Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Mock Draft Thread - 1st page Updated with current roster.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 49, 50, 51 ... 56, 57, 58  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Dallas Cowboys
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
matt79511


Joined: 10 Jul 2011
Posts: 3498
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Football Mensa wrote:
matt79511 wrote:
Football Mensa wrote:
Sobering thought Playmaker....on average only 10 of the 32 first rounders drafted each year start on opening day. We need to defy the odds and have at least our first two picks start.


No, that's not what that means. It means that, no matter how well you draft, rookies can only have so much impact on their team's season, and drafting on the basis of "immediate impact" is silly fan fiction that no team actually employs.



LOL .That's exactly what it means. It takes defying the odds to draft 2 immediate impact rookies. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
rookies can only have so much impact on their team's season


The correct choices can mean playoffs or sitting at home....

Quote:
drafting on the basis of "immediate impact" is silly fan fiction


So you mean drafting Ware wasn't done wiith immediate impact in mind ? Smith ? Mo ? LOL....where do you get this stuff ?


A rookie immediately can immediately start for any of a billion things. Perhaps the team got a true steal. Maybe they had absolutely no one capable on the roster. I don't know. But very few players are starting-caliber out of the gate, and immediately starting is a questionable indicator of future success (see: Nagy, Bill). Teams draft on the basis of long-term future of the franchise. This can illicit picking a player that will immediately start but it's not the only thing in mind like it is with fans.

Mo's a great example, actually. We had Brandon Carr, Mike Jenkins (coming off a solid year), and Orlando Scandrick (signed through 2016). Yes Mo immediately started over Jenkins and Scandrick, but he was he that much better than 2011 Jenkins? Not much, if at all. That decision was made with the assumption that he'd develop into an All-Pro: "We need better corners NOW" was an afterthought. If it were the only determining factor like it is with fans, then they'd have picked Decastro or Barron or Brockers or something.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Football Mensa


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Posts: 621
Location: Texas via Louisiana and I love being Cajun...
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

matt79511 wrote:
Football Mensa wrote:
matt79511 wrote:
Football Mensa wrote:
Sobering thought Playmaker....on average only 10 of the 32 first rounders drafted each year start on opening day. We need to defy the odds and have at least our first two picks start.


No, that's not what that means. It means that, no matter how well you draft, rookies can only have so much impact on their team's season, and drafting on the basis of "immediate impact" is silly fan fiction that no team actually employs.



LOL .That's exactly what it means. It takes defying the odds to draft 2 immediate impact rookies. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
rookies can only have so much impact on their team's season


The correct choices can mean playoffs or sitting at home....

Quote:
drafting on the basis of "immediate impact" is silly fan fiction


So you mean drafting Ware wasn't done wiith immediate impact in mind ? Smith ? Mo ? LOL....where do you get this stuff ?


A rookie immediately can immediately start for any of a billion things. Perhaps the team got a true steal. Maybe they had absolutely no one capable on the roster. I don't know. But very few players are starting-caliber out of the gate, and immediately starting is a questionable indicator of future success (see: Nagy, Bill). Teams draft on the basis of long-term future of the franchise. This can illicit picking a player that will immediately start but it's not the only thing in mind like it is with fans.

Mo's a great example, actually. We had Brandon Carr, Mike Jenkins (coming off a solid year), and Orlando Scandrick (signed through 2016). Yes Mo immediately started over Jenkins and Scandrick, but he was he that much better than 2011 Jenkins? Not much, if at all. That decision was made with the assumption that he'd develop into an All-Pro: "We need better corners NOW" was an afterthought. If it were the only determining factor like it is with fans, then they'd have picked Decastro or Barron or Brockers or something.


Inaccurate. We did need better corners now. 2011 sucked out loud. Or maybe you forgot. Top 10 picks are especially looked upon at providing immediate impact.

Finding two immediate starters again defies the odds in a single draft. Which was my point. So exactly what are you trying to refute or defend ?
_________________
A circle. The direction the Cowboys continue to travel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flyingmonkey30


Moderator
Joined: 04 Mar 2007
Posts: 6680
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You have to look at it both ways. Yeah, you look for your top picks to come in and contribute immediately. But at the same time, you need to take the top guy on your board, even if he won't make an impact for a few seasons. Aaron Rodgers comes to mind
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
matt79511


Joined: 10 Jul 2011
Posts: 3498
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 2:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Football Mensa wrote:
matt79511 wrote:
Football Mensa wrote:
matt79511 wrote:
Football Mensa wrote:
Sobering thought Playmaker....on average only 10 of the 32 first rounders drafted each year start on opening day. We need to defy the odds and have at least our first two picks start.


No, that's not what that means. It means that, no matter how well you draft, rookies can only have so much impact on their team's season, and drafting on the basis of "immediate impact" is silly fan fiction that no team actually employs.



LOL .That's exactly what it means. It takes defying the odds to draft 2 immediate impact rookies. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
rookies can only have so much impact on their team's season


The correct choices can mean playoffs or sitting at home....

Quote:
drafting on the basis of "immediate impact" is silly fan fiction


So you mean drafting Ware wasn't done wiith immediate impact in mind ? Smith ? Mo ? LOL....where do you get this stuff ?


A rookie immediately can immediately start for any of a billion things. Perhaps the team got a true steal. Maybe they had absolutely no one capable on the roster. I don't know. But very few players are starting-caliber out of the gate, and immediately starting is a questionable indicator of future success (see: Nagy, Bill). Teams draft on the basis of long-term future of the franchise. This can illicit picking a player that will immediately start but it's not the only thing in mind like it is with fans.

Mo's a great example, actually. We had Brandon Carr, Mike Jenkins (coming off a solid year), and Orlando Scandrick (signed through 2016). Yes Mo immediately started over Jenkins and Scandrick, but he was he that much better than 2011 Jenkins? Not much, if at all. That decision was made with the assumption that he'd develop into an All-Pro: "We need better corners NOW" was an afterthought. If it were the only determining factor like it is with fans, then they'd have picked Decastro or Barron or Brockers or something.


Inaccurate. We did need better corners now. 2011 sucked out loud. Or maybe you forgot. Top 10 picks are especially looked upon at providing immediate impact.

Finding two immediate starters again defies the odds in a single draft. Which was my point. So exactly what are you trying to refute or defend ?


Newman sucked in 2011. Jenkins played quite well that year, actually, he was just hurt for a lot of it. This board thought very highly of him at the time, and the deal for Claiborne was a legitimate shock.

Of course it defies the odds to get two immediate starters. But immediate impact shouldn't be the driving force in draft decisions nor should it be the primary means of evaluating a draft class.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Football Mensa


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Posts: 621
Location: Texas via Louisiana and I love being Cajun...
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="matt79511"]
Football Mensa wrote:
matt79511 wrote:
Football Mensa wrote:
matt79511 wrote:
Football Mensa wrote:
Sobering thought Playmaker....on average only 10 of the 32 first rounders drafted each year start on opening day. We need to defy the odds and have at least our first two picks start.


No, that's not what that means. It means that, no matter how well you draft, rookies can only have so much impact on their team's season, and drafting on the basis of "immediate impact" is silly fan fiction that no team actually employs.



LOL .That's exactly what it means. It takes defying the odds to draft 2 immediate impact rookies. Rolling Eyes

Quote:
rookies can only have so much impact on their team's season


The correct choices can mean playoffs or sitting at home....

Quote:
drafting on the basis of "immediate impact" is silly fan fiction


So you mean drafting Ware wasn't done wiith immediate impact in mind ? Smith ? Mo ? LOL....where do you get this stuff ?


A rookie immediately can immediately start for any of a billion things. Perhaps the team got a true steal. Maybe they had absolutely no one capable on the roster. I don't know. But very few players are starting-caliber out of the gate, and immediately starting is a questionable indicator of future success (see: Nagy, Bill). Teams draft on the basis of long-term future of the franchise. This can illicit picking a player that will immediately start but it's not the only thing in mind like it is with fans.

Mo's a great example, actually. We had Brandon Carr, Mike Jenkins (coming off a solid year), and Orlando Scandrick (signed through 2016). Yes Mo immediately started over Jenkins and Scandrick, but he was he that much better than 2011 Jenkins? Not much, if at all. That decision was made with the assumption that he'd develop into an All-Pro: "We need better corners NOW" was an afterthought. If it were the only determining factor like it is with fans, then they'd have picked Decastro or Barron or Brockers or something.


Inaccurate. We did need better corners now. 2011 sucked out loud. Or maybe you forgot. Top 10 picks are especially looked upon at providing immediate impact.

Finding two immediate starters again defies the odds in a single draft. Which was my point. So exactly what are you trying to refute or defend ?


Newman sucked in 2011. Jenkins played quite well that year, actually, he was just hurt for a lot of it. This board thought very highly of him at the time, and the deal for Claiborne was a legitimate shock.

Of course it defies the odds to get two immediate starters. But immediate impact shouldn't be the driving force in draft decisions nor should it be the primary means of evaluating a draft class.[/quote]

When you have an aging qb and trying to win now I beg to differ.
_________________
A circle. The direction the Cowboys continue to travel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Football Mensa


Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Posts: 621
Location: Texas via Louisiana and I love being Cajun...
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

flyingmonkey30 wrote:
You have to look at it both ways. Yeah, you look for your top picks to come in and contribute immediately. But at the same time, you need to take the top guy on your board, even if he won't make an impact for a few seasons. Aaron Rodgers comes to mind


Qb's are the exception to the rule because of the position.
_________________
A circle. The direction the Cowboys continue to travel.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SHSTE92


Joined: 08 Jan 2006
Posts: 3524
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/mock-drafts/bucky-brooks/155114

If this guy is right I might dear god...
_________________

Member of the Tank for Jameis Winston Fan Club #Lamest4Jameis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
WizardHawk


Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 10506
Location: Hawkeye State
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SHSTE92 wrote:
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/mock-drafts/bucky-brooks/155114

If this guy is right I might dear god...


My account status says he's wrong.
_________________

Ace5 wrote:
OH GOD ITS ALL OVER THE WALLS.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Nextyearfordaboyz


Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 17328
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

SHSTE92 wrote:
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/mock-drafts/bucky-brooks/155114

If this guy is right I might dear god...


Who knows. I've only seen him play a handful of times, but he has been projected quite high for a man who isn't considered a demon of a pass rusher.

I could see him sliding to the 8-12 range, certainly. 18 seems way too low, though.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
canadaluvsdalla


Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Posts: 3421
Location: Travel-er
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2013 9:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nextyearfordaboyz wrote:
SHSTE92 wrote:
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/mock-drafts/bucky-brooks/155114

If this guy is right I might dear god...


Who knows. I've only seen him play a handful of times, but he has been projected quite high for a man who isn't considered a demon of a pass rusher.

I could see him sliding to the 8-12 range, certainly. 18 seems way too low, though.


When Star Lou. is on his game. It gets messy for the opposing offense. The thing is we just don't see that kind of domination constantly which is my drawback on him. I guess some could call it a motor issue.

But I'd wouldnt be dissapointed if we got him.
_________________

Jason Garrett wrote:
It's not about them, it's about us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Texas_OutLaw7


Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

FF Fanatic

Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 25123
Location: Cowboys Forum ROH Class of '12
PostPosted: Mon Jan 21, 2013 1:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote



2013 Dallas Cowboys Roster

Offense
QB: Tony Romo | Kyle Orton | Nick Stephens
RB: Demarco Murray | Lance Dunbar | Phillip Tanner
FB: Lawrence Vickers | Caleb McSurdy
WR: Dez Bryant | Dwayne Harris | Cole Beasley | Jared Green | Carlton Mitchell
WR: Miles Austin | Danny Coale | Donavon Kemp | Tim Benford | Anthony Armstrong
TE: Jason Witten | James Hanna | Andre Smith | Colin Cochart
LT: Tyron Smith | Darrion Weems
LG: Nate Livings | Ray Dominguez | David Arkin
C: Kevin Kowalski | Mackenzy Bernadeau | Ryan Cook
RG: Ron Leary | Aderious Simmons
RT: Doug Free | Jeremy Parnell

Defense
DE: Demarcus Ware | Alex Albright | Ikponmwosa Igbinosun
DT: Jason Hatcher | Brian Price | Josh Brent | Marcus Spears
DT: Jay Ratliff | Sean Lissemore | Rob Callaway
DE: Tyrone Crawford | Monte Taylor | Ben Bass
OLB: Bruce Carter | Brashton Satele
MLB: Sean Lee | Caleb McSurdy | Cameron Sheffield | Dan Connor
OLB: Kyle Wilber
CB: Brandon Carr | Orlando Scandrick | Vince Agnew
SS: Gerald Sensabaugh | Barry Church
FS: Matt Johnson | Micah Pellerin
CB: Morris Claiborne | Sterling Moore | Brandon Underwood

Special Teams
K: Dan Bailey
P: Chris Jones
LS: Charley Hughlett

Players Not Under Contact

Offense
RB: Felix Jones
WR: Kevin Ogletree
TE: John Phillips
C: Phil Costa
OG: Derrick Dockery

Defense
DL: Victor Butler | Kenyon Coleman | Brian Schaefering | Anthony Spencer
LB: Orie Lemon | Brady Poppinga | Ernie Sims
CB: Michael Coe | Mike Jenkins
S: Eric Frampton | Danny McCray | Charlie Peprah

Special Teams
P: Brian Moorman
LS: L.P. Ladouceur

Red - RFA
Blue- ERFA

This is so far, what I have gathered. Don't get caught up as to what "position" they are in. Does anyone see anything that is amiss? A player who should be there but is not? Hopefully this will help people create their Mock Drafts.
_________________


In Redball I Trust!
The price of progress is trusting the process.
Heart. Leadership. Passion. Will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
DKDALfan


Joined: 18 Mar 2011
Posts: 2446
Location: Denmark
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nextyearfordaboyz wrote:
SHSTE92 wrote:
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2013/mock-drafts/bucky-brooks/155114

If this guy is right I might dear god...


Who knows. I've only seen him play a handful of times, but he has been projected quite high for a man who isn't considered a demon of a pass rusher.

I could see him sliding to the 8-12 range, certainly. 18 seems way too low, though.


Oh god it would be crazy if we could get him.

- But with that said, he is this years best player in my book and I think the longest he ever could slide would be to the Titans at #10. He is such an animal. Him, Ratliff and Ware could be the makes of one of the most disruptive lines in the NFL. I think that Hatcher would be able to play decent at LE (but would probably fit better at DT).

Letulelei could develop to be one of the best DT's in the NFL. If not the best.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Texas_OutLaw7


Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

FF Fanatic

Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 25123
Location: Cowboys Forum ROH Class of '12
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

1. Sam Montgomery, DE, LSU
The Cowboys hired Monte Kiffin and are moving to a 4-3 defense. Anthony Spencer said he would love to play the defensive end position across from DeMarcus Ware, but that's probably not going to happen because Dallas doesn't have the cap space to re-sign him. If Spencer does leave, Dallas may use this selection to find a new complement for Ware. Sam Montgomery makes a ton of sense at this spot.

2. Eric Reid, S, LSU
I've learned that the Cowboys are interested in Eric Reid. He makes sense for them, as the safety position was a major weak point after Barry Church tore his Achilles' tendon. Church was extended prior to the injury, but he's owed less than $1 million next year, so that won't prevent Dallas from picking a safety early.

3. Alvin Bailey, G, Arkansas
The interior of Dallas' offensive line is an abomination. The front office found two downgrades at guard last offseason. Hopefully it finds better players this time around.

4. ????

http://walterfootball.com/draft2013_4.php
_________________


In Redball I Trust!
The price of progress is trusting the process.
Heart. Leadership. Passion. Will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
canadaluvsdalla


Joined: 19 Jan 2011
Posts: 3421
Location: Travel-er
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Texas_OutLaw7 wrote:
1. Sam Montgomery, DE, LSU
The Cowboys hired Monte Kiffin and are moving to a 4-3 defense. Anthony Spencer said he would love to play the defensive end position across from DeMarcus Ware, but that's probably not going to happen because Dallas doesn't have the cap space to re-sign him. If Spencer does leave, Dallas may use this selection to find a new complement for Ware. Sam Montgomery makes a ton of sense at this spot.

2. Eric Reid, S, LSU
I've learned that the Cowboys are interested in Eric Reid. He makes sense for them, as the safety position was a major weak point after Barry Church tore his Achilles' tendon. Church was extended prior to the injury, but he's owed less than $1 million next year, so that won't prevent Dallas from picking a safety early.

3. Alvin Bailey, G, Arkansas
The interior of Dallas' offensive line is an abomination. The front office found two downgrades at guard last offseason. Hopefully it finds better players this time around.

4. ????

http://walterfootball.com/draft2013_4.php


Wait. Where is this source that said the cowboys are interested in Eric Reid? I cant find it anywhere.

and I would cry with pain with the selection of Sam Mot. prob the one guy in the draft I dont want at all.
_________________

Jason Garrett wrote:
It's not about them, it's about us.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Desperado82


Joined: 20 Feb 2010
Posts: 29195
Location: Maryland
PostPosted: Tue Jan 22, 2013 5:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I take walterfootball with a grain of salt...
_________________

^^^Deadpulse
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Dallas Cowboys All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 49, 50, 51 ... 56, 57, 58  Next
Page 50 of 58

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group