Lane Johnson in Trade Up?

[jjktkk]

He's still the third rated OT.

You do this, and you upgrade your RT spot marginally over guys currently available on the street (though for a longer term), while creating a massive hole at a similarly important position that also lacks quality depth and has no FA market equivalent player. And you've just used the only pick you had to fill that need to take the Tackle.

I think that'd be crazy-dumb, and it'd basically force you to draft for need at DL or DE (depending where you plan to play Hatcher) in the second round.

^ This. Robbing Peter to pay Paul, is not way to go imo.

 

[Verdict]

He's still the third rated OT.

You do this, and you upgrade your RT spot marginally over guys currently available on the street (though for a longer term), while creating a massive hole at a similarly important position that also lacks quality depth and has no FA market equivalent player. And you've just used the only pick you had to fill that need to take the Tackle.

I think that'd be crazy-dumb, and it'd basically force you to draft for need at DL or DE (depending where you plan to play Hatcher) in the second round.

If you had Brady, Marino, Montana, Elway, Staubach and Payton Manning in the same draft would you care if you were drafting the 6th rated QB with the 6th pick?

 

[Idgit]

I would think that if Spencer is moved that Crawford would become the starter at end opposite of Ware.

He might. But who's your third guy in that rotation then? Hatcher? And who takes the DL snaps then? You have to bring in a street FA or reach for a DL in round two. And next year, when you cut Rat and lose Hatcher, you're filling two holes in that offseason.

When you could have just signed Clabo and taken BPA in both rounds. No, thanks.

 

[RS12]

I still dont think this happens for reasons already mentioned but if both Spencer and Free came off the books, how much cap room does that free up?

 

[Verdict]

When you have undersized ends in a 4-3 it makes you a pass rushing force to be reconed with but it makes you quite vulnerable against the run. I don't think we would match up well against power running teams running at Spencer all day with a mauling right tackle getting his hands on Spencer every play. In those games I think you would see us putting in a guy Like Crawfor or Hatcher at end and playing Lee, Cater and Spencer at LB if we were playing a traditional 4-3 alignment in those games or we would be run on all day long.

 

[DFWJC]

He's still the third rated OT.

You do this, and you upgrade your RT spot marginally over guys currently available on the street (though for a longer term), while creating a massive hole at a similarly important position that also lacks quality depth and has no FA market equivalent player. And you've just used the only pick you had to fill that need to take the Tackle.

I think that'd be crazy-dumb, and it'd basically force you to draft for need at DL or DE (depending where you plan to play Hatcher) in the second round.

We agree on the part about the depleting the roster. Robbing Peter to pay Paul comment works here.

But the "the third rated tackle" part means nothing this year.

All three of the top three OTs rank higher than Tyron Smith did.
In fact some have all three rated as high as Joe Thomas when he came out. That is why they all may go in the top 7. In other words, in most years, Lane would be the top rated OT.

Having said that, I don't like the idea as spelled out by the OP.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

He might. But who's your third guy in that rotation then? Hatcher? And who takes the DL snaps then? You have to bring in a street FA or reach for a DL in round two. And next year, when you cut Rat and lose Hatcher, you're filling two holes in that offseason.

When you could have just signed Clabo and taken BPA in both rounds. No, thanks.

Clabo for one year, two at most? No thanks. There are several FAs that can fill the 3rd DE role. There's a chance Wilber can as well.

 

[Verdict]

He might. But who's your third guy in that rotation then? Hatcher? And who takes the DL snaps then? You have to bring in a street FA or reach for a DL in round two. And next year, when you cut Rat and lose Hatcher, you're filling two holes in that offseason.

When you could have just signed Clabo and taken BPA in both rounds. No, thanks.

If Hatcher plays like he has, he will probably be resigned for a reasonable contract next year. Then again, some posters will be yelling to resign him at all costs just like they are Spencer this year.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I seriously doubt we want to move Spencer - we have no one to play the strong side DE in that case. There is simply no way you can count on a 2nd round or later guy to play that position for 50+ snaps a game.

We don't know this to be a fact. We have options on the team now that our DC or our DLC might feel can play it.

As to who can play what number of snaps, well, this team has shown that it will count on players you would think can not be counted on to play an entire season, time and time again. It has happened all too often in the past and I see no reason to believe it will not happen in future.

 

[CashMan]

I feel like, some people on this board, only see the season coming up, and not the future.

I think robbing Peter to pay Paul, is handing out contract extensions to players who are 30yrs old, so they can sign stop gap FAs. I wish someone who was more literate with the cap number would post, what it is going to be next year. I am pretty sure, before Romo signed him contract, they were over the cap with him not counting against it. So, now he is. And Spencer is going to require the same. If Dallas traded a pick and Spencer to go get Johnson, I think it makes a lot of sense. I think salary wise, this would open $10mill alone, this year, and might be less cuts next year, to get under the cap.

I can't say, I know too many SB teams, who go through a new DC scheme, and make it to the SB and win it. It usually takes a season or two, for the players to understand it. This is why, I do not think Dallas will contend, so I am not in favor of keeping a 1yr guy, so that Dallas will not have this "hole" in their DL. I think it silly not trade Spencer.

 

[Idgit]

Clabo for one year, two at most? No thanks. There are several FAs that can fill the 3rd DE role. There's a chance Wilber can as well.

I'd say two at a minimum. He's not going to want a one-year deal. And when you're developing a guy to start behind him, that makes sense. It also lets you take a developmental guy in the second or third this year and give him a year in the weight room and an extra camp before playing him, which is optimal.

And there's no way I plan to have Kyle Wilber taking significant snaps at 3rd DE. Not to mention the hit you take starting Crawford over Spencer is a bigger hit than you take starting Clabo over Johnson. One injury to Ware (or Crawford), and your pass rush is flat out done for the season. You'd really take that risk?

If Hatcher plays like he has, he will probably be resigned for a reasonable contract next year. Then again, some posters will be yelling to resign him at all costs just like they are Spencer this year.

I've yet to see a single person yell to resign Spencer at all costs. I'm, by far, and rightly, one of Spencer's biggest supporters on the board, and I wanted to do at deal for $7M two years ago and be done with it, and have said repeatedly we're in a bad position of contemplating too much of a premium now that he's been franchised twice and will be over 30.

You really want to do the exact same thing with Hatcher? Who's better off the bench and has a history of niggling injuries and is the same age? And you think he's going to play well for us this year and resign for a reasonable contract? I'd say there's almost no chance of that happening. Either he's hampered and still a questionable extension, or he plays great and signs a big deal on the free market. Don't see much room for any in-betweens.

..But the "the third rated tackle" part means nothing this year.

We basically are in agreement, again. I'll say, though, that the part about being the third OT out of three isn't irrelevant because, while all of the players might (and are) great OT candidates and stronger overall than the guy you took at 9 two years earlier, you're still getting the guy that's leftover, and there's no guarantee whichever OT it is is going to be the one that's the best fit for what you want to do in your offense.

Now, I'd love Land Johnson. He's going to be a really good player, so I don't want to go too far down the road being critical of him or painting him as a leftover. Just saying I'd rather have my pick of the best guy in college for my system when I'm picking if that's an option and not have to hope that the one that's left is the one that fits me best.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Creating a massive hole at DE to trade up for a player who's the third best guy in his position group in a deep draft when there are capable starters available in FA?

Somehow, I don't think we do that.

Lane Johnson is not considered, by many, as the 3rd best option. For those who do consider him as such, he is considered as the 3rd best option but also in the top 10 to 15 players in this draft. Where he is listed is not critical here IMO. If you have 3 guys that are in the top 15 players, the value is still there.

FA is a reasonable point. There are some decent options in FA, I agree. However, if this trade scenario were true, it would represent more then just moving up and creating a whole at DE for the Cowboys. It would reprsent moving up and drafting a player that the Cowboys believe to be a Franchise type LT. It would allow the Cowboys to create cap long term as well. It would allow the Cowboys to move a huge contract and solve a big cap problem in Spencer because it would obviously allow a restructure and would basically free up his entire salary. It would allow us to bring in a guy at LT who would have a smaller number then the guy we currently have at RT so you would save money there as well. It would allow the Cowboys to move Smith back to what appears to be his natural position as RT and put him back on the path, many believed he was on in his 1st year, as perennial ALL Pro RT. It would allow the Cowboys more flexability to sign FAs in the Interior OL, which would obviously be cheaper then trying to sign an OT, simply because of the cost dynamics of the positions. Lastly, it would create cap that could allow the Cowboys to go out and sign a suitable DE replacement, should the team decide that we do not have the talent on the roster currently.

There could be a lot of advantages to a move such as this. Do I think it likely? No, probably not but, I do think there are a lot of advantages to a move such as this, especially if we are talking about additional picks coming back to the Cowboys later in the draft.

 

[Smith22]

Lane Johnson is not considered, by many, as the 3rd best option. For those who do consider him as such, he is considered as the 3rd best option but also in the top 10 to 15 players in this draft. Where he is listed is not critical here IMO. If you have 3 guys that are in the top 15 players, the value is still there.

FA is a reasonable point. There are some decent options in FA, I agree. However, if this trade scenario were true, it would represent more then just moving up and creating a whole at DE for the Cowboys. It would reprsent moving up and drafting a player that the Cowboys believe to be a Franchise type LT. It would allow the Cowboys to create cap long term as well. It would allow the Cowboys to move a huge contract and solve a big cap problem in Spencer because it would obviously allow a restructure and would basically free up his entire salary. It would allow us to bring in a guy at LT who would have a smaller number then the guy we currently have at RT so you would save money there as well. It would allow the Cowboys to move Smith back to what appears to be his natural position as RT and put him back on the path, many believed he was on in his 1st year, as perennial ALL Pro RT. It would allow the Cowboys more flexability to sign FAs in the Interior OL, which would obviously be cheaper then trying to sign an OT, simply because of the cost dynamics of the positions. Lastly, it would create cap that could allow the Cowboys to go out and sign a suitable DE replacement, should the team decide that we do not have the talent on the roster currently.

There could be a lot of advantages to a move such as this. Do I think it likely? No, probably not but, I do think there are a lot of advantages to a move such as this, especially if we are talking about additional picks coming back to the Cowboys later in the draft.

Excellent post!

 

[xwalker]

There is a massive gap between Lane and the rest of the OT prospects.

Yes, when considering 2013; however, Terron Armstead is very similar physically, but might need time to develop his skills.

Watson also has a very high upside, but is behind LJ in terms of development.

 

[newlander]

Even if we assume there is any truth at all to this rumor, you would not know until draft day.

Lane Johnson is now frequently being projected in the top 7 picks and few if anyone have him dropping below 11. The difference between the 7th and 11th pick in a trade up is pretty large.

....he's now projected as a top SEVEN pick? Holy.......I had NO idea. Is he really that good guys? I live in Michigan and there are rumblings the clueless Lions will take him at 5 if Fisher and Joeckel are off the board and they are expected to be by the 5th pick.....but I laughed it off because you know: it's the Lions.

 

[DFWJC]

....he's now projected as a top SEVEN pick? Holy.......I had NO idea. Is he really that good guys? I live in Michigan and there are rumblings the clueless Lions will take him at 5 if Fisher and Joeckel are off the board and they are expected to be by the 5th pick.....but I laughed it off because you know: it's the Lions.

It really is suppossedly splitting hairs to seperate these guys. But Joeckle and Fisher keep alternating as the 1st two with Johnson right behind them.
If Fisher and Joeckle were not in the draft, Johnson may even go #1 overall--especially ina draft without a true stud QB. Top 5 for sure due to demand for LTs. The fact that there are three really good ones has pushed the 3rd artificially down. I've seen him lately as low as 11, but as high as 5.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes, when considering 2013; however, Terron Armstead is very similar physically, but might need time to develop his skills.

Watson also has a very high upside, but is behind LJ in terms of development.

I think, long term, Lane Johnson probably has the best upside of any of the LTs. He is more physically gifted then either Fisher or Joeckel IMO. Armstead is close, in regards to overall athleticism but Johnson is still superior to Armstead IMO. Now, you could obviously say that Armstead won't cost as much and that's a valid point. However, Armstead is not nearly ready for prime time at OT. He played in a league where the talent level was nowhere near what you saw from Johnson. Armstead, if he is able to make the transition, has a long, long way to go before he is ready to play OT in the NFL. I think he's going to get over drafted. I seriously don't even think he should be drafted before the 3rd but he probably will be. He might even be better suited to TE, seriously.

Watson, I would consider him before Amrstead at OT. He's way more capable of developing into an NFL OT IMO and he's not even a very good fit for a ZB scheme. Watson is a much better option to me, even though he's less athletic then Armstead.

Long term, I like Johnson more then Fisher and much, much more then Joeckel. I think Johnson, once he gets some pro coaching, could be another D'Brick type LT, but with better upside in the run game. That is the one concern I have with Johnson. He can never be a RT IMO. He is strictly a LT. He does not block well in the power run game and I don't know that he will ever be dominating in that regard. He has the athletic ability to do that but I don't know if he will ever develop that fully. However, since his primary job is to protect the Blind Side, that's really secondary to any evaluation IMO. He will be adequate at worst IMO, in the run game. That's fine because I suspect he will develop into one heck of a pass blocking LOT in the next couple of years.

JMO