2026 Random Cowboys Stuff Thread...

boozeman said:
It would be my hang up too. You are giving up a premium choice for a rental unless you elect to extend him.
Click to expand...
I think the extension is kind of a given.
 
Chocolate Lab said:
I think the extension is kind of a given.
Click to expand...

I think I'd rather draft someone like Rodriguez, Hill or Allen and have a cheap LBer for the next 4 years than to burn a third on Brooks and pay him 14-15ish mil a season at 28 years old. Hell add Trotter and Golday to that list as well.

The only problem is those LBers I mention probably will cost a second round pick and we don't have a second round pick. And I'd rather not reach for them in the first because of "need" which is why we are sort of in this conundrum. It's why a trade down at 12 or 20 just makes the most sense if it can be done.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
I think I'd rather draft someone like Rodriguez, Hill or Allen and have a cheap LBer for the next 4 years than to burn a third on Brooks and pay him 14-15ish mil a season at 28 years old. Hell add Trotter and Golday to that list as well.

The only problem is those LBers I mention probably will cost a second round pick and we don't have a second round pick. And I'd rather not reach for them in the first because of "need" which is why we are sort of in this conundrum. It's why a trade down at 12 or 20 just makes the most sense if it can be done.
Click to expand...

The issue is that if we don't trade down we're probably reaching pretty big at 20, and I wouldn't feel comfortable going into the season with someone we get at 92 plus some schlub JAG FA.

So there are scenarios where the decision is would you rather reach on a guy at 20, gamble massively on a guy at 92 starting day 1, or just send the 3rd for an established starter while freeing up 20 to do whatever?
 
I've seen this movie. The draft won't fall right, we'll sign some vet spare after the draft, then expect him to play over his head which he won't.
 
Simpleton said:
The issue is that if we don't trade down we're probably reaching pretty big at 20, and I wouldn't feel comfortable going into the season with someone we get at 92 plus some schlub JAG FA.

So there are scenarios where the decision is would you rather reach on a guy at 20, gamble massively on a guy at 92 starting day 1, or just send the 3rd for an established starter while freeing up 20 to do whatever?
Click to expand...

Well it doesn't sound like anyone else is burning down the door for Brooks. So I probably just wait. See how the draft falls. Maybe someone falls to the third. I mean are 5 LBers going to go in the second round? Are we going to trade down? If the chips don't fall the way you want then talk to me about trading a pick for Brooks in 2027. Or hell, you can even make a trade during the draft. Those trades happen every year.

Also there are more LBers in this draft that I like but the ones I keep repeatedly talking about are ones I feel very confident in being able to step in right away and start. Then you get to the guys like Kyle Louis and Harold Perkins types that I love but I just don't know if they are big enough to be full time starters for what we need.

And give me a guy like Sharar on day 3 in the fifth, sixth, seventh round area. We honestly need 2 LBers and probably a vet. But if I get two good LBers in the draft the vet doesn't have to be a Brooks level player. It could be more of a Wagner type bandaid/insurance policy.
 
Simpleton said:
The issue is that if we don't trade down we're probably reaching pretty big at 20, and I wouldn't feel comfortable going into the season with someone we get at 92 plus some schlub JAG FA.

So there are scenarios where the decision is would you rather reach on a guy at 20, gamble massively on a guy at 92 starting day 1, or just send the 3rd for an established starter while freeing up 20 to do whatever?
Click to expand...


On the other hand what if you trade 92 for Brooks and Styles is surprisingly sitting there at 12?

I'd far rather just take my chances in the draft than overpay for an off ball LB in a pretty good LB draft.
 
Genghis Khan said:
On the other hand what if you trade 92 for Brooks and Styles is surprisingly sitting there at 12?

I'd far rather just take my chances in the draft than overpay for an off ball LB in a pretty good LB draft.
Click to expand...

Yea I'm not advocating for doing the trade now, I'd wait to see how the first plays out and then try to swing something afterwards depending on how the rest of the draft unfolds, etc.
 
Simpleton said:
Yea I'm not advocating for doing the trade now, I'd wait to see how the first plays out and then try to swing something afterwards depending on how the rest of the draft unfolds, etc.
Click to expand...
Yeah, they wouldn't do it now. They'd do it after the draft, just like with Pickens last year.
 
Genghis Khan said:
On the other hand what if you trade 92 for Brooks and Styles is surprisingly sitting there at 12?

I'd far rather just take my chances in the draft than overpay for an off ball LB in a pretty good LB draft.
Click to expand...

I mean we basically had the same thing last year at WR. I think we were taking Tet if he fell to our pick. And he would have been a great pick. Instead he went ahead of us and we traded a third round pick for Pickens who turned out to be better than we ever could have expected.

I see a similar situation this year. We can always deal a pick for Brooks after the draft if Styles doesn't fall, we can't trade down, and no really good LBers fall to 92.
 
And it doesn't even have to be for Brooks. Maybe another team drafts 2 LBers and suddenly a vet on the roster becomes expendable. Happens every year, especially when a team is really drafting BPA.

Brooks just makes sense from a perspective that the Dolphins are having a fire sale and Brooks is in the last year of his contract so they probably lose him next offseason for nothing. But honestly I haven't looked at the entire landscape of NFL teams to see what other LBers might be in the last year of their deal on a team that's not likely to be competitive.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
If the cost of Brooks is a third I'd rather trade for someone else and draft a guy. We need to draft a guy regardless.
Click to expand...
That third rounder is huge for us, I'd think three or four times before trading it. I wouldn't mind shipping two 5ths for what amounts to a guaranteed starter for the next 1-3 years. He's certainly better than Shemar James.
 
Genghis Khan said:
On the other hand what if you trade 92 for Brooks and Styles is surprisingly sitting there at 12?

I'd far rather just take my chances in the draft than overpay for an off ball LB in a pretty good LB draft.
Click to expand...
Congratulate ourselves on the windfall. Too much talent is rarely a bad thing. But I wouldn't have traded 92. I might not have traded 112.

How in the F we traded about that for Mingo I'll never understand.
 
ravidubey said:
Congratulate ourselves on the windfall. Too much talent is rarely a bad thing. But I wouldn't have traded 92. I might not have traded 112.

How in the F we traded about that for Mingo I'll never understand.
Click to expand...


It seems like a heavy resource dump into a non-premium position.
 
In the case of Styles, we're adding a playmaker vs 'only' an ILB.

In the case of Brooks, we're addressing a position that is currently a negative. We've got bad play there, something we can't abide and would clearly be fixing by adding such a veteran. Pick 112 would be high, but I'd be ok with two 5ths instead.

Remember, we are drafting against Dak's window, not only to build our team. That changes some of the urgency.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom