Doesn't that just mean Jimmy is the starter until the guy they draft at #3 is ready?

Maybe. But trading up to 3 to take your backup is some hella mixed messaging for Jimmy G. You aren't still "the guy" of your heir apparent is right there and you just traded away draft capital like that

"this year"

Jimmy G is out. He can't rise to the next level and SF wants to be competitive now.

That being said please draft Surtain!

Hope the Cowboys can make a move for Jarran Reed since he got released. Need a DT in the worst way

I'm just not feeling good about drafting a CB at 10. That position is deep in this draft. That being said, I see three true freaks at the top. Sewell, Parsons and Pitts. If any of those guys are available I think you have to take him.

Ag Natural said:

---

I'm just not feeling good about drafting a CB at 10. That position is deep in this draft. That being said, I see three true freaks at the top. Sewell, Parsons and Pitts. If any of those guys are available I think you have to take him.

---

If Sewell or Parsons are there, you run the card up to Goodell. If Pitts is there and the other two aren't I trade down. Try and get another 2nd and more. You could move down in the first and still get one of Horn/Farley/Surtain/Newsome in the first with options in the 2nd and 3rd that seem pretty solid.

I'd be fine with Sewell & Pitts being the pick but I would not take Parsons over Horn/Surtain. CB is way more of a premium position than LB & if both players are closely graded I take the CB every single time, especially if it's a major need.

Agreed. Ag Nat was correct, it is a fairly deep CB draft, but you absolutely take one of the top CBs over a LB. Good chance we'll take 2 CBs so 10 is a great place to start.

Agree with the above. Parsons is obviously a freak, but the more you read, there are some question marks about him. I've seen some folks say his motor doesn't run 'all the time'.

It just makes too much sense to go CB.

Pitts is an interesting one. I acknowledge he is pretty much a unicorn, but I would have to swallow really hard to take a TE at 10. If we had gone out and got one of the top CBs in FA, I might feel better, but while CB is deep, the diff in CB at 10 and HAVING to take a CB in the second is a significant gap.

Sewell is an interesting one, too. I think you go ahead and take him, but you take an OT at 10 and put him at guard for a year? That seems odd....


My dream scenario would be to get one of the CBs at 10, and for some reason (highly unlikely), Barmore gets lost in the shuffle a bit and falls and we jump back up and take him. I've been talking about Barmore for a while...I think he's a guy that is probably coming out a year early, but if he stayed another year at Bama, he would be a top 5 pick next year. I think his future is very bright. So if you have a chance to get a guy like that later in the first, I"m all over that.

He's a guy that I think mock drafts are wrong about & I don't see him getting past Green Bay at 29. He'd be a perfect fit under Aaron Rodgers so for the Cowboys sake I hope someone else takes him.

Macarthur said:

---

My dream scenario would be to get one of the CBs at 10, and for some reason (highly unlikely), Barmore gets lost in the shuffle a bit and falls and we jump back up and take him.

---

Trading 44 + 75 should get us to the backend of the 1st round. I wonder if a team would take 44 + 115 + 2022 2nd rounder. I'd do the second trade in a heartbeat if it meant getting a defensive starter.

5 qbs will be taken in top 10. That's going to make it hard for both cbs to be taken before 10. I think Mac Jones is perfect for New England. Trading back a few for more picks might be possible. We'd probably still get one of two. If not, we gamble on Farley. He's still going first round.

I would have Farley crossed off my list. I do not like back problem history. That is asking for trouble. Those things are never the same once you start cutting on them

Farley has had previous back procedures and just had another after not playing football all year.

He's off my board in the first 2 rounds. Do not want.

jr15aggie said:

---

Farley has had previous back procedures and just had another after not playing football all year.

He's off my board in the first 2 rounds. Do not want.

---

most mocks still have him going first round

Yeah, still no. 2 back surgeries in a year. Backs don't ever really heal. They just bandaid the current impingement by removing part of the disc until the next time (which for a guy playing a high speed collision sport is basically inevitable), all while he has less and less disc with each procedure. We've taken enough injury risks in the 1st 2 rounds. LVE can't stay on the field. Taking Farley would be looney

Yeah I'm gonna be pissed if they take Farley. Surtain and Horn should both be better prospects at this point.

Surtain is the obvious choice; much like Jalen Ramsey was...

PooDoo said:

---

What do you mean? Surtain isnt the consensus CB1 like Ramsey was.

---

agree 100%

Quote:

---

Pitts is an interesting one. I acknowledge he is pretty much a unicorn, but I would have to swallow really hard to take a TE at 10.

---

Pitts is a guy I've been thinking more about. I 100% agree about how you don't take TE's in the top 10 and this team in particular needs top end & young talent on the D.

But..... if Pitts is one of those transcendent players it's hard to pass that up. Looking at how active Dalton Shultz was last year, imagine how crazy productive Pitts would be (assuming his game flawlessly translates into the NFL). Keeping our offense on the field and eating clock is one of the best things we can do for our defense and Pitts would be an absolute nightmare on 3rd downs.


I'm not saying it's what they should do, I'm not even sure if I would do it, but what I am saying is I won't be able to fault the Cowboys if Pitts fall and they pull the trigger. And with all this moving and shaking up top for QBs, Pitts very well could be there at #10.

jr15aggie said:

---

Quote:

---

Pitts is an interesting one. I acknowledge he is pretty much a unicorn, but I would have to swallow really hard to take a TE at 10.

---

Pitts is a guy I've been thinking more about. I 100% agree about how you don't take TE's in the top 10 and this team in particular needs top end & young talent on the D.

But..... if Pitts is one of those transcendent players it's hard to pass that up. Looking at how active Dalton Shultz was last year, imagine how crazy productive Pitts would be (assuming his game flawlessly translates into the NFL). Keeping our offense on the field and eating clock is one of the best things we can do for our defense and Pitts would be an absolute nightmare on 3rd downs.


I'm not saying it's what they should do, I'm not even sure if I would do it, but what I am saying is I won't be able to fault the Cowboys if Pitts fall and they pull the trigger. And with all this moving and shaking up top for QBs, Pitts very well could be there at #10.

---

Yeah, I see all the matchup issues so If they believe he's all that....do it.

I will say this, if you are going to take Pitts at 10, I would really hope they try to use a resource like Gallup to help maybe move up later in the draft to get an extra pick for D.

Let's say Pitts is there and he's the pick. Could you package a 2nd and Gallup back up in the late first to get one of the CBs or someone like Barmore?

TEs aren't usually drafted high but I'd argue they should be. An elite tight end is one of the biggest advantages a team can gain.

105.3 guys think the 2nd + comp might be enough.

The way the Cowboys have been getting comp picks, might as well let Gallup sign with someone as a F/A and get a comp pick.

PooDoo said:

---

105.3 guys think the 2nd + comp might be enough.

The way the Cowboys have been getting comp picks, might as well let Gallup sign with someone as a F/A and get a comp pick.

---

Sure, buy would be nice to get help this year. Esp since it's a deep DB draft.

Macarthur said:

---

PooDoo said:

---

105.3 guys think the 2nd + comp might be enough.

The way the Cowboys have been getting comp picks, might as well let Gallup sign with someone as a F/A and get a comp pick.

---

Sure, buy would be nice to get help this year. Esp since it's a deep DB draft.

---

We have 4 top 100 picks... I definitely like being aggressive if one of our top guys falls within range. If that's your guy, then move up and go get him! Especially this year when it has been much harder to evaluate players... find the ones you really feel good about and make it happen!


But I really do think Gallop is a moving piece for next year. We can get out of Coopers deal after this year and that gives us lots of options for our offense. Going back to Pitts, if we landed him at 10, I could easily see us letting Cooper go next year, re-signing Gallop and still have money left over. Roll out in '22 with Pitts, Gallop, Lamb.... pretty salty group.

I'm curious why you think we should let cooper walk. His contract is going to be more affordable as each year passes. He is still young and his speed and route running will make things open up so much more for Pitts.

I like Gallup as much as anyone, but he's is not on the level of a Cooper. A group with Lamb, Cooper & Pitts is much better than Lamb, Gallup & Pitts.

Macarthur said:

---

I'm curious why you think we should let cooper walk. His contract is going to be more affordable as each year passes. He is still young and his speed and route running will make things open up so much more for Pitts.

I like Gallup as much as anyone, but he's is not on the level of a Cooper. A group with Lamb, Cooper & Pitts is much better than Lamb, Gallup & Pitts.

---

I don't necessarily think we should move on from Cooper... I'm just playing on the fact that we have options next year and that's a good thing when talking about the salary cap.

As a hypothetical... say Pitts falls to 10 (I think that's 50/50 at this point). Say he's the #3 prospect on the Cowboys board and we take him regardless of our defensive needs. Pitts has a monster rookie year but we go into the off-season still needing defensive help. In this scenario I think we might feel OK getting rid of Cooper's 20 million... giving Gallop, I dunno, 10 mil?... and using the rest to get some help on the D. You'd obviously prefer to keep Cooper, but the emergence of Pitts makes Cooper expendable on the salary cap alter.


But I do agree that Gallup is a pretty good WR and Cooper is a special WR.

Pitts can't block. We spent 1st round picks on WR the past two years. Slater would be a better pick than pitts but the first 3 picks should be all defense.

Neither can our LG.

He's not a dominant blocker but saying he can't isn't correct.

Yeah, I've read that Pitts isn't an awful blocker. He just wasn't asked to do it much.