Stephen Jones nearly rules out a trade up

[ravidubey]

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

Brockers and Wagner, the guys they were going to draft, would have been totally fine and clearly more talented than DeCastro and Konz.

 

[boozeman]

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.

Although I hated the idea last year, we would be a better team right now with Brockers/Wagner too.

 

[Smitty]

And actually... frankly.... I'm not ready to say that Brockers and Wagner won't be actually even better. Both had very solid rookie years. Brockers would be a stud DT next to Ratliff and Wagner would make our LB corps basically elite.

 

[Smitty]

Although I hated the idea last year, we would be a better team right now with Brockers/Wagner too.

Yeah, beat me to it.

 

[Smitty]

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

I must have missed all the amazing plays on the ball that Claiborne made.

Cause I remember mostly Claiborne having solid coverage, which was Newman's strength, but never making any plays on the ball, which was Newman's weakness.

 

[Jiggyfly]

Although I hated the idea last year, we would be a better team right now with Brockers/Wagner too.

I agree with this, we would be a better team and this is the draft would have been the one to get a good tampa 2 DB.

 

[Genghis Khan]

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

Had we stayed and picked Brockers and Wagner, we'd still be better off than trading up for just Claiborne.

 

[Genghis Khan]

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

That's kind of my point. Claiborne would have to be a HOF-type CB for that trade to be worth it. The reason that's the case is because the only way it's worth it is if Claiborne is a big (not slight, big) upgrade from Jenkins, because getting Claiborne meant that we moved on from Jenkins, and Jenkins is actually pretty good.

The book is still out on Claiborne, that's true, but so far he doesn't look better than Jenkins at all.

Claiborne will improve of course. But will he improve enough, such that he is so much better than Jenkins that it made sense to move up and give up our 2nd rounder? Nope. Not in my opinion.

 

[ravidubey]

Had we stayed and picked Brokers and Wagner, we'd still be better off than trading up for just Claiborne.

It's not just Claiborne, but also the quality of the 53rd player on the roster as that would be the missing player. Claiborne and Player 53 vs Brockers and Wagner. Not looking good for Claiborne at the moment, but I have a strong feeling we haven't seen his bet football yet. With Terence Newman, his 2003 rookie season was one of his best and he started strong, though he was exposed at the end of the year and in the playoffs.

Claiborne started very strong in NY and kept getting better, despite getting a concussion in Cincy. His strip might have won the Saints game if the TE doesn't win a footrace with the rest of the defense for the loose ball. If Claiborne turns out to be the ball-hawk Dallas thought they drafted, then he's definitely worth it. There aren't but a handful of them in the league at one time, and that skill set never seem to come packaged with first round athleticism. I'm cautiously optimistic Claiborne looks like he has both.

And if Dallas' pass rush and safety play improves, I expect Claiborne will deliver even more.

 

[Bluestar71]

Claiborne has a long way to go before he can be considered elite. I'm not sure he has the physical tools -- size and speed -- to be truly dominant. I think he's already better than Newman and we'll be happy with his play, but the cost we paid to get him still seems too high for the player we got. If he comes back this season and has a Patrick Peterson like improvement then that 1st and 2nd doesn't look as bad, but Claiborne doesn't appear to be a freak athlete like Peterson. He's just a really good cover corner. Great to have, but not what I would deem elite.

 

[Jiggyfly]

That's kind of my point. Claiborne would have to be a HOF-type CB for that trade to be worth it. The reason that's the case is because the only way it's worth it is if Claiborne is a big (not slight, big) upgrade from Jenkins, because getting Claiborne meant that we moved on from Jenkins, and Jenkins is actually pretty good.

The book is still out on Claiborne, that's true, but so far he doesn't look better than Jenkins at all.



Claiborne will improve of course. But will he improve enough, such that he is so much better than Jenkins that it made sense to move up and give up our 2nd rounder? Nope. Not in my opinion.

That makes no sense we gave up a mid 2nd rounder not a 1st or multiple picks.

Since when did players have to be near hall of fame types to justify losing a mid 2nd rounder?

I think people need to go back and look at what type of players are drafted on average with that 2nd round pick.