News: DMN: Gosselin: Why Cowboys made a mistake drafting Demarcus Lawrence

Discussion in 'News Zone' started by NewsBot, May 19, 2014.

  1. casmith07

    casmith07 Attorney-at-Zone

    30,623 Messages
    6,791 Likes Received
    Goose is an also-ran. Like Chris Berman, I've tuned him out.
    adbutcher likes this.
  2. casmith07

    casmith07 Attorney-at-Zone

    30,623 Messages
    6,791 Likes Received
    You're operating under the grossly flawed premise that later round draft picks are somehow easy to develop and that the Cowboys somehow struggle in the development of those players in contrast to other NFL franchises.

    Really - rounds 2 to 6? Those rounds are equally as likely to develop or not develop for all teams in the league, regardless of message board perception of the Cowboys' ability to "develop" late round talent.

    That entire mindset, however, I believe goes hand in hand with the similar notion that there is an expectation that a mid to late 4th round selection is somehow going to come in and start.
    adbutcher likes this.
  3. bkight13

    bkight13 Capologist

    16,987 Messages
    12,547 Likes Received
    When you consider that at least 40% of First Rounds draft picks are busts, the entire draft is a complete crap-shoot. It is always better to get quality over quantity, 2009 proves that. If D Lawrence had a first round grade, then he is well worth a 3rd round pick. People get caught up in scouting reports, mock drafts and their own pet cats. If you can get 3-4 guys from a draft and UDFAs that's a good year.
  4. MarionBarberThe4th

    MarionBarberThe4th Well-Known Member

    13,671 Messages
    1,629 Likes Received
    Pass rushing is expensive. So if he can harass the qb he's worth it. But if he's one of these guys that people talk about who has potential and he's a "building block" for years without production like Crawford, claireborne, carter etc. Then it's a bust.
    adbutcher likes this.
  5. Sandyf

    Sandyf Active Member

    773 Messages
    142 Likes Received
    Have to wonder what Fraley and Goose will say if Lawrence turns out to be a stud at DE this year and down the line. If they would have left the Jeffcoat reference out, then the article might have some validity but out of 256 picks, Jeffcoat's name was never mentioned so saying they should have taken him in the 2nd or 3rd or any other round is just totally uneducated on their part.

    Even Jeffcoat's agent messed up after the draft saying he had 3 or 4 offers to consider before signing with Seattle which means that still 28 teams didn't value him even as an undrafted free agent yet Fraley and Goose think we should have drafted him.

    It makes them look sad in their evaluations of any football player.
    adbutcher likes this.
  6. AsthmaField

    AsthmaField Outta bounds

    17,259 Messages
    15,264 Likes Received
    Not at the expense of moving further and further away from the blue and red chip talent at the top of the draft.
  7. AsthmaField

    AsthmaField Outta bounds

    17,259 Messages
    15,264 Likes Received
    If you just want to throw numbers at the situation, then why not trade back as often as possible and just end up with a ton of 6th and 7th round picks?

    I know that isn't what you're suggesting, but that is my point... if you don't want to collect 6th and 7th round picks, then you do care about the quality of the players you're picking from. And if you do care about the quality, then at what point do you say, "I'm moving back too far and getting away from players who have real talent"?

    Somewhere in there is a point which you think it is too far away from the talent.

    In the case of DeMarcus Lawrence, Dallas had him ranked as the 20th player in this draft, and giving up the 78th pick to move up to 34 was worth it to them. They apparently liked coming away with a guy ranked in their top 10 and a guy ranked in their top 20 from the first 3 rounds.

    Now, admittedly, I am a quality over quantity guy... but I'm more than happy with that.

    Had they not made the trade then they likely would have ended up with OG Turner. Probably a nice player and maybe a starter by next year. However, the OL is going to be a strength anyway and the WDE spot without Lawrence would have been devoid of talent.

    If they need an OG next year, then they can certainly draft one then. This year the team rated WDE Lawrence as the 20th player in this draft and a potential difference maker at one of the most vital spots on the team. I can live with that.

    Sturm made a decently compelling argument, and I know he has convinced you of the shotgun approach, but I don't think he's right. I feel like a team does what they feel is best on a draft-to-draft basis. Last year the trade back what what they felt like was best. I was fine with that and I love Frederick and Williams.

    This year, they felt like trading their 3rd to get Lawrence at WDE was the way to go. I'm fine with that too.

    Earlier someone made reference of hoping that Tony Brackens made it to our pick and when he didn't we settled for Kavika Pittman. That is my big fear on draft day, and it is a perfect example of why I an A-OK with moving up to get Lawrence. Target players who you really like and try to get them on your team. Don't settle for what is left over.

    I appreciate Sturm's work, but I just don't agree with him here... and New England's drafts have been crap now for several years. Brady and Belichick is what keeps that team winning. It certainly isn't moving back in the draft for average players.
    adbutcher likes this.
  8. AsthmaField

    AsthmaField Outta bounds

    17,259 Messages
    15,264 Likes Received
    My thoughts exactly. Not always, but when the situation calls for it, I have no problem with them going up to get a guy they love and have targeted as a player that can really help.

    The two guys we ended up with are very good prospects.
    adbutcher likes this.
  9. Yakuza Rich

    Yakuza Rich Well-Known Member

    16,300 Messages
    7,559 Likes Received
    Because the history of 6th and 7th round picks making the pros is horrendous. The history of 2nd and 3rd round picks making the team is very good. And those that can contribute and play at Pro Bowl levels is good as a lower cost.

    I think we are seeing EXACTLY the issue with this type of move with Sean Lee getting injured. Perhaps if we had that 3rd round pick, we may have had a better option to find an immediate replacement for Sean Lee. And I don't mind stock piling 6th and 7th round picks, but you have to get the appropriate value.

    Cowboy06 likes this.
  10. LatinMind

    LatinMind iPhotoshop

    12,286 Messages
    4,960 Likes Received
    This draft had alot of 4-5 round talent. This drafts talent was way overblown because it had 98 underclassment decalre and probably 60-70 of them shouldve stayed in college
  11. AsthmaField

    AsthmaField Outta bounds

    17,259 Messages
    15,264 Likes Received
    I do understand what your saying YR... I just feel otherwise.

    Sean Lee getting hurt is simply bad, period. That kind of injury at that time would put most teams in at least some kind of bind. It's not like every other team would have an A+ backup for their best defensive player. Plenty of teams would be scrambling here, and I don't think it is accurate at all to say because Dallas has moved up a couple of times in recent drafts that they will have a hard time replacing Lee. The truth is, IMO, the scheme change from 34 to 43 is a much bigger reason that the Cowboys are low on LB's. Plus, just last year Dallas did drop back in the first and pick up an additional 3rd.

    And, the fact is, Dallas did draft a backup for Lee this year in Hitchens. At this point, it's anyone's guess on how he will do, but they did get a guy there. Hitchens is from a big school in a big conference that is known for putting out good players who are tough guys.

    My point about moving back and acquiring picks isn't limited to just the 6th and 7th rounds. If you think the middle rounds are valuable and believe in the shotgun approach, then why wouldn't you always try to trade back out of the first and second rounds to get as many 3rd and 4th round picks as possible? The logical answer would be that you would always try to move back to get multiple mid round picks if you valued the shotgun approach. If it is the number of picks that you are most worried about, then having four 3rds and four 4ths would be more desirable than having a 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th round picks. Eight players verses 4 players. Teams don't do that though. Even the Patriots, who seem to really like doing that, has never done anything like that.

    They don't do it because the players who are going in the first and second are the guys who are most likely to be difference makers. The first and second rounds are where the most talent lies.

    Obviously, my example is extreme, but it makes the point that I want to highlight: There is a point at which the quality of the players you're talking about becomes the most important factor, and a point where you say getting more picks isn't as good a choice as getting a single talented player.

    What I was wondering was at what point is that for you? Obviously not the 6th and 7th round because you said in your response to me, that their chances of making the team is "horrendous". So is it the 4th and 5th that you think a team should try to get as many picks as possible? Or, is that still not a talented enough group for the shotgun approach? I assume the answer is the 2nd and 3rd rounds because above you said their chances of making the team is "very good". So, does that mean the team should always move back in the first to get additional 2nd or 3rd round picks? Since you don't favor the 6th and 7th rounds, should a team always combine those to try to move up into an earlier round? Should a teams 5th, 6th, and 7th be bundled together in order to get an extra 4th? Or do you still want additional picks for the shotgun approach, even if they are later picks?

    I'm not really wanting an answer on all those questions... I just want it to show that it is a tangled approach if you want to get more picks at the expense of talent.

    As I mentioned above, I think it should be done on a case-by-case, draft-by-draft basis, which it seems to me, is the method the Cowboys have been using. They certainly seem to be pinpointing a few players that they really like, who they feel like can come in and help the team right away. In the late '90s and early 2000's, I think that was a problem because I seriously question Dallas' ability to locate talent. They flat-out missed on a lot of guys during those years. Recently though, I would put up the Cowboys ability to find talent against any franchise out there. They have been hitting on the guys they target often. Dez Bryant, Tyron Smith, Travis Frederick, Sean Lee, and Terrance Williams have all been big hits. Even the guys they wanted but didn't get, like JJ Watt, Max Unger, Earl Thomas, Bobby Wagner, Mike Iupati, Novarro Bowman, etc., have all been very good players. Dallas has been exceptional finding blue chip players for several years now.

    So, to me, if they target a guy who they really have graded out as a player who can come in and make a difference, and they don't want to risk losing him by waiting... I am fine with them using a 3rd or 4th (for example) to move up and make sure they get their guy. Particularly if they feel like there is a big dropoff after that guy like they did with T Smith, T Frederick, or D Lawrence.

    That's the mistake they made when trading back away from Steven Jackson to take Julius Jones. Dallas picked up an extra pick by moving back (you could say using the shotgun approach), and it was assuredly the wrong decision. The dropoff from Jackson to Julius Jones was just too great. They desperately needed a RB and they could have assured themselves of getting the best one in the draft by just staying put and taking Jackson. Instead they got the extra pick and they got their 2nd choice at RB. Instead of getting a difference maker who would play there for the next 8 to 10 years, they got a guy who flopped and really only wasted their time.

    That right there is what I hate in a draft. Moving away from the talent and hoping the lesser player is at least in the same galaxy as the guy you passed on. I just think that overall, moving back away from the early talent isn't the way to go. Not when the team is very good at targeting players who can come in and make a difference, like Dallas has been. Had Dallas been a little more tolerant of giving away later picks to make sure they got their guy, they would likely have one or two of that group they missed on (Unger, Thomas, Wagner, Iupati, Bowman, Etc.).

    This is getting way too long, so I will wrap it up. There are just so many different ways a team can approach a draft that I don't think anyone can say it is good to always do it one way or another. I think the team needs to take it on the strength of each individual player and make the best choice possible... and I think that is what the team has been doing.

    Overall, you think the shotgun approach is the way to go, and that is fine. I think it is better to try to get quality over quantity in most situations. It is just a difference of opinion. I am glad however, that Dallas seems to be doing it both ways when the situation calls for it. This year they thought Lawrence was worth giving up a 3rd for, and I completely understand why. And I agree with them. I also understand why they moved back for Frederick last year, and it did make sense. Even with all the injuries Dallas had on the DL, I still am glad they took Lawrence and Williams instead of Floyd. They didn't think Floyd would ever be a difference maker on the DL... and this year they did think that Lawrence would be a difference maker. And they acted accordingly in each circumstance.
    Idgit likes this.

Share This Page