Football 101: The Talent Evaluation Process

[Hostile]

I guess I really have no idea what that means.

I didn't think it was very cryptic. It means you use the same arguments to bash the team that they do.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The problem is pretty simple Hos, whatever the front office structrure is, whatever the coaching structure is, whatever the scouting structure is.........................IT IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH.


This team has won a single playoff game in 16 years, bottom line.


Doesnt matter how much the organization tries to sugar coat it for the fans, it doesnt change that fact. Something is not right with this team and has not been right for some time. Now you can call it making excuses and being chicken littles all you want, but you cant change the win-loss record of this franchise over the past 16 seasons.

And lo and behold the same gross generalization. We are not making excuses. You are assigning blame. When we try and discuss particulars we get this again, details be damned.

And this current incarnation of front office has not been the same except for the past two years but who cares that Jeff Ireland is not Tom Ciscowski and Jason Garrett is not Wade Phillips because we always have your fallbakc: BLAME JERRY JONES.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He never said Sham was a "source," only a (closeted) forum member.

No, he all but told you that he has direct communication with them man ie give you an idea who his sources are. Still transparent for all the dissembling.

 

[junk]

I didn't think it was very cryptic. It means you use the same arguments to bash the team that they do.

OK, some off handed remark about some poster I don't know at a message board I don't go to isn't cryptic?

Well, whatever, if a Commanders fan is critical of the Cowboys front office, it is legit criticism. Criticism of their front office would also be legitimate. Neither team has done well on a consistent basis for quite some time.

Of all the things I posted there, I find it interesting that is what you focus on though. Which tells me you aren't really interested in discussing the issue. Instead distract and deflect by associating those posters with Commanders fans.

 

[Hostile]

OK, some off handed remark about some poster I don't know at a message board I don't go to isn't cryptic?

Well, whatever, if a Commanders fan is critical of the Cowboys front office, it is legit criticism. Criticism of their front office would also be legitimate. Neither team has done well on a consistent basis for quite some time.

Of all the things I posted there, I find it interesting that is what you focus on though. Which tells me you aren't really interested in discussing the issue. Instead distract and deflect by associating those posters with Commanders fans.

Really?

The "issue" was to educate on how much detail is put into talent evaluation. I used Dallas as a model and explained some roles our guys have. The backlash was me? Some people take everything I say very personal. You among them evidently.

Screw that.

 

[junk]

Really?

The "issue" was to educate on how much detail is put into talent evaluation. I used Dallas a model and explained some roles our guys have. The backlash was me? Some people take everything I say very personal. You among them evidently.

Screw that.

Go re-read the thread. In multiple posts (including recent ones), I've tried to kickstart the conversation on a variety of topics related to the Cowboys front office.

Those posts have been more or less ignored (as well as a lot of the relevant points raised by Dodger, CL, Risen Star, etc.)

I would have posted in the thread no matter who the OP is. I find it to be one of the more interesting (and concerning) issues related to the Cowboys right now.

 

[Doomsay]

Might be simplistic, but I'm sure that nary a single board member would be opposed to Jerry turning over the team management reigns entirely to a top/proven GM. Therein lies the distinction between this team and elite NFL programs in the post salary cap era.

 

[realtick]

No, he all but told you that he has direct communication with them man ie give you an idea who his sources are. Still transparent for all the dissembling.

Wait, for the sake of argument.

Any Tom, Dick or Harry, could get on this message board and spout off about their "source" and even name a name, because you would have no real recourse for cross-checking the validity of his claims.

If you choose to believe Hos (or anyone else), that's you choice. But to act as if there really has been "transparency for all the dissembling" is way offbase.

All that's been done is a basic explaination ("he has direct communication...he gave you an idea of who his sources are.") and pleading to believe him simply at his word.

If you're inclined to believe him then so be it, that's your own prejudice. But to think this is some clear, above-the-board, obvious conclusion is misguided.

 

[Hostile]

Go re-read the thread. In multiple posts (including recent ones), I've tried to kickstart the conversation on a variety of topics related to the Cowboys front office.

Those posts have been more or less ignored (as well as a lot of the relevant points raised by Dodger, CL, Risen Star, etc.)

I would have posted in the thread no matter who the OP is. I find it to be one of the more interesting (and concerning) issues related to the Cowboys right now.

That is my point. I am well aware that several people want to talk only about the front office.

It was about how teams evaluate talent. We have dozens of bash Jerry and the front office threads every week it seems. What's one more?

 

[Hostile]

Might be simplistic, but I'm sure that nary a single board member would be opposed to Jerry turning over the team management reigns entirely to a top/proven GM. Therein lies the distinction between this team and elite NFL programs in the post salary cap era.

I'll keep saying it until it sinks in, which probably means I'll be saying it for a long time. Tom Ciskowski.

 

[junk]

That is my point. I am well aware that several people want to talk only about the front office.

It was about how teams evaluate talent. We have dozens of bash Jerry and the front office threads every week it seems. What's one more?

But the front office is tied hand in hand with the evaluation of talent.

How can you discuss talent evaluation without discussing the GM (which I consider to be part of the front office)?

At the end of the day, the GM is the person ultimately responsible for evaluating talent. Yes, he has a bevy of scouts, coaches and administrators that help in that process, but at the end of the day, the responsibility lays at the feet of the GM.

I agree a thread that just says "Jerry sux" isn't worthwhile, but this thread had a ton of interesting details and discussion.

 

[junk]

Might be simplistic, but I'm sure that nary a single board member would be opposed to Jerry turning over the team management reigns entirely to a top/proven GM. Therein lies the distinction between this team and elite NFL programs in the post salary cap era.

I'll keep saying it until it sinks in, which probably means I'll be saying it for a long time. Tom Ciskowski.

So Ciskowski is the de facto GM in your opinion?

Does he decide on the final rankings? Does he have final say in the draft selection?

Did he push for the Roy Williams trade? Was Robert Brewster his call? Jason Williams?

Does he interview HC candidates?

Does he identify areas of weakness on the team and decide which free agents to pursue?

I think Ciskowski is one piece of the process. Basically, the guy in charge of scouting and assembling the draft board. His role is much different than that of a typical GM.

 

[Hostile]

So Ciskowski is the de facto GM in your opinion?

As you see GM...yes. As I see GM...no.

Does he decide on the final rankings? Does he have final say in the draft selection?

Yes, along with Jerry, Chris Hall, Jason Garrett, Stephen Jones and the rest of the front office, scouts, and coaching staff. Seems to be a concept people can't accept. It is all by consensus.

Did he push for the Roy Williams trade? Was Robert Brewster his call? Jason Williams?

I am sure he was in each of those discussions.

Does he interview HC candidates?

No, and I find that part of the GM hang up the funniest because on one hand the GM (according to you guys) needs to be focused 100% of the time on talent evaluation. I say Ciskowski is, and immediately it is brought up that he doesn't hire or fire.

Does he identify areas of weakness on the team and decide which free agents to pursue?

Yes, along with Jerry, Chris Hall, Jason Garrett, Stephen Jones and the rest of the front office, scouts, and coaching staff. Seems to be a concept people can't accept. It is all by consensus.

I think Ciskowski is one piece of the process. Basically, the guy in charge of scouting and assembling the draft board. His role is much different than that of a typical GM.

There is no such thing as a typical GM. GM duties can vary all across the league.

 

[NoDak Cowboy]

Does he decide on the final rankings? Does he have final say in the draft selection?

Yes, along with Jerry, Chris Hall, Jason Garrett, Stephen Jones and the rest of the front office, scouts, and coaching staff. Seems to be a concept people can't accept. It is all by consensus.

How do 5+ people have final say? The 'final' say is, by definition, made by one person. My guess is it's that 'socks and jocks' guy. Especially since he's said so himself.

 

[xwalker]

3. I'm not a big fan of the "GM by committee" that has been laid out in this thread. I don't expect a GM to do everything....he'll delegate to scouts and staff. However, he should be the guy in charge that sets the direction for the franchise. He should be the face of the personnel department. He should be the final decision maker. He should spend his days scouting personnel so he is informed to be the final decision maker.

In the past I would have agreed that decision by committe is a problem, but looking back at the Cowboys history under Parcells, maybe it is a good thing.

Parcells had the power and did the following:

Picked Bobbie Carpenter because his dad was a player.
Picked Jacob Rogers because his dad was a coach.
Picked Fasano in the 2nd round because he was a Jersey guy.
Picked Al Johnson in the 2nd round in the same draft where they got Witten in the 3rd.
Picked Spears in the 1st round because he knew his coach who said that Spears would be a great player if he kept his weight in check.
Almost picked Merriman or Spears over D. Ware.
Thought that Julius Jones was as good as Steven Jackson, choosing Maurice Carthon's opinion over the scouts.

 

[junk]

In the past I would have agreed that decision by committe is a problem, but looking back at the Cowboys history under Parcells, maybe it is a good thing.

Parcells had the power and did the following:

Picked Bobbie Carpenter because his dad was a player.
Picked Jacob Rogers because his dad was a coach.
Picked Fasano in the 2nd round because he was a Jersey guy.
Picked Al Johnson in the 2nd round in the same draft where they got Witten in the 3rd.
Picked Spears in the 1st round because he knew his coach who said that Spears would be a great player if he kept his weight in check.
Almost picked Merriman or Spears over D. Ware.
Thought that Julius Jones was as good as Steven Jackson, choosing Maurice Carthon's opinion over the scouts.

I don't think Parcells really ever had all the power. I don't think Eddie George, Peerless Price or Terrell Owens were his call.

However, even if he did have all the power, he took the team from a 5-11 cellar dweller to the playoffs.

 

[junk]

Yes, along with Jerry, Chris Hall, Jason Garrett, Stephen Jones and the rest of the front office, scouts, and coaching staff. Seems to be a concept people can't accept. It is all by consensus.

So when Dallas is on the clock and there are dissenting opinions, who decides the choice?

When assembling their board, if there are dissenting opinions, who decides the final ranking?

No, and I find that part of the GM hang up the funniest because on one hand the GM (according to you guys) needs to be focused 100% of the time on talent evaluation. I say Ciskowski is, and immediately it is brought up that he doesn't hire or fire.

The GM needs to be 100% focused on football operations. The day in and day out of running the team. In a clean slate, perfect world, the owner would hire a GM that fits his long term vision. The GM and owner would then hire a HC that fits their long term vision. The HC would fill out his staff.

The HC would provide the GM with a blue print of the type of guys they want, but the GM would do the scouting, the signing, the cap management, etc.

Yes, along with Jerry, Chris Hall, Jason Garrett, Stephen Jones and the rest of the front office, scouts, and coaching staff. Seems to be a concept people can't accept. It is all by consensus.

There is no such thing as a typical GM. GM duties can vary all across the league.

In most cases, there is one man at the top who sets the direction of the roster. Usually that is a person with a football background. Teams like the Raiders under Al, the Bengals and the Cowboys are the exception rather than the rule.

 

[Hostile]

What the Head Coach wants ALWAYS carries the most weight. Hence why I said what I did in the OP in the 4th paragraph and the first sentence of that paragraph. Which explains the 2nd sentence in that paragraph and why those questions even have to be asked.

 

[5Stars]

What the Head Coach wants ALWAYS carries the most weight. Hence why I said what I did in the OP in the 4th paragraph and the first sentence of that paragraph. Which explains the 2nd sentence in that paragraph and why those questions even have to be asked.

See? This is why you should post those "101" football links again on your sig.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wait, for the sake of argument.

Any Tom, Dick or Harry, could get on this message board and spout off about their "source" and even name a name, because you would have no real recourse for cross-checking the validity of his claims.

If you choose to believe Hos (or anyone else), that's you choice. But to act as if there really has been "transparency for all the dissembling" is way offbase.

All that's been done is a basic explaination ("he has direct communication...he gave you an idea of who his sources are.") and pleading to believe him simply at his word.

If you're inclined to believe him then so be it, that's your own prejudice. But to think this is some clear, above-the-board, obvious conclusion is misguided.

Were not talking about Tom, Dick and Harry. We are talking about Hostile.

You can choose to not accept him at his word. I do. I've known Hos for almost ten years and never have I seen him try and intentionally misguide anyone, hes intelligent and honorable.

Pleading? Spare me trying to characterize my words with a negative emotional appeal. Its more like deriding. If you want to assassinate his character so you can cling to your world view of gross generalizations then go right ahead.

I think that he deserves better.