Rashawn Slater

[Teague31]

Absolutely no.

 

[beware_d-ware]

It's not that those were bad investments it's that at some point, one can wonder if throwing high round picks constantly at OL is giving the team the required return on investment. What has throwing a ton of resources at the OL actually gotten us? Not much. For the better part of that last decade we've been a flawed team that typically throws out a good offense and a suspect defense. And when you look at cap splits, for example, it's clear we've invested way more on offense than defense.

And then you look around at the teams that have had continued success and they have built their OLs in ways that didn't require them throwing a bunch of high picks at the OL. My point isn't to suggest that these guys weren't good players or that picking them at the time was wrong. It's the larger picture here. Our strategy of throwing high picks at the OL has resulted in what? Why do other teams make playoff runs, have sustained success and somehow find ways to build good OLs because they have developed mid to late round picks into good OL?

Those failures have come in other places besides the OL, mostly in picking busts on defense (1/6 productive years from Gregory, 1/5 productive years from Jaylon, 1/3 years for Vander Esch, Taco, Hill...).

The OL investments have done nothing but make our team better. They have returned better than average on their draft slots and returned better than average on their contracts. I think you are wishing that we could draft some OL that are "more better", maybe find some 3rd rounders who play like Tyron and Martin, but that's optimistic to say the least. The real thing that's killing us isn't the cost of the OL, it's draft picks and FA signings absolutely blowing up on us on defense.

 

[The Realist]

At some point the Cowboys need to stop throwing high picks and money at the OL at the detriment of other positions, specifically the defense.

Teams all over the league somehow are able to cobble together good OLs while finding quality OL in the middle rounds, etc. But for some reason, it appears we only think we can build good OLs by using quite a few first round picks on guys.

Now to clarify, if an OT was the BPA by far at 10, you have to take him. Like if for some odd reason the kid from Oregon just slid (like Lamb last year), then yeah you take him. But is Slater that much better than say a Farley at CB? I don't believe so.

 

[kevinhickey]

Not an overly sexy pick but a name that is getting mentioned as a possible selection of the Cowboys.

He is only 6'3"? That is a guard. To high for picking a future guard.

 

[baltcowboy]

At 10?

No thank you.

Word is he shorter the 6’3 along with his short arms but he did stop Chase Young. He is his kryptonite.

 

[Doomsday101]

He is only 6'3"? That is a guard. To high for picking a future guard.

He was not playing guard as he was kicking Chase Young butt all over the place. I agree not ideal height but the guy knows how to use his feet and is able to get on his man and stone him.

 

[bonafidebanter]

Other than CB from last year, we've had some bad luck with drafting defense in the first round recently. Jerruh needs to step it up.

 

[Verdict]

At some point the Cowboys need to stop throwing high picks and money at the OL at the detriment of other positions, specifically the defense.

Teams all over the league somehow are able to cobble together good OLs while finding quality OL in the middle rounds, etc. But for some reason, it appears we only think we can build good OLs by using quite a few first round picks on guys.

Now to clarify, if an OT was the BPA by far at 10, you have to take him. Like if for some odd reason the kid from Oregon just slid (like Lamb last year), then yeah you take him. But is Slater that much better than say a Farley at CB? I don't believe so.

I'm not throwing this specifically at YOU, but I see this argument, and those like it, made over and over again.

The premise seems to be that we don't "need" to take a certain position, because players at that position can be found anywhere in the draft. Then there is also an implication that a position (usually the defense) can ONLY be fixed by drafting defenders high in the draft. I mean, you can find defenders ANYWHERE in the draft, right? Should that matter.

I also see people saying that drafting higher isn't an advantage. Meanwhile those same people seem to think we should use a high pick to "fix" a specific position/position group. Its very circular logic.

 

[Sydla]

I'm not throwing this specifically at YOU, but I see this argument, and those like it, made over and over again.

The premise seems to be that we don't "need" to take a certain position, because players at that position can be found anywhere in the draft. Then there is also an implication that a position (usually the defense) can ONLY be fixed by drafting defenders high in the draft. I mean, you can find defenders ANYWHERE in the draft, right? Should that matter.

I also see people saying that drafting higher isn't an advantage. Meanwhile those same people seem to think we should use a high pick to "fix" a specific position/position group. Its very circular logic.

But that's not my argument. This franchise has put a substantial amount of resources into the OL over the years, moreso than any other position on the team. And how have we been rewarded? With nothing. The last decade has largely been mediocre football.

What I am disagreeing with is this notion that we have to take Slater at 10 or that it would be unwise to pass on him at 10 in a trade down scenario. If the only way to build a great OL for us is just throw high picks at it, then we'll continue to have an unbalanced team.

Note, I am not suggesting we never use first round picks on OL. I am just saying that we've seemingly convinced ourselves that every time we have an OL opening or need, we want to throw a first round pick at it.

 

[reddyuta]

Voch on Slater.

 

[The Realist]

Two of those 1st rounders are going to the Hall of Fame and the third was well on his way... I don't know how you could call that a bad investment in any way, shape or form.

Watt vs Tyron is a legit debate, but 2013 and 2014's 1st round picks weren't going to dredge up any HOF-level players on defense. And all three of those all outplayed their big second contracts for multiple seasons. Absolutely 0 regrets on any of our big 3.

On the flip side, we've spent 3 first rounders on defense in the last ten years and turned it into Byron, Taco and Vander Esch. Same investment for way worse results.

I mean, if the biggest slight you can make against our OL is that our second rounder Williams only became an average starter, those OL resources have been very well spent. I'm fine with spending a bunch of resources on one position group if they keep contributing immediately on their first contract and outperforming their second one.

Not to mention the fact that two of our first round were drafted in 2011 and 2014.

When will fans learn that drafting HOF OL in the first round is better than drafting Bobby Carpenter, Taco, and Claiborne?