Why the Cowboys passed on Juan Thornhill and other safeties

Hawkeye0202

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,008
Reaction score
42,490
Yep. Another spin-job

Why all the interest in Earl if they only wanted a SS type

Think they saw ET as an opportunity add an elite, possible future HOF to the unit. I'm sure Richard being his former DC didn't hurt but notice he was the ONLY free agent FS they looked at. The rest were all SS(s).....
 

SackMaster

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,159
Reaction score
6,984
This seems to track with their supposed interest in Joseph but the team is littered with SS. I want someone back there that can tackle but I cannot see any more of Heath and co getting beat deep so we need people that can cover and aren't out of position every damn time.
Dallas was T-6th best in the NFL last year for giving up the least amount of 20+ yard receptions, and T-7th best in the NFL for giving up the least 40+ yard receptions last year.

Then on top of that, every big passing play I can think of last year off the top of my head, the defender was in good position, but it was a great throw and/or an amazing catch. Obviously, that is not the case since EVERY team ends up getting beat at least a handful of times in a season, but it is not like it was a few years ago.

I would be happy as a pig in slop if we got a new safety or two, and if you want to complain about the lack of interceptions, that is VERY valid. But getting beat deep and being "out of position every damn time" is not.
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,687
Reaction score
91,133
I prefer having safeties that are flexible, which some teams have shifted towards instead of the SS/FS model.

But Richard earned his money coaching the more traditional FS/SS look with Thomas and Chancellor. Let's just hope there's a good SS somewhere on this roster now because Heath is not that guy.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,207
Reaction score
15,281
This is what many say, but if our safeties are so crappy, why would there be a mass exodus? Who’s going to overpay these guys and make us let them walk if they really stink. One can’t have it both ways.

Either they are good enough safeties to attract more money than we can pay or they are garbage, which means we can keep them as long as we want for cheap.
well good question, but other teams took our secondary guys after 2014.
Dallas will offer less than other teams, not caring if the guys take it or not.
 

Future

Intramural Legend
Messages
27,566
Reaction score
14,714
If they passed on a safety because he's not good against the run, then they are beyond stupid.

They think Hill is a better player than those safeties, that's it.
 

DandyDon52

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,207
Reaction score
15,281
Dallas was T-6th best in the NFL last year for giving up the least amount of 20+ yard receptions, and T-7th best in the NFL for giving up the least 40+ yard receptions last year.

Then on top of that, every big passing play I can think of last year off the top of my head, the defender was in good position, but it was a great throw and/or an amazing catch. Obviously, that is not the case since EVERY team ends up getting beat at least a handful of times in a season, but it is not like it was a few years ago.

I would be happy as a pig in slop if we got a new safety or two, and if you want to complain about the lack of interceptions, that is VERY valid. But getting beat deep and being "out of position every damn time" is not.
the lack of int's is due more to the zone coverage they play so much , more than the guys they have.
Remember the same was true for the previous secondary, not many int's.
So it isnt the players.
 

JBell

That's still my Quarterback
Messages
5,698
Reaction score
6,835
If they passed on a safety because he's not good against the run, then they are beyond stupid.

They think Hill is a better player than those safeties, that's it.
Jeff Heath missed 19 tackles last year. 4 off from the league worst at safety, which was Curtis Riley with 23.

Why would it be stupid to want a replacement who excels at tackling and run support? Especially when last season ended because the Rams ran the ball down our throats.

You guys just want to throw out anyone at SS besides Heath, I get it. But this team wanted value and a scheme fit at safety, and it wasn't there at 58 or 90 in their eyes.
 

Outlaw Heroes

Well-Known Member
Messages
5,393
Reaction score
6,591
Jeff Heath missed 19 tackles last year. 4 off from the league worst at safety, which was Curtis Riley with 23.

Why would it be stupid to want a replacement who excels at tackling and run support? Especially when last season ended because the Rams ran the ball down our throats.

You guys just want to throw out anyone at SS besides Heath, I get it. But this team wanted value and a scheme fit at safety, and it wasn't there at 58 or 90 in their eyes.

The evidence is that they didn’t rate Rapp as highly, but my guess is that if It were a choice between Rapp and Thornhill at 58 they’d have taken Rapp, for the reasons you’ve outlined.

But if it were a choice between Rapp and Hill, they’d still have taken Hill because they value the 3T position that much more than either safety position.

Not sure what everyone is arguing about in the circumstances. There’s room for everyone to be correct here.
 

DFWJC

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,330
Reaction score
48,172
I don't know man...Marinelli getting his guy w/ higher rated players above Hill. Richard thinking X. Woods will be a star, and leaving 2 better pedigree FSs on the board. It's a slippery slope. Imo they left Thornhill on the board who was higher rated than Hill, and is a better FS prospect than Woods...I could be wrong but that's how I see it.

Maybe the Hill pick is Travis Fredrick-esque and X. Woods ends up a poor man's Earl Thomas.
Higher rated by who?

The only board that matter is Dallas'

I probably would've gone Thornhill there, or CGJ at 90, but this explains a bit of their reasoning.
I think they just really love Hill more than some others did.
 

Future

Intramural Legend
Messages
27,566
Reaction score
14,714
Jeff Heath missed 19 tackles last year. 4 off from the league worst at safety, which was Curtis Riley with 23.

Why would it be stupid to want a replacement who excels at tackling and run support? Especially when last season ended because the Rams ran the ball down our throats.

You guys just want to throw out anyone at SS besides Heath, I get it. But this team wanted value and a scheme fit at safety, and it wasn't there at 58 or 90 in their eyes.
19 missed tackles is an absolutely nothing stat, completely meaningless, especially since we ask Heath to tackle Saquon 1-1 in the open field.

Didn't say that.

If you are trying draft anything for scheme other than nickel in the first few rounds of the draft, then your strategy is stupid. It's a passing league, and using premium picks to stop the run (when you had a top-10 run defense) is dumb.
 

jazzcat22

Staff member
Messages
77,205
Reaction score
95,762
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
This was obvious .......but I think that fact they went hard after Earl Thomas, threw some fans off on how they were planning to play Woods. But the truth is since they considered ET an exception, they were willing to sacrifice Woods at his best position. Once the ET deal fell through, they settled on Woods playing his natural FS position. That explains every free agent safety they brought in after ET was SS type. Funny cost Broaddus kept saying he was pretty sure they like Rapp over Thornhill.

Did they go hard after ET? Or just tried for a modest deal, as they weren't giving up anything higher that a 3rd, or a reported 3rd. If they went hard and thought he was that guy, they would have went higher. It was reported a 2nd round, or so someone wrote that. I am not sure. But bye not giving up a first we are so far better off with Cooper. As if they gave up a 2nd or 3rd for ET, I doubt they would have did the 1st for Cooper.

I can't say it was that way, only speculation on my part.

As for the draft I have no idea, other than in hindsight, they liked the S's but not one so much to pass on them and see how it fell.
 

Bowdown27

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,393
Reaction score
7,647
Can our new signee Mike Jackson move to strong safety? Maybe thats a thought they have as well
 

Stash

Staff member
Messages
78,331
Reaction score
102,213
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I prefer having safeties that are flexible, which some teams have shifted towards instead of the SS/FS model.

But Richard earned his money coaching the more traditional FS/SS look with Thomas and Chancellor. Let's just hope there's a good SS somewhere on this roster now because Heath is not that guy.

"Help us George Iloka..."
image
 

Mr_437

Well-Known Member
Messages
16,909
Reaction score
18,816
Higher rated by who?

The only board that matter is Dallas'

I probably would've gone Thornhill there, or CGJ at 90, but this explains a bit of their reasoning.
I think they just really love Hill more than some others did.
Higher rated on the Cowboys board.
 

John813

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,102
Reaction score
33,854
Jeff Heath missed 19 tackles last year. 4 off from the league worst at safety, which was Curtis Riley with 23.

Why would it be stupid to want a replacement who excels at tackling and run support? Especially when last season ended because the Rams ran the ball down our throats.

You guys just want to throw out anyone at SS besides Heath, I get it. But this team wanted value and a scheme fit at safety, and it wasn't there at 58 or 90 in their eyes.

Be curious if they ever comment more on Rapp. Was it being afraid of him being too "slow" to be a SS in the NFL or was it medical.

Cause it seemed like they liked him in some degree. Maybe as a possible trade down or at 90?
 

CouchCoach

Staff member
Messages
41,122
Reaction score
74,900
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Ok, so why did so many “experts” give us an average draft grade? We got Hill, but also managed to get a decent OL, 2 RBs, another underrated DE, etc. Not trying to be facetious, but...
Depends on whether they factored the best 1st round pick of the draft into it.

The other factor is what did they project as the team's primary need? If that was S, then they graded the draft down, not based on the picks, but based on their own determination of the team's needs, so many of those pundits have built successful teams. It's all about their predictions. And all you have to do is look at the selections after the third to know how wrong they were.

Part of this is based on "they didn't take a S" but a lot of it is based on who they did take. Why he wasn't even good enough to start on his own college team. Another 2nd round risk for the Cowboys.

But the ones I pay attention to investigated a little further that that. They discovered the change in coaching brought the change in D system and unlike Ed Oliver, who went along with his stupid college coaches and dropped from his #1 pick preseason, didn't go along with it. But while he didn't start, he was in the game when they needed the best DL in the game. They also discovered that the Cowboys DC, who has history and a relationship with Hill's former HC and one that recruited him, and had established a relationship with Hill before the pick was made. And this DC's forte just happens to be the DL.

I didn't know a lot about Hill before the draft, except that he'd had some issues with his coaches, but since then the things I have learned lead me to believe it was only that reported problem that made him available at 58. There are three measurables that lead me to believe the Cowboys got a real prize in this draft and when they grade it after the season, those grades will not be average from anyone. Hill is 6'3", 308lbs with a vertical of 35". The man has the launching ability of a DB in a DT's body. That's power and that power is going to be unleashed by a coach that he does like.
 

Bullflop

Cowboys Diehard
Messages
24,533
Reaction score
29,884
Sometimes, media-driven popularity can be a misleading factor in the expectations of fans. Despite being one who fell for the media's bait in that respect, I can now see why the Trysten Hill pick took precedence over Thornhill. I, for one, had seen very little mention of Thornhill being wanting in his tackling. It's clearer now that the proper decision was made with the Hill pick. The Dallas defense needs a strong tackling SS type to complement Xavier Woods at the safety spot. I'm now somewhat better prepared to see if "Hill will fill the bill" at DT. ;)
 
Last edited:
Top