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

[Risen Star]

Holy moly, do you not understand that Jerry is the only GM in the league who has produced consistent failure for 18 years and not been fired?

Scrutiny? Seriously? Jerry himself has admitted he would have fired himself by now.

Well maybe if people treated him fairly the results would be better.

 

[Risen Star]

Anytime you have two 1st round picks and neither player gets a 2nd contract, you've had a bad draft.

The 2009 class was an abortion. 2012 an F-.

This notion that the Cowboys are now much better at drafting is an extreme exaggeration. Maybe better than the horrific 95-02 era but still pretty awful.

 

[Common Sense]

So it's okay that 2009 was such a terrible draft class because the draft overall was bad? What are we paying scouts for then, anyway? It's like that meme, "You had ONE job."

Also, 2008 doesn't become vindicated because high picks have left to sign minimum deals elsewhere. That's absurd. The point of the draft is to improve your team, emphasis on the words "improve" and "your." Finding JAGS for other teams is not an efficient use of multiple first round picks. Today's NFL is all about economic efficiency.

The last goofy idea that I can't believe is being tossed around so much is this idea that those drafts don't matter anymore, because 3.5 years and core players and blah blah. What if we hadn't found Romo, Ware, Witten, etc. in the years before that? Would it be okay because those years don't really matter anymore? Of course, we'd be wondering why we're going 3-13 every year, but hey. Logic.

 

[big dog cowboy]

So it's okay that 2009 was such a terrible draft class because the draft overall was bad? What are we paying scouts for then, anyway? It's like that meme, "You had ONE job."

Scouts have nothing to do with drafts and if they are good or not. Clearly the 2009 draft wasn't that talented of a draft. What can the scouts do about that? Nothing.

 

[Nova]

So it's okay that 2009 was such a terrible draft class because the draft overall was bad? What are we paying scouts for then, anyway? It's like that meme, "You had ONE job."p

No, the point is, you already know that the draft is a crap shoot with a lower chance of hitting on a player the deeper the draft goes. We didn't have a pick until the 5th pick in the 3rd round in one of the least talent rich drafts in recent years. There have been 5 pro bowlers after that pick to emerge, one isn't in the league anymore and the other is a punter. It's pretty understandable that we didn't come away with much. Neither did a lot of other teams.

Also, 2008 doesn't become vindicated because high picks have left to sign minimum deals elsewhere. That's absurd. The point of the draft is to improve your team, emphasis on the words "improve" and "your." Finding JAGS for other teams is not an efficient use of multiple first round picks. Today's NFL is all about economic efficiency.

But is that a draft issue though? Or a GM issue? Or just the constraints of the NFL nowadays? It's a combination of the three. If you don't draft a superstar, is it worth keeping them around? Especially if you've got an over generous GM who hands out bad, big contracts left and right?

The last goofy idea that I can't believe is being tossed around so much is this idea that those drafts don't matter anymore, because 3.5 years and core players and blah blah. What if we hadn't found Romo, Ware, Witten, etc. in the years before that? Would it be okay because those years don't really matter anymore? Of course, we'd be wondering why we're going 3-13 every year, but hey. Logic.

If we hadn't found Romo Ware and Witten... we likely would have had money for free agents, Bennett from that 08 draft you talked about would likely still be on the team as a star TE, so on and so forth.

After a certain amount of time, some drafts just don't hurt you as much because you should've replaced the talent by now, because again you can't keep everyone.

I mean, look at the Seahawks-- They only have one more player than we have remaining from the 08-09 drafts than we do.

The point I'm trying to make is, we're far enough removed from the 2008 and 2009 drafts that we should be able to overcome those horrid Wade years. You can't really blame our problems on those drafts; it's just not a good excuse because it's understandable that other teams had equally as poor drafts, and losing a lot of those guys is also kind of a natural course of events.

A couple of years a go? Yeah rue the day. But we're just about 6 years removed from the 2008 draft. To put it in perspective, Mike Jenkins turns 29 before this next draft. He's just one year away from the dreaded 3-0 when it would be a mistake to pay him anyway.

 

[Boom]

But is that a draft issue though? Or a GM issue? Or just the constraints of the NFL nowadays? It's a combination of the three. If you don't draft a superstar, is it worth keeping them around? Especially if you've got an over generous GM who hands out bad, big contracts left and right?

Whatever the reason, the player is no longer on the team and needs to be replaced. I'd only count it as a drafting victory for Dallas if the team couldn't keep them because they drafted so many top notch players that it isn't financially possible to retain them all. When the team has to replace those players, ideally it is through the draft and without squandering extra draft picks to obtain that replacement. If Dallas doesn't draft well, it becomes a vicious cycle.

 

[OhSnap]

Cherry picking is fun and anyone can do it.

 

[IrishAnto]

No, the point is, you already know that the draft is a crap shoot with a lower chance of hitting on a player the deeper the draft goes. We didn't have a pick until the 5th pick in the 3rd round in one of the least talent rich drafts in recent years. There have been 5 pro bowlers after that pick to emerge, one isn't in the league anymore and the other is a punter. It's pretty understandable that we didn't come away with much. Neither did a lot of other teams.

But is that a draft issue though? Or a GM issue? Or just the constraints of the NFL nowadays? It's a combination of the three. If you don't draft a superstar, is it worth keeping them around? Especially if you've got an over generous GM who hands out bad, big contracts left and right?



If we hadn't found Romo Ware and Witten... we likely would have had money for free agents, Bennett from that 08 draft you talked about would likely still be on the team as a star TE, so on and so forth.

After a certain amount of time, some drafts just don't hurt you as much because you should've replaced the talent by now, because again you can't keep everyone.

I mean, look at the Seahawks-- They only have one more player than we have remaining from the 08-09 drafts than we do.

The point I'm trying to make is, we're far enough removed from the 2008 and 2009 drafts that we should be able to overcome those horrid Wade years. You can't really blame our problems on those drafts; it's just not a good excuse because it's understandable that other teams had equally as poor drafts, and losing a lot of those guys is also kind of a natural course of events.

A couple of years a go? Yeah rue the day. But we're just about 6 years removed from the 2008 draft. To put it in perspective, Mike Jenkins turns 29 before this next draft. He's just one year away from the dreaded 3-0 when it would be a mistake to pay him anyway.

Mike Jenkins would have been paid last year (at 28) not next (at 30).

In an earlier post on this thread, the Stealer’s draft picks from 2008 – 2012 were listed presumably to show that Dallas wasn’t the only team drafting badly in that period.

Well answer me this, what have the Stealers done in the playoffs these past two years?

The Stealers seem to be a better managed organisation than the Cowboys with a better/more established scheme on defense, yet bad drafts caught up on them too.

A period of bad drafting has an effect that can take many, many years to repair especially if you have little money to spend in free agency (which isn’t they way to build a longer lasting team anyway), so don’t imaging the 2008-2009 drafts have no effect on the current state of the Cowboys.

 

[Idgit]

Mike Jenkins would have been paid last year (at 28) not next (at 30).

In an earlier post on this thread, the Stealer’s draft picks from 2008 – 2012 were listed presumably to show that Dallas wasn’t the only team drafting badly in that period.

Well answer me this, what have the Stealers done in the playoffs these past two years?

The Stealers seem to be a better managed organisation than the Cowboys with a better/more established scheme on defense, yet bad drafts caught up on them too.

A period of bad drafting has an effect that can take many, many years to repair especially if you have little money to spend in free agency (which isn’t they way to build a longer lasting team anyway), so don’t imaging the 2008-2009 drafts have no effect on the current state of the Cowboys.

Yep. Because the best teams tend to be the best teams because they draft well, to overcome bad draft picks in prior years and actually gain on those best teams, you have to actually outperform them in terms of acquiring and developing new talent. If you just match them, they stay better than you until those earlier drafted players age enough to work their way out of the league. If you're limited in terms of FA dollars, then you take one channel for player acquisition off the table, entirely. If they also have more picks than you do, they have a distinct advantage over you in the other main channel of blue-chip player acquisition. That leaves you hoping to close the gap with the best teams via value VFAs, CFA, and player development (the best teams are also adept at player development). That's why it's so important not to waste premium picks on positions you can fill from middle rounds or fill by stashing and developing small school projects. It's why you don't draft RBs in the first round. Or TEs in the second, for that matter, if you can possibly help it.
We've done a poor job of this, traditionally, in the post-Jimmy era. We've been better under Garrett in my book, but we were better at it under Parcels (he did a great job with VFA's that fit what he wanted to do, and we had the luxury of the two 1s in the Ware/Spears draft). We have to get back to that, and we have to stay the course with it if we're going to build a winning organization. Or we need to get lucky in the form of a huge boon at the QB position or with an offensive or defensive game changer or two to close the gap in leaps and bounds. I'm all for leaps and bounds, but it's hard to predict whether that's actually going to happen, so in the meantime, give me slow and steady and a process (yeah, I said 'process') that's measurable and effective over changing directions yet again and starting from scratch on a ship with a wildcatter at the helm.

 

[Nova]

Mike Jenkins would have been paid last year (at 28) not next (at 30).

In an earlier post on this thread, the Stealer’s draft picks from 2008 – 2012 were listed presumably to show that Dallas wasn’t the only team drafting badly in that period.

Well answer me this, what have the Stealers done in the playoffs these past two years?

The Stealers seem to be a better managed organisation than the Cowboys with a better/more established scheme on defense, yet bad drafts caught up on them too.

A period of bad drafting has an effect that can take many, many years to repair especially if you have little money to spend in free agency (which isn’t they way to build a longer lasting team anyway), so don’t imaging the 2008-2009 drafts have no effect on the current state of the Cowboys.

He would've been paid at 28 for a deal that likely would take him into his 30s for a player with a pretty notable injury history. I was just using Jenkins as an example of how long ago that draft class was. But honestly I think they handled that situation well. Jenkins was a knockout on the only Dallas team to win a playoff game in the last 17 years, and he started to decline because of physical reasons. They drafted his replacement before his contract was up, essentially gave him one last shot, and he didn't play up to standards worthy of another contract, especially with 3-0 looming.

I'm not saying the 2008-2009 drafts don't have any effect on the Cowboys and I'm not excusing them either. Of course they affect our team. I'm just saying it's a horrible excuse for why we aren't successful seeing how other successful teams had mediocre or bad drafts there as well. Again, Seattle is a team that's largely been put together since 2010.

Also the Steelers not only drafted poorly in 2008-2009, but they never got back on track after that either.

 

[IrishAnto]

He would've been paid at 28 for a deal that likely would take him into his 30s for a player with a pretty notable injury history. I was just using Jenkins as an example of how long ago that draft class was. But honestly I think they handled that situation well. Jenkins was a knockout on the only Dallas team to win a playoff game in the last 17 years, and he started to decline because of physical reasons. They drafted his replacement before his contract was up, essentially gave him one last shot, and he didn't play up to standards worthy of another contract, especially with 3-0 looming.

I'm not saying the 2008-2009 drafts don't have any effect on the Cowboys and I'm not excusing them either. Of course they affect our team. I'm just saying it's a horrible excuse for why we aren't successful seeing how other successful teams had mediocre or bad drafts there as well. Again, Seattle is a team that's largely been put together since 2010.

Also the Steelers not only drafted poorly in 2008-2009, but they never got back on track after that either.

They did indeed draft Jenkins’s replacement, spending a 1st and 2nd (BTW they also traded up for Jenkins) who looks to be just if not more fragile.

Nice going Cowboys!

Dallas's problems do indeed extend beyond poor drafting and I think most agree on the root cause.

 

[jobberone]

Well maybe if people treated him fairly the results would be better.

You've been on a roll lately. Good one.

 

[Nova]

Whatever the reason, the player is no longer on the team and needs to be replaced. I'd only count it as a drafting victory for Dallas if the team couldn't keep them because they drafted so many top notch players that it isn't financially possible to retain them all. When the team has to replace those players, ideally it is through the draft and without squandering extra draft picks to obtain that replacement. If Dallas doesn't draft well, it becomes a vicious cycle.

I don't disagree.

I'm just saying you can't blame it all on drafting. FA is supposed to help replenish ranks as well, but we've been handcuffed because of bad contracts that have been handed out and an unwillingness to cut bait with older players.

We've also fallen behind because we HAVE to draft for need because our FA bank is tight.

 

[jobberone]

We've been in the lower half of the league talent wise for awhile. IMO we are gaining. If we do well above average the next two years and retain some of our better players or find replacements then we'll be fine. At some point the string gets short. I'm talking Romo. You buy franchise QBs and lease the rest for the most part with an occasional exception. Jerry needs to embrace this policy a bit better.

 

[jobberone]

I don't disagree.

I'm just saying you can't blame it all on drafting. FA is supposed to help replenish ranks as well, but we've been handcuffed because of bad contracts that have been handed out and an unwillingness to cut bait with older players.

We've also fallen behind because we HAVE to draft for need because our FA bank is tight.

There is truth in this.

 

[Common Sense]

Scouts have nothing to do with drafts and if they are good or not. Clearly the 2009 draft wasn't that talented of a draft. What can the scouts do about that? Nothing.

I'm sorry, but that is absolute nonsense. If there are 300 guys in a draft who can't play and only 50 who can, then your job as an organization is to weed through those 50 and draft from those guys, not the 300. It's not like good players weren't available. We just didn't pick them. That's called bad drafting, not a "bad draft."

 

[Nova]

They did indeed draft Jenkins’s replacement, spending a 1st and 2nd (BTW they also traded up for Jenkins) who looks to be just if not more fragile.

Nice going Cowboys!

Dallas's problems do indeed extend beyond poor drafting and I think most agree on the root cause.

Yeah I wasn't in favor of that move either. I'm especially annoyed by it now that the guy that really wanted him is gone and he's kind of obsolete now.

Which brings up another reason why our depth is thin on the defensive side of the ball. We've gone through pretty notable changes in defensive philosophy, making some good players worthless. Good thing we have plentiful draft picks and cap space to help rebuild...

 

[Risen Star]

There is truth in this.

Except the part about having to draft for need. You never have to draft for need. In fact, the only way out of being so needy is to stop drafting for need.

 

[jobberone]

Except the part about having to draft for need. You never have to draft for need. In fact, the only way out of being so needy is to stop drafting for need.

Yes and no. The philosophy is to draft for need within a tier all things being relatively equal. A little bit of yin and yang.

 

[Nova]

Except the part about having to draft for need. You never have to draft for need. In fact, the only way out of being so needy is to stop drafting for need.

Yeah I didn't make it very clear, but when I said "have to" I meant that's what the Cowboys have felt like they needed to do.

It started when Alex Barron held Orakpo by the neck negating a game winning TD pass to Roy Williams in week 1, 2010.

Because of that, we drafted Tyron out of need in one of the most talent rich 1st rounds in recent history (of the top 16 picks, only 4 have NOT made it to the pro-bowl since. 3 are QBs, the other is Nick Fairley, who is obviously a good player). And since, we've pretty much drafted for need up until then with our first pick.

Of course you don't have to and it's never a good idea to draft for need. But the Cowboys have been 'forced' into it.

Edit: Without any cap space to help fill voids, what is an impatient owner/gm to do?