Is anyone still pleased with the 6-0 win against the Iggles?

[Sydla]

It is a lame argument....... statistically and historically the difference between 16 and 19 is zero

It's not lame.

It's common sense. Picking 16th gives you a better chance of getting the guy you might want than picking 19th.

If we were picking 3 spots higher in the last draft, we would have gotten McKinley, who we wanted more than Charlton.

 

[DallasEast]

Which of these two would Viince Lombardi shake his head the most? Some of Garrett's in-game coaching decisions? Or some fans preferring losses over wins? Ah, who cares what a legendary 'Winning isn't everything. It is the only thing.' head coach would have thought?

Of course, Lombardi also said, "The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have." Dallas could improved upon itself if it had a higher draft slot and drafted another Bobby Carpenter. Or the team could better itself with a lower draft slot and draft another Travis Frederick.

Fiddlesticks! Who knows what will happen? I mean, besides fans who peer into the future but cannot state exactly when Jerry Jones will no longer be the general manager that is. Or who never tell me what the winning Powerball numbers will be. Ever. Not even an <expletive> red ball! It's like the odds are only 26-1 for gosh sakes and no know-it-all ever tells me squat! (THAT really grinds my gears).

 

[Nightman]

Really? Zero? Then why on Earth would ANY team move up 4 sports ever in the history of the draft?

Because there was a specific person they wanted and chose to overpay

The value is in moving back and not forward because the differences are perceived and not real

Do you think the Draft Trade Chart is science? Spoiler alert - it isn't

 

[Sydla]

Because there was a specific person they wanted and chose to overpay

The value is in moving back and not forward because the differences are perceived and not real

Do you think the Draft Trade Chart is science? Spoiler alert - it isn't

You just refuted your point with the first sentence. A team would want to pick higher if a specific person they wanted was there.

In other words, there may be a specific person the Cowboys want to draft that they could have had at 16 but was then drafted before they picked 19th.

So yes, in the grand scheme of things, winning that last game wasn't necessarily a good thing. Losing could have been "better" for the team, especially if they have a specific player they really like that is on the board at 16, but then gets drafted before they pick at 19.

 

[Nightman]

It's not lame.

It's common sense. Picking 16th gives you a better chance of getting the guy you might want than picking 19th.

If we were picking 3 spots higher in the last draft, we would have gotten McKinley, who we wanted more than Charlton.

But you also pay more

The real difference is so minuscule it is negligible....... the chart isn't real....it is all subjective

The smartest draft gurus all trade back because ALL the players outside the Top5 are crapshoots

60% of all Draft picks are busts.........18% never play a down for the team..........quantity over quality is the best approach

 

[G2]

Because there was a specific person they wanted and chose to overpay

The value is in moving back and not forward because the differences are perceived and not real

Do you think the Draft Trade Chart is science? Spoiler alert - it isn't

Right, it's not science. And sometimes moving up pays off. Otherwise teams would never move up!

 

[Nightman]

You just refuted your point with the first sentence. A team would want to pick higher if a specific person they wanted was there.

In other words, there may be a specific person the Cowboys want to draft that they could have had at 16 but was then drafted before they picked 19th.

So yes, in the grand scheme of things, winning that last game wasn't necessarily a good thing. Losing could have been "better" for the team, especially if they have a specific player they really like that is on the board at 16, but then gets drafted before they pick at 19.

How do they know he won't be there......it is a panic move and an over-pay

Belichick figured out a long time ago that outside of the top5 there is very little difference between 1st and 2nd round.....between 3 spots is laughable to think anyone is that precise

 

[Sydla]

But you also pay more

The real difference is so minuscule it is negligible....... the chart isn't real....it is all subjective

The smartest draft gurus all trade back because ALL the players outside the Top5 are crapshoots

60% of all Draft picks are busts.........18% never play a down for the team..........quantity over quality is the best approach

You are trying to muddy the waters here. I am not talking about trading back or trading up.

I am talking about a very specific point. Picking 16th is better than picking 19th. It increases the chances you get a higher player on your draft board. It's almost impossible to argue otherwise.

 

[mardwin]

Regardless of the super bowl outcome, Jerry will try to spin that 6-0 preseason win against the Eagles backups as a sign of optimism and that we are on track.

 

[Nightman]

Right, it's not science. And sometimes moving up pays off. Otherwise teams would never move up!

Doesn't make it a smart move

 

[Sydla]

How do they know he won't be there......it is a panic move and an over-pay

Belichick figured out a long time ago that outside of the top5 there is very little difference between 1st and 2nd round.....between 3 spots is laughable to think anyone is that precise

I am only repeating what you just said. You said a team might want to pick at a specific spot because there is a specific player there that might not be there when they actually pick.

Hence, yes, it's better to pick 16th than 19th. I am only using your own words here.

 

[DallasEast]

Really? Zero? Then why on Earth would ANY team move up 4 sports ever in the history of the draft?

It is conceivable that Dallas might consider moving up in the 2018 draft. I kinda hope they do if they value a player with huge potential so I can laugh twice--once for all the oh-they-gave-themselves-an-enema-winning-a-useless-game-gloom-and-doomers and twice if Jerry Johnnie Walker Blue Label Jones hits a home run in the first round.

 

[Nightman]

You are trying to muddy the waters here. I am not talking about trading back or trading up.

I am talking about a very specific point. Picking 16th is better than picking 19th. It increases the chances you get a higher player on your draft board. It's almost impossible to argue otherwise.

And I am saying statistically and historically the difference is so small it is negligible and definitely all the diaper wetting we see around here

If you don't have 10 players for every draft pick you aren't doing your job

 

[G2]

Doesn't make it a smart move

Doesn't make it a dumb move. Every pick is a gamble.

 

[G2]

And I am saying statistically and historically the difference is so small it is negligible and definitely all the diaper wetting we see around here

If you don't have 10 players for every draft pick you aren't doing your job

Do you have a link to support your idea? Might help us understand your opinion.

 

[G2]

It is conceivable that Dallas might consider moving up in the 2018 draft. I kinda hope they do if they value a player with huge potential so I can laugh twice--once for all the oh-they-gave-themselves-an-enema-winning-a-useless-game-gloom-and-doomers and twice if Jerry Johnnie Walker Blue Label Jones hits a home run in the first round.

Depends on how you look at it. I'm in the middle. Some will point out the players that didn't pan out after we gave up other picks to move up. Then there are those who like to focus on the picks that did work out. I see both sides and both use hindsight.
I'm all for going after a stud.

 

[Sydla]

And I am saying statistically and historically the difference is so small it is negligible and definitely all the diaper wetting we see around here

If you don't have 10 players for every draft pick you aren't doing your job

But your list of 10 could be different at 16 than at 19. You can call it insignificant all you want, but in the end, picking 16th is better, even if slightly, than picking 19th.

The funny part about all of this is that some want to argue how it's statistically insignificant picking between 19th and 16th but then want to talk about nebulous benefits in winning that game, like a carry over to the 2018 season, 9 months away. LOL.

 

[RJ_MacReady]

Who was happy with the win? The season was already long over by that point.

Yeah, I remember the large majority would've rather lost to better our draft position and put one more nail Garrett's coffin (4th 8-8 season). Where was the TS during all of that time?

 

[Nightman]

Do you have a link to support your idea? Might help us understand your opinion.

It is history

Moving up by a round is obviously different but not as much as people think

You said it yourself ...every pick is a gamble

To say you can differentiate between top16 and top19 is pure hubris and a waste of time

we got TFred and TWill because we moved back...... we lost a top pick to move up and get Mo Claiborne

 

[Nightman]

But your list of 10 could be different at 16 than at 19. You can call it insignificant all you want, but in the end, picking 16th is better, even if slightly, than picking 19th.

The funny part about all of this is that some want to argue how it's statistically insignificant picking between 19th and 16th but then want to talk about nebulous benefits in winning that game, like a carry over to the 2018 season, 9 months away. LOL.

If you think you are that precise I laugh at your arrogance