Cowboys sign Jamar Newsome to PS...Sign DT David Carter; waive two

[TheRomoSexual]

Not when you're evaluating a draft class. Those guys weren't drafted. That draft class sucked.

And I don't think much of Dunbar or Beasley. I think they're spare parts that won't be on the team in two years.

Of course you count UDFAs. They are officially apart of that draft class and we had to convince them to join the Cowboys. We obviously can't sign every UDFA, so being selective about who we sign is just as strategic as drafting, perhaps even moreso.

In the end, we got at least three "starters" from the 2012 NFL draft -- Claiborne, Hanna, and Leary. Not great, but not terrible either.

 

[Rack]

Careful ...... many posters here think he should be given 5 years to develop. I'm not one of them.

OMG! He could be playing at a Hall of Fame level by the time he's 32!

 

[fifaguy]

Goodbye Coale we hardly knew you..

 

[Idgit]

Not when you're evaluating a draft class. Those guys weren't drafted. That draft class sucked.

And I don't think much of Dunbar or Beasley. I think they're spare parts that won't be on the team in two years.

I guess it comes down to what you're trying to evaluate. I care about the organization's ability to evaluate and add talent from the college ranks. Call them the 2012 Rookie Class if that makes you feel better, but if you're finding and adding starters, your finding and adding starters.

If you're going to constrain the discussion to draftees only in order to not count starters and key role players who were added during that college offseason, I suppose you can do that. It's an intentionally-limited way to evaluate the job our college scouting department did that season, but you can do it.

Now, ideally, we're doing such a good job that our first round pick is more valuable than our second round pick, and our second more valuable than our third, and all the way down. That means we're not only accurately identifying talent, but we're acquiring it the right way. That's a lot to ask for, though. At some point it's unreasonable expectation (who'd ever have thought *that* might exist among Dallas Cowboys fans). Then there are situations like we had with McGee this year where we had him rated a higher player in our evaluation, but let him slide into CFA because we thought there was a good chance he'd make it there. Ron Leary was a similar example from that 2012 draft.

The reality is, we added a lot of college talent that offseason. Whether players like Dunbar or Beasley ultimately stick or simply perform their roles as key role players for a few seasons and then move on, they're still key role players from the 2012 rookie class. I agree that they might not last four seasons in Dallas. Given the average length of an NFL career is less than four years, anyway, I'm not sure that's a useful way of evaluating a role player or the scouting department that recommended him.

 

[Idgit]

Of course you count UDFAs. They are officially apart of that draft class and we had to convince them to join the Cowboys. We obviously can't sign every UDFA, so being selective about who we sign is just as strategic as drafting, perhaps even moreso.

In the end, we got at least three "starters" from the 2012 NFL draft -- Claiborne, Hanna, and Leary. Not great, but not terrible either.

I'd say Crawford has a pretty good shot at starting by next season, too. Hanna, I'm not so sure about, though his role in the 12 sets obviously justifies the scouts for bringing him in.

 

[Bullflop]

At least this demonstrates we're churning the bottom of the roster like many good teams see fit to do whenever their scrubs aren't delivering as well as planned. Hanging on to failed projects endlessly only delays progress in the end.

Churning out the bottom-dwellers with others having potential only increases your odds to hit upon a winner now and then. At least, that way, the scouts are being put to good use for what they do best -- finding talent and improving rosters. It's about time the Cowboys have finally returned to that policy. Long overdue.

 

[Kaiser]

It's because the guy simpler can't play and there is no reason he should be on an NFL roster. Despite stubborn,y keeping him on the roster, the team has done anything and everything to avoid playing him.

He has never set foot on the field for a meaningful NFL snap in his career. In fact, you can probably add up the number of times he's been active on one hand with several fingers to spare.

Bradie James was also a fourth round pick and he never saw the field on defense his first two years. Miles Austin was rarely on the field his first two years and had a total of five catches coming into his third season. If the Leary and Waters got hurt and Arkin was starting right now, would it make him a better player?

 

[Risen Star]

I guess it comes down to what you're trying to evaluate. I care about the organization's ability to evaluate and add talent from the college ranks. Call them the 2012 Rookie Class if that makes you feel better, but if you're finding and adding starters, your finding and adding starters.

I think it's you who's looking to feel better. That's why you attempt to include things that don't belong. When people are talking about the Cowboys' performance in the draft they're talking about the players picked in the draft. What they did after the draft is after the draft.

 

[Idgit]

At least this demonstrates we're churning the bottom of the roster like many good teams see fit to do whenever their scrubs aren't delivering as well as planned. Hanging on to failed projects endlessly only delays progress in the end.

Churning out the bottom-dwellers with others having potential only increases your odds to hit upon a winner now and then. At least, that way, the scouts are being put to good use for what they do best -- finding talent and improving rosters. It's about time the Cowboys have finally returned to that policy. Long overdue.

I love how much we churn those bottom positions. Over the course of a season, we probably look at an extra 10-12 players doing this. If even one of them turns into a George Selvie or a Stirlin Moore (I really thought he was a find last year, one we ended up squandering), you're ahead of the game.

 

[Kaiser]

I think it's you who's looking to feel better. That's why you attempt to include things that don't belong. When people are talking about the Cowboys' performance in the draft they're talking about the players picked in the draft. What they did after the draft is after the draft.

The draft used to be 12 rounds instead of 7. Guys like Leary, Romo and Brandon Magee are guys that obviously would have been 8th round picks in a 12 round draft.

 

[Idgit]

I think it's you who's looking to feel better. That's why you attempt to include things that don't belong. When people are talking about the Cowboys' performance in the draft they're talking about the players picked in the draft. What they did after the draft is after the draft.

And I think it's you, trying to paint a poorer picture of the job the organization did acquiring college talent in the 2012 offseason because you've got a bone to pick with the team ownership. I guess we'll never know which of us is right.

At the end of the day, though, we can just take the 'draft' word out of it. If we're adding young college rookie starters on inexpensive contracts to the roster during a given offseason, and this work is the result of the decisions we're making based off of information from our college scouting department, the, yeah, I feel better about it. If you'd rather feel miserable about the draft itself, and then do backflips over the miracle of finding starters in CFA, and have those conflicting emotions result in you feeling ok about the talent added from the college ranks overall, and that seems a more reasonable way to proceed to you, then, by all means, commence your roller-coaster ride. I'll be waiting for you on the platform.

 

[Risen Star]

And I think it's you, trying to paint a poorer picture of the job the organization did acquiring college talent in the 2012 offseason because you've got a bone to pick with the team ownership. I guess we'll never know which of us is right.

At the end of the day, though, we can just take the 'draft' word out of it. If we're adding young college rookie starters on inexpensive contracts to the roster during a given offseason, and this work is the result of the decisions we're making based off of information from our college scouting department, the, yeah, I feel better about it. If you'd rather feel miserable about the draft itself, and then do backflips over the miracle of finding starters in CFA, and have those conflicting emotions result in you feeling ok about the talent added from the college ranks overall, and that seems a more reasonable way to proceed to you, then, by all means, commence your roller-coaster ride. I'll be waiting for you on the platform.

So you think I have the problem when in evaluating the Cowboys draft class I don't include players not in that draft class?

That's rich.

What this is is desperation from a nothing to see here fan. Hey, you should include UDFA. Even though that is in no way a part of a team's draft class. And while we're at it, pretend Lance Dunbar and Cole Beasley are two outstanding finds. Ya know, like Phil Costa and Kevin Kowalski a few years ago.

We can't take the draft word out of it. People were evaluating our draft. They can do that. It's pretty important.

 

[Risen Star]

The draft used to be 12 rounds instead of 7. Guys like Leary, Romo and Brandon Magee are guys that obviously would have been 8th round picks in a 12 round draft.

Ah, so then he would have been correct many years ago.

 

[Kaiser]

Ah, so then he would have been correct many years ago.

Or it means that the team gets even more credit for guys like Leary now. In the past they could have just made the selection and given the kid slot money. Now they have to recruit the kid and outbid other teams for him.

 

[Risen Star]

Or it means that the team gets even more credit for guys like Leary now. In the past they could have just made the selection and given the kid slot money. Now they have to recruit the kid and outbid other teams for him.

That's outstanding. But it still has absolutely nothing to do with the draft and shouldn't be and isn't included in anybody's draft review.

 

[Idgit]

So you think I have the problem when in evaluating the Cowboys draft class I don't include players not in that draft class?

That's rich.

What this is is desperation from a nothing to see here fan. Hey, you should include UDFA. Even though that is in no way a part of a team's draft class. And while we're at it, pretend Lance Dunbar and Cole Beasley are two outstanding finds. Ya know, like Phil Costa and Kevin Kowalski a few years ago.

We can't take the draft word out of it. People were evaluating our draft. They can do that. It's pretty important.

Yeah, that's pretty much *not* what it is. And we both know it. I don't have a problem with the draft itself, because I like Mo' and I like Crawford as starters from that class. I like Hanna as a role player. And, yes, I like Matt Johnson as a possible S for us (though I now think he's behind JJ Wilcox, whom I also like). And I understand that we're down a pick in that group in order to get Mo.

So, I don't feel the particular need to run from those selections. But any process that evaluates the job the team did in the 2012 offseason in acquiring talent from the college ranks that doesn't include FA players who come in, make your team, and end up *starting* for you at a position of need in their second season is, obviously, flawed. I understand that it's easier for you to make a sad-point by not including them on the draft ledger. I don't have any problem with that. I don't care where or how you account for them. But it's the same guys in the same organization using the same process to find and add the same players from that same group of collegians to the same roster. That matters to me. I think that matters to everybody reading the thread, honestly. And I have a hard time believing it honestly doesn't matter to you. It takes a particular sort of dedication to a flawed argument to even say it doesn't with a straight face.

 

[Kaiser]

That's outstanding. But it still has absolutely nothing to do with the draft and shouldn't be and isn't included in anybody's draft review.

So the Cowboys didn't scout guys like Leary or Romo or Austin? They didn't have them on their draft board that year?

Good to know, I would have guessed the opposite. I've been giving the Cowboys way too much credit for the players that come to training camp every year.

 

[Risen Star]

Yeah, that's pretty much *not* what it is. And we both know it. I don't have a problem with the draft itself, because I like Mo' and I like Crawford as starters from that class. I like Hanna as a role player. And, yes, I like Matt Johnson as a possible S for us (though I now think he's behind JJ Wilcox, whom I also like). And I understand that we're down a pick in that group in order to get Mo.

So, I don't feel the particular need to run from those selections. But any process that evaluates the job the team did in the 2012 offseason in acquiring talent from the college ranks that doesn't include FA players who come in, make your team, and end up *starting* for you at a position of need in their second season is, obviously, flawed. I understand that it's easier for you to make a sad-point by not including them on the draft ledger. I don't have any problem with that. I don't care where or how you account for them. But it's the same guys in the same organization using the same process to find and add the same players from that same group of collegians to the same roster. That matters to me. I think that matters to everybody reading the thread, honestly. And I have a hard time believing it honestly doesn't matter to you. It takes a particular sort of dedication to a flawed argument to even say it doesn't with a straight face.

You keep moving the goal posts. Nobody said anything about an evaluation of an entire offseason. We're talking about the draft. Only players taken in the draft factor in a draft review.

BTW, for my money, that is one of the worst drafts and offseasons I've seen here. We wasted a lot of resources.

 

[Verdict]

I think it's you who's looking to feel better. That's why you attempt to include things that don't belong. When people are talking about the Cowboys' performance in the draft they're talking about the players picked in the draft. What they did after the draft is after the draft.

You know, from time to time you make some really good points that are unfairly criticized by many members of this board, but I think the reason that happens is that you often seem to find a way to be OVERLY critical of most everything that the organization does, without giving the organization for anything good that they do. You have the right to do that, and I support that right. But it just gets old, and undermines the otherwise valid points you bring up. Why exactly is it irrelevant that we got an UDFA who turns out to be a good player for us? Do his stats not count because he was an UDFA? Is he not allowed to play on Sunday because he wasn't drafted? Should the organization not be given any credit for finding Romo, or Austin because they came off of the UDFA scrap heap? Should the Patriots cut Brady because he had no "pedigree" as a 6th rounder? Come on, Risen......you have a lot more to offer than that sort of mindless drivel.

 

[Risen Star]

So the Cowboys didn't scout guys like Leary or Romo or Austin? They didn't have them on their draft board that year?

Good to know, I would have guessed the opposite. I've been giving the Cowboys way too much credit for the players that come to training camp every year.

So what you're saying is the Cowboys had a good draft by not selecting Ronald Leary?