dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
54,697
Reaction score
6,030
Dallas Cowboys owner coy on draft, but four players circled in first round

Posted Wednesday, Apr. 25, 2012

By Clarence E. Hill Jr.

chill@star-telegram.com

IRVING -- The Dallas Cowboys finally held their league-mandated, pre-draft news conference on Wednesday -- one day before the three-day NFL Draft begins with the first round today.

And after 35 minutes of a formal news conference and roughly 10 minutes of walk-off questions, grinning owner Jerry Jones quipped, "Just 'cause I said it don't make it so."

That summed up the real value of anything learned on Wednesday.

The bottom line is that the Cowboys have put everything to bed and have no intention of giving any real secrets the day before.

They have a plan in place for the 14th overall pick in hopes of getting an impactful player or players, who combined with what they accomplished in free agency, will help the Cowboys break their two-year playoff drought in 2012.

"This is going to be a part of and needs to be a part of what we are going to be on the football field this fall," Jones said.

According to a source, the Cowboys are targeting four players at No. 14 -- Mississippi State defensive tackle Fletcher Cox, Stanford guard David DeCastro, Alabama safety Mark Barron and LSU defensive end Michael Brockers.

Simply put, it will be either DeCastro or a defensive player for the Cowboys' pick today.

Of course, that's if they stay put.

Jones is open to moving up if two or three players fall within range, namely Cox or LSU cornerback Morris Claiborne, according to a source. Claiborne is expected to go in the top five.

"Yes, that is a possibility," Jones said. "I don't want to say one player. But there are players we would go for."

He is definitely open to moving down in the draft if he got the right offer to add value. Jones said he's already received calls and made calls about potential trade scenarios.

With the growing possibility of Cox, DeCastro and the fast-rising Barron being off the board by the time the Cowboys pick at 14, taking the best player or trading back and trying to add value are huge options.

The Cowboys say they can take a player at any position, because they don't see a glaring need.

"No," answered scouting director Tom Ciskowski, when asked if the team had any holes. "We've got some depth at some positions and I just think even if we're not drafting today, we can go play tomorrow. I think Jerry alluded to that that we're just going to try and find the best football players that we can get regardless of the position to help us."

Jones said the Cowboys will go into the draft as if they have needs at every position and will not be held hostage by position.

Jones said a month ago that they would likely go defense with the 14th pick because of the signing of two guards in free agency, which seemed to rule out DeCastro.

On Wednesday, he and the Cowboys lauded DeCastro, who could play guard or center, as the right kind of player.

Still, the bigger needs for the Cowboys are on defense, which gave up more passing yards in 2010 and 2011 than in any other two-year span in team history.

They could use impact players at safety, cornerback, pass rushing linebacker and the defensive line.

Even Jones acknowledges that the way the draft is stacked they have a chance to get a really good defensive player at 14.

The key for them is to not repeat mistakes that have plagued them in the past.

Consider that the Cowboys will have just seven starters in 2012 from the past five drafts combined. Eight of 26 draftees from 2007-2009 are still on the team, including three of 12 from the 2009 draft.

"If we just don't make mistakes here, as much as anything, we have a chance to really come out of here with some players who will be on the field this fall -- defensively," Jones said.

Of course, just 'cause he said it doesn't make it so.

Clarence E. Hill Jr.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/04/25/3912930/dallas-cowboys-owner-coy-on-draft.html#storylink=cpy
 
C

Cr122

Guest
It's possible Cox, DeCastro, and Barron all our gone in the top 10.


That leaves us with Brockers or a possible trade down.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
54,697
Reaction score
6,030
The Claiborne thing is interesting. Doubt he gets within striking ranage for us, but love the player.

If they somehow did trade up for him, I'm guessing either Jenkins or Scandrick would immediately be shopped for trade.
 
Last edited:
C

Cr122

Guest
The Calirborne thing is interesting. Doubt he gets within striking ranage for us, but love the player.

If they somehow did trade up for him, I'm guessing either Jenkins or Scandrick would immediately be shopped for trade.

It's real simple though, I don't want to lose any picks. We really can't afford to.

I know Jerry mentioned it as a possibility, but let's add more picks instead of trading them away.

There's only a couple of players I would do that for, and Claiborne isn't one of them. Shit...we could of had Samuels for a 7th.

I highly doubt we move up for a corner.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
54,697
Reaction score
6,030
It's real simple though, I don't want to lose any picks. We really can't afford to.

I know Jerry mentioned it as a possibility, but let's add more picks instead of trading them away.

There's only a couple of players I would do that for, and Claiborne isn't one of them. Shit...we could of had Samuels for a 7th.

I highly doubt we move up for a corner.

Claiborne is an impact player. Drafting him (which is highly unlikely IMO) would give us two pretty awesome CB's paired together for the next 5-6 years. They probably know they cant re-sign Jenkins if he has a good year (he'll command a similar, if not larger deal than what Carr just got) but because of the rookie cap, Clairborne's deal will be a relative bargain.

As for your Samuel thing, dude. The guy sux.
 
C

Cr122

Guest
Samuels sucks? Okay...

Claiborne is a moron. Give me Gilmore, Kirkpatrick or Hayward over him anyday.

And no I'm not guessing. :fern
 
Messages
2,064
Reaction score
0
I'll take Cox, DeCastro or Barron at 14 and call it a day. But I don't like any of them enough to move up for.
If they are all gone then I'd prefer to move down into the late teens. Would rather not have to settle for Brockers or Poe at 14. The problem is if the top three targets are gone and we have no trade down partner.
 

Iamtdg

2
Messages
5,614
Reaction score
0
I'll take Cox, DeCastro or Barron at 14 and call it a day. But I don't like any of them enough to move up for.
If they are all gone then I'd prefer to move down into the late teens. Would rather not have to settle for Brockers or Poe at 14. The problem is if the top three targets are gone and we have no trade down partner.

Yep. Just stay put and let the draft come to you, Jer.
 

NoShame

UDFA
Messages
2,797
Reaction score
0
I'll take Cox, DeCastro or Barron at 14 and call it a day. But I don't like any of them enough to move up for.
If they are all gone then I'd prefer to move down into the late teens. Would rather not have to settle for Brockers or Poe at 14. The problem is if the top three targets are gone and we have no trade down partner.

I agree with this... The only players I would even consider moving up for is either Richardson or Kalil if they fell. And that's because they're blue chip players that should be going in the top 5.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
54,697
Reaction score
6,030
I agree with this... The only players I would even consider moving up for is either Richardson or Kalil if they fell. And that's because they're blue chip players that should be going in the top 5.

I think alot of teams would rate Clairborne ahead of Kalil

And with us having Smith and Free, I wouldnt trade anything to move into a spot to draft Kalil
 

NoShame

UDFA
Messages
2,797
Reaction score
0
I think alot of teams would rate Clairborne ahead of Kalil

And with us having Smith and Free, I wouldnt trade anything to move into a spot to draft Kalil

I wouldn't trade up for Claiborne.. I like him but would rather settle with Kirkpatrick or Gilmore at 14 and keep the picks.

Kalil would be an instant upgrade over Free.. We might be looking at replacing him in a year anyway so he would have little impact on what I do in the draft.

Richardson is the guy I would really go up for if he fell... I think he ends up being the best player from this draft.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
54,697
Reaction score
6,030
I wouldn't trade up for Claiborne.. I like him but would rather settle with Kirkpatrick or Gilmore at 14 and keep the picks.

Kalil would be an instant upgrade over Free.. We might be looking at replacing him in a year anyway so he would have little impact on what I do in the draft.

Richardson is the guy I would really go up for if he fell... I think he ends up being the best player from this draft.

Love Richardson, but I wouldnt trade up for him either. Not when we have Murray (who looked outstanding last yr) and Jones
 

NoShame

UDFA
Messages
2,797
Reaction score
0
Love Richardson, but I wouldnt trade up for him either. Not when we have Murray (who looked outstanding last yr) and Jones

Murray looked great but I'm hesitant with him because how many times recently have we seen our rookie rbs come in here and look great only to turn into nothing... Plus injuries are a concern with him. But I am a fan.. Richardson is the only back I'd take to start over him.

Isn't Felix in the last year of his deal? I'd trade him and wouldn't think twice if it meant landing Richardson.
 
Messages
8,660
Reaction score
0
The Cowboys say they can take a player at any position, because they don't see a glaring need.

"No," answered scouting director Tom Ciskowski, when asked if the team had any holes. "We've got some depth at some positions and I just think even if we're not drafting today, we can go play tomorrow. I think Jerry alluded to that that we're just going to try and find the best football players that we can get regardless of the position to help us."
Man did Theebs ever call this.
 

Mr.Po

2
Messages
2,711
Reaction score
0
The Cowboys say they can take a player at any position, because they don't see a glaring need.

Keep thinking this way JJ and we will have many more redo 2009' drafts to look forward to. Not a glaring need? His perception of reality is slightly altered.
 

dbair1967

Administrator
Messages
54,697
Reaction score
6,030
Keep thinking this way JJ and we will have many more redo 2009' drafts to look forward to. Not a glaring need? His perception of reality is slightly altered.

Reading comprehension a struggle for you? Or would rather they reach for players based on perceived "needs"?

He's saying they're gonna take the BPA, which is the smart thing to do.
 

Mr.Po

2
Messages
2,711
Reaction score
0
Reading comprehension a struggle for you? Or would rather they reach for players based on perceived "needs"?

He's saying they're gonna take the BPA, which is the smart thing to do.

My comprehension is fine. Read into it however you want. Sorry my homer meter doesn't redline like yours but to say there isn't a glaring need is asenine. All for taking the BPA but continuously making the statement "no glaring needs" is foolish. That is what I find irritating. This team isn't coming off a SuperBowl and hasn't really come close to sniffing one since Moby Dick was a minnow. You obviously have a glaring need somewhere if your team hovers in the realm of mediocrity year after year.
 

Bob Sacamano

All-Pro
Messages
26,436
Reaction score
3
Yeah, I'd say 2 DEs, SOLB, FS, SS, and C are glaring needs for us.

Backup OT, depth at WR (though not important, you can literally sign guys off the street there if your philosophy is sound on offense), SILB and secondary depth would be assigned as minor needs for us.
 
Top Bottom