Evaluating Dallas last four 40+ million contracts

[gimmesix]

yeah, that is what I thought.

It was a joke, Maynard. Of course, it's not all bad luck. It's a combination of things that include bad management. But people tend to put too much emphasis on not hitting on 5 out of 7 draft picks or 8 out of 12 as quality starters when it rarely happens. Go back and look at some of Dallas' best drafts. In 1991, for instance, Dallas took six starters in that draft. That's fantastic, right? Well, the Cowboys had 18 picks in that draft, including three first-rounders (hitting on two).

If you can find a way for Dallas to get 18 picks in each draft, I'll take it and we can replenish the roster every few years. The best we can hope for in reality is a draft like this one where Dallas has extra picks but they are all in the later rounds (unless you want to trade picks for future picks or work deals for players with invisible partners).

Let's go back to that 1991 draft again. After the third round, Dallas didn't do poorly. It got a contributor on defense in Tony Hill and two future starters (Leon Lett and Larry Brown) and only needed 11 picks to find them!

It's a lot easier to build a Super Bowl-caliber team when you can start it off with the picks Dallas received in the Walker trade or even when the draft was 12 rounds long.

Let me make it clear to you that I'm a big believer in using as many draft picks as you can because you stand a better chance of hitting the bull's-eye, but you've also got to look at what it takes to obtain those picks, what you get in turn for trading down (Frederick and Williams) or this year in trading up (we'll see on Lawrence). And yes, you've got to have some luck because only about half of the draft picks in the first and second rounds make it in the league (blame Dallas for believing in ones that fail, but then so do half the teams in the league) and only a little over a third of the ones taken in the next few rounds make it.

 

[gimmesix]

And I'm guessing there would have been a few threads about the Phil Costa-type that was replacing the player on the field because "Jethro was too cheap" to play the player.

Yes, you really can't win. There are risks inherent either way that you go. Sometimes you're rewarded, sometimes you're made to look foolish.

I'm sure some of the same people crying over these contracts will be crying about how Dallas should have kept DeMarcus Ware if he has a huge season in Denver.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Yes, you really can't win. There are risks inherent either way that you go. Sometimes you're rewarded, sometimes you're made to look foolish.

I'm sure some of the same people crying over these contracts will be crying about how Dallas should have kept DeMarcus Ware if he has a huge season in Denver.

Exactly right.

I just posted a thread in the NFL Zone about Jairus Byrd having back surgery to repair a disc problem.

A $56 million contract.

And there were many fans here who had their nose in Byrd's jock wanting him to be signed by the Cowboys.

Every team takes chances on long-term contracts. It's unavoidable.

 

[ufcrules1]

It was a joke, Maynard. Of course, it's not all bad luck. It's a combination of things that include bad management. But people tend to put too much emphasis on not hitting on 5 out of 7 draft picks or 8 out of 12 as quality starters when it rarely happens. Go back and look at some of Dallas' best drafts. In 1991, for instance, Dallas took six starters in that draft. That's fantastic, right? Well, the Cowboys had 18 picks in that draft, including three first-rounders (hitting on two).

If you can find a way for Dallas to get 18 picks in each draft, I'll take it and we can replenish the roster every few years. The best we can hope for in reality is a draft like this one where Dallas has extra picks but they are all in the later rounds (unless you want to trade picks for future picks or work deals for players with invisible partners).

Let's go back to that 1991 draft again. After the third round, Dallas didn't do poorly. It got a contributor on defense in Tony Hill and two future starters (Leon Lett and Larry Brown) and only needed 11 picks to find them!

It's a lot easier to build a Super Bowl-caliber team when you can start it off with the picks Dallas received in the Walker trade or even when the draft was 12 rounds long.

Let me make it clear to you that I'm a big believer in using as many draft picks as you can because you stand a better chance of hitting the bull's-eye, but you've also got to look at what it takes to obtain those picks, what you get in turn for trading down (Frederick and Williams) or this year in trading up (we'll see on Lawrence). And yes, you've got to have some luck because only about half of the draft picks in the first and second rounds make it in the league (blame Dallas for believing in ones that fail, but then so do half the teams in the league) and only a little over a third of the ones taken in the next few rounds make it.

None of what you just posted has anything to do with what I'm talking about. For the last time... The team is full of holes and question mark players. You do not give up one of your top 3 picks in the draft to trade up when you need to rebuild your team. The way you "hit" on potential starters is to get as many picks as you can. No, not 7th round picks... The first 3-4 picks. We GAVE UP a starter to go get DL. You don't do that period. It is bad decisions like that which have led to us sucking.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I agree with most of what you said, especially the last line. This is why you don't give away your 3rd round draft pick like we did this year. Our team isn't unlucky, the people in charge make horrible decisions the vast majority of the time. Then we try to use the "Get more with less" mentality. Our team never fully rebuilds, it's just a vicious circle.

Didn't we pick up a 3rd last year?

And didn't we try and trade down this year?

It must be nice to be able to completely ignore facts when you want to.

 

[Beast_from_East]

I'll take those 3 wins.

I don't think the owner shares your opinion.

 

[gimmesix]

None of what you just posted has anything to do with what I'm talking about. For the last time... The team is full of holes and question mark players. You do not give up one of your top 3 picks in the draft to trade up when you need to rebuild your team. The way you "hit" on potential starters is to get as many picks as you can. No, not 7th round picks... The first 3-4 picks. We GAVE UP a starter to go get DL. You don't do that period. It is bad decisions like that which have led to us sucking.

Again, I'm in favor of a more-picks approach, but I do think you have to weigh what you're getting one way or the other.

To simply say Dallas GAVE UP a starter to go get DL is to ignore the reality of the situation. Dallas saw a chance to go get a player it believes is a game-changing DL, which is worth the pick it gave up if it turns out to be true just as much as it appears it was worth it to trade down last year to get Frederick and Williams instead of just picking at its spot.

The idea that trading up is worse because giving up a third-rounder is automatically giving up a starter is a myth (that shouldn't exist since we've since bust after bust for Dallas over the years). BTB breaks it down this way, looking at the 2010-2012 drafts: 75 of 96 players (76 percent) taken in the first round became starters, 56 of 95 (59 percent) in the second and 36 of 100 (36 percent) in the third. So Dallas GAVE UP a third of a chance of getting a starter to move up closer to that 78 percent chance of getting one by taking Lawrence at the beginning of the second round.

It's hard for me to say doing that is a bad decision. And you won't be saying it either if Lawrence turns out to be everything Dallas apparently believes he is.

 

[ufcrules1]

Again, I'm in favor of a more-picks approach, but I do think you have to weigh what you're getting one way or the other.

To simply say Dallas GAVE UP a starter to go get DL is to ignore the reality of the situation. Dallas saw a chance to go get a player it believes is a game-changing DL, which is worth the pick it gave up if it turns out to be true just as much as it appears it was worth it to trade down last year to get Frederick and Williams instead of just picking at its spot.

The idea that trading up is worse because giving up a third-rounder is automatically giving up a starter is a myth (that shouldn't exist since we've since bust after bust for Dallas over the years). BTB breaks it down this way, looking at the 2010-2012 drafts: 75 of 96 players (76 percent) taken in the first round became starters, 56 of 95 (59 percent) in the second and 36 of 100 (36 percent) in the third. So Dallas GAVE UP a third of a chance of getting a starter to move up closer to that 78 percent chance of getting one by taking Lawrence at the beginning of the second round.

It's hard for me to say doing that is a bad decision. And you won't be saying it either if Lawrence turns out to be everything Dallas apparently believes he is.

Again, you are still decreasing your odds of getting a starter by skipping out on your 3rd rounder. We would have had Trai Turner in the 3rd round who looked like a VERY likely plug and play starter and would have solidified our line for years to come. Instead we completely gave up our 3rd rounder for a caliber of player we could have sat and taken at 47 anyway because we wanted to hurry up and fill the void on the RE. Isn't that funny? We were actually in a hurry to fill that void when we have voids all over the place and are years away from having a super bowl caliber team. You can't do that when you are trying to rebuild. You need to be patient and take as many players as you can.. go BPA within reason. We overpaid big time for the guy. It is decisions exactly like these that I can point to as to why our team sucks and has sucked for so long.

I will keep pointing out situations just like the above so other fans can understand why our team seems to always have "bad luck".

 

[gimmesix]

Instead we completely gave up our 3rd rounder for a caliber of player we could have sat and taken at 47 anyway because we wanted to hurry up and fill the void on the RE. Isn't that funny?

Per speculation on your part to fit the agenda you're preaching. If the Cowboys felt they could have got the same caliber of player, they would have stayed where they were. Does that make their decision to move up the correct one? We shall see.

Moving up or down in the draft isn't what has led to success or the lack thereof of the Cowboys, no matter how much you want to preach that. The Cowboys have equally failed with both approaches, which is where part of the problem lies. An example that comes to mind is 1996, where Dallas did exactly what you are advocating, the Cowboys traded down from 30th in the draft to 36th (picking up another "premium" pick, 67th, in the process). The plan was to draft DE Tony Brackens, but the trade caused them to miss getting him and draft DE Kavika Pittman instead. According to your viewpoint, Dallas did exactly what it should have in that case ... get more premium picks at the cost of grabbing the player it wanted to take.

Why not do that every time? Why move up to grab exactly who you want when you can get the same "caliber of player" by staying put or trading down? This and other examples, like missing out on Max Unger by staying put in 2009, show why.

You want to wrap a tidy little bow around it, but the nature of the draft shows you just can't do that. You've got to approach each round with the strategy of getting the most out of it, whether that means you trade up, trade down or stay put. There's a cost with any choice that you make, so you've got to do your best to make sure the benefits are higher than the cost. Where Dallas has failed is in that regard: The cost to trade up has been more than the benefits. The cost to trade down has been more than the benefits. And the cost to stay put has been more than the benefits. Why that has been the case is the real issue.

 

[ufcrules1]

Per speculation on your part to fit the agenda you're preaching. If the Cowboys felt they could have got the same caliber of player, they would have stayed where they were. Does that make their decision to move up the correct one? We shall see.

Moving up or down in the draft isn't what has led to success or the lack thereof of the Cowboys, no matter how much you want to preach that. The Cowboys have equally failed with both approaches, which is where part of the problem lies. An example that comes to mind is 1996, where Dallas did exactly what you are advocating, the Cowboys traded down from 30th in the draft to 36th (picking up another "premium" pick, 67th, in the process). The plan was to draft DE Tony Brackens, but the trade caused them to miss getting him and draft DE Kavika Pittman instead. According to your viewpoint, Dallas did exactly what it should have in that case ... get more premium picks at the cost of grabbing the player it wanted to take.

Why not do that every time? Why move up to grab exactly who you want when you can get the same "caliber of player" by staying put or trading down? This and other examples, like missing out on Max Unger by staying put in 2009, show why.

You want to wrap a tidy little bow around it, but the nature of the draft shows you just can't do that. You've got to approach each round with the strategy of getting the most out of it, whether that means you trade up, trade down or stay put. There's a cost with any choice that you make, so you've got to do your best to make sure the benefits are higher than the cost. Where Dallas has failed is in that regard: The cost to trade up has been more than the benefits. The cost to trade down has been more than the benefits. And the cost to stay put has been more than the benefits. Why that has been the case is the real issue.

Ok, letting you get the last word. We are way too far apart to agree.

 

[Nightman]

You have to get impact players early in the draft. If it costs a 3rd to move up and get a guy they had rated in the Top 20, then it well worth the 36% chance the 3rd rounder will be a starter. Two firsts is better than a 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

If the 4th, 5th, any of the 7ths or UDFAs work out, does it matter when they were drafted. I was all about trading up and going for quality over quantity. It looks like they may have accomplished both.

 

[ufcrules1]

You have to get impact players early in the draft. If it costs a 3rd to move up and get a guy they had rated in the Top 20, then it well worth the 36% chance the 3rd rounder will be a starter. Two firsts is better than a 1st, 2nd and 3rd.

If the 4th, 5th, any of the 7ths or UDFAs work out, does it matter when they were drafted. I was all about trading up and going for quality over quantity. It looks like they may have accomplished both.

The question is WHY he was rated top 20 on their board? It was because they wanted him to fill an immediate void on the RE after losing Ware.. that is why. Our team has voids and question marks all over the place. You don't move up in the draft just to take an immediate need when you have holes everywhere. Again, we could have gotten a player DL caliber at 47 and we didn't need to move up. Then we could have had Trai at #3 who would have solidified our Oline for a year. Instead we completely gave up Trai in an act of desperation to fill that RE position. DUMB! The worst part about it is they had a whole day to think it over.

 

[Nightman]

The question is WHY he was rated top 20 on their board? It was because they wanted him to fill an immediate void on the RE after losing Ware.. that is why. Our team has voids and question marks all over the place. You don't move up in the draft just to take an immediate need when you have holes everywhere. Again, we could have gotten a player DL caliber at 47 and we didn't need to move up. Then we could have had Trai at #3 who would have solidified our Oline for a year. Instead we completely gave up Trai in an and act of desperation to fill that RE position. DUMB! The worst part about it is they had a whole day to think it over.

No we had Martin rated top 10 and DLawrence top 20. We got Martin at 16 and felt Lawrence wouldn't make it past 35. So they traded up to get a player at 34 they rated in the top 20, not out of desperation.

Desperation is taking a guy at 47 that you have ranked at 75 because he is that last rated DE in the top 100.

 

[ufcrules1]

No we had Martin rated top 10 and DLawrence top 20. We got Martin at 16 and felt Lawrence wouldn't make it past 35. So they traded up to get a player at 34 they rated in the top 20, not out of desperation.

Desperation is taking a guy at 47 that you have ranked at 75 because he is that last rated DE in the top 100.

The point you are missing is the Cowboys had him rated top 20 on their board out of desperation to fill an immediate need at RE. Not that he is a top 20 guy.

 

[Nightman]

The point you are missing is the Cowboys had him rated top 20 on their board out of desperation to fill an immediate need at RE. Not that he is a top 20 guy.[/quote

That's not how they do their board. They give first round grades to a certain number of players and so on. So if he wasn't first round, then he was top of the second.

You don't like the guy enough, fine. But your opinion is in the minority. We wanted him and he wasn't getting to 47. Move up in a deep draft that you have a ton of late picks in or lose out and draft a much worse option.

 

[DallasEast]

From an economic perspective, the Romo extension made lots of sense. My criticism of the extension is based on when it occurred, which happened between the start of free agency and the draft last year. In my opinion, the front office should have waited until after draft had concluded. Opportunity cost could have been more fairly applied at that time. Joe Flacco's extension, which was given before free agency began, was a mitigating factor for extending Romo. That's undeniable, but I still believe they should have waited longer.

/musing

 

[RonSpringsdaman20]

uggh.....

 

[theSHOW]

top 5 quarterback.

Great contract.

 

[theSHOW]

!st down!