Parcells' draft strategy unpredictable

[Verdict]

I think the best word to describe Parcells' draft strategy might be "unpredictable". Looking at team needs you might get the idea that the Cowboys' first pick might be a safety, offensive lineman, or a linebacker which many posters identify as "needs". This might actually turn out to be the case.

On the other hand, Parcells seems to do his best work when he thinks "outside the box". Last year we needed defensive help. Parcells did get defensive help, but looking at it objectively, he really went overkill on defense because he saw value there. Think about this.....he drafted Ware, Spears, Canty and Ratliff, to play on the defensive line (granted, Ware is a hybrid), but that was after he signed Ferguson to shore up the interior of the line.

One might argue that was overkill. On the other hand, I think Parcells did not draft for need, so much as he drafted the best player available. This is exemplified in his comment that they really "needed" Spears more than any other player, but they waited to take him, because they "knew" that Ware would not last until our second pick. In short they took the BPA over need. Luckily we got both of our targeted players.

Nothing would surprise me on draft day. I could see us trade up, trade down, select a quarterback with the first pick, select a running back with the first pick, or any other number of permutations. I just hope in an attempt to plug holes we dont draft based upon need...take the best player available, regardless of the need.

 

[Doomsday101]

I think the best word to describe Parcells' draft strategy might be "unpredictable". Looking at team needs you might get the idea that the Cowboys' first pick might be a safety, offensive lineman, or a linebacker which many posters identify as "needs". This might actually turn out to be the case.

On the other hand, Parcells seems to do his best work when he thinks "outside the box". Last year we needed defensive help. Parcells did get defensive help, but looking at it objectively, he really went overkill on defense because he saw value there. Think about this.....he drafted Ware, Spears, Canty and Ratliff, to play on the defensive line (granted, Ware is a hybrid), but that was after he signed Ferguson to shore up the interior of the line.

One might argue that was overkill. On the other hand, I think Parcells did not draft for need, so much as he drafted the best player available. This is exemplified in his comment that they really "needed" Spears more than any other player, but they waited to take him, because they "knew" that Ware would not last until our second pick. In short they took the BPA over need. Luckily we got both of our targeted players.

Nothing would surprise me on draft day. I could see us trade up, trade down, select a quarterback with the first pick, select a running back with the first pick, or any other number of permutations. I just hope in an attempt to plug holes we dont draft based upon need...take the best player available, regardless of the need.

I don't see it that way, Dallas going to a 3-4 they knew they needed a lot of help. As far as BPA I think it is a bit of both BPA that fits your needs, if the BPA is at a position you are strong at it makes no sense to spend more money at the same position when you have other needs. I'm not talking about reaching for players but I do think you can go after BPA that fit your needs.

 

[Verdict]

I don't see it that way, Dallas going to a 3-4 they knew they needed a lot of help. As far as BPA I think it is a bit of both BPA that fits your needs, if the BPA is at a position you are strong at it makes no sense to spend more money at the same position when you have other needs. I'm not talking about reaching for players but I do think you can go after BPA that fit your needs.

Parcells drafting Ratliff in the late rounds was taking the best player available, pure and simple. Ratliff had nothing to do with team needs. We had already added Spears, Ware, and Canty in the draft. Ellis (a starter) , had just been signed to a contract extension. The odds of Ratliff making the team should have been negligible due to the players in front of him. Parcells saw a good player late and took him. After drafting the other players in front of Ratliff, it is pretty hard to argue that the team's needs were not greater in other areas.

 

[Doomsday101]

Parcells drafting Ratliff in the late rounds was taking the best player available, pure and simple. Ratliff had nothing to do with team needs. We had already added Spears, Ware, and Canty in the draft. Ellis (a starter) , had just been signed to a contract extension. The odds of Ratliff making the team should have been negligible due to the players in front of him. Parcells saw a good player late and took him. After drafting the other players in front of Ratliff, it is pretty hard to argue that the team's needs were not greater in other areas.

Late round I have no problem with taking the BPA because late round picks are never a sure thing to begin with. But I do think all teams are looking for BPA that fits their needs. With the 18th pick I'm sure they are 4 or 5 players at different position that are worthy of being taken at 18 but need has to play a part.

 

[Rush 2112]

When you're shifting to a 3-4 you need size and depth up front. We needed Ratliff. What happens if Spears or Canty goes down? Coleman's our savior?

Need pick and a good one.

 

[Verdict]

If we were drafting based on "need" Parcells would have drafted a true free safety last year, because we have NEEDED one for quite a while now.

Arguably, the drafting of Barriult, proves Parcells was taking the best player available, because he wasn't going to beat out Roy at strong safety. I highly doubt replacing Roy Williams is a high priority.

I guess one might argue that we drafted Barriult in the hopes he could play free safety. I personally think that that he just happened to be the best player available (strong safety) at the time we picked. Then again, reasonable minds might differ.

Then again, I might have misspelled the guy's name, so what do I know. LOL

 

[AbeBeta]

BPA is sometimes a silly concept -- for example, if you are a 3-4 team and the "BPA" in round 1 is a small outside linebacker then it really isn't the BPA for you. Also, unless there is a real drop off in talent, from one guy to the next, the "BPA" on the draft board is not clear -- usually 4 or 5 guys will be a good value at that position. and usually at least one fits your team and your need.

 

[Verdict]

When you're shifting to a 3-4 you need size and depth up front. We needed Ratliff. What happens if Spears or Canty goes down? Coleman's our savior?

Need pick and a good one.

Look I'll grant you we always "need" good defensive lineman, and we "need" good depth. But are you trying to tell me we "needed" another defensive lineman more than we "needed" players (like a starting free safety) at other positions when we drafted Ratliff? Come on now.....do you "really" believe that we "needed" Ratliff more than a free safety?

 

[blindzebra]

Last years draft was one of the most need driven drafts we have ever had.

This debate comes around every year and it is asinine.

There is no such thing as strictly drafting the best available player, it is a myth.

You have two options when your pick comes, take the 2nd, 3rd or 4th BPA that fits a need, or trade down for better value. With roster limits and a salary cap, you cannot draft a player based on talent level, where you have no need in the first two rounds.

 

[Doomsday101]

If we were drafting based on "need" Parcells would have drafted a true free safety last year, because we have NEEDED one for quite a while now.

Arguably, the drafting of Barriult, proves Parcells was taking the best player available, because he wasn't going to beat out Roy at strong safety. I highly doubt replacing Roy Williams is a high priority.

I guess one might argue that we drafted Barriult in the hopes he could play free safety. I personally think that that he just happened to be the best player available (strong safety) at the time we picked. Then again, reasonable minds might differ.

Then again, I might have misspelled the guy's name, so what do I know. LOL

I'm not saying don't take BPA all I'm saying is need plays a part. Dallas went after Ware because of need and the same with Spears, we did not have to reach for these guys but they were BPA that fit our needs. Day 2 picks going after BPA I have no problem with because as I mentioned many day 2 picks don't make it or are considered projects

 

[Doomsday101]

Last years draft was one of the most need driven drafts we have ever had.

This debate comes around every year and it is asinine.

There is no such thing as strictly drafting the best available player, it is a myth.

You have two options when your pick comes, take the 2nd, 3rd or 4th BPA that fits a need, or trade down for better value. With roster limits and a salary cap, you cannot draft a player based on talent level, where you have no need in the first two rounds.

Very well said and I agree.

 

[blindzebra]

Look I'll grant you we always "need" good defensive lineman, and we "need" good depth. But are you trying to tell me we "needed" another defensive lineman more than we "needed" players (like a starting free safety) at other positions when we drafted Ratliff? Come on now.....do you "really" believe that we "needed" Ratliff more than a free safety?

We drafted a FS before we drafted Ratliff.

 

[AbeBeta]

We drafted a FS before we drafted Ratliff.

too bad he turned out to be an SS

 

[Doomsday101]

I will say there are some exception to the rule and that is when a team has a played rated very high on their board and for what ever reason that player slides in the draft that team may very well select that player because they think so highly of him despite the fact of need.

 

[Verdict]

BPA is sometimes a silly concept -- for example, if you are a 3-4 team and the "BPA" in round 1 is a small outside linebacker then it really isn't the BPA for you. Also, unless there is a real drop off in talent, from one guy to the next, the "BPA" on the draft board is not clear -- usually 4 or 5 guys will be a good value at that position. and usually at least one fits your team and your need.

I would argue in that case that he isn't the best player available. Lets not mix the issues. In my view best player available is choosing the best player available in the draft that fits your scheme without regard to team needs.

This is a different concept than trying to figure out what round value a player might have on a draft board, or where that player might be chosen overall. I'm not saying this information is not important, I'm just saying they are totally different issues.

 

[blindzebra]

I will say there are some exception to the rule and that is when a team has a played rated very high on their board and for what ever reason that player slides in the draft that team may very well select that player because they think so highly of him despite the fact of need.

In later rounds, yes like we did with Witten, but teams not picking very late in the first can't afford to not get a probable starter from their 1st and 2nd round picks.

Teams without major holes can draft BPA regardless of need, the catch is that even the Super Bowl teams in the parody era, have holes.

 

[Verdict]

Last years draft was one of the most need driven drafts we have ever had.

This debate comes around every year and it is asinine.

There is no such thing as strictly drafting the best available player, it is a myth.

You have two options when your pick comes, take the 2nd, 3rd or 4th BPA that fits a need, or trade down for better value. With roster limits and a salary cap, you cannot draft a player based on talent level, where you have no need in the first two rounds.

You are mixing the two issues. They are not the same. You are dissecting the value of a pick. That is the reason why trading up and down occurs.

I am talking about WHEN you do pick, taking the best player available. Not picking on need.

 

[Verdict]

We drafted a FS before we drafted Ratliff.

Barriult was projected to be a strong safety in the NFL. I would argue that drafting him was for depth behind Roy and "hoping" he could play a little bit of free safety. I hope I am proven wrong, but that is how I see it.

 

[Doomsday101]

In later rounds, yes like we did with Witten, but teams not picking very late in the first can't afford to not get a probable starter from their 1st and 2nd round picks.

Teams without major holes can draft BPA regardless of need, the catch is that even the Super Bowl teams in the parody era, have holes.

I agree as a rule of thumb but I also know there are exception to every rule. If Dallas has a player on their board rated very high say a top 10 player and that player slides to 18 then chances are they will take that player.

 

[Rush 2112]

Ware - Need - Needed speed rusher with ability to play up or down.

Spears - Need - Needed big DE who can play SDE in either schem or go inside some in nickel and 4 man line.

Burnett - Need - Big athletic LB who can play in either scheme (if healthy).

Barber - Need - Needed depth at RB with fragile #1 RB. Solid in pass blocking and catching.

Canty - Need - Needed the guy across from Spears to add size to DL.

Beriault - Need - Needed safety depth no matter if he's a SS or FS because we know Dixon/Scott aren't the answer. He's eventually going to FS IMO.

Ratliff - Need - Needed overall size and depth on the DL as older, 4-3 oriented players are phased out.