Kap to Denver would help us in draft

[NorthwestDallas40]

Would like to see Kaepernick to Denver get done before the draft. That would increase the value of our #4 pick, I think. Because San Fran would be even more motivated to draft a QB (rather than go into the season wth just Blaine Gabbert). Knowing this, the Eagles or Rams would be willing to pony up more to jump San Fran if they want Goff (or even Lynch). And knowing this, San Fran might need to jump up. Could be a mini bidding war. If Ramsey is not there for us (and we dont go QB), I could see a trade down with one of these three teams.

 

[cds99]

Would like to see Kaepernick to Denver get done before the draft. That would increase the value of our #4 pick, I think. Because San Fran would be even more motivated to draft a QB (rather than go into the season wth just Blaine Gabbert). Knowing this, the Eagles or Rams would be willing to pony up more to jump San Fran if they want Goff (or even Lynch). And knowing this, San Fran might need to jump up. Could be a mini bidding war. If Ramsey is not there for us (and we dont go QB), I could see a trade down with one of these three teams.

In all aspects you are correct, however I am on the qb to dallas draft wagon. So them fighting over one of the top qb's does not help Dallas in any way I see. Not too often we draft in the top 5, better make a good strong pick in keeping the future in mind. A qb is cricial I think. Especially when you know we need a backup at least, not counting a top qb to learn and be the future of this franchise.

 

[WillieBeamen]

Would like to see Kaepernick to Denver get done before the draft. That would increase the value of our #4 pick, I think. Because San Fran would be even more motivated to draft a QB (rather than go into the season wth just Blaine Gabbert). Knowing this, the Eagles or Rams would be willing to pony up more to jump San Fran if they want Goff (or even Lynch). And knowing this, San Fran might need to jump up. Could be a mini bidding war. If Ramsey is not there for us (and we dont go QB), I could see a trade down with one of these three teams.

Wouldnt these scenarios increase the value of San Diego's pick so teams can jump in front of another qb needy team (us) and grab Goff before we do?

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

In all aspects you are correct, however I am on the qb to dallas draft wagon. So them fighting over one of the top qb's does not help Dallas in any way I see. Not too often we draft in the top 5, better make a good strong pick in keeping the future in mind. A qb is cricial I think. Especially when you know we need a backup at least, not counting a top qb to learn and be the future of this franchise.

I agree with you. I want a QB too. We are a good team, not a great team, even with Romo a full year. I prefer to set up the future rather than take a last desperate stab at the super bowl.

That being said, if the FO disagrees, it is good that there might be a hot market to trade down if Ramsey is gone and we don't want Bosa or Jack at 4.

 

[NorthwestDallas40]

Wouldnt these scenarios increase the value of San Diego's pick so teams can jump in front of another qb needy team (us) and grab Goff before we do?

True. If they think we want Goff. Not sure we do.

 

[Sarge]

Wouldnt these scenarios increase the value of San Diego's pick so teams can jump in front of another qb needy team (us) and grab Goff before we do?

Yes

 

[DBOY3141]

what would it take Philly to jump to 3 or 4, since they have no 2nd this year?

 

[Frosty]

Wouldnt these scenarios increase the value of San Diego's pick so teams can jump in front of another qb needy team (us) and grab Goff before we do?

If San Diego traded out of the #3 pick, It would also give the Cowboys their choice of Ramsey, Bosa, Buckner, or Jack....not a bad position to be in unless you want a QB.

 

[DFWJC]

Wouldnt these scenarios increase the value of San Diego's pick so teams can jump in front of another qb needy team (us) and grab Goff before we do?

I don't think people look at Dallas as needy as QB needy like LA, Philly, SF, etc.
They have a real need, yes, but it's somewhere between one of those teams and a team like Az or NO (who also have older franchise-quality QBs that have had some injuries)

If Dallas takes a QB at 4--and I'm fine with that--it would be the first time I can recall a team that has a franchise level QB who is expected to play a couple of more years still (not the 4-5 Jerry say, but a couple).

 

[visionary]

I don't think people look at Dallas as needy as QB needy like LA, Philly, SF, etc.
They have a real need, yes, but it's somewhere between one of those teams and a team like Az or NO (who also have older franchise-quality QBs that have had some injuries)

If Dallas takes a QB at 4--and I'm fine with that--it would be the first time I can recall a team that has a franchise level QB who is expected to play a couple of more years still (not the 4-5 Jerry say, but a couple).

I don't agree
Most GMs around the league know that one more hit and Romo could be done and he is 36 and injured the last 3 seasons

Any reasonably competent GM would take one of the top QBs so they do expect us to take one

The only wild card is the sheer stupidity of this front office

Chances are SF will try to jump us to get their QB

 

[DFWJC]

It doesn't keep Dallas from getting a QB this year, but I suspect Romo starts in the 24- 28 range of regular season games over the next two years. It may very well be more than either Palmer, Brees, or even Roethlisberger.
It wasn't an ACL, or a re-occurrence of back stuff, it was a collarbone. Outside of the two collarbone injuries he's never missed more than one game in a season

But again, they can still take a QB.
I just wouldn't trade up to 1.

And btw, there is a very real chance that neither Goff or Wentz ends up being a real franchise QB--as top 6-7 in the league long term. But there's always risk.

 

[visionary]

It doesn't keep Dallas from getting a QB this year, but I suspect Romo starts in the 24- 28 range of regular season games over the next two years. It may very well be more than either Palmer, Brees, or even Roethlisberger.
It wasn't an ACL, or a re-occurrence of back stuff, it was a collarbone. Outside of the two collarbone injuries he's never missed more than one game in a season

But again, they can still take a QB.
I just wouldn't trade up to 1.

And btw, there is a very real chance that neither Goff or Wentz ends up being a real franchise QB--as top 6-7 in the league long term. But there's always risk.

Listen, I know you like Romo
I like romo too

If you can guarantee romo plays 90% of the games in the next 2 seasons at a high level then I'm ok with passing on a QB in Rd 1

The reality is that there is a better chance (in my reading of the facts) that Romo will miss 50% of the next 2 seasons than there is that he plays 90% or more

Therefore there is no way I'm not taking a QB with my first pick if I'm the GM

Regarding the "there is a chance" issue, there is also a "real chance" that Romo injures his back or shoulder in game 1 and is out the rest of the year. There can be a real chance of anything

 

[big dog cowboy]

The only wild card is the sheer stupidity of this front office

Whatever.

 

[Beast_from_East]

The problem I keep coming back to is how we handled this free agency with regards to QB.

Look, if the plan is for Romo to play 5 more seasons and not draft a QB in the top 5, then the front office totally botched this thing. There should have been a serious attempt to find a quality backup QB for Romo if the plan is to draft a developmental guy in rounds 2-4 or so and go with an immediate playmaker at pick 4.

It makes absolutely no sense at all to enter the season with Kellen Moore and a developmental QB as the only other QBs behind Romo. Makes absolutely no dam sense at all and yes, I would say sheer stupidity considering how last year ended. We went 1-11 using 3 vet backups and everybody from Jerry to Steven to Garrett all said QB was the number one issue this offseason. So the answer to that is to sign absolutely nobody in free agency and have a revelation that Kellen freaking Moore is the answer if Romo goes down?

So the depth chart will be Romo, Moore, mid-round rookie QB?...................that would be monumentally stupid considering how last year went.

The only logical conclusion considering our free agent inactivity would be..........................Romo, 1st round QB, Kellen Moore

 

[tyke1doe]

I don't think people look at Dallas as needy as QB needy like LA, Philly, SF, etc.
They have a real need, yes, but it's somewhere between one of those teams and a team like Az or NO (who also have older franchise-quality QBs that have had some injuries)

If Dallas takes a QB at 4--and I'm fine with that--it would be the first time I can recall a team that has a franchise level QB who is expected to play a couple of more years still (not the 4-5 Jerry say, but a couple).

The Packers and 49ers say, "Did you forget about us?"

 

[DFWJC]

The Packers and 49ers say, "Did you forget about us?"

Neither one.

If you're referring to Rodgers, the 24th pick is light years away from a top 5 pick....which is what we are discussing.
I guess if we wait and take Lynch in the late 1st round, then that would be more like what GB did.

49ers? When did they have a true franchise QB and then spend a top 5 pick on a QB?

 

[tyke1doe]

Neither one.

If you're referring to Rodgers, the 24th pick is light years away from a top 5 pick....which is what we are discussing.
I guess if we wait and take Lynch in the late 1st round, then that would be more like what GB did.

49ers? When did they have a true franchise QB and then spend a top 5 pick on a QB?

That's not what I got from your quote. If you're saying when was the last time a team with a top 5 pick selected a franchise quarterback with another franchise quarterback on the roster but with 3 years left to play, that's one thing.

But the way you phrased it left me to conclude when did a team with a fading franchise quarterback draft a young franchise quarterback.

 

[DFWJC]

That's not what I got from your quote. If you're saying when was the last time a team with a top 5 pick selected a franchise quarterback with another franchise quarterback on the roster but with 3 years left to play, that's one thing.

But the way you phrased it left me to conclude when did a team with a fading franchise quarterback draft a young franchise quarterback.

I meant the former...must have not been clear enough. My bad.

 

[slick325]

Neither one.

If you're referring to Rodgers, the 24th pick is light years away from a top 5 pick....which is what we are discussing.
I guess if we wait and take Lynch in the late 1st round, then that would be more like what GB did.

49ers? When did they have a true franchise QB and then spend a top 5 pick on a QB?

No one has done it DFWJC. The Chargers have a QB who is aging and has had major injuries as well and they aren't even contemplating a move like this in the top 5. The Saints have a QB who missed games last season due to his shoulder (the one he had major surgery on previously) and he is going into his last year of his contract yet the story isn't that the Saints NEED a QB nor are they even discussing a QB at #12.

I don't envy the decision makers in Dallas right now at all. Tough decisions to be made...you cannot miss on a franchise QB.

 

[tyke1doe]

I meant the former...must have not been clear enough. My bad.

It's all good. Thanks for clarifying your position.