Kyle Pitts vs Patrick Surtain: Who SHOULD be the Pick | Shan & RJ

[JD_KaPow]

Taco was indeed forced, Cowboys initially had Charlton pegged as a 2nd round projection, but they were so paranoid about the DEs going off the board by the time they were up in the 2nd round
that they decided to reach for DE edge rusher in the first round.

Problem was McClay group had already pegged and graded TJ Watt as a better edge rusher prospect than Taco, but were so heavily influenced by Marinelli to go with length, size and scheme fit
that rid Watt out of the consideration picture.

It's unfortunately recorded history to whom we decided to go.

I'm willing to bet Byron was right at the top of our board when we picked. He was as high as the 20s on some draft boards (as low as the 60s on others), but he had the kind of athletic traits the Cowboys team seems to value.

Taco really seems like a Marinelli pick, just like taking Trysten Hill and just like passing on Sharrif Floyd.

The Cowboys seem to have a very good draft preparation process: the leaked boards of past years look very good, and last year's draft certainly looks strong. Where they get into trouble* is when Jerry breaks the process by letting one voice have too much say during the draft. Marinelli seemed to hold a lot of sway. So far (one draft in), it seems like they're following the process, which is a good thing.

*Frederick turned out great of course. A bad process can still lead to a good outcome in the end. But give me a good process every time.

 

[Stash]

the NFL draft is more than just one round, right ? .. that doesn't mean you give up defense with guys like Diggs, Gregory,Gallimore can be had in 2nd and 3rd rounds.

So by the same standards, you're OK with getting a TE with one of those later picks?

 

[quickccc]

I bet he is top 5 on the Cowboys board and that is all I am worried about.

who knows.?
, even league Defensive MVPs Darrell Reaves(14th overall) nor Stephen Gilmore (10th overall) were Not top 5 overall … that's why the NFL draft is Not a guarantee and anyone and all ways are a crapshoot gamble.

if Surtain ends up even being on the Marshon Lattimore or Marlon Humphrey type, for us per selecting him, we should be able to live with Pro bowl aspirations.

 

[Stash]

It's one pick. One guy is not going to determine the next 2-3 years of our D.

It's a 1st round pick. That's where the best talent sits -for a reason.

 

[JD_KaPow]

It's a 1st round pick. That's where the best talent sits -for a reason.

Absolutely. And that's why you should take the best talent. Because it's the only way to get it.

It's one guy. To claim that one pick will determine the next 2-3 years of our defense is nuts. If we'd taken Chaisson last year, would our D be fixed now?

There are a few things we know are true. 1. Really bad units one year tend to regress to the mean the next--they're not really as bad as they looked. 2. Defense is much more variable from year to year than offense. 3. It's very hard to predict what your future needs will be, even one year out.

All of this says: take the talent.

This assumes that the Cowboys agree with everyone else that Pitts is in a completely different talent tier than any defensive player. From what we've heard, I'd say they do agree with that consensus.

 

[JD_KaPow]

So by the same standards, you're OK with getting a TE with one of those later picks?

The standard is: don't take lesser talent when you have a chance to take greater talent.

 

[cnuball21]

It's not reaching. That's just some language that's being passed around.

Parsons, Surtain, Farley, JOK, none of them would be a reach. I'm not sure this board even understands what a reach is any more. Jaylon was a reach(due to injury). Byron Jones was a reach. Reggie Robinson was a reach.

There simply is not this system where each player is graded and that grade is set in stone. The grades fluxuate and change from expert to expert.

We're not going to have the means to sign FA's to fill holes for at least another year or three. There's a reason we keep signing has beens and borderliners.

It would be IMO by a large margin.

You clearly lean towards need over best player / talent available which is fine, but I view it differently.

 

[Stash]

Absolutely. And that's why you should take the best talent. Because it's the only way to get it.

It's one guy. To claim that one pick will determine the next 2-3 years of our defense is nuts. If we'd taken Chaisson last year, would our D be fixed now?

A good point. I’m an admitted Chaisson guy too. Then again, if anyone had listened to me, we’d have TJ Watt right now and the defense would be in much better shape.

There are a few things we know are true. 1. Really bad units one year tend to regress to the mean the next--they're not really as bad as they looked. 2. Defense is much more variable from year to year than offense. 3. It's very hard to predict what your future needs will be, even one year out.

Does the same hold true for offense?

All of this says: take the talent.

This assumes that the Cowboys agree with everyone else that Pitts is in a completely different talent tier than any defensive player. From what we've heard, I'd say they do agree with that consensus.

And don’t mistake my questions with being adamantly against the idea. I’ve done it myself when the opportunity presented itself.

I’ve just found myself chasing to make up for that decision for the rest of the draft. Sign Richard Sherman for a year or two until the next corner cones along and I have no reservations.

 

[Stash]

The standard is: don't take lesser talent when you have a chance to take greater talent.

Need has to factor into the equation. Otherwise you’re taking another quarterback.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Does the same hold true for offense?

Interestingly, no. Offense is much more consistent from year to year. There's an argument that you should spend most of your resources on offense with the expectation that you'll compete when your defense, which varies a lot more and is much less predictable, has its better years.

 

[quickccc]

So by the same standards, you're OK with getting a TE with one of those later picks?

Why am I getting “a” TE with later picks when I've just drafted a generation TE that is not only supposed to revolutionize my offense but revolutionized the TE position for the NFL for decades to come ?

we drafted a WR in the first round last year, even when we direly needed defense more, ...even when most draft experts and draftniks were pegging LSU edge rusher Chassion as our expected 1st rd pick , but according to our organization that had pegged Lamb as a blue chipper that was too good to pass over once he somehow landed in our lap, .. but that didn’t mean that defense wasn’t going to be ignored and not addressed for the remaining draft picks ?

 

[JD_KaPow]

Need has to factor into the equation. Otherwise you’re taking another quarterback.

Need factors into the equation, but normally only at the margins.

Need does factor in big when you need a QB. QBs are in such high demand that teams know they have to overdraft to get them or they'll be left out in the cold. That's how 5 QBs can be in the conversation for the first 10 picks, when there's no way 5 QBs are among the 10 best talents in the draft.

If you don't need a QB and you simply build your board around the talent, it's a lot less likely that BPA when you pick will be a QB. And if it is, you should be able to trade back from that pick, because somebody will want that QB. If you can't trade back for some reason, then yeah, you need to take a lesser talent. Bummer; the draft worked out poorly for you.

I don't think it will be relevant this year: the Cowboys won't have QB as BPA on their board at 10. Other teams might when we get there, so a trade wouldn't surprise me.

The position I worry about this year is WR. I'm a huge BPA guy, but even I would balk at taking a WR at #10. I think it's possible that the shiny toys are gone at 10 and a WR is the BPA on our board. I probably wouldn't take the WR. Again, bummer: the draft worked out poorly. It happens.

Need factors in when (1) QB is the need, and (2) you happen to be absolutely stacked at a position and the clear-cut BPA happens to play that position. You deal with (1) when it happens, and (2) will come up awfully rarely.

 

[Stash]

Why am I getting “a” TE with later picks when I've just drafted a generation TE that is not only supposed to revolutionize my offense but revolutionized the TE position for the NFL for decades to come ?

Wow. That is some ridiculous hyperbole right there.

But you read it wrong. Your standard suggests that you can just get defense later. By your own standards you can get a TE later too. A position this team doesn’t even need.

we drafted a WR in the first round last year, even when we direly needed defense more, ...even when most draft experts and draftniks were pegging LSU edge rusher Chassion as our expected 1st rd pick , but according to our organization that had pegged Lamb as a blue chipper that was too good to pass over once he somehow landed in our lap, .. but that didn’t mean that defense wasn’t going to be ignored and not addressed for the remaining draft picks ?

And that defense was abysmal. And that all world offense still struggled and won just 6 games. You prove my point.

 

[Stash]

Need factors into the equation, but normally only at the margins.

Need does factor in big when you need a QB. QBs are in such high demand that teams know they have to overdraft to get them or they'll be left out in the cold. That's how 5 QBs can be in the conversation for the first 10 picks, when there's no way 5 QBs are among the 10 best talents in the draft.

If you don't need a QB and you simply build your board around the talent, it's a lot less likely that BPA when you pick will be a QB. And if it is, you should be able to trade back from that pick, because somebody will want that QB. If you can't trade back for some reason, then yeah, you need to take a lesser talent. Bummer; the draft worked out poorly for you.

I don't think it will be relevant this year: the Cowboys won't have QB as BPA on their board at 10. Other teams might when we get there, so a trade wouldn't surprise me.

The position I worry about this year is WR. I'm a huge BPA guy, but even I would balk at taking a WR at #10. I think it's possible that the shiny toys are gone at 10 and a WR is the BPA on our board. I probably wouldn't take the WR. Again, bummer: the draft worked out poorly. It happens.

I would be looking for a trade from either QB or WR. Because we clearly don’t NEED either.

Need factors in when (1) QB is the need, and (2) you happen to be absolutely stacked at a position and the clear-cut BPA happens to play that position. You deal with (1) when it happens, and (2) will come up awfully rarely.

Need factors in all the time. Don’t kid yourself. It’s only when it factors in too much that it becomes an issue. There is always a combination of value vs need.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I would be looking for a trade from either QB or WR. Because we clearly don’t NEED either.

Sure. So would I. But that's a BPA strategy. The alternative is to draft a lesser talent at a "position of need."

Need factors in all the time. Don’t kid yourself. It’s only when it factors in too much that it becomes an issue. There is always a combination of value vs need.

Totally disagree. I mean, I don't know what teams do, but they should always favor talent over perceived need.

That said, it's pretty rare that there's a single clear-cut BPA at any particular pick after the first round. There will be multiple guys in a tier, and sure, you're free to pick the one that best fits your perceived needs. But if a guy you had rated much higher drops to you, you'd better be prepared to throw your plan out the window and take the talent.

 

[Stash]

Sure. So would I. But that's a BPA strategy. The alternative is to draft a lesser talent at a "position of need."

It’s trading away from what you clearly don’t “need”. And getting value in return.

Totally disagree. I mean, I don't know what teams do, but they should always favor talent over perceived need.

Sorry but you can’t ignore that’s what teams do. All the time. It’s exactly why reporters and draft people list them and why there are predictions at all about what teams might do. And it’s why the draft doesn’t go exactly according to rankings. For better and for worse.

That said, it's pretty rare that there's a single clear-cut BPA at any particular pick after the first round. There will be multiple guys in a tier, and sure, you're free to pick the one that best fits your perceived needs. But if a guy you had rated much higher drops to you, you'd better be prepared to throw your plan out the window and take the talent.

If it’s not close? Sure.

But never think need isn’t a factor.

 

[HungryLion]

Doesn’t matter. Pitts will be gone by 10.

 

[JD_KaPow]

It’s trading away from what you clearly don’t “need”. And getting value in return.

Sure. Take BPA or trade down. That's the BPA strategy in a nutshell.

Sorry but you can’t ignore that’s what teams do.

Sure I can. I'm interested in what the best draft strategy is. If you pass on the guy at the top of your board for a lesser guy because of need, you have a bad draft process and you will pay for it over time. If your BPA doesn't match predictions by the press and "draft people," that's cool, go by your board. Over time, you should be able to evaluate how well your board-building compares against the consensus. If you're doing a bad job ranking talent, fire people and build a better process.

But never think need isn’t a factor.

I don't care if teams factor in need inappropriately. Well, I do care if the Cowboys are doing it, because it indicates a bad draft process. I'm thrilled to see other teams reach for need, because it makes it more likely a great player drops to Dallas.

 

[darthseinfeld]

I look at it this way. I’ve done a ton of mock drafts now, some where Pitts was actually available, and I took him. But I found myself always chasing and trying to make up for it the rest of the way.

Conversely, when I take the corner or trade down, I’m not chasing after the TE position. That’s what it comes down to for me, not having to ‘make up ground’ for an indulgent 1st pick.

We can add alot of really good talent on day two. Especially up the middle, its a pretty strong draft for day 2 defensive talent.

Personally I have no issues with taking Surtain at 10. Id even be excited. However, I cant take him over Pitts. Pitts athletic profile is comparable to Calvin Johnson. Thats absolutely nuts. I get that we have alot of recieving talent, and Pitts may seem excessive. However Pitts combined with Lamb also gives you the ability to go cheaper at WR and still maximize the passing game. Even in the short term, he adds something we need because he is a contested catch, and redzone machine

 

[stilltheguru]

When will yall get it through your thick skulls that all teams, even successful teams factor in need? Are you a better GM than actual GMs?

Sure. Take BPA or trade down. That's the BPA strategy in a nutshell.
Sure I can. I'm interested in what the best draft strategy is. If you pass on the guy at the top of your board for a lesser guy because of need, you have a bad draft process and you will pay for it over time. If your BPA doesn't match predictions by the press and "draft people," that's cool, go by your board. Over time, you should be able to evaluate how well your board-building compares against the consensus. If you're doing a bad job ranking talent, fire people and build a better process. I don't care if teams factor in need inappropriately. Well, I do care if the Cowboys are doing it, because it indicates a bad draft process. I'm thrilled to see other teams reach for need, because it makes it more likely a great player drops to Dallas.