****Cowboys 2016 Offseason Thread***

207,471 Views | 2475 Replies | Last: 7 yr ago by jr15aggie
corleoneAg99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
6:09a, 3/23/16
AG
Yeah i disagree. I think this is over analysis.

Tunsil, Ramsey, Bosa, Buckner, Zeke, Goff, Jack, Hargreaves look pretty good at this point. Some more toolsy(Ramsey, Jack) while others just good producers on tape(Bosa, Buckner) but all solid bets to at least be good NFL players.

I'd also personally add Lawson and the WR's to this list but point is, there are certainly more than 2 guys to feel really good about at 4.
Reply Quote
BassCowboy33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to corleoneAg99 • 7:40a, 3/23/16
quote:
Yeah i disagree. I think this is over analysis.

Tunsil, Ramsey, Bosa, Buckner, Zeke, Goff, Jack, Hargreaves look pretty good at this point. Some more toolsy(Ramsey, Jack) while others just good producers on tape(Bosa, Buckner) but all solid bets to at least be good NFL players.

I'd also personally add Lawson and the WR's to this list but point is, there are certainly more than 2 guys to feel really good about at 4.


I'd agree. Much of what we are arguing is semantics. Dallas could take numerous players at #4 and it would still be a solid pick.
Reply Quote
RedlineAg08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BassCowboy33 • 7:50a, 3/23/16
Agreed. Any of the players listed by corleone would be upgrades or at the very least great rotational players early on.
Reply Quote
jr15aggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
3:23p, 3/23/16
AG
I think fear plays a big part picking this high sometimes. Fear that you just can't miss. It's why some of us keep talking about Elliott... sure, #4 is very high for a RB, but he might be the closest thing to "guaranteed not to be a bust".

Fear can be a powerful thing on draft day. Cowboys were afraid of Moss years ago and you never stopped hearing about it (even though they got Greg Ellis who was a heckuva player for many years in Dallas).

Reply Quote
corleoneAg99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
4:55p, 3/23/16
AG
Their behavior towards the position makes me believe they want their investment to be in the OL; not RB1.

And I really agree with that. What's the point of having a first rounder OL if you then feel you also need to have a stud RB1. And I think it's terrible reasoning just to use a high pick on one basically because you feel the variance/floor is much lower for the guy versus the other guys in play.

If you can get a Booker or Procise or Dixon in the 3rd or 4th then great...but taking a RB that high is a poor use of resources and I think they agree. RB and OL were really the only position groups last year that weren't part of the issues they had.

Reply Quote
1 edit
Post removed:
by user
In reply to corleoneAg99 • 5:27p, 3/23/16
Orlando Ayala Cant Read
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
12:11p, 3/24/16
AG
So compared to many other teams how much has Dallas actually improved their existing roster so far this offseason?

Looks like they have a lot of faith in themselves to hit on those premium first 3 round picks.
Reply Quote
jr15aggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Orlando Ayala Cant Read • 12:20p, 3/24/16
AG
quote:
So compared to many other teams how much has Dallas actually improved their existing roster so far this offseason?
What's funny is how it's impossible to tell right now which teams have really improved. For example, a team thinks it improves by signing player A to a free agent contract. However, the team player A just left thinks they improved because they didn't feel player A was worth the money and they spent their cap savings getting players B, C & D at the same price for player A.

Wait and see.
Reply Quote
misterguinness
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:26p, 3/24/16
AG
With RGIII going to Cleveland, Wentz might be available at #4
Reply Quote
corleoneAg99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Orlando Ayala Cant Read • 1:27p, 3/24/16
AG
quote:
So compared to many other teams how much has Dallas actually improved their existing roster so far this offseason?

Looks like they have a lot of faith in themselves to hit on those premium first 3 round picks.

They absolutely do because they think they are healthy Romo and a good draft away from 2014. I don't really agree but I'm pretty sure that's what they think.

Thornton was a really nice add but the Robinson miss stings a little. He would have been a nice non first wave FA who graded pretty decently.

Funny thing is that while I think Thornton is good at what he does, he also plays the position that is deepest in this upcoming draft...interior DL. One strategy could have been to spend in FA in areas where the draft is more shallow(edge rush, safety, for example) knowing you could easily get a day 1 starter at 5 tech to play next to Crawford in the second or even third round.

Reply Quote
1
Macarthur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to misterguinness • 2:09p, 3/24/16
quote:
With RGIII going to Cleveland, Wentz might be available at #4

Wentz was getting high marks today on twitter for his proday.
Reply Quote
corleoneAg99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
5:17p, 3/24/16
AG
Schefter saying that RGIII has no impact on CLE draft plans which makes sense.
Reply Quote
jr15aggie
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to misterguinness • 6:38p, 3/24/16
AG
quote:
With RGIII going to Cleveland, Wentz might be available at #4


But is Wentz better than Goff? So hard to figure out. Can we just luck into another Romo please!
Reply Quote
BassCowboy33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
1:49a, 3/25/16
Griffin might be Cleveland's 3rd QB or they might want to let Wentz sit for a year or two.
Reply Quote
corleoneAg99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
7:39a, 3/25/16
AG
McShay has them going Bosa and then Connor Cook and IMO Cook is a terrible pick. If you pass on QB at 4 just take Hogan or Allen on day 3. Connor Cook has AJ McCarron written all over him.
Reply Quote
1
Macarthur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to corleoneAg99 • 10:46a, 3/25/16
quote:
McShay has them going Bosa and then Connor Cook and IMO Cook is a terrible pick. If you pass on QB at 4 just take Hogan or Allen on day 3. Connor Cook has AJ McCarron written all over him.

The Cowboys?

Yeah, that sequence does not excite me at all.
Reply Quote
misterguinness
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to corleoneAg99 • 12:01p, 3/25/16
AG
quote:
McShay has them going Bosa and then Connor Cook and IMO Cook is a terrible pick. If you pass on QB at 4 just take Hogan or Allen on day 3. Connor Cook has AJ McCarron written all over him.


What's wrong with McCarron?
Reply Quote
BassCowboy33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to corleoneAg99 • 12:44p, 3/25/16
quote:
McShay has them going Bosa and then Connor Cook and IMO Cook is a terrible pick. If you pass on QB at 4 just take Hogan or Allen on day 3. Connor Cook has AJ McCarron written all over him.


Connor Cook is not as good as McCarron. Once you get past pick 35, where quarterbacks go becomes highly unpredictable. They should a round number on those guys and stick with it.
Reply Quote
BassCowboy33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to misterguinness • 12:45p, 3/25/16
quote:
quote:
McShay has them going Bosa and then Connor Cook and IMO Cook is a terrible pick. If you pass on QB at 4 just take Hogan or Allen on day 3. Connor Cook has AJ McCarron written all over him.


What's wrong with McCarron?


Not much. He performed well in his limited action, especially considering the circumstances. He would've won a playoff game as well had it not been for the defensive penalties.
Reply Quote
JAggie2007
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BassCowboy33 • 12:49p, 3/25/16
AG
quote:
quote:
quote:
McShay has them going Bosa and then Connor Cook and IMO Cook is a terrible pick. If you pass on QB at 4 just take Hogan or Allen on day 3. Connor Cook has AJ McCarron written all over him.


What's wrong with McCarron?


Not much. He performed well in his limited action, especially considering the circumstances. He would've won a playoff game as well had it not been for the defensive penalties.
And Jeremy Hill just fumbling the ball.
Reply Quote
corleoneAg99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to misterguinness • 1:15p, 3/25/16
AG
quote:
quote:
McShay has them going Bosa and then Connor Cook and IMO Cook is a terrible pick. If you pass on QB at 4 just take Hogan or Allen on day 3. Connor Cook has AJ McCarron written all over him.


What's wrong with McCarron?


Nothing if you're looking for a backup. I just don't think that's a good use of a second round pick.
Reply Quote
corleoneAg99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BassCowboy33 • 1:17p, 3/25/16
AG
quote:
quote:
McShay has them going Bosa and then Connor Cook and IMO Cook is a terrible pick. If you pass on QB at 4 just take Hogan or Allen on day 3. Connor Cook has AJ McCarron written all over him.


Connor Cook is not as good as McCarron. Once you get past pick 35, where quarterbacks go becomes highly unpredictable. They should a round number on those guys and stick with it.


They look remarkably similar to me. And either way, both are guys who look like competent backups instead of starters to groom.
Reply Quote
Orlando Ayala Cant Read
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:03p, 3/25/16
AG
if you are going to pass up one of those 1st round QBs at #4 it means you are playing for now. by taking a guy like Cook in the 2nd you are then saying "oh well maybe we are changing our mind a bit and will go ahead and take a QB".

either take one of those top QBs at #4 OR don't take a QB at all and stack your roster with your top 3 picks who can come in on day one and play a lot in addition to adding depth. they need to add quality guys at LB and secondary at the very least.
Reply Quote
misterguinness
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to corleoneAg99 • 2:24p, 3/25/16
AG
quote:
quote:
quote:
McShay has them going Bosa and then Connor Cook and IMO Cook is a terrible pick. If you pass on QB at 4 just take Hogan or Allen on day 3. Connor Cook has AJ McCarron written all over him.


Connor Cook is not as good as McCarron. Once you get past pick 35, where quarterbacks go becomes highly unpredictable. They should a round number on those guys and stick with it.


They look remarkably similar to me. And either way, both are guys who look like competent backups instead of starters to groom.
I think a majority of the board would view McCarron as a quality starter. Why do you think the Bengals are refusing to trade him? I think that unless Dalton wins a playoff game this year, he's out and McCarron is in.
Reply Quote
Macarthur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:32p, 3/25/16
Let's tap the brakes on McCarron being a 'quality' starter. He's shown that he can, at least, be a good back up in the league, but he's not earned the right to be called 'quality starter' yet, IMO.

The guy has 119 career attempts.
Reply Quote
RedlineAg08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
2:33p, 3/25/16
No but he seemed competent. Osweiler just got paid 38million for seeming competant..
Reply Quote
Ag Natural
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Macarthur • 3:12p, 3/25/16
AG
quote:
Let's tap the brakes on McCarron being a 'quality' starter. He's shown that he can, at least, be a good back up in the league, but he's not earned the right to be called 'quality starter' yet, IMO.

The guy has 119 career attempts.
He's done a lot more than any QB in this draft.
Reply Quote
BassCowboy33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to misterguinness • 3:23p, 3/25/16
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
McShay has them going Bosa and then Connor Cook and IMO Cook is a terrible pick. If you pass on QB at 4 just take Hogan or Allen on day 3. Connor Cook has AJ McCarron written all over him.


Connor Cook is not as good as McCarron. Once you get past pick 35, where quarterbacks go becomes highly unpredictable. They should a round number on those guys and stick with it.


They look remarkably similar to me. And either way, both are guys who look like competent backups instead of starters to groom.
I think a majority of the board would view McCarron as a quality starter. Why do you think the Bengals are refusing to trade him? I think that unless Dalton wins a playoff game this year, he's out and McCarron is in.


I'll say he has potential. He needs to get a couple seasons under his belt first.
Reply Quote
Macarthur
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Ag Natural • 3:24p, 3/25/16
quote:
quote:
Let's tap the brakes on McCarron being a 'quality' starter. He's shown that he can, at least, be a good back up in the league, but he's not earned the right to be called 'quality starter' yet, IMO.

The guy has 119 career attempts.
He's done a lot more than any QB in this draft.

I would not say 119 career attempts is A LOT. I would agree that he's shown that he can be a decent to good backup. That is all.

Not saying he won't be a good starter; just that 119 attempts does not give you enough data.
Reply Quote
RedlineAg08
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to Macarthur • 3:25p, 3/25/16
I think he was referring to his college career.
Reply Quote
corleoneAg99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to misterguinness • 3:45p, 3/25/16
AG
Then i disagree with a majority of the board. He's JAG...and if the NFL saw him as more then I'd bet we'd see some chatter about them trading him because Dalton is clearly the guy.

Reply Quote
misterguinness
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to corleoneAg99 • 5:14p, 3/25/16
AG
quote:
Then i disagree with a majority of the board. He's JAG...and if the NFL saw him as more then I'd bet we'd see some chatter about them trading him because Dalton is clearly the guy.



I already addressed this point. Again, Dalton has yet to show he's the man. Decent regular season guy who is craptastic in the playoffs. This is the reason that McCarron isn't being shopped in a year they could receive a lot in return. Hue even said they won't listen to offers which means other teams asked.
Reply Quote
BassCowboy33
User Profile
Private Message
Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to corleoneAg99 • 5:55p, 3/25/16
quote:
Then i disagree with a majority of the board. He's JAG...and if the NFL saw him as more then I'd bet we'd see some chatter about them trading him because Dalton is clearly the guy


Nah, nobody is going to willfully bite on something like that four games into a career. He's been good when he's played, but that's it. It takes a bit time for a kid to be fully evaluated. Lots of kids succeed early. It's the sustained success that will help him in the long run. His career arc will have to follow an Elvis Grbac, Matt Schaub, or Steve Buerlein. Those guys were entrenched behind the starters and used their backup status to work their way into starting jobs with other teams over a several year span. If McCarron can put together a solid 10-15 games over the next couple years, then he will be worth looking at or he could just be a Chase Daniel/Colt McCoy (aka quarterbacks with limitations that succeed despite them).
Reply Quote
corleoneAg99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to misterguinness • 6:42p, 3/25/16
AG
quote:
quote:
Then i disagree with a majority of the board. He's JAG...and if the NFL saw him as more then I'd bet we'd see some chatter about them trading him because Dalton is clearly the guy.



I already addressed this point. Again, Dalton has yet to show he's the man. Decent regular season guy who is craptastic in the playoffs. This is the reason that McCarron isn't being shopped in a year they could receive a lot in return. Hue even said they won't listen to offers which means other teams asked.



Disagree "they could get a lot in return"...too many teams who need QB's yet crickets on teams going after McCarron.

And for obvious reasons. He's a guy. If you're looking for a reliable backup that's great but you don't use second round picks on them and you don't trade for them using premium picks. That's really the point.
Reply Quote
corleoneAg99
User Profile Ignore User Stop Ignoring
How long do you want to ignore this user?
24 hours One week Permanently Cancel
In reply to BassCowboy33 • 6:44p, 3/25/16
AG
quote:
quote:
Then i disagree with a majority of the board. He's JAG...and if the NFL saw him as more then I'd bet we'd see some chatter about them trading him because Dalton is clearly the guy


Nah, nobody is going to willfully bite on something like that four games into a career. He's been good when he's played, but that's it. It takes a bit time for a kid to be fully evaluated. Lots of kids succeed early. It's the sustained success that will help him in the long run. His career arc will have to follow an Elvis Grbac, Matt Schaub, or Steve Buerlein. Those guys were entrenched behind the starters and used their backup status to work their way into starting jobs with other teams over a several year span. If McCarron can put together a solid 10-15 games over the next couple years, then he will be worth looking at or he could just be a Chase Daniel/Colt McCoy (aka quarterbacks with limitations that succeed despite them).


Yup...he's a guy right now. High side is Schaub when ATL traded him and he's pretty far from that. Again the point is you don't use premium picks on JAGs.
Reply Quote
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.