Safety in round 1

Chuck 54

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,496
Reaction score
12,515
Absolutely NOT.

It's not that I expect to find the next Darren Woodson in any draft, but if history is going to be any guide for me, there's no way I using a #1 pick on a safety who doesn't run 4.5 or better.

Woodson ran 4.35 at his combine. No way I use my top pick on a safety, no matter how he looks on film, who runs 4.55-4.65.

Go OL or DL or BPA with first pick and find a safety in another round.

That's just me.
 

TheRomoSexual

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,057
Reaction score
4,958
H, I don't see much correlation. Barron, Smith, Rolle, Weddle, Wilson, Phillips, and Reed all ran around 4.5.
 

Chuck 54

Well-Known Member
Messages
20,496
Reaction score
12,515
TheRomoSexual;5034480 said:
H, I don't see much correlation. Barron, Smith, Rolle, Weddle, Wilson, Phillips, and Reed all ran around 4.5.

Vacarro ran 4.63.
 

Jaxonsdaddd

Active Member
Messages
363
Reaction score
74
Safeties do not run like corners just like tight ends dont run like wide receivers.

A safety running a 4.5 is more than fine
 

DFWJC

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,981
Reaction score
48,728
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
viman96;5034479 said:
My preference is:

OL
S
DL
OL
OL
OL
1st round preferences in order
OG
OT
DT
DE
trade down
S


There are too many fairly decent safeties to be had in rounds 2-4
 

Bowdown27

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,448
Reaction score
7,696
The only way I'd be ok with safety if cooper AND warmack are gone. Then I'm ok with safety. Otherwise I'd be pissed if we go safety over one of them
 

MonsterD

Quota outta absentia
Messages
8,106
Reaction score
5,801
Chuck 54;5034474 said:
Absolutely NOT.

It's not that I expect to find the next Darren Woodson in any draft, but if history is going to be any guide for me, there's no way I using a #1 pick on a safety who doesn't run 4.5 or better.

Woodson ran 4.35 at his combine. No way I use my top pick on a safety, no matter how he looks on film, who runs 4.55-4.65.

Go OL or DL or BPA with first pick and find a safety in another round.

That's just me.

Not all safeties have to be super fast, but in our defense they need to cover a ton of ground. I agree in part that if there is not a sure fire amazing play maker of a S in the draft you don't draft them that high in the first, PERIOD. Everything would have to be in check, film as one of the biggest playmakers in the entire nation amazing tackler, measurables at the top of even corners' abilities, ability to cover the fastest receivers etc.

This daft? nope.
 

Sonny Koufax

Well-Known Member
Messages
336
Reaction score
286
Bowdown27;5034490 said:
The only way I'd be ok with safety if cooper AND warmack are gone. Then I'm ok with safety. Otherwise I'd be pissed if we go safety over one of them

I agree with this!
 

Tex

Active Member
Messages
558
Reaction score
34
I swear if they take a safety in rd 1 I will vomit. OL and DL needs addressed. There are older veteran safety's available for now with our kids.

Tex
 

tantrix1969

Well-Known Member
Messages
963
Reaction score
450
MonsterD;5034504 said:
Not all safeties have to be super fast, but in our defense they need to cover a ton of ground. I agree in part that if there is not a sure fire amazing play maker of a S in the draft you don't draft them that high in the first, PERIOD. Everything would have to be in check, film as one of the biggest playmakers in the entire nation amazing tackler, measurables at the top of even corners' abilities, ability to cover the fastest receivers etc.

This daft? nope.

think you're right on with this, jmo but I don't see a big enough gap talent wise between Vacarro and the mess of 2nd round safeties to justify taking him at 18
 

muck4doo

Least-Known Member
Messages
3,877
Reaction score
2,190
You take the best player at your draft position in the #1 round regardless of your need.
 
Messages
106
Reaction score
5
Safety is deep, not sure why anyone would advocate going S in round one. We signed Church to an extension, signed Allen, and drafted Johnson...we addressed the position. RT, OG, DT are glaring needs. Normally I don't say draft for need, but the difference between Vacarro and say DJ Fluker is minimal at best in terms of overall talent at their positions. I'm still holding out hope that Cooper or Warmack falls...Titans signing Levitre helped some.
 
Messages
106
Reaction score
5
muck4doo;5034521 said:
You take the best player at your draft position in the #1 round regardless of your need.
I don't agree. We'll just use numbers...say you have Trufant rated a 93, but have Fluker rated a 90...you have to go with the greater need in that case. I agree with BPA for the most part, but there are cases where you have to ignore it.
 

Zimmy Lives

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,165
Reaction score
4,631
Chuck 54;5034474 said:
Absolutely NOT.

It's not that I expect to find the next Darren Woodson in any draft, but if history is going to be any guide for me, there's no way I using a #1 pick on a safety who doesn't run 4.5 or better.

Woodson ran 4.35 at his combine. No way I use my top pick on a safety, no matter how he looks on film, who runs 4.55-4.65.

Go OL or DL or BPA with first pick and find a safety in another round.

That's just me.

Agreed.

I said it before and I'll say it again: This team needs beef up front -- either line -- not Cabernet sauce, which is what a safety would be in round 1.
 

TheRomoSexual

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,057
Reaction score
4,958
DrKennethNoisewater;5034527 said:
I don't agree. We'll just use numbers...say you have Trufant rated a 93, but have Fluker rated a 90...you have to go with the greater need in that case. I agree with BPA for the most part, but there are cases where you have to ignore it.

That's not really how BPA works. With BPA, you create a draft board that is affected by your team needs and you stick by that board, thereby preventing a team from reaching for a particular "need" in a particular round. For example, here is the Cowboys' draft board from 2011: http://sturminator.blogspot.com/2010/04/cowboys-final-draft-board.html

In other words, there's a good chance hat Trufant won't even be on our board.
 

DFWJC

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,981
Reaction score
48,728
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
muck4doo;5034521 said:
You take the best player at your draft position in the #1 round regardless of your need.
Or you trade down.
But traft boards and stictly numerical.

It's more like

R1, Tier 1 (4-5 players)
R1, Tier 2 (maybe 5-6 players)
R1, Tier 3 (maybe 5-6 players)
etc

You always have choices within Tiers, but it the gaps bewtween tiers where teams sometimes reach. Say Your Rd1/Tiers 1-3 players are all ok to take at pick 18 but when you get there only one is leaft and it's not a postion of need. You really need to trade down to get better value there. If a Tier 1 player is still on the board, you may end up taking them regardless of need. No trade down..nothing, just take them because the value (according to your board) is overwhelming.
Otherwise, the trick is use BPA but try to match value with need.

If BPA is QB at 18
It may be more valuable to trade that 18th pick and get two or three BPA picks later that also match need.
Same value but better use.
 

thechosen1n2

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,237
Reaction score
538
muck4doo;5034521 said:
You take the best player at your draft position in the #1 round regardless of your need.

I see what you are saying and I somewhat agree, but its not black and white to that extent.

EXAMPLE: If the best player on the board is a LB and we are our LB are Lee, Durant, Carter, Sims, Albright but the 2nd best player on the board is a Guard. You do not draft the LB.
 
Top