MacMahon: Claiborne's role murky with Scandrick back

ravidubey · Sep 19, 2014

mschmidt64 said:
On Talkin' Cowboys they were saying Sterling Moore may play some FS now that Scandrick is back. That's interesting.

That would be very interesting to see. Dude has a node for the ball.

ravidubey · Sep 19, 2014

Genghis Khan said:
If you think we had a need at CB at the time such that they were justified in trading away an extra premium pick to get Claiborne, I don't know what to tell you. Other than you are just as retarded as they are.

And this is not revisionist history; I hated that trade immediately.

The top of the first round is for difference makers independent of position, so it wasn't the position they were trading for, but the fact that he was considered the best defensive player in the draft.

Also the team had a strong need at every defensive position with Newman aging and Scandrick and Jenkins inconstent. People are conveniently forgetting just how poorly the defensive backfield performed in 2011, especially vs the Giants.

Had Claiborne been like Patrick Peterson, no one would be bitching. Instead he's been so weak and stupid his talent has barely had a chance to assert itself.

Smitty · Sep 19, 2014

I'm not forgetting anything.

The smart move, as it always is, would have been to attack the position with later picks (2nd-4th) and/or mid tier free agents. We'd be infinitely ahead if we had done it that way.

Stop trying to find the next Deion Sanders. He doesn't exist.

Build the lines and supplement that with value signings like Tracy Porter and Sterling Moore or mid round draft picks like Brandon Boykin and Tramon Williams.

Once you've build a sturdy DL, sure, if the opportunity to burn a luxury pick on a DB comes up, knock yourself out, but those opportunities are few and far between and require excellent drafting every other year to get that foundation first.

The majority of our top 10 picks since 2000 have been DBs, though. In fact, has it been ALL of them? Backwards approach.

Carp · Sep 19, 2014

I feel like I have read a variation of that exact same post about 100 times. Props for consistency.

Simpleton · Sep 19, 2014

Carp said:
I feel like I have read a variation of that exact same post about 100 times. Props for consistency.

He's right though.

And no, all of our top 10 picks haven't been DB's although the vast majority of them have been between Roy, Newman and Claiborne. I believe Smith is the only top 10 pick we've made since 2000 that isn't a DB, luckily he's a potential HOF LT.

ravidubey · Sep 19, 2014

Simpleton said:
He's right though.

And no, all of our top 10 picks haven't been DB's although the vast majority of them have been between Roy, Newman and Claiborne. I believe Smith is the only top 10 pick we've made since 2000 that isn't a DB, luckily he's a potential HOF LT.

Claiborne was in a draft seriously light at the top. No DL was worth taking that high either. Dontari Poe and Fletcher Cox fell out of the top 10, though of course either would have been better choices than Claiborne in hindsight.

At the time though Claiborne looked like a difference maker, while Cox and Poe looked like the best of an average lot of DT's. Kuechley was smallish, and Dallas already had two small young LBs. At the time the Dallas DL had outperformed the DB's by far, as each DB had proven himself a liability at one time or another.

In hindsight and on paper, Kuechley is the star of the draft, though he didn't truly come into his own until the Panthers upgraded their DL. Poe has proven he's the best IMO, but he had character questions at the time.

Claiborne had that ridiculous Wonderlic score, but there were no other red flags. This is a case where the risky one turned out good and the supposed stud turned out average.

It happens.

Simpleton · Sep 19, 2014

ravidubey said:
Claiborne was in a draft seriously light at the top. No DL was worth taking that high either. Dontari Poe and Fletcher Cox fell out of the top 10, though of course either would have been better choices than Claiborne in hindsight.

At the time though Claiborne looked like a difference maker, while Cox and Poe looked like the best of an average lot of DT's. Kuechley was smallish, and Dallas already had two small young LBs. At the time the Dallas DL had outperformed the DB's by far, as each DB had proven himself a liability at one time or another.

In hindsight and on paper, Kuechley is the star of the draft, though he didn't truly come into his own until the Panthers upgraded their DL. Poe has proven he's the best IMO, but he had character questions at the time.

Claiborne had that ridiculous Wonderlic score, but there were no other red flags. This is a case where the risky one turned out good and the supposed stud turned out average.

It happens.

I remember the draft very well and I definitely thought Claiborne was the best defensive player in that draft, I still wouldn't have traded up for him though. I would've sat tight at 14 (I believe) and taken DeCastro or Cox.

I'd also like to note that I was one of the few who was down with taking Kuechly if he was available even though Lee was looking like a beast and ILB isn't a premium position. I also liked Poe much more than most of the board who thought he was just a combine freak, and would've been fine with him at 14 too.

Genghis Khan · Sep 19, 2014

ravidubey said:
The top of the first round is for difference makers independent of position, so it wasn't the position they were trading for, but the fact that he was considered the best defensive player in the draft.

Also the team had a strong need at every defensive position with Newman aging and Scandrick and Jenkins inconstent. People are conveniently forgetting just how poorly the defensive backfield performed in 2011, especially vs the Giants.

Had Claiborne been like Patrick Peterson, no one would be bitching. Instead he's been so weak and stupid his talent has barely had a chance to assert itself.

Two things:

One, I said it would be more palatable if they were chasing a game changing talent and just whiffed. The point of this discussion is Garrett is quoted above saying they did it because of a perceived need at CB. Dumb.

Two: we had Carr at that point, not Newman. Big difference. You don't pay a guy 50 mil to play corner for you then 2 months later spend a 1st and 2nd on another CB. It's a stupid way to allocate limited resources. And on top of that we also had Scandrick and Jenkins.

If they wanted to replace Jenkins, and they obviously did, that's fine. At that point you

Genghis Khan · Sep 19, 2014

At that point you replace him with a Sterling Moore type. You don't need to trade up into the top ten. You already have your #1, 50 million dollar CB.

Smitty · Sep 19, 2014

Ravi, it's not hindsight for some of us. Maybe for you, but when we made that trade I was screaming for Fletcher Cox (cause it was obvious we weren't taking DeCastro that high).

You can't pretend like only now is it obvious that Claiborne wasn't the right pick. Cox falling to the teens doesn't mean that no one could have foreseen him as a good pick at 6.

Clay_Allison · Sep 19, 2014

mschmidt64 said:
In fact, has it been ALL of them?

Tyron Smith 9th overall.

Jiggyfly · Sep 20, 2014

mschmidt64 said:
Ravi, it's not hindsight for some of us. Maybe for you, but when we made that trade I was screaming for Fletcher Cox (cause it was obvious we weren't taking DeCastro that high).

You can't pretend like only now is it obvious that Claiborne wasn't the right pick. Cox falling to the teens doesn't mean that no one could have foreseen him as a good pick at 6.

Cox has done nothing to say we should have taken him at 6 he had fewer sacks than Selvie last year and you are ready to run him off.

At least have some consistency to your arguments.

boozeman · Sep 20, 2014

Jiggyfly said:
Cox has done nothing to say we should have taken him at 6 he had fewer sacks than Selvie last year and you are ready to run him off.

At least have some consistency to your arguments.

No dog in this fight, but fact is, you are comparing a 3-4 end to a 4-3 end.

There is more to DL production than sacks.

At least have some relevancy to your arguments.

Jiggyfly · Sep 20, 2014

boozeman said:
No dog in this fight, but fact is, you are comparing a 3-4 end to a 4-3 end.

There is more to DL production than sacks.

At least have some relevancy to your arguments.

No I'm going off his argument that you only draft impact players at that point in the draft and Cox has not been that.

Also, the Eagles do not play a pure 3-4 and Cox plays DT in their nickel, is that relevant enough for you?

I wanted Cox as much as anybody but let's not act like he has been a terror since drafted.

Selvie had more tackles than Cox as well last year.

Smitty · Sep 21, 2014

Cox is loads better than Selvie OR Claiborne.

GForce78NJ · Sep 21, 2014

why did anyone ever bring selvie into this argument? he was drafted in the 7th round and was supposed to be a rotational guy at best

Texas Ace · Sep 22, 2014

I love how Claiborne sucked dick all day and still played most snaps over a guy in Sterling Moore who has been making plays while completely outplaying Claisuck.

Funny how the asshole who could never stay healthy is finding a way to stay on the field now that there's someone who can make a case for his job.

Cotton · Sep 22, 2014

Texas Ace said:
I love how Claiborne sucked dick all day and still played most snaps over a guy in Sterling Moore who has been making plays while completely outplaying Claisuck.

Funny how the asshole who could never stay healthy is find a way to stay on the field now that there's someone who can make a case for his job.

It's ridiculous and a little bit laughable that they kept marching that tool out onto the field. He got smoked repeatedly. His little INT at the end doesn't even come close to making up for how bad he played, or how bad he has been his whole career.

Texas Ace · Sep 22, 2014

Iamtdg said:
It's ridiculous and a little bit laughable that they kept marching that tool out onto the field. He got smoked repeatedly. His little INT at the end doesn't even come close to making up for how bad he played, or how bad he has been his whole career.

Exactly.

That INT is gonna go a long way in Garrett's book, but what they should be thinking this morning is how they're going to give both Scandrick and Moore more opportunities because Claiborne is a total liability.

He can't cover anything short, he can't cover anything long, he can't tackle, and he gets penalized. That's a combination that would get him benched just about everywhere except Dallas where how you play isn't the determining factor for who starts - status is what matters most.

I hope he pulls his groin or something because it's the only way he's going to be replaced.

Cotton · Sep 22, 2014

Texas Ace said:
Exactly.

That INT is gonna go a long way in Garrett's book, but what they should be thinking this morning is how they're going to give both Scandrick and Moore more opportunities because Claiborne is a total liability.

He can't cover anything short, he can't cover anything long, he can't tackle, and he gets penalized. That's a combination that would get him benched just about everywhere except Dallas where how you play isn't the determining factor for who starts - status is what matters most.

I hope he pulls his groin or something because it's the only way he's going to be replaced.

The onnly reason he was behind that receiver is because I guarantee you the edict was "Do not let anyone get behind you no matter what", so he's basically in a prevent and gets lucky the ball was overthrown. I guess you can say that he has taken a step because he actually caught the ball.

MacMahon: Claiborne's role murky with Scandrick back

DCC 4Life

DCC 4Life

DCC 4Life

DCC 4Life

DCC 4Life

DCC 4Life

DCC 4Life

The worst version of myself

The worst version of myself

DCC 4Life

Old Bastard

Banned

28 Years And Counting...

Banned

DCC 4Life

Not So New Member

Teh Acester

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Teh Acester

One-armed Knife Sharpener