I've decided! I want to keep our picks, to get Garrett his future players!

[silverbear]

Chances are that Sweed will be even less productive than Roy Williams.

Inasmuch as Roy has been pretty productive in the NFL, this is not quite the insult I think you intended it to be...

55 games played, 245 receptions... that's over 70 catches for each 16 games played, for over 1050 yards and an average of a little over 8 TDs...

I'll take a receiver who gives me 70 catches for 1050 yards and 8 TDs a season, and not ask for more... if the Boys took Sweed, and he offered anywhere near that kind of production, I'd consider it a pick well spent...

 

[silverbear]

Heck at this rate hes going to find himself drafted in the third. i dont know what it iabout UT players but so many of them just dont seem to play inspired football.

He'll be fine as long as he puts up good numbers at the combine...

As to your generic observations about "UT players", I'll simply refer you to the following link, which follows how all the Horns in the NFL are faring... if you follow the link, and read what you find there, I think you'll see that their rep for not making good pros is severely overblown...

http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball....annel_id=&url_article_id=770&change_well_id=2

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

So let's just move on with the Roy Williams and Chad Johnson trade talk and focus on arguing the credentials of WRs in this draft that can add youth and a timing element to the offense.

Discuss!

**

No, my brother. You get WRs from FA.
But yer post is food for thought.

 

[TheCount]

He'll be fine as long as he puts up good numbers at the combine...

As to your generic observations about "UT players", I'll simply refer you to the following link, which follows how all the Horns in the NFL are faring... if you follow the link, and read what you find there, I think you'll see that their rep for not making good pros is severely overblown...

http://www.mackbrown-texasfootball....annel_id=&url_article_id=770&change_well_id=2

Overblown? Try dramatically ridiculous.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Yeah, I like Kelly a little better than I like Sweed... if both were still on the board, I believe I'd go with Malcolm, but it would be a close call, because I believe that Limas Sweed will be better in the NFL than he was in college...

So, based on Sweed's, ahem, um, casual approach to practice and work, you think the NFL structure would make him better?
Well, I would hope his motivational skills will be better in the NFL.
Just not with the Cowboys.

 

[TheCount]

So, based on Sweed's, ahem, um, casual approach to practice and work, you think the NFL structure would make him better?
Well, I would hope his motivational skills will be better in the NFL.
Just not with the Cowboys.

Maybe he should get that popular wrist replacement surgery. Casual approach? Where are you getting that one from? He only played 6 games this year before he injured his wrist and got surgery.

If he was lazy and uncompetitive, he would have entered the draft last year instead of deciding to come back and risk the injury in the first place.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Chances are that Sweed will be even less productive than Roy Williams. Thats the problem with taking a wr in the first. Its a crap shoot and you really dont even know if they can contribute in year one and this team needs a #2 this year.

Despite the overblown cliche about a WR being a crap shoot, for the most part you are right about Sweed being less productive.

However, the comparison bothers me.
RW is a bona-fide premier WR in the NFL. Sweed will be learning on the job and his background has being unmotivated, going all the way back to high school, won't help.
I think it is laughable RW is compared to Sweed.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't know why people keep saying this.

Using 1st round picks on ANY position, is pretty dicey. The only difference is that a good unit can mask the inadequacies of most other individual players (at least for a while), which still doesn't mean you got a good player at all.

There have been plenty of WR's taken in the first that went on to success, and plenty that were busts. Just like any other position.

How many 1st round QB busts are there, but no one ever says it's dicey to take a QB in the first round.

As long as a team is making an informed decision, that's the best you can hope for. Take the players you think will work best on your team, that's it. You don't wait till the 3rd to take a LB if you could have gotten a well regarded guy in the 1st just because you fear what COULD happen.

It's not like we've got a top 5 pick and will be paying a boat load.

Becauseits true. ive done the leg work and compared the OT, CB and WR drafted and their relative bust rates and WR bust about half the time while the other tow only a third. ESPN did a similar article later that came to the same conclusion but with all positions.

Offensive skill positions in general are very risky picks. unfortuantely two of our top needs are RB and WR. We cannot just ignore them any longer but we should be very selective and look for guys that drop to us.

I know thats goes without saying but reaching for WR and RB is about the worst sin you can do on draft day.

 

[TheCount]

Becauseits true. ive done the leg work and compared the OT, CB and WR drafted and their relative bust rates and WR bust about half the time while the other tow only a third. ESPN did a similar article later that came to the same conclusion but with all positions.

Offensive skill positions in general are very risky picks. unfortuantely two of our top needs are RB and WR. We cannot just ignore them any longer but we should be very selective and look for guys that drop to us.

I know thats goes without saying but reaching for WR and RB is about the worst sin you can do on draft day.

Well I'd be interested in seeing how ESPN (and you) qualify a guard bust vs a wr bust, I think it's near impossible.

 

[silverbear]

So, based on Sweed's, ahem, um, casual approach to practice and work, you think the NFL structure would make him better?

He has no such reputation... to the contrary, I can produce a scouting report or two that raves about his work ethic...

For example, NFL Draft Countdown says he's a "Hard worker with top intangibles"....

Beyond that, he went to the Senior Bowl even though he'd just had his cast removed a week before, even though his doctors told him the wrist was just at 30 per cent... that does not sound like somebody who takes a casual approach to his craft...

 

[Primetime0201]

I know you put alot of thought into this so I am not going to bash you for it. The fact of the matter is we are built to win NOW not three years from now. We need instant playmakers on both offence and defence. I think a big play WR and a big play CB would do. We have many of options as far as both these positions go.
CB
1. Trufant
2. Samuel
3. Pacman
WR
1. Randy Moss
2. Chad Johnson
3. Roy Williams
4. Lary Fitzgerald
5. Jevon Walker

We know that both Packman and Roy Williams have expressed intrest in the Cowboys and would both like to return to Texas. I would much rather have Chad and Asante but we can't always get what we want right? If we manage to sign 2 of these 8 players we can use the draft more so for need then want. I think we could move up by trading players that are more so for depth then anything else. Anthony Fasno is a great example. Parcells seemed to be head over heels for this guy when he was here and a trade for him wouldn't cost us much on the cap. We could also throw in a few other "Parcells" guys along with one of our draft picks to move up and grab a top ten player. We could also grab Justin King late in the 2nd round. He is a very good corner prolly one of the best in the draft and a great return man as well. There is no need for us to chance our future on WR's and CB's in the first round. I would bet money if we even take a CB or WR in the draft it isn't till the 2nd day.

 

[TheCount]

I know you put alot of thought into this so I am not going to bash you for it. The fact of the matter is we are built to win NOW not three years from now.

I beg to differ. This team is built to be good for a long time to come. We're old at WR and under manned at CB, but so were the Colts.

They draft Reggie Wayne to complement Harrison, a RB to take over for an aging Edge, drop dead weight in Jason David and take some young guys in the draft that are starting now, and they are right back in business.

The list you put up reads like a free agency list in Madden.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well I'd be interested in seeing how ESPN (and you) qualify a guard bust vs a wr bust, I think it's near impossible.

A probowl at that position earned you an automatic nonbust.

ESPNs criteria was 50 catches average over at least 5 years. Mine was 750 yards over 5 years. The idea was to make it easy.

I did OT and a lot of that was based on my personal knowledge of the players. Once i got into the eighties and beyond my knowledge wained as it started becomng before my time completely.

ESPN did probowls and knowledge as well but it was actually pretty easy for WR to get nonbust status.

Heres the link its a good read worth checking out.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=kluck/receivers/070425

 

[Primetime0201]

I beg to differ. This team is built to be good for a long time to come. We're old at WR and under manned at CB, but so were the Colts.

They draft Reggie Wayne to complement Harrison, a RB to take over for an aging Edge, drop dead weight in Jason David and take some young guys in the draft that are starting now, and they are right back in business.

The list you put up reads like a free agency list in Madden.

Owens is one of if not our oldest player and he is pretty much our entire offence. With out him Crayton is garbage and more players in the box would stop marion on first contact. This high octaine O is only as good as Owens plays that year. So I ask you this when he is gone where do we go from there? And if our team has another year or two like we did this year with 13 pro bowlers how many players will we be able to afford?
I am not just talking age but cap space as well. We need to win now or risk losing a lot of our players.

 

[TheCount]

A probowl at that position earned you an automatic nonbust.

ESPNs criteria was 50 catches average over at least 5 years. Mine was 750 yards over 5 years. The idea was to make it easy.

I did OT and a lot of that was based on my personal knowledge of the players. Once i got into the eighties and beyond my knowledge wained as it started becomng before my time completely.

ESPN did probowls and knowledge as well but it was actually pretty easy for WR to get nonbust status.

Heres the link its a good read worth checking out.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=kluck/receivers/070425

Definitely an interesting read, but it confirmed my suspicions. When it came to skill players, bust or non bust is almost directly correlated with their individual stats.

When it came to non-skill players, the requirements were that the player was in the league simply for a certain length of time. They also mention a Pro Bowl as legitimating the player, but they have many many players with no pro bowls that they qualify as non-busts.

I just don't think it's possible to qualify skill busts vs non-skill busts.

Owens is one of if not our oldest player and he is pretty much our entire offence. With out him Crayton is garbage and more players in the box would stop marion on first contact. This high octaine O is only as good as Owens plays that year. So I ask you this when he is gone where do we go from there? And if our team has another year or two like we did this year with 13 pro bowlers how many players will we be able to afford?
I am not just talking age but cap space as well. We need to win now or risk losing a lot of our players.

The point is to not make him our entire offense, not to get another guy to make our entire offense when he's gone. Again, look at the Colts, they have learned not to rely simply on Harrison for their offense, their response wasn't to bring in another overpaid free agent opposite him because they worried he was getting old.

 

[Disturbed]

I know most of you have probably seen this information, but I thought it was interesting and worth consideration when discussing the upcoming draft.

1st Round Statistics (1989 - 2003)

% % Pro # Players
Busts Bowl Selected
QB 53% 33% 30
RB 49% 36% 41
WR 45% 31% 51
O-Line 31% 26% 70
DE 31% 33% 55
DT 33% 40% 42
LB 16% 39% 48
CB 29% 23% 52
S 11% 53% 19




Teams with the Most Busts
Bears -- 8
Lions -- 8
Eagles -- 8
49ers -- 7
Broncos -- 7
Cardinals -- 6
Patriots -- 6
Rams -- 6
Commanders -- 6

 

[Primetime0201]

Dude we need play makers in CB and WR. I can see us building a future running back so when Barber turns out to be nothing more then a good change of pace back we have something to fall back on but WR and CB we need to go out and playmakers if we are going to compete against Giants, Eagles and Commanders. Giants have the talent to make the playoffs 2 years in a row and to beat an undefeated team in the superbowl the eagles are always a dangerous team and if they go out and pick up players like Samuel and Walker we could be in trouble and all we need is for Washing to pick up Chad. If we keep planning for the future every year when do we actualy get a championship?

 

[TheCount]

I know most of you have probably seen this information, but I thought it was interesting and worth consideration when discussing the upcoming draft.

1st Round Statistics (1989 - 2003)

% % Pro # Players
Busts Bowl Selected
QB 53% 33% 30
RB 49% 36% 41
WR 45% 31% 51
O-Line 31% 26% 70
DE 31% 33% 55
DT 33% 40% 42
LB 16% 39% 48
CB 29% 23% 52
S 11% 53% 19




Teams with the Most Busts
Bears -- 8
Lions -- 8
Eagles -- 8
49ers -- 7
Broncos -- 7
Cardinals -- 6
Patriots -- 6
Rams -- 6
Commanders -- 6

Further ammunition for my argument, notice that the skill positions (where you can easily look at a guys stats and see him in plenty of one on one match-ups, have the highest percentage of supposed busts.

Players in positions where they play as a unit (LB, O-Line, even secondary) are rated as having a lower percentage, (in my opinion) because it's an arbitrary comparison.

 

[Muhast]

Dude we need play makers in CB and WR. I can see us building a future running back so when Barber turns out to be nothing more then a good change of pace back we have something to fall back on but WR and CB we need to go out and playmakers if we are going to compete against Giants, Eagles and Commanders. Giants have the talent to make the playoffs 2 years in a row and to beat an undefeated team in the superbowl the eagles are always a dangerous team and if they go out and pick up players like Samuel and Walker we could be in trouble and all we need is for Washing to pick up Chad. If we keep planning for the future every year when do we actualy get a championship?

Somebody inform him of a thing called the salary cap. He posts madden esqe signings every post.


Washington has 0 hope of getting C.J they are 24+ over the cap as it is. Thats a lot of cuts,and restructuring just to get UNDER the cap, much less take on Chad's contract.

 

[Primetime0201]

Actualy we are 20.27M under and can afford a big time WR and CB. If we go after someone like Pacman we could afford to upgrade our #2 WR and #3. We have enough money to make these moves and we could always backend some contracts. Pacman can be had fairly cheap and we have more then enough to pick up a play maker at wide out. So tell me again whats so madden about it? You realy think that Washinton won't find a way to pick up a Chad Johnson type player? They will do what they have to. The eagles and Giants are both in good positions to make some big moves in the off season. If we want a championship we have to do it and stop talking about it. I am sick of hearing this player will be good in a year or this one will be great in three years. We need impact players NOW not a year or three years from now.