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

ravidubey said:

The article is a wake up call targeting a lot of casual fans who are totally banking that the 4th pick is Troy Aikman II.

Simple logic:
- The Cowboys having the 4th pick in the draft has no bearing on whether both Carson Wentz and Jared Goff will be franchise QB's.
- Tony Romo hurting his collarbone after coming back too early has no bearing on his hurting it again after it properly heals, which there's no indication it's not.

But fans are acting as like whomever the Cowboys draft at 4 is going to be God's gift and Tomo is brittle and done. Neither are logical opinions.

Anyone who cites the 2004 draft as an example of how multiple HOF QB's just fall from the sky is cherry picking a very special year for QB's that last happened in 1983.

Some are saying to use the pick even if it lands a serviceable starter. Really? From the 4th overall pick? We can get serviceable in the 2nd round, albeit at a shorter contract length. Shit we can get "serviceable" next year, too.

Click to expand...

Goff and Wentz are right there with the rest of the prospects in the top 10, the only one clearly head and shoulders above the rest as far as being an almost guaranteed Pro Bowler is Tunsil. The rest all have question marks, so why not roll the dice on the QB then?

It's not like we are taking a guy who might be 18th on our board instead of Patrick Peterson, we're taking a guy who should be around 5-10 (at worst) as opposed to a guy with question marks like Ramsey, Bosa, Buckner, etc.

And keep in mind I think Bosa, Buckner and Ramsey will all at least be good players in the league, there are just question marks about whether or not they will be elite, All Pro types, which is why I roll the dice on a QB who is basically right there with them as a prospect.

Simpleton said:

The rest all have question marks, so why not roll the dice on the QB then?

Click to expand...

I think you answered your own question. We're rolling the dice with the 4th pick when we could be getting a sure thing.

Let me qualify "sure thing" to mean best on our team by far at their position and contender for future pro bowls.

That description fits Tunsil, Buckner, Elliott, Bosa, and even Ramsey to a T. Any of them would be amazing in Dallas and help us immediately and for years to come.

So we're not only rolling the dice on a new QB, we're giving up one of those guys who would help us for sure.

You understand I'm playing Devil's Advocate, right? I've maintained all along that if these guys are true Franchise QBs we should take them.

But if they are not Franchise QB's (and booze has a point that our scouting staff may very well have no clue), there are several very good reasons (listed above) not to gamble on them.

ravidubey said:

I think you answered your own question. We're rolling the dice with the 4th pick when we could be getting a sure thing.

Let me qualify "sure thing" to mean best on our team by far at their position and contender for future pro bowls.

That description fits Tunsil, Buckner, Elliott, Bosa, and even Ramsey to a T. Any of them would be amazing in Dallas and help us immediately and for years to come.

So we're not only rolling the dice on a new QB, we're giving up one of those guys who would help us for sure.

You understand I'm playing Devil's Advocate, right? I've maintained all along that if these guys are true Franchise QBs we should take them.

But if they are not Franchise QB's (and booze has a point that our scouting staff may very well have no clue), there are several very good reasons (listed above) not to gamble on them.

Click to expand...

I get that but what I'm saying is that there are no more question marks with the QB's than there are for guys like Bosa, Buckner, etc., so when considering the relative importance of the position, and that there are likely to be question marks with whoever we take, I have to go with the QB.

This is especially true when many acknowledge that the primary question marks around the QB's are if they can start right away, which we don't have to really concern ourselves with.

I get the argument about opportunity cost in terms of being able to potentially strengthen our DL but we are going to have to invest a 1st in a QB at some point very soon, so what about the opportunity cost a year or two from now?

What about the very likely possibility that whatever QB we end up taking in the 1st a few years from now will also need time like Goff or Wentz?

Here are our options for our future at QB:

1. Draft Goff/Wentz or trade down/up in the 1st for Lynch, give them time to learn
2. Roll the dice in the 2nd-4th this year, ending up with an inferior prospect who likely becomes nothing more than a backup
3. Hope we end up in a position to draft a sure thing like Luck in the next 3-4 years
4. Draft a QB in the 1st at some point in the next few years although this time they likely have to play immediately since Romo is 38+
5. Roll the dice outside the 1st in another draft, likely ending up with nothing more than a backup

The decision should be easy when considering the other prospects available in the top 5 this year.

Simpleton said:

I get that but what I'm saying is that there are no more question marks with the QB's than there are for guys like Bosa, Buckner, etc., so when considering the relative importance of the position, and that there are likely to be question marks with whoever we take, I have to go with the QB.

Click to expand...

That relative importance goes both ways.

When good, a QB makes your whole team good, but if they are bad (or even average) not only do they make you much worse they also waste all that time spent you spent grooming them. And grooming a QB is harder than any other position because there is only one and he must play with his whole offense at full speed to get better.

And I don't mind playing a 1st round draft pick at QB right away. In fact, I prefer it on a team with an OL the quality of Dallas' because you maximize the development reps and value of the rookie contract.

They only time I dislike it is in Aikman or Elway's case where they were thrown to the wolves with literally no team around them.

Ravi, people are citing 2004 because that's what this class compares to talent wise. Three guys who all project to be quality starters, who are all relatively close in grading.

No one brings up 2011 when Christian Ponder and Jake Locker were busts because everyone knew those players weren't real first round talents.

In this case, you are the only one who seems to be implying that Wentz and Goff aren't top 10 players.

Simpleton said:

I get that but what I'm saying is that there are no more question marks with the QB's than there are for guys like Bosa, Buckner, etc., so when considering the relative importance of the position, and that there are likely to be question marks with whoever we take, I have to go with the QB.

This is especially true when many acknowledge that the primary question marks around the QB's are if they can start right away, which we don't have to really concern ourselves with.

I get the argument about opportunity cost in terms of being able to potentially strengthen our DL but we are going to have to invest a 1st in a QB at some point very soon, so what about the opportunity cost a year or two from now?

What about the very likely possibility that whatever QB we end up taking in the 1st a few years from now will also need time like Goff or Wentz?

Here are our options for our future at QB:

1. Draft Goff/Wentz or trade down/up in the 1st for Lynch, give them time to learn
2. Roll the dice in the 2nd-4th this year, ending up with an inferior prospect who likely becomes nothing more than a backup
3. Hope we end up in a position to draft a sure thing like Luck in the next 3-4 years
4. Draft a QB in the 1st at some point in the next few years although this time they likely have to play immediately since Romo is 38+
5. Roll the dice outside the 1st in another draft, likely ending up with nothing more than a backup

The decision should be easy when considering the other prospects available in the top 5 this year.

Click to expand...

I pretty much agree with all this but it is a little more simple for me. Take the gift of being in 4th position and get the best QB available. Forget about what kind of a gamble there is. The larger gamble is passing on the opportunity to be in this position again in the near term. The timing with Romo' s injury history and probability are just an added reason to go with this window. Yeah you can possibly find a success with another position but that won't offset the most important position to be attained possibilities.

ravidubey said:

That relative importance goes both ways.

When good, a QB makes your whole team good, but if they are bad (or even average) not only do they make you much worse they also waste all that time spent you spent grooming them. And grooming a QB is harder than any other position because there is only one and he must play with his whole offense at full speed to get better.

And I don't mind playing a 1st round draft pick at QB right away. In fact, I prefer it on a team with an OL the quality of Dallas' because you maximize the development reps and value of the rookie contract.

They only time I dislike it is in Aikman or Elway's case where they were thrown to the wolves with literally no team around them.

Click to expand...

This is the what most don't factor in and it is what scares me the most.

I am more comfortable at this point I would draft Goff but Wentz still gives me pause.

But you have to go down this road at some point but there should be some real risk analysis going on.

ravidubey said:

I think you answered your own question. We're rolling the dice with the 4th pick when we could be getting a sure thing.

Let me qualify "sure thing" to mean best on our team by far at their position and contender for future pro bowls.

That description fits Tunsil, Buckner, Elliott, Bosa, and even Ramsey to a T. Any of them would be amazing in Dallas and help us immediately and for years to come.

So we're not only rolling the dice on a new QB, we're giving up one of those guys who would help us for sure.

You understand I'm playing Devil's Advocate, right? I've maintained all along that if these guys are true Franchise QBs we should take them.

But if they are not Franchise QB's (and booze has a point that our scouting staff may very well have no clue), there are several very good reasons (listed above) not to gamble on them.

Click to expand...

I don't think anyone but Tunsil is as much of a sure thing as you are making out.

I didn't see Elliot in the list, but still

mschmidt64 said:

Ravi, people are citing 2004 because that's what this class compares to talent wise. Three guys who all project to be quality starters, who are all relatively close in grading.

No one brings up 2011 when Christian Ponder and Jake Locker were busts because everyone knew those players weren't real first round talents.

Click to expand...

I agree, but some NFL teams thought differently because they were desperate, just like the Cowboys thought they were desperate for CBs in 2012.

mschmidt64 said:

In this case, you are the only one who seems to be implying that Wentz and Goff aren't top 10 players.

Click to expand...

My concern is that folks are "rounding up" their evaluations of these two because Dallas happens to be drafting 4th.

Yeah we ALL want to see Goff as Eli, late-comer Wentz as Rivers, and big lumbering Lynch as Roethlisberger, but these are highly superficial resemblances based mostly on our desires.

What if this class really is more like Gabbert, Locker, and Ponder? Similar to Matt Leinert before him, Gabbert's stock started to drop just before the draft.

Now as we're on the cusp of April we're seeing articles surface focusing on Goff's performance vs. top competition, especially the Utah game.

Look at Bridgewater, Manziel, and Bortles. Months before the draft they'd have gone in that order, and Bortles might not have gone in the 1st. Manziel is already out of the league, and Bridgewater was barely drafted in the 1st round.

I'd like us to keep an open mind and not obsess about drafting a QB 4th overall just because Romo was hurt and our backup sucked. We should draft him 4th overall if he's a premiere talent with few if any question marks.

Unlike with Manning, Rivers, and Roethlisberger, I'm seeing question marks.

Wentz played nobody and did average in the Senior Bowl. Kevin Kolb was amazing in the CUSA and is now out of the league. Goff destroyed average teams and looked shaky vs. good teams. He's also thin, which definitely matters.

My concern is that folks are "rounding up" their evaluations of these two because Dallas happens to be drafting 4th.

Click to expand...

Who gives a fuck if people on a message board might be "rounding up"? It matters not even one little bit if we all proclaimed these guys to be the best prospects EVAR. It's pretty clear that these QBs are being placed at the top by guys that evaluate talent for a living. And regardless of what has been said in this thread how the Cowboys wouldn't know a franchise QB or not, it is being done by far more than just Dallas' scouts.

NoDak said:

Who gives a fuck if people on a message board might be "rounding up"? It matters not even one little bit if we all proclaimed these guys to be the best prospects EVAR. It's pretty clear that these QBs are being placed at the top by guys that evaluate talent for a living. And regardless of what has been said in this thread how the Cowboys wouldn't know a franchise QB or not, it is being done by far more than just Dallas' scouts.

Click to expand...

We have feedback from media sites, not NFL personnel guys, and most of them go along with the crowd.

These same guys had Ryan Leaf as a stone cold lock in 1998. He wasn't even in the neighborhood.

If Cleveland takes the best QB off the board with pick 2, I'm worried the second guy won't even be close to the first. That happens quite a lot. It also happens the other way around. It rarely happens that both are strong QB's, let alone the top three.

ravidubey said:

I agree, but some NFL teams thought differently because they were desperate, just like the Cowboys thought they were desperate for CBs in 2012.


My concern is that folks are "rounding up" their evaluations of these two because Dallas happens to be drafting 4th.

Yeah we ALL want to see Goff as Eli, late-comer Wentz as Rivers, and big lumbering Lynch as Roethlisberger, but these are highly superficial resemblances based mostly on our desires.

What if this class really is more like Gabbert, Locker, and Ponder? Similar to Matt Leinert before him, Gabbert's stock started to drop just before the draft.

Now as we're on the cusp of April we're seeing articles surface focusing on Goff's performance vs. top competition, especially the Utah game.

Look at Bridgewater, Manziel, and Bortles. Months before the draft they'd have gone in that order, and Bortles might not have gone in the 1st. Manziel is already out of the league, and Bridgewater was barely drafted in the 1st round.

I'd like us to keep an open mind and not obsess about drafting a QB 4th overall just because Romo was hurt and our backup sucked. We should draft him 4th overall if he's a premiere talent with few if any question marks.

Unlike with Manning, Rivers, and Roethlisberger, I'm seeing question marks.

Wentz played nobody and did average in the Senior Bowl. Kevin Kolb was amazing in the CUSA and is now out of the league. Goff destroyed average teams and looked shaky vs. good teams. He's also thin, which definitely matters.

Click to expand...

Manning, Rivers and Roethelsberger all had question marks as well, I think that class compares favorably to these guys outside of Manning being a clear cut top guy, but even he had question marks unlike his brother.

You are shitting all over these guys to make a point and comparing them to much lesser prospects.

And to top it off you are not talking about any of there actual strengths and then you call Lynch Lumbering when nobody thinks of him as that.

At least talk about these guys as the actual prospects they are and none of these guys has slipped, Lynch actually seems to be rising again.

ravidubey said:

I agree, but some NFL teams thought differently because they were desperate, just like the Cowboys thought they were desperate for CBs in 2012.

My concern is that folks are "rounding up" their evaluations of these two because Dallas happens to be drafting 4th.

Yeah we ALL want to see Goff as Eli, late-comer Wentz as Rivers, and big lumbering Lynch as Roethlisberger, but these are highly superficial resemblances based mostly on our desires.

What if this class really is more like Gabbert, Locker, and Ponder? Similar to Matt Leinert before him, Gabbert's stock started to drop just before the draft.

Now as we're on the cusp of April we're seeing articles surface focusing on Goff's performance vs. top competition, especially the Utah game.

Look at Bridgewater, Manziel, and Bortles. Months before the draft they'd have gone in that order, and Bortles might not have gone in the 1st. Manziel is already out of the league, and Bridgewater was barely drafted in the 1st round.

I'd like us to keep an open mind and not obsess about drafting a QB 4th overall just because Romo was hurt and our backup sucked. We should draft him 4th overall if he's a premiere talent with few if any question marks.

Unlike with Manning, Rivers, and Roethlisberger, I'm seeing question marks.

Wentz played nobody and did average in the Senior Bowl. Kevin Kolb was amazing in the CUSA and is now out of the league. Goff destroyed average teams and looked shaky vs. good teams. He's also thin, which definitely matters.

Click to expand...

So many mischaracterizations here.

First, Lynch is not lumbering at all, in fact he may have the most nimble feet out of all of them when it comes to moving outside of the pocket.

Also, there were plenty of question marks surrounding the 2004 guys, especially Roethlisberger who I believe never took a snap from under center in college. Rivers also was a guy expected to go late 1st/early 2nd before rising to the top 5 and plenty of people questioned his awkward delivery/mechanics.

And Goff did not struggle as much as many would lead you to believe. Yea, he wasn't great against Utah but at least 2 or 3 of his INT's were off passes that hit his WR's square in the hands, bounced off and got picked, he also made plenty of throws that kept them in the game to begin with. He played well on the road against one of the best defenses/overall teams in the country in Stanford. He continually dragged them back into the game, giving them a shot, only to have their shit defense or ST's give up huge plays. He was also solid against UCLA on the road, a team with several future NFL players on defense. The fact that he had a terrible team around him has to be given consideration, his OL was very poor throughout his career there and they were a 1-11 team his freshman year. He should not be blamed because he didn't consistently carry them to victory over teams that were far more talented than the one he had around him.

Here's the point that you continuously fail to recognize, what premiere talents are there that we are passing on by taking a QB?

If there was a Patrick Peterson, Marcell Dareus or Khalil Mack available I wouldn't hesitate for a second to take them, but there aren't, so the tiebreaker is the relative importance of the QB position and the fact that we have the luxury of being able to groom them over potentially 2-3 seasons.

I know you love Buckner but there are as many, if not more question marks surrounding guys like Bosa, Buckner, Ramsey and Jack.

ravidubey said:

We have feedback from media sites, not NFL personnel guys, and most of them go along with the crowd.

These same guys had Ryan Leaf as a stone cold lock in 1998. He wasn't even in the neighborhood.

If Cleveland takes the best QB off the board with pick 2, I'm worried the second guy won't even be close to the first. That happens quite a lot. It also happens the other way around. It rarely happens that both are strong QB's, let alone the top three.

Click to expand...

I was starting to say we should consider the possibility of Wentz at 4 before the Senior Bowl back in like January, if not December, so there's that. I'm also fairly certain people here have advocated for Goff for a pretty good while now too.

ravidubey said:

We have feedback from media sites, not NFL personnel guys, and most of them go along with the crowd.

These same guys had Ryan Leaf as a stone cold lock in 1998. He wasn't even in the neighborhood.

If Cleveland takes the best QB off the board with pick 2, I'm worried the second guy won't even be close to the first. That happens quite a lot. It also happens the other way around. It rarely happens that both are strong QB's, let alone the top three.

Click to expand...

Apparently actual real live NFL scouts also had Leaf at the top of the draft. He was in fact selected there, and not just speculated to go there by media sites. Same for guys like JaMarcus Russel, Jeff George, etc... Busts happen. All the damn time, in fact. I'd be willing to bet that at least one of the guys you are touting above as a "sure thing" will also bust.

A lot of these media guys that you're trying to dismiss have guys in the NFL they talk to. They are pretty in tune with which players will go at the top, and which won't. If not, how do you explain year after year that the guys they are talking up for going at the top, do?

Lumbering Lynch.

I missed that gem.

NoDak said:

Lumbering Lynch.

I missed that gem.

Click to expand...

If Ravi had accurate reasons to dislike these QBs I might take it seriously. Instead he calls a guy like Lynch lumbering and claims that weight is some sort of a major factor in a QBs success. These are actually very good QB prospects. These aren't EJ Manuel types going in the first simply because a QB desperate team must take one.

Cowboysrock55 said:

If Ravi had accurate reasons to dislike these QBs I might take it seriously. Instead he calls a guy like Lynch lumbering and claims that weight is some sort of a major factor in a QBs success. These are actually very good QB prospects. These aren't EJ Manuel types going in the first simply because a QB desperate team must take one.

Click to expand...

I have been eyeballing QB's for a while and this group looks pretty good to me.

L.T. Fan said:

I have been eyeballing QB's for a while and this group looks pretty good to me.

Click to expand...

If you want to see a bad QB class, take a glance at next year. Obviously a lot can change in a year but holy shit that class looks real bad.