFred can easily help him double team a load like Vince Woolfork to allow DMurray some running room.

For Parnell, he already has the size and athleticism to play the position. His problem had been staying on the field. Now that he is back, it may take a minute for him to knock the rust off due to his inactivity. If Dallas' base offense includes two TE sets like I've been reading about, I could easily see that extra TE helping him with a player like Osi or Peppers. Like Free before him, practicing against a HOFer should also help.

Not saying we are definitely set, but I don't think our OL will be chop liver as long as we stay healthy (fingers crossed).

 

[Plankton]

and if you can't trade out, then what?

Pull a Minnesota, and let the clock run out.

Truthfully, I would take the best player, and let the rest sort itself out. If the board had it as a QB, then so be it. It could end up being an asset that benefits you in the long run, either as a player in your uniform or as a trade chip.

It's like when the Cowboys selected Steve Walsh after drafting Troy Aikman. On one hand, it cost them a shot at Cortez Kennedy or Junior Seau. On the other hand, it allowed them to draft Erik Williams and Russell Maryland. While both Kennedy and Seau are HOF players, and would have been stars in Dallas, adding both Williams and Maryland were critical pieces toward the dynasty.

It's similar to how the Frederick trade would be evaluated long term. How much are the contributions of Frederick and Terrence Williams compared to Sharrif Floyd?

 

[Plankton]

That's not part of this here hypothetical. And you can't count on that happening.

Sure I can. It's a hypothetical.

 

[jobberone]

Sure I can. It's a hypothetical.

Get your own hypothetical. This one is mine!

 

[Risen Star]

Hypothetical. You just signed Romo to a new contract as in like now. No matter how you look at it he's guaranteed 55 mil over 4 years. You have a great backup you can keep for another 3 years. You're very happy at QB. When it's your turn to pick the BPA is a QB and he's definitely better than the next guy. The next tier has a LT you love and a DL you're also like and both positions are real needs. You're telling me you take the QB no matter what?

In that extreme and rare scenario, there will be trade offers out there for the QB if this is an early round pick we're talking about.

If we're talking later in the draft and maybe there isn't a trade, take the QB. There's a reason you pay your scouts and stack your board.

 

[Risen Star]

Chances are, some other team likes the QB as well, and you can trade out.

Exactly right.

There simply is never an excuse for need dictating your draft picks. Fill your needs in free agency.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

In that extreme and rare scenario, there will be trade offers out there for the QB if this is an early round pick we're talking about.

If we're talking later in the draft and maybe there isn't a trade, take the QB. There's a reason you pay your scouts and stack your board.

Or more realistically, let's say a CB is the #1 player on our board next draft and a G is #2, you take the CB? Because based on some of your player rankings from the last draft, it seems you let needs and preferences effect how you stack your board which is the same as drafting based off need.

 

[Risen Star]

Or more realistically, let's say a CB is the #1 player on our board next draft and a G is #2, you take the CB? Because based on some of your player rankings from the last draft, it seems you let needs and preferences effect how you stack your board which is the same as drafting based off need.

I'd have no problem taking a cornerback if your scouts are saying he's the best player on the board. If there's a drop off from the CB to the G. I'd look to trade out, but I'd take him if I couldn't.