Did the Cowboys not learn anything from the Claiborne trade-up?

[JohnnyHopkins]

They learned not to trade up for Claiborne!

 

[Zimmy Lives]

They learned not to trade up for Claiborne!

They learned: If at first you don't succeed try try again!

 

[Risen Star]

Don't compare the two trades. Those that do still don't get it.

Lawrence is an edge rusher. An impact player if he's legit. He doesn't need anyone else to do their job in order to be effective and create havoc on opposing QBs.

Claiborne is a cornerback. An irrelevant player when you consistently lose the line of scrimmage. He impacts nothing on a bad defense. It's just a football fact. It's why you saw jack squat of improvement in this defense when they mortgaged the farm for Carr and Claiborne. They just aren't impact players. Add five more, nothing will change.

Not to mention the price paid. Much less for Lawrence than Claiborne.

The real lesson to be learned there is do not build your defense from the back end to the front.

 

[Nightman]

Because Kony Ealy is not viewed as a Right/weak side DE that they wanted and they already have a Left/Strong side DE group on the roster.

They over paid to trade up. Some will continue to argue other wise but Stephen admits it and Jerry admitted it multiple times in the third day PC.

With that said they also viewed 4 players that could help at weak/right side DE.

1. Clowney - that was never going to happen
2. Barr - He went before they could get him
3. Lawrence at a drop off from the above two.
4. Attaouchu but at a big drop off between the others including Lawrence.

They also though of taking Ryan Shazier and making the 3 tech (melton) and the LB (shazier) the focus of their pass rushing players instead of the 3 Tech and Right/weak side DE.

Shazier was taking by the steelers. The Cowboys were actually on the phone with Shaziers agent, Shazier's agent was actually writing a text out that the cowboys were going to take him...then the steelers took him one spot above the cowboys.

The next highest rated player on the board was Z.Martin.

They tried to get a good trade to move down and pick up an extra pick(s) and still get someone like Lawrence. The trade offers were not good enough.

So they decided that they were going to do what it took to trade up and get Lawrence because they had a strong feeling that Atlanta was going to take him at the top of the second.

They actually tried to trade back into the end of the first to take him but did not get a trade they liked.

They then decided to do it on the second day and got the trade. They admit to overpaying for the trade but they knew that he was not going to fall to them and they knew that he was a considerable step above the next guy they the thought could fill the role (Attaouchu).

That is why they made the trade.

Kony Ealy was NEVER going to be the Right/Weak side DE. They viewed him as a Left/Strong side DE who would also rotate in at 3 Tech DT.

Hope that answers your question.

So the trade may well be silly in your opinion, they did overpay by their own words...but taking Kony Ealy at 47 would be silly if they are looking to get someone to play in the departed D.Wares role because Ealy was not going to be that player.

Great explanation of what happened. That is why I really wanted Barr or Donald to fall to 16. A trade back for a team wanting Manziel or OBJ would've still netted us Lawrence at 23 or 26. Once the draft fell the way it did, we were forced to trade up and get him. Barr and Ford(not as high on) were gone and Attachou was a question. If people look at Lawrence as a first rounder(the team did) then the trade is not that bad.

 

[Nightman]

They learned: If at first you don't succeed try try again!

They have a draft and FA every year. One missed pick isn't the end of the world. In fact most 1st Rounders are a 50/50 shot.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

Because Kony Ealy is not viewed as a Right/weak side DE that they wanted and they already have a Left/Strong side DE group on the roster.

They over paid to trade up. Some will continue to argue other wise but Stephen admits it and Jerry admitted it multiple times in the third day PC.

With that said they also viewed 4 players that could help at weak/right side DE.

1. Clowney - that was never going to happen
2. Barr - He went before they could get him
3. Lawrence at a drop off from the above two.
4. Attaouchu but at a big drop off between the others including Lawrence.

They also though of taking Ryan Shazier and making the 3 tech (melton) and the LB (shazier) the focus of their pass rushing players instead of the 3 Tech and Right/weak side DE.

Shazier was taking by the steelers. The Cowboys were actually on the phone with Shaziers agent, Shazier's agent was actually writing a text out that the cowboys were going to take him...then the steelers took him one spot above the cowboys.

The next highest rated player on the board was Z.Martin.

They tried to get a good trade to move down and pick up an extra pick(s) and still get someone like Lawrence. The trade offers were not good enough.

So they decided that they were going to do what it took to trade up and get Lawrence because they had a strong feeling that Atlanta was going to take him at the top of the second.

They actually tried to trade back into the end of the first to take him but did not get a trade they liked.

They then decided to do it on the second day and got the trade. They admit to overpaying for the trade but they knew that he was not going to fall to them and they knew that he was a considerable step above the next guy they the thought could fill the role (Attaouchu).

That is why they made the trade.

Kony Ealy was NEVER going to be the Right/Weak side DE. They viewed him as a Left/Strong side DE who would also rotate in at 3 Tech DT.

Hope that answers your question.

So the trade may well be silly in your opinion, they did overpay by their own words...but taking Kony Ealy at 47 would be silly if they are looking to get someone to play in the departed D.Wares role because Ealy was not going to be that player.

Yep. Couldn't have said it better. I'd also add that I've seen a trend in our drafts the past few years. We seem to be very reactionary. We wait until we need a certain position and we go all out for it.

Three years ago it was Tyron Smith. This worked out perfectly. We had a top 10 pick, he was the top LT in the draft, and we were there to land him.

Two years ago we needed CB bad. There were some available but Claiborne was viewed as the best by far. We traded up to get him.

Last year we had no C. It was Fredrick and no one was close. We could afford to fall back and get him.

This year we had no RDE on the roster. After missing out on Barr, it was Lawrence or nothing. We were lucky enough to be able to also get Martin so we traded up in the 2nd.

I guess our point is we've been very reactionary. We identify a few guys who will feel can make an immediate contribution and we make sure we get one of them. I applaud our resilience to get our guy but I'd prefer that we didn't go into every draft so desperate.

 

[Brooksey]

The real lesson to be learned there is do not build your defense from the back end to the front.

Um...we had Demarcus Ware, Jason Hatcher, Anthony Spencer and Jay Ratliff way before we added Claiborne and Carr.

 

[visionary]

I personally don't see how they thought the gap between Lawrence and Attaochu was so big that they felt it was necessary to give up a 3rd round pick to secure Lawrence. Guess we'll see in time, but I know I will be keeping track of some of the guys that went after pick 78.

This is my biggest beef
Stay at 47 and take attaochu

 

[texbumthelife]

This argument is ridiculous because, even if Lawrence doesn't have this immediate huge impact some of you claim he needs, there is absolutely no guarantee that whoever we picked in the 3rd would either. Furthermore, the Cowboys had no idea when they picked Claiborne that they would be changing schemes and that Claiborne wouldn't be able to stay healthy.

 

[arglebargle]

Don't compare the two trades. Those that do still don't get it.

Lawrence is an edge rusher. An impact player if he's legit. He doesn't need anyone else to do their job in order to be effective and create havoc on opposing QBs.

Claiborne is a cornerback. An irrelevant player when you consistently lose the line of scrimmage. He impacts nothing on a bad defense. It's just a football fact. It's why you saw jack squat of improvement in this defense when they mortgaged the farm for Carr and Claiborne. They just aren't impact players. Add five more, nothing will change.

Not to mention the price paid. Much less for Lawrence than Claiborne.

The real lesson to be learned there is do not build your defense from the back end to the front.

Fiddling on that old saw again? Real, professional NFL managers disagree, to the tune of 9 DBs taken in the first round. Versus five Dline. Houston had probably the single best defensive lineman in the league last year and still went 2-14. Our Dline played more different players than any NFL team in the last five years, nearly doubling the average. I posit that no team would have done well in that situation.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

Did they not learn anything when they moved up for Lee? Or Dez? Cuts both ways.

 

[Zekeats]

Fair enough. So the next question becomes, if not Ealy, who would you have gotten with that 2nd round pick if you stayed pat?

And who could you have gotten with that 3rd round pick that you gave up?

BPA

Ealy in the second and Turner in the third.

FYI and others, Selivie is not a permanent starter and Spencer most likely won't be here after this season either. Drafting BPA and looking toward 2015 would have been the smart thing to do since we aren't going to win now anyways. Now if we had kept our draft picks our 2015 starting lines might look something like this....

Smith, Turner, Fredrick, Leary, Martin

Ealy, Melton, 2nd rounder, 1st rounder

That would have put together 2 really nice young lines for the future. I am not a big fan of the 2 for one. Give up a 4th is ok, but not a 3rd. Would you trade a 2nd and a 3rd for Cliff Avril? No, know body would so why would you for someone who at best will be Avril?

 

[RS12]

Did the Cowboys not learn anything from the Claiborne trade-up?

Your best argument is that you cant fill multiple holes with one pick. IE Claiborne versus Brockers and Wagner. Obviously the Claiborne pick has been a disaster. Lawrence needs to show a lot quickly.

 

[Beast_from_East]

The more concerning pick you should focus your anger, angst or whatever negative word you wish to insert on is the fourth round pick Anthony Hitchens.

When they called him they told him that the ST coach really lobbied hard for them to take him.

They also said in the PC that he has flex position but they will probably keep him at one position and that he was basically Sean Lee's backup.

So you are talking about taking a fourth round guy to be a ST guy and Backup guy and this after you lost your third round pick so basically he is your third pick in the draft.

Although you could spin it to optimism to say that sooner or later he will get a chance to start because Sean Lee has yet to start a full season and each time he gets hurt they have suffered as they had to shift players around and the LB play suffered for it.

Meh...that and the Texas tech LB pick was the two ones I was disappointed in...the others I liked even though I did not care to give up a third.

I agree.

I loved the first two picks and even didn't mind the trade up either.

However, the Hitchens pick I just hate. There was not a mock draft or scouting report on the planet that had him going in the 4th round. The special teams couch practically crawled up on top of the table for this guy. I just don't think drafting special teams players in the 4th round is a good idea.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Don't compare the two trades. Those that do still don't get it.

Lawrence is an edge rusher. An impact player if he's legit. He doesn't need anyone else to do their job in order to be effective and create havoc on opposing QBs.

Claiborne is a cornerback. An irrelevant player when you consistently lose the line of scrimmage. He impacts nothing on a bad defense. It's just a football fact. It's why you saw jack squat of improvement in this defense when they mortgaged the farm for Carr and Claiborne. They just aren't impact players. Add five more, nothing will change.

Not to mention the price paid. Much less for Lawrence than Claiborne.

The real lesson to be learned there is do not build your defense from the back end to the front.

Excellent points.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Completely different situations. For Claiborne, they traded up very cheaply and took the player they perceived as BPA despite the fact that he didn't fit an urgent need (they'd already signed Carr). To me, this is a good process yielding (so far) a bad result. For Lawrence, they significantly overpaid to trade up for a player they targeted because of need, not because he was the best overall player available. It was a desperation move, and suggests that the process is broken. So the real question is: will they learn from the Lawrence trade? The problem is, I'm rooting for the player to turn into a superstar and for the Cowboys to learn not to do things like this. I don't see how both things can happen.

 

[iceberg]

On the cowboysbreak. Lindsay said she talked to Marinelli immediately after the DLaw pick.

She asked if he had to lobby a lot for that pick?

Marinelli: no they really know how much I wanted this guy, how strong I felt about him.

Would he have an immediate impact?

Marinelli: Yes, he'll have his hand in the dirt, a lot of 2nd and 3rd down packages for this guy. He's got to compete but I feel he has a leg up.

Hand in the dirt seems to be the phrase of the day

 

[IrishAnto]

Completely different situations. For Claiborne, they traded up very cheaply and took the player they perceived as BPA despite the fact that he didn't fit an urgent need (they'd already signed Carr). To me, this is a good process yielding (so far) a bad result. For Lawrence, they significantly overpaid to trade up for a player they targeted because of need, not because he was the best overall player available. It was a desperation move, and suggests that the process is broken. So the real question is: will they learn from the Lawrence trade? The problem is, I'm rooting for the player to turn into a superstar and for the Cowboys to learn not to do things like this. I don't see how both things can happen.

When they Drafted Claiborne they already had Carr and Jenkins (a 1st rounder whom they traded up to get).

Before drafting Lawrence who did they have that could legitimately play RDE?

So yes it was a desperation move due in no small way to the fact that Ware couldn’t be relied on any more and was too expensive.

In order for this scheme to work you need a legit pass rusher on the right side.

Sometimes that’s the price of doing business.

 

[Doc50]

Because Kony Ealy is not viewed as a Right/weak side DE that they wanted and they already have a Left/Strong side DE group on the roster.

They over paid to trade up. Some will continue to argue other wise but Stephen admits it and Jerry admitted it multiple times in the third day PC.

With that said they also viewed 4 players that could help at weak/right side DE.

1. Clowney - that was never going to happen
2. Barr - He went before they could get him
3. Lawrence at a drop off from the above two.
4. Attaouchu but at a big drop off between the others including Lawrence.

They also though of taking Ryan Shazier and making the 3 tech (melton) and the LB (shazier) the focus of their pass rushing players instead of the 3 Tech and Right/weak side DE.

Shazier was taking by the steelers. The Cowboys were actually on the phone with Shaziers agent, Shazier's agent was actually writing a text out that the cowboys were going to take him...then the steelers took him one spot above the cowboys.

The next highest rated player on the board was Z.Martin.

They tried to get a good trade to move down and pick up an extra pick(s) and still get someone like Lawrence. The trade offers were not good enough.

So they decided that they were going to do what it took to trade up and get Lawrence because they had a strong feeling that Atlanta was going to take him at the top of the second.

They actually tried to trade back into the end of the first to take him but did not get a trade they liked.

They then decided to do it on the second day and got the trade. They admit to overpaying for the trade but they knew that he was not going to fall to them and they knew that he was a considerable step above the next guy they the thought could fill the role (Attaouchu).

That is why they made the trade.

Kony Ealy was NEVER going to be the Right/Weak side DE. They viewed him as a Left/Strong side DE who would also rotate in at 3 Tech DT.

Hope that answers your question.

So the trade may well be silly in your opinion, they did overpay by their own words...but taking Kony Ealy at 47 would be silly if they are looking to get someone to play in the departed D.Wares role because Ealy was not going to be that player.

Good summary, BP.

Hitchens and Lawrence as the whipping boys have something to prove, and the coaches that wanted them will probably enable them to prove it.

 

[JD_KaPow]

When they Drafted Claiborne they already had Carr and Jenkins (a 1st rounder whom they traded up to get).

Before drafting Lawrence who did they have that could legitimately play RDE?

So yes it was a desperation move due in no small way to the fact that Ware couldn’t be relied on any more and was too expensive.

In order for this scheme to work you need a legit pass rusher on the right side.

Sometimes that’s the price of doing business.

No, it's only the price of doing business if you do business badly. You should never ever reach for need in the draft. If you have to live with subpar talent at a position for a year, you do that while getting superior talent in the draft in other places.