Stephen Jones nearly rules out a trade up

Deuce said:

And that statement would be stupid. Revis and Champ Bailey didn't step onto the field their first year and become the best CB in football. He's an elite prospect, but just like everyone else he has to have time to develop. I'll give anyone 3 years to show me they are for real.

Click to expand...

It's not about production, it's about showing signs of being an elite playmaking impact player.

I'm not saying he can't be Champ Bailey; he can still be that good.

I'm saying, for the situation the Cowboys were in last year, considering what was already on the roster (a very solid 27 year old Mike Jenkins and a high-priced Brandon Carr), and considering what they gave up (a second round pick), and considering they traded up, giving up a huge chip, to draft a guy at a position that they absolutely did not need, and as a consequence ignoring other positions that glaringly needed to be addressed in the process (and as a consequence we are going into the 2013 draft still needing to address those positions), and the fact that they did this meant that they'd have to get let go an otherwise productive player, the player they took had to be an all-timer. Not Champ Bailey, not Asomuagh, maybe not even Charles Woodson. He has to be Deion, maybe Revis, etc. for it to be worth it.

We don't know his exact ceiling yet, but it's pretty obvious he's not an all-timer.

And therefore, it was just not worth it, when you realize that we chose:

(a) Claiborne;

instead of

(b) DeCastro, Konz and Jenkins,

or

(c) Brockers, Konz, and Jenkins,

etc.


I think it's very obvious which scenario we'd be better off with. In order for that to change, Claiborne would have to much better than where his ceiling probably is, even if his ceiling turns out to be quite high.

This isn't about Claiborne. It's about what the alternative could've been.

Forget the "what could have been" hypotheticals. Lets focus on what would have been. Based on everything being said, it's obvious that if we didn't trade up than our first two picks would have been Brockers and Wagner. Both solid players, but neither are as good as Claiborne. If we read it would have been DeCastro and someone else, sure I would think a little harder about it. But I'm not going to get pissed about missing on what I think is an average DT and a guy who would have been a backup MLB.

Genghis Khan said:

I'll say it. He's not elite enough for it to be worth it.

I'd rather have the 3 good players we would have had if we didn't do it instead of just Claiborne.

I think we've seen enough of Claiborne to know that he just won't be enough of an impact to make it worth what we gave up.

Click to expand...

Correct.

Deuce said:

Forget the "what could have been" hypotheticals. Lets focus on what would have been. Based on everything being said, it's obvious that if we didn't trade up than our first two picks would have been Brockers and Wagner. Both solid players, but neither are as good as Claiborne. If we read it would have been DeCastro and someone else, sure I would think a little harder about it. But I'm not going to get pissed about missing on what I think is an average DT and a guy who would have been a backup MLB.

Click to expand...

I fail to see how what "would have happened" is relevant.

My position is that trading up for Claiborne was bad in comparison to what we SHOULD have done. If last year had worked out that we had stayed put and taken Brockers and Wagner, I'd be saying we should have taken OLs there too.

Of course it wouldn't be as bad as just having Claiborne, I'd say. I'll take a solid 1-technique DT and a final piece to a stud LB core over a non-shutdown CB for sure. Wagner, Lee and Carter would be your three LBs starting this coming season. Brockers had 4 sacks from the DT position as a rookie, that is not average, that is pretty good. Brockers did not have a bad rookie season at all.

Deuce said:

Forget the "what could have been" hypotheticals. Lets focus on what would have been. Based on everything being said, it's obvious that if we didn't trade up than our first two picks would have been Brockers and Wagner. Both solid players, but neither are as good as Claiborne. If we read it would have been DeCastro and someone else, sure I would think a little harder about it. But I'm not going to get pissed about missing on what I think is an average DT and a guy who would have been a backup MLB.

Click to expand...

Even if you want to argue that we'd have drafted Brockers and Wagner, we'd still be better off with Brockers, Wagner, and Jenkins than just Claiborne.

If we needed a CB, it might make sense to put a check mark next to that box. Since we did not need a corner, giving up on our ability to draft 2 different players means that the CB we traded up for better be special.

I like Claiborne, but he's not special. He might not even be better than Jenkins, which would make it really super retarded that we did it.

mschmidt64 said:

Oh sweet, sweet vindication.

Click to expand...

So DeCastro is a bust of epic proportions then?

I already like what I have seen out of Claiborne more then I ever saw out of Newman. Newman was one of the most overrated CBs in my opinion when he was going to the probowl. He has always been a corner that if a QB attacked him, the QB would always win. Didn't matter how good Newman's coverage was the WR was still open. I have already seen better then that out of Claiborne.

With that being said I would not have traded up and I wouldn't have done what Dallas did. We basically made our whole draft about one player and I hate that. Rarely am I a fan of trading up for a player unless it is a QB. In rare occasions I would for other positions but it would have to be a slam dunk all timer like Clowney next year. Otherwise I would rather just sit back and take the players who fall to me. I put a premium on first and second round picks. Those are two rounds where starters can be easily found.

Cowboysrock55 said:

So DeCastro is a bust of epic proportions then?

Click to expand...

The guy that tore up his knee?

Cowboysrock55 said:

I already like what I have seen out of Claiborne more then I ever saw out of Newman. Newman was one of the most overrated CBs in my opinion when he was going to the probowl. He has always been a corner that if a QB attacked him, the QB would always win. Didn't matter how good Newman's coverage was the WR was still open. I have already seen better then that out of Claiborne.

With that being said I would not have traded up and I wouldn't have done what Dallas did. We basically made our whole draft about one player and I hate that. Rarely am I a fan of trading up for a player unless it is a QB. In rare occasions I would for other positions but it would have to be a slam dunk all timer like Clowney next year. Otherwise I would rather just sit back and take the players who fall to me. I put a premium on first and second round picks. Those are two rounds where starters can be easily found.

Click to expand...

I don't feel like we saw Claiborne really get attacked last year. That is a credit to him, but it also means we haven't seen what will happen when a QB finds a loose thread and tries to exploit him over and over.

Simpleton said:

I like the fact that apparently we're looking at the lines but I despise the fact that this fool idiot basically says that tradng up for an OL or interior DL is not worth it.

Click to expand...

I'd trade up for Warmack as he stands the best chance of falling and is clearly more talented than any of the other offensive linemen. I'd also trade up for Lotulelei because he's the one defensive linemen that can play stout run defense, take on double and triple teams, and rush the passer too.

That's it. Joekel and Fisher are going top 5 for sure so they are out. Lotulelei is also probably going top 5 but some might be nervous about his heart diagnosis and/or his playing for Utah. Does Lane Johnson have the potential to dominate and elevate the team? I don't see it. Cooper is also good but not what I'd call dominant and worthy of a trade up.

But Warmack, this kid is awesome to watch. Nearly the power of Larry Allen combined with the efficiency of Will Shields to nail multiple defenders at the second level. He doesn't just quickly get in the way like DeCastro, he blows them off the line in no uncertain terms and immediately finds more defenders to humiliate.

mschmidt64 said:

It's too early to say definitively but it sure doesn't look like he's the best CB since Deion Sanders. It doesn't look like he's the 2nd best player in the draft. It doesn't really look like he'll be even Darrelle Revis.

If he ends up a better Terence Newman, then that trade was simply a disaster. And Terence Newman was a Pro Bowl player here. But as a corner, and for the resources we gave up, and for a guy who didn't make plays even as a CB, it would be an absolute wreck.

I have zero doubts that Claiborne will be a very good player here for many years but I remain quite skeptical that there is any way he can live up the level that would have made that trade good. To do that, he'd have to be one of the 1-2 true shut down corners in the league at any one time, or he'd have to be a guy that snags 6-8 interceptions a year, every year. Because otherwise there ain't that much difference between him and Mike Jenkins.

Click to expand...

We gave up a mid 2nd round pick. what are all these resources we gave up?

You act like we gave up multiple picks in multiple drafts, can you stop with the hyperbole to try and make a point.

mschmidt64 said:

Maybe that's overstating it slightly, but like Rod Woodson or Aeneas Williams level. Big time interception machines.



I'd be more than disappointed if that's what he peaks at, if that's all he is, it is a cringe-worthy lesson to be learned (which of course, we surely won't, since we did the exact same thing with Terence Newman minus the trade up). Terence Newman generally was one of the 10 best CBs in football, during his relatively short prime, so I don't really agree that's acceptable. He needs to be one of the guys you look at and say "He's a shut down defender." Same sentence as Revis, Asamugha, Bailey, or Charles Woodson.

If he's not in that tier, it's a failed move.

Click to expand...

So in your mind every number 6 pick has to be a hall of Famer or close to be " worth it".

Genghis Khan said:

I'll say it. He's not elite enough for it to be worth it.

I'd rather have the 3 good players we would have had if we didn't do it instead of just Claiborne.

I think we've seen enough of Claiborne to know that he just won't be enough of an impact to make it worth what we gave up.

Click to expand...

No one makes the kind of impact Deion Sanders did, he was 1 in a million.

Claiborne and the scrubs we backfill at DT and MLB vs. Michael Brockers, Bobby Wagner, and an extended Michael Jenkins.

I'd say the jury is still out and very hard to compare apples to apples. Bottom line is none of them (unfortunately including Jenkins) has made a significant impact yet, though of all of them Wagner is leading. I thought Claiborne was outstanding in both Giants games, and probably helped us win the first one (and Bryant's finger's length from winning the second). Brockers was a part of helping the Rams take the next step defensively, but he is not dominant yet.

This is a catch-22, BTW, Claiborne does not have the support Wagner does in front of or to the side of him. The Dallas defense is not built yet while the Seahawk defense can take on anyone. Claiborne is only going to get better and also has room to improve because the DL and Safety talent he's playing with is seriously deficient.

Jiggyfly said:

We gave up a mid 2nd round pick. what are all these resources we gave up?

You act like we gave up multiple picks in multiple drafts, can you stop with the hyperbole to try and make a point.

Click to expand...

The point is, we gave up a potential starter for a good CB. I saw nothing from Claiborne that leads me to believe he's got All World potential. In fact, he was so much like Newman, it was scary.

mschmidt64 said:

I fail to see how what "would have happened" is relevant.

Click to expand...

It's relevant because its the only other realistic scenario compared what happened.

boozeman said:

The point is, we gave up a potential starter for a good CB. I saw nothing from Claiborne that leads me to believe he's got All World potential. In fact, he was so much like Newman, it was scary.

Click to expand...

Ok I see we don't want to be realistic, he never looked lost while the ball was in the air like Newman.

Jiggyfly said:

So in your mind every number 6 pick has to be a hall of Famer or close to be " worth it".

Click to expand...

No, that's not what I said.

boozeman said:

The point is, we gave up a potential starter for a good CB. I saw nothing from Claiborne that leads me to believe he's got All World potential. In fact, he was so much like Newman, it was scary.

Click to expand...

He doesn't have the coverage skills or makeup speed of Newman. He did get after the ball, though, and with more frequency towards the end of the year until he got that concussion.

Jiggyfly said:

Ok I see we don't want to be realistic, he never looked lost while the ball was in the air like Newman.

Click to expand...

Really? I didn't see much of him being that much different. His one INT was a gift from Newton.

Okay, Newman would have dropped that, but you get the point deep down.

Deuce said:

It's relevant because its the only other realistic scenario compared what happened.

Click to expand...

But I'm not comparing it to what realistically would have happened, I'm saying "This is what we could and should have done."

So that is the important thing to take into account. It's no different than saying Jerry is dumb for taking Kavika Pittman when he could have taken Tony Brackens. You can't counter the argument that we should have taken Brackens by saying "But if we didn't take Kavika Pittman we would have taken Bryant Mix!!!"

So, we would have traded one mistake for a slightly less bad mistake.

Ok.... good to know. Should have taken Brackens, though. Should have taken DeCastro and Konz, though.

Trading those picks away for Claiborne was a big mistake. Keeping them and selecting Brockers and Wagner would have been slightly less bad. Selecting two OLs would have been best.