JJT: Fear of Tony Romo injury shouldn't make Cowboys reach for quarterback

NoDak said:

Why would I? Poking retards with a stick is something I enjoy, and you never disappoint.

Click to expand...

Still no new material?

I am not surprised at your limited repertoire.

There is no way I am trading up to number 2. Trading down, or staying put, yes; but there is not a player in this draft worth trading up for.

Carl said:

There is no way I am trading up to number 2. Trading down, or staying put, yes; but there is not a player in this draft worth trading up for.

Click to expand...

I'd trade up with picks in this draft but giving up future picks always scares the shit out of me. If next year ends up a great draft I don't want to be sitting there with no first roumd pick. And what if Romo gets hurt and we start a rookie most of the year. That future pick being a top 5-10 pick would really hurt.

Cowboysrock55 said:

I'd trade up with picks in this draft but giving up future picks always scares the shit out of me. If next year ends up a great draft I don't want to be sitting there with no first roumd pick. And what if Romo gets hurt and we start a rookie most of the year. That future pick being a top 5-10 pick would really hurt.

Click to expand...

If Goff is there at 4, I would strongly consider. If not, so be it. But, I do like him as a prospect. A lot to work with.

Carl said:

If Goff is there at 4, I would strongly consider. If not, so be it. But, I do like him as a prospect. A lot to work with.

Click to expand...

I hate to say it but QB may be our biggest need in this draft. I know I would like to get better on defense but we have enough corners. We have guys who can play well at safety. We have 3 very good starting D-lineman and once Gregory comes back from his suspension possibly 4. We have 3 LBers who are all very good starters for their spots.

On offense we have 2 RBs who can carry the load if needed. With a healthy Dez we have a great WR corp, we have the TE position locked up and the best offensive line in football. It's starting to look to me anyway that this draft will have to be judged by what we do at QB. If we don't come out of it with a legit guy we are looking at Kellen Moore starting games next year and puts us in rough shape going into 2017 more then likely.

Cowboysrock55 said:

I hate to say it but QB may be our biggest need in this draft. I know I would like to get better on defense but we have enough corners. We have guys who can play well at safety. We have 3 very good starting D-lineman and once Gregory comes back from his suspension possibly 4. We have 3 LBers who are all very good starters for their spots.

On offense we have 2 RBs who can carry the load if needed. With a healthy Dez we have a great WR corp, we have the TE position locked up and the best offensive line in football. It's starting to look to me anyway that this draft will have to be judged by what we do at QB. If we don't come out of it with a legit guy we are looking at Kellen Moore starting games next year and puts us in rough shape going into 2017 more then likely.

Click to expand...

Kellen Moore is not a starter in the NFL. I am contradicting myself here, but if Romo doesn't stay upright this year, his career is done; and they need a successor in place; but I can't bring myself to trade up in this draft. Just not worth it.

Carl said:

Kellen Moore is not a starter in the NFL. I am contradicting myself here, but if Romo doesn't stay upright this year, his career is done; and they need a successor in place; but I can't bring myself to trade up in this draft. Just not worth it.

Click to expand...

I think I like Goff enough that I would trade up. But not for anyone else, including Wentz in my opinion.

The odds of a perfect handoff from any long time starter to his successor are low.

You can't force it. The perception of overwhelming need because of Romo's collarbone injury is reaching critical mass, making us think these are the two greatest QB prospects in recent memory. Draft grades tell the real story.

They are good, but trade half your draft good forget it.

ravidubey said:

The odds of a perfect handoff from any long time starter to his successor are low.

You can't force it. The perception of overwhelming need because of Romo's collarbone injury is reaching critical mass, making us think these are the two greatest QB prospects in recent memory. Draft grades tell the real story.

They are good, but trade half your draft good forget it.

Click to expand...

The question isn't whether they're the greatest in history, the question is whether they're franchise caliber. Having a franchise QB is the most crucial component to having a successful team. If these guys even project out to be the Matt Ryan, Joe Flacco, Matt Stafford level of players, it's absolutely worth paying a pretty good amount.
For God's sake, 2015 was all the shit QB play we needed to prove how desperately vital a decent guy under center is. With a B- quality QB we're in the playoffs last year.
Not having to be the team banking on a rehashed veteran, or a baseball player is worth a mint.

At this point I'm thinking if we don't go QB at 4 and can't trade down we should just go all in, take Elliott at 4 and then ignore QB until the 5th round at the earliest, obviously assuming Lynch is long gone at 34 and trading up for him isn't realistic. As it stands now I think Lynch goes much closer to 4 than 34.

If we aren't going to be serious about out future after Romo we might as well just go all in to try to win it all in his last 1-3 years and Elliott is likely the guy at 4 who will have the biggest impact on that. It wouldn't make me particularly happy for several reasons but I could easily see this guy having a top 3-5 season for a RB league-wide as a rookie, at least 1,300 yards and 10 TD's if he is given 275 or so carries, and I wouldn't be shocked if he had a 2014 Murray season right out of the gate behind this OL.

It's certainly not my ideal scenario but I don't want to see us half-stepping and bullshitting around what our future at QB is with taking a Cook in the 2nd or Hackenberg/Prescott in the 3rd or 4th. If these fools aren't going to take advantage of the opportunity to get a blue chip prospect I'd hope that they would grow some balls and just put all their eggs in Romo's basket then worry about the future when he spontaneously combusts one of these days.

That means getting an elite RB talent that we could hopefully ride deep into the playoffs and then adding as much talent to the defense as possible, perhaps another WR if the right opportunity presents itself. Don't sit here and pass up the blue chip guys at the top of the draft then spend a premium pick on a meh prospect.

The only exemption I'd make here would be if Cook is still there in the 3rd but that's very unrealistic.

Simpleton said:

At this point I'm thinking if we don't go QB at 4 and can't trade down we should just go all in, take Elliott at 4 and then ignore QB until the 5th round at the earliest, obviously assuming Lynch is long gone at 34 and trading up for him isn't realistic. As it stands now I think Lynch goes much closer to 4 than 34.

If we aren't going to be serious about out future after Romo we might as well just go all in to try to win it all in his last 1-3 years and Elliott is likely the guy at 4 who will have the biggest impact on that. It wouldn't make me particularly happy for several reasons but I could easily see this guy having a top 3-5 season for a RB league-wide as a rookie, at least 1,300 yards and 10 TD's if he is given 275 or so carries, and I wouldn't be shocked if he had a 2014 Murray season right out of the gate behind this OL.

It's certainly not my ideal scenario but I don't want to see us half-stepping and bullshitting around what our future at QB is with taking a Cook in the 2nd or Hackenberg/Prescott in the 3rd or 4th. If these fools aren't going to take advantage of the opportunity to get a blue chip prospect I'd hope that they would grow some balls and just put all their eggs in Romo's basket then worry about the future when he spontaneously combusts one of these days.

That means getting an elite RB talent that we could hopefully ride deep into the playoffs and then adding as much talent to the defense as possible, perhaps another WR if the right opportunity presents itself. Don't sit here and pass up the blue chip guys at the top of the draft then spend a premium pick on a meh prospect.

The only exemption I'd make here would be if Cook is still there in the 3rd but that's very unrealistic.

Click to expand...

A great running back can't carry a team that doesn't have a good QB. They can however make a good QB appear even better. There needs to be a solid threat at both positions to really be a playoff contender.

Simpleton said:

At this point I'm thinking if we don't go QB at 4 and can't trade down we should just go all in, take Elliott at 4 and then ignore QB until the 5th round at the earliest, obviously assuming Lynch is long gone at 34 and trading up for him isn't realistic. As it stands now I think Lynch goes much closer to 4 than 34.

If we aren't going to be serious about out future after Romo we might as well just go all in to try to win it all in his last 1-3 years and Elliott is likely the guy at 4 who will have the biggest impact on that. It wouldn't make me particularly happy for several reasons but I could easily see this guy having a top 3-5 season for a RB league-wide as a rookie, at least 1,300 yards and 10 TD's if he is given 275 or so carries, and I wouldn't be shocked if he had a 2014 Murray season right out of the gate behind this OL.

It's certainly not my ideal scenario but I don't want to see us half-stepping and bullshitting around what our future at QB is with taking a Cook in the 2nd or Hackenberg/Prescott in the 3rd or 4th. If these fools aren't going to take advantage of the opportunity to get a blue chip prospect I'd hope that they would grow some balls and just put all their eggs in Romo's basket then worry about the future when he spontaneously combusts one of these days.

That means getting an elite RB talent that we could hopefully ride deep into the playoffs and then adding as much talent to the defense as possible, perhaps another WR if the right opportunity presents itself. Don't sit here and pass up the blue chip guys at the top of the draft then spend a premium pick on a meh prospect.

The only exemption I'd make here would be if Cook is still there in the 3rd but that's very unrealistic.

Click to expand...

You make a persuasive argument but I would take a QB from the 3rd on if he rates as BPA.

Simpleton said:

At this point I'm thinking if we don't go QB at 4 and can't trade down we should just go all in, take Elliott at 4 and then ignore QB until the 5th round at the earliest, obviously assuming Lynch is long gone at 34 and trading up for him isn't realistic. As it stands now I think Lynch goes much closer to 4 than 34.

Click to expand...

I think that's just a dumb ass strategy. I mean I understand why you feel that way but drafting for immediate satisfaction is probably the dumbest draft strategy you can take. If you're selling out to win the superbowl this year you sure as shit better do it otherwise you just damaged your franchise long term for no reason. I don't even think the odds are good that Romo stays healthy this year much less winning a superbowl. Which is why I think it's a dumb strategy.

I also think you're better off getting a DE in the first like Bosa who can contribute immediately as a pass rusher as well as a RB later who can contribute immediately as opposed to the other way around. You probably won't find an immediate contributing pass rusher in the later rounds. Those guys tend to take some time to develop. RBs all over the place in the draft will contribute as rookies. Last year the top rookie RB was Gurley but the second best was Rawls who went undrafted.

Cowboysrock55 said:

I think that's just a dumb ass strategy. I mean I understand why you feel that way but drafting for immediate satisfaction is probably the dumbest draft strategy you can take. If you're selling out to win the superbowl this year you sure as shit better do it otherwise you just damaged your franchise long term for no reason. I don't even think the odds are good that Romo stays healthy this year much less winning a superbowl. Which is why I think it's a dumb strategy.

Click to expand...

Not to speak for Simpleton, but I think he's just saying that if you aren't going to take one at the top of the draft, don't piss away a 2nd or 3rd on a Cook or Prescott because those guys aren't going to be Superbowl caliber QBs anyway. Better to spend that 2nd or 3rd on a player who can help win now, because we all know that you can get good linebackers or defensive linemen in the those early rounds.

And I agree with that. I'd take a QB at #4, myself. I think it has to be done. But I don't want them going halfway and taking a marginal prospect like a Cook just so Jerry and Garrett can gloat in a PC about addressing the position.

BTW, barring another huge injury -- more than a collarbone -- Tony should have two years left. So you wouldn't be all or nothing for just this one year.

Chocolate Lab said:

Not to speak for Simpleton, but I think he's just saying that if you aren't going to take one at the top of the draft, don't piss away a 2nd or 3rd on a Cook or Prescott because those guys aren't going to be Superbowl caliber QBs anyway. Better to spend that 2nd or 3rd on a player who can help win now, because we all know that you can get good linebackers or defensive linemen in the those early rounds.

And I agree with that. I'd take a QB at #4, myself. I think it has to be done. But I don't want them going halfway and taking a marginal prospect like a Cook just so Jerry and Garrett can gloat in a PC about addressing the position.

BTW, barring another huge injury -- more than a collarbone -- Tony should have two years left. So you wouldn't be all or nothing for just this one year.

Click to expand...

That is a big part of the argument, I don't want to get caught between strategies and I think taking a meh prospect in the 2nd or 3rd does exactly that. We likely aren't getting a QB who will be our future and we're also damaging Romo's window by spending a premium pick on someone who won't help now, generally speaking.

In terms of taking Elliott at 4, that's more a strong reaction to trying to maximize Romo's time left, perhaps an overreaction but I do think Elliott would have more of an impact over the next 1-2 years than anybody else we could take at 4. I fully understand the possibility that we would be passing up a cornerstone like Bosa or Buckner on the DL, but either of those guys could end up being nothing but average players and even if they do end up cornerstones it's unlikely they become that until their 2nd or 3rd year.

You could easily argue that taking a guy like Dixon, Perkins or Collins in the 3rd would be a much more efficient use of resources but I also think there is alot more certainty with Elliott at 4 than any other prospect. I feel there is almost no chance that Elliott is a bust in Dallas, considering his skillset and our OL, and there is alot of value in that if they choose the strategy of not going with a QB in the 1st.

Obviously QB is my first choice, I'd be fine with them taking Lynch at 4 in fact, even though I think it would be a bit of a reach.

Cowboysrock55 said:

I think that's just a dumb ass strategy. I mean I understand why you feel that way but drafting for immediate satisfaction is probably the dumbest draft strategy you can take. If you're selling out to win the superbowl this year you sure as shit better do it otherwise you just damaged your franchise long term for no reason. I don't even think the odds are good that Romo stays healthy this year much less winning a superbowl. Which is why I think it's a dumb strategy.

I also think you're better off getting a DE in the first like Bosa who can contribute immediately as a pass rusher as well as a RB later who can contribute immediately as opposed to the other way around. You probably won't find an immediate contributing pass rusher in the later rounds. Those guys tend to take some time to develop. RBs all over the place in the draft will contribute as rookies. Last year the top rookie RB was Gurley but the second best was Rawls who went undrafted.

Click to expand...

Do you really think I don't know that drafting for immediate needs isn't how you are supposed to draft?

After posting on here for a decade or more?

My point is that if they're going to be short-sighted, they might as well go all in on that strategy or else we're probably not going to compete for a title now or later, assuming we don't nab a franchise QB somehow or another right as Romo heads out the door. If we pass up a QB at 4, or even the opportunity to trade up for one, and turn around and spend a 2nd/3rd on a guy like Cook or Hackenberg, that's getting caught between strategies and we likely just get caught in the middle. We aren't capitalizing on the opportunity at 4 or on the window Romo has left.

You could argue that passing up on a QB until the 5th or later and investing our 1st-4th rounders in the defense or WR, with a RB in the 3rd or 4th would be enough, and maybe it would be, but while there is a higher likelihood of a Bosa/Buckner/Ramsey being a 10 year cornerstone than Elliott based on their position alone, there is also a higher likelihood of them being an average to above average player. I can't see Elliott being anything less than a top 5 RB in the league in Dallas and that has alot of value if you're going to be short-sighted in an attempt to win now.

So now we've gone from passing up an opportunity at 4 to ensure our future at QB to drafting a guy in Bosa/Buckner/Ramsey who has more positional value but there is also more risk that they only end up an average to above average player. So not only have you f'ed yourself in terms of your future at QB, there is also a legitimate risk that you f'ed your present by taking a guy who may or may not end up being an elite player. On the flip side, even if they are an elite player after a year or two in the league, it's very possible that their career goes to waste because we aren't truly competitive for several years while searching for a QB.

Taking Elliott is obviously being short-sighted but it also probably gives you the greatest chance of immediate success, in an environment where we've likely already screwed our future to an extent.

Simpleton said:

Taking Elliott is obviously being short-sighted but it also probably gives you the greatest chance of immediate success, in an environment where we've likely already screwed our future to an extent.

Click to expand...

See I disagree and here is why. If you want to go with the short sighted approach (Which I know neither of us really wants to) I think the obvious choice is Bosa. The guy maybe doesn't have the classic upside you want in a DE but he is also a pretty safe bet to be a good DE. From a technical standpoint he is very well developed. He has the size and polish to be an immediate impact defensive end. By far more so then anybody you will get in the second round and later. On the other hand you are right about Elliott being an immediate impact player but so would other RBs in this draft behind our offensive line. Truth is, it has more to do with our offensive line (That makes you feel comfortable with Elliott) then it actually does about Elliott.

So if you want the maximum immediate impact why wouldn't you get 2 immediate starters in Bosa and Henry (Kenneth Dixon, Jordan Howard, Paul Perkins) as opposed to one impact player in Elliott and basically a DE who will take a year or two to be ready if at all. Basically I'm saying that if you're going to go with the dumb short-sighted approach, Elliott is still a dumb pick at 4.

Simpleton said:

I feel there is almost no chance that Elliott is a bust in Dallas, considering his skillset and our OL, and there is alot of value in that if they choose the strategy of not going with a QB in the 1st.

Click to expand...

Not saying this isn't true but if Elliott would be a bust if he went to the Browns for example but isn't a bust in Dallas because of our offensive line, that's not really a ringing endorsement about Elliott at all. It's mostly just an extension of, anyone can run behind this offensive line. So wouldn't that essentially be a waste of resources at 4? Even if you're trying to get the most immediate bang out of the pick?

Here's my take on Elliot... I don't think he's Adrian Peterson, but behind this line a lot of backs are gonna look better than they actually are. In some cases a LOT better.

I have been adamant that there are no franchise changing players at four, so you might as well take the QB. If we aren't risking passing on a Lawrence Taylor or Randy Moss, then that player isn't going to put us over the hump this year anyway.

And I do maintain that Elliot is not a Randy Moss type freak talent. And I also hate that, even if he was that type of talent, great receivers like Moss last 10+ years, great RBs make it more like 5-6 years, these days.

BUT.... If there was GOING TO BE one player who I would say had the best chance of having that Randy Moss-like rookie impact, where, say, as a rookie RB you would see 15 TDs.... That player would be Elliot. He is the guy I most likely see being a rookie All Pro in Dallas compared to Ramsey, Bosa, Jack, or any of the other guys we could pick. With this line, Elliot has that potential and he's a complete all around back. A guy like Henry could be a rookie force but he's so one dimensional he doesn't fit that same mold in my mind even though I'd still be pencilling him in for 1000 yards as a rookie.

That being said I'm not advocating taking Elliot. I want a twelve year cornerstone player, not a one contract player who burns out quickly. But if we are going that route, especially if we can trade down and still get him, I CAN see the upside.

Cowboysrock55 said:

See I disagree and here is why. If you want to go with the short sighted approach (Which I know neither of us really wants to) I think the obvious choice is Bosa. The guy maybe doesn't have the classic upside you want in a DE but he is also a pretty safe bet to be a good DE. From a technical standpoint he is very well developed. He has the size and polish to be an immediate impact defensive end. By far more so then anybody you will get in the second round and later. On the other hand you are right about Elliott being an immediate impact player but so would other RBs in this draft behind our offensive line. Truth is, it has more to do with our offensive line (That makes you feel comfortable with Elliott) then it actually does about Elliott.

So if you want the maximum immediate impact why wouldn't you get 2 immediate starters in Bosa and Henry (Kenneth Dixon, Jordan Howard, Paul Perkins) as opposed to one impact player in Elliott and basically a DE who will take a year or two to be ready if at all. Basically I'm saying that if you're going to go with the dumb short-sighted approach, Elliott is still a dumb pick at 4.

Click to expand...

That may be the case, I'm also a bigger fan of Bosa than most, but the deciding factor in my opinion is the importance of the running game and how that impacts the rest of the team, especially how it insulates Romo and the defense.

I have to admit, I am seduced by the idea of a talent like Elliott behind our OL and I want to see what that would look like before Romo's time is done, at which point we may never have a QB his caliber again while the OL is as strong as it is now. You named a bunch of RB prospects here that I like, and as I acknowledged, that very well may be the most efficient use of our draft picks, but I think it's naive to assume that all of those RB's will work out in the NFL.

Could we end up with the next Leveon Bell or Latavius Murray?

Sure.

He could also be Montee Ball, Christine Michael, Jonathan Franklin, Stepfan Taylor or Knile Davis.

Those are all guys I liked in 2013 and they range from flat out busts to decent RB's and anywhere in between.

Elliott could bust if he goes to a really bad situation but I think he will almost certainly be a very good RB almost anywhere he goes. Behind our OL I think he could have a historic couple of seasons, to the point where I think the strength of our OL+a talent like him, along with the threat of Dez on the outside, could drag an aging Romo and an average defense to a Super Bowl.

Could a guy like Ken Dixon or Paul Perkins do that too?

Maybe, but it would be a hell of alot bigger risk.