Four players in 3 rounds

Teague31

Defender of the Star
Messages
17,513
Reaction score
21,687
Really think we end up being active and acquiring more picks in rounds 2-3. Pretty sure we are focused on the following guys and with some maneuvering (and a little luck) we might be able to pull it off:

OG:
Daniels or Hernandez

WR:
Sutton, Ridley or Moore

LB:
LVE or Evans

FS:
Moore, Elliott or Bates
 

jazzcat22

Staff member
Messages
77,217
Reaction score
95,794
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
We need less picks actually. Well yes, agree more in the rounds 2-3, but less overall. Trade up into these rounds to at least get 2 and 3, or 2 and 4, or even a 3 and 4.
end up with around 6 or 7 picks of quality players. Not 10 picks, which will not make the team or will be PS players at best.

10 rookies will not make the team. But if 6 or at the most 7 do, then at least they can be better players to do so.
 

CPanther95

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,681
Reaction score
6,898
We need less picks actually. Well yes, agree more in the rounds 2-3, but less overall. Trade up into these rounds to at least get 2 and 3, or 2 and 4, or even a 3 and 4.
end up with around 6 or 7 picks of quality players. Not 10 picks, which will not make the team or will be PS players at best.

10 rookies will not make the team. But if 6 or at the most 7 do, then at least they can be better players to do so.

It really depends on which positions you are targeting because the success rate varies depending on position. But if you just combine the likelihood of getting at least a part-time starter regardless of position, you're generally better off with more picks than trading up. It's true that there's no way 10 picks will make the final 53, but it's also true that 6 wont either.

If you are playing the odds and you want the best chance to get 2, 3 or maybe even 4 guys that will be starting on the team 5 years from now, it's probably better to use the picks.

The odds (combining all positions) are:
1st: 65.1%
2nd: 43.5%
3rd: 27.8%
4th: 19.6%
5th: 13.4%
6th: 10.4%
7th: 4.5%

That seems to support the idea to dump the lower picks for fewer higher picks. Especially when you look at the fact that the odds of getting a single part-time (or better) starter with the Cowboys final 6 picks is less than 50/50 (46.6%) and it's only 33.6% with the final 5 picks.

But when you factor in the rough trade value of the picks, your odds increase with more lower round picks. Odds using roughly comparable trade value:

(2) 6th Rd.: 19.7%
vs
(1) 5th Rd.: 13.4%

(2) 5th Rd.: 25.0%
vs
(1) 4th Rd.: 19.6%

(3) 4th Rd.: 48.0%
vs
(1) 3rd Rd.: 27.8%

(2) 2nd Rd. & (1) 3rd Rd.: 77.0%
vs
(1) 1st Rd.: 65.1%

Additionally, if you strike gold (get lucky), it's possible you could hit on 2 players with your three 4th round picks - it may not be likely, but if you trade them for a single 3rd, it is impossible to hit on more than one.

But like I said, a lot depends on the odds of the specific positions you are targeting that could shift these odds quite a bit.
 

morasp

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,172
Reaction score
6,661
After doing a lot of mock drafts I agree with you. And those are the tow guys at LB unless someone falls to us. After them it gets kind of dicey. There is a center named Ragnow from Arkansas that has the position flex we like to play guard and looks like he could be a player. I looked up what our new OL coach had to work with in Cincinnati and it was a fourth round pick and an UDFA so I would think he would be ecstatic with a quality third round pick.
 

jazzcat22

Staff member
Messages
77,217
Reaction score
95,794
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
It really depends on which positions you are targeting because the success rate varies depending on position. But if you just combine the likelihood of getting at least a part-time starter regardless of position, you're generally better off with more picks than trading up. It's true that there's no way 10 picks will make the final 53, but it's also true that 6 wont either.

If you are playing the odds and you want the best chance to get 2, 3 or maybe even 4 guys that will be starting on the team 5 years from now, it's probably better to use the picks.

The odds (combining all positions) are:
1st: 65.1%
2nd: 43.5%
3rd: 27.8%
4th: 19.6%
5th: 13.4%
6th: 10.4%
7th: 4.5%

That seems to support the idea to dump the lower picks for fewer higher picks. Especially when you look at the fact that the odds of getting a single part-time (or better) starter with the Cowboys final 6 picks is less than 50/50 (46.6%) and it's only 33.6% with the final 5 picks.

But when you factor in the rough trade value of the picks, your odds increase with more lower round picks. Odds using roughly comparable trade value:

(2) 6th Rd.: 19.7%
vs
(1) 5th Rd.: 13.4%

(2) 5th Rd.: 25.0%
vs
(1) 4th Rd.: 19.6%

(3) 4th Rd.: 48.0%
vs
(1) 3rd Rd.: 27.8%

(2) 2nd Rd. & (1) 3rd Rd.: 77.0%
vs
(1) 1st Rd.: 65.1%

Additionally, if you strike gold (get lucky), it's possible you could hit on 2 players with your three 4th round picks - it may not be likely, but if you trade them for a single 3rd, it is impossible to hit on more than one.

But like I said, a lot depends on the odds of the specific positions you are targeting that could shift these odds quite a bit.

I am just going by needs from a look at the roster. Yes, it goes to how the draft falls to you. So the more picks, you increase the odds of hitting on a few players.
However, what are the odds of all of them making the team as opposed to 6. With any team unless you are completely void of talent, like the browns were, so you trade and trade and trade to accumulate picks. The have picks this year, but now they need to go after difference makers more so than before.

We have, on paper anyway a roster than does not seem that far away. Though to some we are devoid in many areas, to others, we are not.
So if these late round players aren't that far apart, maybe use the picks to create TC competition.
But if we already have that TC competition, then why use a pick on that, when a trade up gets possibly a player that will contribute sooner.
It can be looked at both ways I guess.

Anyway, we do not need a QB, that we could not find as an UDFA, unless they are not happy with Rush, which we know that is not the case.
We need a 3rd string RB
Many think we need a WR now, though I think if they do that, then trade Beasley.
That is 2 picks.
I do not think we need to spend a top pick on OL, but do need to draft someone for depth and to develop. Maybe 2 OL if they keep 9 instead of 8.
Say 2 more picks, so at 4 now
TE, with Hannas gone now, I still do not see it, but with this team they will do it anyway. I think we are set with who we have, bring in some UDFA's
LB's, this is what we need so if they want that competition, use the extra picks and select 3 LB's. We need at least 2 to 3 spots to fill, depending if they keep 6 or 7. We have 4 that make the team now. But I rather have 2 sure bets than a bunch of 6th and 7th rounders.
That is 7 picks
DT's, we need a top pick here, but other than that I think we are set on the DL, especially if Gregory returns.
8 picks
DB's, I think we are set at CB, but need S's. Actually looking at the roster we have some to compete for spots 7 through 9, but need a few more. Unless one thinks players like Thomas and White will make the team, but they are Cb's as to where we need S's. We have a few guys signed but I would not hand them a position at this point.
10 picks

however if they feel some of these guys are better than the late rounders, then go with less picks, have 7 make the team, fill the TC spots with UDFA's.

1 RB, 1 OL, 1 WR, 1 DT, 2 LB's, 1 S
Actually I don't think we need a WR unless they keep Beasley. But I can see if they use all 10 picks, it won't upset me, but I prefer less picks.
But now that I look at what I typed, I may like picking more. LOL.
 

BrAinPaiNt

Backwoods Sexy
Staff member
Messages
77,774
Reaction score
40,542
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Would not shock me if we traded down in the first or up in the second or both.

However if we stay where we are at right now we have 5 picks in 4 rounds. I think people forget we have the 4th round comp pick...even if it is the last pick in the 4th.
 

CPanther95

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,681
Reaction score
6,898
I am just going by needs from a look at the roster. Yes, it goes to how the draft falls to you. So the more picks, you increase the odds of hitting on a few players.
However, what are the odds of all of them making the team as opposed to 6. With any team unless you are completely void of talent, like the browns were, so you trade and trade and trade to accumulate picks. The have picks this year, but now they need to go after difference makers more so than before.

We have, on paper anyway a roster than does not seem that far away. Though to some we are devoid in many areas, to others, we are not.
So if these late round players aren't that far apart, maybe use the picks to create TC competition.
But if we already have that TC competition, then why use a pick on that, when a trade up gets possibly a player that will contribute sooner.
It can be looked at both ways I guess.

Anyway, we do not need a QB, that we could not find as an UDFA, unless they are not happy with Rush, which we know that is not the case.
We need a 3rd string RB
Many think we need a WR now, though I think if they do that, then trade Beasley.
That is 2 picks.
I do not think we need to spend a top pick on OL, but do need to draft someone for depth and to develop. Maybe 2 OL if they keep 9 instead of 8.
Say 2 more picks, so at 4 now
TE, with Hannas gone now, I still do not see it, but with this team they will do it anyway. I think we are set with who we have, bring in some UDFA's
LB's, this is what we need so if they want that competition, use the extra picks and select 3 LB's. We need at least 2 to 3 spots to fill, depending if they keep 6 or 7. We have 4 that make the team now. But I rather have 2 sure bets than a bunch of 6th and 7th rounders.
That is 7 picks
DT's, we need a top pick here, but other than that I think we are set on the DL, especially if Gregory returns.
8 picks
DB's, I think we are set at CB, but need S's. Actually looking at the roster we have some to compete for spots 7 through 9, but need a few more. Unless one thinks players like Thomas and White will make the team, but they are Cb's as to where we need S's. We have a few guys signed but I would not hand them a position at this point.
10 picks

however if they feel some of these guys are better than the late rounders, then go with less picks, have 7 make the team, fill the TC spots with UDFA's.

1 RB, 1 OL, 1 WR, 1 DT, 2 LB's, 1 S
Actually I don't think we need a WR unless they keep Beasley. But I can see if they use all 10 picks, it won't upset me, but I prefer less picks.
But now that I look at what I typed, I may like picking more. LOL.

It can look attractive both ways - especially when "first round talent" generally spills deep into the 2nd round. It is also skewed because it's easy to view all prospects in the first 3 rounds as solid contributors ... pre-draft.

But when you consider that the average team typically only gets an average of 2 solid contributors per draft - maybe 3 if they are lucky (and it's not uncommon to only get 1) - you stop looking at whether you have 4 holes vs 7 holes to fill, or 6 picks vs 10 picks. It all becomes about the best way to get those 2 solid guys - and avoid a 1 or zero gain draft.
 
Top