Bob Sacamano
All-Pro
- Messages
- 26,436
- Reaction score
- 3
does not get piks.
He can. Has the talent to. Has the situational awareness to.
does not get piks.
It's not like the dude is Orlando Scandrick back there though. He can make plays on the football. No rookie comes in as a finished product unless they totally maxed out their physical skill set in college.
Dude is bread to feast on the football and he has the awareness to do it as well; if you watch the tape. He's not shy or oblivious to the football like Scandrick is.
Then why hasn't he done it? They've moved him all over their defense. I think he has 3 picks in 3 yrs and really not many passes defensed either.
He's athletic. He can tackle. But he isn't a ball hawk, and I don't think its a wise use of the 4th pick overall for that type of DB.
He can. Has the talent to. Has the situational awareness to.
Revis had 8 INT's in 3 years
Sherman had 6 in 2 years (played offense his first 2 years)
Antonio Cromartie had 5
Florida State DB's while Ramsey was there
Ronald Darby had 2
PJ Williams had 4
Lamarcus Joyner had 7
Marquez White (the other starting CB last year) has 2
Derwin James ( a future star/1st round pick) has 0
Lamarcus Brutus has 5
I haven't charted his games or anything but the FSU coaches told me he was rarely targeted and his completion percentage against would show that.
What I'm writing here isn't directed at anyone in particular ... but at this time of year, a rigid preoccupation with "value at pick" often emerges. And it gets on my nerves.
The other day I was listening to some sport media types discussing the Cowboys #4 pick, and one of them actually said that the Cowboys might be better off if they had the #9 pick in the draft instead of the #4 pick, because at #9 the team would feel freer to pick the player that best filled a pressing need, whereas at #4 there is a greater pressure to get the best player available. Obviously that's a crazy argument, but it just goes to show how people can be blinded by a preoccupation with getting the absolute highest "value at pick".
Travis Frederick is a great example of an outstanding draft choice who was not a good value at pick. But even though Frederick was chosen several picks earlier than most thought he "should" have been selected, selecting him early actually turned out to be an excellent idea.
If, for example, the Cowboys pick Elliott at #4 and Elliott turns out to be a dynamic, dominant RB who wins Rookie of the Year honors running behind the Dallas OL, does it really matter if the Cowboys selected him 5 or so picks earlier than draftniks think Elliott "should" have been selected?
There is a similarity between Fredrick and Elliott ... both play positions that tend to be devalued today; there are folks who believe that you shouldn't take a Center or and RB in the first round because neither position is a value pick in the first round.
Just a thought. Especially if the right QB isn't available at 4.
I get that it's guessing and luck is involved but there is actual value in where a player is selected.
Sure, they get Elliott at 4 and he's a good player. The good teams figure out how to get Elliott at pick 9 or 14 and get something for moving down.
What you are describing is a perfect scenario. Unfortunately, sometimes perfect scenarios don't emerge. Sometimes teams aren't interested in trading the pick that you wish to obtain.
You say that: "The good teams figure out how to get Elliott at pick 9 or 14 and get something for moving down."
So what do good teams do if they can't find a trading partner?
It would have been a perfect scenario for the Cowboys to have moved back, say, another 6 more slots before drafting Travis Fredrick. It was reported that the Cowboys tried to move back farther, but couldn't find any takers. Let's assume that this is true.
So if you can't get the trade, should you not make the pick? In retrospect, was it a dumb move for the Cowboys to pick Fredrick too early? In the absence of a trading partner, should the Cowboys have picked someone other than Fredrick?
Fredrick is a Pro Bowl player and the team is better off for having him. Was it a mistake to draft him?
What I'm writing here isn't directed at anyone in particular ... but at this time of year, a rigid preoccupation with "value at pick" often emerges. And it gets on my nerves.
The other day I was listening to some sport media types discussing the Cowboys #4 pick, and one of them actually said that the Cowboys might be better off if they had the #9 pick in the draft instead of the #4 pick, because at #9 the team would feel freer to pick the player that best filled a pressing need, whereas at #4 there is a greater pressure to get the best player available. Obviously that's a crazy argument, but it just goes to show how people can be blinded by a preoccupation with getting the absolute highest "value at pick".
Travis Frederick is a great example of an outstanding draft choice who was not a good value at pick. But even though Frederick was chosen several picks earlier than most thought he "should" have been selected, selecting him early actually turned out to be an excellent idea.
If, for example, the Cowboys pick Elliott at #4 and Elliott turns out to be a dynamic, dominant RB who wins Rookie of the Year honors running behind the Dallas OL, does it really matter if the Cowboys selected him somewhat earlier than draftniks think Elliott "should" have been selected?
There is a similarity between Fredrick and Elliott ... both play positions that tend to be devalued today; there are folks who believe that you shouldn't take a Center or an RB in the first round because neither position is a value in the first round.
Just a thought. Especially if the right QB isn't available at 4.
list the DBs who got few picks in college and then suddenly got a lot more inthe pros. You will find it is about as short as Mids peepee.
Ramsey makes us a much better defense.
Jack makes us a much better defense.
Goff or Wentz is a wise investment in our immediate future.
Bosa will be a solid starter. Kind of player who might make a Pro Bowl or two. Michael Bennett/Chris Long type impact.
Trading down is incredibly smart in this draft, especially if you can still pull off Jack, Elliott, or even Hargreaves. The strength in this draft is in the 20 to 45 range, so picking up an extra second is basically picking up an extra starter. I just don't trust Jerry to make a good trade
What I'm writing here isn't directed at anyone in particular ... but at this time of year, a rigid preoccupation with "value at pick" often emerges. And it gets on my nerves.
The other day I was listening to some sport media types discussing the Cowboys #4 pick, and one of them actually said that the Cowboys might be better off if they had the #9 pick in the draft instead of the #4 pick, because at #9 the team would feel freer to pick the player that best filled a pressing need, whereas at #4 there is a greater pressure to get the best player available. Obviously that's a crazy argument, but it just goes to show how people can be blinded by a preoccupation with getting the absolute highest "value at pick".
Travis Frederick is a great example of an outstanding draft choice who was not a good value at pick. But even though Frederick was chosen several picks earlier than most thought he "should" have been selected, selecting him early actually turned out to be an excellent idea.
If, for example, the Cowboys pick Elliott at #4 and Elliott turns out to be a dynamic, dominant RB who wins Rookie of the Year honors running behind the Dallas OL, does it really matter if the Cowboys selected him somewhat earlier than draftniks think Elliott "should" have been selected?
There is a similarity between Fredrick and Elliott ... both play positions that tend to be devalued today; there are folks who believe that you shouldn't take a Center or an RB in the first round because neither position is a value in the first round.
Just a thought. Especially if the right QB isn't available at 4.
I get that it's guessing and luck is involved but there is actual value in where a player is selected.
Sure, they get Elliott at 4 and he's a good player. The good teams figure out how to get Elliott at pick 9 or 14 and get something for moving down.