A better draft strategy than standing pat in draft order

[Kingofholland]

The Cowboys enter the upcoming draft with 10 of the draft’s 257 picks. With holes at almost every position group on this roster, and with this organization’s refusal to take free agency as a serious way to upgrade the roster, we need a plausible approach that can upgrade this team quickly in the upcoming 2025 draft. Here are the Cowboys current picks by round:

• Round 1: No. 12
• Round 2: No. 44
• Round 3: No. 76
• Round 5: No. 149
• Round 5: No. 174 (compensatory pick)
• Round 6: No. 204 (from Lions)
• Round 6: No. 211 (compensatory pick)
• Round 7: No. 217 (from Titans)
• Round 7: No. 239 (from Packers)
• Round 7: No. 247 (from Chiefs)

It’s great having 10 picks but only 3 of them are in the top 100. That gap between pick 76 and 149 is huge. Having 7 picks in the back end of the draft decreases the chances of immediate impact. Five of those current picks will be in rounds 6 and 7 where most of those players will be STers or deep backups at best.

So…what if we could get aggressive and do a couple of trade downs to give us 5 picks in the top 100 instead of just 3?

• Trade down at 12 to pick up an extra 2nd or 3rd round pick.
• Consider trading a current player on the roster in a draft pick trade.
• Use some of the compensatory picks at the bottom to sweeten a deal.

Bottom line for me: Having only 3 top 100 picks and having 7 picks from rounds 5-7 is not enough help. We should convert some of the compensatory picks and round 6 and 7 picks into less overall picks but more in the top 100.

Without some move ups, our draft picks will mostly be bottom of the talent pool.

All depends on who's there at 12, if there are a few guys there the team can say they would be happy to draft and can pickup an extra 3rd a few spots down I think it makes a lot of sense.

It's really about how many at bats you get and sticking to bpa in the draft. So I'm with you if the right trade comes along.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I understand wanting to trade down. But the truth is, you actually can find players in later rounds. It's not about your draft position. You can draft a player in round 1 that's a complete bust or draft Mr. Irrelevant and nail a pick that beats out your busted round 1 pick.

It's more than that. The Cowboys need more picks because of them not using FA to build the roster.

 

[blueblood70]

It's more than that. The Cowboys need more picks because of them not using FA to build the roster.

Look I know they don't do blockbuster stuff in free agency but don't say they don't when you use the word don't as if they don't even bring in free agents at all none of them that are on your list but I'm pretty impressed with the stuff they've done this offseason compared to last anything is better than last offseason..

You are on here every day do we need to see the transaction list not only free agents that they've already brought in but the ones they made sure didn't become free agents that kept on their own team that's a pretty active offseason so don't act like they sat on their hands I mean last year they brought in Kendricks waited till after the draft and brought in a bunch of fair parts that's not the case this year that's a solid group they brought in so far...

So a better use of the word would be they don't bring in big name free agents they don't do high risk free agents but the word budget doesn't even work either because Kendricks came in here last year but the Eagles did this you want to see the Yang and the Yang two of their defensive players they brought in were allegedly budgeted minded they were kind of like the linebackers we brought in this year I think it was a safety and I don't know a linebacker if I'll say a corner they did pretty well but the $17 million they spent on Huff just got flushed down the toilet last year so they're better picks in free agency we're the ones that they spent less money on it's kind of ironic right?

Look last year was a disastrous offseason and I know they don't do a lot as far as things that would impress a fan base but this offseason has been very active and I'm content with it at this point and it's not over...

To say they're not participating in free agency is acting like only the free agents in the first 10 days with the big names that make the biggest money are the only ones that can make an impact on your team and I'm going to say that's untrue....

 

[Kwyn]

The Cowboys enter the upcoming draft with 10 of the draft’s 257 picks. With holes at almost every position group on this roster, and with this organization’s refusal to take free agency as a serious way to upgrade the roster, we need a plausible approach that can upgrade this team quickly in the upcoming 2025 draft. Here are the Cowboys current picks by round:

• Round 1: No. 12
• Round 2: No. 44
• Round 3: No. 76
• Round 5: No. 149
• Round 5: No. 174 (compensatory pick)
• Round 6: No. 204 (from Lions)
• Round 6: No. 211 (compensatory pick)
• Round 7: No. 217 (from Titans)
• Round 7: No. 239 (from Packers)
• Round 7: No. 247 (from Chiefs)

It’s great having 10 picks but only 3 of them are in the top 100. That gap between pick 76 and 149 is huge. Having 7 picks in the back end of the draft decreases the chances of immediate impact. Five of those current picks will be in rounds 6 and 7 where most of those players will be STers or deep backups at best.

So…what if we could get aggressive and do a couple of trade downs to give us 5 picks in the top 100 instead of just 3?

• Trade down at 12 to pick up an extra 2nd or 3rd round pick.
• Consider trading a current player on the roster in a draft pick trade.
• Use some of the compensatory picks at the bottom to sweeten a deal.

Bottom line for me: Having only 3 top 100 picks and having 7 picks from rounds 5-7 is not enough help. We should convert some of the compensatory picks and round 6 and 7 picks into less overall picks but more in the top 100.

Without some move ups, our draft picks will mostly be bottom of the talent pool.

All five of those 6-7 round picks have a total draft value of 22 points, which is the equivalent of the Cowboys 5th round pick at 174. At some point teams say “nah, we don’t want five practice squad guys. We have our own.”

To trade for a mid 2nd rounder, we would have to drop from 12 to 21, if you’re just using chart value. Possible but it would take a highly motivated partner. Seattle has two picks in that range by I haven’t seen word they want to move up.

Considering there aren’t really more than 12-15 first round talents out there this year, I’m not sure the front office is going to want to drop out.

Might as well trade all the way out of the first round. Can you imagine if we traded #12 for a 2nd and 3rd this year and next years 2nd from some team?

I don’t see that being a popular move.

This is a draft where a lot of teams will be looking to move down because the first round is pretty poor. As much as I’d like to see us stockpile picks, I just don’t think there will be an appetite from the from office, other teams in the league or with Cowboy fans.

 

[Bobhaze]

To say they're not participating in free agency is acting like only the free agents in the first 10 days with the big names that make the biggest money are the only ones that can make an impact on your team and I'm going to say that's untrue....

It is a factual statement that the Cowboys have been “active in free agency”.

But it is also an accurate statement that the Dallas Cowboys front office has not been a particularly effective participant in free agency in a long time. “Effective” being defined as translating FA signings into playoff wins.

Looking at our FA action so far this off-season, most pro football pundits rate it below average. Pro Football focus gives it a C-, CBS Sports a C-, Yahoo Sports a D-, ESPN ranked the Cowboys 21st in FA, and Sports Illustrated even issued an F.

Normally, I think it’s fair to give an NFL front office time to prove they are capable of putting together a roster than can truly compete for a championship. But is it “unfair” to have lost patience with a GM and FO that has given us 4 wild card wins in three decades and zero appearances in a conference championship?

So Blue, as always I respect your opinion even though I disagree. Saying the Cowboys haven’t done anything special so far in FA seems pretty fair to me. That’s just my opinion…and apparently the opinion of many in the NFL pundit world.

 

[Kwyn]

give up all the stuff at the bottom to move up anywhere in the first 3 rounds to get the guy we really want.
Next year with a top 5 we'll be set to grab a QB, so even if we trade a 2nd or 3rd for next year I'm fine.

“All the stuff at the bottom” gets you a pick at the end of the 5th round. All five of our 6-7 picks are worth a total of 23 points.

 

[Bobhaze]

“All the stuff at the bottom” gets you a pick at the end of the 5th round. All five of our 6-7 picks are worth a total of 23 points.

This is a good point. But I was thinking we could also include a current roster member in a trade down that could possibly render something higher than a 5th rounder.

My thinking is there are only 2-3 players on this roster that are “untouchable”. Lamb, Parsons and Tyler Smith. And honestly, I would even consider them in a trade if it could give us a better roster. Sadly, I don’t think this FO is capable of that kind of savvy move. They long ago stopped taking home run swings with the roster.

 

[fivetwos]

All five of those 6-7 round picks have a total draft value of 22 points, which is the equivalent of the Cowboys 5th round pick at 174. At some point teams say “nah, we don’t want five practice squad guys. We have our own.”

To trade for a mid 2nd rounder, we would have to drop from 12 to 21, if you’re just using chart value. Possible but it would take a highly motivated partner. Seattle has two picks in that range by I haven’t seen word they want to move up.

Considering there aren’t really more than 12-15 first round talents out there this year, I’m not sure the front office is going to want to drop out.

Might as well trade all the way out of the first round. Can you imagine if we traded #12 for a 2nd and 3rd this year and next years 2nd from some team?

I don’t see that being a popular move.

This is a draft where a lot of teams will be looking to move down because the first round is pretty poor. As much as I’d like to see us stockpile picks, I just don’t think there will be an appetite from the from office, other teams in the league or with Cowboy fans.

Fully agree. Wish they would move down considerably for a future first. That’s a nice lottery ticket and two first aren’t the worst thing to have when there’s a supposedly big QB talent coming out.

But that’s not gonna happen. Jerry seems to be very much in ‘we’re gonna win now with Dak Prescott’ mode.

I can see a small trade down in round one similar to last year and 2021, especially if Golden is the guy they want…which seems to be the consensus.

 

[Pokes12]

This team needs more top end talent. We aren't winning a SB this year. Take a star at #12. Do what you want after that but don't give up on a potential All Pro (with luck) to pick up another guy to "fill a hole". We just aren't good enough to be thinking like that right now IMO. If anything I'm being more aggressive and trading up in any of the first 3 rounds if there is a guy on the board that we feel is worth it.This year is a draft to get us moving in the right direction

Bur not the WR from Texas. He is not a star.

 

[atlantacowboy]

Naw, we prefer the "let the universe decide" approach to our drafts. It fits Jerry's management style which has resulted in so much success. I hate to break it to you people, but Stephen and Jerry think they are doing a great job and are very proud of all of their success.

 

[blueblood70]

It is a factual statement that the Cowboys have been “active in free agency”.

But it is also an accurate statement that the Dallas Cowboys front office has not been a particularly effective participant in free agency in a long time. “Effective” being defined as translating FA signings into playoff wins.

Looking at our FA action so far this off-season, most pro football pundits rate it below average. Pro Football focus gives it a C-, CBS Sports a C-, Yahoo Sports a D-, ESPN ranked the Cowboys 21st in FA, and Sports Illustrated even issued an F.

Normally, I think it’s fair to give an NFL front office time to prove they are capable of putting together a roster than can truly compete for a championship. But is it “unfair” to have lost patience with a GM and FO that has given us 4 wild card wins in three decades and zero appearances in a conference championship?

So Blue, as always I respect your opinion even though I disagree. Saying the Cowboys haven’t done anything special so far in FA seems pretty fair to me. That’s just my opinion…and apparently the opinion of many in the NFL pundit world.

You can all try to attach free agency to the playoffs and that's not how it works as a blueprint,

but that's good though, that you want to carry the narrative to hate on the front office,​

​

but I know some of the top spending teams over the years, look at how much money was spent in free agency, and say on their offensive line, I've seen a recent stat And look at the Giants look at their spending across the board in free agency the last five to 5 years and then explain how the Cowboys have just stomped their butts 13 straight times or 14 of 18 , I don't remember it's really bad..​

​

the Giants lost like 13 games in a row against us and they spend more money than us in free agency..​

​

so when you say playoff success and free agency coincide,​

​

I'm telling you guys like Kendricks do workout last year he was very good surprisingly good but they didn't do enough but this year they brought a bunch of guys in like Kendrick's and I know you don't think it's going to help in the playoffs but how about we get through the regular season and then discuss how last year there was number way to make the playoffs with all the injuries we had I don't care how well you do in free agency ask San Francisco they had an injury riddled season a bunch of high paid players on that team that all of a sudden they were getting rid of and they didn't make the playoffs last year it does not always translate...​

No way shape or form am I excusing them for not taking a little bit more risk in free agency but as long as they're more active than they were last year which they are and like we won 12 games three straight years two division titles against a team that does all the spending and yes they want a Super Bowl but we have won that division from a team doing it better than us so I don't want to hear how it doesn't translate whenever some of your best players not the free agents but your top players fail to do their jobs in the playoffs. Tory that is a fact that is actually the bigger problem is not having the players show up the coaches show up they don't develop good game plans execution when the lights are on against the better teams and that is not always attached to free agency our own players have had let downs that have cost us games..

I'll give you one example san Francisco game Trayvon Diggs 2 plays that could have changed that game not all his fault we lost the game but when you're making the money you make and you have the name you have you can't drop that interception and you can't not knock the ball loose from Kittles i'd rather him got a penalty I mean not Kittles teeth out for all you need to do that's what's not showing up is playing loose and yet aggressive in the playoffs and it goes from the coaching step all the way down to the bottom player there has been at least five moments by some of our best players where they're just not doing their job...

. So again I get what you're saying but let's stop trying to label how free agency is guaranteeing you a Super Bowl run that's not how it works yes more activity is good getting some bigger names is good but like I said I think the Eagles outside of Saquan Barkley which was big and that's another dumb move by the Giants we could thank them for that but they spent $17 million on Huff and it didn't workout but there are two less expensive free agents they took a flyer on a defensive back and linebacker and they had some of their best seasons and now they re-signed them so they did with Dallas did except for Bartley and yes that was a mistake but the Cowboys were more than a Barkley away last year when you had eighteen injuries and allowed them to key not players but positions that were just absolutely ate up..

So when you make the playoffs five out of eight years and you go back and look at those games I don't think it's just free agency that was the problem it was our own big time players in our own staff that had cost us games they just didn't do their job they were paid to do or that their name on the back of the jersey said they needed to do is step up and play bigger in bigger moments and they did not and that includes the coaching staff....

This is a hit and run post but hopefully I can make it back and edit before it times out..

 

[blueblood70]

It is a factual statement that the Cowboys have been “active in free agency”.

But it is also an accurate statement that the Dallas Cowboys front office has not been a particularly effective participant in free agency in a long time. “Effective” being defined as translating FA signings into playoff wins.

Looking at our FA action so far this off-season, most pro football pundits rate it below average. Pro Football focus gives it a C-, CBS Sports a C-, Yahoo Sports a D-, ESPN ranked the Cowboys 21st in FA, and Sports Illustrated even issued an F.

Normally, I think it’s fair to give an NFL front office time to prove they are capable of putting together a roster than can truly compete for a championship. But is it “unfair” to have lost patience with a GM and FO that has given us 4 wild card wins in three decades and zero appearances in a conference championship?

So Blue, as always I respect your opinion even though I disagree. Saying the Cowboys haven’t done anything special so far in FA seems pretty fair to me. That’s just my opinion…and apparently the opinion of many in the NFL pundit world.

You can all try to attach free agency to the playoffs and that's not how it works as a blueprint,

but that's good though, that you want to carry the narrative to hate on the front office,
but I know some of the top spending teams over the years, look at how much money was spent in free agency, and say on their offensive line, I've seen a recent stat And look at the Giants look at their spending across the board in free agency the last five to 5 years and then explain how the Cowboys have just stomped their butts 13 straight times or 14 of 18 , I don't remember it's really bad..

the Giants lost like 13 games in a row against us and they spend more money than us in free agency.

so, when you say playoff success and free agency coincide,

I'm telling you guys like Kendricks do workout last year he was very good surprisingly good but they didn't do enough but this year they brought a bunch of guys in like Kendrick's and I know you don't think it's going to help in the playoffs but how about we get through the regular season and then discuss how last year there was number way to make the playoffs with all the injuries we had..

I don't care how well you do in free agency ask San Francisco they had an injury riddled season a bunch of high paid players on that team that all of a sudden, they were getting rid of, and they didn't make the playoffs last year, it does not always translate...​

IN No way shape or form am I excusing them for not taking a little bit more risk in free agency,

but as long as they're more active than they were last year which they are and like we won 12 games three straight years two division titles against a team that does all the spending and yes they want a Super Bowl but we have won that division from a team doing it better than us..​

​

so, I don't want to hear how it doesn't translate. whenever some of your best players not the free agents. but your top players fail to do their jobs in the playoffs. That is a fact that is actually the bigger problem is not having the players show up the coaches show up they don't develop good game plans execution when the lights are on against the better teams and that is not always attached to free agency our own players have had let downs that have cost us games.​

I'll give you one example San Francisco game Trayvon Diggs 2 plays that could have changed that game not all his fault we lost the game but when you're making the money you make and you have the name you have you can't drop that interception and you can't not knock the ball loose from Kittles I'd rather him got a penalty I mean knock Kittles teeth out, for all you need to do that's what's not showing up is playing loose and yet aggressive in the playoffs and it goes from the coaching step all the way down to the bottom player there has been at least five moments by some of our best players where they're just not doing their job... I mean it's the same for that game we had we had 14 penalties 11 on your offensive line how is that Jerry's fault in free agency the players had done well to win 12 games many of them a handful of them just did it cut it in the playoffs.

They made physical and mental mistakes that cost us the game.

. So again, I get what you're saying, but let's stop trying to label how free agency is guaranteeing you a Super Bowl run or close..

that's not how it works, yes more activity is good, getting some bigger names is good sometimes, but like I said I think the Eagles outside of Saquan Barkley which was big and that's another dumb move by the Giants, we could thank them for that!!​

​

they spent $17 million on Huff and it didn't work out but there are two less expensive free agents they took a flyer on a defensive back and linebacker and they had some of their best seasons, and now they re-signed them, so they did with Dallas did except for Barkley and yes that was a mistake but the Cowboys were more than a Barkley away last year ,when you had eighteen injuries and allowed them to key not players but positions that were just absolutely eaten up..​

So, when you make the playoffs five out of eight years and you go back and look at those games,

I don't think it's just free agency that was the problem; it was our own big-time players & our own staff that had cost us games.​

​

they just didn't do their job they were paid to do or that their name on the back of the jersey said they needed to do ,and step up, and play bigger in bigger moments, and they did not and that includes the coaching staff....​

 

[thunderpimp91]

You can all try to attach free agency to the playoffs and that's not how it works as a blueprint,

but that's good though, that you want to carry the narrative to hate on the front office,
but I know some of the top spending teams over the years, look at how much money was spent in free agency, and say on their offensive line, I've seen a recent stat And look at the Giants look at their spending across the board in free agency the last five to 5 years and then explain how the Cowboys have just stomped their butts 13 straight times or 14 of 18 , I don't remember it's really bad..

the Giants lost like 13 games in a row against us and they spend more money than us in free agency.

so, when you say playoff success and free agency coincide,

I'm telling you guys like Kendricks do workout last year he was very good surprisingly good but they didn't do enough but this year they brought a bunch of guys in like Kendrick's and I know you don't think it's going to help in the playoffs but how about we get through the regular season and then discuss how last year there was number way to make the playoffs with all the injuries we had..​

​

I don't care how well you do in free agency ask San Francisco they had an injury riddled season a bunch of high paid players on that team that all of a sudden, they were getting rid of, and they didn't make the playoffs last year, it does not always translate...​

IN No way shape or form am I excusing them for not taking a little bit more risk in free agency,

but as long as they're more active than they were last year which they are and like we won 12 games three straight years two division titles against a team that does all the spending and yes they want a Super Bowl but we have won that division from a team doing it better than us..​

​

so, I don't want to hear how it doesn't translate. whenever some of your best players not the free agents. but your top players fail to do their jobs in the playoffs. That is a fact that is actually the bigger problem is not having the players show up the coaches show up they don't develop good game plans execution when the lights are on against the better teams and that is not always attached to free agency our own players have had let downs that have cost us games.​

I'll give you one example San Francisco game Trayvon Diggs 2 plays that could have changed that game not all his fault we lost the game but when you're making the money you make and you have the name you have you can't drop that interception and you can't not knock the ball loose from Kittles I'd rather him got a penalty I mean knock Kittles teeth out, for all you need to do that's what's not showing up is playing loose and yet aggressive in the playoffs and it goes from the coaching step all the way down to the bottom player there has been at least five moments by some of our best players where they're just not doing their job... I mean it's the same for that game we had we had 14 penalties 11 on your offensive line how is that Jerry's fault in free agency the players had done well to win 12 games many of them a handful of them just did it cut it in the playoffs.

They made physical and mental mistakes that cost us the game.

. So again, I get what you're saying, but let's stop trying to label how free agency is guaranteeing you a Super Bowl run or close..

that's not how it works, yes more activity is good, getting some bigger names is good sometimes, but like I said I think the Eagles outside of Saquan Barkley which was big and that's another dumb move by the Giants, we could thank them for that!!​

​

they spent $17 million on Huff and it didn't work out but there are two less expensive free agents they took a flyer on a defensive back and linebacker and they had some of their best seasons, and now they re-signed them, so they did with Dallas did except for Barkley and yes that was a mistake but the Cowboys were more than a Barkley away last year ,when you had eighteen injuries and allowed them to key not players but positions that were just absolutely eaten up..​

So, when you make the playoffs five out of eight years and you go back and look at those games,

I don't think it's just free agency that was the problem; it was our own big-time players & our own staff that had cost us games.​

​

they just didn't do their job they were paid to do or that their name on the back of the jersey said they needed to do ,and step up, and play bigger in bigger moments, and they did not and that includes the coaching staff....​

Holy mother of excuses....BTW the Giants have been one of the lowest spenders in free agency the last few years

2024 - 19th
2023 - 20th
2022 - 22nd

They really only spend heavy money while they had a rookie QB deal. The only true big deals they gave out the last 5 years have been Bradburry (Good player), Jackson (Good player), Martinez (Good player) Glowinski (Average player), and Golloday (Horrible player). Overall its not a terrible hit rate, the Giants have had much bigger issues than their FA spending.

You bring up Huff, but he really hasn't been a liability for Philly. Yes I'm sure they have higher expectations out of him, but the guy was 1.7% against the cap last year, 2.6% this year, and they can get out of that deal after this season if needed. We still talk about $17M deal as if they are mega contracts in the modern game and they simply are not. The Cowboys literally paid more against the cap for a QB not even active most weeks last season than Philly paid for Huff. That is a low end to mid tier starter at multiple positions. For Philly they still have a year to evaluate the guy. If he rebounds and is a 10 sack player again they are fine with it. If he doesn't the bulk of his guaranteed money will have been paid after this year and they'll likely be in position to renegotiate a new contract with him at a lower rate.

 

[Bobhaze]

You can all try to attach free agency to the playoffs and that's not how it works as a blueprint,

but that's good though, that you want to carry the narrative to hate on the front office,​

​

but I know some of the top spending teams over the years, look at how much money was spent in free agency, and say on their offensive line, I've seen a recent stat And look at the Giants look at their spending across the board in free agency the last five to 5 years and then explain how the Cowboys have just stomped their butts 13 straight times or 14 of 18 , I don't remember it's really bad..​

​

the Giants lost like 13 games in a row against us and they spend more money than us in free agency..​

​

so when you say playoff success and free agency coincide,​

​

I'm telling you guys like Kendricks do workout last year he was very good surprisingly good but they didn't do enough but this year they brought a bunch of guys in like Kendrick's and I know you don't think it's going to help in the playoffs but how about we get through the regular season and then discuss how last year there was number way to make the playoffs with all the injuries we had I don't care how well you do in free agency ask San Francisco they had an injury riddled season a bunch of high paid players on that team that all of a sudden they were getting rid of and they didn't make the playoffs last year it does not always translate...​

No way shape or form am I excusing them for not taking a little bit more risk in free agency but as long as they're more active than they were last year which they are and like we won 12 games three straight years two division titles against a team that does all the spending and yes they want a Super Bowl but we have won that division from a team doing it better than us so I don't want to hear how it doesn't translate whenever some of your best players not the free agents but your top players fail to do their jobs in the playoffs. Tory that is a fact that is actually the bigger problem is not having the players show up the coaches show up they don't develop good game plans execution when the lights are on against the better teams and that is not always attached to free agency our own players have had let downs that have cost us games..

I'll give you one example san Francisco game Trayvon Diggs 2 plays that could have changed that game not all his fault we lost the game but when you're making the money you make and you have the name you have you can't drop that interception and you can't not knock the ball loose from Kittles i'd rather him got a penalty I mean not Kittles teeth out for all you need to do that's what's not showing up is playing loose and yet aggressive in the playoffs and it goes from the coaching step all the way down to the bottom player there has been at least five moments by some of our best players where they're just not doing their job...

. So again I get what you're saying but let's stop trying to label how free agency is guaranteeing you a Super Bowl run that's not how it works yes more activity is good getting some bigger names is good but like I said I think the Eagles outside of Saquan Barkley which was big and that's another dumb move by the Giants we could thank them for that but they spent $17 million on Huff and it didn't workout but there are two less expensive free agents they took a flyer on a defensive back and linebacker and they had some of their best seasons and now they re-signed them so they did with Dallas did except for Bartley and yes that was a mistake but the Cowboys were more than a Barkley away last year when you had eighteen injuries and allowed them to key not players but positions that were just absolutely ate up..

So when you make the playoffs five out of eight years and you go back and look at those games I don't think it's just free agency that was the problem it was our own big time players in our own staff that had cost us games they just didn't do their job they were paid to do or that their name on the back of the jersey said they needed to do is step up and play bigger in bigger moments and they did not and that includes the coaching staff....

This is a hit and run post but hopefully I can make it back and edit before it times out..

There is ZERO “hate” coming from my keyboard. Disagree all you want but when you start throwing out the “hater” non-sense because you don’t like an opinion….its even more tiring than the opinions you so fervently disagree with. Calling a fan’s opinion “hate” because you don’t like it is one of the laziest things done on this forum.

Please tell me in as much detail as you choose WHY Cowboys fans should give this FO any benefit of the doubt. Please let me know why any opinion you disagree with is “hate”. I welcome a long detailed answer.

 

[Stash]

The Cowboys enter the upcoming draft with 10 of the draft’s 257 picks. With holes at almost every position group on this roster, and with this organization’s refusal to take free agency as a serious way to upgrade the roster, we need a plausible approach that can upgrade this team quickly in the upcoming 2025 draft. Here are the Cowboys current picks by round:

• Round 1: No. 12
• Round 2: No. 44
• Round 3: No. 76
• Round 5: No. 149
• Round 5: No. 174 (compensatory pick)
• Round 6: No. 204 (from Lions)
• Round 6: No. 211 (compensatory pick)
• Round 7: No. 217 (from Titans)
• Round 7: No. 239 (from Packers)
• Round 7: No. 247 (from Chiefs)

It’s great having 10 picks but only 3 of them are in the top 100. That gap between pick 76 and 149 is huge. Having 7 picks in the back end of the draft decreases the chances of immediate impact. Five of those current picks will be in rounds 6 and 7 where most of those players will be STers or deep backups at best.

So…what if we could get aggressive and do a couple of trade downs to give us 5 picks in the top 100 instead of just 3?

• Trade down at 12 to pick up an extra 2nd or 3rd round pick.
• Consider trading a current player on the roster in a draft pick trade.
• Use some of the compensatory picks at the bottom to sweeten a deal.

Bottom line for me: Having only 3 top 100 picks and having 7 picks from rounds 5-7 is not enough help. We should convert some of the compensatory picks and round 6 and 7 picks into less overall picks but more in the top 100.

Without some move ups, our draft picks will mostly be bottom of the talent pool.

I disagree with this assessment.

I prefer quality over quantity.

 

[kevm3]

I'd rather just take the best player at 12. When we pick in the top 16 or so it's usually a solid pick. When we get in the latter end of the first round, we usually pick someone that doesn't pan out. We need quality, not quantity.