Laramey Tunsil & a $40 Million Dollar Offensive Line

[DTown214]

Smith / Collins / Frederick / Martin / Tunsil would be the greatest offensive line of all-time. If he's there at 4, I'm taking him without looking back. McFadden and Morris are better than good enough to have huge success behind that line. And best of all... we help protect Romo more from taking hits.

 

[KJJ]

So what exactly are you advocating?

All I see are a bunch of 'don't wants' without an idea of a 'do want'.

I just laid out my entire plan can you not read? You trade down, add picks and address the defense with a playmaker the best one available.

With Doug Free at right tackle? Sure we do. Free is a spare, and far and away this line's weakest link. There's not a team in the league that would give you anything for Doug Free. Tunsil is so much better a player that it's not debatable.

One weak link hasn't downgraded our OL and Free's position can be addressed later in the draft. We have nothing but weak links on the DL and in the secondary.

it not look contradictory to you at all that you punch holes in all of these players and yet still somehow expect to "fleece" teams out of picks for them? Do you not see the irony here?

I'm punching holes in them but that doesn't mean they won't be coveted by teams. All players have holes read the scouting reports. Anytime a top rated QB is on the board you can fleece someone. Either Wentz, Goff or both could be the next great QB and if either are still on the board at #4 we would could reap the farm in a trade because there's at least two teams SF and Philly that are interested in a QB.

History knows. And unlike people, it doesn't lie. It shows the truth. Whether people like that truth or not.

History knows that a lot of top 10 picks either end up average players or go bust every year. In 2012 we saw 4 players in the first 6 picks go bust including our own Mo Claiborne. Trent Richardson was being talked up by many as the next great RB. LOL The odds of coming up with a bust in the top 10 is a lot higher than ending up with a great player. It's the history of what the draft has shown that makes me want to trade down. When a JJ Watt lasts until #11 that shows there's no exact science to picking great players. The draft a complete roll of the dice and I would rather have an extra roll of the dice to increase my chances of landing an impact player in this draft.

 

[mattjames2010]

We are set on OL, yes we could use a RT but it's not a major need compared to CB, RB, DE.

Sometimes you can over compensate at one position and that's exactly what we would be doing especially with the #4 pick. Tounsil might be great but lets get the Best RB, CB or DE at #4.

Then we're not set.

 

[KJJ]

Yeah, I saw that 'plan' in the above post...

My plan has a better chance of happening than some of the plans I'm reading here. I'm glad none of you are setting sail anywhere or you would end up capsized.

 

[KJJ]

Does it not look contradictory to you at all that you punch holes in all of these players and yet still somehow expect to "fleece" teams out of picks for them? Do you not see the irony here?

Where have I punched holes in any of the QBs? You fleece a team that wants to trade up for one of them. The Rams already gave up the farm for the rights to draft one of these top 2 QBs and if the other one is still there at #4 the Cowboys will have an opportunity to fleece someone.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Tyron tears an ACL in camp.

Now what?

you can make that argument for any position we are looking at, at #4, with the exception of RB since we have depth there

what if Romo tears an acl?

what if DLaw tears an acl?

what if Scandrick tears an acl?

To be honest, we are probably better equipped to survive an acl tear by Smith than the three I mentioned where there is a serious lack of depth.

 

[erod]

you can make that argument for any position we are looking at, at #4, with the exception of RB since we have depth there

what if Romo tears an acl?

what if DLaw tears an acl?

what if Scandrick tears an acl?

To be honest, we are probably better equipped to survive an acl tear by Smith than the three I mentioned where there is a serious lack of depth.

The point is, you take supreme talent. Or you trade the rights to it for a bevy of picks.

Drafting for need ensures you'll be drafting in the top ten on a regular basis.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

We had arguably the greatest OL ever assembled in the early 90s and without an elite back behind it in 93 during Emmitt's holdout we started 0-2 and that team had a great defense.

Holy small sample size Batman.

 

[Stash]

I just laid out my entire plan can you not read? You trade down, add picks and address the defense with a playmaker the best one available.

Because your flawed thinking believes that you're smart and NFL teams are dumb. Suckers waited to be preyed upon by smart guys like you.

One weak link hasn't downgraded our OL and Free's position can be addressed later in the draft. We have nothing but weak links on the DL and in the secondary.

And it's a shame that we have just that one pick to fill our needs...

I'm punching holes in them but that doesn't mean they won't be coveted by teams.

Actually, you're trying to. Nobody said anything about succeeding.

All players have holes read the scouting reports. Anytime a top rated QB is on the board you can fleece someone. Either Wentz, Goff or both could be the next great QB and if either are still on the board at #4 we would could reap the farm in a trade because there's at least two teams SF and Philly that are interested in a QB.

And wouldn't it be great to know that you traded away the chance to get the next Aaron Rodgers and then are stuck having nothing when Romo retires?

History knows that a lot of top 10 picks either end up average players or go bust every year. In 2012 we saw 4 players in the first 6 picks go bust including our own Mo Claiborne. Trent Richardson was being talked up by many as the next great RB. LOL The odds of coming up with a bust in the top 10 is a lot higher than ending up with a great player. It's the history of what the draft has shown that makes me want to trade down. When a JJ Watt lasts until #11 that shows there's no exact science to picking great players. The draft a complete roll of the dice and I would rather have an extra roll of the dice to increase my chances of landing an impact player in this draft.

Nice to see that you've done zero homework on the subject, as your uninformed claims make clear to everyone.

Based on your plan, we'd end up with the 2009 draft all over again.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

The point is, you take supreme talent. Or you trade the rights to it for a bevy of picks.

Drafting for need ensures you'll be drafting in the top ten on a regular basis.

Oh I agree. Tunsil, under no circumstances should fall below #4, but under no circumstances should we take him. Several teams will be willing to give up at least market value and some very likely will be willing to give up more.

 

[Stash]

My plan has a better chance of happening than some of the plans I'm reading here. I'm glad none of you are setting sail anywhere or you would end up capsized.

Your draft already happened.

In 2009.

 

[Stash]

Where have I punched holes in any of the QBs? You fleece a team that wants to trade up for one of them. The Rams already gave up the farm for the rights to draft one of these top 2 QBs and if the other one is still there at #4 the Cowboys will have an opportunity to fleece someone.

Look up about seven posts. Self-awareness isn't your strong suit, is it?

 

[Stash]

Oh I agree. Tunsil, under no circumstances should fall below #4, but under no circumstances should we take him. Several teams will be willing to give up at least market value and some very likely will be willing to give up more.

If we're not getting a great trade offer, we absolutely should draft Tunsil.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

If we're not getting a great trade offer, we absolutely should draft Tunsil.

I don't see that as a real possibility. Throughout the draft process, Tunsil has been the consensus #1 prospect and I doubt that SD passes on him and in the situation that they do, several teams will offer good deals. It may be a 3rd to drop down a few spots, which most here will want more, but that is about market value.

If the top 3 are Goff, Wentz and Ramsey, then there is a good chance Jacksonville offers something to move up 1 spot. Baltimore may, I think they want Buckner, but may want Tunsil. SF very likely could, because at #7, the would miss out on Tunsil, Buckner and Bosa and likely would want one of the three. Philly is unlikely in that they would have to give up next year's #1 for it to work, and I doubt they would. TB would be very interested at #9 and while I typically would not drop below #10, STL does have the ammunition to make it work and they are reportedly looking to move back up.

 

[KJJ]

Holy small sample size Batman.

An 0-2 start was enough to get Emmitt signed. That team wouldn't have repeated without him.

 

[mattjames2010]

Haha, are people really going to be upset that we might draft the best prospect in the draft that could also fill a need? Well, okay...

 

[Stash]

I don't see that as a real possibility. Throughout the draft process, Tunsil has been the consensus #1 prospect and I doubt that SD passes on him and in the situation that they do, several teams will offer good deals. It may be a 3rd to drop down a few spots, which most here will want more, but that is about market value.

And I'm totally cool with that. If he's not there, he's not there. But I'm not taking a throw-in "3rd" round pick to "drop down a few spots" so someone else can get the best player in the draft and solve their left tackle position for the next decade. I'll draft him before I give him away.

If the top 3 are Goff, Wentz and Ramsey, then there is a good chance Jacksonville offers something to move up 1 spot. Baltimore may, I think they want Buckner, but may want Tunsil. SF very likely could, because at #7, the would miss out on Tunsil, Buckner and Bosa and likely would want one of the three. Philly is unlikely in that they would have to give up next year's #1 for it to work, and I doubt they would. TB would be very interested at #9 and while I typically would not drop below #10, STL does have the ammunition to make it work and they are reportedly looking to move back up.

Again, it had better be a great deal. I'm not moving down and giving up the draft's top player just to move down. I had a season worthy of the #4 overall pick, and it sucked. Unless I get a great offer, I'm rewarding myself with the draft's best player.

 

[Stash]

Haha, are people really going to be upset that we might draft the best prospect in the draft that could also fill a need? Well, okay...

There's always a few that will try to find a way to turn a good thing into a bad thing.

 

[DogFace]

It does sound pretty good. (Cue the evil laughter)

But I'd stick with Zeke or Ramsey or more picks.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

And I'm totally cool with that. If he's not there, he's not there. But I'm not taking a throw-in "3rd" round pick to "drop down a few spots" so someone else can get the best player in the draft and solve their left tackle position for the next decade. I'll draft him before I give him away.



Again, it had better be a great deal. I'm not moving down and giving up the draft's top player just to move down. I had a season worthy of the #4 overall pick, and it sucked. Unless I get a great offer, I'm rewarding myself with the draft's best player.

Gotta say I disagree with that.

Minnesota got a 4th, 5th and 7th to move from #3 to #4 in 2012, and I'd most definitely not consider that giving away Tunsil if Jacksonville offered that.

According to the trade value chart, dealing with Baltimore should net us a 3rd, so that by definition is not a throw in. Dealing with SF should get us a third and a fifth and I would not consider it a throw in either. While I'd love to have a bidding war that causes someone to over pay, I'd gladly accept market value over taking a guy that does not make us significantly better due to him playing a position of strength.