Michael Irvin talking draft on The Ticket

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
54,352
Reaction score
32,737
I heard next years draft has great RB's. Lots of them. Grab one then.

We don't need to try to get fancy or move around to draft Elliot.

I don't think we need to draft based on what we think is available next year. You'll pass over some prime talent with that type of thinking. Besides, who knows what will happen and where we'll be drafting in 2017.
 

texbumthelife

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,738
Reaction score
23,273
The thing I like most about Elliot is we get a ton of draft picks if we trade down to get him.

We could fill a ton of holes with that 1 simple trade down.

I agree 100% with that. This could legitimately be one of the more strange drafts, ever.
 
Messages
18,222
Reaction score
28,531
I don't think we need to draft based on what we think is available next year. You'll pass over some prime talent with that type of thinking. Besides, who knows what will happen and where we'll be drafting in 2017.

I have to say that I'm a bit wishy-washy on this.

Next year is supposedly a weak QB class, with Watson being he only sure fire guy coming out. So to me, that makes getting a QB more important this year, assuming the guy you choose grades out. At the same time, several excellent RB's are coming out, I don't think we should be spending our time trying to finagle a way to one guy this year.

Certainly, looking at next years draft is not a primary consideration as to who you take this year. But I do think you should at least have an eye as to what the strength's and weaknesses are next year. I don't believe you can completely ignore it. But it is not a primary driver either.

Does that make sense? Even I don't know if it does. :)
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
61,895
Reaction score
95,595
I'm really not sure what you're looking for if you don't think Elliot is special.

He has tremendous top-end speed, while also having incredible power and being very difficult to take down. He's got elite, one-cut explosion and open field wiggle. He's got tremendous vision and sees the second level before he is there, which leads to a lot of huge gains. He's run for over 1800 yards for two consecutive years with 18 and 23 touchdowns respectively, so he's put up elite numbers to match. He's going to run a 4.4X 40 at 230lbs.

If you don't think this kid is special, I can't help but think you just refuse to see it. I understand if you don't value runningbacks as high draft picks, but this kid is an elite talent.

There are very few "special" players in this league.

Peterson is a special talent at TB. Elliott isn't in that class.
 

tyke1doe

Well-Known Member
Messages
54,352
Reaction score
32,737
I have to say that I'm a bit wishy-washy on this.

Next year is supposedly a weak QB class, with Watson being he only sure fire guy coming out. So to me, that makes getting a QB more important this year, assuming the guy you choose grades out. At the same time, several excellent RB's are coming out, I don't think we should be spending our time trying to finagle a way to one guy this year.

Certainly, looking at next years draft is not a primary consideration as to who you take this year. But I do think you should at least have an eye as to what the strength's and weaknesses are next year. I don't believe you can completely ignore it. But it is not a primary driver either.

Does that make sense? Even I don't know if it does. :)

I understand what you're saying. Any organization that understands planning is going to be looking at the future and which players will be available in the draft.

I just don't think we should not take a player because we believe a better player at the same position might be available in the next draft. If Elliott is the best player when it's your time to draft (not saying that he should be picked at #4), then you take him. Next year, you may be in a position to either strengthen the position or trade to a team that may need a running back.
 

texbumthelife

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,738
Reaction score
23,273
There are very few "special" players in this league.

Peterson is a special talent at TB. Elliott isn't in that class.

I think we may have different criteria for being special. Adrian Peterson is one of the 3-5 best running backs of all time. He's perhaps a once in a generation type of player.

In Elliott, we are talking about a college player and grading his talent. He is absolutely a special talent to me. Comparing him to Adrian Peterson, before he's even played a down in the NFL, is ridiculous and has no merit.

I guess I can see a guy as special, without knowing for sure yet that he is one of the best of all time. Perhaps that's where you and I differ.

Every draft has a few special talents. A few blue chippers who aren't just great athletes, or great football players, but some composite of both. Then, a few of those guys actually have the sustained production, tape and numbers to coincide. To me, when a player has all those things, he is special. I think Elliott represents one of the best runningback talents to come out in a while and I think he's a day-1 franchise back.

We can agree to disagree though. It's no biggy. Everyone evaluates differently.
 

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
40,386
Reaction score
37,671
there's a lot of QB's in the draft.

And there will be QBs in the next draft and in the next draft and ...

I don't get the attitude that this is our only chance to replace Romo. Now, I think we should draft a developmental QB at least every other year, but when the time comes to get someone to replace Romo, we can target a guy and go after them. I know we're in a great position where we don't have to trade up to get our guy, but we're also in a greater position to win now with Romo than we will be when he's done.

For the time being, we need to find a vet backup and see if we can develop Romo's successor without having to pay a premium.
 

Mr Cowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,641
Reaction score
32,718
So did we end up with a 4-12 record because we were a Joey Boza or Myles Jack away from a playoff run or because of crappy QB play once Romo went down! If Romo stayed health last year would the record have been better? We won 12 games without Hardy, Ramsey, Boaz orJack. We can't continue spending resources in the same areas year after year. DE was addressed the last 2 years, LB has been addressed the last 3-4 drafts and free agency. CB has had its share of resources as well. This the best chance to address the QB we will have in a long time.

I say get the QB in the first, and interior DL in 2 & 3 rounds and fill in other ends in the rest of the draft and FA. And do yourself a favor and listen to NFL radio during the combine and off season. You will learn something about the players in the draft. Don't follow these hacks who are not nor have ever been scouts or personnel people in the NFL.
 
Messages
18,222
Reaction score
28,531
And there will be QBs in the next draft and in the next draft and ...

I don't get the attitude that this is our only chance to replace Romo. Now, I think we should draft a developmental QB at least every other year, but when the time comes to get someone to replace Romo, we can target a guy and go after them. I know we're in a great position where we don't have to trade up to get our guy, but we're also in a greater position to win now with Romo than we will be when he's done.

For the time being, we need to find a vet backup and see if we can develop Romo's successor without having to pay a premium.
This has been Jerry Jones view of developing QB's. Always looking for short cuts. Drew Hutchinson, Drew Henson, Clint Stoerner, etc., etc, etc. Jerry got EXTREMELY lucky in finding Tony Romo, an undrafted free agent. It took several years after Troy Aikman retired, but he found his short cut.

I'm not interested in ex-baseball players, UDFA's or even mid-round picks looking for the next Tom Brady. Or any other short cut. We are in a unique position to draft a premium QB prospect today. If the scouts are on board, it would be negligent to ignore that opportunity. I want to see a smooth transition from Romo to the next guy. Not some herky-jerky, lets-see-if-Tony-Banks-can-play BS. I had too much of that after Aikman retired.
 

conner01

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,028
Reaction score
26,658
Oh yes they have. Almost everybody I have had a debate with about QB at 4 saids to reach for him. ........also what do you think they mean when they say we have to take a QB at 4 for the future? Again I'm not a professional scout but I see better players then Wentz and Goff and at 4 you take best player available period.

Rarely are qb's taken where they are ranked as far as best player. You will always have to over draft a QB or just get lucky with a guy like Brady or romo
To me it's not about best value but a player who can be a franchise QB
If the scouts think one of these guys can be a franchise QB then I could care less how he is ranked in relation to other players. The position is more important than others and that's why qb's are always over drafted
 

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
40,386
Reaction score
37,671
This has been Jerry Jones view of developing QB's. Always looking for short cuts. Drew Hutchinson, Drew Henson, Clint Stoerner, etc., etc, etc. Jerry got EXTREMELY lucky in finding Tony Romo, an undrafted free agent. It took several years after Troy Aikman retired, but he found his short cut.

I'm not interested in ex-baseball players, UDFA's or even mid-round picks looking for the next Tom Brady. Or any other short cut. We are in a unique position to draft a premium QB prospect today. If the scouts are on board, it would be negligent to ignore that opportunity. I want to see a smooth transition from Romo to the next guy. Not some herky-jerky, lets-see-if-Tony-Banks-can-play BS. I had too much of that after Aikman retired.

The failure after Aikman was definitely Jones trying to find his QB without spending a premium pick. I don't advocate that. If Romo shows he's done this year, then next year, we go after his replacement in the first round, even if we have to trade up to get him (doubt we would be in a much different position than we are this year though). If Romo calls it quits the year after, then we go after his replacement in the first round.

Jerry's failure in replacing Aikman is that he did not invest in replacing him.

Now, I have no problem with drafting Romo's replacement this year if Dallas values at QB more than other players who can help them at No. 4. But drafting one just because we're at No. 4 is an overreaction to Jerry's previous bad choices in addressing the position.

There's nothing wrong IMO of drafting a developmental guy to see if he can develop while we still have Romo. There's everything wrong with drafting a developmental guy when you don't have a starting QB.
 
Messages
18,222
Reaction score
28,531
The failure after Aikman was definitely Jones trying to find his QB without spending a premium pick. I don't advocate that. If Romo shows he's done this year, then next year, we go after his replacement in the first round, even if we have to trade up to get him (doubt we would be in a much different position than we are this year though). If Romo calls it quits the year after, then we go after his replacement in the first round.

Jerry's failure in replacing Aikman is that he did not invest in replacing him.

Now, I have no problem with drafting Romo's replacement this year if Dallas values at QB more than other players who can help them at No. 4. But drafting one just because we're at No. 4 is an overreaction to Jerry's previous bad choices in addressing the position.

There's nothing wrong IMO of drafting a developmental guy to see if he can develop while we still have Romo. There's everything wrong with drafting a developmental guy when you don't have a starting QB.

The post by conner01 immediately above yours is where I stand regarding taking a QB at #4. Nobody advocates reaching for a QB. But if scouts tell Jerry that a QB is worthy of the draft position, Jerry has to pull the trigger, IMO.
 

Irvin88_4life

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,509
Reaction score
26,396
Rarely are qb's taken where they are ranked as far as best player. You will always have to over draft a QB or just get lucky with a guy like Brady or romo
To me it's not about best value but a player who can be a franchise QB
If the scouts think one of these guys can be a franchise QB then I could care less how he is ranked in relation to other players. The position is more important than others and that's why qb's are always over drafted

Thats not true. Rodgers wasn't reached for neither was Wilson. Guys that reach tend to end up like the Browns
 

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
40,386
Reaction score
37,671
The post by conner01 immediately above yours is where I stand regarding taking a QB at #4. Nobody advocates reaching for a QB. But if scouts tell Jerry that a QB is worthy of the draft position, Jerry has to pull the trigger, IMO.

I don't have a problem with Dallas taking a QB there if one is worth taking. But if the Cowboys have a tier of draft choices above the QBs, then I think they should take a player from that tier.

However, I'm not going to come away mad if the Cowboys draft Goff or Wentz at No. 4. Being in that position is an opportunity to do that, just as it is an opportunity to get an impact defender. Too bad we only have one pick to use.
 

conner01

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,028
Reaction score
26,658
Thats not true. Rodgers wasn't reached for neither was Wilson. Guys that reach tend to end up like the Browns

How many qb's in the last decade were taken before higher ranked players? The majority of them
Wilson and Rodgers are the exception
The vast majority are over drafted because teams need qb's
That just the way the league is and will continue to be as long as the passing game is such a huge part of the game
 

Irvin88_4life

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,509
Reaction score
26,396
How many qb's in the last decade were taken before higher ranked players? The majority of them
Wilson and Rodgers are the exception
The vast majority are over drafted because teams need qb's
That just the way the league is and will continue to be as long as the passing game is such a huge part of the game

You said you always have to over draft for QBs which I provided 2 examples where that is not true.

I'm not giving you a history lesson on drafted players, do the research yourself
 

conner01

Well-Known Member
Messages
29,028
Reaction score
26,658
You said you always have to over draft for QBs which I provided 2 examples where that is not true.

I'm not giving you a history lesson on drafted players, do the research yourself

There are always exception
Because romo was undrafted does that mean you should forget about drafting a QB and just sign one after the draft?
The fact is the vast majority of qb's are drafted with higher ranked players still on the board and QB are ranked higher to begin with because of there position alone
 

Irvin88_4life

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,509
Reaction score
26,396
There are always exception
Because romo was undrafted does that mean you should forget about drafting a QB and just sign one after the draft?
The fact is the vast majority of qb's are drafted with higher ranked players still on the board and QB are ranked higher to begin with because of there position alone

If there is always an exception then why did you say QBs are ALWAYS over drafted? Anyways continue on
 

Frosty

Bigdog24
Messages
3,960
Reaction score
2,257
20 years and counting of "win now" mode. Same song and dance.

I was ready to post the same comments as yours....nothing changed, same ol Cowboys. Only problem is a "win now" mode means you have to WIN.

20years is a long time to wait Mr Jones.
 
Top