Ramsey vs QB

[Sydla]

For starters Winston was not considered to be in the same class as Luck.

The likes of Luck, Manning (Payton) arrive about once in every 8-10 years and you’d better have the worst record in the league to get them.

Lynch and Geoff aren’t considered “elite” because they’re not considered ready to start straight away, however from what I can gather both are considered to be capable of developing into quality QBs given time.

As things stand we seem to be in the fortunate position to be able to give them that time (although that could change quite quickly).

So unless we plan on having the top pick in the draft when the next “sure thing” comes out, I think while Romo is capable of playing at the required level we should get the best prospect available and develop him.

After all Roethlisberger and Rodgers weren’t thought to be elite either.

Well for starters the Rodgers example is pretty weak. For one, Rodgers was taken by the Packers at the end of the first round and he was strictly a value pick (BPA) by a team that was already near the top of the league. That's a huge difference between where Rodgers was taken and the Cowboys maybe having a Top 5 pick. In other words, if the Cowboys traded back to say 24th and picked up a bunch of picks and Lynch was there, then yeah, he's a better risk at that spot. If the Packers had the 5th pick in that draft there is no way they would have taken Rodgers in that spot. But when he fell to 24th, he was the BPA on their board. They said as much.

And mattjames covered the other point. You admit neither are likely elite prospects (and despite what you want to say about Winston, he definitely was considered more of a sure thing then either of these guys) you are OK with taking a QB in the Top 10 simply because you think we need a QB. And that's when teams run into trouble........... when need ends up trumping best player available.

Now who knows, maybe the Cowboys are sitting there at 6 and Lynch is sitting there and he's the BPA on their board. Absolutely, you take him then. You follow your board. But if you are sitting at 6 and Lynch is the 13th rated guy on your board, no, you don't take him out of some desire to have to take a QB in the Top Ten.

 

[IrishAnto]

Well for starters the Rodgers example is pretty weak. For one, Rodgers was taken by the Packers at the end of the first round and he was strictly a value pick (BPA) by a team that was already near the top of the league. That's a huge difference between where Rodgers was taken and the Cowboys maybe having a Top 5 pick. In other words, if the Cowboys traded back to say 24th and picked up a bunch of picks and Lynch was there, then yeah, he's a better risk at that spot. If the Packers had the 5th pick in that draft there is no way they would have taken Rodgers in that spot. But when he fell to 24th, he was the BPA on their board. They said as much.

And mattjames covered the other point. You admit neither are likely elite prospects (and despite what you want to say about Winston, he definitely was considered more of a sure thing then either of these guys) you are OK with taking a QB in the Top 10 simply because you think we need a QB. And that's when teams run into trouble........... when need ends up trumping best player available.

Now who knows, maybe the Cowboys are sitting there at 6 and Lynch is sitting there and he's the BPA on their board. Absolutely, you take him then. You follow your board. But if you are sitting at 6 and Lynch is the 13th rated guy on your board, no, you don't take him out of some desire to have to take a QB in the Top Ten.

The point with Rodgers is that just like Geoff and Lynch we wasn’t considered a top 10 pick but I’m sure there’s another 23 teams that would like a “do over”.

And again GB didn’t suck as badly as Dallas does so who’s to say they wouldn’t have taken Rodgers if they had a higher pick?

Elite QBs are ones deemed to be able to start straight away but that doesn’t mean either of the above won’t turn out to be elite given time, which we seem to be able to give them.

So yes if they rated 20th on the Boys board then and your picking 3rd overall then you pass, however most people around here seem to think a QB is not worth a top 10 pick unless he’s considered “Elite” which is simply not true.

 

[mattjames2010]

Several posts ago they were trash according to you so tell me why they're trash?

Secondly the more time they have to develop the more likely they'll reach their potential.

Thirdly, you guaranteeing Romo will play to the required level for the next three or four years?

If he can't what have you got?

Because developmental projects aren't top 5 talent. Top 10 talent should either have a ceiling of elite or immediate impact players. They won't even be BPA, there is a solid CB project this year that is looking like has has the potential to be a shutdown corner in the NFL, and we may be losing Carr and Claiborne, which makes the Hargreaves BPA and a need.

Secondly the more time they have to develop the more likely they'll reach their potential.

Citation needed. If a first round QB is going to be successful in the NFL, he will progress even when being thrown to the wolves. If they need time on the bench, they aren't first round talents.

Wilson, Luck, Newton, Bortles, Tannehill, and Ryan were all top 5-10 QBs and progressed despite starting early in their first year.

Thirdly, you guaranteeing Romo will play to the required level for the next three or four years?

It doesn't matter, Romo is locked up in a pricey contract for a few more years. Whether you like it or not, the dude is here unless he decides to retires. So, what are you going to do if Romo doesn't play at the level you deem required? Trade him? Cut him? Bench him? Not happening. You sign a quality backup QB to sit behind him.

 

[IrishAnto]

Because developmental projects aren't top 5 talent. Top 10 talent should either have a ceiling of elite or immediate impact players. They won't even be BPA, there is a solid CB project this year that is looking like has has the potential to be a shutdown corner in the NFL, and we may be losing Carr and Claiborne, which makes the Hargreaves BPA and a need.



Citation needed. If a first round QB is going to be successful in the NFL, he will progress even when being thrown to the wolves. If they need time on the bench, they aren't first round talents.

Wilson, Luck, Newton, Bortles, Tannehill, and Ryan were all top 5-10 QBs and progressed despite starting early in their first year.



It doesn't matter, Romo is locked up in a pricey contract for a few more years. Whether you like it or not, the dude is here unless he decides to retires. So, what are you going to do if Romo doesn't play at the level you deem required? Trade him? Cut him? Bench him? Not happening. You sign a quality backup QB to sit behind him.

There is a world of difference between giving a QB time to develop and a development player and as for all QBs succeeding despite being thrown to the wolves tat’s BS.

Who says Lynch of Geoff couldn’t start straight away and be successful?

If Bortles and Tannehill could do it then there’s no reason to assume Lynch or Geoff couldn’t.

Contract or none, if Romo can’t play then the Boys will be picking top 10 until they can find a suitable replacement.

So now a solid CB trumps a solid QB in the top 10 does it?

Tell me how did the last top 10 CB Dallas drafted do?

 

[Alexander]

So now a solid CB trumps a solid QB in the top 10 does it?

Always. The team with the best corners always wins the Lombardi.

 

[IrishAnto]

Always. The team with the best corners always wins the Lombardi.

And with the success Dallas has had drafting DBs in the first round I'm surprised we're not winning every year.

 

[Alexander]

And with the success Dallas has had drafting DBs in the first round I'm surprised we're not winning every year.

Hey, keep trying we might get it right. Or something.

 

[mattjames2010]

There is a world of difference between giving a QB time to develop and a development player and as for all QBs succeeding despite being thrown to the wolves tat’s BS.

Who says Lynch of Geoff couldn’t start straight away and be successful?

If Bortles and Tannehill could do it then there’s no reason to assume Lynch or Geoff couldn’t.

Contract or none, if Romo can’t play then the Boys will be picking top 10 until they can find a suitable replacement.

So now a solid CB trumps a solid QB in the top 10 does it?

Tell me how did the last top 10 CB Dallas drafted do?

Who says Lynch of Geoff couldn’t start straight away and be successful?

I am and many scouts questioning their immediate start ability. We are talking draft position here, does their college production justify a top 10 pick? Many are questioning it.

Contract or none, if Romo can’t play then the Boys will be picking top 10 until they can find a suitable replacement.

Once again, these QB prospects come out every year. They're not some unique talent that are much drafts. You're really overvaluing both of these guys.

So now a solid CB trumps a solid QB in the top 10 does it?

No, a CB that looks to have the ability to be a shutdown corner in the NFL trumps Lynch and Goff.

Tell me how did the last top 10 CB Dallas drafted do?

Bad argument is a bad argument. Shall we go through the list of top 10 QB duds and see where they were drafted? A little hint: They were drafted in the top 5-10.

 

[Sydla]

It's pretty simple.

Dallas has enough needs that if they have a Top 5 pick, they should take the best player available on their board. If that's a CB, take him. If that's a safety, take him. If that's a LB take him. If that's one of the QBs, take him. But if you are sitting there at five and your board is this:

#3 Ramsey
#6 Smith
#8 Nkemdiche
#10 Jack
#11 Lynch

No, you don't take the QB because you think you have a need. You take Ramsey. You take the highest rated player (granted, OL could be tricky as we don't have a need at all along the OL and Stanley and/or Tunsil could be sitting there).

 

[IrishAnto]

I am and many scouts questioning their immediate start ability. We are talking draft position here, does their college production justify a top 10 pick? Many are questioning it.



Once again, these QB prospects come out every year. They're not some unique talent that are much drafts. You're really overvaluing both of these guys.



No, a CB that looks to have the ability to be a shutdown corner in the NFL trumps Lynch and Geoff.



Bad argument is a bad argument. Shall we go through the list of top 10 QB duds and see where they were drafted? A little hint: They were drafted in the top 5-10.

For a man calling them trash I take your ability to properly evaluate talent with a pinch of salt and again outside a Luck or Manning scouts will question all QBs ability, it’s what they do.

So if QBs with the necessary talent come out every year then why don’t all 32 teams have a top quality QB?

Again a CB with potential against a QB with potential?

A little hint back, the top 10 RB, DL, CB, OL duds all Top 10 picks.

 

[IrishAnto]

It's pretty simple.

Dallas has enough needs that if they have a Top 5 pick, they should take the best player available on their board. If that's a CB, take him. If that's a safety, take him. If that's a LB take him. If that's one of the QBs, take him. But if you are sitting there at five and your board is this:

#3 Ramsey
#6 Smith
#8 Nkemdiche
#10 Jack
#11 Lynch

No, you don't take the QB because you think you have a need. You take Ramsey. You take the highest rated player (granted, OL could be tricky as we don't have a need at all along the OL and Stanley and/or Tunsil could be sitting there).

But if your board was as follows:

#3Ramsey
#6Lynch

Then you take the QB, because a QB trumps any other position on the team and this years team without Romo should be proof enough.

 

[Sydla]

But if your board was as follows:

#3Ramsey
#6Lynch

Then you take the QB, because a QB trumps any other position on the team and this years team without Romo should be proof enough.

That might be close enough where you might take the QB. But the underlying point here is that you don't take a QB in the Top 5 with need an overriding concern over BPA.

You stick to your board. And if the board says there's a better player at your spot, you don't get loopy and take a QB because you think you need to take a QB.

Personally, I don't think either QB is a Top Ten talent and the only reason they are being mentioned is because QB is such an important position and since these two are the only real options in the first round, they've been overvalued. Not much different than the Vikings panicking and grabbing Christian Ponder at 12 when Gabbert went off the board right before them. Or the Bills panicking and grabbing Manuel earlier than they wanted to. Or the Browns dying for a QB taking Brandon Weeden in the first when he had mostly 2nd round grades.

Lynch and Goff are such projects to me that I'd rather take one of the more highly rated positional players and then take a kid like Wentz in the 2nd as my developmental guy.

 

[IrishAnto]

That might be close enough where you might take the QB. But the underlying point here is that you don't take a QB in the Top 5 with need an overriding concern over BPA.

You stick to your board. And if the board says there's a better player at your spot, you don't get loopy and take a QB because you think you need to take a QB.

I agree, but if it's close then it's the QB every time.

 

[mattjames2010]

For a man calling them trash I take your ability to properly evaluate talent with a pinch of salt and again outside a Luck or Manning scouts will question all QBs ability, it’s what they do.

So if QBs with the necessary talent come out every year then why don’t all 32 teams have a top quality QB?

Again a CB with potential against a QB with potential?

A little hint back, the top 10 RB, DL, CB, OL duds all Top 10 picks.

So if QBs with the necessary talent come out every year then why don’t all 32 teams have a top quality QB?

When did I say this? I said the two QBs you think we need to take, no matter what, are no rare talents. You even admitted this, they are QBs that need to develop properly. You know how many QBs have come and gone with that kind of scouting report? They are there in every single draft. That DOES NOT mean they all pan out, that does not mean they do either. But for someone who feels this is a need in the top 5, you have yet to give me an argument that these two QBs are somehow better prospects than the safety and cornerback that will be there in the top 10.

 

[IrishAnto]

When did I say this? I said the two QBs you think we need to take, no matter what, are no rare talents. You even admitted this, they are QBs that need to develop properly. You know how many QBs have come and gone with that kind of scouting report? They are there in every single draft. That DOES NOT mean they all pan out, that does not mean they do either. But for someone who feels this is a need in the top 5, you have yet to give me an argument that these two QBs are somehow better prospects than the safety and cornerback that will be there in the top 10.

Ramsey, no brainer for me.

Another highly talented S/CB hybrid prospect. If we go with Ramsey, we either end up with CB with a high ceiling or a safety that will play alongside Jones. When was the last time we had two first round picks covering the backfield?

Ramsey all the way. Stay away from those trash QB prospects.

Most QBs prospects don't play a pro-style offense in college and so need a period of adjustment when they get to the NFL and this applies to Lynch and Geoff and pretty much any other QB who is going to come out in the next few years.

But both have elite skillsets that why they are highly regarded and will go in the top half of the 1st round (at least).

To give yourself the best chance of getting a good one you take the best prospect possible.

If you want to wait for next year’s prospects then you’ll probably have to pick top 10 again is any are actually worth it.

And again who else likely picked top 10 this year is such a great prospect that we can pass on very good QB talent?

And as for the last time we had two number one picks play for us in the backfield it was 2008 and how did that work out?

 

[Sydla]

No offense, but using the logic that we drafted Claiborne and he busted or had two number one picks in the secondary for us was 2008 and it didnt' work out so therefore we shouldn't consider drafting a kid like Ramsey is pretty silly.

And one more thing, as we are seeing more and more, you don't need to use a Top 10 pick to find a QB that can play. Wilson was a later round pick. Bridgewater is doing well as a youngster and was a later first round pick. The idea that if we don't take a QB in this Top Ten means we are doomed to not find a QB or have to wait until our next Top Ten pick is misguided.

 

[JIMMYBUFFETT]

Hey, keep trying we might get it right. Or something.

And with the success Dallas has had drafting DBs in the first round I'm surprised we're not winning every year.

Yeah Byron Jones has been a real disappointment hasn't he.

 

[Alexander]

Yeah Byron Jones has been a real disappointment hasn't he.

He also was not a top ten pick, unlike Newman or Claiborne. It is much easier to find a DB later that can contribute more than a QB.

 

[mattjames2010]

Most QBs prospects don't play a pro-style offense in college and so need a period of adjustment when they get to the NFL and this applies to Lynch and Geoff and pretty much any other QB who is going to come out in the next few years.

But both have elite skillsets that why they are highly regarded and will go in the top half of the 1st round (at least).

To give yourself the best chance of getting a good one you take the best prospect possible.

If you want to wait for next year’s prospects then you’ll probably have to pick top 10 again is any are actually worth it.

And again who else likely picked top 10 this year is such a great prospect that we can pass on very good QB talent?

And as for the last time we had two number one picks play for us in the backfield it was 2008 and how did that work out?

What you just bolded is not relevant to what I quoted. But okay.

First off, there is absolutely nothing that should make you confident those two QBs are going in the top 15. Both of those QBs may slip, especially if they don't have a strong combine. Geno Smith, after his combine, ended up in the top 10 of some mocks before the draft and slipped to the second round.

And you're again using players that didn't pan out for us in the past to dictate the players we choose in the draft this year. So, what happens if the QB we draft this year doesn't pan out? Is it time to stay away from QBs in the top 10? I mean, stupid Jags for drafting Gabbert and then Bortles. Gabbert didn't pan out, why the hell would they draft Bortles?

 

[IrishAnto]

What you just bolded is not relevant to what I quoted. But okay.

First off, there is absolutely nothing that should make you confident those two QBs are going in the top 15. Both of those QBs may slip, especially if they don't have a strong combine. Geno Smith, after his combine, ended up in the top 10 of some mocks before the draft and slipped to the second round.

And you're again using players that didn't pan out for us in the past to dictate the players we choose in the draft this year. So, what happens if the QB we draft this year doesn't pan out? Is it time to stay away from QBs in the top 10? I mean, stupid Jags for drafting Gabbert and then Bortles. Gabbert didn't pan out, why the hell would they draft Bortles?

You talking about what might happen in the future.


What happens if they have good pro-days/combines?


Hell Lynch might not come out!


But as it stands they are both considered to be prospects with elite potential and QBs trump any other position going.


And I'm not saying you should draft at a particular position again but rather having two or more 1st round picks at a particular position guarantees nothing.