Bill Polian praises Morris Claiborne

[Deep_Freeze]

Originally Posted by Idgit

It wasn't a slam-dunk, but it wasn't a mistake, either. Wagner wasn't a position of need for us, so, while it'd be great to have him, it wasn't an obvious personnel move to make. The goal is to get your draft position to match you need in situations where there's a high-value player on the board. We definitely did that at CB at 6 this year. We just also happened to have needs for pass rushers and OLs, too.

As long as we're filling spots with players who can play, we're doing what we need to do on the personnel front. The rest of it comes down to coaching and execution. Elite organizations have to do a great job at both.

Yeah, what I do like is that the FO is finally showing the ability to override needs for the BPA. Sure Wagner wasn't a position of need, but it is easily seen now that he was a great player to get in that spot of the draft and a sign the FO finally gets it. You have a successful draft by picking BPA the later you pick then adjusting your roster according to who you got, not by reaching for a position when the talent isn't there while on the clock.

Alot of times people will say 'I would've taken such and such' after a pick, but they don't have the data that the FO has on a player or how we graded them for our system. I would much rather see this FO lean towards getting the most talented player on this team according to their grades than someone who they have graded lower but plays a position of need.

[Risen Star]

Originally Posted by Idgit

It wasn't a slam-dunk, but it wasn't a mistake, either. Wagner wasn't a position of need for us, so, while it'd be great to have him, it wasn't an obvious personnel move to make. The goal is to get your draft position to match you need in situations where there's a high-value player on the board. We definitely did that at CB at 6 this year. We just also happened to have needs for pass rushers and OLs, too.

As long as we're filling spots with players who can play, we're doing what we need to do on the personnel front. The rest of it comes down to coaching and execution. Elite organizations have to do a great job at both.

Thank you, Mr. Jones.

The draft goal isn't to match anything. It's to get the best value with your picks. This isn't veteran free agency and no matter how many times you need proponents try to repackage it, it's never a good idea to draft with need being the focus.

What we did last year was completely waste a 2nd round pick. Brockers and Wagner was by far the better value, if that was truly their plan B. Of course I'd argue we got the least amount of bang for our buck with the 1st rounder too. Since I don't believe Claiborne will ever be an impact player.

Basically if you asked me before that draft what could the Cowboys do to get the least out of their first two picks my answer would have been that trade up for that player.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Risen Star

Thank you, Mr. Jones.

The draft goal isn't to match anything. It's to get the best value with your picks...

How do you propose getting the best value with your picks if you don't match available talent with need? Stacking guys who can play behind your starters when there's comparable talent at positions of need makes zero sense. It's an obvious recipe for not helping your roster enough.

You need to 1. evaluate your positions of need properly. 2. evaluate available players properly and project them to how you can get them ready to play in your schemes and 3. maneuver to try to get 1 meeting 2 as much as you possibly can. If you just do 1 and 2, you put yourself at a competitive disadvantage to the teams who can do all three properly.

Call me stubborn, but I think you're really just stuck on the fact that you don't think the team did item 1 properly last offseason, honestly.

[Risen Star]

Originally Posted by Idgit

How do you propose getting the best value with your picks if you don't match available talent with need? Stacking guys who can play behind your starters when there's comparable talent at positions of need makes zero sense. It's an obvious recipe for not helping your roster enough.

Sure it makes no sense when there's comparable talent. That's not what I said. But it makes perfect sense to stockpile talent at a position that isn't a pressing need at the time if your board dictates it. You're just too short sighted and acting on extremes. You'll often have a cluster of players with similar grades where need can factor in, but in those instances where there is one clear cut better player on the board you take him and don't think twice about need or first year impact.

Fill your needs in free agency. The draft is about acquiring talent for the future. You're building your base for years you can't even see yet.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Risen Star

Sure it makes no sense when there's comparable talent. That's not what I said. But it makes perfect sense to stockpile talent at a position that isn't a pressing need at the time if your board dictates it. You're just too short sighted and acting on extremes....

You're just wrong here, and I'm not even talking about situations where ther'es comparable talent. You score the players on your roster, you score the available players in the draft, and you try to maneuver to where you're getting the best upgrade in terms of available talent. If you just stick to your board, you can end up taking a higher-rated player who doesn't deliver the impact you otherwise could have gotten with your pick.

I also don't agree that you differentiate acquiring talent between the draft and free agency. The process is the same: you evaluate your roster, then evaluate what's available and project it for your team. College player evaluations are trickier because, in addition to looking at how they fit immediately, there's an additional variable in how you expect that player to develop, and, I guess, that you can get players at premium positions for a first contract with a less significant cap hit early, but, otherwise, there's not that much difference. You just evaluate which picks could get you the most impact relative to where you are before the pick, and then get in position to take those players when you can.

[Deep_Freeze]

Originally Posted by Idgit

You're just wrong here, and I'm not even talking about situations where ther'es comparable talent. You score the players on your roster, you score the available players in the draft, and you try to maneuver to where you're getting the best upgrade in terms of available talent. If you just stick to your board, you can end up taking a higher-rated player who doesn't deliver the impact you otherwise could have gotten with your pick.

[View Full Quote]I also don't agree that you differentiate acquiring talent between the draft and free agency. The process is the same: you evaluate your roster, then evaluate what's available and project it for your team. College player evaluations are trickier because, in addition to looking at how they fit immediately, there's an additional variable in how you expect that player to develop, and, I guess, that you can get players at premium positions for a first contract with a less significant cap hit early, but, otherwise, there's not that much difference. You just evaluate which picks could get you the most impact relative to where you are before the pick, and then get in position to take those players when you can.

I do have to agree with both of you, but in different areas though.

Idgit, the way you lay out drafting and free agency is exactly the way to mess up a draft, and the draft and free agency period have to be treated differently. If you treat them the same, you will let too much need creep up in your draft and automatically cause you to reach for positions, a very bad thing to do in the draft cause its where you get your talent base. Now in free agency, need is the highest thing cause these are your immediate fill-ins for your roster and have probably already reached their projected playing ability.

Now I do think Mo was more value than Brockers and Wagner, for his potential and position he plays alone. Mo has the potential to be an All-Pro at a premium position, and that outweighs a 3-4 DE and ILB in terms of value cause we are talking about during draft time when they weren't even close in value. Easy to say in hindsight they were similar value, but if we could look at everything in hindsight I would be a billionaire.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by Deep_Freeze

I do have to agree with both of you, but in different areas though.

Idgit, the way you lay out drafting and free agency is exactly the way to mess up a draft, and the draft and free agency period have to be treated differently. If you treat them the same, you will let too much need creep up in your draft and automatically cause you to reach for positions, a very bad thing to do in the draft cause its where you get your talent base. Now in free agency, need is the highest thing cause these are your immediate fill-ins for your roster and have probably already reached their projected playing ability.

[View Full Quote]Now I do think Mo was more value than Brockers and Wagner, for his potential and position he plays alone. Mo has the potential to be an All-Pro at a premium position, and that outweighs a 3-4 DE and ILB in terms of value cause we are talking about during draft time when they weren't even close in value. Easy to say in hindsight they were similar value, but if we could look at everything in hindsight I would be a billionaire.

Well said.

Free Agency is only about need. A team wouldn't sign a Free Agent if it was not a need.

In the draft, you can't draft only based on need, but the term BPA is an over-simplification of the process.

What's the chance that the Cowboys highest rated available player is not at a position of need? I guess the positions of lowest need would be ILB, CB, QB and maybe WR.

Looking at the 2013 draft prospects, about the only players that might fall to the Cowboys at one of these lower-need positions would be Te'o or Alec Ogletree at ILB. Let's say that the Cowboys have #20 and Te'o falls to that pick. There is a high probability that some teams at #21 to #32 are going to be making some good trade offers to move up and take that player. If they don't get a good trade offer, then they should take Te'o and they would have truly taken the BPA; however, the probability of this happening is low, IMO.

Summary:
BPA sounds like a good theory, but in practice, teams rarely have to make the choice of taking the best player at a position of low-need.

[Deep_Freeze]

Originally Posted by xwalker

Well said.

Free Agency is only about need. A team wouldn't sign a Free Agent if it was not a need.

In the draft, you can't draft only based on need, but the term BPA is an over-simplification of the process.

What's the chance that the Cowboys highest rated available player is not at a position of need? I guess the positions of lowest need would be ILB, CB, QB and maybe WR.

Looking at the 2013 draft prospects, about the only players that might fall to the Cowboys at one of these lower-need positions would be Te'o or Alec Ogletree at ILB. Let's say that the Cowboys have #20 and Te'o falls to that pick. There is a high probability that some teams at #21 to #32 are going to be making some good trade offers to move up and take that player. If they don't get a good trade offer, then they should take Te'o and they would have truly taken the BPA; however, the probability of this happening is low, IMO.

[View Full Quote]Summary:
BPA sounds like a good theory, but in practice, teams rarely have to make the choice of taking the best player at a position of low-need.

Yeah we agree, I do mean BPA with need becoming more important the higher the pick is in the draft. A 1st rounder has to have a combo of both need and BPA while a 7th rounder just has to be the BPA cause at that point your really just looking for someone who can stick on the roster. As you point out, you can't just duplicate positions, but need shouldn't be the main component in any draft.

Drafts have much better results when you have more BPA in the draft than need, although need has to be a component also the earlier you pick.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by Deep_Freeze

...you will let too much need creep up in your draft and automatically cause you to reach for positions.

It doesn't invite letting need creep in because you're drafting for value and not need. It's not that you'd disregard a better player in order to take, say, an OG because an OG would fill a greater need on your immediate team. It's that you'd move to get proper value for your slot if you thought you could get the OG later and add a pick for your team.

Conversely, the Claiborne pick was one where we found the cost to move up was less than the incremental value adding Mo gave us, so the move up made a ton of sense.

It means building an organization with a competitive advantage in evaluating players, both from college, on your own roster, and in veteran FA, but if that's a strength of your team, you need to do it.

[Deep_Freeze]

Originally Posted by Idgit

It doesn't invite letting need creep in because you're drafting for value and not need. It's not that you'd disregard a better player in order to take, say, an OG because an OG would fill a greater need on your immediate team. It's that you'd move to get proper value for your slot if you thought you could get the OG later and add a pick for your team.

Conversely, the Claiborne pick was one where we found the cost to move up was less than the incremental value adding Mo gave us, so the move up made a ton of sense.

It means building an organization with a competitive advantage in evaluating players, both from college, on your own roster, and in veteran FA, but if that's a strength of your team, you need to do it.

Your talking about the trade here, and I can understand what your saying cause he was hard on Mo. We are saying similar things, just different wording, I would say BPA and value being similar terms for a given draft pick, while need would be the OG scenario you laid out. Value would be the more in-between term adding need into the equation, and the earlier in the draft you are, the more need is in the equation.

[TwentyOne]

Originally Posted by CATCH17

The thing about Claiborne is he is super raw. The guy is getting it done on pure athletic ability.

No offense but if thats what you think then you do not have the slightest understanding of CB play.

This kid is as natural of a CB as they come. He is very smooth in his hips and has a sense for the motion of his opposing WR. And to achieve that it not only takes ability that takes hard work.

I don't want to stress the T-New comparisson. But he aint no competition. T-New was/is a pure athlete with no CB abilities with stiff hips and above average technique. Mo Claiborne has really good technique with good athletic abiltity. In fact his technique makes him look to be a great athlete which in my opinion he is not (he is near thou).

[Outlaw Heroes]

Originally Posted by Risen Star

Sure it makes no sense when there's comparable talent. That's not what I said. But it makes perfect sense to stockpile talent at a position that isn't a pressing need at the time if your board dictates it. You're just too short sighted and acting on extremes. You'll often have a cluster of players with similar grades where need can factor in, but in those instances where there is one clear cut better player on the board you take him and don't think twice about need or first year impact.

Fill your needs in free agency. The draft is about acquiring talent for the future. You're building your base for years you can't even see yet.

This seems right to me. Essentially, there's a lexical ordering: need can break ties, as it were, among groups of players with close grades; but no matter how great the need, your grade on the player should trump.

I don't think, btw, that Idgit needs to disagree with this. So far as I can tell, he's simply talking about moving around in the draft in order to ensure, as much as possible, that you end up in a draft slot where BPA matches need. So long as you're not giving up value in doing so, I don't see why that's a bad strategy.