The Pitts talk is mental

[Scottishcowboy]

Until a few days ago, I really felt this draft has to be like Carolina's last year - EVERY player on D but I'm coming round to Pitts if he is available. He could be the true difference maker if the hype turns out to be correct.

My logic is also maybe 2021 is just a "bridge" year to really compete from 2022 so while our D will miss out on a 1st rounder in 2021 if Pitts were taken, then we focus on getting enough D after round 1 this year and go heavy early next 2022 draft.

I'm not saying 2021 is a write off, just our chances of competing for the big prize is likely difficult but 2022 could be different if we have a generational talent like Pitts on board to scare the life out of other teams. I'm also thinking the roster isn't going to be massively different in 2022 as there's not any players coming to the end so we need to "win now". Maybe T Smith is the 1 player coming to the end but if he is done for 2022, it's probably done now anyway after surgery. I'd also suggest Dak may be <100% in 2021 and only fully ready to go in 2022. Add to that a full year for Diggs, Gregory playing a full season, Lamb with another year of development and potentially Galimore and Hill coming along, 2022 isn't sounding too bad.

Let me put this another way, if you told me we take Surtain and have a decent season with 11 wins, I'd take that right now. If however we take Pitts and he is a monster/ generational talent but we finish the season with 8 wins because the D is weak on the back end (minus Surtain obviously). We then draft a corner in 2022 round 1 who is at Surtain's level and hit 2022 with an incredible offence and a similar D, just 1 year later. I really like the sound of that so potentially there is a path to Pitts that doesn't seem so silly after all?

 

[Sandyf]

We have 3 WRs with #1 potential, one already a proven bona-fide #1 in Cooper. We have a proven full-season starter in Schultz, and we have high-upside Jarwin coming back.

These are probably the two positions, along with QB, that we do not need.

Why are people so obsessed with bringing Pitts in?

Maybe with Pitts we can get to 45 points a game.... and our defense will give up 50.

I look at Pitts differently. Sure he could be awesome on offense for us but the key in the draft is to stay true to your draft board especially in the 1st round. Don't care who it is, take the highest guy available on your draft board or trade down. Simple.

 

[Typhus]

Okay, you are a GM on a team that already has a QB and it is your turn to pick in the top 5 a player from this draft class. There are 2 players I can see worth taking. Pitts and Sewell. Pitts is a unique talent and as we have read some scout are saying he has HoF potential. As a GM how can you not take him? The same is true for Sewell, but to a lesser degree. Sewell is considered the top talent at OT. How can you pass on that, especially at a position that is so critical in the NFL now?

Smith and Chase are talented players, but they are not being talked about as future HoFers. They are not generational talents. They are just the best of this weak draft class. I think we can agree that Lawrence goes first. Then the Jets take another QB, say Wilson. Then comes Miami, Atlanta and Cincy. Some have Atlanta taking a QB, but I am not so sure they do this year. But two teams already have a QB. Does anyone think Miami takes a WR over Pitts?

I just think Pitts will be gone before the Cowboys pick, and even before the Eagles pick. If Pitts is what the scouts say he is how can he not going in the top 5?

Sewell is long gone, Bengals will take him easily at 5.

 

[streetcredit]

Our Qb cannot win games unless he has weapons at every position and 5 probowl Olinemen

 

[Proof]

Pitts looks pretty damn special. There's been athletes of his caliber at TE before, but none of Fant, Engram, Ebron, Davis, etc had the kind of natural feel at receiver that he does.

Really hope another team drafts him and makes the decision for us, cause man. Our defense needs help in the worst way but Pitts is guaranteed to be an absolute monster. It is textbook BPA vs need.

me too, except the Eagles or giants :-/

 

[Proof]

Our Qb cannot win games unless he has weapons at every position and 5 probowl Olinemen

tee hee.

 

[BourbonBalz]

The worst thing the team can do is draft BPA at need. You need to fix "adequately" whatever major needs before the draft in FA. If the draft board says that Pitts is a future Hall of Famer and he's there. You draft him. You don't want to be sitting there 10 years from now saying ,yeah that Kyle Pitts is going in the hall of fame, but my corner I Drafted instead, he lasted 5 years, did OK.... If you end up with Pitts you deal with the extra players later if he upgraded someone. You trade Gallup /other TE's whatever. Deal with the problem later.

You might think it is idiocy but it is really flawed "immediate gratification" logic to think otherwise

The BPA route is great in the abstract, but not always in reality. I’ve made a post similar to this several times and I’ve never received a response because it blows that theory out of the water.

If pick 10 comes up and the highest rated player on our board is one of the QBs (Fields for example), do you want to take him? What if Smith or Chase are available and they’re the highest rated player on our board? Do you want to take them? What if the highest rated player on the Bengal’s board is a QB? Do you think they should take him? If the highest rated player on our board in the 2017 draft had been a RB, should we have taken him? The answer to all of these scenarios is a firm hell no. Like I said, taking the highest rated player is a great idea in theory, but it sometimes doesn’t match up to reality. I’m not saying you settle for a much lesser talented player or reach for a player. I’m simply saying all teams look at need to a certain extent. They have to give a little consideration to their roster. If two players are available and one you need is “slightly” below one you don’t need, you might take the slightly lesser player. And who knows, the player you take could very well out perform the one you didn’t. It’s all a gamble anyway. Extremely highly rated players bust and 6th rounders become HOF players.

 

[DFWJC]

Look, if Dallas has Pitts grouped in the same tier group as some available defensive players, then sure, take the defenders.
But I have a feeling they (and most teams) rank him a full tier (or two) higher than any of them.
If that is the case and he is there you'd be crazy not to take him or trade down.
And again, if you draft Pitts you probably should trade one of our WRs.

Btw, there really is no true player-by-player BPA.
They have a vertical board for convenience, but these players are grouped into tiers--which helps better address both quality and need.

Common sense.
I mean if you have one player graded as a 90.1 and one as 90.0, but the latter plays a position of need....of course, you take that player of need as they are essentially rated the same.

 

[morasp]

I like the NFL grading system.

6.0-6.29 quality backup could become a starter 112 players
6.3-6.49 Starter within two years 37 players
6.5 + first year quality starter 12 players this year
7.0 + pro bowl talent. 5 Players this year

 

[Rayman70]

If Surtain and Farley are gone, you either take Slater or Pitts at 10. I prefer Slater ONLY because we COULD grab another great TE later if we wanted in Brevin Jordan. I cannot underscore enough how vital it is we fix the tackle positions on the oline via draft. Must protect your 160mil asset at all costs.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The BPA route is great in the abstract, but not always in reality. I’ve made a post similar to this several times and I’ve never received a response because it blows that theory out of the water.

If pick 10 comes up and the highest rated player on our board is one of the QBs (Fields for example), do you want to take him? What if Smith or Chase are available and they’re the highest rated player on our board? Do you want to take them? What if the highest rated player on the Bengal’s board is a QB? Do you think they should take him? If the highest rated player on our board in the 2017 draft had been a RB, should we have taken him? The answer to all of these scenarios is a firm hell no. Like I said, taking the highest rated player is a great idea in theory, but it sometimes doesn’t match up to reality. I’m not saying you settle for a much lesser talented player or reach for a player. I’m simply saying all teams look at need to a certain extent. They have to give a little consideration to their roster. If two players are available and one you need is “slightly” below one you don’t need, you might take the slightly lesser player. And who knows, the player you take could very well out perform the one you didn’t. It’s all a gamble anyway. Extremely highly rated players bust and 6th rounders become HOF players.

Nothing about this blows the theory out of the water, because nobody's arguing for perfect absolute theoretical purity.

Two things you have to understand:

• Player ratings aren't precise, there's no such thing as one guy being rated "slightly" below another guy: they're in the same tier or they aren't. We're talking here only about situations where there's only one player left in a tier. So when you say, "I’m not saying you settle for a much lesser talented player," the only options left are trade down or suck it up and take the BPA. You have to do one of those things.
• It's possible for the draft to play out badly. It happens.

If pick 10 comes around and the Cowboys have a clear BPA on their board, and it's a QB or WR, and nobody wants to trade up to that draft pick, they're in a tough spot. They have to do something, but they only have poor options. I would definitely not pick the QB and probably not pick the WR, but I wouldn't be happy about it. I would be "settling for a much lesser talented player." That's just the way it would be.

If the clear BPA on their board at #10 is a RB, I'm firing the whole scouting staff. If any other player is the clear BPA, I'm taking him, no questions asked.

The trade down part is complicated too. If I have to trade down 5 spots but my next tier of players only has 3 names in it, are the picks I'm gaining worth dropping 2 tiers? Nobody's saying it's easy. But the main point is: if I'm passing up BPA, my draft has gone badly. That doesn't mean it's my fault or I had better options.

 

[robertfchew]

I have a hard time visualizing the Cowboys drafting Pitts. I think the guy is tremendous value but he's a hard player to gauge. Not only do we have 3 wideouts and Jarwin but Pitts can't block that well. If Pitts was an elite blocking TE and with his catch and route running skill set then I would say draft him. However, he's not going to help us in the run game, so it's a PASS for me.

Also, TE's should never be taken top 10. Has Hockenson turned Detroit into contenders?

George Kittle 5th round draft pick

Travis Kelce 3rd round draft pick

Antonio Gates Undrafted Free Agent

Jason Witten 3rd round draft pick

Jimmy Graham 3rd round draft pick

Gronk a 2 only cause of injury concerns. Hernandez a 4th because he was a known criminal. I don't like the history of 1st round te's but if this guy is what they say he is then you cant discount him at 10 even if its a smoke screen to get someone to come up. After taking ceedee last year teams might just believe we are taking bpa no matter what

 

[robertfchew]

Pitts looks pretty damn special. There's been athletes of his caliber at TE before, but none of Fant, Engram, Ebron, Davis, etc had the kind of natural feel at receiver that he does.

Really hope another team drafts him and makes the decision for us, cause man. Our defense needs help in the worst way but Pitts is guaranteed to be an absolute monster. It is textbook BPA vs need.

If hes everything people are saying we cant pass. This is why you need a functioning front office. If you take him and hes like every other 1st round te lately then then you just screwed yourself.

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

Draft Pitts, trade Gallup so you get something out of him...the offense is better. That is why people think about doing it. Pitts is a Kelce or Kittle level TE, or a Gronk in his prime. Not hard to see how he could make the offense better. Schultz and Jarwin are low to mid level players.

 

[jaythecowboy]

From what I have been hearing Pitts can be a gamechanger for an offense. He bodied Patrick Surtain on the outside and people want the Cowboys to draft Surtain at 10. I was fine drafting a receiver and moving on from Gallup but Pitts can give you snaps at TE and WR. Would be a problem for opposing defenses. You could potentially have Cooper, Lamb, Jarwin, and Pitts on the field but play in 12 or 11 personnel formations depending on what you see from the defense.

 

[jaythecowboy]

The BPA route is great in the abstract, but not always in reality. I’ve made a post similar to this several times and I’ve never received a response because it blows that theory out of the water.

If pick 10 comes up and the highest rated player on our board is one of the QBs (Fields for example), do you want to take him? What if Smith or Chase are available and they’re the highest rated player on our board? Do you want to take them? What if the highest rated player on the Bengal’s board is a QB? Do you think they should take him? If the highest rated player on our board in the 2017 draft had been a RB, should we have taken him? The answer to all of these scenarios is a firm hell no. Like I said, taking the highest rated player is a great idea in theory, but it sometimes doesn’t match up to reality. I’m not saying you settle for a much lesser talented player or reach for a player. I’m simply saying all teams look at need to a certain extent. They have to give a little consideration to their roster. If two players are available and one you need is “slightly” below one you don’t need, you might take the slightly lesser player. And who knows, the player you take could very well out perform the one you didn’t. It’s all a gamble anyway. Extremely highly rated players bust and 6th rounders become HOF players.

I feel like qb is a unique case because you can only play one at a time and you can't get out of Dak's contract. If this was Dak's last year, it certainly would be on the table. In terms of running back, if there was a running back that could legitimately play receiver at a high level, then I would potentially take him. People don't consider WR a need but it becomes a need next season if Gallup is gone. If the Cowboys extended Gallup and Cooper right now then I would scratch off receiver because they have already invested long term at that position. Since that hasn't happened I still think WR is a viable pick. So BPA isn't something that you can stick to 100% of the time but it should be the method whenever possible. Obviously trading back can be an option as well, but a lot of that depends on the offers you get. As far as the Cowboys sit right now I would go bpa at 10 with every position on the table except qb and rb (and rb only because of positional value, not because of Zeke).

 

[beware_d-ware]

Just read a blurb on Rotoworld. Pitts caught 43 balls last year. 39 of them went for either first downs or touchdowns.

Absolute stud.

 

[Parcells4Life]

Until a few days ago, I really felt this draft has to be like Carolina's last year - EVERY player on D but I'm coming round to Pitts if he is available. He could be the true difference maker if the hype turns out to be correct.

My logic is also maybe 2021 is just a "bridge" year to really compete from 2022 so while our D will miss out on a 1st rounder in 2021 if Pitts were taken, then we focus on getting enough D after round 1 this year and go heavy early next 2022 draft.

I'm not saying 2021 is a write off, just our chances of competing for the big prize is likely difficult but 2022 could be different if we have a generational talent like Pitts on board to scare the life out of other teams. I'm also thinking the roster isn't going to be massively different in 2022 as there's not any players coming to the end so we need to "win now". Maybe T Smith is the 1 player coming to the end but if he is done for 2022, it's probably done now anyway after surgery. I'd also suggest Dak may be <100% in 2021 and only fully ready to go in 2022. Add to that a full year for Diggs, Gregory playing a full season, Lamb with another year of development and potentially Galimore and Hill coming along, 2022 isn't sounding too bad.

Let me put this another way, if you told me we take Surtain and have a decent season with 11 wins, I'd take that right now. If however we take Pitts and he is a monster/ generational talent but we finish the season with 8 wins because the D is weak on the back end (minus Surtain obviously). We then draft a corner in 2022 round 1 who is at Surtain's level and hit 2022 with an incredible offence and a similar D, just 1 year later. I really like the sound of that so potentially there is a path to Pitts that doesn't seem so silly after all?

Next year we likely have to replace Tyron. There will always be a reason to take an offensive player. This is the first year you can say there is no hole on the team on offense.

We haven’t seen Moore and McCarthy use Jarwin yet. He was a WR at OKST before converting to TE.

Give me Surtain all day over Pitts or Slater. Now if Surtain is gone, I’m open to it if you can’t find a way to trade down.

 

[ghst187]

He might very well be the best player in the entire draft. If he falls in your lap, you take him period, esp when the players at positions of need are meh

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

The BPA route is great in the abstract, but not always in reality. I’ve made a post similar to this several times and I’ve never received a response because it blows that theory out of the water.

If pick 10 comes up and the highest rated player on our board is one of the QBs (Fields for example), do you want to take him? What if Smith or Chase are available and they’re the highest rated player on our board? Do you want to take them? What if the highest rated player on the Bengal’s board is a QB? Do you think they should take him? If the highest rated player on our board in the 2017 draft had been a RB, should we have taken him? The answer to all of these scenarios is a firm hell no. Like I said, taking the highest rated player is a great idea in theory, but it sometimes doesn’t match up to reality. I’m not saying you settle for a much lesser talented player or reach for a player. I’m simply saying all teams look at need to a certain extent. They have to give a little consideration to their roster. If two players are available and one you need is “slightly” below one you don’t need, you might take the slightly lesser player. And who knows, the player you take could very well out perform the one you didn’t. It’s all a gamble anyway. Extremely highly rated players bust and 6th rounders become HOF players.

There are some exceptions to BPA, although if you take that first round QB and can flip him into multiple picks down the road it could be worth it.

But I don't think your concern really applies when you are talking about TE. Jarwin and Schulz at their best are average TE's...Pitts is being talked about as one of the best to ever come out of college football. If you can add a guy like that to your team, you do it and don't look back. It would also give us the freedom to try and move Gallup who could be a valuable trading chip.