I realize there are arguments to be made on both sides of the coin for winning every game you can win, and the trade off for a lesser pick with each win we notch. To those of you who say that they would rather have 6 wins and a lower pick rather than 5 wins and a much more valuable pick, I would say that no matter how you slice it, the lower you finish, the more options you have available on draft day.
If you think about it, the Cowboys dynasty was created with the high draft picks we had in the years prior and of course the H. Walker trade contributed to that as well. That one win, MIGHT keep us from getting the player we think is the number one overall pick in the draft with a slight trade up, or it might not matter at all, but it is definite that there is an opportunity cost in a player trhat we might miss out due to the win.
Do any of you who are happy that we won additional games when they were really irrelevant since we were out of the playoffs look back at the years when we went 5 and 11 for three successive years NOW and say thank God we won 5 games instead of 4 in those years? I highly doubt it!!!
It is super bowl or bust for this franchise. I'm glad it is that way. Since we were out of the hunt last year, I would have taken every advantage I could to assist us in getting there in future years and higher draft picks and evaluating rookies and young players in game situations serve that goal. I'm not saying HOW we played wasn't important, but I am saying playing young players and a lower win total would have served toward that end.
The only variables that I see that weigh in favor of winning every game possible is the potential cap cost for a high draft pick, and the p.r. hit the franchise takes (which might well cost the franchise in sales, etc.). But the latter does not impact our future ability to win games.
