2016 Offseason

[ROMOTOOWENS]

As far as BPA, unless something odd happens- the OT from Ole Miss could be there. If he is our BPA at that time- I go for need then. I know Free can be upgraded but we spent a 3rd last yr on an OT.

 

[ROMOTOOWENS]

I guess what I'm trying to say - when talking about BPA- does that mean BPA for us or just BPA in general.

 

[jarntt]

As much as you and I discuss BPA and Need, I see us meaning the same just worded differently. Now I lead more to the need side of the pendulum while you lean to the BPA but we're both near center.

I don't like to say BPA regardless, I always say with need in the back of your mind. The way I look at it is there are a million factors (talent, need, injuries, character, athletic ability, IQ, football IQ, etc) that go into the selection. If you rank all the players on all of those factors whoever gets the highest point total should be the pick. The reason I think BPA must be the number one factor is because eventually a great player will play even if it means finding
creative ways to get him on the field or letting a talented veteran walk via FA for cap purposes because you have a young cheaper alternative to fill the void. If you go for need and the player isn't that good he may never play. But, I'll never state that need isn't part of the conversation because it must be, just not the biggest part IMO and when in doubt take the better player.

 

[jarntt]

As far as BPA, unless something odd happens- the OT from Ole Miss could be there. If he is our BPA at that time- I go for need then. I know Free can be upgraded but we spent a 3rd last yr on an OT.

Good example. If we think he is a 10 year stud HOFer in the making why in the World would we pass on him if we don't really love anyone else in that spot; when we do have an opening at RT to address very soon (this year IMO). Yeah, it could be Green, but who knows and I pray the team isn't just handing him the job. But since our OL is very strong I would hope if we see another player at a position of much greater need (CB, QB, etc) sitting there too that we like as much or even almost as much that we take that into account and go for the need. But if they aren't close no way do we pass on a much better player to pick an inferior player (in our Scouts eyes). Not sure if that explains What I am trying to say.

 

[scotsman1948]

Maybe for 2016, but If we just pick QB and RB in the first two rounds regardless of whether the players are worthy of the picks we will be destined for failure for years to come. That's just not how you build a good team. You pick from amongst the best players that are available when you are on the clock, you don't just plug holes in order of biggest need without at least making sure the guy you get is worth it. Think about what you are saying. We have the #4 overall pick in the draft. Do you think there is a RB worthy of that pick? So if no, now what if the team doesn't like any of the "top" QBs? You want them to draft a QB they don't like or a RB they don't think is worthy? How is that going to make us better in 2016 or going forward? It just doesn't make sense to me. Now if they love Goff or someone else, sure, I'm all for it but you can't just go into it with tunnel vision when this team has many areas that we can improve - yes QB and RB, but also CB, S, DL, LB depth. We aren't a backup QB away from a SB and we had the #4 rusher in the entire NFL last year and a scat back that IF HEALTHY could be a dangerous playmaker.

Anyway, as crappy as this season was if we held on to some of those 4th qtr collapses that our defense had we would have been in the thick of the playoff picture going into week 17 and probably never would have even seen Moore on the field. So I think based on last year the case you can make for needing defense may be even bigger

between the top 3 QB's in the draft anyone of them would be a positive asset behind Romo while learning the offense and either Henry or Elliot would also be an asset behind that OL line but i'm not calling for them to just take a RB or QB but for them o take the best available at both position that fits our scheme.

but i also agree that we need to improve the defense

 

[Manster7588]

between the top 3 QB's in the draft anyone of them would be a positive asset behind Romo while learning the offense and either Henry or Elliot would also be an asset behind that OL line but i'm not calling for them to just take a RB or QB but for them o take the best available at both position that fits our scheme.

but i also agree that we need to improve the defense

I'm a need first guy, but I personally don't think any of the 5 you just mentioned will be close to BPA. To me it's a delicate balance. Just going need you can bypass great talent, just going PBA you can have too much talent at a position whole another is completely lacking.

 

[jarntt]

between the top 3 QB's in the draft anyone of them would be a positive asset behind Romo while learning the offense and either Henry or Elliot would also be an asset behind that OL line but i'm not calling for them to just take a RB or QB but for them o take the best available at both position that fits our scheme.

but i also agree that we need to improve the defense

But what if the team looks at the "top 3 QBs" and doesn't see an NFL starter there or sees them as no better than the "next 3 QBs"? I'm all for taking our future stud QB at #4, but that assumes one of them will both be there and that our scouts feel they have that type of talent...the "gurus" ratings won't do it for me...

 

[Manster7588]

I guess what I'm trying to say - when talking about BPA- does that mean BPA for us or just BPA in general.

BPA is BPA period regardless of need.
My way of looking at it is the scouts rank players, then draft with need as you go. Now if the top two or three needs are 10/15 spots down, you should try to trade back and grab an extra pick or two. I don't mind reaching a little for need but I don't want to reach 10 or more and leave 9 better players on the board.

 

[jarntt]

Will be interesting if we get a good offer to trade down a little (hopefully still top 10) what we do. I sure would love to add 3 players in the first 40 or so picks including one somewhere in the top 10.

 

[es4m11]

As it stands right now Hargreaves, Ramsey, Bosa and Goff seem to be the best fits for Dallas in the top of the first round. If we get to a scenario where 3 of those 4 are on the board when we pick at #4 I think Dallas seriously should consider moving back just a few spots - if the appropriate trade presents itself. As Jarntt said, 3 picks in the top 40 would be very nice.

Of course this is all subject to change. The draft season hasn't even started yet. Player evaluations are likely to change.

 

[scotsman1948]

I'm a need first guy, but I personally don't think any of the 5 you just mentioned will be close to BPA. To me it's a delicate balance. Just going need you can bypass great talent, just going PBA you can have too much talent at a position whole another is completely lacking.

exactly sometimes you just have to go with need

 

[scotsman1948]

But what if the team looks at the "top 3 QBs" and doesn't see an NFL starter there or sees them as no better than the "next 3 QBs"? I'm all for taking our future stud QB at #4, but that assumes one of them will both be there and that our scouts feel they have that type of talent...the "gurus" ratings won't do it for me...

if Goff was there at 4 would you take him? personally i would like to see us trade down pick up an extra pick in the top 40 and then see who fits our scheme but i think that at least two of those 3 should be a QB and RB. but we have the combine and free agency to get thru

 

[ArlingtonCowboys100]

Screw the tradedown. We need two new starters and can get them at 4 and 35. Ramsey would come in and be the best safety since woodson. Even when the front 4 got pressure the secondary could not get picks. Use the money saved on Carr and hardy to bring in 2 FA. The cowboys have had the worst set of safeties in the NFL for years.

 

[Manster7588]

if Goff was there at 4 would you take him? personally i would like to see us trade down pick up an extra pick in the top 40 and then see who fits our scheme but i think that at least two of those 3 should be a QB and RB. but we have the combine and free agency to get thru

I would not want Goff or any QB at 4.

 

[jarntt]

if Goff was there at 4 would you take him? personally i would like to see us trade down pick up an extra pick in the top 40 and then see who fits our scheme but i think that at least two of those 3 should be a QB and RB. but we have the combine and free agency to get thru

My comment on every QB is the same. If the team feels he is clearly the best of all the QBs available when we pick and the team feels he is worth the #4 pick, better than the other players there and could be our QB of the future, then sure I take him. But I don't just take a QB at #4 because we need one. I listen to what my scouts think about them

 

[Eastbay]

As it stands right now Hargreaves, Ramsey, Bosa and Goff seem to be the best fits for Dallas in the top of the first round. If we get to a scenario where 3 of those 4 are on the board when we pick at #4 I think Dallas seriously should consider moving back just a few spots - if the appropriate trade presents itself. As Jarntt said, 3 picks in the top 40 would be very nice.

Of course this is all subject to change. The draft season hasn't even started yet. Player evaluations are likely to change.

Don't sleep on Myles Jack & Treadwell. ...

 

[tylerTX88]

My comment on every QB is the same. If the team feels he is clearly the best of all the QBs available when we pick and the team feels he is worth the #4 pick, better than the other players there and could be our QB of the future, then sure I take him. But I don't just take a QB at #4 because we need one. I listen to what my scouts think about them

Listen to the scouts! This is a great idea! You need to send this to Jerry. He needs to know this.

 

[PDay8810]

I have no problem at spot 4 should Dallas take the 10th rated guy on Kipers board.
I just think the value FOR DALLAS will be one of the two DB's

 

[Manster7588]

I have no problem at spot 4 should Dallas take the 10th rated guy on Kipers board.
I just think the value FOR DALLAS will be one of the two DB's

10th rated on Kipers board might be a problem, now 10th on their board, I'm good with. Now for this team you are most likely right about one of the 2 DB's. I'm still thinking a high pick on a DT is needed, but at number four this may be too high

 

[Manster7588]

Looking at the roster, would it be simpler to Elina the positions not needed at #4?
I wouldn't go RB, TE, ILB, SS or OL, and wouldn't be too happy with a QB at 4, but all other positions should be in play.
ILB, and SS are needs but never at #4 in the draft.