- Messages
- 5,432
- Reaction score
- 0
We aint getting the #1 so.........
sbk92
2
- Messages
- 12,134
- Reaction score
- 6
I might take Mallett in the 8-12 area.
- Messages
- 5,432
- Reaction score
- 0
I would wait for next year and take Tannehill
I like .. I like, especially the idea of taking a QB early 2 years from now not next year.
C
Cr122
Guest
Your right, he won't.
It's not like we're 1-15 and in need of a QB. Jerry probably sees Romo in the plans for at least another five years.
Remember what he said about our offensive line? lol
sbk92
2
- Messages
- 12,134
- Reaction score
- 6
He'll look towards a QB when his team is currently in crisis mode at the position. That's what a con man GM would do. It's what he did with Aikman. And then spent years idiotically looking to steal the next QB from MLB.
- Messages
- 5,432
- Reaction score
- 0
We need to draft a QB high in the draft in 2 years no later than 3 imo
and for the record, I don't think Mallet will be a franchise QB. Only one I see this year with a chance to be one is Luck.
and for the record, I don't think Mallet will be a franchise QB. Only one I see this year with a chance to be one is Luck.
cboys72
2
- Messages
- 1,713
- Reaction score
- 0
What good would a rookie qb be right now? I understand that u draft BPA but not at qb, not this year Atleast imo...
My only insight as to why you would grab a qb that high is you see him starting in less than 2 years...
If we didn't have so MANY holes then I would say we could draft a QB with the first pick. The thing is a rookie Qb will be sitting for Atleast 2 years and will be of no real use other than a collecting a paycheck and being a backup?
On the other hand a top flight DL,OL, corner will start and make our team that much better....
My only insight as to why you would grab a qb that high is you see him starting in less than 2 years...
If we didn't have so MANY holes then I would say we could draft a QB with the first pick. The thing is a rookie Qb will be sitting for Atleast 2 years and will be of no real use other than a collecting a paycheck and being a backup?
On the other hand a top flight DL,OL, corner will start and make our team that much better....
Last edited:
sbk92
2
- Messages
- 12,134
- Reaction score
- 6
So you always take the best player available.....but not at the most important position on the field. Having great depth there is a bad thing.
I'll ignore the initial question. What rookies do has nothing to do with who you draft, if you are run by anyone who has a clue about what the draft is all about.
It'd make no sense to draft a QB in the top 10. Not with the money they require, and not considering how Romo will likely be playing at a high level for the next 4-6 years.
And certainly not considering how many holes we have to fix on a team that, realistically, isn't that far from being one of the better teams in the NFC.
We get the secondary and offensive line shored up, and we're a contender.
If one of the elite QB prospects fall to us, then we should trade down for more picks.
If you want to add depth to the QB position, then do so by drafting a prospect later in the draft. It would be more cost effective, would create less controversy in the locker room, and would have less of an impact on the salary cap.
CAP-MAN
2
- Messages
- 319
- Reaction score
- 2
it wouldnt hurt especially with romo being in his 30's but i would like the trade down idea better cuz if we stay in win now mode more picks = more chanes at getting better quailty o-lineman
sbk92
2
- Messages
- 12,134
- Reaction score
- 6
I'm not interested in what helps the team right now. What a short sighted way of looking at the draft. Hey, how can these guys help right this minute. Forget about the entire length of their careers.
sbk92
2
- Messages
- 12,134
- Reaction score
- 6
From Tim Cowlishaw's recent chat....
On drafting a quarterback in the first round:
Tim Cowlishaw: I wouldn't completely give up on Romo. I know a lot of fans want to. The clock is definitely ticking there. I'm not against drafting a QB high, but it wouldn't be my first choice unless that was just the clear guy to take.
http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/11/cowlishaw-im-not-against-draft.html
----
Even with his faulty reasoning that drafting a QB high is "giving up on Romo", he still agrees that if the QB is the clear cut top talent there, you take him.
On drafting a quarterback in the first round:
Tim Cowlishaw: I wouldn't completely give up on Romo. I know a lot of fans want to. The clock is definitely ticking there. I'm not against drafting a QB high, but it wouldn't be my first choice unless that was just the clear guy to take.
http://cowboysblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2010/11/cowlishaw-im-not-against-draft.html
----
Even with his faulty reasoning that drafting a QB high is "giving up on Romo", he still agrees that if the QB is the clear cut top talent there, you take him.
- Messages
- 2,797
- Reaction score
- 0
If that were coming from Jerry's mouth I'd put more into it otherwise it means nothing. Its just another opinion. Everyone's gonna have their way of wanting to go about it...
Me, I still think it makes no sense to draft a QB when you already have one (at the very least for another 4 seasons) and you have so many other holes that need filled. Not to mention the two contracts for franchise QBs you'd have... and we already have the highest payroll in the league.
Me, I still think it makes no sense to draft a QB when you already have one (at the very least for another 4 seasons) and you have so many other holes that need filled. Not to mention the two contracts for franchise QBs you'd have... and we already have the highest payroll in the league.
Cythim
2
- Messages
- 3,919
- Reaction score
- 0
BPA is a great idea on paper, but if there is a player that can make an imediate impact at a position of need you have to go after that player. If you are running your team right you should not need to draft a starter, and under that premise BPA is the way to go. The Cowboys are not being run right, there are potential starters in the draft and that is who we need to target this year (assuming we do not fill those holes in free agency).
cboys72
2
- Messages
- 1,713
- Reaction score
- 0
I am simply talking about the 1st round pick we will have for next years draft, not the year after or the year after that...So why do we need to draft a QB(which it surely isnt gonna be Luck) with our first overall pick if there is way to move back and get a few impact players or simply stay put an take an impact player?
You stated you would take a QB, but why plan for 4 years down the road now? We can win now and maybe sustain that with some tweaks to rooster?
I know franchise QBs come around once a decade but why have them sit on the bench for the next 4 years?
sbk92
2
- Messages
- 12,134
- Reaction score
- 6
Oh yes. Let's check with Jerry Jones on the right draft philosophy.
sbk92
2
- Messages
- 12,134
- Reaction score
- 6
I'm not planning for four years down the road. I'm taking the best available player whenever I'm on the clock and won't ever let immediate need get in the way of that.
If you stick to that strategy, and have good scouts, you'll always be a contender.
If you start doing the round/position draft slotting, thinking you're clever, you'll reach your way to bad draft classes on a regular basis.