Parcells' draft strategy unpredictable

[Verdict]

I think the best word to describe Parcells' draft strategy might be "unpredictable". Looking at team needs you might get the idea that the Cowboys' first pick might be a safety, offensive lineman, or a linebacker which many posters identify as "needs". This might actually turn out to be the case.

On the other hand, Parcells seems to do his best work when he thinks "outside the box". Last year we needed defensive help. Parcells did get defensive help, but looking at it objectively, he really went overkill on defense because he saw value there. Think about this.....he drafted Ware, Spears, Canty and Ratliff, to play on the defensive line (granted, Ware is a hybrid), but that was after he signed Ferguson to shore up the interior of the line.

One might argue that was overkill. On the other hand, I think Parcells did not draft for need, so much as he drafted the best player available. This is exemplified in his comment that they really "needed" Spears more than any other player, but they waited to take him, because they "knew" that Ware would not last until our second pick. In short they took the BPA over need. Luckily we got both of our targeted players.

Nothing would surprise me on draft day. I could see us trade up, trade down, select a quarterback with the first pick, select a running back with the first pick, or any other number of permutations. I just hope in an attempt to plug holes we dont draft based upon need...take the best player available, regardless of the need.

[Doomsday101]

I think the best word to describe Parcells' draft strategy might be "unpredictable". Looking at team needs you might get the idea that the Cowboys' first pick might be a safety, offensive lineman, or a linebacker which many posters identify as "needs". This might actually turn out to be the case.

On the other hand, Parcells seems to do his best work when he thinks "outside the box". Last year we needed defensive help. Parcells did get defensive help, but looking at it objectively, he really went overkill on defense because he saw value there. Think about this.....he drafted Ware, Spears, Canty and Ratliff, to play on the defensive line (granted, Ware is a hybrid), but that was after he signed Ferguson to shore up the interior of the line.

One might argue that was overkill. On the other hand, I think Parcells did not draft for need, so much as he drafted the best player available. This is exemplified in his comment that they really "needed" Spears more than any other player, but they waited to take him, because they "knew" that Ware would not last until our second pick. In short they took the BPA over need. Luckily we got both of our targeted players.

Nothing would surprise me on draft day. I could see us trade up, trade down, select a quarterback with the first pick, select a running back with the first pick, or any other number of permutations. I just hope in an attempt to plug holes we dont draft based upon need...take the best player available, regardless of the need.

I don't see it that way, Dallas going to a 3-4 they knew they needed a lot of help. As far as BPA I think it is a bit of both BPA that fits your needs, if the BPA is at a position you are strong at it makes no sense to spend more money at the same position when you have other needs. I'm not talking about reaching for players but I do think you can go after BPA that fit your needs.

[Verdict]

I don't see it that way, Dallas going to a 3-4 they knew they needed a lot of help. As far as BPA I think it is a bit of both BPA that fits your needs, if the BPA is at a position you are strong at it makes no sense to spend more money at the same position when you have other needs. I'm not talking about reaching for players but I do think you can go after BPA that fit your needs.

Parcells drafting Ratliff in the late rounds was taking the best player available, pure and simple. Ratliff had nothing to do with team needs. We had already added Spears, Ware, and Canty in the draft. Ellis (a starter) , had just been signed to a contract extension. The odds of Ratliff making the team should have been negligible due to the players in front of him. Parcells saw a good player late and took him. After drafting the other players in front of Ratliff, it is pretty hard to argue that the team's needs were not greater in other areas.

[Doomsday101]

Parcells drafting Ratliff in the late rounds was taking the best player available, pure and simple. Ratliff had nothing to do with team needs. We had already added Spears, Ware, and Canty in the draft. Ellis (a starter) , had just been signed to a contract extension. The odds of Ratliff making the team should have been negligible due to the players in front of him. Parcells saw a good player late and took him. After drafting the other players in front of Ratliff, it is pretty hard to argue that the team's needs were not greater in other areas.

Late round I have no problem with taking the BPA because late round picks are never a sure thing to begin with. But I do think all teams are looking for BPA that fits their needs. With the 18th pick I'm sure they are 4 or 5 players at different position that are worthy of being taken at 18 but need has to play a part.

[Rush 2112]

When you're shifting to a 3-4 you need size and depth up front. We needed Ratliff. What happens if Spears or Canty goes down? Coleman's our savior?

Need pick and a good one.

[Verdict]

If we were drafting based on "need" Parcells would have drafted a true free safety last year, because we have NEEDED one for quite a while now.

Arguably, the drafting of Barriult, proves Parcells was taking the best player available, because he wasn't going to beat out Roy at strong safety. I highly doubt replacing Roy Williams is a high priority.

I guess one might argue that we drafted Barriult in the hopes he could play free safety. I personally think that that he just happened to be the best player available (strong safety) at the time we picked. Then again, reasonable minds might differ.

Then again, I might have misspelled the guy's name, so what do I know. LOL

[AbeBeta]

BPA is sometimes a silly concept -- for example, if you are a 3-4 team and the "BPA" in round 1 is a small outside linebacker then it really isn't the BPA for you. Also, unless there is a real drop off in talent, from one guy to the next, the "BPA" on the draft board is not clear -- usually 4 or 5 guys will be a good value at that position. and usually at least one fits your team and your need.

[Verdict]

When you're shifting to a 3-4 you need size and depth up front. We needed Ratliff. What happens if Spears or Canty goes down? Coleman's our savior?

Need pick and a good one.

Look I'll grant you we always "need" good defensive lineman, and we "need" good depth. But are you trying to tell me we "needed" another defensive lineman more than we "needed" players (like a starting free safety) at other positions when we drafted Ratliff? Come on now.....do you "really" believe that we "needed" Ratliff more than a free safety?

[blindzebra]

Last years draft was one of the most need driven drafts we have ever had.

This debate comes around every year and it is asinine.

There is no such thing as strictly drafting the best available player, it is a myth.

You have two options when your pick comes, take the 2nd, 3rd or 4th BPA that fits a need, or trade down for better value. With roster limits and a salary cap, you cannot draft a player based on talent level, where you have no need in the first two rounds.

[Doomsday101]

If we were drafting based on "need" Parcells would have drafted a true free safety last year, because we have NEEDED one for quite a while now.

Arguably, the drafting of Barriult, proves Parcells was taking the best player available, because he wasn't going to beat out Roy at strong safety. I highly doubt replacing Roy Williams is a high priority.

I guess one might argue that we drafted Barriult in the hopes he could play free safety. I personally think that that he just happened to be the best player available (strong safety) at the time we picked. Then again, reasonable minds might differ.

Then again, I might have misspelled the guy's name, so what do I know. LOL

I'm not saying don't take BPA all I'm saying is need plays a part. Dallas went after Ware because of need and the same with Spears, we did not have to reach for these guys but they were BPA that fit our needs. Day 2 picks going after BPA I have no problem with because as I mentioned many day 2 picks don't make it or are considered projects

[Doomsday101]

Last years draft was one of the most need driven drafts we have ever had.

This debate comes around every year and it is asinine.

There is no such thing as strictly drafting the best available player, it is a myth.

You have two options when your pick comes, take the 2nd, 3rd or 4th BPA that fits a need, or trade down for better value. With roster limits and a salary cap, you cannot draft a player based on talent level, where you have no need in the first two rounds.

Very well said and I agree.

[blindzebra]

Look I'll grant you we always "need" good defensive lineman, and we "need" good depth. But are you trying to tell me we "needed" another defensive lineman more than we "needed" players (like a starting free safety) at other positions when we drafted Ratliff? Come on now.....do you "really" believe that we "needed" Ratliff more than a free safety?

We drafted a FS before we drafted Ratliff.

[AbeBeta]

We drafted a FS before we drafted Ratliff.

too bad he turned out to be an SS

[Doomsday101]

I will say there are some exception to the rule and that is when a team has a played rated very high on their board and for what ever reason that player slides in the draft that team may very well select that player because they think so highly of him despite the fact of need.

[Verdict]

BPA is sometimes a silly concept -- for example, if you are a 3-4 team and the "BPA" in round 1 is a small outside linebacker then it really isn't the BPA for you. Also, unless there is a real drop off in talent, from one guy to the next, the "BPA" on the draft board is not clear -- usually 4 or 5 guys will be a good value at that position. and usually at least one fits your team and your need.


I would argue in that case that he isn't the best player available. Lets not mix the issues. In my view best player available is choosing the best player available in the draft that fits your scheme without regard to team needs.

This is a different concept than trying to figure out what round value a player might have on a draft board, or where that player might be chosen overall. I'm not saying this information is not important, I'm just saying they are totally different issues.

[blindzebra]

I will say there are some exception to the rule and that is when a team has a played rated very high on their board and for what ever reason that player slides in the draft that team may very well select that player because they think so highly of him despite the fact of need.

In later rounds, yes like we did with Witten, but teams not picking very late in the first can't afford to not get a probable starter from their 1st and 2nd round picks.

Teams without major holes can draft BPA regardless of need, the catch is that even the Super Bowl teams in the parody era, have holes.

[Verdict]

Last years draft was one of the most need driven drafts we have ever had.

This debate comes around every year and it is asinine.

There is no such thing as strictly drafting the best available player, it is a myth.

You have two options when your pick comes, take the 2nd, 3rd or 4th BPA that fits a need, or trade down for better value. With roster limits and a salary cap, you cannot draft a player based on talent level, where you have no need in the first two rounds.

You are mixing the two issues. They are not the same. You are dissecting the value of a pick. That is the reason why trading up and down occurs.

I am talking about WHEN you do pick, taking the best player available. Not picking on need.

[Verdict]

We drafted a FS before we drafted Ratliff.

Barriult was projected to be a strong safety in the NFL. I would argue that drafting him was for depth behind Roy and "hoping" he could play a little bit of free safety. I hope I am proven wrong, but that is how I see it.

[Doomsday101]

In later rounds, yes like we did with Witten, but teams not picking very late in the first can't afford to not get a probable starter from their 1st and 2nd round picks.

Teams without major holes can draft BPA regardless of need, the catch is that even the Super Bowl teams in the parody era, have holes.

I agree as a rule of thumb but I also know there are exception to every rule. If Dallas has a player on their board rated very high say a top 10 player and that player slides to 18 then chances are they will take that player.

[Rush 2112]

Ware - Need - Needed speed rusher with ability to play up or down.

Spears - Need - Needed big DE who can play SDE in either schem or go inside some in nickel and 4 man line.

Burnett - Need - Big athletic LB who can play in either scheme (if healthy).

Barber - Need - Needed depth at RB with fragile #1 RB. Solid in pass blocking and catching.

Canty - Need - Needed the guy across from Spears to add size to DL.

Beriault - Need - Needed safety depth no matter if he's a SS or FS because we know Dixon/Scott aren't the answer. He's eventually going to FS IMO.

Ratliff - Need - Needed overall size and depth on the DL as older, 4-3 oriented players are phased out.

[AbeBeta]

I would argue in that case that he isn't the best player available. Lets not mix the issues. In my view best player available is choosing the best player available in the draft that fits your scheme without regard to team needs.


But I think what you are missing is that the entire concept of BPA is based on the idea that teams can clearly make ranking decisions between players -- the truth is that when you hit 18 to 20 or so that so many players are rated similarly that you can't just pick one and say "best player" -- well you could, but it would be naive. if say you have one player ranked an 80 and one an 81 why take the 81 if he is not going to be able to play when the 80 would? the difference between those rankings is so tiny that it doesn't make sense to adhere to the BPA concept in that case. now if you've got one guy who is a 90 and another who is an 80, of course you have to go BPA.

[Verdict]

But I think what you are missing is that the entire concept of BPA is based on the idea that teams can clearly make ranking decisions between players -- the truth is that when you hit 18 to 20 or so that so many players are rated similarly that you can't just pick one and say "best player" -- well you could, but it would be naive. if say you have one player ranked an 80 and one an 81 why take the 81 if he is not going to be able to play when the 80 would? the difference between those rankings is so tiny that it doesn't make sense to adhere to the BPA concept in that case. now if you've got one guy who is a 90 and another who is an 80, of course you have to go BPA.

In one of the examples you give, you are essentially saying that both players (80 & 81) are equal in ability, so you choose the need player over the "best player available. In your other example you are saying one player is truly better than the other by a significant margin, so you choose the best player available.

I think what you are saying is that reaching for a player is ok, so long as it is just a little bit of a reach. Practically speaking, most teams will reach, based upon need, at least to a degree. The better teams don't reach nearly as high, or as often on average as the bad teams do.

It would be absurd to say that if the best players on our board were quarterbacks that we would take seven quarterbacks in the draft, if they were available when we draft. But, ideally, you take the player you need at the value he is worth. Don't reach for picks.

I really advocate taking the best player available, or trading out of the spot. Reaching is not a good option.

Lets look at this subject a different way. Lets say you really need a defensive end badly (like we did for years) and the best player available isn't a defensive end. You can attempt to trade down if the BPA available isn't a defensive end, pick the best player available, or reach for the defensive end. If you choose the BPA you arguably won't be filling the defensive end position that you desperately need to fill, but will acquire a good player with that pick. If you reach, you probably will end up wasting that draft pick and get a subpar player that gets you no where (Kavika Pittman, Shante Carver, et. al.)

[sago1]

I think 05 was a great draft year for us and I credit Parcells, Ireland & even Jones. After draft was over, I didn't think it was so great since I wanted to add a WR, FS, etc,--picking 2 more defensive players in last 2 rounds was disappointing. Came around as I heard more about these guys and their play in TC/preseason games. Now I wouldn't part with Ratliff, Bieraut & even Burnett. They just young guys now but 1-2 years down the road, who knows.

When Parcells drafts, think he decides on need & BPA particularly in early rounds. Ware & Spears fit that mold & so did Burnett w/o the issues Thurman or Tatupi (sp?) brought (don't remember which one had problems). Not going to rehash rest of draft but later rounds were about BPA & no reaching. Parcells didn't intend draft 2 defensive players in later rounds & OT, but he wasn't going to draft a FS just cause the guy was still there. We'd probably have drafted FS cause he was there w/o knowing level of talent, etc. We didn't get the WR or FS we wanted, but Ratliff & Beriaut looked pretty good before they injuried & Pettiti played best he could all things considered. In this draft we got our starters (Ware, Spears & Canty) but also luckily acquired immediate backup like Ratliff (and Pepper Johnson--rookie UFA). That's quite a haul for one draft. When Burnett returns healthy, he probably will win out starting ILB position but not if he can't beat out the competition and Parcells loves competition at all the positions.

Remember we all spent years watching Jerry Jones draft strictly for need or cause he got some bright idea or fell in love with particularly player--most of whom turned out to be worthless. No more of that.

I'm like most of you; love to play the mock draft game & who I can trade with, etc. But we haven't a clue which player will fall to us, who we can trade with to move up/down, etc. Got to have cool nerves to handle that type of pressure with limited time to make decision which has huge effect otn eam's performance. But we can bet we get one player many want, 1-2 players who sound good & several guys we haven't heard of but hope they work out. Hope we have another great draft.

[fortdick]

Ware - Need - Needed speed rusher with ability to play up or down.

Spears - Need - Needed big DE who can play SDE in either schem or go inside some in nickel and 4 man line.

Burnett - Need - Big athletic LB who can play in either scheme (if healthy).

Barber - Need - Needed depth at RB with fragile #1 RB. Solid in pass blocking and catching.

Canty - Need - Needed the guy across from Spears to add size to DL.

Beriault - Need - Needed safety depth no matter if he's a SS or FS because we know Dixon/Scott aren't the answer. He's eventually going to FS IMO.

Ratliff - Need - Needed overall size and depth on the DL as older, 4-3 oriented players are phased out.

We were 6-10! We needed everything!

[Clove]

I'm like most of you; love to play the mock draft game & who I can trade with, etc. But we haven't a clue which player will fall to us, who we can trade with to move up/down, etc. Got to have cool nerves to handle that type of pressure with limited time to make decision which has huge effect otn eam's performance. But we can bet we get one player many want, 1-2 players who sound good & several guys we haven't heard of but hope they work out. Hope we have another great draft.That's because Jerry Jones is not a talent evaluator.

Not many teams would've picked Spears unless they were employing a 3-4 system. We knew San Diego was breathing down our backs and therefore we had to pull the trigger on Ware.

Ware would've been the second choice behind Spears if the Chargers weren't around. Meaning, the BPA was Spears and not Ware.

I completely disagree on BPA. And like the other poster said, you pick the best player available according to your needs. If you need a QB/FS/WR/G, in that order, and the WR is the BPA for your needs, then you pull the trigger on the WR...There you go, the BPA....

I do agree with trading down, if the player you wanted and needed is not there, or you know for sure another team will not select the next player you're interested in, then you trade down. Right now, we have 3 teams that run a 3-4 behind us on the draft board.

So we have to be real careful with trading down if we want DT/or OLB'rs.
If the BPA on any board when it's time to pick 18th is DE Tamba Hali, and right after that is Bobby Carpenter and Manny Lawson or Tapp, and we choose Hali over any of these, BP will be put on a boat, and shipped to peru with sumo underwear on.

[big dog cowboy]

Nothing would surprise me on draft day. I could see us trade up
Not sure that is on the agenda. I am completely opposed to that.

[Verdict]

Not sure that is on the agenda. I am completely opposed to that.

I hear ya. I'm not really high on trading up either, but it would not surprise me, depending what free agents we sign.