Would You Be Mad if We Went D-Line With Our First Two Picks?

[BrAinPaiNt]

Thank you

I'm so sick of the mentality that you pass on a good player because you already have a good player there. There is so much more involved in drafting then saying "Player A fits Need C" so that's who we choose but that's what people want to believe.

I said this in another thread and I'll say it again. I have spoken a lot of words on this board and never have I been so confident that I was right BUT I have never been around a Scout, scouting department or NFL team that is afraid to bring in the person they think is the best player available regardless of level of competition or position.

Some things to consider.

If we are moving back to a 4-3...I would have no problem with it. And I have no idea if that is what Jason would want to do next year...it might very well be as that is what he has been used to in the past when he was playing.

There seems to be a thing on this board where some people want BPA no matter what.

BPA no matter what is too closed minded for me and I think it is silly thinking to think that way.

At the same time drafting just for need is silly as well.

There are some exceptions to both of those.

If you have no needs whatsoever. If your team has good players across the board and you have no problems than by all means go BPA.

If you have needs at certain positions and you just draft for need often times you will reach in the draft and some times reach too far and wind up with players that are not that great (remember the three gloves aka cb draft, drafting QC and so on).

IMO you have to use a method of BPA that fits a need.

If the BPA on your board is a Dlineman but you really have needs elsewhere and are pretty much set in stone with your starters...no need to take the Dlineman. You can trade down and try to pick up extra picks. OR you can look at a player that is also in the same range of BPA that also fits a need.

For example...if you have Patrick Peterson sitting there and you also have a DT tackle that is about the same draft grade concerning BPA...you take the position of need because the difference is so slim.

This team is not in the position to take BPA no matter what at this time IMO. There are questions on the Oline, there are questions in the secondary, there might even be questions at RB as crazy as some may think that is. If you have similarly rated players at all of those positions but instead decide that you would rather take a dlineman because he is rated one draft slot higher (slot not round) on your BPA list...why take him over a position of need.

If you have a list that rates the players 1-10 (for the overall draft) of ratings...the number one is a player that you don't have a need as much as the player listed at number two...I say take the second player...or trade down.

A 3-4 defensive end is probably not going to make a huge difference in rushing the passer when they are more put in place to watch the run or engage blockers for the 3-4 OLB.


The only way I think we go Dline is one of the following scenarios play out...

If there is a stud there at NT that would allow Ratliff to move to DE and that player is considered far superior to any other player available.

If Garrett, with Jones giving the go ahead, wants to move back to a 4-3.

There is no other player close to BPA at another position and we can not trade down.

 

[TheCount]

There seems to be a thing on this board where some people want BPA no matter what.

BPA no matter what is too closed minded for me and I think it is silly thinking to think that way.

I don't think I've noticed anyone really saying they want the best player period around here.

The problem is that we happen to have a pretty high 1st round pick this year coming our way, and I think in that position you have an obligation to take a talented player, not necessarily a need player.

But my philosophy is in line with yours in that I wouldn't hesitate to spend a high pick on a top tier NT in the 3-4, than a DE.

I do find it interesting however that for years, when we were winning games, the idea of moving Ratliff to DE was considered a running joke and got you a sound mocking but now that we've got 3 wins and a whole bunch of loses, it doesn't seem so far fetched.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

I don't think I've noticed anyone really saying they want the best player period around here.

The problem is that we happen to have a pretty high 1st round pick this year coming our way, and I think in that position you have an obligation to take a talented player, not necessarily a need player.

But my philosophy is in line with yours in that I wouldn't hesitate to spend a high pick on a top tier NT in the 3-4, than a DE.

I do find it interesting however that for years, when we were winning games, the idea of moving Ratliff to DE was considered a running joke and got you a sound mocking but now that we've got 3 wins and a whole bunch of loses, it doesn't seem so far fetched.

Well there are a couple of things at play here.

We got three of our 3-4 DEs who will be FAs.

Do we sign one, let two walk. Sign Two let one walk...sign none and let them all walk.

Do we get one or more via FA.

I think it would have to be someone they think is an exceptional NT player and them letting a couple of the current 3-4 DEs walk via FA.

On top of that I don't know if there is a NT in the top of the round that is worthy of the pick. Might be one later that they like.

Something to keep the offseason interesting along with If JG becomes the head coach and if so who will they get to be the other coaches.

 

[TheCount]

Well there are a couple of things at play here.

We got three of our 3-4 DEs who will be FAs.

Do we sign one, let two walk. Sign Two let one walk...sign none and let them all walk.

Do we get one or more via FA.

I think it would have to be someone they think is an exceptional NT player and them letting a couple of the current 3-4 DEs walk via FA.

On top of that I don't know if there is a NT in the top of the round that is worthy of the pick. Might be one later that they like.

Something to keep the offseason interesting along with If JG becomes the head coach and if so who will they get to be the other coaches.

I don't think there is, personally. Unfortunately.

I'm interested to see how things shake out as well.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I think Stephen Paea (oregon state) will get a lot of looks from 3-4 teams. Even though he's only 312, at 6-1 he has a very good frame to anchor the nose. On top of that he's been pretty productive as a pass rusher

 

[SDogo]

Some things to consider.

If we are moving back to a 4-3...I would have no problem with it. And I have no idea if that is what Jason would want to do next year...it might very well be as that is what he has been used to in the past when he was playing.

There seems to be a thing on this board where some people want BPA no matter what.

BPA no matter what is too closed minded for me and I think it is silly thinking to think that way.

At the same time drafting just for need is silly as well.

There are some exceptions to both of those.

If you have no needs whatsoever. If your team has good players across the board and you have no problems than by all means go BPA.

If you have needs at certain positions and you just draft for need often times you will reach in the draft and some times reach too far and wind up with players that are not that great (remember the three gloves aka cb draft, drafting QC and so on).

IMO you have to use a method of BPA that fits a need.

If the BPA on your board is a Dlineman but you really have needs elsewhere and are pretty much set in stone with your starters...no need to take the Dlineman. You can trade down and try to pick up extra picks. OR you can look at a player that is also in the same range of BPA that also fits a need.

For example...if you have Patrick Peterson sitting there and you also have a DT tackle that is about the same draft grade concerning BPA...you take the position of need because the difference is so slim.

This team is not in the position to take BPA no matter what at this time IMO. There are questions on the Oline, there are questions in the secondary, there might even be questions at RB as crazy as some may think that is. If you have similarly rated players at all of those positions but instead decide that you would rather take a dlineman because he is rated one draft slot higher (slot not round) on your BPA list...why take him over a position of need.

If you have a list that rates the players 1-10 (for the overall draft) of ratings...the number one is a player that you don't have a need as much as the player listed at number two...I say take the second player...or trade down.

A 3-4 defensive end is probably not going to make a huge difference in rushing the passer when they are more put in place to watch the run or engage blockers for the 3-4 OLB.


The only way I think we go Dline is one of the following scenarios play out...

If there is a stud there at NT that would allow Ratliff to move to DE and that player is considered far superior to any other player available.

If Garrett, with Jones giving the go ahead, wants to move back to a 4-3.

There is no other player close to BPA at another position and we can not trade down.

Very well put and you hit on a key point. It comes down to grading.

Like you stated, if you have a player at a position of need graded out equal to or even a little below a player that is not considered a need you take the player of need.

Where people continue to get it wrong is and we will use this example. If you have a DL graded out 1-8/10 (1st round, 8/10 spot projected) that is not a immediate need and a FS graded out 1-15/20 it's a no brainier. You either take the DL or maneuver your pick to obtain better value but we all know that's not always easy.

I find this is going to be a very interesting year for the Cowboys. The obvious positions of need OL and Safety lack depth and that guaranteed top 10 player. It may very well be a 1st round that finds Dallas picking the legitimate BPA or force Jerry to do what Jerry loves to do best and pick up the phone.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's been speculated that the Cowboys are interested in Stephen Paea DT out of Oregon St. Cowboys have scouted him multiple times this year.

 

[Bonecrusher#31]

We need to take Amukamara or Peterson 1st then Nate Solder
T/Colorado, Matt Reynolds T/BYU or someone similar 2nd...

 

[SDogo]

It's been speculated that the Cowboys are interested in Stephen Paea DT out of Oregon St. Cowboys have scouted him multiple times this year.

If we switched back to the 4-3 it would be a great pick.

 

[KingintheNorth]

If we switched back to the 4-3 it would be a great pick.

Agreed. I do think he is nasty enough to play DE in a 3-4 but huge tackles (6'6" guys) will engulf him.

 

[SDogo]

Agreed. I do think he is nasty enough to play DE in a 3-4 but huge tackles (6'6" guys) will engulf him.

Think Russell Maryland with more athletic ability. Neither could stand up over time in a 3-4 and neither was built to play DE in a 3-4 but both are custom built to shoot gaps and occupy blocks in a 4-3.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

Agreed. I do think he is nasty enough to play DE in a 3-4 but huge tackles (6'6" guys) will engulf him.

If we drafted him, he would play the nose. As you imply, way to short to play end.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

If we switched back to the 4-3 it would be a great pick.

why do you think he would be a bad fit in a 3-4?

 

[TheCount]

It's been speculated that the Cowboys are interested in Stephen Paea DT out of Oregon St. Cowboys have scouted him multiple times this year.

Of course.

 

[AmishCowboy]

Of course.

Hey, Count, Love your mock draft!

 

[casmith07]

I'd be furious.

 

[MegaMagick]

If we got Nick Fairley and JJ Watt with our first two picks what would you guys think? We could still get someone like Moffitt in the 3rd, and maybe O'Dowd in the 4th.

Our two biggest problems(not counting the coaching staff) are oline and the secondary, if we don't take one of the 3(peterson, prince, or Sherrod) big players at that position while we have a early draft year i'd be pissed.

 

[Cover 2]

Our two biggest problems(not counting the coaching staff) are oline and the secondary, if we don't take one of the 3(peterson, prince, or Sherrod) big players at that position while we have a early draft year i'd be pissed.

I would say dline is a bigger current need than db, although db's are more valuable. Dline would improve the pass rush if it were Fairley and Watt, so the db's wouldn't be in coverage as long.

If we could still get Moffitt and O'Dowd that would give us 2 quality interior line prospects which is the weakness of our oline IMO.

 

[Eskimo]

I think our CBs as a group are above average. The problem is that the ILBs and Safeties are so horrendous in coverage that they make them look bad. This problem is compounded by a DL that has only one good passrusher and LBs who are not good passrushers when we send the blitz.

I think given the way the draft board is shaping up (Peterson off the board) we are best off spending the pick on a 3-4 DE with passrushing ability or a dynamic 3-4 OLB to compliment Ware. I would like Fairley - big, fast, physical, aggressive, great motor, good passrushing ability as interior DL. Line him up next to Ware and Ratliff and watch them create havoc.

The other option would be to trade down later in the first and gain a second rounder. Then try to grab an OL and a safety.

 

[TheCoolFan]

At this point, we actually need to get DLine help in the 1st round now, preferably Spencer's replacement.