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

[Nightman]

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.

Neither was a reach, both Martin and Lawrence had first round grades. To get them both costs assets. 47 was always a tough spot in this draft for us. All the top OG and DE would be gone and anyone picked there would have the same questions as a lot of 3rd and 4th rounders. Losing the 3rd to a get a second 1st round caliber player is not bad business. The Skins took Trent Murphy-OLB and Spencer Long-OG with our picks, not exactly a haul IMO.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This is my biggest beef
Stay at 47 and take attaochu

I forget who it was back in the 90s that the Cowboys missed out on so they were stuck drafting Shante Carver and Kavika Pittman but that is their reasoning. Attaochu at least to them was Shante Carver and Kavika Pittman as opposed to their preferred choice.

 

[IrishAnto]

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.

Teams trade up all the time for players they covet and sometimes you have to pay more depending on how badly the team selling the pick wants to offload it and how badly the team buying the pick wants it.

Quite obviously the Cowboys thought the drop off between Lawrence and the next guy was big so rather than being 'Ungered' like they were in 2009 they choose to make sure they got their man.

If Lawrence turns out to be a good player I doubt you’ll be grousing about the trade.

As for living with sub par talent for a year, who says that the Cowboys would have a legitimate shot at a player with as good or better talent next year?

 

[visionary]

I forget who it was back in the 90s that the Cowboys missed out on so they were stuck drafting Shante Carver and Kavika Pittman but that is their reasoning. Attaochu at least to them was Shante Carver and Kavika Pittman as opposed to their preferred choice.

Clearly the cowboys seemed to believe Lawrence was much better
If that turns out to be the case and Lawrence can be our next great RDE then tge trade will have been worth it

 

[Doc50]

The valuation and relative chance for success in these choices rests solely on the ability to predict performance, which is difficult and complex.

In evaluating and considering every detail and nuance, and communicating and discussing that with other decision makers, McClay is an absolute machine.

Certainly, the 'Boys may have as much bad luck as the next team, but the vision and preparation and consensus have been very respectable this year.

We can re-evaluate this effort in 2-3 years.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Teams trade up all the time for players they covet and sometimes you have to pay more depending on how badly the team selling the pick wants to offload it and how badly the team buying the pick wants it.

That's the problem. You should never want it that badly.

Quite obviously the Cowboys thought the drop off between Lawrence and the next guy was big so rather than being 'Ungered' like they were in 2009 they choose to make sure they got their man.

I don't believe that. I believe they thought the drop-off between Lawrence and the next guy AT THAT POSITION was big. But forcing a draft pick to fit a positional need is a recipe for disaster, more often than not.

If Lawrence turns out to be a good player I doubt you’ll be grousing about the trade.

Then you don't know me at all. I'm far more interested in the Cowboys having a good draft process than in the results of any particular pick. The broken 1st-round process last year was bad, no matter how good the players they got turned out. And they followed a bad process again this year. It's upsetting because it looked for a while that they had really professionalized their draft process.

As for living with sub par talent for a year, who says that the Cowboys would have a legitimate shot at a player with as good or better talent next year?

There's always talent in the draft, and there's always talent in free agency. When you start thinking, "This is my only chance to fill this position," that's when you get desperate and make bad decisions.

 

[KB1122]

Giving up a valuable mid-3rd round pick to move up for Lawrence was silly.

This is a team that lacks depth. In a deep draft like this you can get a starter with that 3rd round pick.

Why not just stay at 47, take Kony Ealy, and still keep the 3rd rounder?

Didn't mind the Claiborne trade up. Agree about this year. Trade down would have been preferable, actually.

 

[KB1122]

The bigger question is one that Norm Hitzges asked yesterday morning .... if Lawrence was so crucial, why not take him at 16 and keep the third?

 

[IrishAnto]

There's always talent in the draft, and there's always talent in free agency. When you start thinking, "This is my only chance to fill this position," that's when you get desperate and make bad decisions.

Well by that logic we should have no problem finding someone to adequately replace the missing 3rd round pick.

I'm not sure why you're annoyed?

 

[IrishAnto]

The bigger question is one that Norm Hitzges asked yesterday morning .... if Lawrence was so crucial, why not take him at 16 and keep the third?

Because this team thinks that Martin + Lawrence > Lawrence + 2nd + 3rd.

Equally think of the outcry if we had taken Lawrence at 16 and Hitzges would be asking "Why take Lawrence at 16?".

In addition Dallas wasn't to know before hand that it would have to spend a 3rd pick.

Revisionism is great!

 

[jnday]

I forget who it was back in the 90s that the Cowboys missed out on so they were stuck drafting Shante Carver and Kavika Pittman but that is their reasoning. Attaochu at least to them was Shante Carver and Kavika Pittman as opposed to their preferred choice.

Overpaying for any position of need is a desperation move. I hope the guy is the next Charles Haley or this trade-up is really going to stink.

 

[LucaBrasi]

They found a guy they liked at a position of great need and went and got him. Hopefully Lawrence proves them right, unlike Claiborne.

As far as learning lessons from the past, I think its pretty hard to learn a lesson when the front office, specifically the GM position, is manned by the same individual that has steered the franchise like the Titanic for the last 20 years.

 

[Nightman]

That's the problem. You should never want it that badly.I don't believe that. I believe they thought the drop-off between Lawrence and the next guy AT THAT POSITION was big. But forcing a draft pick to fit a positional need is a recipe for disaster, more often than not.Then you don't know me at all. I'm far more interested in the Cowboys having a good draft process than in the results of any particular pick. The broken 1st-round process last year was bad, no matter how good the players they got turned out. And they followed a bad process again this year. It's upsetting because it looked for a while that they had really professionalized their draft process.There's always talent in the draft, and there's always talent in free agency. When you start thinking, "This is my only chance to fill this position," that's when you get desperate and make bad decisions.

Trading up is not the same as reaching. They had Lawrence rated higher than where they took him, they just had to pay more because of the way the draft went. Their biggest weakness on the Defense was RDE and they needed to fill that position with a capable player. They felt Lawrence was the last one in this draft that could make an immediate impact. With some of the players they got late in the draft and in UDFA, I think they made up for losing their 3rd.

 

[L-O-Jete]

The bigger question is one that Norm Hitzges asked yesterday morning .... if Lawrence was so crucial, why not take him at 16 and keep the third?

Or trade down with CLE and get an extra 3rd...

 

[L-O-Jete]

Because this team thinks that Martin + Lawrence > Lawrence + 2nd + 3rd.

Equally think of the outcry if we had taken Lawrence at 16 and Hitzges would be asking "Why take Lawrence at 16?".

In addition Dallas wasn't to know before hand that it would have to spend a 3rd pick.

Revisionism is great!

They knew, they wanted to move back into the first to get him, but failed (got outbid by Minn), which means the moment they picked Z. Martin they knew it was Z. Martin + Lawrence with their first 3 picks.
IMHO this in a draft as deep as this (which is not the opinion only from the "experts", but GM's as well) means either they have a much higher regard for the players they have now than most or don't trust their evaluations enough to think they can get more production out of 4 of the top 85 picks than 2 of the top 35.

 

[Kaiser]

I forget who it was back in the 90s that the Cowboys missed out on so they were stuck drafting Shante Carver and Kavika Pittman but that is their reasoning. Attaochu at least to them was Shante Carver and Kavika Pittman as opposed to their preferred choice.

Tony Brackens from UT was the player they missed on and took Pittman, by 4 picks. Brackens had 7 sacks as a rookie that year and a 12 sack season a couple of years later.

 

[Kaiser]

Because this team thinks that Martin + Lawrence > Lawrence + 2nd + 3rd.

Equally think of the outcry if we had taken Lawrence at 16 and Hitzges would be asking "Why take Lawrence at 16?".

In addition Dallas wasn't to know before hand that it would have to spend a 3rd pick.

Revisionism is great!

Exactly, Dallas thought it was giving up its top three picks to get two players. They had one rated 9th on their board and the second somewhere in the 15 - 20 range. If their player evaluation is correct its the right decision, and no front office should approach the draft assuming their scouts are wrong. If you look at the last three drafts, the scouts have done quite well.

 

[LatinMind]

On this specific subject i didnt like the trade. Nothing against the player but this team just had too many issues to worry about drafting for need. If you dont get a WDE in a weak WDE draft so be it. Work with what you have or could sign in FA.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Trading up is not the same as reaching. They had Lawrence rated higher than where they took him, they just had to pay more because of the way the draft went. Their biggest weakness on the Defense was RDE and they needed to fill that position with a capable player. They felt Lawrence was the last one in this draft that could make an immediate impact.

Trading up is absolutely not the same as reaching. The Claiborne trade wasn't a reach, even if it doesn't end up working out. The Dez and Lee trades weren't reaches. Drastically overpaying to trade up to target "the last guy in the draft" who fits a perceived need is, to me, almost the definition of reaching.

 

[Nightman]

Trading up is absolutely not the same as reaching. The Claiborne trade wasn't a reach, even if it doesn't end up working out. The Dez and Lee trades weren't reaches. Drastically overpaying to trade up to target "the last guy in the draft" who fits a perceived need is, to me, almost the definition of reaching.

Reaching is taking a lower rated player at a higher round because of need. Lawrence wasn't getting past 35 and Dallas had him rated around 20. They had Martin rated even higher and took him because Martin would go before Lawrence because not as many teams need a WDE. Every team can use a versatile OL.

Taking Lawrence at 16 could be considered a reach, but not by much. You could argue they overpaid to get Lawrence, but a Top 20 player is worth more than a mid 2nd and 3rd. Taking Hitchens in the 4th can be considered a reach because most scouts had him rated as a 7th rounder. Dallas either had him rated a lot higher or felt he would get picked before their next pick.