My Non-Trade Down Theory

[TwoDeep3]

Please site for me an immutable source which has defined this draft as being deep enough to trade down and still assure the trading team a player that will be as good as the one they passsed on.

 

[bobbie brewskie]

Please site for me an immutable source which has defined this draft as being deep enough to trade down and still assure the trading team a player that will be as good as the one they passsed on.

the thing is we are not necissarily passing on any player, i think carpenter or lawson will both be available at the 25th pick (bengals) trading down to them so that they can acquire Jimmy Williams or Tye Hill would be beneficial for the both of us.

 

[Hostile]

If the Draft, or trading up or down in the draft, was an exact science there would never be any trades. If picking at #25 (random number thrown out) meant you'll always find a stud, everyone would want that pick, including the team already possessing it who would guard it with their very lives.

You never know when the player you choose is going to be a dud or a stud. You're simply rolling the dice with every draft selection. They can measure speed in the 40, reps with 225 pounds on the bench, and vertical leap along with some shuttle runs. No measurable has ever been defined that could measure heart.

Teams go into a Draft with a defined number of areas they want to address. No player in the selection process comes with a guarantee of success because the future is unsure. Show me the guarantee that money won't change the player. Show me the guarantee that the player can't be injured. Show me the guarantee no one competing for the same position can possibly be better.

Guarantees don't exist.

When teams trade up they do so because they see a player who fills a specific need and they want to assure themselves this player will be there for them. They roll the dice. When teams trade down they do so because they've rated several players to be of equal value and they feel adding another selection and still getting a player they've targetted is worth the move. They roll the dice. Sometimes it's a money roll, sometimes its craps.

There is no way the Cowboys would have made the trade with Buffalo if they had an ironclad guarantee that Kevin Smith or Stephen Jackson at 24 was the next Emmitt Smith, Marshall Faulk or Eric Dickerson. No one can tell you this player will give you 10 solid years of football. Crystal balls and magic 8 balls aren't draft scouts.

Draft grades are based upon 2 things. The positives listed about the selected player and the needs of the team being addressed. 2002 most graded it a good Draft with good reason. The players selected came with good reports and needs were addressed.

So what happened? We didn't get a guarantee. Not out of lack of focus. There aren't any.

 

[Doomsday101]

The notion of trading down makes no sense to me. Players are slotted by league scouts in regard to the talent they possess or exhibit via college games and workouts designed to showcase their professional potential.

As some have pointed out, this is a crap shoot and players fail at every spot in the draft, at times.

Value seems to be another label put on the idea of trading down.

We can get a better "value" if we move from here to there and pick up an extra selection.

While this is an absurd example, do you believe the Steelers made out better for trading down in 1990 for extra picks that brought us Emmitt Smith?

From a History of the Vikings website:

"On April 22, 1990 (draft day), Dallas traded Minnesota's 1st pick in 1990 and SF 3rd pick in 1990 to Pittsburgh for Pitt's 1st round pick (#21 and #81 for #17) and selected RB Emmitt Smith. With the #21 pick, Pittsburgh selected TE Eric Green."

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/players.nsf/ID/07130070

Green played five years for the Steelers.

The other Steeler pick from Dallas was the Craig Veasey, a defensive tackle.

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/players.nsf/ID/07160181

He played two years for the Steelers.

We moved up several slots and the Steelers gained a third rounder for the privilege of letting us select the all-time rushing leader.

Now you may dig deep and come up with a scenario that is the polar oppisite of this example.

I admit this is an extreme case which illustrate my point.

But the principle is clear. If there are no guarantees at the top of the draft. Then what does that say for moving down into a more hazy area where talent is even more difficult to identify?

Busts are labeled as such because they do not play up to pre-draft perceived potential.

But think on this for a moment. How many players taken in the fourth round are called a bust?

Busts are such because they are not worth the slot where they were taken. The money paid did not buy the results desired.

But where is all the money spent in drafts? At the top where players are more readily designated busts.

There are far more players labeled bust in the first round than any other. Because the expectations are higher for this player than ones taken after him.

There are also more pro bowlers and all-pros taken in the first round over any other round, per capita.

Because the talent is at the top of the draft.

There are exceptions to every rule. And I believe there are times it is wise to move down.

We have only a few slots open for a rookie to gain the starter's position.

Why trade down to grab players who have a higher probability of being back-ups.

I think our window is this year. T.O. could erupt like Mount St. Helens next year if Jerry doesn't pony up more money.

This year we need a playmaker and not just a player with the addition of a special teamer as a bonus pick.

Keep this truth in mind. While some falsely say Jimmy Johnson moved down in drafts. You only need pick up a Dallas Cowboy media guide to see that this notion is bogus.

Jimmy moved up to build the championship teams.

I'm for staying at 18 unless a real stud starts to fall for some crazy reason.

Then I wouldn't be opposed to moving up to get a difference maker.

Just my opinion, of course.

Easy if I can get the players I'm after based on scouting and interviews and get an extra pick along the way then why not. This season there are many players that the Cowboys have looked at that can be picked up outside of the 18th pick.

 

[Alexander]

I understand it. I don't agree with it.

Please help me here.

Two years into the league and exactly what milestones has Julius accomplished which make him an example of trading down is the wisest thing to do?

We also acquired Spears. And how much more of an impact has Kevin Jones had than Julius Jones? It is debateable if even Steven Jackson has been significantly better.

But can you say for sure that the trade was the absolute correct move for this franchise?

It was the correct move because it gave us bargaining power in the 2005 draft instead of just sitting there and taking Kevin Jones just because we had convinced ourselves that the player at that spot was significantly better just because of the draft slot.

By the way. We did not get an extra first pick.

The value was not there with the 2004 first round choice. We knew it. And we traded out.

The same could occur in any draft. It is not a static thing. Just because you are sitting at 18 doesn't mean you are destined for a poor player or a potentially good one. Each draft is dynamic. The 18th pick this year could be worse or better than next year, it depends on how deep the draft is and particularly if it is strong at a position where you want to add talent.

The decision to trade out (or up for that matter) isn't a black and white construct you can paint with a broad brush. It depends.

 

[Alexander]

Please site for me an immutable source which has defined this draft as being deep enough to trade down and still assure the trading team a player that will be as good as the one they passsed on.

:laugh2:

Now this is funny.

Get me a link on something that is basically a crapshoot.

I think you could also be challenged to find any sort of documentation that staying put makes a difference.

The players you pick makes the difference. Not necessarily where you pick them.

It is not like we are talking trading down from a top ten choice, where there is a significant difference. When you hit the late teens in a draft, that is where the talent thins and the differences in talent because less drastic from those later in the round.

I am NOT in favor of trading out of the first round entirely. That is a risky proposition. But if you are mobile in the round (drop to the late picks 27-32) then you can pick up a draft choice or two you are not taking a huge risk.

We have no choice in the fourth round and I would imagine we would venture to get another if the opportunity presents itself.

 

[Chuck 54]

If it's your turn on the clock and the player you want to select should not be selected where you are and will be available further down the order, then you'd be pretty stupid not to trade down.

Trading down to select JJ in round 2 and get an extra #1 pick seemed to work out pretty well. Despite JJ having not proven himself yet, it doesn't appear Kevin Jones or Steven Jackson have totally proven themselves either.

You shouldn't pass on a better player to move down for extra picks, but if the guy you have your eye on is going to be available later, or if a team offers you too much value, you have to move down.

 

[BARRYRAY]

Well I personally have given up on the draft, to me the FA method is the way to go, you may get baggage but these picks have it too its just hidden better, according to my theory we got the number one pick, TO, he was/is the one person draft of otherwise that can turn a team into a contender fast, and under my theory we got a real kicker who is another first rounder, so whoever we get in the real draft will be a bonus...

 

[Alexander]

You shouldn't pass on a better player to move down for extra picks, but if the guy you have your eye on is going to be available later, or if a team offers you too much value, you have to move down.

Value is what it is about. It is not an either/or proposition. I don't think anyone at Valley Ranch is bound and determined to trade down no matter what. But the way it could shake out, you cannot deny that we might not have a player at 18 who is that much different from what you could get in the late 20s.

 

[proline]

Two years into the league and exactly what milestones has Julius accomplished which make him an example of trading down is the wisest thing to do?

What? Disappointed that he hasn't made the HOF yet?

Try turning your question around a bit .... what have the RB's taken before him in the draft (i.e. the ones we could have picked without trading down) accomplished that make them better picks than Julius? He has more yards than Stephen Jackson or Kevin Jones. He has fewer TD's (SJ=12, KJ=10, JJ=8), but his TD per game ratio is right there with the other guys (SJ=.41, KJ=.36, JJ=.38). Julius is far ahead of them in yards per game (SJ=59, KJ=64, JJ=86). So the trade-down got us a back that's as good or better than any other back we could have taken, PLUS a first round pick that started for us as a rookie and helped with the transition to a 3-4.

 

[david_jackson]

Trading is a rerequired tool for a good draft strategy. If you pick comes up and the BPA is a position witch is Very strong on your team, then you would be nuts not to trade down a spot to get full value for your pick (if you could). It's all about your draft board and what you project other teams will do. With rare exception at the top of round one, teams consider a trade on every pick...guaranteed. Trades aren't usually consumated but are always considered and frequently discussed.

 

[kartr]

The notion of trading down makes no sense to me. Players are slotted by league scouts in regard to the talent they possess or exhibit via college games and workouts designed to showcase their professional potential.

As some have pointed out, this is a crap shoot and players fail at every spot in the draft, at times.

Value seems to be another label put on the idea of trading down.

We can get a better "value" if we move from here to there and pick up an extra selection.

While this is an absurd example, do you believe the Steelers made out better for trading down in 1990 for extra picks that brought us Emmitt Smith?

From a History of the Vikings website:

"On April 22, 1990 (draft day), Dallas traded Minnesota's 1st pick in 1990 and SF 3rd pick in 1990 to Pittsburgh for Pitt's 1st round pick (#21 and #81 for #17) and selected RB Emmitt Smith. With the #21 pick, Pittsburgh selected TE Eric Green."

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/players.nsf/ID/07130070

Green played five years for the Steelers.

The other Steeler pick from Dallas was the Craig Veasey, a defensive tackle.

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/players.nsf/ID/07160181

He played two years for the Steelers.

We moved up several slots and the Steelers gained a third rounder for the privilege of letting us select the all-time rushing leader.

Now you may dig deep and come up with a scenario that is the polar oppisite of this example.

I admit this is an extreme case which illustrate my point.

But the principle is clear. If there are no guarantees at the top of the draft. Then what does that say for moving down into a more hazy area where talent is even more difficult to identify?

Busts are labeled as such because they do not play up to pre-draft perceived potential.

But think on this for a moment. How many players taken in the fourth round are called a bust?

Busts are such because they are not worth the slot where they were taken. The money paid did not buy the results desired.

But where is all the money spent in drafts? At the top where players are more readily designated busts.

There are far more players labeled bust in the first round than any other. Because the expectations are higher for this player than ones taken after him.

There are also more pro bowlers and all-pros taken in the first round over any other round, per capita.

Because the talent is at the top of the draft.

There are exceptions to every rule. And I believe there are times it is wise to move down.

We have only a few slots open for a rookie to gain the starter's position.

Why trade down to grab players who have a higher probability of being back-ups.

I think our window is this year. T.O. could erupt like Mount St. Helens next year if Jerry doesn't pony up more money.

This year we need a playmaker and not just a player with the addition of a special teamer as a bonus pick.

Keep this truth in mind. While some falsely say Jimmy Johnson moved down in drafts. You only need pick up a Dallas Cowboy media guide to see that this notion is bogus.

Jimmy moved up to build the championship teams.

I'm for staying at 18 unless a real stud starts to fall for some crazy reason.

Then I wouldn't be opposed to moving up to get a difference maker.

Just my opinion, of course.

There's no such thing as a bust. Players fail because they weren't developed properly or the scouts mis-evaluated their ability

Example one: Kyle Boller - a first round qb who completed 49% of his passes for his collegiate career

Example two: Joey Harrington and David Carr - first round qb's who were one year wonders just as Akili Smith was

Example three: Ryan Leaf - left school as a junior and totaled only 3300 yards passing for his collegiate career

These players don't draft themselves, it's their scouts and coaches who are at fault.
Trading down makes plenty of sense if you know how to draft for value and you know talent. How often do Pittsburgh and the Pats have draft busts?
Not very often cause they draft don't draft poor character guys and guys with serious injuries like Burnette,Al Johnson and Jacob Rodgers and they get guys who can play in their system.

 

[StanleySpadowski]

While the trade up theory may be applicable to some teams, it certainly isn't a model for today's Cowboys.

Dallas didn't make the playoffs because six starters were among the worst in the NFL at their respective positions (LT,RT,ILB, OLB, FS, K) not because they were bereft of top end talent. (I'd also argue a poor QB but won't for this discussion).

While K, RT and LT have seemingly been improved, only one of the LBs spots has been and nothing's been done at FS. Trading up to fill one of those two holes with higher grade talent neccesitates leaving the other unfilled unless your willing to have the season rest on a second day player filling the other spot because there's really not much talent left in FA at either position. This year's second rounder and probably even third rounder would be required to move high enough for the "premium" talent at either positions, Hawk and Huff, both probable top ten picks.

 

[Hostile]

There's no such thing as a bust. Players fail because they weren't developed properly or the scouts mis-evaluated their ability

Example one: Kyle Boller - a first round qb who completed 49% of his passes for his collegiate career

Example two: Joey Harrington and David Carr - first round qb's who were one year wonders just as Akili Smith was

Example three: Ryan Leaf - left school as a junior and totaled only 3300 yards passing for his collegiate career

These players don't draft themselves, it's their scouts and coaches who are at fault.
Trading down makes plenty of sense if you know how to draft for value and you know talent. How often do Pittsburgh and the Pats have draft busts?
Not very often cause they draft don't draft poor character guys and guys with serious injuries like Burnette,Al Johnson and Jacob Rodgers and they get guys who can play in their system.

Oh yeah there is such a thing as a bust. It isn't all on the coaching staffs. Sometimes players stick their heads up dark places and never remove them. In order to see where they're going they need a window in the stomach. Unfortunately the human body doesn't come with those so they wander around in the dark.

 

[sonnyboy]

A couple of years ago, two economists applied economic theories to the NFL draft and found that the most efficent draft choices (the "best value," based on the cost in terms of draft picks -- trading up or down using other picks -- and dollars paid to the player) were in the middle of the second round -- specifically around No. 43 overall. The performance of second-round players relative to their cost (in picks and dollars) was greater than that of first-round picks, whose cost was far more but whose average performance wasn't much more. And the risk of drafting a bust in the first round also was much greater, based on cost (not only don't those players perform, they also cost a lot).

So in the long run, teams would be better off trading down out of the first round -- unless, of course, they're SURE the guy they want is going to be an absolute stud. You know, like Courtney Brown, Tim Couch, Ki-Jana Carter, Bryant Westbrook, Steve Emtman, Eric Turner, Blair Thomas, Tony Mandarich, Aundray Bruce, etc.

Could'nt agee more..... I've been preaching this for years.
In a hard cap league, not making mistakes in both the draft and FA is as important as accquiring the best players via Draft and FA.

Outside of the dollar cost, I've always felt the talent level difference
(1st-2nd Rd) was not as great as the additional value trades routinely acquired in various trade downs.

I do believe in occasionally trading up for a real difference maker.
QB, RB, elite DL.

If I were GM I might only exercise 2-4 1st round selections over a 10 year period. However, during that same time I would have made about 40 selections in the 2nd and 3rd round.

 

[Verdict]

The notion of trading down makes no sense to me. Players are slotted by league scouts in regard to the talent they possess or exhibit via college games and workouts designed to showcase their professional potential.

As some have pointed out, this is a crap shoot and players fail at every spot in the draft, at times.

Value seems to be another label put on the idea of trading down.

We can get a better "value" if we move from here to there and pick up an extra selection.

While this is an absurd example, do you believe the Steelers made out better for trading down in 1990 for extra picks that brought us Emmitt Smith?

From a History of the Vikings website:

"On April 22, 1990 (draft day), Dallas traded Minnesota's 1st pick in 1990 and SF 3rd pick in 1990 to Pittsburgh for Pitt's 1st round pick (#21 and #81 for #17) and selected RB Emmitt Smith. With the #21 pick, Pittsburgh selected TE Eric Green."

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/players.nsf/ID/07130070

Green played five years for the Steelers.

The other Steeler pick from Dallas was the Craig Veasey, a defensive tackle.

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/players.nsf/ID/07160181

He played two years for the Steelers.

We moved up several slots and the Steelers gained a third rounder for the privilege of letting us select the all-time rushing leader.

Now you may dig deep and come up with a scenario that is the polar oppisite of this example.

I admit this is an extreme case which illustrate my point.

But the principle is clear. If there are no guarantees at the top of the draft. Then what does that say for moving down into a more hazy area where talent is even more difficult to identify?

Busts are labeled as such because they do not play up to pre-draft perceived potential.

But think on this for a moment. How many players taken in the fourth round are called a bust?

Busts are such because they are not worth the slot where they were taken. The money paid did not buy the results desired.

But where is all the money spent in drafts? At the top where players are more readily designated busts.

There are far more players labeled bust in the first round than any other. Because the expectations are higher for this player than ones taken after him.

There are also more pro bowlers and all-pros taken in the first round over any other round, per capita.

Because the talent is at the top of the draft.

There are exceptions to every rule. And I believe there are times it is wise to move down.

We have only a few slots open for a rookie to gain the starter's position.

Why trade down to grab players who have a higher probability of being back-ups.

I think our window is this year. T.O. could erupt like Mount St. Helens next year if Jerry doesn't pony up more money.

This year we need a playmaker and not just a player with the addition of a special teamer as a bonus pick.

Keep this truth in mind. While some falsely say Jimmy Johnson moved down in drafts. You only need pick up a Dallas Cowboy media guide to see that this notion is bogus.

Jimmy moved up to build the championship teams.

I'm for staying at 18 unless a real stud starts to fall for some crazy reason.

Then I wouldn't be opposed to moving up to get a difference maker.

Just my opinion, of course.

You make some very valid points. In some years, I would probably be on this bandwagon. The problem with your non trade down theory "this year" is that after the top 5 picks, the talent drops off dramatically this year. I'm not so sure that there are 5 picks that are worth a top 15 grade.

The trouble is the top 15 picks are going to be filled with someone, and that someone might have a low first round grade. The problem with trading up, is there are only two players I see worth trading up for that would actually start this year for the Cowboys, that definitely would not be available when we pick. Those two players, in my mind, are D'Brickashaw Ferguson, and Reggie Bush. We would have to give up too much to move up that far ( I am assuming both are top 5 picks).

Moreover, by trading down, we arent going to lose that much this year in talent dropoff and would position ourselves to pick up a great player next year like Peterson. Ireland and the Cowboys might view things a lot differently, since we did sign T.O. Who knows we might try to get Bush, or Ferguson.

 

[AdamJT13]

There's no such thing as a bust. Players fail because they weren't developed properly or the scouts mis-evaluated their ability

Example one: Kyle Boller - a first round qb who completed 49% of his passes for his collegiate career

Example two: Joey Harrington and David Carr - first round qb's who were one year wonders just as Akili Smith was

Example three: Ryan Leaf - left school as a junior and totaled only 3300 yards passing for his collegiate career

Ryan Leaf passed for 7,433 yards during his career, including 3,968 as a junior. He ended his career No. 2 on Washington State's career yardage list, ahead of Drew Bledsoe and just behind Jack Thompson. He was No. 1 on the school's chart for career TD passes with 59, including a school-record 34 TD passes in 12 games as a junior (with only 11 interceptions).

There have been plenty of outright busts in the NFL -- guys who had every reason to be drafted in the first round, even high in the first round, but never lived up to their potential for whatever reason.

 

[DC Cowboy]

The notion of trading down makes no sense to me. Players are slotted by league scouts in regard to the talent they possess or exhibit via college games and workouts designed to showcase their professional potential.

As some have pointed out, this is a crap shoot and players fail at every spot in the draft, at times.

Value seems to be another label put on the idea of trading down.

We can get a better "value" if we move from here to there and pick up an extra selection.

While this is an absurd example, do you believe the Steelers made out better for trading down in 1990 for extra picks that brought us Emmitt Smith?

From a History of the Vikings website:

"On April 22, 1990 (draft day), Dallas traded Minnesota's 1st pick in 1990 and SF 3rd pick in 1990 to Pittsburgh for Pitt's 1st round pick (#21 and #81 for #17) and selected RB Emmitt Smith. With the #21 pick, Pittsburgh selected TE Eric Green."

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/players.nsf/ID/07130070

Green played five years for the Steelers.

The other Steeler pick from Dallas was the Craig Veasey, a defensive tackle.

http://www.jt-sw.com/football/pro/players.nsf/ID/07160181

He played two years for the Steelers.

We moved up several slots and the Steelers gained a third rounder for the privilege of letting us select the all-time rushing leader.

Now you may dig deep and come up with a scenario that is the polar oppisite of this example.

I admit this is an extreme case which illustrate my point.

But the principle is clear. If there are no guarantees at the top of the draft. Then what does that say for moving down into a more hazy area where talent is even more difficult to identify?

Busts are labeled as such because they do not play up to pre-draft perceived potential.

But think on this for a moment. How many players taken in the fourth round are called a bust?

Busts are such because they are not worth the slot where they were taken. The money paid did not buy the results desired.

But where is all the money spent in drafts? At the top where players are more readily designated busts.

There are far more players labeled bust in the first round than any other. Because the expectations are higher for this player than ones taken after him.

There are also more pro bowlers and all-pros taken in the first round over any other round, per capita.

Because the talent is at the top of the draft.

There are exceptions to every rule. And I believe there are times it is wise to move down.

We have only a few slots open for a rookie to gain the starter's position.

Why trade down to grab players who have a higher probability of being back-ups.

I think our window is this year. T.O. could erupt like Mount St. Helens next year if Jerry doesn't pony up more money.

This year we need a playmaker and not just a player with the addition of a special teamer as a bonus pick.

Keep this truth in mind. While some falsely say Jimmy Johnson moved down in drafts. You only need pick up a Dallas Cowboy media guide to see that this notion is bogus.

Jimmy moved up to build the championship teams.

I'm for staying at 18 unless a real stud starts to fall for some crazy reason.

Then I wouldn't be opposed to moving up to get a difference maker.

Just my opinion, of course.

Good scouting is the key, how many players did JJ grab in the later rounds that made huge contributions, Eric Williams, Leon Lett to name a few...

 

[AdamJT13]

Courtney Brown is actually a very good football player... when he's healthy. Problem is that happens about as often as Haley's Comet comes around.

He has played 61 career games and has 19 career sacks. He played 14 games last year and posted two sacks. He's hardly been a pass-rusher worthy of a No. 1 overall pick, even when he has been healthy.

Ki-Jana Carter's problems were injuries, not talent.

Steve Emtman, again, had injury problems. Which is messed up cuz he had no injury problems in college. He was a good DT before he got hurt. He certainly wasn't a bust cuz of a lack of talent.

So where do you get a crystal ball that tells you which guys' careers are going to be ruined by injuries?

That's part of the high cost of first-round picks. The chances of a player's career being ruined by injury is the same whether he's a first-rounder or a second-rounder, but the cost -- in picks and dollars -- is significantly greater when the first-rounder busts because of injury.

I agree with you though, Adam. I just don't agree with some of the examples you used. You could of used many many much better examples. Mike Mamula would of been a good one.

Not many people thought Mamula should have been drafted that high or turn out to be great. All of the guys I mentioned -- other than Westbrook -- were expected to be drafted very high and were expected to be great players. I just threw Westbrook in there to irk the guys who can't hide their Longhorns bias. (I was going to use Leonard Davis, but he still has a chance to be decent.)

 

[Rack]

He has played 61 career games and has 19 career sacks. He played 14 games last year and posted two sacks. He's hardly been a pass-rusher worthy of a No. 1 overall pick, even when he has been healthy.

You're the one that says often that you can't judge a DE solely on his sacks. And, as I said, he has had injury problems. That includes the times he has played injured.

So where do you get a crystal ball that tells you which guys' careers are going to be ruined by injuries?

What the hell are you talking about? I pointed out players from the PAST that had injury problems. I don't need a crystal ball to REMEMBER something.

That's part of the high cost of first-round picks. The chances of a player's career being ruined by injury is the same whether he's a first-rounder or a second-rounder, but the cost -- in picks and dollars -- is significantly greater when the first-rounder busts because of injury.

And you're telling me this... why?



Incase you didn't notice, I agreed with you.


We probably just have a slightly different definition of the word "Bust".


Westbrook was a bust, regardless of his injury.

Emtman's play was fine. He suffered two severe knee injuries (or was it 3?). He probably would of recovered from those injuries if they were to of happened recently.


There's also other reasons a player isn't successful other then injury. Like a coach playing a QB too early and ruining him. There's a ton of QBs that get thrown to the wolves too early and end up being labeled a "Bust". IMO, some of those QBs would of been fine if they had been developed properly. That's why I'm happy with the way we're developing Henson/Romo.


Anyway, going a little OT there.


If we drafted Carpenter at 18 I'd be happy. If we traded down a few spots and still got Carpenter I'd be happy.