Jerry. Don't Miss Again

[Beaker42]

No issue at all drafting 2 at all. I wouldn’t mind seeing CB, DT, DT, CB, LB in that order for our draft.

Needs to be CB, DT, LB, CB, DT IMO unless Pitts falls to 10 then all that’s out the door.

 

[Flamma]

If you have him down as a good player, dammmm right you do. This value thing is a fan thing, not a draft strategy.

This is what I'm saying. Why don't teams usually draft kickers in the first 2 rounds? Even if you had exclusive information that a kicker would never miss a kick inside of 60 yards for 15 years, you still don't draft him in the first round. Why? Because he'll be there in the 2nd. He'll be there in the 3rd. Probably the 4th. You'd just be wasting a pick. Similar if Dallas liked S Moehrig. You don't take him at 10. You trade up from the 2nd round to get him. Or trade back from #10. And that's the strategy you use even if the guy is going to be a HOFer. Because no one knows that, and you try to maximize your draft.

If the Cowboys pick a guy not on the board in the first 3 rounds at 44 they should be laughed at. And it has nothing to do with how good the player is, or how good he becomes. It's still laughable.

 

[kskboys]

This is what I'm saying. Why don't teams usually draft kickers in the first 2 rounds? Even if you had exclusive information that a kicker would never miss a kick inside of 60 yards for 15 years, you still don't draft him in the first round. Why? Because he'll be there in the 2nd. He'll be there in the 3rd. Probably the 4th. You'd just be wasting a pick. Similar if Dallas liked S Moehrig. You don't take him at 10. You trade up from the 2nd round to get him. Or trade back from #10. And that's the strategy you use even if the guy is going to be a HOFer. Because no one knows that, and you try to maximize your draft.

If the Cowboys pick a guy not on the board in the first 3 rounds at 44 they should be laughed at. And it has nothing to do with how good the player is, or how good he becomes. It's still laughable.

That's fan stuff.

In real life, you try to find players who can play at a high level.

 

[ChuckA1]

That's fan stuff.

In real life, you try to find players who can play at a high level.

Absolutely right. If Aaron Donald was graded as 3rd pick and you're convinced he'll be a great player, do you take him early? You bet you do. This example may be extreme, but it occasionally happens. At the end of the 16 season, are you upset you took Dak in the 2nd rather than the 4th? Of course not.

 

[kskboys]

Absolutely right. If Aaron Donald was graded as 3rd pick and you're convinced he'll be a great player, do you take him early? You bet you do. This example may be extreme, but it occasionally happens. At the end of the 16 season, are you upset you took Dak in the 2nd rather than the 4th? Of course not.

The good teams pay very very little attention to "draft value". Some talking head got that started a while back, now fans can't stop repeating it. I think they think it makes them sound wise or something. It doesn't.

 

[kskboys]

Absolutely right. If Aaron Donald was graded as 3rd pick and you're convinced he'll be a great player, do you take him early? You bet you do. This example may be extreme, but it occasionally happens. At the end of the 16 season, are you upset you took Dak in the 2nd rather than the 4th? Of course not.

Chris Jones was rated a 3rd round talent in 16. Patrick Mahomes was rated a 2nd round talent.

 

[CowboyoWales]

Absolutely right. If Aaron Donald was graded as 3rd pick and you're convinced he'll be a great player, do you take him early? You bet you do. This example may be extreme, but it occasionally happens. At the end of the 16 season, are you upset you took Dak in the 2nd rather than the 4th? Of course not.

Looking at that scenario, I wonder how many times a team has been caught out waiting for the round that a player is expected to go, only to be beaten by another team taking him off the board?

 

[Flamma]

That's fan stuff.

In real life, you try to find players who can play at a high level.

Ok. In this upcoming draft you point out to me all the times a team does this in the first 3 rounds.

Plus I didn't give fan stuff, just logic. Like don't climb the highest tree during a lightning storm.

 

[kskboys]

Ok. In this upcoming draft you point out to me all the times a team does this in the first 3 rounds.

Plus I didn't give fan stuff, just logic. Like don't climb the highest tree during a lightning storm.

The "value" designation is fan stuff, not logic.

Logic would be taking the guy who helps you the most. Frederick would be the best example.

People are pretending that soandso player will still be available for your next pick since he wasn't rated as high as your first pick. It's just not that simple.

For instance, if we took, say Tyler Shelvin in the early 3rd, even though he's rated late 3rd/early 4th, and he solidified the interior of our DLine for the next 10 years leading to the other players being much better and our D jumping up to top 5-8, he would be a great pick despite us not getting good draft "value" for him.

I don't know how, but people have forgotten the purpose of drafting. It's to build your team. Constantly passing up players of need because they were rated a bit lower than your draft slot means you won't ever take the next step to super bowl contention.

No, you should not reach horribly for need, that's just dumb. But taking players at an area that's already strong is also dumb. Need, skillset, scheme, instincts, fit, there's a ton of factors involved in drafting. Value is way down on the list.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Agreed. The film doesn't lie. Christian Barmore is exactly what we need...



He was a beast during the college playoffs.

Yes he was. But bear in mind he played on an undefeated, national championship team with many teammates probably going to be drafted this year. He won't be coming to that level of team in Dallas. Been too many players who played on powerhouse teams that didn't do well in the NFL, be cautious...

 

[Blitzen]

The "value" designation is fan stuff, not logic.

Logic would be taking the guy who helps you the most. Frederick would be the best example.

People are pretending that soandso player will still be available for your next pick since he wasn't rated as high as your first pick. It's just not that simple.

For instance, if we took, say Tyler Shelvin in the early 3rd, even though he's rated late 3rd/early 4th, and he solidified the interior of our DLine for the next 10 years leading to the other players being much better and our D jumping up to top 5-8, he would be a great pick despite us not getting good draft "value" for him.

I don't know how, but people have forgotten the purpose of drafting. It's to build your team. Constantly passing up players of need because they were rated a bit lower than your draft slot means you won't ever take the next step to super bowl contention.

No, you should not reach horribly for need, that's just dumb. But taking players at an area that's already strong is also dumb. Need, skillset, scheme, instincts, fit, there's a ton of factors involved in drafting. Value is way down on the list.

Value is still an extremely important part of the decision because of paucity of picks. There are maybe 15 to 20 guys rated as first round talents. Another 20 to 30 2nd rounders. Maybe 40 guys rated in the 3rd round and the rest rated as JAGS and projects. Go off your board where the most impactful players will have the highest grades.

BUT, if your prediction models come to the conclusion that player A has a 99 percent chance of making it to your next pick but player B has a 10 percent chance you probably should draft player B right then (even if player B is not predicted to help win as many extra games as player A though combined they help much more than picked alone). If you have unlimited picks then of course you could pick whoever you felt like helped win the most games each pick with no regard to how the draft might play out and which players might be available at which spot.

The GM MUST sometimes gamble and bet a player or group of players drops to them for the simple reason of valuing each pick a certain amount. The funny thing is every person I see always uses the old value chart as though it's the gold standard. It should change each draft as the available prospects, your team needs, and draft slot will vary.

If you are trying to make the point that the OL is in any way "strong" currently I'm sorry you missed last season. This team is very far from strong in many areas. No matter how many yards Dak throws for.

 

[jrumann59]

Do not sacrifice your 1st round guy to get a bunch of guys that are close together that will be available in rounds 2-3

 

[cnuball21]

The "value" designation is fan stuff, not logic.

Logic would be taking the guy who helps you the most. Frederick would be the best example.

People are pretending that soandso player will still be available for your next pick since he wasn't rated as high as your first pick. It's just not that simple.

For instance, if we took, say Tyler Shelvin in the early 3rd, even though he's rated late 3rd/early 4th, and he solidified the interior of our DLine for the next 10 years leading to the other players being much better and our D jumping up to top 5-8, he would be a great pick despite us not getting good draft "value" for him.

I don't know how, but people have forgotten the purpose of drafting. It's to build your team. Constantly passing up players of need because they were rated a bit lower than your draft slot means you won't ever take the next step to super bowl contention.

No, you should not reach horribly for need, that's just dumb. But taking players at an area that's already strong is also dumb. Need, skillset, scheme, instincts, fit, there's a ton of factors involved in drafting. Value is way down on the list.

Value plays a huge part in the draft IMO...Talent is tied to value and teams build their board based on talent / need / contracts.

I agree to an extent, if a high need player is ranked only a few slots lower than the other guy I'm fine with it. Once the gap widens I'm not open to it.

Shelvin is a tough example because he's so poor of an athlete he might not even get drafted. But if we're in the 3rd round and you're telling me a DT is 70th on the board and a WR is 60th I'm taking the DT.

 

[kskboys]

Value is still an extremely important part of the decision because of paucity of picks. There are maybe 15 to 20 guys rated as first round talents. Another 20 to 30 2nd rounders. Maybe 40 guys rated in the 3rd round and the rest rated as JAGS and projects. Go off your board where the most impactful players will have the highest grades.

BUT, if your prediction models come to the conclusion that player A has a 99 percent chance of making it to your next pick but player B has a 10 percent chance you probably should draft player B right then (even if player B is not predicted to help win as many extra games as player A though combined they help much more than picked alone). If you have unlimited picks then of course you could pick whoever you felt like helped win the most games each pick with no regard to how the draft might play out and which players might be available at which spot.

The GM MUST sometimes gamble and bet a player or group of players drops to them for the simple reason of valuing each pick a certain amount. The funny thing is every person I see always uses the old value chart as though it's the gold standard. It should change each draft as the available prospects, your team needs, and draft slot will vary.

If you are trying to make the point that the OL is in any way "strong" currently I'm sorry you missed last season. This team is very far from strong in many areas. No matter how many yards Dak throws for.

That's not how people are using the term "value". They are actually claiming you should absolutely not take a guy who is going to be a good/great player in the 2nd if he's rated in the 3rd/4th.

Have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I was saying the OL is strong. You had a good post going before you media'd me.

 

[kskboys]

Value plays a huge part in the draft IMO...Talent is tied to value and teams build their board based on talent / need / contracts.

I agree to an extent, if a high need player is ranked only a few slots lower than the other guy I'm fine with it. Once the gap widens I'm not open to it.

Shelvin is a tough example because he's so poor of an athlete he might not even get drafted. But if we're in the 3rd round and you're telling me a DT is 70th on the board and a WR is 60th I'm taking the DT.

Well, you said it claimed a huge part, and then went on to show how it doesn't!!!!!

 

[cnuball21]

Well, you said it claimed a huge part, and then went on to show how it doesn't!!!!!

Not my intent...end of the day the closer you are to the top of the draft the more you need to focus on talent over need. I’m more open to reaching on need in the middle / end of the draft but only to an extent.

Another big piece is understanding the strengths / weaknesses of the class. This class is loaded with round 2/3 CBs and I don't see much of a dropoff from Surtain / Horn to the next few so I'd much rather shoot for a top talent at 10 then hope someone solid slides to the 2nd round. Another way to maximize value.

 

[Blitzen]

That's not how people are using the term "value". They are actually claiming you should absolutely not take a guy who is going to be a good/great player in the 2nd if he's rated in the 3rd/4th.

Have no idea how you came to the conclusion that I was saying the OL is strong. You had a good post going before you media'd me.

I took the part where you said that adding players to an already strong unit and extrapolated (but my sentence had a conditional built in, I never concluded my certainty as to your meaning).

I don't think you should take that good/great player in the second if you are very certain he will still be around in the 3rd/4th. If your team has a second round grade though you have to factor in who else is available and what their chances are in dropping to your next pick along with your grade for them.

 

[Flamma]

For instance, if we took, say Tyler Shelvin in the early 3rd, even though he's rated late 3rd/early 4th, and he solidified the interior of our DLine for the next 10 years leading to the other players being much better and our D jumping up to top 5-8, he would be a great pick despite us not getting good draft "value" for him.

I agree with you here. I don't have a problem with that. That's not the kind of example I was talking about.