Looking Forward to a Rebuilt Secondary

[windward]

We lost 4 players. We will NOT be able to replace 4 players in one draft, especially since we all know whoever we get in the 2nd round will be a bust (or a TE, lol).

This defense won't be even close to good until 2018.

Read the same thing last offseason.

 

[HookEmCowboys]

It just kind of sucks because it seems as if the front office considers 2017 a "transition year" to build the defense up, rather than really trying to be contenders. Because there's no way we can replace all the players we have lost and build it into a cohesive unit in one offseason. Here's to hoping we can have a balanced defense to compliment our offense in 2018.

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Our offense is set for the most part. The OL is locked up in long term deals (minus Martin but his is coming) and we've got Dak and Zeke on rookie contracts for the next few years. Taking a draft or two to develop and get young talent/depth on defense is fine by me. I'd rather take long term success than blow money in FA when the team isn't in a win-now crisis.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

At one time, experts and fans thought Pat Watkins should have been drafted in the second round and Cowboys fans were ecstatic when we got him in the fifth (or was it sixth?). For that matter, Jones called Claiborne the best corner since Deion when we took him and injuries kept us from getting much out of him until the past year or so.

Going into the draft, you've got to be prepared to live with what you've got, and what we've got is not a lot. (It wasn't before, either, but I'd take what we had in the secondary over what we've gained.)

I understand that changes were needed in the secondary and I'm totally for that, but you can't lose what you had, replace them with virtually nothing and expect to get better. If we spend a first-round pick on a defensive back (which I didn't want to have to do because of our defensive end needs), then we're probably at least guaranteed to have improved one of those starting positions. Anything else is fairly iffy.

Dallas checking out Robert Blanton gives me hope that we're at least going to bring in one safety who has some starts under his belt to pare with what we've got and what we bring in.

And what does that have to do with the depth of 2017's DB class?

Going into the draft you should look at probable outcomes. The chance in each round that a DB that is both value and able to help is higher than it has ever been before. Is it possible it doesn't work out? Sure but it is also possible that you might get hit by a car if you go jogging. That doesn't mean you shouldn't go jogging.

And Carroll is not "virtually nothing." He is not Brodney Poole or Sterling Moore.

 

[gmoney112]

I don't think this is necessarily a bad thing. Our offense is set for the most part. The OL is locked up in long term deals (minus Martin but his is coming) and we've got Dak and Zeke on rookie contracts for the next few years. Taking a draft or two to develop and get young talent/depth on defense is fine by me. I'd rather take long term success than blow money in FA when the team isn't in a win-now crisis.

That's where I'm at. If we can get some strong talent in the secondary, and the DL stays moderately healthy it wouldn't surprise me at all if our defense was actually better by the end of the year.

 

[gmoney112]

And what does that have to do with the depth of 2017's DB class?

Going into the draft you should look at probable outcomes. The chance in each round that a DB that is both value and able to help is higher than it has ever been before. Is it possible it doesn't work out? Sure but it is also possible that you might get hit by a car if you go jogging. That doesn't mean you shouldn't go jogging.

And Carroll is not "virtually nothing." He is not Brodney Poole or Sterling Moore.

I've said this since the beginning. This draft is so deep it's very likely that DB will be BPA anyway.

 

[gimmesix]

And what does that have to do with the depth of 2017's DB class?

Going into the draft you should look at probable outcomes. The chance in each round that a DB that is both value and able to help is higher than it has ever been before. Is it possible it doesn't work out? Sure but it is also possible that you might get hit by a car if you go jogging. That doesn't mean you shouldn't go jogging.

And Carroll is not "virtually nothing." He is not Brodney Poole or Sterling Moore.

It simply means that other classes have been considered strong at a position and it did not turn out that way. The probable outcome of any draft is what I showed that it was, that you're likely to get a couple of starters and if you're lucky, you'll end up with more than that. Anyone who sees this draft as producing more than that for us is not paying attention to draft history. Could it? Yes, just like last year did, but it isn't the norm.

As far as Carroll goes, he isn't considered better than what we lost, which was my point. We want a rebuilt secondary, but we want it to be built better than the previous one. We're not on a good path to accomplish that IMO.

I will be surprised if we use both of our first two draft picks on DBs, and if we don't, we have about a 50/50 shot at best of finding a starting-caliber DB in the rest of the draft. (I could go look up the actual bust percentages again, but I don't want to ... I've posted them in previous draft threads.) That doesn't mean you don't draft them, just like the fact that you stand hardly any shot at finding a starting QB after the first round didn't mean we shouldn't have drafted Dak.

 

[haleyrules]

We lost 4 players. We will NOT be able to replace 4 players in one draft, especially since we all know whoever we get in the 2nd round will be a bust (or a TE, lol).

This defense won't be even close to good until 2018.

Agreed. It could be a tough year defensively.

 

[Doomsay]

How can anyone "love" the Carroll signing?

He was one of the worst CBs in football last year. LOL. That's like saying I would "love" it if we had signed Nick Foles or Brady Quinn to be QB.

Just glad the 4 horsemen of mediocrity are finally gone

True, but their replacements won't be here this year.. Carroll is garbage, Oscan is decrepit and we are not going to get a lot of day one starters at our crappy draft position. I hope management recognizes this as the jettison salary, build for the future kind of year it is.

 

[Kaiser]

I will be surprised if we use both of our first two draft picks on DBs, and if we don't, we have about a 50/50 shot at best of finding a starting-caliber DB in the rest of the draft.

When did the argument become about our draft picks having to start? A CB we draft will likely be 4th or 5th on the depth chart and the same goes for picks at Safety. Its highly likely that we sign a Safety in FA.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It simply means that other classes have been considered strong at a position and it did not turn out that way. The probable outcome of any draft is what I showed that it was, that you're likely to get a couple of starters and if you're lucky, you'll end up with more than that. Anyone who sees this draft as producing more than that for us is not paying attention to draft history. Could it? Yes, just like last year did, but it isn't the norm.

As far as Carroll goes, he isn't considered better than what we lost, which was my point. We want a rebuilt secondary, but we want it to be built better than the previous one. We're not on a good path to accomplish that IMO.

I will be surprised if we use both of our first two draft picks on DBs, and if we don't, we have about a 50/50 shot at best of finding a starting-caliber DB in the rest of the draft. (I could go look up the actual bust percentages again, but I don't want to ... I've posted them in previous draft threads.) That doesn't mean you don't draft them, just like the fact that you stand hardly any shot at finding a starting QB after the first round didn't mean we shouldn't have drafted Dak.

What simply means that other classes were considered strong and did not turn out that way?

I am not ignoring draft history. I can talk intelligently about the corners that were available in the top 150 this year and previous years. Wholistic analysis pales severely to reductionist analysis. The individual corners are better than what they have been in the past. For example, BW Webb, a consensus 4th rounder in 2013, wouldn't go until the 6th at best in this year's class.

It is what it is.

 

[DogFace]

It just kind of sucks because it seems as if the front office considers 2017 a "transition year" to build the defense up, rather than really trying to be contenders. Because there's no way we can replace all the players we have lost and build it into a cohesive unit in one offseason. Here's to hoping we can have a balanced defense to compliment our offense in 2018.

Last year was the transition year. We'll be better.

 

[FLCowboyFan]

My guess is that the coaches determined we had average players at those positions. They will draft what they can and then start pulling people other teams practice squads. As a last result they will sign vets that have been cut in the roster trimming. They will most likely get back to at least average with all of these moves and have the potential for a much better defense moving forward.

 

[TNCowboy]

You don't ordinarily win championships with your secondary. You win them on the DL. There are exceptions, like Seattle, but the key more often than not is to be great up front.

Unfortunately, we're not great on D at any level.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

It may get worse before it gets better, but at least it's a genuine attempt to get better. Marinelli has never had the corners he wanted for this scheme outside of Scandrick. The other corners that fit his scheme were either UDFA's or 6th or 7th round picks.



YR

 

[Doomsday101]

seems to be a deep draft class for CB, Cowboys seem to have interest in Fabian Moreau from UCLA good size CB with 4.3 speed.

 

[gimmesix]

When did the argument become about our draft picks having to start? A CB we draft will likely be 4th or 5th on the depth chart and the same goes for picks at Safety. Its highly likely that we sign a Safety in FA.

I'm not looking forward to a rebuilt secondary if Brown/Carroll and Heath have to start. I'm not saying it won't be better, because I don't know that. I am saying I do not have any evidence that it will be better.

Now, some on here are going to say it can't be worse, but it can always be worse.

 

[gimmesix]

What simply means that other classes were considered strong and did not turn out that way?

I am not ignoring draft history. I can talk intelligently about the corners that were available in the top 150 this year and previous years. Wholistic analysis pales severely to reductionist analysis. The individual corners are better than what they have been in the past. For example, BW Webb, a consensus 4th rounder in 2013, wouldn't go until the 6th at best in this year's class.

It is what it is.

I'd have to look back, but I believe the safety class when we took Watkins in the fifth round was supposed to be strong. And no matter how strong the class is we still average about two starters coming out of each draft class, except when we have an exceptional year like last year.

I think you are ignoring draft history because of your belief in the strength of this corner class. I'm not arguing against this corner class expecting to be strong. However, if it truly is strong, it probably just means a bunch of corners will go early. Playing the percentages, if we take a corner early, we're liable to end up with a starter (although we might forego finding a starter at DE if we do it). If we take a corner late, we'll be lucky if we end up with a starter.

Most likely, based on draft history, we'll hit on the first-round pick and maybe hit on the second-round pick or find a starter in the third or fourth round. We might get contributions out of another player or two. Two starter, two contributors ... no matter how strong a position is considered to be in the draft. If we are fortunate, three starters. If we're very blessed, four starters, but that goes far against the norm.

 

[Bullflop]

Outside of an incredible recovery from the player loss that has affected our secondary already, I would imagine it might well take more than one year to satisfactorily recover and generate an exceptional secondary. The introduction of rookies into our defense alone would make a two year recovery period a likely scenario, imho. Hopefully, the Cowboys' staff will handle the draft and the influx of new players admirably. In any case, I think there's a great opportunity to not only establish an impressive unit there but to also improve upon the former one greatly, once afforded the necessary time and effort. The 2017 draft is one that offers an induction of some excellent cornerbacks. Hopefully, the staff will manage it wisely.

 

[lqmac1]

What's funny in all these analyses about how we are going to have a rebuilt secondary is that no one seems to understand that there is the very real possibility our secondary could suck even worse than the one we had.

People just seem to be assuming that since this is a deep CB draft that we'll draft a couple, they'll be hits and all will be well.

What happens if we take some duds at CB?

This is why I think it was foolish to let Claiborne walk for $5MM for one year. Claiborne was a safety net for the team. You could still draft a CB or two and try to rebuild the secondary.

How much worse? We had a freaking rookie start for majority of the year. People were bashing Claibourne and Carr and now all the sudden act like we lost two all pros.

 

[kevm3]

What's funny in all these analyses about how we are going to have a rebuilt secondary is that no one seems to understand that there is the very real possibility our secondary could suck even worse than the one we had.

People just seem to be assuming that since this is a deep CB draft that we'll draft a couple, they'll be hits and all will be well.

What happens if we take some duds at CB?

This is why I think it was foolish to let Claiborne walk for $5MM for one year. Claiborne was a safety net for the team. You could still draft a CB or two and try to rebuild the secondary.

That's what I'm saying. There's zero guarantee the guys we draft will be any better and playing cornerback typically takes time to learn. Brown looks great as a fill in corner, but him constantly covering the other team's #1 for the majority of the game, coupled with that terrible pass rush, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets the Carr treatment of everyone screaming how bad he sucks.

The big problem with letting all of our secondary go is that we could have focused on rebuilding the pass rush, but we have to focus on TWO levels of the secondary as well... the corners and the safetys.