1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Stephen Jones is a terrible negotiator

Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by Zordon, May 9, 2014.

  1. RonSpringsdaman20

    RonSpringsdaman20 alpha seeing omega Zone Supporter

    3,537 Messages
    1,412 Likes Received
    I wouldn't be surprised if dallas trades back into the third. have the ammunition to do it.
    target a player. than move... some of those picks at the bottom of the draft (the ones we can move) will come in handy.
  2. Risen Star

    Risen Star Likes Collector Zone Supporter

    22,722 Messages
    9,967 Likes Received
    I feel a little responsible for this. Lawrence's stock would have never shot up had I not drafted him in the Melsy.
  3. theranchsucks

    theranchsucks Well-Known Member

    1,062 Messages
    369 Likes Received
  4. SilverStarCowboy

    SilverStarCowboy The Actualist

    7,504 Messages
    409 Likes Received
    Nope...the instant this trade was made was a bad moment but the beer is helping. Really addressing the trench warfare in a big way, it's what we all have been clamoring for the longest, so after further review....can't wait to get some more trench help tomorrow. And please some backup Safety help as well, maybe a LB or two.

    Was really high on Crichton and Tuitt but admittedly with a healthy Crawford.. Lawrence is the better fit.
  5. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    16,599 Messages
    2,479 Likes Received
    Trading away picks is one of the major reasons we lack quality depth. Of course there are many reasons but them doing things like this is huge.
    Zordon, scottsp, jnday and 2 others like this.
  6. Risen Star

    Risen Star Likes Collector Zone Supporter

    22,722 Messages
    9,967 Likes Received
    Some nice players available at 78.

    Sweet.
  7. Idgit

    Idgit Ice up, son. Ice up! Staff Member

    31,949 Messages
    7,698 Likes Received
    Let's agree to disagree. We trade up and down. And we'd both like to see us trade down more often in this current environment if it could be managed at value. Last year, we were able to do it. We tried again to do it in the first round this year, and it didn't work out.

    We both understand the diversification risks involved, but those are offset when you get the projected reward right. The problem with trading up is that teams tend to overestimate the potential rewards, which we might well have done here. But you're looking at, what, a net of one 2nd/3rd round player here in the Garrett era (who might have been more Escobar than Williams when it came to playing time)? Compared to however many games we lost above whatever league average is on defense last year? Or compared to however many players we didn't sign because of cap constraints? Or compared to just whiffing on the picks we do make?

    Sorry. It's a factor, but it's not huge and it's not a major reason we lack depth.
  8. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    16,599 Messages
    2,479 Likes Received
    Projecting the reward right? We are definitely not going to agree because there is never any certainty. That is the entire point in managing risk.

    As for the injuries, I see you as putting the cart in front of the horse. Injuries expose lack of depth and depth allows you to weather injury.
    jnday and Doomsay like this.
  9. manster4ever

    manster4ever Active Member

    525 Messages
    167 Likes Received
    truth...just NO reason for it. Kid's tape doesn't warrant a move this big. And the cherry on top of the turd Sunday is that the SKINS get our 3rd rounder and take Long, a mediocre Guard from Nebraska.

    But here's the killer: Sutton and Nix went AFTER Long...so we could have added BPA at 47, and Sutton. Helps depth and is the smart thing to do IMO. Lawrence has some upside but he simply doesn't have the body of work that justifies a move up of this magnitude.
  10. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    16,599 Messages
    2,479 Likes Received
    Those names don't do much for me. Crichton apparently has some sort of health issue I was hearing to boot. I am just talking overall strategy. We should be in the business of stockpiling top 100 picks and not giving them away for players that we are sure we 'projected right.'
  11. MikeT22

    MikeT22 Active Member

    419 Messages
    226 Likes Received
    Uh, because we felt we had to overpay in order to get a particular player despite the fact this is a deep draft.
  12. Bigdog24

    Bigdog24 Well-Known Member

    2,004 Messages
    268 Likes Received
    Same with Will McClay.....unimpressed with the way things went....unable to maneuver the draft, things fell badly and the Cowboys acted unprepared...panic set in......McClay and the Jones' got schooled by real NFL FO's......
    Zordon likes this.
  13. Idgit

    Idgit Ice up, son. Ice up! Staff Member

    31,949 Messages
    7,698 Likes Received
    There doesn't have to be certainty. There is a reward for moving up in the draft if the player you get is better than what you would have gotten staying put or in a possible move down. A team with a facility for it could theoretically consistently beat the league wide odds and add net value to it's roster by swimming upstream this way. Similarly, teams can make good individual moves moving up even if it's generally considered to be a bad idea. I'm not saying the Cowboys fall into this category, only that the entire point is not simply managing risk. You're managing risk v. return.
  14. IAmLegend

    IAmLegend Well-Known Member

    4,266 Messages
    1,339 Likes Received
    Don't worry. Dallas will likely trade back into the 3rd... unfortunately, they'll probably give up a 1st, two 2nd's, and a 3rd to do it.
    Zordon, McLovin and DoctorChicken like this.
  15. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    16,599 Messages
    2,479 Likes Received
    You are doing some serious semantic tap dancing. Outcome is considered in risk evaluation and redundantly saying it doesn't mean I have not considered it..

    If they didn't like Crichton then I can understand the reasoning. They needed a DE.
  16. Bullflop

    Bullflop Well-Known Member

    2,431 Messages
    647 Likes Received
    According to Norm on the radio, we got into a bidding war with Atlanta for the Redskins 34th pick. They offered their fourth and the Redskins would only have had to move down 3 spots. To outdo them, we offered our 3rd for them to move down 13 spots. As has been noted, the player is good but sacrificing the extra pick makes it a bit questionable. Evidently, the staff wanted him badly enough to pull the trigger on the deal. As it is, we could have waited and gotten Kareem Martin with our 78th pick. Is Laurence that much better than Martin? Perhaps we'll just have to wait and see to make that judgment.
    FuzzyLumpkins, Bigdog24 and Idgit like this.
  17. Idgit

    Idgit Ice up, son. Ice up! Staff Member

    31,949 Messages
    7,698 Likes Received
    Negative outcomes are considered in risk evaluation. Positive outcomes are where the reward part comes in. But we've got a draft going on, and I think we basically see things very similarly--even if we weight the effect of trading down in recent drafts on our depth differently. It's not interesting enough to go back and forth on when there's actually football stuff going on, right?

    I am interested in what the deal is with Crichton. It makes you wonder, too, when something relatively obvious like an injury issue is obviously known league-wide by seemingly every team, how much information simply is unavailable to draft information gatherers each year.
  18. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    16,599 Messages
    2,479 Likes Received
    Positive outcomes are considered but you are right we are going to to disagree on what impact trading away top 100 picks has on overall roster depth. Vela and Sturm have done analysis in how many we have given up over the years with various trades mostly for WR including Dez. I should dig up those articles.

    The mantra of "we don't want to draft them if they aren't going to play" is a constant refrain from VR. The problem is that the guys that are 'not going to play' are your backups.

    We have to be doing something wrong.
  19. AdamJT13

    AdamJT13 Salary Cap Analyst

    15,069 Messages
    661 Likes Received
    If you go by actual trades made in previous drafts, not hypothetical charts, we actually got the better end of the deal by a little bit. Pick 34 is worth 800 points, and picks 47 (540 points) and 78 (230 points) are worth a combined 770 points.

    http://adamjt13.blogspot.com/2012/04/trade-fitted-draft-value-chart.html

    There are many examples in recent years showing that moving up 13 spots in that part of the draft costs at least what we gave up. In 2007, for example, the Bills traded up from 43 (four spots higher than us) to 34 (same pick we got) and gave up the 74th pick (also four spots higher) to do it. They paid more to move up less for the same pick. And there are many examples of a fourth rounder, such as our 119th pick, being enough to move up only about half as far as we did.

    http://adamjt13.blogspot.com/2012/04/history-of-trading-up-in-nfl-draft.html


    The only way we could have gotten the 34th pick for our second- and fourth-round picks -- or gotten a pick back from Washington -- was if the Redskins had been willing to accept less than what many other teams have gotten in recent years.
  20. FuzzyLumpkins

    FuzzyLumpkins The Boognish

    16,599 Messages
    2,479 Likes Received
    Nice to see you, man. Hope things are well.

Share This Page