Hope is not a strategy

[Sinister]

That is not a fallacy. You don't agree but that is not the same thing. Try harder.

Must suck to have to hate Escobar. He is playing well.

Drafting multiple front 7 players including one at the top of the second round doesn't count because two of them got hurt.
Signing Melton, Mincey, Coleman and McClain don't count because you don't feel good about them.
Trading for McClain doesn't count because he isn't a sure thing.

They draft TE multiple times to go for a 2 TE base. They draft OL early 3 out of 4 years. You don't see a strategy. I think that speaks more about you then it does the organization.

I said that your argument was fallacious. Do you understand the word fallacious. Let me help you out:

fallacious - based on a mistaken belief.

In my opinion it is.

I have no problem with Escobar (who's using sophistry now). My problem is that they are not addressing the defense like they should.

We do disagree, but that doesn't mean that I somehow hate the players or the organization, but I believe that turning an uncritical eye on the situation is a mistake that happens all too often on this message board (they created an entire sub-index because they could not deal with it). I'm not complaining, I just think it is funny.

This front office has for too long overvalued the talent on this defensive line. The front office strategy is poor (in my opinion, obviously). You don't see that, that is OK.

 

[windward]

While I would counter with the fact that players acquired under Parcells had a lot to do with that too.

Unfortunately, that window has closed...

They did. It's not an all or nothing affair IMO.

 

[Stash]

They did. It's not an all or nothing affair IMO.

Very true.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I said that your argument was fallacious. Do you understand the word fallacious. Let me help you out:

fallacious - based on a mistaken belief.

In my opinion it is.

I have no problem with Escobar (who's using sophistry now). My problem is that they are not addressing the defense like they should.

We do disagree, but that doesn't mean that I somehow hate the players or the organization, but I believe that turning an uncritical eye on the situation is a mistake that happens all too often on this message board (they created an entire sub-index because they could not deal with it). I'm not complaining, I just think it is funny.

This front office has for too long overvalued the talent on this defensive line. The front office strategy is poor (in my opinion, obviously). You don't see that, that is OK.

You are boring me with your semantics. There are specific fallacies in formal logic. You are bringing in an adjective that is derived from the noun and cherry pick a definition. Fallacies are used to demonstrate something is incorrect.

I can be critical. When I do it is in the form of specific examples. That is the issue. When it gets down to the moves they have actually made in terms of the DL you don't want to talk about the specifics. We get what boils down to emotional vomit. This is poor. He is a jag. I don't like this. blah blah blah

We did sign several significant pieces. We did draft and spend considerable assets on the position. The best you can do is talk about injuries which is besides the point and then parrot these mindless generalizations.

At least this thread is now where it belongs. Adieu.

 

[Sinister]

You are boring me with your semantics. There are specific fallacies in formal logic. You are bringing in an adjective that is derived from the noun and cherry pick a definition. Fallacies are used to demonstrate something is incorrect.

I can be critical. When I do it is in the form of specific examples. That is the issue. When it gets down to the moves they have actually made in terms of the DL you don't want to talk about the specifics. We get what boils down to emotional vomit. This is poor. He is a jag. I don't like this. blah blah blah

We did sign several significant pieces. We did draft and spend considerable assets on the position. The best you can do is talk about injuries which is besides the point and then parrot these mindless generalizations.

At least this thread is now where it belongs. Adieu.

Honestly, I'm not trying to upset you. I think you're being oversensitive.

There are specific fallacies in formal logic, but I thought we were discussing a football team. Silly me.

I have given several specific examples, for example:

• Lawrence is already hurt to top it off he was already an undersized Defensive End who the Cowboys traded up for.
• McClain (career sack total 1)
• Melton (hasn't played a down in over a year).

I don't agree that any of the examples are 'emotional vomit' but facts about who the players are.

Unfortunately, injuries are not beside the point they are part of the game and it is something a good GM will watch out for. Of course some injuries are beyond the pale. Some are catastrophic and can cripple a football team if they occur at the wrong time. However, doesn't it strike you as odd that most of the Cowboys crippling injuries for the past two years are occurring on the defensive side of the ball. Maybe you prefer not to question the depth, but I prefer think about the consequences of over-drafting one side of the team.

I don't disagree with the idea that the Cowboys drafted and signed defensive players. I disagree that those defensive players that were drafted/signed are a 'considerable asset'. In my opinion they are a band-aid to cover for the disastrous results of the moves made by the front office in the years past.

Even though I agree that Hope in not a Strategy, I sure as hell hope that this defensive line proves me wrong. I hope that Bishop/Coleman are co-rookies of the year. I hope we smash the 49ers in that first game.

I hope...

 

[Tabascocat]

I am more concerned making it through the first half of the schedule within striking distance of a division title. We are supposed to work injured players back in slowly, will be getting some back after four weeks, etc, etc. These players will not come in 100% ready to go, will still need adjusting(some more than others) which will add a couple to a few games.

So, we are looking at week 6 at the earliest, more like week 7, to see if any dividends pay off. By that time, this team may have dug a hole too deep to climb out of.....which is what I fear considering the first half is the hardest part(on paper).

Luckily, we are not in the AFC West, so there is that. If this team can tread water and be around .500 starting week 7 or so, I like our chances if everyone stays relatively healthy, especially on the defensive side.

 

[Zman5]

oh it's not perfect, but the 06-09 drafts have helped put us in this position. I'd argue that our recent drafting has helped us stay near .500 then being 6-10 or worse.

Did you look at the 2012 draft? We spent the first 5 picks (1,2,3, and two 4th rounds) on defense and look where we are. Claiborn barely starts, Crawford is still an unknown, and Wilber still doesn't have a set position and Matt Johnson has been released. Think about that. We spent the top 5 picks on defense and we haven't hit on one from that draft.

In fact, we haven't hit on any defensive players since 2010 draft(Sean Lee) and even Lee is a question mark due to his injury history. That's 5 drafts we blown and it's not like we haven't used top picks to do so.

 

[Idgit]

Know what else is not a strategy? Hopelessness.

Look...I get not liking the actual current strategy. Can we please not mischaracterize it intentionally or pretend it does not exist?

 

[windward]

Did you look at the 2012 draft? We spent the first 5 picks (1,2,3, and two 4th rounds) on defense and look where we are. Claiborn barely starts, Crawford is still an unknown, and Wilber still doesn't have a set position and Matt Johnson has been released. Think about that. We spent the top 5 picks on defense and we haven't hit on one from that draft.

In fact, we haven't hit on any defensive players since 2010 draft(Sean Lee) and even Lee is a question mark due to his injury history. That's 5 drafts we blown and it's not like we haven't used top picks to do so.

The 2012 draft hasn't been good, yes. But the 2010, 2011 and 2013 drafts were better.

 

[Idgit]

The 2012 draft hasn't been good, yes. But the 2010, 2011 and 2013 drafts were better.

In 2012 we added Claiborne, Wilber, and Crawford, all of whom might be starting for us against SF. In addition to Leary, Beasley, and Dunbar who are all starters and key role players from that same college class. People need a better grip on what a rookie class nets most NFL teams.

 

[Zman5]

In 2012 we added Claiborne, Wilber, and Crawford, all of whom might be starting for us against SF. In addition to Leary, Beasley, and Dunbar who are all starters and key role players from that same college class. People need a better grip on what a rookie class nets most NFL teams.

Doesn't matter if they are starting (Claiborne, Wilber, and Crawford) for us. They are all still unproven or average players at best. From your top 5 picks, you want to at least find someone who is a better than an average player.

 

[Idgit]

Doesn't matter if they are starting (Claiborne, Wilber, and Crawford) for us. They are all still unproven or average players at best. From your top 5 picks, you want to at least find someone who is a better than an average player.

'Unproven' and 'average' aren't the same thing. And that applies to all six, each of whom has a legitimate chance to be an impact player this season.

 

[Zman5]

The 2012 draft hasn't been good, yes. But the 2010, 2011 and 2013 drafts were better.

Not on the defensive side. And I mention that because our team is where we are due to defense being so bad. Only player I would consider an impact player (defensive) from those draft is Sean Lee and even he is somewhat of a question mark due to injuries.

 

[Zman5]

'Unproven' and 'average' aren't the same thing. And that applies to all six, each of whom has a legitimate chance to be an impact player this season.

I am not saying 'unproven' and 'average' are same things. I'm saying the players we drafted with our top 5 picks in 2012 are either unproven (Crawford) or average (Claiborn, Wilber) at best. And I'm not even going to mention Matt Johnson.

 

[Idgit]

I am not saying 'unproven' and 'average' are same things. I'm saying the players we drafted with our top 5 picks in 2012 are either unproven (Crawford) or average (Claiborn, Wilber) at best. And I'm not even going to mention Matt Johnson.

I don't agree that any of those players necessarily top out at average for us. But it doesn't really matter...comparing that class to the 2009 class, there's an obvious difference there. We don't need to pretend there's not just to make ourselves feel worse about everything.

 

[Zman5]

I don't agree that any of those players necessarily top out at average for us. But it doesn't really matter...comparing that class to the 2009 class, there's an obvious difference there. We don't need to pretend there's not just to make ourselves feel worse about everything.

They may not top out at average but so far that's what they have been.

You can't compare 2009 with 2012 class due to the fact we didn't even have 1st and 2nd round picks from 2009. Our first 3 picks from the 2009 draft was 69th, 75th, and 101st pick overall. Our first three picks from 2012 draft was 6th, 45th, and 81st. That's a huge difference.

 

[windward]

In 2012 we added Claiborne, Wilber, and Crawford, all of whom might be starting for us against SF. In addition to Leary, Beasley, and Dunbar who are all starters and key role players from that same college class. People need a better grip on what a rookie class nets most NFL teams.

That's a good point to consider. I liked the 2012 draft when it happened, especially the pickups of Crawford and Wilber. In fact I think a more accurate statement would be that it hasn't lived up to its potential. Yet. This is year 3 and a pivotal one for all 3. It could very well turn out fantastic for us.The UDFA haul was very impressive.

 

[Idgit]

You can't compare 2009 with 2012 class due to the fact we didn't even have 1st and 2nd round picks from 2009. Our first 3 picks from the 2009 draft was 69th, 75th, and 101st pick overall. Our first three picks from 2012 draft was 6th, 45th, and 81st. That's a huge difference.

Yep. But what's important was the infusion of talent each year. We haven't made the same mistakes we made in 2009 again, and we're less likely to have a similarly big hole in the roster as a result.

 

[Idgit]

That's a good point to consider. I liked the 2012 draft when it happened, especially the pickups of Crawford and Wilber. In fact I think a more accurate statement would be that it hasn't lived up to its potential. Yet. This is year 3 and a pivotal one for all 3. It could very well turn out fantastic for us.The UDFA haul was very impressive.

It definitely has not lived up to its potential.

 

[Zman5]

Yep. But what's important was the infusion of talent each year. We haven't made the same mistakes we made in 2009 again, and we're less likely to have a similarly big hole in the roster as a result.

Maybe on offense but as I mentioned in my posts, our defense is bad because we haven't drafted well on that side past few years There is no infusion of talent on defense past few years. Name one impact player drafted past few years on defense besides Sean Lee.