The Great Dallas Draft Debate--Fans of QB at 4 won't like it

[Cowboys1fan]

Lawrence broke his foot his rookie year and wasn't really fully healthy and game shape until the end of the season.

So I just want to be clear here. A rookie, who has never played an NFL down, is considerably better than a DE who has actually proven now he can play in the NFL?

This is my favorite time of year, when people latch onto prospects and love them so much they overrate their talents. Bosa is now the best DE on Dallas before even playing a down in the league. Myles Jack is so freaking awesome he can play TB for Dallas too. Ezekiel Elliott is so freaking dominant, he's going to run for 2000 yards as a rookie.

LOL.

Gather all the info you've read from idiots and post it. Ha. Whatever. Bosa will be better than Lawrence. He would play left end out the gate. Bosa is a true 4-3 end. They don't come around often that are as good as him. He would have went top 4 if he could have came out last year. He is always in the backfield

 

[Sydla]

Gather info from what idiots?

It's actually simple. You have a guy who just recorded 8 sacks in the NFL in his 2nd year and you have a guy who has never played a NFL down. To say that Bosa will be SIGNIFICANTLY better than Lawrence isn't based in any real factual evidence.

Maybe he will be. But then again, there's a decent chance he might not be.

 

[Western]

Romo's bad contract signing in 2013, and the subsequent restructures in later years should not be an obstacle to selecting a QB at 4.
Is it not possible that the overall team cap hit in future years (via a Romo trade, or Romo retirement) can be offset by restructuring other players contracts in those later years?
I would think so.

In any event, I am not letting a crummy Romo contract and the dreadful restructures affect the future of the franchise & more importantly, I am not letting Mr. Romo hold the franchise hostage for the future because the Joneses failed in contract negotiations and the restructures.

Draft the rookie QB at 4 or higher, get him playing time in 2016 (due to the annual Romo injury, or if Garrett has the backbone, a necessary Romo benching due to a poor performance because of playing with an injury/pain -- see last year's Thanksgiving game against Carolina), and then let the rookie become the full-time starter in 2017.

Have the guts and take the dead money hit and move on.

 

[StarBoyz83]

Gather info from what idiots?

It's actually simple. You have a guy who just recorded 8 sacks in the NFL in his 2nd year and you have a guy who has never played a NFL down. To say that Bosa will be SIGNIFICANTLY better than Lawrence isn't based in any real factual evidence.

Maybe he will be. But then again, there's a decent chance he might not be.

Doubt any DE at 4 will get more than 2 or 3 sacks

 

[DFWJC]

I think it's fairly established already who wants us to take a QB at 4 (or even higher) and who doesn't.

There' plenty of evidence both ways.

Dallas' situation is unique.
If they do take a QB in the top 4, it will be the first time that I can recall a team ever doing so when they have a highly paid and highly productive starter locked up for a few years too come.

Romo's injuries last year are not at all career threatening. If they were back injuries, that'd be much worse. And the season before, he played at a league MVP level.
But he IS older and there's always those back issues in the back of our minds--regardless of his MVP level play with them in 2014. It is a legit concern.

Despite what those with the extreme views one way or the other say, I don't think this is a no-brainer either way.

I've said all along...any player you take in the top 4 better be someone you consider an A+ prospect. Otherwise you trade down and capture that huge value with an A and B+ player combined.
But if you love the player as an A+ (and not the draft position just because you are there) then you take him.

Personally, I think if you're picking in the 12-22 range in the first round, you almost have just as good a chance of getting a real star as you do in the top 5. You don't force a pick just because you are picking that high...it's a massive waste.
But if he's an A+, Luck-level prospect--sure...take him.
If he's graded more in the range like Bortles, Carr, Bridgewater, Flacco, Roethlisberger, Brees, and others were graded pre-draft...well, they tend to be there in the mid 1st round or later.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I think it's fairly established already who wants us to take a QB at 4 (or even higher) and who doesn't.

There' plenty of evidence both ways.

Dallas' situation is unique.
If they do take a QB in the top 4, it will be the first time that I can recall a team ever doing when they have a highly paid and highly productive starter locked up for a few years too come.

Yep, no team has ever been stupid enough to draft a backup quarterback with such a high pick. It would be a laughably embarrassing move. Truth be told, I don't even think the "QB or bust" crowd on here is really stupid enough to want to draft a QB at 4. They are really protesting Jerry's assertion that Romo can play several more seasons, using this draft a QB silliness as an outlet.

 

[Sydla]

Yep, no team has ever been stupid enough to draft a backup quarterback with such a high pick. It would be a laughably embarrassing move. Truth be told, I don't even think the "QB or bust" crowd on here is really stupid enough to want to draft a QB at 4. They are really protesting Jerry's assertion that Romo can play several more seasons, using this draft a QB silliness as an outlet.

How many teams have been in the exact same position as Dallas, where their elite QB is 36 years old and has a history of injuries, including a bad back?

What's silly is totally ignoring the factors here as to why a QB at 4 would make sense.

 

[DogFace]

Bottom line--we won't draft a QB at 4. I agree with op and others that it would be somewhat of a wasted pick given the reasons he laid out. Mainly the financial commitment we have given to Romo.

I'd like Ramsey. Wouldn't hate Elliot. Still not convinced about Bosa.

 

[DFWJC]

Romo's bad contract signing in 2013, and the subsequent restructures in later years should not be an obstacle to selecting a QB at 4.
Is it not possible that the overall team cap hit in future years (via a Romo trade, or Romo retirement) can be offset by restructuring other players contracts in those later years?
I would think so.

In any event, I am not letting a crummy Romo contract and the dreadful restructures affect the future of the franchise & more importantly, I am not letting Mr. Romo hold the franchise hostage for the future because the Joneses failed in contract negotiations and the restructures.

Draft the rookie QB at 4 or higher, get him playing time in 2016 (due to the annual Romo injury, or if Garrett has the backbone, a necessary Romo benching due to a poor performance because of playing with an injury/pain -- see last year's Thanksgiving game against Carolina), and then let the rookie become the full-time starter in 2017.

Have the guts and take the dead money hit and move on.

The hate runs deep from this one.

 

[Stash]

Yep, no team has ever been stupid enough to draft a backup quarterback with such a high pick.

Actually, the correct term would be 'future quarterback'. You having it wrong may explain your apparent confusion on the subject.

It would be a laughably embarrassing move.

Know what was truly a "laughably embarrassing move"? Washing years after Aikman retired with names like Tony Banks, Quincy Carter, Chad Hutchinson, and Drew Henson. You want "laughably embarrassing moves"? Do some homework and research those days of the franchise when they repeatedly thought they could cheat the spetpstablished system and suffered embarrassing failure after embarrassing failure.

Truth be told, I don't even think the "QB or bust" crowd on here is really stupid enough to want to draft a QB at 4. They are really protesting Jerry's assertion that Romo can play several more seasons, using this draft a QB silliness as an outlet.

The "truth" of it is that while some people realize that you can't get quarterbacks anywhere else, some still remain oblivious to that fact, even while guys like Kirk Cousins and Sam Bradford make $18 and $19 million a year and instead clamor for positions available anywhere and everywhere.

 

[Stash]

Bottom line--we won't draft a QB at 4. I agree with op and others that it would be somewhat of a wasted pick given the reasons he laid out. Mainly the financial commitment we have given to Romo.

I'd like Ramsey. Wouldn't hate Elliot. Still not convinced about Bosa.

How much do the Eagles have invested in Sam Bradford and Chase Daniel this year, not to mention talk if them trading up to add a rookie quarterback?

If this decision is at all being influenced by finances, this team is more screwed than any of us have ever feared.

 

[Floatyworm]

I HATE the idea of drafting a QB @4.....for so many reasons....

That being said-- from what we've done this off season, everything points to this exactly happening. It's s the one position not addressed so far. Hopefully it's in the later rounds....

3 years from now...you will look back and think..thank god we took a QB.....or you will be questioning this franchise why it didn't invest in a QB when it was so obvious it needed to be done...and we had the chance.

 

[Sydla]

How much do the Eagles have invested in Sam Bradford and Chase Daniel this year, not to mention talk if them trading up to add a rookie quarterback?

If this decision is at all being influenced by finances, this team is more screwed than any of us have ever feared.

Exactly.

I understand the financial commitment angle if we were talking about a 33 year old Romo with no real injury history. Then, I can see saying we don't want to tie up too much in the QB position.

Unfortunately, that's not the case here. We have a 36 year old QB who has a serious back issue and has had multiple broken collarbones. From this point on, he's a fairly sizeable risk to miss time the remainder of his contract.

At that point, injury risk trumps any worries about financial commitments. The QB position is that important that you can't ignore what's in front of your face and just think you'll fix QB when you feel like it. To ignore that is to ignore what happened for approximately a decade between the end of Aikman's career and then luckiness of a UDFA in Romo turning into an elite QB.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Actually, the correct term would be 'future quarterback'. You having it wrong may explain your apparent confusion on the subject.

What are you illiterate? I said backup quarterback. The position is filled for the foreseeable future. And spare me your psychic predictions about how Romo won't finish the season. I'm not impressed, Miss Cleo.

Teams don't waste top 4 picks on players that they have no immediate plan to play. Ever. Stop believing in the myth of Aaron Rodgers (who was a low 1st round pick, by the way).

 

[Sydla]

What are you illiterate? I said backup quarterback. The position is filled for the foreseeable future. And spare me your psychic predictions about how Romo won't finish the season. I'm not impressed, Miss Cleo.

Teams don't waste top 4 picks on players that they have no immediate plan to play. Ever. Stop believing in the myth of Aaron Rodgers (who was a low 1st round pick, by the way).

How many teams have been in the exact position Dallas is in with an aging QB who is a serious injury risk but also having a Top 5 pick?

You know what else is a waste? Taking a QB in the 4th round thinking he's going to be your Romo replacement. Another big waste? Thinking you'll solve the QB problem when Romo is actually done. Did you just become a Cowboys fan in 2009?

 

[Stash]

Exactly.

I understand the financial commitment angle if we were talking about a 33 year old Romo with no real injury history. Then, I can see saying we don't want to tie up too much in the QB position.

Looking around the NFL landscape, it's easy to see that quarterback is the most prized commodity in sports. Teams are so scared of being have-not's that they'll pay $100 million just so they don't lose guys they're still unsure about like Dalton and Tannehill. Sam Bradford is making $18 million based off of a disappointing 2015 season rather than the Eagles living without him. If that doesn't make the point clear enough for people, I don't know what would.

Unfortunately, that's not the case here. We have a 36 year old QB who has a serious back issue and has had multiple broken collarbones. From this point on, he's a fairly sizeable risk to miss time the remainder of his contract.

At that point, injury risk trumps any worries about financial commitments. The QB position is that important that you can't ignore what's in front of your face and just think you'll fix QB when you feel like it. To ignore that is to ignore what happened for approximately a decade between the end of Aikman's career and then luckiness of a UDFA in Romo turning into an elite QB.

Exactly and it may be that some fans are too new to the team to have experienced it to understand it. If so, they really should do their homework and look back at how this team struggled between Aikman retiring and finding Romo. It should give people a better perspective.

And the other theory is just as misplaced. Some people see it simply as either/or, this or that. One extreme or their other. Romo either holds up all year long or he misses the entire season and we're terrible and drafting top 10 again in 2017. All the while failing to take the variables into consideration that Romo could also miss any other number of games and this team could otherwise finish just good enough to take you out of range to draft a QB again for years.

 

[Stash]

What are you illiterate? I said backup quarterback. The position is filled for the foreseeable future. And spare me your psychic predictions about how Romo won't finish the season. I'm not impressed, Miss Cleo.

I don't need predictions. I'll take the facts of it and the 27 games the player has actually missed over your hoping and wishful thinking thanks!

Funny how you'll proclaim someone else being "Miss Cleo" while you're the idiot trying to predict health for a quarterback who hasn't played a full season since 2012? Self awareness isn't one of your strong points, is it?

Teams don't waste top 4 picks on players that they have no immediate plan to play. Ever. Stop believing in the myth of Aaron Rodgers (who was a low 1st round pick, by the way).

And you stop believing that a 36-year old player will only get healthier over time.

 

[Sydla]

I'll say this.

If the front office passes on a QB with that 4th pick because they are just not sold either is a franchise QB or that they like Lynch more and think they can get him in the middle of the first, great. In the end, you have to trust their assessment of a player.

But if they pass on a QB under the notion that they don't need one because they have Romo and no team has ever taken a QB at 4 when they have a QB already in place and that they can find his replacement later or they can find his replacement in the 4th or 5th round, then they are just not a very forward thinking organization.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

How many teams have been in the exact position Dallas is in with an aging QB who is a serious injury risk but also having a Top 5 pick?

You know what else is a waste? Taking a QB in the 4th round thinking he's going to be your Romo replacement. Another big waste? Thinking you'll solve the QB problem when Romo is actually done. Did you just become a Cowboys fan in 2009?

Romo is not a "serious injury risk". He has missed 1 game because of his "bad back" and every other injury he has sustained would have knocked out every quarterback in the league as well. He has also played through a punctured lung and broken bones so he is actually more durable than average. Stop making up stuff to fit your dumb agenda.

And yes, we'll do it like most every team in the history of the NFL has done and we'll deal with the QB issue as it comes. Even if we use a first round pick the season after Romo retires, I'm fairly sure that the prospect we get will be just as good as a community college QB from North Dakota with 600 pass attempts. Stop acting like this is the last draft in NFL history and stop believing in the myth of Aaron Rodgers.

 

[Stash]

How many teams have been in the exact position Dallas is in with an aging QB who is a serious injury risk but also having a Top 5 pick?

That would be none, but the less informed don't consider that fact in their rush to judgement either.

You know what else is a waste? Taking a QB in the 4th round thinking he's going to be your Romo replacement. Another big waste? Thinking you'll solve the QB problem when Romo is actually done. Did you just become a Cowboys fan in 2009?

We've been there and done that. Tried and failed repeatedly to 'cheat the system' and fill the most difficult position in sports 'on the cheap'. And the miserable results speak for themselves.

I can only hope that Jones and Co have learned from past mistakes while apparently some uninformed fans haven't.