Saw this from a Seahawk fan in regards to the Cowboys D

[Cowboyny]

I'm not counting on the two quality players in FA, especially at DL. Because of that, I'd rather trade down in the first round with Barmore being the target (but there are others like Horn and Moehrig who could be as well) and pick up another second. I think we have a better chance of getting those three Day 1 impact starters that way. I also would plan to use one of those second-round picks on another DT, one who can play the 1-tech spot.

So my hope would be trade down, get two DTs in the first two rounds and use the other pick on a corner or free safety, depending on how the draft falls. Of course, you can't plan that out completely, but that's what I'd go for. And I'd probably add another DT and DB in the third round, although a case could be made for adding a linebacker instead of the DT or even another DB.

I know some are going to say you can't do that, you've got to choose best player available, but there are usually tier groups where you really can't distinguish between prospects and it's easier to take what you need. I'm not talking about reaching. I don't want us to take someone from a lower tier over someone from a higher tier. In fact, one reason for trading down in the first round is because no DT is rated in the top 10.

So my perfect plan would look like this:

Trade down
1st: DT
2nd: DB (or DT)
2nd: DT (or DB)
3rd: DB (or DT)
3rd: DT (or DB)

The order could change some based on who is available, but that's the two positions I'd use those picks on. (If I selected defensive tackles with the first two picks, I might make the next three all defensive backs and not select another DT until the fourth, which is also when I'd probably select a linebacker depending on how things fall.)

As far as free agency goes, I think we have a better chance at some plug-and-play veterans in the secondary than we do on the defensive line. And I think given Quinn's history, a couple of the players who have been mentioned in this thread could end up in Dallas.

You can't project a position, the Cowboys did that same thing with Taco cause of the CB depth in that class. As it looks Taco, Awuzie, Lewis will be all gone.

I think the off-season focus will be a CB, S and NT, then look for depth help at LB & T. There shouldn't be an issue addressing the corner position as well as the NT. Safety is the biggest worry, probably should address that in fa, I am quite fine with giving Kazee at chance if healthy. Quinn staff developed him to become a free safety, has legit ball skills.

 

[gimmesix]

You can't project a position, the Cowboys did that same thing with Taco cause of the CB depth in that class. As it looks Taco, Awuzie, Lewis will be all gone.

I think the off-season focus will be a CB, S and NT, then look for depth help at LB & T. There shouldn't be an issue addressing the corner position as well as the NT. Safety is the biggest worry, probably should address that in fa, I am quite fine with giving Kazee at chance if healthy. Quinn staff developed him to become a free safety, has legit ball skills.

The Cowboys took Taco around the point he was supposed to go. The mistake they made was not seeing TJ Watt as an end prospect. Some players live up to projections, some don't.

 

[Cowboyny]

The Cowboys took Taco around the point he was supposed to go. The mistake they made was not seeing TJ Watt as an end prospect. Some players live up to projections, some don't.

Yes, they took the wrong guy, but no matter which corner was available, they were taking an DE cause they were afraid the depth at the position.

 

[gimmesix]

Yes, they took the wrong guy, but no matter which corner was available, they were taking an DE cause they were afraid the depth at the position.

First, what corner was worth taking at that point. The next corner, Kevin King, went in the second round. So making a statement like they were taking a DE no matter what isn't well-supported.

Second, they took Charlton about where he or Watt was slated to go. That's good drafting even if they made the wrong choice. The mistake they made from my understanding is that the scouts had Watt rated higher but they chose Charlton because of scheme fit.

Third, if Dallas trades down to around where Barmore is rated on their board, that's also good drafting. The idea is to get value where you are picking. Some players like Watt end up playing above that perceived value. Some like Charlton play below it. If they stay at 10, then Barmore is not considered to be good value.

 

[Cowboyny]

First, what corner was worth taking at that point. The next corner, Kevin King, went in the second round. So making a statement like they were taking a DE no matter what isn't well-supported.

Second, they took Charlton about where he or Watt was slated to go. That's good drafting even if they made the wrong choice. The mistake they made from my understanding is that the scouts had Watt rated higher but they chose Charlton because of scheme fit.

Third, if Dallas trades down to around where Barmore is rated on their board, that's also good drafting. The idea is to get value where you are picking. Some players like Watt end up playing above that perceived value. Some like Charlton play below it. If they stay at 10, then Barmore is not considered to be good value.

Charlton was another Marinelli selection. Also, McClay didn't want to take a player who never played with his hand in the dirt.

This is going to be an extremely hard draft to move back. After the QB's, it's going to be a seller's market as many players from say 12-60 will have similar grades. To move back, teams might have to take less, kind of like when the Cowboys dealt Reid to the 49ers and only got an extra 3rd, where they should of gotten another 2. Think we are going to have to make a pick at 10.

 

[gimmesix]

Charlton was another Marinelli selection. Also, McClay didn't want to take a player who never played with his hand in the dirt.

This is going to be an extremely hard draft to move back. After the QB's, it's going to be a seller's market as many players from say 12-60 will have similar grades. To move back, teams might have to take less, kind of like when the Cowboys dealt Reid to the 49ers and only got an extra 3rd, where they should of gotten another 2. Think we are going to have to make a pick at 10.

I don't disagree with that. If there's no QBs at 10, then a trade probably isn't going to happen. I think there'll be at least one of the first-round QBs left.

If we can't trade back, then I would follow my board, going with the defensive player if an offensive player isn't available who's significantly higher rated.

 

[Cowboyny]

I don't disagree with that. If there's no QBs at 10, then a trade probably isn't going to happen. I think there'll be at least one of the first-round QBs left.

If we can't trade back, then I would follow my board, going with the defensive player if an offensive player isn't available who's significantly higher rated.

Pay attention to those valued positions, that's most likely where they will use the pick on: CB, Tackle or Pass Rusher. We very well could have Farley, Slater (if they view him as Tackle), Ojulari. These are the most expensive positions on the open market, outside of QB.

 

[gimmesix]

Pay attention to those valued positions, that's most likely where they will use the pick on: CB, Tackle or Pass Rusher. We very well could have Farley, Slater (if they view him as Tackle), Ojulari. These are the most expensive positions on the open market, outside of QB.

One of our problems is that we haven't made DT a valued position. Our defense has suffered for it. If we stay at 10, obviously we'll have to choose from whose valued at that position. But we need to make DT a priority and try everything in our power to get into position to take the best one available.

 

[Cowboyny]

One of our problems is that we haven't made DT a valued position. Our defense has suffered for it. If we stay at 10, obviously we'll have to choose from whose valued at that position. But we need to make DT a priority and try everything in our power to get into position to take the best one available.

Unfortunately, this isn't a great year to land an elite DT. There will be a few good prospects on day 2, but none are considered stars. Find that much needed NT and it will affect the defense in a positive way, LB's play more clean, Ends see less double teams, etc.

 

[gimmesix]

Unfortunately, this isn't a great year to land an elite DT. There will be a few good prospects on day 2, but none are considered stars. Find that much needed NT and it will affect the defense in a positive way, LB's play more clean, Ends see less double teams, etc.

I think we've been missing that disruptive 3-tech that makes this kind of defense go. Warren Sapp, Henry Melton in his prime. If you don't have that playmaker at that position, you are not going to do well with this kind of defense. All the years under Marinelli, one reason we never could make this style of defense work was because we didn't have that player. Irving was close to it but he couldn't stay on the field or committed to the game.

I understand that we need to do a better job of having that blocker-magnet NT, but I think some don't value that game-changing 3-tech as much as they should. There are a few positions in this defensive alignment that are especially important, and that's one of the main ones.

I like some of the things we saw from Gallimore and think he's a good rotational player, but there's no indication that he's the 3-tech that we need. Can Barmore or Nixon be that player? I don't know.

 

[Cowboyny]

I think we've been missing that disruptive 3-tech that makes this kind of defense go. Warren Sapp, Henry Melton in his prime. If you don't have that playmaker at that position, you are not going to do well with this kind of defense. All the years under Marinelli, one reason we never could make this style of defense work was because we didn't have that player. Irving was close to it but he couldn't stay on the field or committed to the game.

I understand that we need to do a better job of having that blocker-magnet NT, but I think some don't value that game-changing 3-tech as much as they should. There are a few positions in this defensive alignment that are especially important, and that's one of the main ones.

I like some of the things we saw from Gallimore and think he's a good rotational player, but there's no indication that he's the 3-tech that we need. Can Barmore or Nixon be that player? I don't know.

I think there should be two others in that group: Onwuzerike, Tuefele. Not sure any of the 4 will be stars on the next level. Don't rule out Hill just yet. He has the size, strength, and the elite first step quickness. Just has to get better with his technique and become more consistent.

 

[gimmesix]

I think there should be two others in that group: Onwuzerike, Tuefele. Not sure any of the 4 will be stars on the next level. Don't rule out Hill just yet. He has the size, strength, and the elite first step quickness. Just has to get better with his technique and become more consistent.

I'd like not to rule out Hill, but he was pretty bad last year when he started. He's got a long way to go before he can be that guy.

The two you mentioned might end up being good choices for the position, I just believe if Dallas has Barmore rated in the 20s and them in the 40s or later (and I don't know if they do), then I really want the guy that's rated that much higher and as a first-round pick. As you've said, we might not can get a trade to put us in position to draft him, but I'd like to see it happen if Dallas believes he's a tier or two higher as a player.

It's hard to find that 3-tech stud without putting a premium on the position. It can happen, but it isn't easy. Now, that doesn't mean I think Barmore is a finished product; if he was he'd be going much higher than the 20s. But he is a disruptive player. And again, like I've said, I'd hedge my bets by taking multiple DTs trying to find that guy and that rock of an NT. We find those two starters and this defense will look a lot different.

 

[Cowboyny]

I'd like not to rule out Hill, but he was pretty bad last year when he started. He's got a long way to go before he can be that guy.

The two you mentioned might end up being good choices for the position, I just believe if Dallas has Barmore rated in the 20s and them in the 40s or later (and I don't know if they do), then I really want the guy that's rated that much higher and as a first-round pick. As you've said, we might not can get a trade to put us in position to draft him, but I'd like to see it happen if Dallas believes he's a tier or two higher as a player.

It's hard to find that 3-tech stud without putting a premium on the position. It can happen, but it isn't easy. Now, that doesn't mean I think Barmore is a finished product; if he was he'd be going much higher than the 20s. But he is a disruptive player. And again, like I've said, I'd hedge my bets by taking multiple DTs trying to find that guy and that rock of an NT. We find those two starters and this defense will look a lot different.

Tell you the honest truth, there isn't 1 dynamic 3T in the entire class. Barmore is more of an upside pick, who needs work as a run defender. He disappeared way too much for my liking.

 

[Verdict]

The person who said that was obviously a druggie. No offense intended to druggies.

 

[America's Cowboy]

This is just from another fans perspective in regards to fixing the Cowboy Defense. The quickest way Dan Quinn can rebuild the Cowboy Defense is if they brought the band back together, which I found interesting.

Sherman
Earl Thomas
KJ Wright

I know it's a far fetched idea, but it would allow the Cowboys to load up in the trenches.