Thursday Night NFL Preseason Thread

Sydla said:
We'll never agree on this because I feel QB is the most important position on the field without any question.

Cowboys rarely are in a position to take a QB in the Top 5 so when they find themselves in the Top 5 and knowing they could be looking for a new QB in 3 years, they should have taken that opportunity.
Click to expand...

I definitely agree QB's the most important position on the field without question. I don't imagine many would dispute that.

I don't believe you can be competitive with the very talented QB you've got if you commit that number of draft resources to his backup. If you think about the number of draft pick contract years you're recommending idling on a player that only helps you in the event of injury, it should put things in a different perspective.

The situation in PHI was different because they didn't have a Tony Romo to start with. And I still think they're idling too many limited resources between Wentz and Daniels.
 
DFWJC said:
Taking a QB at 2nd overall? That player better be a lock.

Almost no scouts put either Goff or Wentz in the "lock" category like Luck was in.

If you already have a highly paid, franchise level QB starting for your team--regardless of age--it would be almost unprecedented to burn a 2nd overall pick on a future QB.

Can someone find a case where a team has ever done this?

I'm curiously waiting for that answer.
Click to expand...

Aikman and Walsh are the nearest equivalent I can think of, and they don't meet your requirement. Brees and Rivers maybe?

Either way, your point is well taken.
 
Idgit said:
I definitely agree QB's the most important position on the field without question. I don't imagine many would disput that.

I don't believe you can be competitive with the very talented QB you've got if you commit that number of draft resources to his backup. If you think about the number of draft pick contract years you're recommending idling on a player that only helps you in the event of injury, it should put things in a different perspective.

The situation in PHI was different because they didn't have a Tony Romo to start with. And I still think they're idling too many limited resources between Wentz and Daniels.
Click to expand...

It doesn't change my perspective at all because I am also factoring in the reality that in the last 20 years, the Cowboys have had a Top 5 pick................ONCE.

And I tend to think to give yourself the best shot at that next elite QB, taking one in the Top 5 gives you the best chance. So when presented with that opportunity, I would have preferred they take it and if that means Wentz or Goff sat for three years, that's fine with me. I mean it's kind of silly to worry about wasted picks and resources and then turn around and applaud them for using their second round pick on a guy who likely won't ever play this year and there's the very real possibility that he may never play (or even play at the level he saw in college).
 
DFWJC said:
Taking a QB at 2nd overall? That player better be a lock.

Almost no scouts put either Goff or Wentz in the "lock" category like Luck was in.

If you already have a highly paid, franchise level QB starting for your team--regardless of age--it would be almost unprecedented to burn a 2nd overall pick on a future QB.

Can someone find a case where a team has ever done this?

I'm curiously waiting for that answer.
Click to expand...
closest I can think of is San Diego when they had Brees and drafted Eli, then had to trade him for Rivers. But I guess San Diego didn't consider him to be a franchise QB.
 
Colts. They had Manning. They signed him to a huge deal in 2011. He got hurt in the 2011 season. They got the #1 pick and drafted Luck, cutting Manning.

Not a perfect comparison though either.
 
Idgit said:
Aikman and Walsh are the nearest equivalent I can think of, and they don't meet your requirement. Brees and Rivers maybe?

Either way, your point is well taken.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree, those are as close and I can think but aren't anywhere near the same thing.

Aikman and Walsh (chosen in the supplemental draft) were chosen the same year. So there was nothing close to an established Pro Bowl QB in place yet.

When the Chargers chose Rivers in 2004, Brees had had a terrible 2003 and had been benched in favor of Doug Flutie. So, he wasn't even the established starter, let alone a long time franchise QB.

I really can't find an example where any team..ever...has done what some were wanting Dallas to do in the draft this year. That is, while still having an established franchise QB in place and ready to start, would spend a 2nd overall pick (so probably this year's 1st and next year's 1st) to get a QB in the draft.
It would be unprecedented.
 
Sydla said:
It doesn't change my perspective at all because I am also factoring in the reality that in the last 20 years, the Cowboys have had a Top 5 pick................ONCE.

And I tend to think to give yourself the best shot at that next elite QB, taking one in the Top 5 gives you the best chance. So when presented with that opportunity, I would have preferred they take it and if that means Wentz or Goff sat for three years, that's fine with me. I mean it's kind of silly to worry about wasted picks and resources and then turn around and applaud them for using their second round pick on a guy who likely won't ever play this year and there's the very real possibility that he may never play (or even play at the level he saw in college).
Click to expand...

I bashed them for the 34 pick because it was an unnecessary risk, but that's kind of unrelated.

We'll see how it goes. It might be that Lynch or guys like Carr or Bridgewater end up being better players in the long run. Maybe in part because the extra resources let teams put better rosters around them.

Either way, draft picks are fungible. As PHI proved last year, it's possible to get up into the top 2 if you're willing to give up enough. If we really want to do it later, we probably can.
 
Sydla said:
It doesn't change my perspective at all because I am also factoring in the reality that in the last 20 years, the Cowboys have had a Top 5 pick................ONCE.
.
Click to expand...

It's unfortunate that our opportunity with a top 5 pick came at a time where the top QB prospects were, lets say, not as robust as some previous years.
 
DBOY3141 said:
closest I can think of is San Diego when they had Brees and drafted Eli, then had to trade him for Rivers. But I guess San Diego didn't consider him to be a franchise QB.
Click to expand...
Yeah. In fact, Brees had been demoted to backup to Doug Flutie when they chose Rivers.
 
Idgit said:
I bashed them for the 34 pick because it was an unnecessary risk, but that's kind of unrelated.

We'll see how it goes. It might be that Lynch or guys like Carr or Bridgewater end up being better players in the long run. Maybe in part because the extra resources let teams put better rosters around them.

Either way, draft picks are fungible. As PHI proved last year, it's possible to get up into the top 2 if you're willing to give up enough. If we really want to do it later, we probably can.
Click to expand...

Philly had a Top 8 pick to work with. Dallas has typically fallen in the late teens to 20s with their picks. If Dallas wants to get into the Top 3, say, in a year or two to get Romo's replacement, be prepared to pay a ton more than Philly gave up.
 
phildadon86 said:
To try and take away the negativeness of this entire post, how do you think Dak will do in his first game? Yes honest question. Im saying he goes for 120 yards 30 yards rushing a throwing TD and Rushing TD. Id be ok with that. :muttley:
Click to expand...

I'd be happy with that too. But I truly have no idea what to expect. I'm trying to keep them low so that they're not too high for him.

At the end of the day, Wentz looked like a decent QB last night. Being as unbiased as possible. His WRs stunk it up big time, and that line was worse then bad. Reminds me of the game against Minny when our OL couldnt stop Romo from being knocked down. The Eagles D looked scary good. With that being said, i dont believe they are a better team than us at all.
Click to expand...

I don't either. The defensive line looks like it could give us some problems, but their O-line looks truly bad. Wentz may end up playing out of necessity.
 
187beatdown said:
What's absurd is giving this guy a pass because realism when he did not play well. And don't be ignorant you know what I mean. I'm not making a judgement that he's going to bust and be a failure QB but he did not play well last night. That's not a judgement that's an observation.
Click to expand...

Sure thing. I'm supposed to understand what you do or don't mean or I'm "ignorant".
:rolleyes:
 
phildadon86 said:
Neither did Ramsey. Dont see anyone saying anything about that......hes they guy we were supposed to pick right?
Click to expand...

I don't see anyone making excuses for him either. All the while trying to tear down the guy that did play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 69 more.
Total: 4,896 (members: 169, guests: 4,727)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,089
Messages
13,788,206
Members
23,772
Latest member
BAC2662
Back
Top