DMN: Cowlishaw: Cowboys have almost nothing to show from '08, '09 and '12 drafts

[Nova]

Cowlishaw's argument itself is weak: he's obviously going back too far, and he's jumping the gun on 2012. But it's still the case that this team lacks sufficient depth at key positions, even after a couple years of solid personnel management. We had a couple of significant whiffs in putting the OL together, and a couple of position groups just destroyed by consecutive injuries. And the new CBA and the cap penalty certainly put a necessary crimp that's hurt us a lot more than the organization would ever admit.

Our team was seriously top-heaving in 2010. It's better now, but not enough better. It's a damn shame, because even a little luck on the DL last season with Ware/Ratliff/Spencer/Crawford/Bass probably would have gotten us the East title and a home playoff toss-up. That would have been enough time to buy the extra season I think we're going to need to add depth on defense. As it is, we're going to need a great draft and a couple of shrewd value VFA acquisitions to give ourselves a shot. If we don't get it, we're going to blow it all up and start from scratch and the seasons won't be interesting for another 3 or 4 years if we get the QB and find a HC who's capable of working effectively under the within what's a really challenging management organization.

Is he jumping on 2012 too quickly?

Obviously it's way too early to say definitively that our '12 class will amount to nothing. But so far we've gotten pretty much nothing out of them after two years.

And if you look at a team like the Seahawks, their '12 class is
1. Irvin
2. Wagner
3. Wilson

And we got much more out of our '11 class at this point in our careers also.

Again, it's too early to write them off... but is it too early to point at them as a big problem?

 

[CyberB0b]

The 2009 draft was also bad because we gave away key picks for Roy E. Williams. Scouting blunder that year.

That was terrible, on a number of levels:

1. Roy was a free agent after the year we traded for him.
2. After the trade, we made Roy Williams one of the highest paid WRs in the league.
3. Better WRs have been traded for WAY less than what we have given up. Bolding (Twice), Randy Moss, Brandon Marshall.

Again, it's too early to write them off... but is it too early to point at them as a big problem?

That is the CZ draft paradox. You don't evaluate a draft until after year 3. Since the average NFL career is 3.5 years, you can never evaluate a draft.

 

[Idgit]

No luck was going to help this team. Period..the end. Garrett not only got outcoached he got up ended evert way possible. Once again he showed not only dalkas but the nfl he was not ready for prime time and it was proving that game. To many mistakes on his part and it all seemed he was basing everything on luck...but luck wasnt having any of it

I disagree, and it's because I think you have completely missed on the real reason why the team was not competitive. We weren't losing because of second-guessable coaching calls. We were blowing games we should have won if our pass defense were not among the absolute worst in the league, and that giant liability put us in a lot of positions where coaching calls could be second guessed. Play better pass defense, it'll be amazing how much Jason Garrett finally learns, and how quickly he learns it.

 

[Idgit]

That was terrible, on a number of levels:

1. Roy was a free agent after the year we traded for him.
2. After the trade, we made Roy Williams one of the highest paid WRs in the league.
3. Better WRs have been traded for WAY less than what we have given up. Bolding (Twice), Randy Moss, Brandon Marshall.

That is the CZ draft paradox. You don't evaluate a draft until after year 3. Since the average NFL career is 3.5 years, you can never evaluate a draft.

That's actually a good point.

2009 was a dumpster fire of a draft, no doubt about it. 2012 doesn't look nearly as bad from where I'm sitting, but there's no doubt we've gotten less value than we'd expected and hoped for from the top two picks. The good news is there's reason to believe both can chip in a lot more than they have previously in the coming season, and we do have some other role players down-roster who are helping out.

 

[jazzcat22]

Dallas media...can't think of anything to write about that tells us something new....then just write about the past drafts and try to point out what is bad, but not what was good.
no comparison to other teams.
nice...

 

[xwalker]

He's complaining about the draft because our front office evaluated Claiborne as the best prospect since Deion. The guy has been hurt since we drafted him, and when he's on the field, he has been disappointing. Crawford didn't do a whole lot in his rookie year, and then was hurt for the season. Wilber has only got playing time because we were down to our 5th and 6th options at LB. The rest speak for themselves.

Remember, this is a results driven league. When a player doesn't produce, whether due to injury or other reasons, it falls on the GM. When the team only has 1 playoff win nearly 2 decades, that falls on the GM. Jerry and his family are the only constant in this discussion. The Patriots don't draft that well, but do you hear anyone complaining?

When injuries occur, the GM should be blamed for not having adequate depth; however, the fact that a draft pick gets injured, is not an indication that the decision to draft that specific player was a bad decision at the time of the draft. Matt Johnson was the only player in that list with a significant injury history.

Claiborne had a good season as a rookie. They changed the scheme and he got injured in 2013. It's really difficult to evaluate his true ability considering that they had his arm strapped down to significantly restrict movement.

Wilber is another guy that can be blamed on the GM, but not because he was a bad draft pick, but because the GM changed D-Coordinator and schemes. Wilber was drafted as a 3-4 OLB and then thrust into a role as a 4-3 DE. He actually ended up playing quite well as a 4-3 SLB which makes sense because he played in coverage as much as he rushed the passer in college.

Crawford seems like a good 3rd round pick. Again, blame the team/GM for not having more depth, but the pick itself was not a bad one.

Hanna played a lot of snaps in 2013.

Summary: Jerry deserves blame for many things including a lack of depth; however, the scouting dept. did a reasonable job on the 2012 draft, IMO.

 

[Idgit]

Is he jumping on 2012 too quickly?

Obviously it's way too early to say definitively that our '12 class will amount to nothing. But so far we've gotten pretty much nothing out of them after two years.

And if you look at a team like the Seahawks, their '12 class is
1. Irvin
2. Wagner
3. Wilson

And we got much more out of our '11 class at this point in our careers also.

Again, it's too early to write them off... but is it too early to point at them as a big problem?

I think he's definitely jumping too quickly. Our first + second and our third rounders all missed significant time due to injury, but both look to be capable NFL starters under normal circumstances. Hannah and Wilber are role players, and Wilber might end up a starter before it's all said and done. That's not a disaster by any stretch, and only looks bad now because Mo and Crawford gave us so little this last season.

We're obviously not going to get the production SEA got out of their 2012 draft. But that really shouldn't be the measure of a quality draft, because that haul is so impressive. If that's really the barometer, then, yeah, our draft was a disaster by comparison.

 

[reddyuta]

Cowboys scouts must be reading up on "sleeper" candidates on the draft because we have drafted a number of them recently and all of them have failed spectacularly.

 

[Hostile]

That is the CZ draft paradox. You don't evaluate a draft until after year 3. Since the average NFL career is 3.5 years, you can never evaluate a draft.

You know, I just don't agree with this. I have never understood the "you can't grade a draft for 3 years thing" and I believe you can evaluate talent.

But what I have an issue with is how people do grade or judge drafts. Let's take the 2008 Draft as an example.

Felix Jones, 5 seasons. Still playing.
Mike Jenkins, 5 seasons. Still playing.
Martellus Bennett, 4 seasons. Still playing.
Tashard Choice, 4 seasons. Still playing.
Orlando Scandrick, 6 seasons and counting.
Erik Walden, final cut, hoped we would get him on the PS but KC signed him. He has been in the NFL ever since.

So we got 24 seasons of worth out of that Draft and all 6 players are still in the NFL playing. We opted to move on from 4 of them for cap reasons. That is a fact of life in the NFL for all 32 teams, but only in Dallas is it an indictment.

Calling that Draft class a bust given the above just smacks of sour grapes just for the purpose of being upset about something. Especially when we see similar results across the NFL including the two Super Bowl teams, who are excused for their 2008 Drafts because they are now in the Super Bowl, but the 2 teams who did not make the Super Bowl will be excused for other reasons, and 27 other teams will be excused for still other reasons. isn't it still poor drafting for those other 31 teams if it is for us?

The double standards of judging the Cowboys and every other team are mind boggling. If you compare Dallas to a successful team, how dare you even deign to do that. If you compare them to a bad team, look what you are stopping to. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I think it is perfectly fine to judge the 2013 Draft right now. We saw these kids play. We have the right to some high hopes and some doubts. At least that's how I see it. Not every player is a Hall of Famer. That does not make them worthless to a football team. That is an idiotic way of thinking.

 

[jobberone]

The players from the 2008 and 2009 drafts would have already been on their 2nd contracts. With the CBA, the primary value of draft picks is when they are on their initial contract. Other than QB, teams can sign equivalent free agents for the same cost as re-signing their own free agents. There is no significant advantage in re-signing their own free agents vs signing another teams free agents.

Why is he complaining about the 2012 draft? They had a lot of injury issues, but Matt Johnson was the only player with a significant injury history.
1 Morris Claiborne CB
3 Tyrone Crawford DE
4 Kyle Wilber LB
4* Matt Johnson S
5 Danny Coale WR
6 James Hanna TE
7 Caleb McSurdy ILB

I'm not complaining but I could make a case for that not being a huge success so far. There is no player on that list who has made a significant impact. Having said that I think Claiborne and Wilber could contribute some or more. I think Crawford will emerge this year as a player. Johnson have no idea. Hanna don't know.

 

[Nova]

I think he's definitely jumping too quickly. Our first + second and our third rounders all missed significant time due to injury, but both look to be capable NFL starters under normal circumstances. Hannah and Wilber are role players, and Wilber might end up a starter before it's all said and done. That's not a disaster by any stretch, and only looks bad now because Mo and Crawford gave us so little this last season.

We're obviously not going to get the production SEA got out of their 2012 draft. But that really shouldn't be the measure of a quality draft, because that haul is so impressive. If that's really the barometer, then, yeah, our draft was a disaster by comparison.

But that's kind of the question I'm asking. It's more of a question of what the barometer should be in this day and age.

20 years into the Salary Cap era, drafting and getting production per dollar is more important than ever. It seems like you have to have great players playing for pennies to make it through the gauntlet of the season and throughout the playoffs.

Is it to the point that we should expect more from these guys two years in?

Again, it's no definitive statement on their careers, but rather a statement on how successful the draft is for us.

Example: The 2008 draft was pretty good from a talent standpoint-- most of those guys are still in the league. But they're not all with us and didn't really contribute anything for us. Therefore, what's the use of saying it was a good draft for us?

 

[ShiningStar]

I disagree, and it's because I think you have completely missed on the real reason why the team was not competitive. We weren't losing because of second-guessable coaching calls. We were blowing games we should have won if our pass defense were not among the absolute worst in the league, and that giant liability put us in a lot of positions where coaching calls could be second guessed. Play better pass defense, it'll be amazing how much Jason Garrett finally learns, and how quickly he learns it.

Yes...as I found this works In real life. .in oder to be successful. ..please sit there and blame on aspect and try not to compensate. ..road to
Success aa the record showed.

I would expect Garrett to sit there and blame that on problem. ..teams and coaches who are not on the mediocre train get around any problems and rise to the occasion. But yes..u are correct. .that was a problem on the team...also sadly so was Garrett.

 

[CyberB0b]

You know, I just don't agree with this. I have never understood the "you can't grade a draft for 3 years thing" and I believe you can evaluate talent.

But what I have an issue with is how people do grade or judge drafts. Let's take the 2008 Draft as an example.

Felix Jones, 5 seasons. Still playing.
Mike Jenkins, 5 seasons. Still playing.
Martellus Bennett, 4 seasons. Still playing.
Tashard Choice, 4 seasons. Still playing.
Orlando Scandrick, 6 seasons and counting.
Erik Walden, final cut, hoped we would get him on the PS but KC signed him. He has been in the NFL ever since.

I agree with you, that's why I called it the CZ paradox. Just looking at that list, something really jumps out at me that we don't discuss. It isn't always about talent, but about the strategy. Felix Jones was drafted to be a backup, or part time player, behind Marion Barber. Martellus Bennett, same thing.

Honestly, I don't care if they are still in the league, that is a stupid argument. That is like saying you bought Microsoft stock in 1986 sold in in 1987 for a small profit, but that's OK because it has grown exponentially since then. Why are we proud of the fact that we drafted guys who didn't last any longer than their rookie deals? Don't try to sell me on the fact that they would be on a second contract, because Scandrick is still here, and most of those guys would have been signed to paltry sums, due to their lack of production/development here.

 

[jterrell]

No, that was ONE of his points.... The other was that they weren't good drafts. The poster I responded to said Seattle and Denver didn't have good drafts in 08 and 09 either. I stated that they have changed GMs since then. Not sure how that's not relevant.

Again, that's not at all what was stated.
He said they weren't good drafts BECAUSE players aren't around.
He was responding to someone saying drafting had improved and that perhaps he should offer a mea culpa given how good the 2013 draft looks.

Apparently you are posting that the SB teams underwent GM changes because they had bad drafts in 08 and 09??
Or maybe not. Who can tell because you really aren't saying anything specific at all.

I'd be glad to address an actual point if you make one.

 

[jterrell]

And yeah it takes 3 years to truly analyze a draft. So we can't call anyone a bust until 3 years down the road, and when they're off the team, it's just due to the fact that the average NFL lifespan is 3.5 years. Win win.

Or you can cry non-stop all day every day if that makes you feel any better.
You can even cry because people say you're crying too much.
As any 2 year old will tell you, crying is always a valid option if you dont get your way.

It really does take some minimal amount of common sense to discuss anything.
If a player plays a lot of snaps as rookie and gets hurt as a 2nd year guy it gathers perhaps that player has a lot of unknown.

At the same time if a player is drafted, never makes an NFL team and is sellng insurance it is pretty easy to call that a suck pick without waiting 3 years.

If you draft a player it is more than fair to grade that versus his initial rookie contract/commitment. (and any non-lazy journalist does so)
It is entirely unfair and rather stupid to grade that pick based solely on his hanging around Valley Ranch for longer than that.

Was Marcus Spears a 'better' draft pick than Chris Canty?

 

[jterrell]

I agree with you, which makes me wonder why so many praise Stephen on here and why other around the league do as well. This guy is the biggest phony in the organization.

I honestly believe at one time Stephen was one of the best in the biz as a cap guy.
Heck he pretty much invented the position.

But he didn't address the changes in the new CBA his Daddy fought so hard for.
Didn't account for the NFL slapping him with huge cap penalties and didn't ever find a way to say no to big shiny contracts like Carr or Austin.

I'd replace him before even Jerry. Ok, let's call it same time.

 

[jterrell]

I agree with you, that's why I called it the CZ paradox. Just looking at that list, something really jumps out at me that we don't discuss. It isn't always about talent, but about the strategy. Felix Jones was drafted to be a backup, or part time player, behind Marion Barber. Martellus Bennett, same thing.

Honestly, I don't care if they are still in the league, that is a stupid argument. That is like saying you bought Microsoft stock in 1986 sold in in 1987 for a small profit, but that's OK because it has grown exponentially since then. Why are we proud of the fact that we drafted guys who didn't last any longer than their rookie deals? Don't try to sell me on the fact that they would be on a second contract, because Scandrick is still here, and most of those guys would have been signed to paltry sums, due to their lack of production/development here.

Felix was drafted to be the speed option. He was essentially a very poor man's Reggie Bush.
Not so sure that was bad strategy. Had we drafted Chris Johnson in that spot for that role would anyone be complaining about strategy?
But it was definitely poor people mgmt to let(encourage) a speed RB get fat.

MartyB was the best blocking TE in football. He left as a FA to start as TE1 elsewhere.
He wasn't a bad pick at all.

Mike Jenkins wanted MORE money than Scandrick. He had after all beaten Scandrick out quite handily.
When Jenkins started getting hurt the team felt Scandrick was the better long term bet.
They couldn't afford both.
Whatever happened between the club and Jenkins meant he wasn't signing here for the deal he took in Oakland.
He really wanted to get back to Florida and obviously ended up on the other coast.
I hated we didn't get a cheap deal for Jenkins but that bridge was simply burned.

 

[Idgit]

Yes...as I found this works In real life. .in oder to be successful. ..please sit there and blame on aspect and try not to compensate. ..road to
Success aa the record showed.

I would expect Garrett to sit there and blame that on problem. ..teams and coaches who are not on the mediocre train get around any problems and rise to the occasion. But yes..u are correct. .that was a problem on the team...also sadly so was Garrett.

Wut?

Guessing at what you probably meant here, I believe the overwhelmingly biggest reason we weren't in the postseason was related to the defense. It was mostly a decline in DL pressure that exposed the secondary, but injuries to our press CBs and the declining pressure also had us playing too much zone. We were getting poor coverage our of the WLB position against teams that had backs that could impact the passing game, and we sustained to many injuries at MLB to be effective (Lee, Durant,Sims all going down at some point, while Carter also was dinged). It was a talent issue on defense, plain and simple. And, yes, it's Garrett's job to make sure he gets the talent he has ready to play. I give him no pass just because he came from the offensive side of the football.

 

[Alexander]

Example: The 2008 draft was pretty good from a talent standpoint-- most of those guys are still in the league. But they're not all with us and didn't really contribute anything for us. Therefore, what's the use of saying it was a good draft for us?

Simple answer, there is not any use to saying that other than trying to apologize for the failure to take the right players to contribute to the football team at the time.

The purpose of a draft is to take players who you believe will help your football team, not become productive players elsewhere or just stick around in the league. If they do not contribute meaningfully to your team during their tenure, the failure was in the evaluation.

 

[Hostile]

I agree with you, that's why I called it the CZ paradox. Just looking at that list, something really jumps out at me that we don't discuss. It isn't always about talent, but about the strategy. Felix Jones was drafted to be a backup, or part time player, behind Marion Barber. Martellus Bennett, same thing.

Honestly, I don't care if they are still in the league, that is a stupid argument. That is like saying you bought Microsoft stock in 1986 sold in in 1987 for a small profit, but that's OK because it has grown exponentially since then. Why are we proud of the fact that we drafted guys who didn't last any longer than their rookie deals? Don't try to sell me on the fact that they would be on a second contract, because Scandrick is still here, and most of those guys would have been signed to paltry sums, due to their lack of production/development here.

I don't necessarily agree that anyone is drafted to be a backup. If they were good enough to start, they would. All teams do draft for depth and to fill holes. It needs to be about what they give to the team and for how long. I partially agree that players still playing for someone else doesn't mean as much to me, but the fact remains that most players in today's NFL are waived due to the Salary Cap. Brandon Carr was a Chiefs 5th round pick in 2008. They simply could not afford to keep him. That doesn't mean he wasn't any good for them. We preferred Carr over Jenkins when the opportunity came. That doesn't mean we didn't use Jenkins all that we could.