My draft thoughts....

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
That's a good question and I'm not 100% certain you should but there's merit and here's why...

1. Just in career value alone a good to very good OT is going to be around longer than a good to very good RB. Do you want to have to drop a 1st round pick on another RB every 4-5 years?
2. The possibility of injury is so much greater now for a back than it is an OT. Yes offensive tackles do get injured but take a look at the list of backs that missed time last year due to injury... And you can start with Murray– Bell, Forsett, Charles, McCoy, Lacy, Foster, Lynch, Forte, Ellington, Hyde, Rawls, Yeldon, Spiller, Bush... And there are others. The present concussion protocol is going to keep backs from playing 16 games. OT's? Not so much.
3. Even if you drafted a RB #4 are you going to get full value out of him? History is unkind to backs that get 300+ carries for more than a couple seasons. If you're going to drop a #4 pick on a back to give him 250 carries is that good use of resources when you can get a 1,000 snaps out of an OT?
4. Replacement value... There should be no argument that replacing a good to very-good OT is more difficult than replacing a good to very-good running back.
5. Current value in relation to salary. A rookie running back coming in is going to get $24 mil in salary over the next 4 years, which already makes him one of the highest paid at the position. A rookie OT coming in is going to be getting the same money, which makes him a much better value in relation to the paychecks received by good OT's throughout the league.

Again, not saying OT is the way to go, but there's merit in at least considering it.
Good points, for Tunsil vs. Elliott.

What about Tunsil vs. trade down?
 

NeonNinja

Dash28
Messages
16,965
Reaction score
14,575
McFadden could be done, for all I know. But in 2015, he didn't even start until the 6th game, and still got 1,100 yards with horrendous QB play. Other than getting injured, there's no way he doesn't get 1,300 as the starter from day one, facing mostly 8- and 9-man fronts. Which tells me that a back worth the #4 pick gets at least 1,500 yards last year, and a Murray-like 1,800 with a functional offense. If he's truly special, there's every reason to expect a run at 2,000 yards. It would be a blast to watch it unfold, but we'd still be crossing our fingers and holding our breath every time the defense was on the field.

As long as Romo and the OL are healthy, I like our chances of getting 1,500 a year from whomever we'd pick up in the mid rounds, and using the higher picks to help put together a defense that can help us win deep into the playoffs. Murray got 1,800. McFadden, not starting the whole season, on an offense with pure caca at the skill positions, had 1,100. You don't think a Kenneth Dixon is good for 1,500?

I like Dixon a lot. Perhaps even second, right after Zeke.
 

MichaelWinicki

"You want some?"
Staff member
Messages
47,984
Reaction score
27,883
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Good points, for Tunsil vs. Elliott.

What about Tunsil vs. trade down?

At this point I'd prefer a trade down.

More draft picks the better... but whatever they do they better be right! :D

Two starters and a couple quality backups would be great. And if there was a project QB that showed some promise... Well icing on the cake!
 

Irvin88_4life

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,492
Reaction score
26,367
Percy I usually enjoy your stuff but you'll never convince me that Darren McFadden is an 1,100 yard back. The difference between him and Elliott is enormous. There's a reason why his career has looked the way it has.

He had his career year for the Cowboys last year. Against disinterested defenses who didn't respect him. Only you and your calculator seem to think 2015 was McFadden's norm. I'm saying Elliott is a year in, year out 1,200 yards double digit TDs back at the minimum for the Cowboys.

So, yes, I can at least convince myself that upgrading McFadden to Elliott is pretty significant.



Are you suggesting we make draft decisions based off trends? Should we ignore offensive talent if all we have to do is get our defense into that top 12? How much do you rely on numbers?

How many of those Super Bowl winning defenses had pro bowl caliber QBs?

I get what your saying but Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer won a superbowl and they are far from being a top QB, also Peyton was terrible this year and won.

Yes you need a QB no doubt by there isn't one way to do things
 

CATCH17

1st Round Pick
Messages
67,061
Reaction score
84,642
I get what your saying but Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer won a superbowl and they are far from being a top QB, also Peyton was terrible this year and won.

Yes you need a QB no doubt by there isn't one way to do things

Agree but not having a QB is the looooong way there.
 

BigStar

Stop chasing
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
17,078
I may be in the minority, but I really don't give a hoot what players make. Honestly. That's for the team to manage, not me.

I do when it affects our ability to go after players, resign our own in the future, etc. We tend to overpay our own talent bc we're not good at drafting past the first round and taking a conservative approach in FA; which is fine when you can draft well. That will come to bite you eventually; Free, Carr complacency, needing to retain Ro, resigning JAGs like Church/Heath/Beasley, etc.
 

BigStar

Stop chasing
Messages
11,524
Reaction score
17,078
Good points, for Tunsil vs. Elliott.

What about Tunsil vs. trade down?

Bingo, just need a partner and think there will be plenty. Then you have Lawson/Lynch and Joseph as targets depending on how far back the trade is. We're not getting the value we should from #4 if we stand pat. All else fails and we can't find the right trading partner to move down, it is probably down to Tunsil/Bosa and Tunsil is much higher on the board than Bosa I would assume as being the best T in the draft and the only top 5 prospect w/no question marks. Wouldn't love it, but would understand it much more.
 
Last edited:

percyhoward

Research Tool
Messages
17,062
Reaction score
21,861
Bingo, just need a partner and think there will be plenty. Then you have Lawson/Lynch and Joseph as targets depending on how far back the trade is. We're not getting the value we should from #4 if we stand pat. All else fails and we can't find the right trading partner to move down, it is probably down to Tunsil/Bosa and Tunsil is much higher on the board than Bosa I would assume as being the best T in the draft and the only top 5 prospect w/no question marks. Wouldn't love it, but would understand it much more.
Just have to hope there's a player the Chargers really like, and that it isn't Tunsil.
 

DFWJC

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,437
Reaction score
48,250
That's a good question and I'm not 100% certain you should but there's merit and here's why...

1. Just in career value alone a good to very good OT is going to be around longer than a good to very good RB. Do you want to have to drop a 1st round pick on another RB every 4-5 years?
2. The possibility of injury is so much greater now for a back than it is an OT. Yes offensive tackles do get injured but take a look at the list of backs that missed time last year due to injury... And you can start with Murray– Bell, Forsett, Charles, McCoy, Lacy, Foster, Lynch, Forte, Ellington, Hyde, Rawls, Yeldon, Spiller, Bush... And there are others. The present concussion protocol is going to keep backs from playing 16 games. OT's? Not so much.
3. Even if you drafted a RB #4 are you going to get full value out of him? History is unkind to backs that get 300+ carries for more than a couple seasons. If you're going to drop a #4 pick on a back to give him 250 carries is that good use of resources when you can get a 1,000 snaps out of an OT?
4. Replacement value... There should be no argument that replacing a good to very-good OT is more difficult than replacing a good to very-good running back.
5. Current value in relation to salary. A rookie running back coming in is going to get $24 mil in salary over the next 4 years, which already makes him one of the highest paid at the position. A rookie OT coming in is going to be getting the same money, which makes him a much better value in relation to the paychecks received by good OT's throughout the league.

Again, not saying OT is the way to go, but there's merit in at least considering it.

Well done!
 

Alexander

What's it going to be then, eh?
Messages
62,451
Reaction score
67,265
Drafting a top OT is basically like shooting fish in a barrel in the top 10 of a draft.

They typically have longevity and are far easier to evaluate than the hardest positions like QB and CB.

If I am a GM of a bad team drafting high my first couple of years, and I want job security, I draft a couple OT.

If Dallas by some bizarre stretch drafts Tunsil, then I am convinced they are doing it for PR purposes so people will continue this organization above average in terms of drafting.
 

Irvin88_4life

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,492
Reaction score
26,367
Agree but not having a QB is the looooong way there.

Well we have a QB in Romo. I understand the concerns there and I'm not against drafting a QB I just don't think it's an emergency like most think. I'm high on Kellen Moore and want to see what he can do with all backup reps. Not saying he is the future but no rookie is going to beat him out the first year and if Romo goes down a rookie isn't coming in and winning all these games. ........unless you have a team like Seattle or Denver.

Time is starting to tick but we have this draft and next draft before we start to panic.

Personally I'm on the Lynch wagon but don't want to over pay if scouts don't feel he is franchise guy
 

Manwiththeplan

Well-Known Member
Messages
14,180
Reaction score
7,687
Only because he's the top prospect in the draft who can be inserted into the weakest position on that line.

Free's situation is well established.

Weakest position or not, if your o-line can turn an average/non elite RB that you say Murray is, into an 1800 yard back and can bring McFadden "back from the dead," then it's not that weak. And if Tunsil is as good as a prospect as many claim, then we should be able to get a good deal in a trade down. I agree that Elliot is not a good value at #4 and to me, neither are Ramsey, Bosa or Buckner. Trade down and see what we falls to us.
 

Risen Star

Likes Collector
Messages
87,169
Reaction score
204,901
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I get what your saying but Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer won a superbowl and they are far from being a top QB, also Peyton was terrible this year and won.

Yes you need a QB no doubt by there isn't one way to do things

I agree. There is. We like to think the way the last team won it is the only way.

However, the toughest route to take is one without the QB.
 
Top