Last Year's Draft Strategy a Good Model
by rioplayer7 on Apr 13, 2009 9:33 PM CDT
16 comments
I think last year was probably our best draft in easily a decade, if not two, and the way we drafted, specifically in the second round with the acquisition of Martellus Bennett, is the way we should go about this year's draft. We took a TE when we had arguably the best TE in the league. Looking at Tellus' potential though I think we took the best player available. I think this draft needs to model our second round pick. I know a lot of people on this site would love to draft a safety, but I just am not sold on anybody who is going to drop to us that is that ball hawk safety we have been looking for since Woodson. It is important therefore that we take the best player available.
Our first couple picks were of course positions of need at RB and CB, but I think we need to look past this notion that we must pick a safety. I have seen so many picks out there with different safeties as our pick but the one common thread is that there is not a sure fire pick at that position. I do not want to see us move up for a player either. I think with all the picks we have this year we should look at either trading for more picks in 2010 or just simply taking the highest player on our draft board no matter what our teams needs are. Rookies need some time to develop, and by drafting a player with the most potential it could actually fill a need for us later on. I am not sold on any of the safety's besides Sean Smith, but he will be a late first to early second outside of our reach. I have loved the way Jerry has been trading his picks in recent years and hopefully this is how he goes about this year's draft as well. I do not want to see a wasted draft pick, so I am hoping we just take the best available player or trade down. I think having a lot of potential players is the way to go, and I want to see how you guys feel. I am not sold on any safety around us so I want to hear your guys opinion.
Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.
0 recs |
16 comments
Email
Print
Comments
That is Exactly what we should do...
The guys up top know that next year could be a goldmine for safeties, IMO that is why we signed Sensabaugh, we knew we would most likely need one this year and so we grabbed him (covered up a hole while allowing us to be in play for one next year or possibly not need one at all) and with all of our other signings we don’t have anywhere where our starting lineup will not be screwed if we don’t select a certain player at a certain position. We made sure we can go the same route we did last year. The only way I would be surprised on draft day is if we take a RB w/ pick number 51…thats it.
by nicholas.rodriguez on Apr 13, 2009 10:00 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
I’m all about drafting for value and I’m sick of hearing we have to get a S and DT early when they are arguably the two weakest positions in this draft (in the case of DT’s it’s that there’s are big drop off after Raji, Hood, and Jerry)
by The Triplets on Apr 13, 2009 10:17 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Best Player Available
I agree that we need to stick to best player available, but when it does come to our first pick the best player available is going to be either Ron Brace or one of the Safeties. That is the point where Ron Brace, Patrick Chung, Rashad Johnson, William Moore and Louis Delmas are all projected to go. It will either be them or one of the wide recievers or Inside linebacker at that spot. I agree with taking best player available but that spot is heavy with those guys being the best picks we can get around that time. I am about 90% sure that we are going to probably take one of those positions and we won’t be looking past it. Besides, when you say take the BEST player available, it doesn’t make much sense to say that because the best player available might just be a RB, TE or QB which are not positions we have any need for except QB which we just need to draft one in later rounds to groom. The most likely pick though is going to be Safety, not because we need one, but because its just that likely that one of those four safeties i listed will be the best prospect on the board at #51.
Also, last year we only had one pick that we didn’t get by trading around or get from another team, and that was our second round pick that we got Martellus Bennet. All other picks Jerry Wheeled and dealed for. With 11 picks in this draft, expect Jerry to do some wheeling and dealing, because there is no way we can afford 11 players on our roster (and everyone needs to stop talking about trading picks 172 & 208. These are compensatory picks at the end of the round and if you look it up YOU CANNOT TRADE COMPENSATORY PICKS……EVER!!!!!)
by ProBowlFactory on Apr 14, 2009 3:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree that our picks should be based on BPA, not need
but we DO need a safety that can contribute immediately. Whether that comes in round 2,3,4 i don’t know but safety is really our only true “need”
by foyesboys on Apr 14, 2009 7:32 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
only "true" need ?????........back up LB is not a true need ? Can you name our LB reserves please ?
NT depth is not a need ? Can you name our back up NT ?
Who’s our back up Right Tackle ?
Comfortable with Proctor as our back up Center ?
btw….why is this cover FS such a dire need again ???
Is the ink on Hamlin’s multi year deal (signed less than 10 months ago) even dry yet ?
Were we beat deep in some games I don’t remember watching ? What is contributing immediately all about ? A starter ?
Are you talking starting dime back ? with 6 DB’s back there ? I don’t get it……
granted Safeties are very limited this season, and the majority of the good ones will be found in the mid second/ early third round range………and I personally had William Moore -SS as our first selection…
but are we not satisfied with a Chip Vaughn ? Darcel McBath, Macho Harris ? or Dave Burton ? in the early/mid/late 3rd/early fourth ?..
no Courtney Green ? J Sanford ? E Cook? D Pegeus ? or a M Hamlin or Clemons in round 4 ?
Or a Taylor? Spillman? or Wiley? in round 5 or so ?
a Dominique Johnson in round 6 not gonna cut it ??
Better yet…..How bout all these bigger playmaking CB’s available like Jaruis Byrd ? Can’t have them play a deep zone coverage scheme as a tweener CB/FS or “Star Safety”? The Sherrod Martin’s in the 3rd, and the Keenan Lewis’s in the 4th ? or Glover Quins in the 6th ? We can find rounds with really good DB’s with cover skills and play a physical game and lay the wood with the best of ’em………Orlando Scandrick-rd 5….?
by My_2_Cents on Apr 14, 2009 10:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Area of most need remains LT, but what are you going to do?
We lost 2 LBs and two defensive linemen and partially addressed those vacancies, even if the candidates fall somewhere short of what we lost; but if Flo or Columbo go down we are in world class hurt! Free and McQ have showed nothing!
Now DT area could still be up graded as could all the other areas that people are focusing on, (ie..WR, S, LB), but to me, it’s OT were we need a real player, but there is no way to get into the top 15 to even get a real prospect. Now that’s just sad, but we did get Roy Williams,and got rid of our biggest trouble maker T.O. Thanks Jerry!
by bad knees on Apr 14, 2009 8:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
yea
we need to finally start hitting on some oline picks.
by foyesboys on Apr 14, 2009 9:12 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
At first I was mad
But then when i realized you were just talking about backup then yeah, we do need a solid tackle to backup flozell adams. There are only 2 linemen on our O-Line that have not made it to multiple pro-bowls. And not to be racist or anything but its just kind of funny that its the white guys that haven’t made it (i’m white by the way), Kosier and Columbo. But we still have an All-star line. The only problem with any of them is that Flozell “the Hotel” Adams is partially deaf in his right ear, which just happens to be the side the quarterback is on, hence many false starts. Our O-Line is also very old so we do need to start thinking about the heir-apparents for the O-line, but we don’t need to address it first. Take a look at my post on here to see what the best possible choice may be for each of the 11 picks (although i doubt we will end up using all 11 selections in the draft) with possible alternatives if those guys aren’t available. I have addressed every position of need. Visit 2009 COWBOYS MOCK DRAFT (W/ ALTERNATE CHOICES) on here.
by ProBowlFactory on Apr 14, 2009 9:19 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
If we just follow Ciskowski's board
like we did last year, we’ll be fine and Jerry will look like a genius.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Apr 14, 2009 8:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
+1000
I was worried when Ireland left till Ciskowski proved me to be an idiot. Our draft’s are in capable hands
by nicholas.rodriguez on Apr 14, 2009 4:18 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ciskoswski was the brains behind the operation
even when Ireland was here, Jerry needs to do whatever it takes to keep this dude around for a long time.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Apr 15, 2009 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This draft
looks terrible. I hope we just trade out of most of our picks for more picks next year.
by DoomsdayD75 on Apr 15, 2009 11:59 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Theres alot of potential
Its just a week class for DTs and Safteys other than that you can find good ILB till the 5th and wrs spreadout We could feel alot of needs if they stick to there board and hopefully come away with 6 or 7 players
I thank God everyday i wasnt born a Eagles fan!!!!!!
by regaberto on Apr 15, 2009 1:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
its no weaker or stronger than last years
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Apr 15, 2009 2:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
