It's not nice to make fun of the writer's for the local Dallas papers all the time, but sometimes they write the most ridiculous things. Take this little bit from Tom Orsborn:
I know it's a boring answer, but I think the Cowboys should take the best player regardless of position, even if it is another free safety. If Florida's Reggie Nelson is available, I'd select him in a heartbeat.
(ed. - bold emphasis mine)
OK, fair enough. Maybe Nelson is the best player available at the time the Cowboys pick. I don't think anybody would argue that he's highly rated and it's a matter of opinion, but certainly a defensible position to take. But, he follows it up by gutting his whole premise of the best player available.
What? So three players who just happen to be safeties are the choice as the best player available at #22? Please, you're arguing out of both sides of your mouth. Take the best player available, yet look at another safety or two. It's obvious you want them to take a safety, not the best player available. Then you drop another secondary player on us, Aaron Ross. I guess Adam Carriker or Patrick Willis or Robert Meachum or whoever just don't rate up there as the best players available. Nope, only free seafeties and maybe a cornerback do. And what's this crap about finding receivers and nose tackles in the later rounds. If you're using that theory, then you're not using the best player available theory, because even if a highly rated receiver drops to you, you pass on them because you don't see value at that point. It's the best player theory, not the best value theory. Just say it; you want them to draft a FS regardless of who is on the board.
For the record, I think the best player available theory is never truly what happens. You always draft with your team's needs in mind, even if that only eliminates one or two positons from consideration.
JJT discusses Roy Williams, the good and the bad, including how he might do with Ken Hamlin on board and under the Phillips 34 scheme. It's a pretty fair article. But there's just one thing Roy will never do well, and that's turn his hips. He's very stiff when trying to turn from his backpedal, and I don't think that will ever get better. He also takes poor angles in coverage and allows the receiver to get right up on him before turning and running.
But I do think Ham & Biscuit will get the job done better than what's been happening the last few years. Contrary to a lot of reports, Hamlin was a highly thought of FS who has good range in coverage. Just because he's a big hitter doesn't mean he can't cover. Somehow people think those two qualities are mutually exclusive. Admittedly, he had a drop off last year coming back from the head injury, but before that he was very good in coverage. Even this year, many experts had him listed in their top 20 or 30 free agents available. I guess we won't know the real answer until we see him in the first few games in the Phillips 34.
By the way, if Roy loses 10 pounds like JJT suggests, then can I still call him Biscuit?