Time for Tony Romo's successor? The top 5 quarterbacks in next year's draft

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,713
I just can't believe Manziel is even considered on here. Off the field concerns are going to kill his career as well he just stinks on the field.
Yep. I'm just hoping beyond hope Stephen can hold Jerry back, again.
 

Carp

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
15,127
The draftniks say that every year out of habit.

Generational talents or sure things at QB are once every decade. But you still see one or two go early.
If we are going to wait for a generational talent, then we'll never draft a QB.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,415
If we are going to wait for a generational talent, then we'll never draft a QB.
Exactly, we can't just sit around waiting for the next Luck. Guys like Matt Ryan and Bortles weren't considered sure things but both went top 3 and Ryan has become a very solid QB while Bortles seems to be on his way, would anybody complain if we ended up with a guy of that caliber after Romo with no lag time in between?

I think not.

Once again, if there were elite, no-brainer prospects available in the top 5 I'd want to go that route, but what are the alternatives?

A RT in Tunsil when we've already spent 3 1st's and have another 1st round talent in Collins?

A DB in Ramsey with an apparent lack of ball skills?

Hargreaves, who I'd prefer over Ramsey but he's still a CB who if you get lucky is a Joe Haden caliber player?

Is a chance at a Joe Haden better than rolling the dice on a QB who could be your guy for 10+ years after being groomed behind Romo?

What it boils down to is there aren't any no-brainer prospects at the top of this draft and the relative impact of hitting on a QB far outweighs just about any other position, Goff and Lynch have their warts but they both have a bunch of traits that translate to the NFL and we are in a rare position to actually let them sit and learn for 2 years.

Everybody here loves to bitch about how we aren't ever going to do shit to replace Romo until he's basically on his death-bed, Peyton style, yet when an opportunity like this comes along everybody wants to take some meh (for the top 5) position prospects?

If the top 10 is so weak that's even more reason to take a chance on a QB, not less.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Exactly, we can't just sit around waiting for the next Luck. Guys like Matt Ryan and Bortles weren't considered sure things but both went top 3 and Ryan has become a very solid QB while Bortles seems to be on his way, would anybody complain if we ended up with a guy of that caliber after Romo with no lag time in between?

I think not.

Once again, if there were elite, no-brainer prospects available in the top 5 I'd want to go that route, but what are the alternatives?

A RT in Tunsil when we've already spent 3 1st's and have another 1st round talent in Collins?

A DB in Ramsey with an apparent lack of ball skills?

Hargreaves, who I'd prefer over Ramsey but he's still a CB who if you get lucky is a Joe Haden caliber player?

Is a chance at a Joe Haden better than rolling the dice on a QB who could be your guy for 10+ years after being groomed behind Romo?

What it boils down to is there aren't any no-brainer prospects at the top of this draft and the relative impact of hitting on a QB far outweighs just about any other position, Goff and Lynch have their warts but they both have a bunch of traits that translate to the NFL and we are in a rare position to actually let them sit and learn for 2 years.

Everybody here loves to bitch about how we aren't ever going to do shit to replace Romo until he's basically on his death-bed, Peyton style, yet when an opportunity like this comes along everybody wants to take some meh (for the top 5) position prospects?

If the top 10 is so weak that's even more reason to take a chance on a QB, not less.
Everybody does not want to take some meh prospect, and most seem to willing to gamble on these QB's.

The point some are making is these guys are not sure bets and should be evaluated as such, yes they could be Bortles or Ryan (Ryan was a much higher prospect) or they could be a Locker, Sanchez, Bradford or Gabbert.

And yes getting a Joe Haden is better than gambling on a QB, we are talking about a great corner over a unknown QB.

I have no issue either way but nobody should be comfortable gambling on either of these guys, especially considering you would be finished looking at QB's for the next 4 years.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,415
Everybody does not want to take some meh prospect, and most seem to willing to gamble on these QB's.

The point some are making is these guys are not sure bets and should be evaluated as such, yes they could be Bortles or Ryan (Ryan was a much higher prospect) or they could be a Locker, Sanchez, Bradford or Gabbert.

And yes getting a Joe Haden is better than gambling on a QB, we are talking about a great corner over a unknown QB.

I have no issue either way but nobody should be comfortable gambling on either of these guys, especially considering you would be finished looking at QB's for the next 4 years.
Bradford's case is a cause for concern for sure but that is basically a cost of doing business, the rest don't really bother me.

Sanchez was basically surrounded by the closest thing you can get to an NFL-caliber roster in college and only had one year of success/experience, Gabbert and Locker were both extremely underwhelming in college just by the eye test, both could barely even get to 60% completion % (Locker couldn't even get that high), and both also had underwhelming TD:INT ratios. I couldn't believe either of them went as high as they did and if they were the type of prospects we were dealing with here I wouldn't advocate taking them at all, in fact I think Connor Cook could be a similar prospect to those two and I wouldn't be happy taking him in the top 10.

Anyway, if you were guaranteed that Hargreaves was a Haden, maybe, but that's just as much of a toss-up. I would definitely be comfortable gambling because I know it's a gamble, I'd rather take that shot than take any number of relatively underwhelming prospects in the top 5.

I'd be fine passing up a QB in the top 5 if I was guaranteed that Wentz would be our 2nd round pick but obviously that's a toss-up too. I may even trade back in to the 1st for him depending on how the process plays out.
 

dallen

Senior Tech
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
Messages
8,466
Exactly, we can't just sit around waiting for the next Luck. Guys like Matt Ryan and Bortles weren't considered sure things but both went top 3 and Ryan has become a very solid QB while Bortles seems to be on his way, would anybody complain if we ended up with a guy of that caliber after Romo with no lag time in between?

I think not.

Once again, if there were elite, no-brainer prospects available in the top 5 I'd want to go that route, but what are the alternatives?

A RT in Tunsil when we've already spent 3 1st's and have another 1st round talent in Collins?

A DB in Ramsey with an apparent lack of ball skills?

Hargreaves, who I'd prefer over Ramsey but he's still a CB who if you get lucky is a Joe Haden caliber player?

Is a chance at a Joe Haden better than rolling the dice on a QB who could be your guy for 10+ years after being groomed behind Romo?

What it boils down to is there aren't any no-brainer prospects at the top of this draft and the relative impact of hitting on a QB far outweighs just about any other position, Goff and Lynch have their warts but they both have a bunch of traits that translate to the NFL and we are in a rare position to actually let them sit and learn for 2 years.

Everybody here loves to bitch about how we aren't ever going to do shit to replace Romo until he's basically on his death-bed, Peyton style, yet when an opportunity like this comes along everybody wants to take some meh (for the top 5) position prospects?

If the top 10 is so weak that's even more reason to take a chance on a QB, not less.
If we replace Romo with anyone short of a cross between Roger Staubach, John Elway, and Tom Brady people will complain. It is what we do. Why are you trying to take this away from us?
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
Bradford's case is a cause for concern for sure but that is basically a cost of doing business, the rest don't really bother me.

Sanchez was basically surrounded by the closest thing you can get to an NFL-caliber roster in college and only had one year of success/experience, Gabbert and Locker were both extremely underwhelming in college just by the eye test, both could barely even get to 60% completion % (Locker couldn't even get that high), and both also had underwhelming TD:INT ratios. I couldn't believe either of them went as high as they did and if they were the type of prospects we were dealing with here I wouldn't advocate taking them at all, in fact I think Connor Cook could be a similar prospect to those two and I wouldn't be happy taking him in the top 10.

Anyway, if you were guaranteed that Hargreaves was a Haden, maybe, but that's just as much of a toss-up. I would definitely be comfortable gambling because I know it's a gamble, I'd rather take that shot than take any number of relatively underwhelming prospects in the top 5.

I'd be fine passing up a QB in the top 5 if I was guaranteed that Wentz would be our 2nd round pick but obviously that's a toss-up too. I may even trade back in to the 1st for him depending on how the process plays out.
I never understood that Gabbert, Locker, Ponder draft I have never seen so many teams reach and I do like these guys better, I am just not comfortable taking a QB in the top 10 that is universally considered unpolished like Lynch and still in need of seasoning like Goff add in the spread aspect and I really have pause.

Considering this is a pretty mediocre draft you have to entertain taking a QB but in a perfect world I am trading down and getting a productive guy at a position of need and then trading back in for Wentz.

To me the buzz around these guys is just so lukewarm at this point that I just wonder if the gamble is worth it.

And unlike other positions a top 10 QB pick affects your franchise so much moving forward it affects everthing you do over the next 5 years, an OT, CB, or LB does not hold you up as much even if they bust.

Anyway this is all moot until we figure where we are actually drafting and the rpospects start finding there true draft rankings.
 

Angrymesscan

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
3,796
I'm not big on this draft, if someone is offering their first in next years draft to trade down a bit I jump.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,464
I'm not big on this draft, if someone is offering their first in next years draft to trade down a bit I jump.
If when it is all said and done we don't like the QBs this is absolutely what I would do. Trade down and give yourself a shot at a guy like Treadwell at WR or the DT Robinson out of Alabama or Kenny Clark out of UCLA.

Then if you like next years QB class you have the ammunition to at least move up for a QB. I hate waiting another year to draft a QB but I'd rather do that obviously then force a QB pick. Of course I really like Lynch. Tall and super athletic guy with a great arm. As long as he has it all going on upstairs I think he would be a great player. Throws the ball a bit like Flacco but with much better running ability.

I don't get to interview these guys though. If he is a flake upstairs I'd pass.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,464

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,415
Eh, that wouldn't scare me at all. The NFL is littered with small school QBs. It's because highschool QB's are just so difficult to scout. Many of the top guys from highschool end up total busts in college. While guys like Aaron Rodgers take a much different route and end up stars in the NFL.
Yea, plus a huge factor in all of this is the fact that Lynch and Goff are generally seen as guys who probably need a year or two to develop before they become legitimate starting QB's. That could be a huge problem for a team like Cleveland that has no viable starer where the GM/HC might need immediate production out of that top 5 pick to save their jobs and to compete at some sort of respectable level. That is not the issue with us, that's why I keep saying we are in a rare position where we can realistically compete at a high level with what we have on the roster while also developing the future at the same time behind what we already have.

The real opportunity cost here of course is that we could otherwise spend that top 5 pick on a guy who could help us win it all with what we already have, but is there anybody here who doesn't think that potentially snagging our future QB is more important than that when you consider that the top end talent in this draft is not that impressive in general?

If we were passing up some beast like Gerald McCoy or Von Miller that'd be one thing, but passing up Jalen "3 career INT's" Ramsey?

Feh.
 

Donpingon

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
460
I never understood that Gabbert, Locker, Ponder draft I have never seen so many teams reach and I do like these guys better, I am just not comfortable taking a QB in the top 10 that is universally considered unpolished like Lynch and still in need of seasoning like Goff add in the spread aspect and I really have pause.

Considering this is a pretty mediocre draft you have to entertain taking a QB but in a perfect world I am trading down and getting a productive guy at a position of need and then trading back in for Wentz.

To me the buzz around these guys is just so lukewarm at this point that I just wonder if the gamble is worth it.

And unlike other positions a top 10 QB pick affects your franchise so much moving forward it affects everthing you do over the next 5 years, an OT, CB, or LB does not hold you up as much even if they bust.

Anyway this is all moot until we figure where we are actually drafting and the rpospects start finding there true draft rankings.
I agree, there was no shortage of folks saying those guys would be likely busts - especially Locker and Ponder.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,415
For what it's worth, I think Ramsey, Tunsil and Hargreaves are all good prospects in a vacuum, I just don't see enough there to take them over a shot at a QB when you consider what we've already spent on the OL and on DB's. I also don't like that Ramsey hasn't shown much ability as a ball hawk, anybody that compares him to Ed Reed or Earl Thomas should just choke themselves, so I'd probably take Hargreaves over him.

I'd be on board with Bosa of course.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,415
Our draft position is almost irrelevant in 2016 because the draft is weak as shit at the top.

We need to beat Washington twice. That's what matters now.
Why?

If we had any realistic hope that Romo would return if we made the playoffs that's one thing but anybody who buys that is kidding themselves.
 

Clay_Allison

Old Bastard
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
5,488
Our draft position is almost irrelevant in 2016 because the draft is weak as shit at the top.

We need to beat Washington twice. That's what matters now.
being at the top of the draft pays dividends in the second, third, and fourth as well. You get a real shot to get two guys your organization has a first round grade on, as well as some shots at guys who are sliding in the draft Chris Canty style, and it can be easy to jump back up to the 28-32 range for a low cost to get that 5th year option on a Frederick type player.
 

Jiggyfly

Banned
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
9,220
being at the top of the draft pays dividends in the second, third, and fourth as well. You get a real shot to get two guys your organization has a first round grade on, as well as some shots at guys who are sliding in the draft Chris Canty style, and it can be easy to jump back up to the 28-32 range for a low cost to get that 5th year option on a Frederick type player.
Yep.
 
Top Bottom