Good is good and bad is bad

[SSoup]

so don't bother to talk to anyone then. You really do not get it; it is not JUST that he was not interviewed they also did not look his game tape or anything else over real good like they do with first rd picks they are really interested in and think they have a shot at. He was NOT vetted. Bottom line.

What's your source on them not looking at his tape? I've never heard that they didn't look at his tape. I think them looking at his tape is literally the only explanation for them being motivated enough to trade up for him. So I think they definitely did look at his tape. I don't think they zeroed in on his tape to the exclusion of everyone else (the way they sometimes get tunnel vision and make up their mind who they want and stop considering other players) since they recognized the reality that they might not even be picking that high.

 

[SSoup]

SteamedSoup?

Yes?

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

I don't think anyone would have been mad about taking Mo at our original pick (14) that year; the issue is the trade that cost us a 2nd (would have been Bobby Wagner by the way). Jalen was available to us without any additional draft capital so the situations aren't really an accurate comparison.

Yes there was the cost of moving up....I agree that it was expensive, but not for what you thought you were getting. You thought you were getting a shutdown corner. One of the most desired positions there is. It is only a major screwup because it didn't work out. If he turned out to be another Sherman, or Norman, or Peterson everyone would have loved it.

Jalen was damaged goods and not worth a high second. No way, no how.

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

Ramsey and Claiborne were very similar to me. I think the difference between Claiborne and Ramsey are health and intelligence.

Intelligence is a factor. I don't remember Claiborne being injured all the time in college but I honestly really didn't research him all that much at the time.

 

[WeaponX]

The selection would have been the same. The diffference in cost would be different. But we actually got value in the trade up. It's really very similar.

Sorry, not sure I'm following you here, which selection would have been the same?

 

[WeaponX]

Yes there was the cost of moving up....I agree that it was expensive, but not for what you thought you were getting. You thought you were getting a shutdown corner. One of the most desired positions there is. It is only a major screwup because it didn't work out. If he turned out to be another Sherman, or Norman, or Peterson everyone would have loved it.

Jalen was damaged goods and not worth a high second. No way, no how.

I was referring to Jalen Ramsey, not Jaylon Smith.

I don't disagree that we rolled the dice on JS way too early

 

[Verdict]

Sorry, not sure I'm following you here, which selection would have been the same?

Sorry. I guess I was not clear. Drafting Ramsey would have been the same situation as drafting Mo. They were viewed almost identically and went at nearly the same spot in he draft. It took the same amount of draft capital to pull the trigger on them. Mo was probably more highly regarded coming out of college.

The only difference really is to come up with the pick to pull the trigger we traded up. But the draft pick would have been essentially the same.

 

[WeaponX]

Sorry. I guess I was not clear. Drafting Ramsey would have been the same situation as drafting Mo. They were viewed almost identically and went at nearly the same spot in he draft. It took the same amount of draft capital to pull the trigger on them. Mo was probably more highly regarded coming out of college.

The only difference really is to come up with the pick to pull the trigger we traded up. But the draft pick would have been essentially the same.

Agree with the general assessment of them as prospects, but can't get to where you're at regarding the draft value / capital used on the two. Hypothetically, if we take Jalen at 4 overall in 2016 that's it as far as draft capital. In Mo's case, we didn't just spend 6th overall, we traded our 2nd round pick to do so - how's that the same draft cap?

 

[diefree666]

What's your source on them not looking at his tape? I've never heard that they didn't look at his tape. I think them looking at his tape is literally the only explanation for them being motivated enough to trade up for him. So I think they definitely did look at his tape. I don't think they zeroed in on his tape to the exclusion of everyone else (the way they sometimes get tunnel vision and make up their mind who they want and stop considering other players) since they recognized the reality that they might not even be picking that high.

I say they did not

you prove otherwise

 

[T-RO]

Save us some time x and just type "I support whatever decisions this team makes."

You''ll have way more time to analyze players, watch game tape, and so on. Being the unofficial team apologist has to cut into your time.

Wow, epic fail of a post.

I suppose anything sort of shrill hate 24/7 is being an "apologist."

 

[Alexander]

I don't understand the obsession with whether he was interviewed.

It is not about "the interview".

That is a silly game that any decent agent can prepare a prospect for.

You can get that nonsense done at the Combine and move on.

It is the workout. The one on one with the coaches that will be working with him.

The one where they put him through the things they think he does well that they want him to do.

I put way more value into a case where a coordinator or position coach has a player for a private workout. It gets down to the core things.

With Claiborne, they did nothing of the kind.

They did not meet with the player. They did not interview the player in depth.

They had Rob Ryan crying for a cornerback.

So they traded up for him. Giving up valuable resources.

Who trades up for a player that they do not know inside and out?

 

[Verdict]

Agree with the general assessment of them as prospects, but can't get to where you're at regarding the draft value / capital used on the two. Hypothetically, if we take Jalen at 4 overall in 2016 that's it as far as draft capital. In Mo's case, we didn't just spend 6th overall, we traded our 2nd round pick to do so - how's that the same draft cap?

Yeah I understand what you are saying. I'm not totally disagreeing with you. It's semantics.

 

[CCBoy]

It is not about "the interview".

That is a silly game that any decent agent can prepare a prospect for.

You can get that nonsense done at the Combine and move on.

It is the workout. The one on one with the coaches that will be working with him.

The one where they put him through the things they think he does well that they want him to do.

I put way more value into a case where a coordinator or position coach has a player for a private workout. It gets down to the core things.

With Claiborne, they did nothing of the kind.

They did not meet with the player. They did not interview the player in depth.

They had Rob Ryan crying for a cornerback.

So they traded up for him. Giving up valuable resources.

Who trades up for a player that they do not know inside and out?

That hit target well.

 

[Verdict]

I don’t think there’s any scenario that even as an above average Mike we would let Jaylon walk

I agree. I'm not suggesting we would do that. I am talking about getting our money's worth out of the player vs draft position.

 

[SSoup]

They did not meet with the player.

They studied his film. They talked to his coach, who was a former Cowboy coach so we had the insider connection there and trusted it. And, yes, we actually did meet him and evaluate him in-person. I'm sorry if the coach we sent wasn't a big enough name to please you, Your Highness, but we sent a coach.

And the scouts had him as the next best player on the board behind only Andrew Luck. They said he was the highest-rated corner on their board since Sanders.

What more do you want? You wanted the team to lock in on him? And also make a big show of how locked-in on him they were? Bring him in and make a big show of running him through drills with our star players for our head coach and our coordinator? Like in 1997 when we made it obvious to everybody that we were locking in on Tony Gonzalez, which therefore cost us any shot at him?

We quietly did our homework on a guy who, by all rights, should never have been available to us. So we didn't 100% lock in on him. Why is it bad that we didn't lock in on one guy? We scouted him. We met him. We researched him. We wanted him, and we didn't even overpay in the trade up. We did nothing wrong; the guy just didn't pan out. Which happens. It especially tends to happen when you make coaching changes that completely change, overnight, what you value in a position a player plays.

If we traded up for a guy who wasn't supposed to be drafted for another round, I'd understand the whining. But he was a consensus pick to go super early as the best corner in the draft.

If we locked in on him from Day 1 and didn't consider any other course of action, I'd understand the whining. But we were perfectly ready to remain at 14 and pick there before the trade fell in our laps.

If we got bent over and screwed with our pants on in the trade, I'd understand the whining. But we paid a reasonable price. We didn't get taken for a ride because we wanted the guy too much to have any leverage and keep our cool.

If the scouts actually hadn't rated him highly but we picked him because some emotional coach or GM was overruling them, I'd understand the whining. But the scouts were apparently gushing for him based on all the film work they did. It's not like the scouts were saying he's mediocre but we traded up for him anyway because Rob Ryan held a gun to someone's head.

 

[xwalker]

I don't understand the obsession with whether he was interviewed.

He didn't fail here for character or attitude reasons, like the kind of things that might have theoretically shown themselves in an interview. And, frankly, given our ties to Les Miles, I'm sure we got the scoop on all that anyway and we felt comfortable that he was all good on that front. He just didn't fail for any reason that would've come to light in a canned interview.

P.S.: If you think our front office talking to a guy endows them with the magic power to predict his future, I'd just remind you that the personnel people interviewing him also would've been roughly the same people who interviewed and signed off on garbage like Gregory, Hardy, Brent, or any other nightmare character we let into our orbit. What crack staff of interviewers are you upset never got the chance to rubber stamp the kid like they rubber stamp literally everybody else who played well and showed some good film?

so don't bother to talk to anyone then. You really do not get it; it is not JUST that he was not interviewed they also did not look his game tape or anything else over real good like they do with first rd picks they are really interested in and think they have a shot at. He was NOT vetted. Bottom line.

It was a huge fail to not interview him or check out his character. They didn't know until he arrived that he had near zero reading comprehension skills.

They did however definitely study his game film.

Not interviewing him was one of the things that got Ciscowski demoted and caused them to promote McClay over Ciscowski.

 

[jterrell]

You cant evaluate free agency through a myopic lens.
The Cowboys have a FA strategy built around improving from within the draft then paying the big money to those guys and adding FAs to prevent draft reaches. Other teams overpay for the Cowboys 2nd or 3rd contract talent and we recover draft picks.

I believe this process is the best possible way to build NFL teams thus support it fully.

So if we debate players the salary slot is factor one.
People are quick to point to guys making 3x as much er year but point to guys in the same salary slots that were better and that is valid criticism.

I have a paid off truck. Love it. But when I go the car show at the Fair my truck doesn't even compare.
But the 70k trucks are not at a price point I'm willing to do so it's pointless to whine I don't have the latest and greatest.

No greater example of this process is DeMarco Murray.
Key player but he got paid well beyond his stardom.
Letting him go was tough I'm sure but very good business sense.

 

[jterrell]

It was a huge fail to not interview him or check out his character. They didn't know until he arrived that he had near zero reading comprehension skills.

They did however definitely study his game film.

Not interviewing him was one of the things that got Ciscowski demoted and caused them to promote McClay over Ciscowski.

The Cowboys didn't realize they'd ever have a chance to go up and get him.
They trusted former Cowboys coach Les Miles explicitly however and his word was all they needed around character.
The insanely poor test score was known to every team in football.
Dallas knew he;d need a year to learn the system but didn't care as they were going to play him man on man.
Mo was hurt by many things here: health, injury, emotional stuff, scheme change.

 

[GroundZero1970]

The Claiborne argument isnt really a good one. Evaluating players is no where near an exact science....Jamarcus Russel interviewed and tested well, so did Tony Mandarich and Todd Marinovich, Rick Mirer Tim Couch and many many others. Players can test welland interview well and not succeed, truth is that it ia an inexact process and some you win and some you lose but based on projections and data at the time Claiborne was graded highly, who knows what he coukd have been minus all the injuries and missed time

 

[xwalker]

The Cowboys didn't realize they'd ever have a chance to go up and get him.
They trusted former Cowboys coach Les Miles explicitly however and his word was all they needed around character.
The insanely poor test score was known to every team in football.
Dallas knew he;d need a year to learn the system but didn't care as they were going to play him man on man.
Mo was hurt by many things here: health, injury, emotional stuff, scheme change.

They now check out all players ranked in their top 100+. The report about them requesting one of the top QBs to perform a specific drill comes to mind. It was 2 or 3 years ago with a player they had near zero chance of drafting.

They still make mistakes but McClay is drastically better than Ciscowski which seems obvious when you just compare their interviews.