DC: Cowboys’ Late First Round Pick Prompts Debate About Need Vs. Best Available

jobberone

Kane Ala
Messages
54,219
Reaction score
19,659
Cowboys’ Late First Round Pick Prompts Debate About Need Vs. Best Available
Friday, February 20, 2015 6:34 PM CST
helmanthumb_051413_60x60.jpg

By David Helman
DallasCowboys.com Staff Writer @HelmanDC

fowler_copy.jpg



INDIANAPOLIS – It’s much harder to prognosticate, and therefore much harder to generate buzz around the No. 27 pick – not that the Cowboys are complaining.

They pick five spots from the end of the draft in 2015 as a result of their wildly successful trip to the second round of the playoffs. As much fun as it can be to speculate on a high draft pick, it typically means the team making that pick isn’t a good one.

Not accounting for draft-day trades, this is as late a first-round pick as the Cowboys have held since 2008, when they were originally slotted for the 28th overall pick after a 13-3 season.

It’s not overly exciting for draft prognostication, because the truly high-profile picks at the Cowboys’ positions of need – Leonard Williams, Randy Gregory, Shane Ray, Dante Fowler, for instance – look to be long gone by the tail end of the draft.

That makes the concept of drafting for need a bit tricky, as Cowboys coach Jason Garrett pointed out on Wednesday.

“I think one of the best thing we have done over the last few years is we have taken the best players,” Garrett said. “Last year was a good example. You can make an argument that we really needed to address the defense in the first round last year. And some of the players we targeted were gone.”

He isn’t wrong. Within just a handful of picks of the Cowboys’ No. 16 spot last spring, Garrett saw highly-coveted defenders like Aaron Donald, Anthony Barr and Ryan Shazier go off the board. The guy the Cowboys selected wasn’t exactly a big need, though he turned out to be an All-Pro.

“We had a chance to draft Zack Martin. His impact was significant on our team,” Garrett said. “So we have to have discipline to do that. We are still early on in the process, putting the board together. Once we get there we have to make the best decision for our team.”

At No. 27, there’s no guarantee of a “sure thing” at a position of need. But that might actually be a good thing, given the names on hand at the NFL Combine. Specifically in terms of defensive linemen, there might not be a can’t-miss pass rusher within the Cowboys’ range this year, but there won’t be a shortage of options.

Familiarize yourself with the wide spectrum of names – Nate Orchard, Bud Dupree, Eli Harold, Preston Smith. There’s a veritable who’s-who of pass rushers that are universally regarded as good players, though without as much agreement about where they should be selected – or what position they should be playing.

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2...k-prompts-debate-about-need-vs-best-available
 

Doc50

Original Fan
Messages
3,142
Reaction score
3,430
Cowboys’ Late First Round Pick Prompts Debate About Need Vs. Best Available
Friday, February 20, 2015 6:34 PM CST
helmanthumb_051413_60x60.jpg

By David Helman
DallasCowboys.com Staff Writer @HelmanDC

fowler_copy.jpg



INDIANAPOLIS – It’s much harder to prognosticate, and therefore much harder to generate buzz around the No. 27 pick – not that the Cowboys are complaining.

They pick five spots from the end of the draft in 2015 as a result of their wildly successful trip to the second round of the playoffs. As much fun as it can be to speculate on a high draft pick, it typically means the team making that pick isn’t a good one.

Not accounting for draft-day trades, this is as late a first-round pick as the Cowboys have held since 2008, when they were originally slotted for the 28th overall pick after a 13-3 season.

It’s not overly exciting for draft prognostication, because the truly high-profile picks at the Cowboys’ positions of need – Leonard Williams, Randy Gregory, Shane Ray, Dante Fowler, for instance – look to be long gone by the tail end of the draft.

That makes the concept of drafting for need a bit tricky, as Cowboys coach Jason Garrett pointed out on Wednesday.

“I think one of the best thing we have done over the last few years is we have taken the best players,” Garrett said. “Last year was a good example. You can make an argument that we really needed to address the defense in the first round last year. And some of the players we targeted were gone.”

He isn’t wrong. Within just a handful of picks of the Cowboys’ No. 16 spot last spring, Garrett saw highly-coveted defenders like Aaron Donald, Anthony Barr and Ryan Shazier go off the board. The guy the Cowboys selected wasn’t exactly a big need, though he turned out to be an All-Pro.

“We had a chance to draft Zack Martin. His impact was significant on our team,” Garrett said. “So we have to have discipline to do that. We are still early on in the process, putting the board together. Once we get there we have to make the best decision for our team.”

At No. 27, there’s no guarantee of a “sure thing” at a position of need. But that might actually be a good thing, given the names on hand at the NFL Combine. Specifically in terms of defensive linemen, there might not be a can’t-miss pass rusher within the Cowboys’ range this year, but there won’t be a shortage of options.

Familiarize yourself with the wide spectrum of names – Nate Orchard, Bud Dupree, Eli Harold, Preston Smith. There’s a veritable who’s-who of pass rushers that are universally regarded as good players, though without as much agreement about where they should be selected – or what position they should be playing.

http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/2015/02/20/cowboys’-late-first-round-pick-prompts-debate-about-need-vs-best-available

As a GM, you'd hate to see a real blue chip all-pro type player fall into your lap, and not be able to take him because of a glaring need, and maybe even have to reach for that need.

The 'Boys recent draft success has come through meticulous talent evaluation and sticking with those rankings, taking the BPA.

Look for the FO to make the right FA moves, in order to continue that strategy. I think JJ finally gets it.
 

TheCount

Pixel Pusher
Messages
25,523
Reaction score
8,849
Yeah, I know it sounds good to say, "We take the best available player", but it's one of the most overused and cliched terms when it comes to the draft. No team drafts purely on who the best available player is.
 

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
12,394
For the most part, any spot on the D could be the pick. What we do with Murray and Free will determine if we add RB or T to that list.
 

AbeBeta

Well-Known Member
Messages
35,684
Reaction score
12,394
Yeah, I know it sounds good to say, "We take the best available player", but it's one of the most overused and cliched terms when it comes to the draft. No team drafts purely on who the best available player is.

And sometimes the consensus BPA sucks
 

CF74

Vet Min Plus
Messages
26,167
Reaction score
14,623
Yeah, I know it sounds good to say, "We take the best available player", but it's one of the most overused and cliched terms when it comes to the draft. No team drafts purely on who the best available player is.

I would say most of the time you consider going BPA According to Need but if there's a guy sitting there that your scouts are saying is a once in a lifetime talent then you gotta trust your scouts. Needs can be filled with stop gap vets but still it's better to fill those holes with draft picks when you can. Its not an exact science, you gotta use discretion and common sense.

When one evaluates our team, many would conclude upgrades are Needed in about 6-8 positions and I'm hoping we can draft at least 2-3 of those every year if not more...
 

Risen Star

Likes Collector
Messages
89,482
Reaction score
212,444
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Yeah, that is an interesting debate.

So, it's settled. If you make draft picks based on need over ability, you are a draft moron.

Good talk.
 

gimmesix

Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life
Messages
40,036
Reaction score
37,194
Yeah, I know it sounds good to say, "We take the best available player", but it's one of the most overused and cliched terms when it comes to the draft. No team drafts purely on who the best available player is.

I think Dallas has done a good job the past few years of not reaching for players. The move down to get Frederick instead of taking him with their original draft pick. Picking Martin instead of reaching for the next best defensive player. Even trading up to get Lawrence.

Dallas isn't always just going BPA with its pick, but it does seem to be sticking with the value put on the players by its scouting staff. I can't remember too many picks Dallas has reached for where the value was lower than the pick used. (Some who say Frederick one, but Dallas took him where its scouts had valued him.)
 

DandyDon1722

It's been a good 'un, ain't it?
Messages
6,386
Reaction score
7,008
I think it's pretty safe to assume we are not drafting a center in the first round this year if he's the best player available.
 

reddyuta

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,514
Reaction score
17,236
I think it's pretty safe to assume we are not drafting a center in the first round this year if he's the best player available.

Would you draft Cameron serving? He is the best center and can play guard and Rt.
 

JoeKing

Diehard
Messages
36,649
Reaction score
31,940
I hate this debate... there is no true right or wrong answer. No one knowingly drafts against their need. Why would you draft a player that you don't need? So that part of the argument is null. But that doesn't eliminate the ideal of drafting the best available talent. That player may not be the same person to all teams. If you do your draft board correctly the need will be weighted accordingly.
 

DandyDon1722

It's been a good 'un, ain't it?
Messages
6,386
Reaction score
7,008
Would you draft Cameron serving? He is the best center and can play guard and Rt.

In the first round - this year? No. But...there's the school of thought to go all in on the offensive line and dominate on one side of the ball.

I would go absolutely BPA on the defensive side of the ball though..
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
57,202
Reaction score
64,711
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
As a GM, you'd hate to see a real blue chip all-pro type player fall into your lap, and not be able to take him because of a glaring need, and maybe even have to reach for that need.

The 'Boys recent draft success has come through meticulous talent evaluation and sticking with those rankings, taking the BPA.

Look for the FO to make the right FA moves, in order to continue that strategy. I think JJ finally gets it.

I call it near-BPA. There are only a few positions that the Cowboys shouldn't draft at #27 if that is the BPA. I would cross QB and probably TE off the list, but just about any other position could be a consideration.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
57,202
Reaction score
64,711
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
In the first round - this year? No. But...there's the school of thought to go all in on the offensive line and dominate on one side of the ball.

I would go absolutely BPA on the defensive side of the ball though..

I don't think they would have a Center-Only ranked as the BPA in the early rounds. If the BPA is a Guard/Center then it's possible that they would do it. They had a trade setup last year to get a 3rd round pick and draft OG Trai Turner, but he was picked a few spots ahead of where that pick would have been. I think they were going to give up a 2015 2nd to get that 2014 3rd.
 

BigStar

Stop chasing
Messages
11,528
Reaction score
17,081
Yeah, I know it sounds good to say, "We take the best available player", but it's one of the most overused and cliched terms when it comes to the draft. No team drafts purely on who the best available player is.

BPA according to need. Doesn't sound as efficient/sexy, but that is how players are selected. All the pre-draft talk revolves around team needs and the value at THOSE positions. If those players at need positions are gone, then the BPA talk comes up. BPA seems to start later in the draft (post round 1).
 
Top