What pick 10 will reveal

[Croomraider]

Smith is not done, he's stronger than probably everyone combined on the entire Cowboys team.
I love OLine but we've drafted wayyyyyy too many OLine guys in recent years.
I'll admit, I like drafting the big boys but cmon, we need defense bad.

The Saints vs Bucs playoff game was full of big TIME DB's making clutch plays. INT's.
Smothering wideouts. Those were two great Hall of Fame QB's facing secondary's that
played really well.

If we're going position then I'd say CB at 10. (Having Diggs + Surtain will be really good on the edge)

If we're going depth and future and backup as this thread suggests.. then give me a QB at 10. (Fail for Fields)

 

[cjlopez]

Both CB will not be gone by 10th Pick. Their is no way they will go with so many teams are going to go Offensive in the First 9 picks. You have to be positive and look at the board. Most teams will not go DEF......especailly for two CB within the top ten. It doesn't make sense. If we want Farley or Surtain they will be there or at least one of them will be there.

 

[Verdict]

Tyron Smith is pretty much done and probably closer to retiring than playing with all his injuries. I dont think you can get value off him in a trade.

If theres really the future LT sitting at 10 you pick him and either start him or let him learn one year behind T.Smith. After next season cutting T.Smith wont hurt that much in terms of dead money.

That is a reasonable thought. On the other hand, it would not surprise me if Tyron Smith is in the pro bowl next year or out of the league by the end of the year due to his wear and tear.

His contract is relatively cheap for a pro bowl level OT, if he can still perform at that level. I think a team would give a premium pick for him if he can pass a physical.

I don’t think that it would be unreasonable to roll into next year with him penciled in as the starter. But with his injury history, my guess is the smart money would be betting he wouldn’t play every game next season.

 

[cristglo]

Preface: I recently posted this in another tread, but thought it worthy of its on post. The question was.. “would you be upset if Dallas drafts a OL at #10?” Below are my thoughts.. feel free to berate or agree.. I’d love to hear other’s opinions.

I’ve been struggling with the question “to draft an OL at 10”. Like most, I recognize the obvious void on defense..specifically on the DL. Yet, we all witnessed how volatile the OL was last season.

A reasonable mind understands that injuries played a big part in the OL decline. But, recent history reveals this is becoming an unwanted trend with TSmith, not to mention nobody knows the severity of Collins hip injury.

The good news is.. I have no worries ab Martin’s return and Biadasz’s development. Conner McGovern showed real improvement by seasons end and CWill held his own as the only remaining starter.

Last seasons silver lining is.. young guys like McKnight and Steel gained valuable play and did show improvement, as backups that means everything. In the NFL the reality is, unless your a 1st Rd OL stud, the learning curve is ab 2-3 years before your ready to man a OL position. That said, Dallas shouldn’t completely ignore the position in the draft, but I think I’m (and so is our defense) ready to see the player talent investment needed on defense.

All reports are that there’s not a DL worthy of a top 10 pick, so that leaves CB as the only choice in my mind. CB’s have always beenone of the more important players on the team, but even more so via the NFLs pass happy trend. Dallas needs another playmaker at corner and add another veteran CB for good measure just to stay relevant on defense. And much like OL, if you want a starting CB from day one, you better draft them early. Shore up DL, LB, S, OL with the rest of the draft.

If all goes well here’s the projected OL (fingers crossed):
Starters
LT- Tyron Smith (his contract gives you no choice)
LG- C. McGovern (he’s better than CWill at G)
C- Biadasz (he’ll have a breakout season)
RG- Zack Martin (future HOF’er)
RT- Collins (just got paid, hopefully he’s healthy)

backups
1st reserve- CWill- obviously can play G, but should have a chance at OT as he played it well in college
Swing OT- resign a vet like Cam Fleming to complete with McKnight & Steel
G- This draft is supposedly deep with OL talent, Draft a 3rd/4th Rd guy to develop bc we can NOT use a 1st Rd pick for every position. Move Mitch Hyatt to G and see if his stone feet will do for a season.

Long story short.. Dallas shouldn’t have to pull the trigger on an OL in the 1st Rd this year. At this point..Dallas has made their bed with their OL contracts, deal with it. The defense has to be better. I don’t care if this is a “Passing” league.. defense still wins championships.

The only caveat is Collins and Smith’s health. If Dallas truely thinks they won’t return to atleast 80-90% healthy, than a 1st rd OL IS THE TOP NEED. Not only to keep Dak upright when he returns from his injury, or to keep open running lanes for our expensive RB, but to also allow our top receiving core to excel. Bottomline.. the OL is the heart of this team. And if Collins and Smith aren’t capable, then Dallas has to draft a OL.

Who Dallas picks at 10 will be telling..

I would have to say that if we draft OL at 10 you would be correct in saying that collins nor Smith will be ready for the 2021 season. I would hope that we would trade down if that was the case I dont see any OL worthy of a top 10 pick other then Sewell and you could argue the case for Rashauan Slater.

 

[cristglo]

You have to look at that there will probably be 3 QB taken before we pick and possible 4 Sewell will be taken before 10 You will have at least 1 WR taken that leaves you with 4 picks
Patrick Surtain CB
Caleb Farley CB
Micha Parsons LB
Jaycee Horn CB
Hopefully LOL

 

[Croomraider]

I think there might be 3 wideouts taken in the top 10!! Of course I thought that last year and they all dropped.
I want Sewell, Parsons, Surtain, Farley, Fields, D. Smith even (but he's for sure off the board). Give me best player available,
whatever position.

 

[J-man]

OT at 10 is obviously an option, if circumstances dictate that direction.
If they in fact know that either Smith or Collins wont be back or healthy by Sept. it probably becomes the top need. I would assume either Slater or Darrisaw would be the pick.
But if they believe that both will return to form, that need decreases greatly, but it's not eliminated entirely.
If the board falls a certain way, like if both CB's and Parsons are all taken before 10, OT may still be the pick.

 

[Verdict]

OT at 10 is obviously an option, if circumstances dictate that direction.
If they in fact know that either Smith or Collins wont be back or healthy by Sept. it probably becomes the top need. I would assume either Slater or Darrisaw would be the pick.
But if they believe that both will return to form, that need decreases greatly, but it's not eliminated entirely.
If the board falls a certain way, like if both CB's and Parsons are all taken before 10, OT may still be the pick.

It could be the pick, even if al of those people are on the board. You cannot afford to miss with the #10 overall pick.

When you reach for need, you often miss. This year, one of the worst case scenarios (which we would have done 15 years ago) would be to force a DT or safety pick at #10 and miss because we “need one” and waste the pick and watch three or four guys available when we picked go on to be All Pro but we passed on them because we didn’t “need” a player at that position.

 

[Dalmations202]

Unless Smith or Collins retires or looks like they won't be ready to start the season, I am guessing Farley/Surtain will be the first pick and if they aren't there they try to trade down. If no trade down partner, I think Parsons, or maybe even one of the QB's might be taken.

 

[J-man]

It could be the pick, even if al of those people are on the board. You cannot afford to miss with the #10 overall pick.

When you reach for need, you often miss. This year, one of the worst case scenarios (which we would have done 15 years ago) would be to force a DT or safety pick at #10 and miss because we “need one” and waste the pick and watch three or four guys available when we picked go on to be All Pro but we passed on them because we didn’t “need” a player at that position.

You'll get no argument about reaching for a need vs. top talent from me. But I don't think anyone is realistically talking about taking a DT or S at 10 this year. The real debate will be between OT and CB. But to your point, if we're completely honest and if you're looking solely at BPA, a WR could absolutely be in that conversation too. I'd be interested to see what they would do if hypothetically the top prospect on their board, player graded 1:1, is a WR and he's there at pick 10. Would they be making calls to try and trade Gallup as fast as they could? Or would they over look that grade and take the next highest graded player or the highest graded player at a position of need?

With our current roster situation, I don't think anyone realistically thinks we'll select a WR at 10 this year, so that kind of disproves the mantra of you draft BPA no matter what. So lets focus on the real debate, which will most likely be OT vs CB. It will come down to the player evaluations/ranks collected and assembled by the player personnel department and the gaps between where the players are ranked.

Hypothetically, it's draft day and the team now knows for sure they are getting both a healthy Smith and Collins back this year. And that they have lost Awuzie to free agency. On the teams "big board of needs" CB would obviously be graded higher than OT.
Slater and Farley are both available at 10. You have Slater graded higher than Farley on the draft board. But both players have high 1st rd grades, Slater at 1:4 vs Farley at 1:8. So who would you take? BPA theory says you take Slater. But I believe they (and most) would lean towards the larger need vs the greater talent, if the talent level isn't that drastic of a difference. But if Slater is graded 1:2 and Farley is 1:15, than I think they would take Slater (BPA) and don't look back. Just like when they took Lamb last season. (even though WR was a fairly high need for the team)

 

[Verdict]

You'll get no argument about reaching for a need vs. top talent from me. But I don't think anyone is realistically talking about taking a DT or S at 10 this year. The real debate will be between OT and CB. But to your point, if we're completely honest and if you're looking solely at BPA, a WR could absolutely be in that conversation too. I'd be interested to see what they would do if hypothetically the top prospect on their board, player graded 1:1, is a WR and he's there at pick 10. Would they be making calls to try and trade Gallup as fast as they could? Or would they over look that grade and take the next highest graded player or the highest graded player at a position of need?

With our current roster situation, I don't think anyone realistically thinks we'll select a WR at 10 this year, so that kind of disproves the mantra of you draft BPA no matter what. So lets focus on the real debate, which will most likely be OT vs CB. It will come down to the player evaluations/ranks collected and assembled by the player personnel department and the gaps between where the players are ranked.

Hypothetically, it's draft day and the team now knows for sure they are getting both a healthy Smith and Collins back this year. And that they have lost Awuzie to free agency. On the teams "big board of needs" CB would obviously be graded higher than OT.
Slater and Farley are both available at 10. You have Slater graded higher than Farley on the draft board. But both players have high 1st rd grades, Slater at 1:4 vs Farley at 1:8. So who would you take? BPA theory says you take Slater. But I believe they (and most) would lean towards the larger need vs the greater talent, if the talent level isn't that drastic of a difference. But if Slater is graded 1:2 and Farley is 1:15, than I think they would take Slater (BPA) and don't look back. Just like when they took Lamb last season. (even though WR was a fairly high need for the team)

Maybe I’m in the minority here, but I think if the BPA is the next CeeDee Lamb, you will see them take him, even if he is a wide receiver (if they do not trade back).

The more I have looked at the draft (and granted, that’s not a lot) I think there are several guys in the 20-45 range that the Cowboys might be really interested in and I could see Dallas trading back a few times and trying to grab as many picks as they could in that range.

 

[conner01]

The BPA at 10 will probably be Kyle Pitts.
And yes...I would take him.

I wouldn’t
With the talent at WR I don’t think going after a TE that high is worth it
To involve him regularly in the scheme means taking targets from Lamb, Cooper, or Gallup
I think we have plenty of talent at TE with Schultz and Jarwin myself

 

[BourbonBalz]

Everyone always says you should take the BPA until the BPA is a position they don’t want or think is a need. If the BPA available at 10 happened to be Pitts or one of the receivers and we took that player, everyone on this board would flip out, including me. So, do you REALLY always want to take the BPA or is it just talk???

 

[Hardline]

Everyone always says you should take the BPA until the BPA is a position they don’t want or think is a need. If the BPA available at 10 happened to be Pitts or one of the receivers and we took that player, everyone on this board would flip out, including me. So, do you REALLY always want to take the BPA or is it just talk???

You take a blue chip talent like Pitts especially since this is a weak defensive draft. There's not much of a dropoff in defensive talent in the second round.
When Pitts is dominating the red zone and gashing defenses on seam routes you wont care we took him at 10.

 

[BourbonBalz]

You take a blue chip talent like Pitts especially since this is a weak defensive draft. There's not much of a dropoff in defensive talent in the second round.
When Pitts is dominating the red zone and gashing defenses on seam routes you wont care we took him at 10.

Ah, that’s 100% false. There’s considerable drop off at CB after Surtain and Farley. There’s drop off at LB after Parsons. There’s drop off after the top 2-3 DTs. There’s always drop off after the top 2-3 players at pretty much every position.

 

[Hardline]

Ah, that’s 100% false. There’s considerable drop off at CB after Surtain and Farley. There’s drop off at LB after Parsons. There’s drop off after the top 2-3 DTs. There’s always drop off after the top 2-3 players at pretty much every position.

Theres not enough drop off to pass up on elite talent on offense to justify reaching for need.

Jason Horn is very comparable to Surtain and Farley and can be had later.
There are no stud DEs . And one blue chip LB that might be off the board.

 

[fivetwos]

I never want to take a corner early, but in this case, if Surtain or Farley is there you grab them at ten.

Or deal backward and target a safety as the first pick.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Theres not enough drop off to pass up on elite talent on offense to justify reaching for need.

Jason Horn is very comparable to Surtain and Farley and can be had later.
There are no stud DEs . And one blue chip LB that might be off the board.

The draft is about making your team better. I don’t think drafting a TE with the 10th pick makes us better than grabbing the top CB or LB. We have plenty of really good pass catchers, including TEs. We don’t have a HOFer at TE, but we’re pretty good at this point. I realize Pitts might be rated a little higher on some draft boards, but again, the draft should be about getting better. If the Bama or LSU receivers were at the top of our board when our pick comes up, do you want to take them? I certainly don’t because there would be other players available that would make us better.

 

[Hardline]

The draft is about making your team better. I don’t think drafting a TE with the 10th pick makes us better than grabbing the top CB or LB. We have plenty of really good pass catchers, including TEs. We don’t have a HOFer at TE, but we’re pretty good at this point. I realize Pitts might be rated a little higher on some draft boards, but again, the draft should be about getting better. If the Bama or LSU receivers were at the top of our board when our pick comes up, do you want to take them? I certainly don’t because there would be other players available that would make us better.

Drafting Pitts makes you better. You draft for the future,not just for one year.
The Bama and LSU WRs won't be there. It's not worth discussing.
A lot of people just don't understand how dominate Pitts is going to be and We don't know if Gallup is going to be resigned.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Drafting Pitts makes you better. You draft for the future,not just for one year.
The Bama and LSU WRs won't be there. It's not worth discussing.
A lot of people just don't understand how dominate Pitts is going to be and We don't know if Gallup is going to be resigned.

Sure he makes you better, but not as much as a great corner or linebacker. Not on this particular team. At least that’s my opinion.

This is all speculation, so the receivers are worth discussing. If one is there and is the highest player on our board, would you want us to pick him? I know I wouldn’t and I doubt many others would either.