Did The Cowboys Finally Get A Fourth Round Pick Right?

[waving monkey]

Well its early but I do say I like the HItchens pick. Even if people felt it was a "reach". Atleast the "reached" on a player from a quality school who played quality competition. Instead of a project from Eastern Southwestern Illinois.

Even if people felt it was a "reach"
If youv read any of my ramblings you know how I feel about the concept "reach"
We are drafting much better thanks

 

[Sinister]

There are going to be misses that is just the nature of the draft

I don't think the misses matter that much as long as the organization is constantly learning from their mistakes. It looks like they are and that is what is important.

However, if they ever take a small school defensive back again in the fourth round, someone really needs to be punched in the face.

 

[Fredd]

I can't think that the team "got lucky" with Hitchens, and thus, imo, they seem to know what they are doing...I have felt that way for a few years now, but this last draft clinched it for me when they took a lineman over Manziel and hitchens has worked out so well so far....if DLaw starts to come on, then the 2014 draft is going to go down as a strong one for the Cowboys, and we still need to find out about guys like Street who would just be icing on the cake if they pan out

 

[theogt]

If you read this thread, I think I found a modern day Nostradamus right on this board.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/another-4th-round-miss.289433/

PS, I love the contrasting thread titles. LOL.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you read this thread, I think I found a modern day Nostradamus right on this board.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/another-4th-round-miss.289433/

PS, I love the contrasting thread titles. LOL.

That thread is hilarious. Draft days always make for fun battles. Next May is going to be epic especially if we maintain our winning % and go 11-5.

 

[burmafrd]

Hitchens will never be a great player but he can be very good and if he stays healthy a solid piece of our D for years to come. For a 4th that is doing really well (especially for us)

 

[burmafrd]

If you read it and declined to respond it is what it is. At the end of the day, it's clear how you have no real basis for your expectations. 90% of fourth rounders fail. We appear to have hit on two in the last 8 years.

25 >>>> 10

wow your arrogance that you think you have something to say anyone really cares about is hilarious.

Notice how you use 8 years. Why not 10 or 15? cherry picking is what you do best

 

[burmafrd]

ahh yes machismo and bluster in place of reasoning based on reality.

I'll pass.

you pass gass all the time - we have to endure it

 

[xwalker]

Even if people felt it was a "reach"
If youv read any of my ramblings you know how I feel about the concept "reach"
We are drafting much better thanks

It is far better to get a good player even if he is considered a "reach" than it is to draft a player than can't play.

Part of the improvement in the Cowboys drafting process is that they now only have about 120 players on their draft board instead of 240. This allows them to really focus on the players that are on their board to minimize the busts; however, it will inevitably lead to bypassing some good players.

 

[AsthmaField]

What really baffles me are the Cowboys picks like Arkin, who didn't have the measurables, played against inferior competition at a small school and on top of that needed polish and experience. To say someone like Arkin was a reach is an understatement.

I really think Arkin was a learning experience for Garrett. He was a RKG who simply didn't have quite the physical ability to play well in the pros. He did everything else pretty well (practice, train, etc.) but he just couldn't play because he had no anchor.

 

[AsthmaField]

If you read this thread, I think I found a modern day Nostradamus right on this board.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/another-4th-round-miss.289433/

PS, I love the contrasting thread titles. LOL.

That thread is gold.

Still, you could definitely pick through threads and find where I've been wrong on prospects, so I'm not pointing fingers here. However, what you don't find me doing is saying that I "know" for a fact that a prospect will be good or bad.

That thread should hopefully show some posters that to unequivocally state things without actually being sure of the outcome is somewhat less than desirable. It will come back to burn you each time you're wrong. Then, when you actually are sure about something... who's going to believe you? Answer: Nobody.

The thing is, with an approximately 90% fail rate (thanks Fuzzy) for NFL teams in the 4th round, the people saying they know that Hitchens would be a bust are actually, playing the odds in this case. They usually will be right when they call a 4th round pick a bust... but not always.

Speaking for myself, I never say I know something unless, well, unless I actually know it. It rubs me the wrong way for people to say they know for a fact that somebody like Hitchens is going to bust because there is absolutely no way they could know.

Maybe this will teach those people a lesson?

Prolly not.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

The thing is, with an approximately 90% fail rate for NFL teams in the 4th round, the people saying they know that Hitchens would be a bust are actually, playing the odds in this case. They usually will be right when they call a 4th round pick a bust...

Well if anyone pays attention to the grand proclamations made some folks, the "grand proclamation" is ALWAYS on the side where the odds are the greatest.

"Tyron Smith is going to be a very good player for the Cowboys."

"Hitchens can't play in this league."

 

[xwalker]

What really baffles me are the Cowboys picks like Arkin, who didn't have the measurables, played against inferior competition at a small school and on top of that needed polish and experience. To say someone like Arkin was a reach is an understatement.

I really think Arkin was a learning experience for Garrett. He was a RKG who simply didn't have quite the physical ability to play well in the pros. He did everything else pretty well (practice, train, etc.) but he just couldn't play because he had no anchor.

I think part of the issue with the Arkin pick was that Garrett wanted to go to a Zone Blocking Scheme but at the time of the Arkin pick he still had Houck as the OL coach. Houck had always coached a man blocking scheme. My guess is that the scouts and maybe Garrett thought that they needed to focus on smaller more athletic interior OLinemen in order to move to the ZBS. That was my initial thought also as teams like Houston had run the ZBS with some undersized guys like their Center, Myers, who they list at 6-4, 286. As it turns out, Callahan was perfectly happy with a big strong guy like Frederick despite his slow forty time. Zack Martin is very athletic, but does not give up anything in terms of power because he is really strong and plays with excellent leverage/technique.

 

[Idgit]

What I like best about that linked thread is how rarely-if ever-most of those guys ever post here now. It tells me all I ever really needed to know about their intentions as they regard both the Cowboys and CowboysZone. Many of them Id actually completely forgotten about.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I'd like to see those folks who posted the "Hitchens is a suck" messages in the other thread accept responsibility for premature evaluation.

 

[dogunwo]

Look, I understand that. But the Cowboys have been missing on players not because they were just "unlucky". They were drafting projects and players from small schools. The 4th round is just too early to be doing that. Drafting for special teams, drafting from small schools, drafting projects, drafting positions......the Cowboys went from finding guys like Chris Canty, Marion Barber and Bradie James in the 4th round to drafting Matt Johnsons. There's a clear reason for the decline in personnel. Just because other teams miss in the 4th round doesn't make it right

This doesn't make sense. A miss is a miss. So what if they took a project player and missed as opposed to a established major conference school player and missed? That why you have to look compared to other teams. Those other teams are drafting fourth rounders from major schools and missing. Let your scouts do what they are paid to do, and not just go for guys because they are from "name schools". All those LSU guys don't seem to be working out are they?

 

[AsthmaField]

What I like best about that linked thread is how rarely-if ever-most of those guys ever post here now. It tells me all I ever really needed to know about their intentions as they regard both the Cowboys and CowboysZone. Many of them Id actually completely forgotten about.

There are a couple/three in that thread that are straight-up trolls. I'm talking no doubt sock puppets that only show up in the bad times.

It is a joke that anyone even holds a conversation with them at all.

 

[AsthmaField]

Look, I understand that. But the Cowboys have been missing on players not because they were just "unlucky". They were drafting projects and players from small schools. The 4th round is just too early to be doing that. Drafting for special teams, drafting from small schools, drafting projects, drafting positions......the Cowboys went from finding guys like Chris Canty, Marion Barber and Bradie James in the 4th round to drafting Matt Johnsons. There's a clear reason for the decline in personnel. Just because other teams miss in the 4th round doesn't make it right

Matt Johnson was derailed because he simply could not stay healthy even for 1 game. The team can't really help that. He had few injuries in college, how was Dallas supposed to know his hamstrings were made out of wet pasta? Johnson's hamstrings made Miles Austin's hamstrings look like they were corded steel.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

wow your arrogance that you think you have something to say anyone really cares about is hilarious.

Notice how you use 8 years. Why not 10 or 15? cherry picking is what you do best

It was actually since 1999; I misremembered. That was 13 years as it was done in 2012 but they only evaluated players that had three years to develop. That being said, you wouldn't know the first thing about demonstrating that the range was biased but I'll help: if there was a outlying peak year for the fourth round close to the range by all means point it out. I've looked and there is no 1 out of 4 year for the fourth round. The success rate of finding 4th rounders is ~10% leaguewide. Sorry if that doesn't jive with your disappointment for the team's management.

You keep trying to make this about me and my arrogance but I am talking about objective facts that you are ignoring. You should know by now that what people 'care' about is secondary to the truth for me. I get that your machismo demands you never admit that you were wrong to someone pointing it out but your tactic gives an impression other than what you intend.

 

[burmafrd]

It was actually since 1999; I misremembered. That was 13 years as it was done in 2012 but they only evaluated players that had three years to develop. That being said, you wouldn't know the first thing about demonstrating that the range was biased but I'll help: if there was a outlying peak year for the fourth round close to the range by all means point it out. I've looked and there is no 1 out of 4 year for the fourth round. The success rate of finding 4th rounders is ~10% leaguewide. Sorry if that doesn't jive with your disappointment for the team's management.

You keep trying to make this about me and my arrogance but I am talking about objective facts that you are ignoring. You should know by now that what people 'care' about is secondary to the truth for me. I get that your machismo demands you never admit that you were wrong to someone pointing it out but your tactic gives an impression other than what you intend.

your arrogance is highly amusing. I love poking you and watching you swell up like a puffer fish