If we cover all bases before the draft, do we just draft for depth?

eromeopolk

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,433
Reaction score
4,326
This to me has 2009 draft all over it. I love the fact that we can go in with no major glaring needs, but I don't want us to get guys who won't play much this season. Please give me your thoughts
Awh He!! No! See all the drafts from 1995-2001, 2009, and 2017
 

Bobhaze

Staff member
Messages
16,151
Reaction score
61,259
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Having a good off-season plan (which we seem to have had so far) allows the Cowboys to go into the draft with less needs. When you enter the draft with big positional needs, you often reach for guys at a certain position, then miss a chance at a much better player at a different position.

The Cowboys will probably go into this draft in the best position we’ve seen In many years.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,872
Reaction score
64,254
But BPA is the drum that is beat the loudest on this board. Not a variation of it....just flat out BPA.

Big Star beat me to it...I was going to suggest BPA at position of need assuming the team think the players at the BPA at position of need evaluate as being worthy of that draft pick number. You dont just draft Barbie Carpenter because he is the best player available at your teams position of need. The player has to be somewhat worthy of the draft slot I would assume.

But yeah...Im just frustrated with strict wording of BPA and not BPA that makes sense to the team by posters. Ultimately its a variation of BPA...but it needs more context. In coming "It doesnt need more context if you have half a brain" comments.
BPA at position of needs means that the team has players ranked on tiers. Within the top tier of available players, they use position to help determine the specific played to draft.

It does not mean narrowing it down to a specific position and then drafting the best player at that position...i.e. Your Carpenter example.
 

DFWJC

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,299
Reaction score
48,137
This to me has 2009 draft all over it. I love the fact that we can go in with no major glaring needs, but I don't want us to get guys who won't play much this season. Please give me your thoughts
Not even remotely so.

You draft like they always have done in the last decade--you draft the best players you can with the hope that they eventually be as good as or better than your starters.

The goal in the offseason is put yourself in a position to draft BPA as much as possible.
 

FanofJerry

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,676
Reaction score
1,039
BPA at position of needs means that the team has players ranked on tiers. Within the top tier of available players, they use position to help determine the specific played to draft.

It does not mean narrowing it down to a specific position and then drafting the best player at that position...i.e. Your Carpenter example.
Im spit balling...

But the BPA might only make sense in later rounds in hopes of your player can make the team and not be cut.

Example: Draft all studs until they are gone(upper upper echelon players), draft team need since these guys have good shot at being starters, then draft BPA?

If you are drafting position of need..."lottery" rounds is where you go for starters to fill holes unless you are so far up the draft you can draft possibly All-Pro type players. In that situation you might pick the stud LT even though you have a good starter? The potential is too high to pass?
 

Beaker42

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,964
Reaction score
7,308
This to me has 2009 draft all over it. I love the fact that we can go in with no major glaring needs, but I don't want us to get guys who won't play much this season. Please give me your thoughts
BPA
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
55,798
Reaction score
34,241
This to me has 2009 draft all over it. I love the fact that we can go in with no major glaring needs, but I don't want us to get guys who won't play much this season. Please give me your thoughts
You want to draft for depth? Lol You obviously forgot how bad the 2009 draft was. :laugh: It was arguably the worst draft class in Cowboys history. You build great teams through the draft. The draft is where you come up with your greatest players who end up in your ROH and HOF. We still need help on the DL with a big nasty DT. This is a strong TE draft and we might be able to come away with a great player at that position. I guarantee you the Joneses aren’t going to make the same dumb mistake they made in 2009. They ended up missing the playoffs 4 straight years after that draft.
 

Motorola

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,026
Reaction score
8,852
Does 2009 even count as a draft for the cowboys. They had like five picks and did not pick until like 68th or something.
The Cowboys had TWELVE draft picks that year___
No 1st or 2nd
3rd - 69, 75
4th - 101, 110, 120
5rh - 153, 166, 192
6th - 197, 208
7th - 227, 229
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
This to me has 2009 draft all over it. I love the fact that we can go in with no major glaring needs, but I don't want us to get guys who won't play much this season. Please give me your thoughts
You draft for talent. The way you always do.
 

Adreme

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,971
Reaction score
2,935
You are SUPPOSED to be a team that is not reliant on rookies to be a good team. If your rookies end up good then that is the bonus that can put you over the top but if you are reliant on them to be good to fill out your roster your roster is simply not going to be good enough to contend most of the time.
 

atlantacowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,026
Reaction score
24,722
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Does 2009 even count as a draft for the cowboys. They had like five picks and did not pick until like 68th or something.
We drafted 12 players and they all sucked. It was monikered the special teams draft b/c the retards in the front office thought the team was so good all we needed was special teams. John Phillips in round 6 was the best of the bunch.
 

Bullflop

Cowboys Diehard
Messages
24,388
Reaction score
29,767
I think LG, O'Cyrus Torrence, would be a smart choice to make in round one. I tend to doubt Tyron Smith would last very long as our LT starter, with Tyson Smith being relied upon to take his place if and when injury makes it necessary. Until then, Tyson Smith could man the LG spot until such time as O'Cyrus Torrence is ready to assume that role. By then, it's entirely possible that Tyron Smith would be unavailable, due to injury or some physical problem making his absence likely. Let's make certain that our situation on the OL is well protected for a successful season to be ensured.
 
Last edited:

Fla Cowpoke

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,954
Reaction score
11,968
No
This to me has 2009 draft all over it. I love the fact that we can go in with no major glaring needs, but I don't want us to get guys who won't play much this season. Please give me your thoughts
No.

You take the best player available. Or the best player at a spot of need. Even though we are patching a lot of holes, there are several spots that clearly can be upgraded.
 

JustChip

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,122
Reaction score
5,713
This to me has 2009 draft all over it. I love the fact that we can go in with no major glaring needs, but I don't want us to get guys who won't play much this season. Please give me your thoughts
Absolutely not. You draft the best players available regardless of whether there’s an entrenched starter already on the roster. Dallas had zero need for center with Fredbeard, until they suddenly did.

That said, player rankings aren’t purely linear. They’re quantum like electron orbitals. Given the choice of 2 players on the same level, go for the one that fills a roster position of weakness. But in no way do you go for a lesser player specifically to be a backup.
 
Top