Trade Down, Trade up or Stay put.

[blindzebra]

Hey Zebra, haven't seen you posting in awhile. How have you been?

Like all Boys fans so-so until we hoist #6.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Like all Boys fans so-so until we hoist #6.

Good answer! Be well Zebra.

 

[UnoDallas]

This draft is loaded with 3-4 DE's even into 2 and 3.

No need to take one high.

JJ Watt later in the 20's is just as good, if not better than anyone up top.

Trade down a skosh and take Carimi.

thats been my theory also

this year

 

[btcutter]

Problem with wanting to trade down is that WHO wants to trade UP? and teams ahead of us probably want to trade DOWN as well, thus devaluing that pick at #9.

 

[cobra]

I think if people say we "have a lot of needs" then they are undervaluing our roster.

We have very few "needs" in my opinion. There are certain areas that it would be great to improve upon, but at the of the day, this is not a team with a lot of holes. Yes, the season went bad. We had a rudderless ship entering the season and then lost our starting QB and then even our backup. It happens. Teams have fluke seasons. This was our's.

I think the only legit "holes" we have is at safety and O-line. Neither of those holes will be filled with the #9 pick (that's a BPA improvement pick). We can start plugging away at Safety and Oline in the middle and late rounds, as well as picking up some free agents.

Other than safety and RT (and some stud at #9), I do not think anyone we draft this year has any hope at starting or contributing this year.

 

[cobra]

our needs are:

2. produce pressure from front 7 (need beefy NT)

This is ridiculous.

We have the best NT in the league. But it's a "need" to have a beefy NT? I guess cause some caveman rule is:

"NT must be fire hydrant fat"

We have the best NT in the league who puts the most pressure on the other team; how does that equate to a need?

I'm really sick and tired of this constant myth that Rat needs to be a DE. It is just thoughtless crap that people have been saying for 3 years and completely ignores the performance that Ratliff has put out there.

 

[laythewood28]

I think if people say we "have a lot of needs" then they are undervaluing our roster.

We have very few "needs" in my opinion. There are certain areas that it would be great to improve upon, but at the of the day, this is not a team with a lot of holes. Yes, the season went bad. We had a rudderless ship entering the season and then lost our starting QB and then even our backup. It happens. Teams have fluke seasons. This was our's.

I think the only legit "holes" we have is at safety and O-line. Neither of those holes will be filled with the #9 pick (that's a BPA improvement pick). We can start plugging away at Safety and Oline in the middle and late rounds, as well as picking up some free agents.

Other than safety and RT (and some stud at #9), I do not think anyone we draft this year has any hope at starting or contributing this year.

Imo we do have a lot of needs. As it stands we have our top three DE's as free agents while the forth had a bad year(Olshansky), Newman is declining and needs to be replaced within the next year or two, Mike Jenkins was terrible, Same can be said for Scandrick's career thus far, No safeties, and oline and mlb are aging.

 

[cobra]

Imo we do have a lot of needs. As it stands we have our top three DE's as free agents while the forth had a bad year(Olshansky), Newman is declining and needs to be replaced within the next year or two, Mike Jenkins was terrible, Same can be said for Scandrick's career thus far, No safeties, and oline and mlb are aging.

I do not think you understand the difference between a "need" and a luxury.

Getting new CBs is a luxury. Not a need.

That our Bradie James is "aging" does not make MLB a "need."

A need means "there is no way you can enter the season and be competitive without addressing this position." And that consists of Safety and RT.

All the other positions you want to carp about are luxuries that, if we can improve upon, then great. But they are not needs. Just as a I noted, you are undervaluing our roster just because of a down season.

 

[28 Joker]

The run on offensive tackles will start at 9 or in the 13-17 range according to Bunting. Smith, Sherrod, Solder, and Carimi will go pretty fast when that run starts. I don't see Derek Sherrod getting by the Lions (at 13) if Dallas takes Smith at 9 for example. I think Smith and Sherrod will go off the board first, in that order. Right now, that is my opinion.

There is a gap between Smith and Sherrod and the other OTs in round 1, I think. The media (over all) is disrespecting Sherrod. Smith and Sherrod are the best pure LTs in this draft. They just happen to be able to play both sides. You wouldn't be getting just a starting RT, you would be getting big potential on the left side. What if Free gets hurt or has to miss games? These two guys have big time value, and Sherrod has shown that he could for sure start at RT at the Senior Bowl.

The Giants and Colts could use LTs. Kansas City and the Eagles are looking at OTs.

For example, the Colts could move up from 22 in order to try and secure Sherrod. They will move in order to try and protect Manning's blind side. They have made this type of move up before. I bet the Colts would take Smith or Sherrod at 9. The one that they didn't take would probably end up in Detroit at 13. Sherrod will not make it out of the top 20. If you move down, other teams are going to try and move up into the 13-17 range and take the Smiths, Sherrods, Carimis, and perhaps Solders.

If it is an OT that you want at 9, you better get your guy or one of the top 2 guys, imo. Smith and Sherrod

If Dallas trades down at 9, someone is probably coming up for a OT (Smith or Sherrod). That team would be trying to get ahead of Detroit at 13. If the Colts sit at 22, they will not get Smith or Sherrod.

I think that Dallas should sit at 9 and pick the best player, because it most likely will be on the DL or at OT. If you trade down, you could get burned.

 

[baj1dallas]

I'd like to see us trade down 5-15 spots, take the most pro ready OT available, pick up a 2nd or 3rd rounder for this or next year, and draft some development type linemen (offense and defense) later in the draft. I think Ryan will bring over some LBers from Cleveland and Alan Ball will move back to corner and compete with McCann. I do not feel that Peterson will be a huge improvement over TNew specifically next season, although I do think he will be a good player.

 

[laythewood28]

I do not think you understand the difference between a "need" and a luxury.

Getting new CBs is a luxury. Not a need.

That our Bradie James is "aging" does not make MLB a "need."

A need means "there is no way you can enter the season and be competitive without addressing this position." And that consists of Safety and RT.

All the other positions you want to carp about are luxuries that, if we can improve upon, then great. But they are not needs. Just as a I noted, you are undervaluing our roster just because of a down season.

lets see how you feel come this season, I don't see how we can be "competitive" getting constantly beaten by the likes of Desean Jackson, Nicks, and Steve Smith.

 

[cobra]

if Dallas takes Smith at 9 for example.

I will cry if we take Tyron Smith at 9. That's scarey.

Sure, Tyron looks impressive in the underwear olympics.

But I got a real concern at a 280 lbs tackle being told to block Justin Tuck.

 

[cobra]

lets see how you feel come this season, I don't see how we can be "competitive" getting constantly beaten by the likes of Desean Jackson, Nicks, and Steve Smith.

Do you not think that coaching, scheme and the lack of safety support had something to do with?

Which option is more likely:
(A) everyone on our defense got substantially worse skill wise between January 2010 to September 2010
or
(B) there were issues with coaching and scheme that caused all of the players to under-perform?

I think it is about 10^8 more likely that it is B then A.

 

[laythewood28]

Do you not think that coaching, scheme and the lack of safety support had something to do with?

Which option is more likely:
(A) everyone on our defense got substantially worse skill wise between January 2010 to September 2010
or
(B) there were issues with coaching and scheme that caused all of the players to under-perform?

I think it is about 10^8 more likely that it is B then A.

I can't answer that. We had only one change in Defensive personnel (well two if you add Spears injury)that I could think of (ball for Hamlin) so It couldn't be coaching considering we had virtually the same unit last season and did better against allowing the big pass. Our coaching staff was the same other than Wade Philips taking over play calling duties.

 

[cobra]

Ok, so you think that something happened that suddently caused every defensive player to be permanently worse skill wise.

That is beyond asinine.

It clearly was coaching and scheme that was the problem.

All of those players just didn't all of the sudden suck. Yet, in knee jerk fashion, one bad season and all of the sudden everyone must be replaced. That's ridiculous.

 

[cobra]

Maybe they all went to eat sushi together in March of 2010 and caused all of them to not know how to play football anymore and from now on. One bad piece of toro did the entire defense in.

 

[laythewood28]

Ok, so you think that something happened that suddently caused every defensive player to be permanently worse skill wise.

That is beyond asinine.

It clearly was coaching and scheme that was the problem.

All of those players just didn't all of the sudden suck. Yet, in knee jerk fashion, one bad season and all of the sudden everyone must be replaced. That's ridiculous.

No coaching was the problem but I don't think Scheme had anything to do with it. I think they quit. Philps needed to be fired. I didn't say all the players suck either. Like I said before some of the players (Newman,Brooking, James) need to be replaced within the next year or two, while others need to be replaced (Scandrick, big need at DE due to possibly losing three of our own ). We can both agree that Safety and OLine also needs to desperately be addressed. You see it as a luxury, I see it as a need. That's fine.I'm not expecting pro bowl talent at every position, but I do see holes that need to be filled.

 

[sonnyboy]

Each year we have debates over if we should trade down, trade up or stay put.

Prior to each draft we talk about the merits of all of these ideas.

This year there is the possibility of all three scenarios happening. In one case we could have a trade down and trade up.

Some consider the idea that we might trade up for a player like Peterson.

Some consider the idea of us sitting where we are at and maybe getting Peterson if he falls, maybe taken a Cam Jordan if he is there, Robert Quinn or possibly an OT.

Some consider the idea of us trading down and taking a OT.

I could be ok with any of the three scenarios. I still have man love for Patrick Peterson and I think the team has it for him as well.

I could see us sitting there if a player we really likes manages to fall to us.

I could see us trading down.

This year, unless a player we reallly like falls to us I think we don't just sit put.

I like Peterson and I would not mind the trade up. The problem with that is how far he falls before we trade up. How much we would have to give up to trade up.

If he does not fall far enough or we do not want to pay the price other teams ask to trade up...I think we might be better off trading down a few spots instead of staying put.

I say this because or our O-Line. This might be the year we finally can address our Oline in the draft and do so with some quality players.

Possibly trade down some and we could wind up getting Say a Carimi for OT and a moffitt as OG/C. The idea of trading down a few spots also means if there is a player at the top of the second, or very bottom of the 1st, we might have the ammo to move up from our current 2nd round pick to get him.

Between the OTs in this draft and the OGs/C we could help solidify our olines future in two rounds or one round with two picks. Now it would not completely turn the oline around but getting two quality starters is a pretty good start considering we already have Doug Free (either keeping him at LT or moving to RT). That is three of the five positions that could be good to go (assuming the drafted linemen work out of course).


One other thing to consider with the Oline picks is we learned that Dallas tends to evaluate the Oline lower than some other teams. This does not mean in every case. What I think does happen is that maybe other teams evaluate close to the same but they figure a slight reach is worth it in order to get the player they want/need. This might be the problem with us in drafting Olinemen over the last few years with Free being the only one that has panned out for some time now. We have also heard stories of how we liked this or that guy at an online position but a team taking him just before we can...which would seem to indicate again that we are not putting as much value on them as others are.

So with this draft, it could be the ideal time to turn that one high pick into two quality Olinemen and help solidify the future of the oline.

Even dropping a few slots I think we can still get a quality OT and we can parlay our second round pick (whether the current one we have or moving up) into an OG/C type player like Moffitt (or other names).

So to me I think this is a draft we either trade up or trade down. The only scenario I see that works in our favor of staying put is if a player we reallly really like falls into our laps like say a Peterson or Quinn...a player that they might actually consider trading up for to begin with. The only other player at this time I think they might stay put for is possibly Cam Jordan due to how he is doing in the senior bowl. He is a player that is rising now so not a case of someone like Quinn or Peterson who, at this time, would be seen more as a player that would have to fall to us...hope that makes sense.

Ok...is that enough rambling?

Nice ramble.

I'll make you feel a little better about NOT trading up for Peterson.....and that's that we wont have to pay him HUGE $.

The dollars for drafting slots take huge jumps and with each pick. And the jump gets larger each time.

Big time difference between the contract we'll give at 9 and the one we'll have to give at say 6, 5 or even 4.

 

[sonnyboy]

I do not think you understand the difference between a "need" and a luxury.

Getting new CBs is a luxury. Not a need.

That our Bradie James is "aging" does not make MLB a "need."

A need means "there is no way you can enter the season and be competitive without addressing this position." And that consists of Safety and RT.

All the other positions you want to carp about are luxuries that, if we can improve upon, then great. But they are not needs. Just as a I noted, you are undervaluing our roster just because of a down season.

Not much sense in responding to you since our thoughts are so well aligned, but I'm tried of arguing.

CB, LB and perhaps DL are luxuries. Nearly as much as QB, WR, TE or RB.

I want us to trade down to the bottom of rd one for a bunch of reasons:

1) If we drop far enough, say to 32. Our picks gained could look like this: (32)(48)(56)(64). And we'd be sitting on picks (32)(41)(48)(56)(64)(73).

2) Having 6 selection over 41 picks gives us a lot of options. It will make it a lot easier to stick to our board while still focusing on S and OL.

Just think about it. We could reshape both our S and OL units and still grab that one guys who represents excellent value at a luxary spot.

 

[Kangaroo]

I say stay put and get the quality picks we should get 2 contributors with a high 2nd round pick if we want we could trade up into the 2nd again with are 3rd and an additional pick.