About that 2009 draft...

[starchamber]

Who needs drafts?


Food for thought.

Can you also compare play-off appearances/win, superbowl apearances/wins during that span among those same teams ?

 

[noshame]

Dallas hasn't coached well. That is now over.

 

[burmafrd]

We have not consistently drafted well nor have we been consistently coached well. Put those two together and you have the Dallas Cowboys of the last 15 years.

 

[Temo]

Forget the draft; the Patriots only have six PLAYERS remaining from their 2007 18-1 team.

If you consider the Pats to be the gold standard (as I do), then you have to like the Jason Garrett approach of continually bringing fresh and hungry players in.

This. This so much. It's about player development. It's always been about that.

 

[SWG9]

This. This so much. It's about player development. It's always been about that.

Drafting is an inexact science, but it's a heck of a lot easier if you have a system in place that you stick to. New England has this; so does Pittsburgh and Indianapolis.

You have a system in place, you draft players that fit that system, and you focus on player development. Spinkle in a few low risk/high reward veterans each year, keep churning your roster, and there's your recipe for success.

Contrast this with the Cowboys' recent method of overpaying for free agents and changing coaches every three years. How can you possibly be expected to develop anyone in that environment?

 

[Apollo Creed]

This thread is vintage CZ.

 

[Temo]

Drafting is an inexact science, but it's a heck of a lot easier if you have a system in place that you stick to. New England has this; so does Pittsburgh and Indianapolis.

You have a system in place, you draft players that fit that system, and you focus on player development. Spinkle in a few low risk/high reward veterans each year, keep churning your roster, and there's your recipe for success.

Contrast this with the Cowboys' recent method of overpaying for free agents and changing coaches every three years. How can you possibly be expected to develop anyone in that environment?

Everything you say is right, BUT... So this is going to be a bit controversial, but here I go:

Its very hard to be a "good" drafting team. The NFL draft is a very efficient process and the information gap is lower than ever. Sure some teams have the right philosophy, and some teams have slightly better talent evaluators. However, I think the difference among the good teams at this and the bad are quite small. Value, as it were, is almost nonexistent in terms of identifying players.

I think this why teams like the Patriots just stockpile draft picks: instead of trying to draft "better", they try and draft "more". Sometimes you'll get lucky and take a Tom Brady in the 6th round, and the more picks you have the better chance you have at that happening.

But the real value, I believe, comes with what you do with the players you take. The good teams develop the guys they take into players-- and that's all coaching. I don't think, for instance, that Miles Austin or Patrick Crayton were natural-born to be in the NFL. Guys like Austin, even with his natural speed and strength, wash out of the league all the time. He came from a small school and was super raw, but eventually was shaped into the all-pro he's capable of being. IMO, our coaching on defense has been horrid ever since Parcells left. We've developed no young players, there have been too many wash outs.

Of course, this is not say that the 2009 draft was fine. It was a horrible draft. There's a good chance we had the wrong philosophy going into it. I'm just saying that we put too much emphasis on what guys are selected and not enough on how those guys are prepared to be NFL players.

 

[LeonDixson]

Everything you say is right, BUT... So this is going to be a bit controversial, but here I go:

Its very hard to be a "good" drafting team. The NFL draft is a very efficient process and the information gap is lower than ever. Sure some teams have the right philosophy, and some teams have slightly better talent evaluators. However, I think the difference among the good teams at this and the bad are quite small. Value, as it were, is almost nonexistent in terms of identifying players.

I think this why teams like the Patriots just stockpile draft picks: instead of trying to draft "better", they try and draft "more". Sometimes you'll get lucky and take a Tom Brady in the 6th round, and the more picks you have the better chance you have at that happening.

But the real value, I believe, comes with what you do with the players you take. The good teams develop the guys they take into players-- and that's all coaching. I don't think, for instance, that Miles Austin or Patrick Crayton were natural-born to be in the NFL. Guys like Austin, even with his natural speed and strength, wash out of the league all the time. He came from a small school and was super raw, but eventually was shaped into the all-pro he's capable of being. IMO, our coaching on defense has been horrid ever since Parcells left. We've developed no young players, there have been too many wash outs.

Of course, this is not say that the 2009 draft was fine. It was a horrible draft. There's a good chance we had the wrong philosophy going into it. I'm just saying that we put too much emphasis on what guys are selected and not enough on how those guys are prepared to be NFL players.

Well said, Temo.

 

[SWG9]

Everything you say is right, BUT... So this is going to be a bit controversial, but here I go:

Its very hard to be a "good" drafting team. The NFL draft is a very efficient process and the information gap is lower than ever. Sure some teams have the right philosophy, and some teams have slightly better talent evaluators. However, I think the difference among the good teams at this and the bad are quite small. Value, as it were, is almost nonexistent in terms of identifying players.

I think this why teams like the Patriots just stockpile draft picks: instead of trying to draft "better", they try and draft "more". Sometimes you'll get lucky and take a Tom Brady in the 6th round, and the more picks you have the better chance you have at that happening.

But the real value, I believe, comes with what you do with the players you take. The good teams develop the guys they take into players-- and that's all coaching. I don't think, for instance, that Miles Austin or Patrick Crayton were natural-born to be in the NFL. Guys like Austin, even with his natural speed and strength, wash out of the league all the time. He came from a small school and was super raw, but eventually was shaped into the all-pro he's capable of being. IMO, our coaching on defense has been horrid ever since Parcells left. We've developed no young players, there have been too many wash outs.

Of course, this is not say that the 2009 draft was fine. It was a horrible draft. There's a good chance we had the wrong philosophy going into it. I'm just saying that we put too much emphasis on what guys are selected and not enough on how those guys are prepared to be NFL players.

Man, it's not controrversial at all. I completely agree with you. It is really hard to draft well, regardless of what anyone says, so you need to do everything you can to lower the degree of difficulty. Part of it is drafting to fit your system, part of it is stockpiling picks, part of it is having the best possible player development system in place...there's no one single "thing" that guarantees success; if there were, everyone would have figured it out by now.

I just think it's interesting that the Pats are essentially doing the same thing Jimmy Johnson did in building the Cowboys (stockpile picks, sign cheap FA's (we used the old Plan B system to great effect), cut guys one year too early instead of one year too late, don't overpay for anyone, etc.)

I see signs that we're headed back in that direction, which speaks to Garrett's understanding of how to run an organization, IMO...

 

[kmd24]

But the real value, I believe, comes with what you do with the players you take. The good teams develop the guys they take into players-- and that's all coaching. I don't think, for instance, that Miles Austin or Patrick Crayton were natural-born to be in the NFL. Guys like Austin, even with his natural speed and strength, wash out of the league all the time. He came from a small school and was super raw, but eventually was shaped into the all-pro he's capable of being. IMO, our coaching on defense has been horrid ever since Parcells left. We've developed no young players, there have been too many wash outs.

Of course, this is not say that the 2009 draft was fine. It was a horrible draft. There's a good chance we had the wrong philosophy going into it. I'm just saying that we put too much emphasis on what guys are selected and not enough on how those guys are prepared to be NFL players.

It's not just the coaching, though, it is the mental makeup of the player. Guys have to really want to get better and put in a lot of hard work to get there.

Miles and Tony get criticized about their high profile lifestyles, but they are among the hardest workers on the team. Meanwhile, some of the guys taken in the 2009 draft just never seemed to put in the extra work to get over the hump.

That's the thing I like most about Garrett's philosophy. He's all too familiar with making a career by busting his hump even though he never had all the physical tools to be among the best. You always hear him talk about going about the work in the right way, and I think it's one of the primary factors JG uses to select players. That's in stark contrast to our old philosophy of picking primarily on talent and hoping the guys would turn into something without really thinking about their attitude and persistence towards becoming a football player.

 

[realtick]

Can you also compare play-off appearances/win, superbowl apearances/wins during that span among those same teams ?

Using the time frame 2004 to present....

The Cowboys went 63-49/.562 win% and made three playoff appearances (1-3).

The Patriots went 87-25/.776 win%, with six playoff appearances and two Super Bowl wins (three Super Bowl appearances).

The Colts went 87-25/.776 win%, with seven playoff appearances and a Super Bowl win (two Super Bowl appearances).

 

[Woods]

I think we can all agree that the 2009 draft was sub-par for the Cowboys, even taking into account R Williams.

That said, I DO feel we have generally been drafting better the last two years. Of course, it's early days. We'll have a better idea in a year or two.

IMO, the main difference between the Pats and the Cowboys over the past years has been the quality of coaching. Hoodie is one of the top coaches in the history of the game (in my opinion).

I think Garrett has the ability to close the coaching gap between the Cowboys and the Pats. But honestly said, it's WAY to early to know for sure. I have to admit, I really like the way Garrett comes across as the face of the franchise. I like the way he delivers his message. No ambiguity. We'll just have to wait and watch if the wins come over the next few years.

 

[burmafrd]

Consistency to me is the one over riding rule that needs to be followed.

Consistent system, standards, etc.

If you have a well thought out and planned system you have something like the Steelers or Colts or Patriots.

You draft for that system. You develope players based on that system. By sticking to one system you can refine and improve on everything.

For the Dallas Cowboys that means on the O line you look for quick footed athletes that can move. For The TE you want all purpose guys, not just blockers or receivers. For the RB position same thing; an all purpose guy.

For WRs you want big and fast with good hands.

For the QB a guy that can move as good as he can pass.


And you have your scouts concentrate on players that only follow those specific traits.


But above all else you refine and improve your process to weed out the idiots and the weak willed and the lazy. That means you look for team leaders and captains; ignore those that need to be motivated. Self starters only; players with constant motors.

That is how we need to draft.

To be brutally honest, I would not have looked at someone like Dez. Too high maintenance, too much work. Yet on the other hand look at how few top WRs are NOT like Dez in one way or another; Divas. Might be that you have to just accept that fact about top WR prospects.

 

[Mash]

I wonder why the NFL doesnt have a developement league....like a farm system.

I know Hockey and Baseball are different beasts .....and their drafts are more of a crap shoot then the NFL.....but it sure would help with some of these developement players.

The new CBA at least solved a issue with high picks getting all this guaranteed money.

But like coaches have said.....you cant watch all the tape you want on a player...but till you see that player first hand on the practice field....you really dont know what your getting.

 

[TD-33]

Can you also compare play-off appearances/win, superbowl apearances/wins during that span among those same teams ?

This was my point, the original article is probably what you want.

This thread has proved 2 things:



First, the draft is not as easy as it looks and even very good teams can blow an entire draft, not just Dallas.

Second, if you have one of the two best QBs on the planet, then the draft really doesnt mean that much.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Here's some more facts...

Using the time frame 2004 to present, the Cowboys went 63-49/.562 win% and made three playoff appearances (1-3).

During that same time frame the Patriots went 87-25/.776 win%, with six playoff appearances and two Super Bowl wins (three Super Bowl appearances).

The Colts went 87-25/.776 win%, with seven playoff appearances and a Super Bowl win (two Super Bowl appearances).

Yeah, we're about the same....


But, hahahahaha, those stupid Colts and Pats, they don't know how to draft! Look at'em, we got a bunch of our players still playing, and all they got is a few Super Bowls.....wait?

Thanks Tick. I was about to go do that math myself.

Yes, fact alert people. It's not about how much less we sucked at drafting than two winning teams.

It's about how we didn't win.

When mediocrity becomes the high water mark then the results of the last 14 years is acceptable.

But then I bet the Cardinal fans were doing this type of justification for years.

 

[AsthmaField]

Thanks Tick. I was about to go do that math myself.

Yes, fact alert people. It's not about how much less we sucked at drafting than two winning teams.

It's about how we didn't win.

When mediocrity becomes the high water mark then the results of the last 14 years is acceptable.

But then I bet the Cardinal fans were doing this type of justification for years.

I think we got that, TD... but this thread is about draft picks, making the team, and how teams are perceived for their drafting.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Consistency to me is the one over riding rule that needs to be followed.

Consistent system, standards, etc.

If you have a well thought out and planned system you have something like the Steelers or Colts or Patriots.

You draft for that system. You develope players based on that system. By sticking to one system you can refine and improve on everything.

For the Dallas Cowboys that means on the O line you look for quick footed athletes that can move. For The TE you want all purpose guys, not just blockers or receivers. For the RB position same thing; an all purpose guy.

For WRs you want big and fast with good hands.

For the QB a guy that can move as good as he can pass.


And you have your scouts concentrate on players that only follow those specific traits.


But above all else you refine and improve your process to weed out the idiots and the weak willed and the lazy. That means you look for team leaders and captains; ignore those that need to be motivated. Self starters only; players with constant motors.

That is how we need to draft.

To be brutally honest, I would not have looked at someone like Dez. Too high maintenance, too much work. Yet on the other hand look at how few top WRs are NOT like Dez in one way or another; Divas. Might be that you have to just accept that fact about top WR prospects.

So who calls the shots and assures this team has a consistent focus and system in place?

The guy who has orchestrated the inconsistency by his meddling.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I think we got that, TD... but this thread is about draft picks, making the team, and how teams are perceived for their drafting.

Oh, sorry. I thought the logical aspect of winning and maintaining a player personnel program which continues to sift and keep the best players on the field was pertinent.

Logic be damned.

Carry on.

 

[AsthmaField]

Oh, sorry. I thought the logical aspect of winning and maintaining a player personnel program which continues to sift and keep the best players on the field was pertinent.

Logic be damned.

Carry on.

Nothing to do with logic. I'm pretty sure every person on here knows the point of playing football is to win. Cowboyszone posters do know that. We were talking about draft picks making the team and how those teams are viewed.

Winning and draft picks are typically linked, but it hasn't been that way for the Patriots the last half decade or so.

Yes, they've won a lot. No, they haven't drafted well.

Good thing for them they have Brady and Belichick or drafting and winning would be linked for them too.