Twitter: PFF ranks Cowboys rookie class 24th in the league

[aria]

In a league where if you get two starters in a draft class you're doing well, Dallas has done better than most teams.

The NFL draft has more misses than hits. Occasionally you might hit over 50% in a draft class, but that is the exception, not the rule.

Over the last 10 years Dallas has had 86 picks.
57 are still in the NFL, 29 are not. That's a 66% rate on picking players. That's above average.

Out of those 57 players in the NFL, 31 were on the team this year. That's a 55% rate. That's an average of 3 players per year over 10 years. Again above average.

Of those 31still on the team, 16 are starters. That's 52%. That's almost 2 starters per year over 10 years. Again above average.

The numbers will tell you that Dallas is an above average team when it comes to drafting.

Yet their record says otherwise. When they draft 3 guys that start for them but maybe only 1 would start for another team than that doesn’t make them good at drafting. When they draft a RB with the number 4 overall pick that’s not good drafting.

Every year there are teams that use top 10 picks on QB’s who start for one or two years before being a back up or they never turn out to be that good, does that mean those teams are good at drafting because they drafted a starter that was below average?

LVE has had one good year and the others have been below average but I guess that’s considered a good draft pick because he’s starting on one of the worst defenses in the league?

This entire starting thing is totally blown out of proportion. Again, coaching definitely plays a part but we should have had many more playoff appearances over the past 2 decades, based on talent alone, if we drafted half as good as some of you claim.

 

[starman22]

Who was ranked higher? I'd have to see as well as pff's reasoning.

Almost everyone it would seem.

 

[aria]

You're missing my point. You tried to discredit Biadasz because he started due to injury as if he was a inferior player who couldn't get on the field. You can use that argument for Dinucci. But the talent gap between Looney and Biadiasz wasn't that great and they simply went with the veteran. That's more indicative of this coaching staff than it is Tyler Biadasz's talent level.

So I didn't bring up Brady to prove that Biadasz would become the best center to ever play the game. I'm saying that yes, even the greatest quarterback of all time got into the game because of injury. Its a flawed angle on your part.

Joe Looney was horrendous, giving a rookie time to see how he does over one of the worst centers in the league isn’t some ringing endorsement from the coaches nor does it mean Biadasz was a good pick. He may pan out but your flawed logic that he started some games over a player as bad as Looney somehow means he was a good pick is ridiculous.

 

[black label]

sounds good rofl

 

[black label]

imagine pff talk haha

 

[black label]

Jiggs p0wnes off bra

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Oh, I didn’t realize we were only talking about the 2020 draft. 4 starters is not a quality draft no matter how you slice it. You think the fact that DiNucci started a game adds to having 2020 being a quality draft? Lol, you gotta be kidding me.

I still named 4-5 receivers that were taken much later than Lamb and had better ratings than the rating you posted to use as a proving point that he was a good 1st round pick. If you consider Lamb a quality 14th overall pick than what do you consider the other guys who had better ratings and were drafted in the 2nd round, including several in the mid 40’s overall and even one in the late 50’s?

A few things...
Lamb was not the 14th overall pick.....

Lamb had similar seasons to what Higgins and Claypool did. Justin Jefferson is the only one who just killed everyone in the draft. He had a great season. Much better than Lamb. It was a deep class for wide receivers and Cowboys got one.

You seem to be lost but when I say they got 4 starters I’m referencing Lamb, Gallimore, Diggs and Biadiasz....not sure where the confusion lies.......

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Joe Looney was horrendous, giving a rookie time to see how he does over one of the worst centers in the league isn’t some ringing endorsement from the coaches nor does it mean Biadasz was a good pick. He may pan out but your flawed logic that he started some games over a player as bad as Looney somehow means he was a good pick is ridiculous.

So how is he a bad pick then? What qualifies him to be a bad pick?

I don’t get you. You can be clearly wrong and won’t ever admit it. Have you ever on this site admitted you were and took accountability for it?

 

[12+88=7]

Yet their record says otherwise. When they draft 3 guys that start for them but maybe only 1 would start for another team than that doesn’t make them good at drafting. When they draft a RB with the number 4 overall pick that’s not good drafting.

Every year there are teams that use top 10 picks on QB’s who start for one or two years before being a back up or they never turn out to be that good, does that mean those teams are good at drafting because they drafted a starter that was below average?

LVE has had one good year and the others have been below average but I guess that’s considered a good draft pick because he’s starting on one of the worst defenses in the league?

This entire starting thing is totally blown out of proportion. Again, coaching definitely plays a part but we should have had many more playoff appearances over the past 2 decades, based on talent alone, if we drafted half as good as some of you claim.

Your way of thinking is not how you would quantify a successful draft or draft pick.

A starter for multiple seasons is not a good pick because the team had no playoff success. The team didn't win so it was a bad pick. Or you deem the pick would only be starting in Dallas and no where else. Tell that to Hitchens, Wilson, and Ward who started and won a ring in KC last year.

Example of this thinking would be Joe Thomas. Probably the best left tackle during his playing days, but Cleveland didn't win any games, let alone playoff games during his tenure. So this pick would not be considered successful.

Another example Demarcus Ware. How many playoff games did Dallas win with him? Throw in Jason Witten.

A draft class is successful by the contribution you get from it. Byron Jones started 73 out of 79 games over 5 years for Dallas, and started 14 more for Miami, but you would consider him a failed draft pick.

Draft picks are successful by the contribution they bring to the team, and not team wins and losses.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Draft picks are successful by the contribution they bring to the team, and not team wins and losses.

QBs and random rookies don't have win loss records and for the same reason: team game.

I judge by quality which is *sometimes* demonstrated by contribution, if the guy gets a chance. Looks like Anae has some quality, though he only got 6 snaps to make his contribution on defense.

I can't see complaining about this draft. Looked like a homerun on draft day, and I don't see a reason to change that. Tough year and a tough team to shine in as a rookie. Even so, we saw some shine. I see 3 starters for next year, and a rotational DT.

 

[aria]

A few things...
Lamb was not the 14th overall pick.....

Lamb had similar seasons to what Higgins and Claypool did. Justin Jefferson is the only one who just killed everyone in the draft. He had a great season. Much better than Lamb. It was a deep class for wide receivers and Cowboys got one.

You seem to be lost but when I say they got 4 starters I’m referencing Lamb, Gallimore, Diggs and Biadiasz....not sure where the confusion lies.......

17th pick, typo. You keep dodging it, you said Lamb was a great value for where he was chosen yet I named several others that had better ratings so how exactly is that good drafting on the Cowboys part? There’s guys they could have had late in the 2nd and even 3rd that performed better than Lamb. Perhaps you’re the one who is confused.

Gallimore and Biadasz weren’t good, just because they started and were liabilities doesn’t mean they were good draft picks (as of now) why is this difficult for you to understand? You’re automatically assuming a guy who starts, regardless of circumstances or how well they played, means they were good picks.

That’s laughable and even contradicts some of your own arguments. When you named a few guys were drafted higher than Lamb or Diggs but had lower ratings, you were trying to make a point that those other teams didn’t draft well. Now when I bring up players that played better and were drafted lower, you only give credit to one of those guys and still defend the Lamb pick.

 

[aria]

So how is he a bad pick then? What qualifies him to be a bad pick?

I don’t get you. You can be clearly wrong and won’t ever admit it. Have you ever on this site admitted you were and took accountability for it?

Multiple times, as much as you stalk me I figured you would know that. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? You claimed that Biadasz was a good pick because he started over a guy a) who was injured and b) who was one of the worst centers in the league.

How on earth does starting over one of the worst centers in the league and wouldn’t even be a back up on most teams make Biadasz a good pick? Were you “low key faded when you were trying to comprehend this?

 

[aria]

Your way of thinking is not how you would quantify a successful draft or draft pick.

A starter for multiple seasons is not a good pick because the team had no playoff success. The team didn't win so it was a bad pick. Or you deem the pick would only be starting in Dallas and no where else. Tell that to Hitchens, Wilson, and Ward who started and won a ring in KC last year.

Example of this thinking would be Joe Thomas. Probably the best left tackle during his playing days, but Cleveland didn't win any games, let alone playoff games during his tenure. So this pick would not be considered successful.

Another example Demarcus Ware. How many playoff games did Dallas win with him? Throw in Jason Witten.

A draft class is successful by the contribution you get from it. Byron Jones started 73 out of 79 games over 5 years for Dallas, and started 14 more for Miami, but you would consider him a failed draft pick.

Draft picks are successful by the contribution they bring to the team, and not team wins and losses.

I understand what you’re saying and even agree with most of it but look at the players I referenced as a direct reply to the person I was replying to. Do you really think Biadasz was a good pick (based on last year) when he was one of the lowest rated centers and started a few games over Joe Looney who was even worse? If Joe Looney goes on to another team and wins a Super Bowl than we can revisit this.

I like Byron and wish we would of kept him over zeke and Jaylon. He was a pro bowler and consistent, which is different than guys who suck but some people consider it a good draft pick because they started. I don’t care if xyz player starts 2-3 years in a row, if they are a liability and give up big plays regularly then they are not a good pick.

 

[kumizi]

It's funny to me that people that criticize PFF the most have the least understanding of what they do. They're not grading the draft haul for each team. They're grading the combined on field performance of all draft classes last season. Diggs missed a lot of time so he couldnt accumulate as much positive impact. DiNucci's negative performance brought the overall grade down.

This isn't PFF saying the Cowboys had the 24th most talented draft class.

 

[Sydla]

I agree, but PFF specifically said they dinged the team for Nooch. The 7th rounder.

Wild. You'd think they'd look at themselves and say "This actually makes no sense, grading-wise", but like I said: That's PFF for you.

Their logic is downright idiotic.

 

[12+88=7]

I understand what you’re saying and even agree with most of it but look at the players I referenced as a direct reply to the person I was replying to. Do you really think Biadasz was a good pick (based on last year) when he was one of the lowest rated centers and started a few games over Joe Looney who was even worse? If Joe Looney goes on to another team and wins a Super Bowl than we can revisit this.

I like Byron and wish we would of kept him over zeke and Jaylon. He was a pro bowler and consistent, which is different than guys who suck but some people consider it a good draft pick because they started. I don’t care if xyz player starts 2-3 years in a row, if they are a liability and give up big plays regularly then they are not a good pick.

Let's say Biadasz we're to start the next three years. And he was an above average center, but not considered a top center in the league.

Would you categorize that as a good pick or bad?

 

[aria]

Let's say Biadasz we're to start the next three years. And he was an above average center, but not considered a top center in the league.

Would you categorize that as a good pick or bad?

Good, which is why I’ve repeatedly said I’m not calling him a good draft pick based on what he’s done so far but I think/hope he will improve.

Yet I have people telling me that because he started his rookie year (in place of an injured and horrible center; Looney) then that automatically means he was a good draft pick and his performance was irrelevant because he had a higher rating than another center drafted before him.

“He started and he wasn’t the worst (very close to it though) so that must mean he was a good pick”. Unreal.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

17th pick, typo. You keep dodging it, you said Lamb was a great value for where he was chosen yet I named several others that had better ratings so how exactly is that good drafting on the Cowboys part? There’s guys they could have had late in the 2nd and even 3rd that performed better than Lamb. Perhaps you’re the one who is confused.

Gallimore and Biadasz weren’t good, just because they started and were liabilities doesn’t mean they were good draft picks (as of now) why is this difficult for you to understand? You’re automatically assuming a guy who starts, regardless of circumstances or how well they played, means they were good picks.

That’s laughable and even contradicts some of your own arguments. When you named a few guys were drafted higher than Lamb or Diggs but had lower ratings, you were trying to make a point that those other teams didn’t draft well. Now when I bring up players that played better and were drafted lower, you only give credit to one of those guys and still defend the Lamb pick.

I just used the same pff stats you used to discredit Lamb to show you that Gallimore, Diggs and Biadiasz had the best grades of their position. You keep saying they aren’t good yet they had good grades for rookies......what are you confused about?

You completely missed my point. I said the Cowboys had 4 starters and you tried to discredit it by saying they weren’t good yet they had some of the best grades for rookies.

And what guys late in the 2nd and 3rd were better than Lamb? You’re trying too hard to be contrarian......

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Multiple times, as much as you stalk me I figured you would know that. Why is this so difficult for you to understand? You claimed that Biadasz was a good pick because he started over a guy a) who was injured and b) who was one of the worst centers in the league.

How on earth does starting over one of the worst centers in the league and wouldn’t even be a back up on most teams make Biadasz a good pick? Were you “low key faded when you were trying to comprehend this?

He also grades out as the best center according to your precious pff ratings...I don’t know what your issue is with Looney but he did not grade out as the worst center in the league. Just stay lying lol....you have never admitted you was wrong. You argue until the other poster get tired.

 

[aria]

I just used the same pff stats you used to discredit Lamb to show you that Gallimore, Diggs and Biadiasz had the best grades of their position. You keep saying they aren’t good yet they had good grades for rookies......what are you confused about?

You completely missed my point. I said the Cowboys had 4 starters and you tried to discredit it by saying they weren’t good yet they had some of the best grades for rookies.

And what guys late in the 2nd and 3rd were better than Lamb? You’re trying too hard to be contrarian......

Lol, lets try this one more time, I’ll try to keep it as simple as possible. How many rookie centers started games this year, how many games did they start and what were there scores?

I am discrediting it, when there is no competition, you don’t automatically become good even when your stats suck, just because you started a few games and beat out one of the worst centers in the league. So you’re saying of player A was the worst center in the league and player B was the 3rd or 4th center in the league, than player B was a good pick. Lay down the pipe. Based on that logic, Dwayne Haskins was a good pick because he had better stats than Dinucci. That’s a joke.

What picks were better than Lamb?! Maybe that explains why you never gave me a coherent response last night, because you lack basic reading comprehension. I literally named 4-5 players with better stats than Lamb and who were taken much later in the draft. I’m not doing it again, you are so lost.