I prefer Dallas' draft position

[Toruk_Makto]

Not when the Cowboys pick late.

Just what a weird thread and stance to take.

"I'd rather pick last than first!"

 

[CyberB0b]

Of course, but here's the rub.

Look at Tampa. They're about to take Jameis Winston. Does anybody feel confident with that pick? Do they really WANT to draft him? Or do they feel like they HAVE to draft him because if he pans out, they'll never live it down? Same for Mariotta.

They can do whatever they want to do. If they want to trade out, they can. If Winston is their guy, they take him. If someone else is their guy, they take him.

 

[erod]

They can do whatever they want to do. If they want to trade out, they can. If Winston is their guy, they take him. If someone else is their guy, they take him.

When your team is bad and without a QB, you have to take him for PR reasons just to sell tickets to watch your awful football team.

 

[CyberB0b]

When your team is bad and without a QB, you have to take him for PR reasons just to sell tickets to watch your awful football team.

Well, that is your opinion, not a fact. The fact is that the higher the pick you have, the more you control your own destiny, and that is always a good thing.

 

[erod]

Well, that is your opinion, not a fact. The fact is that the higher the pick you have, the more you control your own destiny, and that is always a good thing.

Taking a defensive tackle ensures about a $100 million loss in ticket sales next season in that fair-weathered city.

The bottom line is to make gobs of money first, win games second. Jerry is just lucky obscene profit is automatic here. It's not in Tampa.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Taking a defensive tackle ensures about a $100 million loss in ticket sales next season in that fair-weathered city.

The bottom line is to make gobs of money first, win games second. Jerry is just lucky obscene profit is automatic here. It's not in Tampa.

So it'd be better to pick last... Not get the qb.... Still lose 100m in ticket sales....and get a worse player?

Please stahp.

 

[erod]

So it'd be better to pick last... Not get the qb.... Still lose 100m in ticket sales....and get a worse player?

Please stahp.

Who says I'm getting a worse player? I'll betcha Dallas gets a better player at 27 than Jameis Winston.

Most of the best players in the NFL were not early first round picks.

And c'mon, stop stilting my point. Of course I'd like to have first choice in every the draft, but there is a definite advantage in waiting, too. Half the picks ahead of Dallas will vastly underperform. My point is that there are about 50 really good players coming out of this draft, and they will come from several spots in the draft. Drafting later means you have a pretty good squad already, and you can take players you really like, but don't fit in the overrated "measureables" category all around. It lessens the diva factor a bit, and it allows for more development without the extreme push to play day one that higher-salaried players have from the front office and fan base.

Larry Allen, Darren Woodson, Leon Lett, Jimmie Jones, Daryl Johnston, Mark Stepnoski, Erik Williams, Ken Norton Jr., Darrin Smith, Tony Tolbert, Brock Marion, Nate Newton, Mark Tuinei, Dixon Edwards, James Washington.....

Not all those later picks were immediately great, but most of them became pro bowlers eventually.

 

[Crown Royal]

I'm not sure I understand what you are saying.

How else would you build a team?

For instance, take Seattle. You look at that team and you see a lot of their starters are draftees - which is accurate. But what is also accurate is that a) a lot of their best players were in the mid rounds and b) their drafted players still account for less than 50% of the overall roster. They still acquire talent via trade (Marshawn Lynch, Jimmy Graham) and free agency (Cliff Avril).

I'm not trying to discount the draft, but i think the statement that "great teams are built in the draft" is an incomplete statement. People will hear me say that and equate that to being "Crown Royal says the draft is unimportant." That's not what I'm saying at all. Great teams are built by finding valuable players and maximizing that value, of which the draft is a contributor. But I would not say that draft dominance year in and year out is the only clear way to be competitive.

To expand, I guess I would say that there are people who swing to the idea that the team is made or broken every year in april based on what they do/how they pick. I think they can be strengthened or weakened, but I think building a team is more complicating than making that one week the end all-be all of success in this league.

 

[CyberB0b]

Most of the best players in the NFL were not early first round picks.

Well, that is pretty obvious, as you are pitting 10 players against a pool of around 245 remaining players. It's not like if you have a top 10 pick you don't get another player in the next 6 rounds.

 

[erod]

For instance, take Seattle. You look at that team and you see a lot of their starters are draftees - which is accurate. But what is also accurate is that a) a lot of their best players were in the mid rounds and b) their drafted players still account for less than 50% of the overall roster. They still acquire talent via trade (Marshawn Lynch, Jimmy Graham) and free agency (Cliff Avril).

I'm not trying to discount the draft, but i think the statement that "great teams are built in the draft" is an incomplete statement. People will hear me say that and equate that to being "Crown Royal says the draft is unimportant." That's not what I'm saying at all. Great teams are built by finding valuable players and maximizing that value, of which the draft is a contributor. But I would not say that draft dominance year in and year out is the only clear way to be competitive.

To expand, I guess I would say that there are people who swing to the idea that the team is made or broken every year in april based on what they do/how they pick. I think they can be strengthened or weakened, but I think building a team is more complicating than making that one week the end all-be all of success in this league.

Great teams are built by finding a championship-caliber quarterback and building a team that is strong on the line of scrimmage on both sides of the ball.

Players like Dez are nice but unnecessary. How many flashy draft picks were in the Super Bowl this year?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Who says I'm getting a worse player? I'll betcha Dallas gets a better player at 27 than Jameis Winston.

Most of the best players in the NFL were not early first round picks.

And c'mon, stop stilting my point. Of course I'd like to have first choice in every the draft, but there is a definite advantage in waiting, too. Half the picks ahead of Dallas will vastly underperform. My point is that there are about 50 really good players coming out of this draft, and they will come from several spots in the draft. Drafting later means you have a pretty good squad already, and you can take players you really like, but don't fit in the overrated "measureables" category all around. It lessens the diva factor a bit, and it allows for more development without the extreme push to play day one that higher-salaried players have from the front office and fan base.

Larry Allen, Darren Woodson, Leon Lett, Jimmie Jones, Daryl Johnston, Mark Stepnoski, Erik Williams, Ken Norton Jr., Darrin Smith, Tony Tolbert, Brock Marion, Nate Newton, Mark Tuinei, Dixon Edwards, James Washington.....

Not all those later picks were immediately great, but most of them became pro bowlers eventually.

Dude it'd about probability. You're more likely to get a better player the higher you pick.

Sitting here and saying more better players come from picks 27 to Mr. Irrelevant vs. 1-26 is incredibly obtuse.

 

[xwalker]

For instance, take Seattle. You look at that team and you see a lot of their starters are draftees - which is accurate. But what is also accurate is that a) a lot of their best players were in the mid rounds and b) their drafted players still account for less than 50% of the overall roster. They still acquire talent via trade (Marshawn Lynch, Jimmy Graham) and free agency (Cliff Avril).

I'm not trying to discount the draft, but i think the statement that "great teams are built in the draft" is an incomplete statement. People will hear me say that and equate that to being "Crown Royal says the draft is unimportant." That's not what I'm saying at all. Great teams are built by finding valuable players and maximizing that value, of which the draft is a contributor. But I would not say that draft dominance year in and year out is the only clear way to be competitive.

To expand, I guess I would say that there are people who swing to the idea that the team is made or broken every year in april based on what they do/how they pick. I think they can be strengthened or weakened, but I think building a team is more complicating than making that one week the end all-be all of success in this league.

I think you have to have a certain amount of success in the draft to be competitive; however the best teams might not always be the very best drafting teams.

Getting low salary guys like Russell Wilson and Sherman in the draft allowed the Seahawks more freedom to operate in free agency. The Seahawks had some big mistakes in FA but the low salaries of some star players kept them from having cap problems.

They paid Matt Flynn 10M and cut him, IIRC. They didn't get much for the money and picks spent on Harvin.

 

[erod]

Well, that is pretty obvious, as you are pitting 10 players against a pool of around 245 remaining players. It's not like if you have a top 10 pick you don't get another player in the next 6 rounds.

Which is exactly my point. Of the top 10 players, probably 3-4 will be elite. There's risk. There was almost no risk in drafting Frederick or Martin, but those kind of players are really hard to take at No. 6. There's so much pressure to get an all-pro, teams let measureables and PR dictate what they do up there. Mo Claiborne is a PERFECT example.

 

[CyberB0b]

Which is exactly my point. Of the top 10 players, probably 3-4 will be elite. There's risk. There was almost no risk in drafting Frederick or Martin, but those kind of players are really hard to take at No. 6. There's so much pressure to get an all-pro, teams let measureables and PR dictate what they do up there. Mo Claiborne is a PERFECT example.

That makes no sense. A bad pick is a bad pick. You expect a first rounder to be able to play in the NFL. Some do, some don't. Felix Jones, for example, was a terrible pick in the late first round.

 

[erod]

Dude it'd about probability. You're more likely to get a better player the higher you pick.

Yes, it should be, but judgment gets clouded up there. Names get overblown and college accomplishment gets misinterpreted to the pro game.

Example: I don't think Amari Cooper will be that good in the NFL. He'll be a nice player like Steve Smith (of the Giants, not Carolina) or Santana Moss, but he won't be the elite player he was at Alabama. Meanwhile, the there'll be a guy from Syracuse or somewhere that will be every bit as good out of the third round.

 

[Crown Royal]

I think you have to have a certain amount of success in the draft to be competitive; however the best teams might not always be the very best drafting teams.

Getting low salary guys like Russell Wilson and Sherman in the draft allowed the Seahawks more freedom to operate in free agency. The Seahawks had some big mistakes in FA but the low salaries of some star players kept them from having cap problems.

They paid Matt Flynn 10M and cut him, IIRC. They didn't get much for the money and picks spent on Harvin.

Surely. But they've found value in many areas - Cliff Avril and Michael Bennett (as a free agent) play to 100% of their contract. Their philosophy as a whole is to make sure that the contracts aren't too high AND that they get value out of the contract. Where they get a player seems to be less important.

And something about Seattle - they have been pretty bad in the first round drafting lol.

 

[erod]

Dude it'd about probability. You're more likely to get a better player the higher you pick.

Sitting here and saying more better players come from picks 27 to Mr. Irrelevant vs. 1-26 is incredibly obtuse.

I'm not saying that. But the same teams draft in the top ten year after year, and it doesn't seem to help them. Great teams are not built on high draft picks.

With McClay, I trust Dallas will continue to find multiple players each draft that contribute for cheap. And he'll get players that do the things that matter in winning, not the shiny toys that fascinate the likes of Jerry and Danny Snyder. When's the last time an top five drafted receiver won a Super Bowl?

Build me a good offensive line, a good defensive line, and find me a good quarterback. I'll take my chances every year with that.

 

[jnday]

Just what a weird thread and stance to take.

"I'd rather pick last than first!"

Not being rude, but this is one of the worst threads that I have ever read. The notion that picking late to avoid drafting a bust is one of the most poorly thought out ideals that I have heard. Maybe they should trade back to gather as many 4th round picks as possible. That way the team won't look bad if any of the picks don't work out. I can not grasp why anyone thinks it is better to pick the 3rd or 4thrated player at a position instead of the best player. What kind of reasoning is this? Troy Aikman was the last pick that the team mode with the first pick in the draft IIRC. I am sure that a late first round pick would have done just as well if not better. (sarcasm)

 

[Nightman]

Taking a defensive tackle ensures about a $100 million loss in ticket sales next season in that fair-weathered city.

The bottom line is to make gobs of money first, win games second. Jerry is just lucky obscene profit is automatic here. It's not in Tampa.

They also have the 33rd pick. So they can take Winston at 1 and still get the better player at 33. Your typical Lose-Win situation.

 

[AdamJT13]

That makes no sense. A bad pick is a bad pick. You expect a first rounder to be able to play in the NFL. Some do, some don't. Felix Jones, for example, was a terrible pick in the late first round.

The cost of making a bad pick earlier in the draft is a lot higher than making a bad pick later in the draft. A cost-value study of NFL drafts shows that the best values are had in the mid-second round -- the players often product close to what a first-round player might but at a significantly lower cost. Drafting high has a much greater risk-reward factor -- you might get an elite player, but you also might get a bust at a high cost (in terms of dollars and draft position). One study calls this "The Loser's Curse" -- your "reward" for being bad enough to get an early first-round pick is the opportunity to take a huge gamble.