Importance of drafting well...

[ghst187]

you'll notice at this link:
http://www.nfl.com/draft/history/fulldraft?teamId=1200&type=team
That our drafting largely sucked horribly from about 1995 to 2002. Not ironically, our field results did too.
We finally started drafting well in 2003, and field results started showing with a great season in 2007. Then we turn an all-time bad draft in 2009 before returning to our senses in 2010. I would say we've at least done okay or better since finding multiple starters and a few probowlers in each. Results.....nfc east champs and playoff success. Add in our UDFA success in some of those years and we have done better than average most of the time but could never overcome multiple years in a row of poor drafting. Interesting stuff.

 

[sureletsrace]

The teams that draft well are typically the teams that are perennial playoff contenders.

 

[RandyOh]

The teams that draft well are typically the teams that are perennial playoff contenders.

yep. I'm happy we have been taking the same approach to drafting as the pats. They may be cheaters but they know how to draft. Just let the players fall right into your lap just like how Malcom Brown did for them smh.

 

[Risen Star]

2009 was terrible, 2012 was awful too. You'd be hard pressed to get less out of a high 1st and 2nd round pick.

 

[arglebargle]

The 2009 draft was bad for everyone. Very few teams did well (Baltimore being the best iirc). It wasn't a good year to be trading down. Getting future picks in a weak draft would have been much wiser. Of course, maybe the other teams' management realized that too.

Draft history is littered with sure-fire players who flamed out. No guarantee any high pick will do well.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Then we turn an all-time bad draft in 2009

Overall a historically bad draft. From top to bottom the talent level just wasn't there. We had a lot of company when it came to making bad picks.

 

[Alexander]

The 2009 draft was bad for everyone. Very few teams did well (Baltimore being the best iirc). It wasn't a good year to be trading down. Getting future picks in a weak draft would have been much wiser. Of course, maybe the other teams' management realized that too.

Draft history is littered with sure-fire players who flamed out. No guarantee any high pick will do well.

In retrospect, 2009 was a bad draft pool, but it was compounded for Dallas by taking backup quality players (special teams) for niche duty rather than even getting the one or two players that a draft typically yields, even when you have a bad effort.

But 2012 overall, draft and free agency, was a collective disaster. You have almost try hard to get that little out of that kind of huge investment.

It was a classic case of a lack of organizational focus and letting one thing (cornerback) dominate the team building.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I think it's more about the coaching. Did Jerry suddenly become a masterful talent evaluator overnight? Did he learn how to evaluate talent during the Jimmy years, forget during the Gailey and Campo years, remember again during the Parcells years to only forget during the Wade years and now remember to how to evaluate talent again?

There are countless cases of the same thing in the NFL with GM's who get dogged for being terrible at drafting players and then when they get a good coach, they are suddenly geniuses. And when that coach leaves and the new coach isn't very good, they are not good at drafting anymore unless they eventually hire a new, good coach again.

The real talent evaluation for a GM is picking the right head coach. Do that and avoid classic mistakes like getting rid of picks in trades and completely overpaying for FA's and in extensions of current players and the GM will suddenly look like a genius.




YR

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

2009 was terrible, 2012 was awful too. You'd be hard pressed to get less out of a high 1st and 2nd round pick.

If we hit on Crawford then 2012 is not awful. You were really giddy after Crawford tore his achilles but unfortunately for you he made a full recovery and is a rising star. Overall it is mediocre maybe with only Hanna and Wilber contributing elsewise but if you get 3 starters out of a draft you are ahead of the curve.

 

[CyberB0b]

The teams that draft well are typically the teams that are perennial playoff contenders.

Not really. The Pats don't really draft that well. The Giants and Steelers' drafts aren't all that impressive, either. I think it has to do more with stability.

 

[ThreeandOut]

In retrospect, 2009 was a bad draft pool, but it was compounded for Dallas by taking backup quality players (special teams) for niche duty rather than even getting the one or two players that a draft typically yields, even when you have a bad effort.

It was compounded by a terrible trade for Roy Williams.

 

[Alexander]

It was compounded by a terrible trade for Roy Williams.

Ah.

I still miss the comedy gold that was spun out of the idea he "wanted to be a Cowboy".

That still did not make the trade any better.

Sad thing is I am seeing the same mentality from the pod people lately.

 

[ThreeandOut]

Ah.

I still miss the comedy gold that was spun out of the idea he "wanted to be a Cowboy".

That still did not make the trade any better.

Sad thing is I am seeing the same mentality from the pod people lately.

Hopefully, Jerry doesn't have that same mentality (or Stephen locks him in the closet).

 

[sureletsrace]

Not really. The Pats don't really draft that well. The Giants and Steelers' drafts aren't all that impressive, either. I think it has to do more with stability.

The Giants and Steelers haven't been good teams lately.

The Packers and Seahawks have drafted well lately.

The primary source of your talent (should) come(s) from the draft, so I'd say drafting well is important. That's where you're going to get your high performing players on cheap contracts.

Stability is definitely important too, though.

 

[Nation]

Not really. The Pats don't really draft that well. The Giants and Steelers' drafts aren't all that impressive, either. I think it has to do more with stability.

They don't have a great hit rate percentage but they don't shy away from either trading guys for picks or letting guys go and getting comp picks. With that surplus they are able to acquire some decent talent. Looking at the roster you see Brady, Gronk, Edelman, Solder, McCourty, Hightower, Jones, Mayo, and Collins all as guys that teams would jump to have. They make mistakes as well but they cushion those blows for sure.

 

[arglebargle]

In retrospect, 2009 was a bad draft pool, but it was compounded for Dallas by taking backup quality players (special teams) for niche duty rather than even getting the one or two players that a draft typically yields, even when you have a bad effort.

But 2012 overall, draft and free agency, was a collective disaster. You have almost try hard to get that little out of that kind of huge investment.

It was a classic case of a lack of organizational focus and letting one thing (cornerback) dominate the team building.

If I remember correctly there was not much talent available in 2009 from the 3rd round on. Although I recall the next four guys off the board after the Cowboys traded back in the 2nd became decent players. When you are drafting late in a weak draft, no plan is going to work better than luck.

In 2012, Jerry was listening to Ryan too much. Ryan wanted those stellar press-man-cover dbs. We had a more reasonable deal working with Carr before the idiot Titans reset the market with their outrageous contract for Cortland Finnegan. Dallas ended up paying that scale. At least the Cowboys didn't blow it on Finnegan like some wanted. (Because, you know, he was tough!) And the drafting Claiborne wasn't a plan, it was a decision made in about ten minutes with the clock ticking. It was a value trade, for a guy who was generally the consensus number one defensive player in the draft. And fit in to Ryan's blather. If the Cowboys' had actually researched him heavily, maybe they don't make the move. But they had roughly ten minutes to decide.

 

[KingintheNorth]

In retrospect, 2009 was a bad draft pool...

Yep and trading down and acquiring more picks is the worst possible strategy in a weak draft, but you know, special teamers and stuff.

 

[CATCH17]

Ah. I still miss the comedy gold that was spun out of the idea he "wanted to be a Cowboy". That still did not make the trade any better. Sad thing is I am seeing the same mentality from the pod people lately.

Yeah, because acquiring Peterson would be sooooo horrible.

 

[theogt]

The 2009 draft was bad for everyone. Very few teams did well (Baltimore being the best iirc). It wasn't a good year to be trading down. Getting future picks in a weak draft would have been much wiser. Of course, maybe the other teams' management realized that too.

Draft history is littered with sure-fire players who flamed out. No guarantee any high pick will do well.

You could almost commend the team for realizing the 2009 draft pool was poor and trading picks for an established player. Unfortunately, that player sucked, so even that didn't work out.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

You could almost commend the team for realizing the 2009 draft pool was poor and trading picks for an established player. Unfortunately, that player sucked, so even that didn't work out.

My issue was we were just about gift wrapped Max Unger, and the team should have been more aggressive in getting him.