Discussion in 'News Zone' started by Bluestang, Nov 13, 2012.
How dare you bring facts here???
Good god man, you know that doesn't fit agenda's
I could but what's the point with people and their agendas?
I could do the Patriots as well but it's pretty ugly as is.
Not only did they spend a 4th rounder on a kicker, but they spent a 5th on a punter and a 6th on long snapper too.
For posting with your eyes intentionally closed, it was outstanding. If trying to honestly evaluate the job we do bringing in talent from the college ranks, not so much.
Risen Star knows what he's doing. He's yanking chains, but I know he secretly knows just what I'm saying and just doesn't want to admit that it's pretty accurate.
Hey, have fun pretending you know what I'm thinking. What I'm actually thinking has been posted in this thread. I'm not trying to yank anybody's chain. I'm giving you my honest opinion of our recent draft classes. Better, but not something we should call a good run. We've gotten nearly nothing out of 14 picks in the 4th through 7th rounds. We've got serious questions around Dez Bryant, DeMarco Murray and Sean Lee. I still can't get over using 1st and 2nd round picks on Morris Claiborne.
You should have just said improvement. But your foam finger wouldn't let you.
. Improvement. Good run. Semantics.
And my foam finger is not connected to my mouth. That metaphor doesn't even make sense.
Out of curiosity, how did you think our recent 4-7s stacked up to the Giants or Packers for the same period?
I don't think it's semantics at all. Because improvement doesn't mean good. It means better.
The Vikings have improved this year. They're still not good.
How they compare to this team or that team is irrelevant. An attempt to distract from talking honestly about this team. The question is how are we doing? What I know is the Cowboys have not added any proven quality depth with those 14 picks with the exception of a very marginal Sean Lissemore. I never said that can't change. Of course it can. You're talking about the last three drafts. These are young players. But to look at those classes right now and think we're on some sort of hot streak makes me question if you can be objective with this team.
The metaphor makes perfect sense. The same thought process that put the foam on your finger makes you say things like this.
How they compare to other, good, teams is not relevant now? Interesting. I mean, not interesting, and not a sound argument.
You consider it 'talking honestly' about a team to evaluate them without any context? And we're still ignoring the early rounds and college free agency to prop of a charade of an argument regarding 'proven quality depth.' Well, that makes perfect sense.
I think you find the idea that the team is building depth under Garrett at odds with your campaign against the general management, and it's putting you in a bind you can't get out of. I think that bind has got you talking about foam fingers and trying to deflect the topic away from our recent track record in adding college talent and onto your interpretation of our relative success in drafting in a subset of the rounds that have been available to us. And then even your interpretation of our relative success, I mean, failure in those few rounds is off base.
You can question my objectivity all you like. You're not the first. On the flip side, I'm sure we'll find a thread somewhere down the line where I have something critical to say about the team again, and the universe will then swing back into a balance I can live with. We can sit around and talk about how objective I got all of a sudden.
Here's a tip.
If you mention currently successful franchises having warts the response is either going to be "Did you really just compare this team to the ultra successful _________________?" or "I don't care how other teams do things, function, or cook tacos." Then it isn't relevant to the discussion.
But on a regular basis the same people saying one of those things will lament how good those teams are and will praise management, coaching, players, and vendors. Then it is relevant to the discussion.
Thus they can always have their cake and eat it too.
A great example is the recent video urging fans to get loud. Dallas doing it is an embarrassment, until people started pointing out other teams do it too, and they excused it as successful teams can do that.
No charge for the lesson. Back into the shadows for me.
Here are the Bill Parcells drafts:
1 CB Terence Newman
2 C Al Johnson
3 TE Jason Witten
4 OLB Bradie James
6 CB B.J. Tucker
6 WR Zuriel Smith
7 OT Justin Bates
2 RB Julius Jones
2 OT Jacob Rogers
3 OG Stephen Peterman
4 CB Bruce Thornton
5 TE Sean Ryan
7 CB Nathan Jones
7 WR Patrick Crayton
7 CB Jacques Reeves
1 OLB Demarcus Ware
1 DE Marcus Spears
2 OLB Kevin Burnett
4 HB Marion Barber
4 DE Chris Canty
6 S Justin Berlault
6 OT Rob Petitti
7 DE Jay Ratliff
1 OLB Bobby Carpenter
2 TE Anthony Fasano
3 DE Jason Hatcher
4 WR Skyler Green
5 S Pat Watkins
6 DT Montavious Stanley
7 T Paul McQuistan
7 T E.J. Whitley
Ooh. That's a good way to look at it, too.
you got to be kidding me not only does Risen Star want to have guards playing cornerback he now thinks Sean Lee is a joke...:lmao2:
Will McClay and Tom "Cisco" Ciskowski...curious.
I didn't ignore the early rounds. I've said several times in this thread that there isn't an issue with the early rounds. People can go back and look and see you're wrong.
I've ignored college free agency because your claim had nothing to do with it. You said we were on a pretty good run in the draft. That isn't college free agency. Only those on the wrong side of a debate keep searching for firmer footing. I'm addressing strictly your comment about a good run at drafting.
No....other teams struggling too, if that is the case, doesn't make the Cowboys any more successful. They either are or aren't doing a good job of finding talent. As of today, the 4th through 7th round picks the last 3 years, 14 in total, have produced near nothing. Sean Lissemore and a punt returner.
Now again, that could change. These are young players. But you crowned them as quality already. Of course you'll say you haven't, but you did. Otherwise you couldn't claim a pretty good run of drafting and the team doing a good job of acquiring talent. I would never make that claim on any team whose gotten such little production on day 3 of the draft.
That's rich. I'm breaking down each pick and talking specifically about the draft classes and I'm the one trying to deflect something. While you're all over the map talking about other teams and undrafted free agency, but you're on point.
Once again you attempt to get into my mind and tell me what I think. You don't have to wonder. Just ask me. The question is can you deal with what I think?
There isn't a fan of this team that would be happier if we were truly on a good run of stacking up quality draft classes. But I refuse to pretend it's so for rooting interest. A close look at each player tells you the production isn't there yet to make such a statement.
I'd bet every dollar I'll ever earn that you never heard of Matt Johnson before the Cowboys selected him. He hasn't played a down of meaningful football since. I'd bet the same that you consider Matt one of those good decisions in our pretty good run of drafting. That's the nonsense I'm talking about. I'll just never do that.
Certain statements are just too over the top. Like attempting to defend the 4th round pick of Akwasi Owusu-Ansah. Show me a Cowboys fan who doesn't call that a bad decision and I'll show you someone who can't be objective about the team.
That's right up there with Jerry Jones being an empty suit, an athletic director, or an owner who runs his team like every other.
I'm loving the amount of ownage in this thread.
Its funny but I get the feeling that no matter which side a person lands on the issues discussed here, they agree with this statement
I agree, but let me ask you this. Which side is backing their stance up with relevant facts, and which side is creating imaginary scenarios?
I see draft class after draft class being shared and then ignored despite those fitting the criteria. I see a Coach for the team talking about who does the drafting analysis and it is ignored.
No offense man but I don't know and I honestly don't care to do the work necessary to figure out which side makes a better case. I just want to see the damn Cowboys get on a winning streak so we can talk about that for a change.
I haven't seen the results I would like but I see lots of positives (and negatives too) but from what I can gather from reading all these various posts that it seems taboo for either side/extreme to admit they both might be a little wrong and a little right, so I try to glean whatever truth I think I've found from either perspective and keep an open mind to being swayed by further evidence as it presents itself.
Like I said, at the end of the day, I just want to see my Boys winning again and don't begrudge any fan for whichever perspective they hold. No side has cornered the market on truth...at least I know I haven't.
I've explained exactly what I meant regarding bringing in college talent. It's not a debate. I was making a point, I needed to clarify it, I did, end of story.
There's no mystery here. The early picks are better picks and have a higher success rate than the middle picks because they're higher probability players. The college free agent picks have a higher number of players who have been successful picks despite being lower probability players than the mid-to-late picks simply because there are a lot more of them.
Add to this that the mid-round picks and below are, in general, slower to develop than the early picks because they tend to be developmental players from smaller schools with lesser facilities or because they have problems in their games they need to work on at the pro level which is why the weren't early picks to begin with, and remember that we're talking about what's still an open window for all of these players, and the rest of the pretense here evaporates completely.
Moreover, the same patterns appear with most teams, and we've seen--well some of us have seen--this exactly demonstrated in this thread. You can pretend all you like that the issue is something other than simple probabilities, and you can pretend that I see it the way it actually is because of a metaphorical foam finger or whatever. You're still demonstrably wrong.
And, for the record, I'm not telling you what you think. I'm saying that I don't believe for a minute that you actually believe some of the things you post. There's a difference. In short, you're too smart to believe some of the things you submit, and I'm too smart to take some of them seriously.