Did The Cowboys Finally Get A Fourth Round Pick Right?

[burmafrd]

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?

and h ow many small college types do? The percentage is higher when dealing with the major conferences. No matter how much you whine and cry reality is that

 

[burmafrd]

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.

I think the boys outthought themselves with Arkin. They saw a guy who would work hard as anyone; do everything he could to make it; was a RKG in all ways.
But they put too much emphasis on that and not enough on a brutal factual evaluation of his physical abilities and potential. Which is where he failed.

 

[xwalker]

I think the boys outthought themselves with Arkin. They saw a guy who would work hard as anyone; do everything he could to make it; was a RKG in all ways.
But they put too much emphasis on that and not enough on a brutal factual evaluation of his physical abilities and potential. Which is where he failed.

He had excellent athleticism and measurable(s). It probably wasn't unreasonable to think that he could get stronger, but he just couldn't do it. He got his weight up to about 320 but just never had the required strength to play at the NFL level. He should have taken a year off and gone on max Roid binge.

He would have been a reasonable pick in the 7th, but the 4th was way early.

 

[Biggems]

I feel the 2009 draft was horrible because we took a whole bunch of scrubs, when there were some good players out there in every round. That was one of the stupidest drafts, from top to bottom, that I have seen from Dallas.

I am not too upset when we bomb on a 4th rounder, mainly because we tend to do so well with 6th and 7th rounders, as well as, UDFAs.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

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.

Right but Matt Johnson was not the right pick there. But at the time the Cowboys were so stuck on finding these projects with great measurables.......that's fine in later rounds but its just a bit early IMO for that in the 4th round.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

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?

No a miss is not a miss. Why on earth would you take a project over someone who has faced quality competition in college? And its not just that. Isiah Stanback? Kwasi? These guys didn't even have positions in the NFL.

You can miss at guys from big schools to. But in my opinion I'd much rather take a shot at a guy who played against elite competition than a project from a small school who has even a smaller percentage of working out.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I feel the 2009 draft was horrible because we took a whole bunch of scrubs, when there were some good players out there in every round. That was one of the stupidest drafts, from top to bottom, that I have seen from Dallas.

I am not too upset when we bomb on a 4th rounder, mainly because we tend to do so well with 6th and 7th rounders, as well as, UDFAs.

That was a pretty weak draft overall though. That's not a excuse though. Cowboys missed on nearly every single pick.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

and h ow many small college types do? The percentage is higher when dealing with the major conferences. No matter how much you whine and cry reality is that

Right. IMO, its common sense if you have a quality linebacker who played against quality competition and you have a quality linebacker who played against terrible competition you'd want the former.

Just look at how the Cowboys have been drafting in later rounds lately. Sure looks a lot better than the days of Matt Johnson and Kwasi and Isiah Stanback.

 

[BigStar]

It does provide context though. If the whole league is sucking in the 4th round then is it reasonable to bash Dallas for sucking in the same round?

Not when the team has no one else 4th and beyond outside of UDFA's. It's most picks post 3rd that is the real issue. The team takes projects when there is legitimate big school talent that is available (that of course can also bust but have the competition to scout and not just numbers, etc.) Scan, Free, and Harris (spanning several drafts; 07-present, so not cherry picking) is all the team has in recent history still contributing. Not UDFA's, but round draft assistance (quality depth to develop into starters). 2 starters in six drafts (rd. 4-7).

Rat did start too (and thrived) though so have to give the team kudos for that find

 

[dogunwo]

No a miss is not a miss. Why on earth would you take a project over someone who has faced quality competition in college? And its not just that. Isiah Stanback? Kwasi? These guys didn't even have positions in the NFL.

You can miss at guys from big schools to. But in my opinion I'd much rather take a shot at a guy who played against elite competition than a project from a small school who has even a smaller percentage of working out.

But in the end when they both don't work out, you used a fourth round draft resource on a guy who can't play. Therefore a miss is a miss. A miss on a big school guy is still a miss.

 

[Craig]

in most drafts the end of the third/4th is where it starts to turn into a crapshoot. I dont think their results over the last decade in that round are much worse than other teams.

 

[big dog cowboy]

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/

Priceless.

 

[RS12]

Law of averages.

 

[waving monkey]

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

some have to their credit the 'notorious one " never will

 

[Biggems]

That was a pretty weak draft overall though. That's not a excuse though. Cowboys missed on nearly every single pick.

we could have come out of that draft with Shady McCoy, Henry Melton, and Julian Edelman....

but that draft was doomed from the start when we traded away so much for Roy Williams.

 

[Risen Star]

in most drafts the end of the third/4th is where it starts to turn into a crapshoot. I dont think their results over the last decade in that round are much worse than other teams.

Hey, nothing to see here. Everybody sucks like this.

You'd be wrong on that. That is a horrific list of bad personnel decisons in an area of the draft that is always littered with good football players.

 

[Idgit]

No a miss is not a miss. Why on earth would you take a project over someone who has faced quality competition in college? And its not just that. Isiah Stanback? Kwasi? These guys didn't even have positions in the NFL.

You can miss at guys from big schools to. But in my opinion I'd much rather take a shot at a guy who played against elite competition than a project from a small school who has even a smaller percentage of working out.

Matt Johnson was a miss because he couldn't stay on the field. When he was on the field, the team liked him. People can pretend he was over drafted all they want, but if he could play and could stay healthy, then the fact that he was a fourth round pick becomes almost irrelevant.

He wasn't even really a project. He was just a guy who hadn't played against a lot of top college competition. That's not the same thing as a project. A project is a player with obvious holes in his game that needs to be developed. Small school players come in and play relatively quickly in the NFL all the time. They just carry an added dimension of risk in that you haven't seen them against top collegiate competition. Then again, that risk can be offset by what you see on tape and in the workouts and at the senior bowl and the like.

I'm perfectly fine with taking fliers on small school guys when we legitimately like them as players, all around, better than the other options at that point in the draft. In fact, I think we'd be doing ourselves a real disservice to ignore such players without a better reason.

All things being equal, you opt for the guy you've seen playing against the higher level of competition. But all things are rarely equal.

 

[Idgit]

in most drafts the end of the third/4th is where it starts to turn into a crapshoot. I dont think their results over the last decade in that round are much worse than other teams.

I'd bet we've had a bad run there in the 4th, but I'd agree overall that we probably aren't below the curve in terms of our drafting after the first three rounds here under Garrett. Especially if you take into consideration what we typically do in CFA, which I'd imagine is pretty good when compared to the league average in terms snaps from undrafted college players.

It makes fore a better negative reaction, though, to cherry pick whatever round has been statistically the worst recently and then blame Jerry again.

 

[Biggems]

Had we not made the Roy Williams trade......and no draft day trades....we could have had the following draft prospects

1 - OT Michael Oher, LB Clay Matthews, WR Hakeem Nicks
2 - G Andy Levitre, RB LeSean McCoy, OT Sebastian Vollmer, CB Sean Smith
3 - WR Mike Wallace, CB Ladarius Webb, TE Jared Cook
4 - FB Tony Fiametta, LB Gerald McGrath
5 - CB Macho Harris, S Chris Clemons
5c - K David Buehler
6 - CB Jason McCourty
6c - TE John Phillips, RB Bernard Scott
7 - WR Julian Edelman

So here is how our draft could have gone

1 OT - Michael Oher
2 RB - LeSean McCoy
3 CB - Ladarius Webb
4 LB - Gerald McGrath
5 S - Chris Clemons
5c K - David Buehler
6 CB Jason McCourty
6c TE John Phillips
7 WR Julian Edelman

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

But in the end when they both don't work out, you used a fourth round draft resource on a guy who can't play. Therefore a miss is a miss. A miss on a big school guy is still a miss.

Well right. But what i'm saying is the draft is already a crap shoot. The percentages of hitting on these picks are already small so why would you make the percentages even smaller by taking shots at guys that are projects or from small schools over players who played against quality competition.

Look at the guys on this roster now. How many of those guys were projects? Romo I suppose? But he was undrafted.

Which goes back to I'm not opposed at taking these small school guys. I'm just saying wait a round or two to do it. But its moot. The Cowboys have changed their focus on drafting so while you may not mind drafting the projects from small schools I think the Cowboys have learned to avoid them until late.