The problem with justifying a QB at 4

[stilltheguru88]

And we are pretty set at LB. We have Lee at WLB, Hitch at MLB or SLB if McClain re-signs which is probable.

We also have DWilson, Gachkar. Nzeocha and Smith for depth. Not exactly a dire need.

That's set? Ugh.

 

[Frosty]

drafting a QB at 4 with the intent of sitting him behind Romo for multiple years is incredibly unconventional for an NFL team. Even the Colts just decided to move on from Peyton Manning and go full rebuild when they drafted Luck. If you have a QB you intend on moving forward with for the next few seasons there is no logical reason to select a QB top 5 as an insurance policy. It simply does not happen, and for good reason, that's way too much of an investment for what you are hoping for is zero return the first few years.

The team is still in a win now mode with Romo as the QB, you draft a QB with a top 5 pick then it sends a message that as a FO you have no clear vision or plan for the time being. If you're not committed to your QB and exhausting your resources to help him win then just move on and let Tony try to win elsewhere. Otherwise you're just in a purgatory state waiting for him to retire while the next guy gets ready, and that simply isn't how the NFL works.

Think the bigger question IS Romo healthy enough to play 14-16 games in 2016. We all no what the Cowboys front office an the media is telling us...only Romo and his doctors no the truth. Cowboys need to protect the franchise in case Romo is forced into early retirement. This is the best chance they will have to draft a top QB since Troy Aikman.

That's being said my money is on Jerry Jones gambling on another Risky Hail Mary type draft move thinking he is smarter than Al Davis and the Cowboys will be playing QB roulette for the next 5 years

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

That's set? Ugh.

Well set at our top 4 if McClain resigns. Lee, McClain, Hitchens, Wilson.

 

[stilltheguru88]

Well set at our top 4 if McClain resigns. Lee, McClain, Hitchens, Wilson.

Thats not a championship group, not to mention the two best guys are unreliable. Myles Jack isnt unreliable based on one injury. He needs to be a Cowboy period. If Lee gets hurt again (likely) we are screwed.

 

[big dog cowboy]

1. A team that was 4 -12 the previous season is not in a win-now mode

Did you forget the reason that happened? This just in, both those guys will be back next year.

 

[Direwolf63]

Thats not a championship group, not to mention the two best guys are unreliable. Myles Jack isnt unreliable based on one injury. He needs to be a Cowboy period. If Lee gets hurt again (likely) we are screwed.

I'm not sure that's true.

In 2014, Lee did not play at all and the Cowboys went 12-4.
In 2015, Lee played almost the entire season and the team went 4-12.

I love Lee, but it is not a make or break season if Lee plays or not. The QB position is more important. That's why it needs to be addressed at #4.

 

[Stash]

drafting a QB at 4 with the intent of sitting him behind Romo for multiple years is incredibly unconventional for an NFL team. Even the Colts just decided to move on from Peyton Manning and go full rebuild when they drafted Luck. If you have a QB you intend on moving forward with for the next few seasons there is no logical reason to select a QB top 5 as an insurance policy. It simply does not happen, and for good reason, that's way too much of an investment for what you are hoping for is zero return the first few years.

I think what is "unconventional" is the position the Cowboys find themselves in. Typically, teams drafting in the Top 5 are doing so because they're truly awful football teams, often without a franchise quarterback at all. The Cowboys' situation is very much like what happened to the Colts a few year ago. They lost their star quarterback and the season went down the drain. The difference between the Cowboys and the Colts however, is that Dallas still has Romo under contract for several more years, and unlike Manning, his injuries aren't career-threatening. We all know he will be playing next year.

The Cowboys, by virtue of a shockingly awful season, are now in position to reap the benefits of that lost season, by having excellent draft position. And, if things go as hoped, they won't be drafting this high for several years. That means they won't have this opportunity to get a franchise quarterback for quite some time either. Considering where Romo is in his career, and the complete lack of any quality quarterback behind him, this would be the perfect time to draft one.

The team is still in a win now mode with Romo as the QB, you draft a QB with a top 5 pick then it sends a message that as a FO you have no clear vision or plan for the time being.

I think drafting a future quarterback says anything but "no clear vision or plan". I think it's says just that - "we have a plan and want to improve our quarterbacking, for now and the future."

If you're not committed to your QB and exhausting your resources to help him win then just move on and let Tony try to win elsewhere. Otherwise you're just in a purgatory state waiting for him to retire while the next guy gets ready, and that simply isn't how the NFL works.

When did the draft become about one selection? Last I checked, this team is set to have nine draft choices this year. That sounds like ample opportunity to "help Romo win".

If, as many people say, this is still a 12-4 team who struggled simply due to injuries, how much more needs to be added? After all, they added a top pass rusher in free agency, and then not one, not two, but three first round talents in the draft last year.

Add to that, free agency this year and the upcoming draft and I see no better time to be afforded some patience to draft and develop a young quarterback. If not now, when? When the bottom completely falls out and you're left scrambling around for any answer? I've seen them there after Aikman retired, with no plan, and no options in place, and it wasn't pretty. For nearly a decade.

 

[Beast_from_East]

drafting a QB at 4 with the intent of sitting him behind Romo for multiple years is incredibly unconventional for an NFL team. Even the Colts just decided to move on from Peyton Manning and go full rebuild when they drafted Luck. If you have a QB you intend on moving forward with for the next few seasons there is no logical reason to select a QB top 5 as an insurance policy. It simply does not happen, and for good reason, that's way too much of an investment for what you are hoping for is zero return the first few years.

The team is still in a win now mode with Romo as the QB, you draft a QB with a top 5 pick then it sends a message that as a FO you have no clear vision or plan for the time being. If you're not committed to your QB and exhausting your resources to help him win then just move on and let Tony try to win elsewhere. Otherwise you're just in a purgatory state waiting for him to retire while the next guy gets ready, and that simply isn't how the NFL works.

Guys drafted in the first round and sitting is fairly common, and in fact it has happened even in the top 5.

Steve McNair was drafted 3rd overall and sat on the bench for 2 seasons before becoming the starter for the Titans, so I have no idea where you are getting this "not how the NFL works".

 

[stilltheguru88]

I'm not sure that's true.

In 2014, Lee did not play at all and the Cowboys went 12-4.
In 2015, Lee played almost the entire season and the team went 4-12.

I love Lee, but it is not a make or break season if Lee plays or not. The QB position is more important. That's why it needs to be addressed at #4.

Mcclain had a great year. Where is the great year going to come from? FA or mid round pick? The dismissal of linebacker for qb (a qb who wont be ready year 1) is startling

 

[Kolemmitt]

Did you forget the reason that happened? This just in, both those guys will be back next year.

I haven't made up my mind about QB at #4 or not, but we also missed our top corner for the entire year. We also failed to find a competent replacement for the lead-leading rusher for at least half of the year. Our 3-tech tackle (a very key part of the Marinelli defense) had to play with one arm for most of the year. We had a lot going against us last year. In a league of parity those are some big hits to take.

You never know about Romo's health and it is always good to plan for the future at QB, but I think we are just as close to 12-4 again as 4-12.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Problems, problems, problems everywhere with this team.

If Ro isn't resigned then the linebacking corps is in trouble. Hitchens took a step backward last year IMO.

And even if they do retain Ro, another body needs to be brought in.

 

[Rogerthat12]

I'm not saying he isn't a day 1 starter, I'm saying between his injury that limited him to 3 games this year and playing 2 positions while at UCLA, he's still raw as a LB and won't hit the ground running the same way Luke Kuechly did.

Disagree, Jack is already a month ahead of his injury and will be ready for the combine for full participation.

Jack can play any LB position and is the new breed of NFL LBer that can do it all, the kid is an impact player and play maker.

Most have him in their top 5 in this draft, Josh Norris has him as his number one player in the entire draft class.

 

[jnday]

I'm not sure that's true.

In 2014, Lee did not play at all and the Cowboys went 12-4.
In 2015, Lee played almost the entire season and the team went 4-12.

I love Lee, but it is not a make or break season if Lee plays or not. The QB position is more important. That's why it needs to be addressed at #4.

nis
The number four pick needs to be used on a playmaking type of player, somebody that is going to put points on the board. LBs are not those type of players in this defense IMO.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Disagree, Jack is already a month ahead of his injury and will be ready for the combine for full participation.

Jack can play any LB position and is the new breed of NFL LBer that can do it all, the kid is an impact player and play maker.

Most have him in their top 5 in this draft, Josh Norris has him as his number one player in the entire draft class.

what you're saying and what i'm saying aren't mutually exclusive. he can be the number 1 prospect and able to play all 3 LB positions (tad undersized for middle, but capable) and still be considered a bit raw. look at the tackle numbers from Kuechly, Wagner and a few other LBs that have been immediate impact players in the NFL, he simply was not on the field the same amount.

 

[Rogerthat12]

what you're saying and what i'm saying aren't mutually exclusive. he can be the number 1 prospect and able to play all 3 LB positions (tad undersized for middle, but capable) and still be considered a bit raw. look at the tackle numbers from Kuechly, Wagner and a few other LBs that have been immediate impact players in the NFL, he simply was not on the field the same amount.

The problem with your analysis is that he is not a bit raw, quite the opposite, seasoned and excellent.

Take a look at all of the evaluations, it will cure you of such a concern.

 

[stilltheguru88]

Lee is here to school Jack. Unlike B Carter, Jack loves football.

 

[ghst187]

drafting a QB at 4 with the intent of sitting him behind Romo for multiple years is incredibly unconventional for an NFL team. Even the Colts just decided to move on from Peyton Manning and go full rebuild when they drafted Luck. If you have a QB you intend on moving forward with for the next few seasons there is no logical reason to select a QB top 5 as an insurance policy. It simply does not happen, and for good reason, that's way too much of an investment for what you are hoping for is zero return the first few years.

The team is still in a win now mode with Romo as the QB, you draft a QB with a top 5 pick then it sends a message that as a FO you have no clear vision or plan for the time being. If you're not committed to your QB and exhausting your resources to help him win then just move on and let Tony try to win elsewhere. Otherwise you're just in a purgatory state waiting for him to retire while the next guy gets ready, and that simply isn't how the NFL works.

I don't fault the logic but I offer the counterpoints...
Indy had a freak thing happen in having Manning get hurt causing them to end up with the top pick in the draft. They likely knew that Manning still probably had some time left but they took advantage of having the top pick in a draft year when Luck was being tabbed as the greatest QB to come out since Manning. Did they say, let's win now and draft a linebacker with our top pick? No, they took a QB when the gettin was good and they ensured themselves of being playoff relevant for the next fifteen years or so. Likewise, Green Bay did the same with Rodgers, whom we passed on by the way, and found themselves remaining in playoff relevancy still to this day, and a ring to boot. Neither of those teams endured much of drop off between QBs. Meanwhile, we had no QB plan post Aikman and ended up reaching, by about four rounds, to snag Quincy Carter and when he didn't work out we cycled through other team's cast offs until we accidentally stumbled onto Romo. We endured a LOT of years of playoff irrelevancy because our inability to come up with a succession plan at the game's most vital position. Also, if you wait until you have to have a QB then you are already too late and will be manipulated and subject to whatever talent, or lack thereof, is available in that particular draft and the asking price relative to that year' crop.
The Broncos have Os waiting in the wings knowing Manning is done. Who do we have? As for money, stashing a QB makes a lot of sense. If you have anyone halfway decent, you are going to pay 20 million or more. Paying a rookie to sit and learn the game's hardest position for a year or two isn't a bad thing. Having a guy on a rookie salary isn't that inhibiting. In fact, a team like Seattle was living on borrowed time getting star play at QB on a rookie's salary for a while. They eventually had to pay up but they made the most of it, winning a ring, almost two. So I'd say, NOT drafting a QB if there's one you think is a future star that lands in your lap when you know you are at the end of your QBs career shows that you DONT have a plan for the team beyond a year or two. We have about 15 years of irrelevancy to prove it. Now if you don't think any of the QBs are franchise guys, then that's another matter. But if you are not drafting someone you think may be great because you want to win now then you're trading the chance to win for fifteen years for a chance to win in the next two.
It's no easy decision for sure and there are good arguments for and against us taking a QB early this year, I think it should boil down to whether you think a guy is potential franchise material. If you do, then take him. The position is by far the most important in the game and you will simply not win without a good one.

 

[Kolemmitt]

I don't fault the logic but I offer the counterpoints...
Indy had a freak thing happen in having Manning get hurt causing them to end up with the top pick in the draft. They likely knew that Manning still probably had some time left but they took advantage of having the top pick in a draft year when Luck was being tabbed as the greatest QB to come out since Manning. Did they say, let's win now and draft a linebacker with our top pick? No, they took a QB when the gettin was good and they ensured themselves of being playoff relevant for the next fifteen years or so. Likewise, Green Bay did the same with Rodgers, whom we passed on by the way, and found themselves remaining in playoff relevancy still to this day, and a ring to boot. Neither of those teams endured much of drop off between QBs. Meanwhile, we had no QB plan post Aikman and ended up reaching, by about four rounds, to snag Quincy Carter and when he didn't work out we cycled through other team's cast offs until we accidentally stumbled onto Romo. We endured a LOT of years of playoff irrelevancy because our inability to come up with a succession plan at the game's most vital position. Also, if you wait until you have to have a QB then you are already too late and will be manipulated and subject to whatever talent, or lack thereof, is available in that particular draft and the asking price relative to that year' crop.
The Broncos have Os waiting in the wings knowing Manning is done. Who do we have? As for money, stashing a QB makes a lot of sense. If you have anyone halfway decent, you are going to pay 20 million or more. Paying a rookie to sit and learn the game's hardest position for a year or two isn't a bad thing. Having a guy on a rookie salary isn't that inhibiting. In fact, a team like Seattle was living on borrowed time getting star play at QB on a rookie's salary for a while. They eventually had to pay up but they made the most of it, winning a ring, almost two. So I'd say, NOT drafting a QB if there's one you think is a future star that lands in your lap when you know you are at the end of your QBs career shows that you DONT have a plan for the team beyond a year or two. We have about 15 years of irrelevancy to prove it. Now if you don't think any of the QBs are franchise guys, then that's another matter. But if you are not drafting someone you think may be great because you want to win now then you're trading the chance to win for fifteen years for a chance to win in the next two.
It's no easy decision for sure and there are good arguments for and against us taking a QB early this year, I think it should boil down to whether you think a guy is potential franchise material. If you do, then take him. The position is by far the most important in the game and you will simply not win without a good one.

I completely agree with this.

 

[jnday]

Guys drafted in the first round and sitting is fairly common, and in fact it has happened even in the top 5.

Steve McNair was drafted 3rd overall and sat on the bench for 2 seasons before becoming the starter for the Titans, so I have no idea where you are getting this "not how the NFL works".

It is not how certain fans think the NFL works because they are not willing to see the Cowboys have a QB sit and learn for a couple years.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I'm not concerned with being 'conventional', I just want to be right.

Aaron Rodgers sitting out those first 3 years was the best thing for him and the Packers. And he would easily worth the #1 pick overall.

The only thing you would have to be concerned about back when Rodgers was picked was his cap value for sitting on the bench. But, we don't have to worry about that as much because the rookie cap makes this much more plausible. And even still...Rodgers would still be worth the #1 overall pick in the draft.





YR