News: DMN: Sturm's Morning After: Impressions From The Back Of the Roster

[NewsBot]

*** Message was removed by demand from DMN ***

 

[cowboyblue22]

its hard to build through the draft when you don't draft well at all then when you throw away your second round picks almost every year that hurts also.

 

[perrykemp]

Found this interesting:

"The Cowboys are one of a very small group that have written 5 contracts over $50m and 10 contracts over $20m. By comparison, New England has 1 contract over $50m and 5 over $20m. NFC Champion Carolina has 2 contracts over $50m and 6 over $20m. So, the Cowboys have a top-heavy payroll, and the only way to make this work is to find a lot of players on Day 2-3 of the draft that you can get 4 years for about $2.5m total."​

Not sure what to make of it, but interesting none-the-less.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

as always, a nice write-up from the Sturminator. I think this team needs to make up its mind as to whether they're building for the future or trying to piece something together this year. There are several players that should be kept for their upside (and roster savings) even though there might be another player better than them or position groups that they need to go long on. Maybe it's cynicism and fear talking, but I'm not sure Rico makes it thru waivers, there are plenty of rebuilding teams with roster space who might figure on pilfering a promising talent like him. And Jackson would not make it through waivers for sure.

 

[jazzcat22]

Found this interesting:

"The Cowboys are one of a very small group that have written 5 contracts over $50m and 10 contracts over $20m. By comparison, New England has 1 contract over $50m and 5 over $20m. NFC Champion Carolina has 2 contracts over $50m and 6 over $20m. So, the Cowboys have a top-heavy payroll, and the only way to make this work is to find a lot of players on Day 2-3 of the draft that you can get 4 years for about $2.5m total."​

Not sure what to make of it, but interesting none-the-less.

It means we don't have the money to pay decent role players and quality depth. And they can't get enough in the draft. Because they use draft picks on projects and injured players, thinking they are out smarting everyone.

 

[Plankton]

Found this interesting:

"The Cowboys are one of a very small group that have written 5 contracts over $50m and 10 contracts over $20m. By comparison, New England has 1 contract over $50m and 5 over $20m. NFC Champion Carolina has 2 contracts over $50m and 6 over $20m. So, the Cowboys have a top-heavy payroll, and the only way to make this work is to find a lot of players on Day 2-3 of the draft that you can get 4 years for about $2.5m total."​

Not sure what to make of it, but interesting none-the-less.

What to make of it is that if there's a feeling that the roster is thin, this has something to do with it.

It also has to do with the Cowboys not consistently hitting on guys in the mid rounds. Using the metric above of finding guys on Day 2-3 (or, the second round onward) and getting four years out of them, since Jason Garrett rejoined the Cowboys as offensive coordinator in 2007 (10 year span of drafts):

• The Cowboys have gotten four years out of three second round picks (7 total picks), only one of which got a second contract with the Cowboys (Sean Lee). Two are currently suspended (DeMarcus Lawrence, Randy Gregory). One is entering his fourth year, and has contributed little (Gavin Escobar). One is on the NFI list (Jaylon Smith), and is questionable to contribute even next year. Due to trades, they had three drafts without a second round pick.
  
• The Cowboys have gotten four years out of only two third round picks (8 total picks). Only one has gotten a second contract with the Cowboys (Tyrone Crawford). One is entering his fourth year, and is borderline to get a second deal (Terrance Williams) with Dallas. Due to trades, they had two drafts without a third round pick.
• The Cowboys have gotten four years out of three fourth round picks (14 total picks), with two players getting a second contract with the Cowboys (Doug Free, Kyle Wilber). One other is a good contributor. Three more remain to be seen.
  
• The Cowboys have gotten four years out of one fifth round pick (9 total picks), and that pick got a second contract in Dallas (Orlando Scandrick). Two are currently on the roster, but in danger of being cut (Ryan Russell, Devin Street). One was cut, returned, and is now on IR (Josh Thomas). Due to trades, they had three drafts without a fifth round pick.
• The Cowboys have gotten four years out of two sixth round picks (14 total picks), and one of them got a second contract in Dallas (James Hanna - Dwayne Harris earned one, but left via FA). One was promising, but had his career ended by injury (DeVonte Holloman). Four were taken this year, but are TBD in terms of staying power. Due to trades, they had two drafts without a sixth round pick.
• The Cowboys have gotten four years out of one seventh round pick (16 total picks), and he got a second contract in Dallas (Alan Ball). Two remain on the roster today, and neither is a prime contributor, but both have shown potential (Mark Nzeocha, Geoff Swaim). Due to trades, they had three drafts without a seventh round pick.

So, to recap, the Cowboys under the four year contributor metric have batted:

• 3 for 7 in the second round.
• 2 for 8 in the third round.
• 3 for 14 in the fourth round.
• 1 for 9 in the fifth round.
• 2 for 14 in the sixth round.
• 1 for 16 in the seventh round.

12 for 68 over a ten year span will result in a thin roster that a team needs to spend in free agency to offset. This leads to a top heavy roster. They badly need to improve their drafting after the first round.

 

[Dhragon]

So, to recap, the Cowboys under the four year contributor metric have batted:

• 3 for 7 in the second round.
• 2 for 8 in the third round.
• 3 for 14 in the fourth round.
• 1 for 9 in the fifth round.
• 2 for 14 in the sixth round.
• 1 for 16 in the seventh round.

Hard to tell how "bad" this is without at least seeing the average of other teams success in these areas. This might be how most other team's draft success looks like as well.

 

[LandryFan]

Found this interesting:

"The Cowboys are one of a very small group that have written 5 contracts over $50m and 10 contracts over $20m. By comparison, New England has 1 contract over $50m and 5 over $20m. NFC Champion Carolina has 2 contracts over $50m and 6 over $20m. So, the Cowboys have a top-heavy payroll, and the only way to make this work is to find a lot of players on Day 2-3 of the draft that you can get 4 years for about $2.5m total."​

Not sure what to make of it, but interesting none-the-less.

I guess I would ask, who did they "overpay"? Here's the list:
$50M+ Contracts:
Dez - Worth the $$$
Romo - Could argue injury history, but that would be using hindsight
T. Smith - Steal of a deal
T. Fred - Worth every cent
Carr - overpaid, but in last year of deal (also took a pay cut this year)

$20M+
T. Crawford - arguably overpaid, but still early in the deal to declare with any certainty
Baily -There's a reason they call him "Money" (well, two reasons if you consider his contract)
Zeke - Rookie contracts are pretty much predetermined -- he'll be worth every penny, and then some
S. Lee - Worth the cost, IMO, but could argue otherwise based on injury history
Witt - Worth his contract...he's getting up there in years, but he's still one of the team's main cogs.

Just looking at the list, there are a couple you could argue were overpaid, but that would be with the benefit of hindsight. The majority of names on that list deserved the contracts they got...especially if you consider the cost of not signing them, IMO.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

So, to recap, the Cowboys under the four year contributor metric have batted:

• 3 for 7 in the second round.
• 2 for 8 in the third round.
• 3 for 14 in the fourth round.
• 1 for 9 in the fifth round.
• 2 for 14 in the sixth round.
• 1 for 16 in the seventh round.

12 for 68 over a ten year span will result in a thin roster that a team needs to spend in free agency to offset. This leads to a top heavy roster. They badly need to improve their drafting after the first round.

Specifically, improve their batting in rounds 2 - 5 where the meat of their starting roster should come from.

 

[Dhragon]

I guess I would ask, who did they "overpay"? Here's the list:
$50M+ Contracts:
Dez - Worth the $$$ AGREE, HAD TO PAY HIM
Romo - Could argue injury history, but that would be using hindsight GOOD QBS GET PAID
T. Smith - Steal of a deal CONTRACT WILL LOOK GREAT DOWN THE ROAD
T. Fred - Worth every cent FOR WHAT THE BOYS WANT HAD TO PAY HIM
Carr - overpaid, but in last year of deal (also took a pay cut this year) MIGHT AS WELL GO WITH DRAFT PICK TYPES AT CB INSTEAD OF FREE AGENTS TO SAVE MONEY HERE SINCE WE ARE INVESTING THE BIG BUCKS ON OFFENSE

$20M+
T. Crawford - arguable overpaid, but still early in the deal to declare with any certainty POSITION SO IMPORTANT FOR MARINELLI'S DEFENSE BUT POOR CHOICE IMO. UNLESS GET AN AARON DONALD TYPE IN A FUTURE DRAFT THINK WE SHOULDN'T BE PAYING PREMIUM DOLLARS HERE. CRAWFORD NOT ENOUGH BETTER THAN BACKUPS IMO TO WARRANT THIS.
Baily - They don't call him "Money", for nuthin' DON'T KNOW IF RIGHT THING TO DO BUT BAILEY IS GOOD FOR A WIN OR TWO EACH SEASON SO LEANING TOWARDS ACCEPTABLE. NEEDS TO BE CUT ASAP IF HE EVER STOPS BEING GREAT THOUGH.
Zeke - Rookie contracts are pretty much predetermined -- he'll be worth every penny, and then some AGREED
S. Lee - Worth the cost, IMO, but could argue otherwise based on injury history GREAT PLAYER WORTH IT WHEN NOT INJURED - BUT OFTEN INJURED SO PROBABLY THE DOLLARS WOULD BE BEST USED ON BETTER QUALITY BACKUPS
Witt - Worth his contract...he's getting up there in years, but he's still one of the team's main cogs. UNFORTUNATELY GETTING NEAR THE BREAKING POINT WHEN HE'LL NO LONGER BE WORTH IT. HOPE IT ISN'T THIS YEAR.

Just looking at the list, there are a couple you could argue were overpaid, but that would be with the benefit of hindsight. The majority of names on that list deserved the contracts they got...especially if you consider the cost of not signing them, IMO.

 

[Plankton]

So, to recap, the Cowboys under the four year contributor metric have batted:

• 3 for 7 in the second round.
• 2 for 8 in the third round.
• 3 for 14 in the fourth round.
• 1 for 9 in the fifth round.
• 2 for 14 in the sixth round.
• 1 for 16 in the seventh round.

Hard to tell how "bad" this is without at least seeing the average of other teams success in these areas. This might be how most other team's draft success looks like as well.

Actually, you don't need to compare this to other teams. This exercise wasn't done to show the Cowboys relative to the rest of the league. This was done to show why the roster is thin. Having 17.6% of your selections not make it to four years is the cause.

 

[chicago JK]

So, to recap, the Cowboys under the four year contributor metric have batted:

• 3 for 7 in the second round.
• 2 for 8 in the third round.
• 3 for 14 in the fourth round.
• 1 for 9 in the fifth round.
• 2 for 14 in the sixth round.
• 1 for 16 in the seventh round.

Hard to tell how "bad" this is without at least seeing the average of other teams success in these areas. This might be how most other team's draft success looks like as well.

Thanks for putting this together.

It is always fun to go from it is too early to judge a draft to that is in the past, lets look forward when discussing our draft classes

 

[Dhragon]

Actually, you don't need to compare this to other teams. This exercise wasn't done to show the Cowboys relative to the rest of the league. This was done to show why the roster is thin. Having 17.6% of your selections not make it to four years is the cause.

But if it was the average then most other teams are also "thin" and there would be no real point to the article (why write an article just to say they are like every other team). The implication is that the Boys are underachieving but not telling us to what extent because we don't know what "average" is.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Actually, you don't need to compare this to other teams. This exercise wasn't done to show the Cowboys relative to the rest of the league. This was done to show why the roster is thin. Having 17.6% of your selections not make it to four years is the cause.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but we need a baseline before we can come to any conclusion

 

[casmith07]

So, to recap, the Cowboys under the four year contributor metric have batted:

• 3 for 7 in the second round.
• 2 for 8 in the third round.
• 3 for 14 in the fourth round.
• 1 for 9 in the fifth round.
• 2 for 14 in the sixth round.
• 1 for 16 in the seventh round.

Hard to tell how "bad" this is without at least seeing the average of other teams success in these areas. This might be how most other team's draft success looks like as well.

It happens every time. There's a false narrative here that posits that the Cowboys are the only team in the league that does not "consistently hit in the middle rounds."

@percyhoward has posted about this before in the past, and debunked the myth. No team in the NFL "consistently hits in the middle rounds" let alone the first round.

 

[visionary]

Found this interesting:

"The Cowboys are one of a very small group that have written 5 contracts over $50m and 10 contracts over $20m. By comparison, New England has 1 contract over $50m and 5 over $20m. NFC Champion Carolina has 2 contracts over $50m and 6 over $20m. So, the Cowboys have a top-heavy payroll, and the only way to make this work is to find a lot of players on Day 2-3 of the draft that you can get 4 years for about $2.5m total."​

Not sure what to make of it, but interesting none-the-less.

When you put that together with a team that has done very very little in the last 6 years (under the current coaching staff) despite completely lucking into a once in a lifetime franchise QB....... you get a really really dysfunctional FO and bad coaching staff that has continued to make predominantly bad decisions

 

[casmith07]

Actually, you don't need to compare this to other teams. This exercise wasn't done to show the Cowboys relative to the rest of the league. This was done to show why the roster is thin. Having 17.6% of your selections not make it to four years is the cause.

It absolutely has to be done to compare to other teams. You cannot even begin to suggest the thinness of the roster without a comparison point -- if all other 31 rosters are similarly thin across the board, then it changes the very foundation of the painful argument you're trying to make, lol.

 

[percyhoward]

@percyhoward has posted about this before in the past, and debunked the myth. No team in the NFL "consistently hits in the middle rounds" let alone the first round.

I agree that it's probably true, but man, I don't remember posting any detailed analysis of it.

Just cause I don't remember, doesn't mean it didn't happen though.

 

[Plankton]

But if it was the average then most other teams are also "thin" and there would be no real point to the article (why write an article just to say they are like every other team). The implication is that the Boys are underachieving but not telling us to what extent because we don't know what "average" is.

You want to know the answer? Do the analysis.

Again, you and others are trying to make this about other teams. Nowhere in my post did I state that the Cowboys are worse than the rest of the league, or even brought the rest of the league into it for that matter. The facts are that the Cowboys need to improve their drafting in rounds outside of the first round. They are not getting enough production from those selections to balance out their roster. It leads to a general lack of depth on the team. If you want it to be about how other teams are doing it as a comparison, then make that YOUR argument. That isn't mine, no matter how much others want to make it so.

 

[RS12]

Found this interesting:

"The Cowboys are one of a very small group that have written 5 contracts over $50m and 10 contracts over $20m. By comparison, New England has 1 contract over $50m and 5 over $20m. NFC Champion Carolina has 2 contracts over $50m and 6 over $20m. So, the Cowboys have a top-heavy payroll, and the only way to make this work is to find a lot of players on Day 2-3 of the draft that you can get 4 years for about $2.5m total."​

Not sure what to make of it, but interesting none-the-less.

That doesnt play to their strength. As of late they hit big round one and crap out from there.