Anybody think we could shock everyone in draft...

[Smith22]

2 of those teams have "elite" recievers. Patten started the year as the Skins #2 he got hurt.

Bears have Muhommed and drafted Bradley who got hurt.

Panthers have Smith and Ricky Prohel who is solid not to mention their recent drafting of Keary Colbert


So to answer the question yes all of those teams had talented recievers wether or not they lasted the year because of injury does not disqualify the fact that they either drafted or signed talented #2 recievers

I'm not saying teams don't want to have 2 talented WR's on their team, that would be insane. Just showing that you don't necessarily NEED them to win, which has been proven many times over.

 

[BigDFan5]

I'm not saying teams don't want to have 2 talented WR's on their team, that would be insane. Just showing that you don't necessarily NEED them to win, which has been proven many times over.

and yet every team you mentioned had 2 talented recievers.

Even if you go back to the 2000 Ravens on top of the defense they had Preist Holmes AND Jamal Lewis who combined for 59 catches and Quadry ismail and Shannon Sharpe they had weapons at recieving as well

 

[tyke1doe]

Emmitt was drafted #17 if I recall correctly...one spot higher than we are drafting this year. But here is what makes that not a good example:

Correct. But remember, we swapped with Pittsburgh #17, Dallas #21, because Atlanta was right behind the Steelers and needed a back. They took some scrub, I can't remember his name. And we all know what became of Emmitt Smith.

1) We had a huge need for a running back so not only did we draft him when he fell we actually moved up to do it.

I don't know if it was a HUGE need. The Cowboys had traded for the 49ers back (Terrance Flager, I believe, who was suppose to be a decent running back). Furthermore, RB wasn't even on the Cowboys radar screen at that point in the draft, and if it wasn't for an unsuccessful trade, the Cowboys would have taken James Frances, LB, instead of Emmitt Smith, because that's who they were targeting. After Cincy took Frances, the Cowboys moved running back up on their board.

2) No one ever actually believes that any player is going to be the best ever when they draft them. They feel that they will be very good as we did with Emmitt.

No argument here. But if that's the case, then wouldn't the same apply to DeAngelo Williams also?
If the Cowboys ultimately draft him, then that means they feel he's going to a very good player, with the possibility of being great, especially if they pass on other needs.

As it turned out (with the clarity of 20/20 hindsight) Emmitt was the BPA and that could still be said had we taken him #1 overall. But we did not draft him based on a BPA formula; we drafted him on a NEED basis.

I disagree, given my argument about the Cowboys wanting a linebacker before a running back. Running back was a need position for the Cowboys, but the Cowboys were ready to make do at the running back position without an Emmitt Smith based on how the draft unfolded. It just so happened that Emmitt fell to a position that the Cowboys saw he was BOTH the BPA and fulfilled a need.

While it is true that we have Julius Jones and Marion Barber in the running back slot, 1.) Julius Jones has been injury prone. 2.) Marion Barber is good, but I wouldn't say he was great and 3.) you can never have enough good runners, particularly if you play the style of ball Parcells plays.

Running back isn't a need for this team compared to other positions, but need is only an injury away, and just like determining whether a player will be great, you can never predict how fast injuries can ravage a club.

 

[Vintage]

I forgot about this thread....Basically, the poster above me just summarized what my reply was going to be to the guy/gal who replied to my Emmitt comment.

 

[AsthmaField]

Correct. But remember, we swapped with Pittsburgh #17, Dallas #21, because Atlanta was right behind the Steelers and needed a back. They took some scrub, I can't remember his name. And we all know what became of Emmitt Smith.

His name was Broussard, I think. Steve maybe? Yeah, I've thought many times how Atlanta must feel about us moving up and nabbing Emmitt one spot before them. You know they had to be pissed.

That brings me to this year... I think that we're really high on Carpenter at OLB and feel like we'll take him at 18. However, I really think that the Patriots will move up right before us to take him. They did it with Wilfork a couple of years ago. They knew Parcells loved Wilfork (he had said he'd take him number 1 overall when Bill was still a commentator with ESPN) and they jumped up to nab him. For that matter, Philly did the same with Shawn Andrews. I really think that there is a chance Carpenter goes to the Pats before 18.

and if it wasn't for an unsuccessful trade, the Cowboys would have taken James Frances, LB, instead of Emmitt Smith, because that's who they were targeting. After Cincy took Frances, the Cowboys moved running back up on their board.

Yep. Jimmy Johnson did everything he could to move up and get Francis. After that didn't work, he still tried to trade up to get Ray Agnew, a DT from NC State. When that didn't work, and Emmitt continued to slide, they went ahead and jumped in front of an Atlanta team that was sitting on go, just waiting to pick Emmitt.

I always think of that when I hear the media or someone saying how great Jimmy Johnson was at drafting. He already had Michael Irvin when he came to Dallas, and the already had the #1 overall with Aikman sitting there. Anyone would've taken Troy. Then, like we've already talked about, he lucked into getting Emmitt because his two trade attempts failed.

So really, Johnson didn't have a whole lot to do with getting the triplets here in Dallas... and with the Walker trade it's no wonder he was able to hit on a few players like Maryland, Edwards, Harper, etc.

 

[SouthernStar]

Because we don't have a great RB.

You don't know that because we haven't had a decent LINE for them to run behind.

 

[DiscipleofTuna]

I find it humorous how draft works sometimes. Last year Williams was being touted as the top back in the draft most of the year. This is ahead of 3 backs that went top ten. Now of course the injury does change things and I am not ignorant to that fact but a top ten talent one year when healthy you would think would equate in other years providing the same health.

If we had a trade partner for Julius (maybe for a 2 next yr or a 1 if we are lucky), than Williams would fit a need and we could address another need going forward.

Think of it this way as I know a lot of you are HUGE Quinn fans. If you had a chance to snag a 1 next year and have ammo to trade up for a Quinn but jettisoning Julius and having a replacement that could be as good, would ya do it?:strongarm

 

[JackMagist]

I forgot about this thread....Basically, the poster above me just summarized what my reply was going to be to the guy/gal who replied to my Emmitt comment.

Guy...just for the record

And then this response would have been for you

Correct. But remember, we swapped with Pittsburgh #17, Dallas #21, because Atlanta was right behind the Steelers and needed a back. They took some scrub, I can't remember his name. And we all know what became of Emmitt Smith.



I don't know if it was a HUGE need. The Cowboys had traded for the 49ers back (Terrance Flager, I believe, who was suppose to be a decent running back). Furthermore, RB wasn't even on the Cowboys radar screen at that point in the draft, and if it wasn't for an unsuccessful trade, the Cowboys would have taken James Frances, LB, instead of Emmitt Smith, because that's who they were targeting. After Cincy took Frances, the Cowboys moved running back up on their board.

Wait a minute...you're saying that we traded up to get ahead of Atlanta because they wanted a back. But then you are saying that we were not targeting a back we were targeting a LB. I would take your word for it since I don't recall all of the details involved...but you can't have it both ways.

That contradiction aside; I disagree that we did not have a huge need. This Flager scrub that you mentioned was exactly that...a scrub. We traded for him because we had a huge need and we wanted to get someone...anyone...for that spot. It was much like the signing of Coleman this year...a bit of breathing room in case we don't get what we really want. If in the unlikely event we get a shot at Huff you better believe that we will take him and Coleman be damned.

No argument here. But if that's the case, then wouldn't the same apply to DeAngelo Williams also?
If the Cowboys ultimately draft him, then that means they feel he's going to a very good player, with the possibility of being great, especially if they pass on other needs.

----------------------------------

I disagree, given my argument about the Cowboys wanting a linebacker before a running back. Running back was a need position for the Cowboys, but the Cowboys were ready to make do at the running back position without an Emmitt Smith based on how the draft unfolded. It just so happened that Emmitt fell to a position that the Cowboys saw he was BOTH the BPA and fulfilled a need.

While it is true that we have Julius Jones and Marion Barber in the running back slot, 1.) Julius Jones has been injury prone. 2.) Marion Barber is good, but I wouldn't say he was great and 3.) you can never have enough good runners, particularly if you play the style of ball Parcells plays.

Running back isn't a need for this team compared to other positions, but need is only an injury away, and just like determining whether a player will be great, you can never predict how fast injuries can ravage a club.

This merely goes back to what I have been preaching all along. Best VALUE pick not best player available. The LB that we wanted was not there so we went with the next best Value on our board...a very good running back which was also an area of need. Had we taken the LB instead of Emmitt...would we have been taking the BPA or would we have been filling what Jimmy felt was the biggest need? In hindsight knowing what Emmitt became we would NOT have been taking the BPA...but hindsight is 20/20. In my view the fact that we were targeting the LB proves that we were drafting for need not drafting BPA.

Also, If you read back in my other post you will see that I did not say we do not need a RB...I said the need for a RB is so far down the list that we will not take one in the first round this year even though a RB might actually be the BPA when we are on the board. Very simply we have bigger fish to fry.

We could go on and on about this BPA thing (I've been down this road before) and you can spin it one way and for every time you do I can spin it back the other. So this will be my last post on the subject. But bottom line is that no GM worth his paycheck is ever going to draft straight up BPA it will always be weighted by the particular situation of the teams needs...if it's not the GM (Matt Millen) needs to be fired.

 

[AsthmaField]

Wait a minute...you're saying that we traded up to get ahead of Atlanta because they wanted a back. But then you are saying that we were not targeting a back we were targeting a LB. I would take your word for it since I don't recall all of the details involved...but you can't have it both ways.

I don't know about having it both ways, but that's what happened. We tried to get James Francis (LB)... and then we tried to get Ray Agnew(DT)... and when those attempts failed, we traded up for Emmitt.

If I remember correctly, Jimmy said something along the lines of Emmitt just being too much of a talent to let slide any longer. That would point to us simply taking him because he was the BPA... although with Flagler as our starter, RB clearly was a need.

We could go on and on about this BPA thing (I've been down this road before) and you can spin it one way and for every time you do I can spin it back the other. So this will be my last post on the subject. But bottom line is that no GM worth his paycheck is ever going to draft straight up BPA it will always be weighted by the particular situation of the teams needs...if it's not the GM (Matt Millen) needs to be fired.

For what it's worth, I agree with what you're saying on the BPA and Value. Teams just don't simply draft BPA. Need weighs their decisions.

If teams typically went BPA then when you looked back at the history of the first round, statistically everything would be about even. There would be about the same amount of QB's drafted as RB's, because teams have 1 starter each on offense. There would be the same amount of Guards taken in the first round as OLB's, because each team has two starters at those positions. There would be just as many QB's drafted as centers. Just as many Tackles as CB's.

But I'm willing to bet that if you looked back at the history of the first round, you would see way more QB's taken than centers. Way more RB's than centers. Way more CB's than Guards. More DT's than safeties.

That shows that not only do the teams look at their needs when using high picks, but they also look at positions and the relative difficulty in finding prospects at those positions. Positions are valued differently, in effect... and not just the QB position either.

Teams like to draft QB, DT, OT, CB, and DE in round 1. They prefer to push off positions like OG, C, and S to later rounds. If BPA was widespread, those positions would be taken equally in the first round over a given period of time. The fact that they aren't shows that teams look at need and position.

 

[tyke1doe]

Wait a minute...you're saying that we traded up to get ahead of Atlanta because they wanted a back. But then you are saying that we were not targeting a back we were targeting a LB. I would take your word for it since I don't recall all of the details involved...but you can't have it both ways.

That contradiction aside; I disagree that we did not have a huge need. This Flager scrub that you mentioned was exactly that...a scrub. We traded for him because we had a huge need and we wanted to get someone...anyone...for that spot. It was much like the signing of Coleman this year...a bit of breathing room in case we don't get what we really want. If in the unlikely event we get a shot at Huff you better believe that we will take him and Coleman be damned.

AsthmaField summed it up nicely.

Jimmy Johnson wanted to build the defense first.

He targeted James Francis, and now that Asthma jogged my memory, they were targeting DT.

We would have had the first pick in the 1990 draft also had we not taken Steve Walsh in the supplement draft.

And if I recall correctly, Jimmy Johnson said he likely would have taken Cortez Kennedy, selected third in that draft behind Jeff George and Blair Thomas.

So the Cowboys, apparently, had DT and LB ranked higher than running back. But because Emmitt was falling and he was the BPA and fulfilled a need (a younger back), Dallas nabbed him.

If you look back at that draft, Emmitt was clearly the best player in the draft but at #17 was clearly the best player available by a long shot.

18 Green Bay Tony Bennett OLB Mississippi
19 Green Bay Darrell Thompson RB Minnesota
20 Atlanta Steve Broussard RB Washington State
21 Pittsburgh Eric Green TE Liberty
22 Philadelphia Ben Smith CB Georgia
23 L.A. Rams Bern Brostek C Washington
24 N.Y. Giants Rodney Hampton RB Georgia
25 San Francisco Dexter Carter RB Florida State

With the exception of Rodney Hampton, and just barely at that, none of those players came anywhere near Emmitt Smith in terms of value. One of the all-time steals of the first round.

And looking at the players taken before Emmitt, aside from Kennedy, only Junior Seau #5 to San Diego and Richmond Webb #9 to Miami are worthy of sniffing the air around Emmitt. Emmitt was clearly the best of that bunch with Seau, Kennedy and Webb running - pardon the pun - behind him.

 

[tyke1doe]

This merely goes back to what I have been preaching all along. Best VALUE pick not best player available. The LB that we wanted was not there so we went with the next best Value on our board...a very good running back which was also an area of need. Had we taken the LB instead of Emmitt...would we have been taking the BPA or would we have been filling what Jimmy felt was the biggest need? In hindsight knowing what Emmitt became we would NOT have been taking the BPA...but hindsight is 20/20. In my view the fact that we were targeting the LB proves that we were drafting for need not drafting BPA.

Also, If you read back in my other post you will see that I did not say we do not need a RB...I said the need for a RB is so far down the list that we will not take one in the first round this year even though a RB might actually be the BPA when we are on the board. Very simply we have bigger fish to fry.

We could go on and on about this BPA thing (I've been down this road before) and you can spin it one way and for every time you do I can spin it back the other. So this will be my last post on the subject. But bottom line is that no GM worth his paycheck is ever going to draft straight up BPA it will always be weighted by the particular situation of the teams needs...if it's not the GM (Matt Millen) needs to be fired.

I agree.

If you have John Elway, you're not going to draft Troy Aikman, even if he is the best available athlete. You would only do that if your entire roster was stocked with blue-chippers.

But I think teams sometimes evaluate BPA not just by what's on their roster but because of the current environment in the NFL, namely free agency.
If you know, for example, that Julius Jones' contract is about the expire, and you have DeAngelo Williams sitting there, even though you need a linebacker, do you take him as BPA knowing that Jones may be gone in a year or two or may not be able to make it through the season?

There are just so many dynamics to take into account, and we usually don't fully understand those dynamics until a few years down the road.