Looking Forward to a Rebuilt Secondary

[jazzcat22]

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.

By who's standards and / or opinions....oh, couch GM's that post on here....
I read and heard on NFLN & ESPN that Carroll was a good signing by us.

I have only read posts on here that it sucked. But then again just about everything this team does sucks....I read it many times on here...

So you feel we are not on a good path to improve the secondary...well, we sure was not heading on the right path with the same old players either...time to change paths....

 

[gimmesix]

By who's standards and / or opinions....oh, couch GM's that post on here....
I read and heard on NFLN & ESPN that Carroll was a good signing by us.

I have only read posts on here that it sucked. But then again just about everything this team does sucks....I read it many times on here...

So you feel we are not on a good path to improve the secondary...well, we sure was not heading on the right path with the same old players either...time to change paths....

I didn't say the move sucked, only that it wasn't an improvement. Carroll was rated much lower as a free agent than Claiborne and lower than Carr. I don't watch the Eagles unless they are playing us, but it appears that Carroll had a bad year following a good year while Carr had a good year following a bad year (which appears to be the difference between the two).

Carroll might end up being better than what we lost, but as I said, he wasn't considered better in free agency.

I don't mind changing paths and we needed to start working on that even if we had kept Church and Carr/Claiborne, but going from a bad path to another bad path is not a course correction. I don't see evidence, at least not yet, that this was an upgrade for Dallas.

 

[ondaedg]

I think we can see significant improvements in our DB play not by signing or drafting better players but by bringing in guys who are a better fit for the scheme. Regardless if it's a cover 2/3 or a tampa 2. Carr and Claiborne are clearly not good in a zone defense and Marinelli's scheme doesn't reward man to man coverage. The only question is are there enough guys in FA and the draft who fit this scheme?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

Not all drafts are the same. When looking at history you can do so by breaking it down to actual events and actual participants.

You are focusing on the events and ignoring the participants.

As of the 2006 draft there were only 8 CB picked in the first 3 rounds. This draft destroys that.

 

[gimmesix]

Not all drafts are the same. When looking at history you can do so by breaking it down to actual events and actual participants.

You are focusing on the events and ignoring the participants.

As of the 2006 draft there were only 8 CB picked in the first 3 rounds. This draft destroys that.

Not all drafts are the same, but the results are pretty consistent. Maybe if we pick a corner in every round we'll exceed the norm, but it isn't likely we'll do that. The corner we do pick, if we even pick one or two, could also turn out to be a failure. It happens, and it happens with a great deal of regularity.

Most years some position is considered to be strong, but our success rate (and that of other teams as well) remains consistent. Let's say because of the strength of the position and how the draft falls we don't end up taking a cornerback until the fourth round. The probability of that player becoming a starter is not that high. Yes, some players taken in the fourth round will become starters but the percentages are against your team being one of the lucky ones. Maybe because of the depth of these corner group we'll stand a better chance, but it's still not a high percentage.

This is from http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round from 2015 but there are other good statistical sites on the draft as well:

Finally, we come to the largest drafted group in the last decade. Nearly, 21% of all players drafted in the last decade are defensive backs.

• Of the 510 defensive backs drafted, 121 became starters.

• You have the same success rate drafting a DB in the 7th round as you do drafting one in the 4th (11%)

• On average, you have the following number of DBs taken per round: 1st - 6, 2nd - 6, 3rd - 7, 4th - 8, 5th - 8, 6th - 7, 7th - 9

• After you get past the success rates of the first two rounds (64% in the first, 46% in the second), there isn't a huge difference in success (24% - 3rd, 11% - 4th, 17% - 5th, 8% - 6th, 11% - 7th)

• DBs provide the best success potential in the 7th round versus other positions in that round.
  Historic Success Chart
  The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:
  
  1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
  
  2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)
  
  3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
  
  4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)
  
  5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)
  
  6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)
  
  7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Not all drafts are the same, but the results are pretty consistent. Maybe if we pick a corner in every round we'll exceed the norm, but it isn't likely we'll do that. The corner we do pick, if we even pick one or two, could also turn out to be a failure. It happens, and it happens with a great deal of regularity.

Most years some position is considered to be strong, but our success rate (and that of other teams as well) remains consistent. Let's say because of the strength of the position and how the draft falls we don't end up taking a cornerback until the fourth round. The probability of that player becoming a starter is not that high. Yes, some players taken in the fourth round will become starters but the percentages are against your team being one of the lucky ones. Maybe because of the depth of these corner group we'll stand a better chance, but it's still not a high percentage.

This is from http://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round from 2015 but there are other good statistical sites on the draft as well:

Finally, we come to the largest drafted group in the last decade. Nearly, 21% of all players drafted in the last decade are defensive backs.

• Of the 510 defensive backs drafted, 121 became starters.

• You have the same success rate drafting a DB in the 7th round as you do drafting one in the 4th (11%)

• On average, you have the following number of DBs taken per round: 1st - 6, 2nd - 6, 3rd - 7, 4th - 8, 5th - 8, 6th - 7, 7th - 9

• After you get past the success rates of the first two rounds (64% in the first, 46% in the second), there isn't a huge difference in success (24% - 3rd, 11% - 4th, 17% - 5th, 8% - 6th, 11% - 7th)

• DBs provide the best success potential in the 7th round versus other positions in that round.
  Historic Success Chart
  The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:
  
  1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)
  
  2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)
  
  3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)
  
  4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)
  
  5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)
  
  6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)
  
  7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)

You can repeat yourself about the averages and aggregates all you like. I don't dispute that. I am telling you that this is a better than average class of DBs moreso it is the best I have ever seen.

When you look at the talent projected to go in the 5th round this year and compare it to the drafts of the past 15 years, the players available are just better than what we have seen in the 3rd and 4th round from previous years.

You are acting like all drafts breakdown like that chart but if you were to look at the individual samples you would quickly see there is variance. You have no idea what the percentage difference is and to assert that is "not that much better" is unfounded.

 

[gimmesix]

You can repeat yourself about the averages and aggregates all you like. I don't dispute that. I am telling you that this is a better than average class of DBs moreso it is the best I have ever seen.

When you look at the talent projected to go in the 5th round this year and compare it to the drafts of the past 15 years, the players available are just better. You are acting like all drafts breakdown like that but if you were to look at the individual samples you would quickly see there is variance.

There are individual samples every year. You act like there's never been a strong class of this or a strong class of that. And still the results mainly remain the same.

I'm not disputing the class of DBs, but we don't know how it will fall. If the class is as strong as many believe, then they may fly off the board before our second-round pick and then we end up taking one of those you mention in the draft zone that you do not want.

We've done well with our first-round picks the past few years. Not so well with our second, ending up on the underside of the 50/50 chance too often. Third-round picks have been hit and miss and rounds lower than that have been mostly miss. Again, that's not a criticism of Dallas. That's the realities of the draft.

Are you going into this thinking Dallas is going to find four starters again like last year because of this class of corners? Maybe we'll hit on a corner because of it, but even that's not guaranteed.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There are individual samples every year. You act like there's never been a strong class of this or a strong class of that. And still the results mainly remain the same.

I'm not disputing the class of DBs, but we don't know how it will fall. If the class is as strong as many believe, then they may fly off the board before our second-round pick and then we end up taking one of those you mention in the draft zone that you do not want.

We've done well with our first-round picks the past few years. Not so well with our second, ending up on the underside of the 50/50 chance too often. Third-round picks have been hit and miss and rounds lower than that have been mostly miss. Again, that's not a criticism of Dallas. That's the realities of the draft.

Are you going into this thinking Dallas is going to find four starters again like last year because of this class of corners? Maybe we'll hit on a corner because of it, but even that's not guaranteed.

You showed the averages. You have not shown that the "stay the same." I call BS.

You're risk averse and want certainty. That isn't going to happen. The odds on FA are worse.

 

[Risen Star]

You want to know the biggest piece we're adding to fix the secondary?

This guy....

You can't find open receivers when you're on your back.

He goes by Takeflightchuck on Twitter. So I say after his sacks we stick out our arms like wings and make airplane noises while running around the room.

Hahaha can't wait! Cowboys!!

 

[speedkilz88]

You want to know the biggest piece we're adding to fix the secondary?

This guy....

You can't find open receivers when you're on your back.

He goes by Takeflightchuck on Twitter. So I say after his sacks we stick out our arms like wings and make airplane noises while running around the room.

Hahaha can't wait! Cowboys!!

Like this?

 

[gimmesix]

You showed the averages. You have not shown that the "stay the same." I call BS.

You're risk averse and want certainty. That isn't going to happen. The odds on FA are worse.

I showed the year-by-year draft results for the Cowboys for around the past five or six years earlier in this thread, which show that outside of last year the drafts have produced around two starters per year for the team, and some of those are iffy.

I don't expect certainty. I'm a realist. I expect Dallas to get two starters out of this draft, three if we're lucky and four if we're very, very lucky. Anyone thinking we're going to fix our secondary and defensive line with this draft, getting a starter at corner, safety and defensive end is playing the long odds. It could happen but we shouldn't expect it.

Anyone thinking Heath is going to be an improvement at strong safety and Carroll is going to be an improvement at corner is playing the long odds. It could happen but we shouldn't expect it.

Right now, I believe safety is our top need because Carroll has proven he can start while Heath has not. However, I really want a difference-making pass rusher. That pushes corner down to third on my list and maybe with this deep class we'll get lucky and land one of the 24 percent of third-round DBs who become starters.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

This draft has exceptional depth at CB, safety and TE. Like on par w best ever. It has above average depth at RB, DE and WR. It has average depth at QB and DT. It has below average depth at LB. It is subpar for OL depth.

All that means it's probably the deepest overall we've ever seen. I've said it before, you will find good players, possible starters, in the fourth and fifth rounds if you do it right. Those are usually depth picks - core special teamers.

 

[jday]

We lost 4 players as we all know.

As much as I wanted to resign a few of these guys, then add through the draft. I am also glad they moved on, and we now must build through the draft.
It sparks an interest and a level of excitement to see what they will be able to do with new players. As the old players have been mediocre way too long.

Now that I look back on it, I would rather have some frustration with new players with the possibility of improvement, than the frustration with the same players and the same results and no improvement. I guess I am tired of the excuse, get a better pass rush and they will be better on turnovers. Still the pass coverage lacked, even in games where we got pressure.

It was time to move on, and as I said, as I reflect back, I am glad this happened.

We still have Scandrick, who will be 100% going into TC and the season. Brown who played very well in his rookie year. We signed Carroll, who is a better fit in Marinelli's system. Add a few draft picks and the CB's will be fine.
We have B. Jones at FS, and need some depth here, and Heath at SS, and may or may not be the answer, but he has improved, but still draft a SS. Frazier was drafted last year, so let him compete with a few draft choices.

If they hit on the right players, I think we can have a sense of excitement going into TC.

I have a feeling the Cowboys may roll the dice on on of the injured cb/s that could possibly fall to them...Which could mean 2017 is a red shirt year for the Cowboys as a whole.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

Like this?

He'd make a heck of an umpire.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I showed the year-by-year draft results for the Cowboys for around the past five or six years earlier in this thread, which show that outside of last year the drafts have produced around two starters per year for the team, and some of those are iffy.

I don't expect certainty. I'm a realist. I expect Dallas to get two starters out of this draft, three if we're lucky and four if we're very, very lucky. Anyone thinking we're going to fix our secondary and defensive line with this draft, getting a starter at corner, safety and defensive end is playing the long odds. It could happen but we shouldn't expect it.

Anyone thinking Heath is going to be an improvement at strong safety and Carroll is going to be an improvement at corner is playing the long odds. It could happen but we shouldn't expect it.

Right now, I believe safety is our top need because Carroll has proven he can start while Heath has not. However, I really want a difference-making pass rusher. That pushes corner down to third on my list and maybe with this deep class we'll get lucky and land one of the 24 percent of third-round DBs who become starters.

I see Heath as a lateral move. Carroll can give us what Carr has. Those are not high bars to cross.

A realist looks at reality as it is in the present and doesn't pretend that things are the same every time and accepts changing circumstances. You do understand that those numbers you insist are ironclad evolve constantly right?

You must have been a basketcase in 2014 going into the draft when we brought in Melton and Selvie after having an all time worst defense.

 

[gimmesix]

I see Heath as a lateral move. Carroll can give us what Carr has. Those are not high bars to cross.

A realist looks at reality as it is in the present and doesn't pretend that things are the same every time and accepts changing circumstances. You do understand that those numbers you insist are ironclad evolve constantly right?

You must have been a basketcase in 2014 going into the draft when we brought in Melton and Selvie after having an all time worst defense.

Nah, I don't let it get to me and accept it for what it is. I'd be a basket case if I thought every draft move was supposed to pan out and they didn't, which is usually what happens.

I read a thread on here, by Risen, I think, where he was lamenting the 2015 draft because we got one starter (Jones), one semi-starter (Wilson) with another possible in Green. Instead of shaking my fist at Jerry and the scouts, I look at the history of the draft and realize that was just a normal draft. That's what I expect, a normal draft, while hoping for one like last year's.

Again, you look at history and learn from it — 2005 was the last time we had the kind of draft success we had last year so the evidence suggests that we're more likely to follow the pattern (two starters, some contributors) than the exceptions. And this isn't just true for our team, so again, I'm not picking on Dallas. I'm just looking at the realities of the draft.

And frankly, we really don't know yet how the 2016 draft will be viewed in the long run. That we found our quarterback makes it a success, but we'll have to see what becomes of Smith, Collins, Tapper, Brown, Frazier and Gathers. Right now, it's looking good that we'll have at least three and up to five starters from this class, which is absolutely fantastic, but injuries or a falloff in play could change that.

 

[gimmesix]

I see Heath as a lateral move. Carroll can give us what Carr has. Those are not high bars to cross.

I mostly agree on Carroll. He had a bad year last year overall, but he's about the same as Carr. I was hoping to take a step up from Carr, but we'll have to see if we can do that in the draft.

As far as Heath goes, I think it's hard to say it's a lateral move. We've only seen him have limited success in a part-time role, and he's certainly not the run defender that Church is. I would assume if our plan is to start him that we also plan to move to more Cover 2 because his strength is having good range. There is such a difference between being a starter and a part-time player, though, that we can't know if Heath can handle it. If our plan is to just give the job to him and find out, then it's as poor as our plan was to elevate Alan Ball to starting safety a few years back.

 

[Doc50]

We lost 4 players as we all know.

As much as I wanted to resign a few of these guys, then add through the draft. I am also glad they moved on, and we now must build through the draft.
It sparks an interest and a level of excitement to see what they will be able to do with new players. As the old players have been mediocre way too long.

Now that I look back on it, I would rather have some frustration with new players with the possibility of improvement, than the frustration with the same players and the same results and no improvement. I guess I am tired of the excuse, get a better pass rush and they will be better on turnovers. Still the pass coverage lacked, even in games where we got pressure.

It was time to move on, and as I said, as I reflect back, I am glad this happened.

We still have Scandrick, who will be 100% going into TC and the season. Brown who played very well in his rookie year. We signed Carroll, who is a better fit in Marinelli's system. Add a few draft picks and the CB's will be fine.
We have B. Jones at FS, and need some depth here, and Heath at SS, and may or may not be the answer, but he has improved, but still draft a SS. Frazier was drafted last year, so let him compete with a few draft choices.

If they hit on the right players, I think we can have a sense of excitement going into TC.

One thing is certain, and that's our relative lack of information compared to the Cowboys' brain trust. They may have concluded (like many here) that Mo is not the sharpest tool in the shed, and that he may have reached his ceiling and in a somewhat fragile body. The other 3 probably were not going to improve either.
And what FA wants a reduced one year deal at that point in their career? They know that cashing in now is the best move for the future of their families; this may be their last contract in FB.
I think JJ's paternal aura actually helps in negotiations; the player should feel some good faith and sincerity in the process, and not think they are getting screwed. Most guys that left have said as much.

I'm willing to trust the judgement and circumstances, and let it play out.

 

[xwalker]

I see Heath as a lateral move. Carroll can give us what Carr has. Those are not high bars to cross.

A realist looks at reality as it is in the present and doesn't pretend that things are the same every time and accepts changing circumstances. You do understand that those numbers you insist are ironclad evolve constantly right?

You must have been a basketcase in 2014 going into the draft when we brought in Melton and Selvie after having an all time worst defense.

I think the front office sees Heath and Carroll as "good enough" without being committed to them with a big contract.

This allows a young player to replace them at any point ; whereas, in the past they were stuck with guys like Carr due to their contract. Coaches tend to start veterans like Carr and Church unless the younger player is overwhelmingly better; however, most young players have to play in order to prove themselves. It's a catch-22.

 

[Vintage]

We've struggled in coverage for what seems like millennia.

If nothing else, we are getting faster in the back 7. Let's assume we start Heath and Jones. Light year's difference in speed between Heath and Church. Let's say Anthony Brown and Orlando Scandrick start instead of Carr and Claiborne. Brown is much faster than Carr,

If Jaylon can play; he is a much faster LBer than Hitchens.

Will be interesting to see how this all pans out. At the least, we should be a little more fleet footed in the back end of our defense.