Piecing together what happened on day one of the draft

[hra8700]

Floyd was over rated by many clearly- if not why did he last until 23?

So do you try and rearrange your entire front line; perhaps your front 7 for one player- who clearly is not all that great since so many passed on him?

That was my big question. When a player falls so far, you have to wonder if teams knew something outsiders didn't. Every shred of evidence I've seen says that he actually just fell for scheme/need reasons of all the teams picking ahead of the vikings (and perhaps each team having a pet cat ranked above him that other teams didn't value as much, e.g. Long to Bears, Hayden to Raiders). I don't think any team had him as a top 3 pick like outsiders said, but from all indications he was top 15 at least on almost every board.

Tweet from Ian Rappaport:
"Tried to find out from scouts why Sharrif Floyd fell in the draft. Can't find one reason. He just kinda did. So many like him as a player"

If there was a reason a player fell, it would come out at this point. No reason for a team to hide why they didn't like a player.

You can scheme around a lot of different things without changing the rest of your personnel. If he doesn't work very well the first year, and he looks like he can be dominant in the right scheme (which you never know for any player you draft, maybe he'll just bust), then yes, you change your personnel. Players like Ratliff and Spencer and Hatcher after this year are either free agents or are being paid an unguaranteed salary at what they're worth. If you realize Floyd can be a dominant player in camp...yes, you change your scheme to fit him.

 

[Mr_Bill]

I know this is beaten to death, but I've seen or read every interview from cowboys coaches/executives about the draft (and the post draft pressor for the jets, vikings, bears, and giants) and read all of Broaddus's tweets and radio interviews. In one way or another I think all of this is pretty much confirmed:

We had 19 players rated as 1st round grades (as per jerry, post draft press conference 1). Broaddus believes Floyd, Werner, and Patterson were left on our board with 1st round grades (interview, 105.3).

So, our board presumably had Fisher, Joeckel, Jordan, Johnson, Ansah, Mingo, Cooper, Austin, Milliner, Warmack, Fluker, Hayden, Richardson, Lotulelei, Vaccaro, Jones, Floyd, Werner, Patterson with 1st round grades.

Various people say that Floyd was 7 on our board. Broaddus says scouts had Floyd a tier above Richardson/Lotulelei.

Our targets at 18 were Warmack, Cooper, Vaccaro (possibly Fluker and Richardson, this is less clear). When they were all taken, highest on our board by far was Floyd. Garrett and Ciskowski wanted to make the pick, but Kiffin/Marinelli did not consider him a scheme fit. Jerry/Stephen decided it wasn't worth spending the 18 on a player that didn't fit the scheme, and they really wanted to improve the offensive line and thought dline was not a need position. I think IF we did think Floyd was a scheme fit we would have taken him, we weren't completely hell bent on getting an interior olineman as Jerry makes it seem. Their hope was to take either Pugh or Frederick with a trade down. They had both as 2nd round picks (Frederick 22nd overall, Pugh somewhere comparable).

I don't think they had a lot of discussions about what they'd do if Floyd dropped to 18. The vikings gm if you watch the post draft presser, said that they worked out hundreds of scenarios for the draft, and in none of them did they think Floyd would drop to them at 23. I think the cowboys were in a similar situation, which explains why there was disagreement.

This quote from Ciskowski makes it clear that Jerry wasn't blowing smoke about Floyd not being a scheme fit (my initial thought, since every other draft analyst seemed to think Floyd was the perfect penetrating 3-technique):

“I think in a lot of cases, it’s kind of like a bridge, we bring the players to the bridge and the coaches have to take them across. The main thing is just to communicate exactly what the coach wants. There was a defensive tackle from Georgia, John Jenkins, who as a matter of fact, was drafted by New Orleans. If we were still in the 3-4, we would’ve liked him as a nose [tackle]. But now that we’ve transitioned back to a 4-3, he really doesn’t fit what we’re looking for. So a lot of it is about the new coach educating us on what he wants at each position and it’s our job to go out and find it.”

So, they traded down. Broaddus says based on the cowboys chart they used when he was working (he doesn't think they've changed it) Minnesota gave 625 to get 700. Atlanta gave 850 for 800. Dallas gave 810 for 675. So they lost by a lot on the chart, but because they didn't like anyone at 18 and wanted an offensive lineman, they traded down.

I think they would have traded down again except Pugh and Long went off the board immediately, and as Jerry said, Frederick was the "last of the mohicans".


So that's that. Sorry for the long post, but the quote from Ciskowski and Broadus's radio interview (that I didn't read/hear until just now) clenched two points that were still somewhat confusing:

1. The scouts did have Floyd rated highly, they did not pick Floyd because they didn't think he was a scheme fit.

2. They did not get value on their trade chart.

http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***/2013/04/tom-ciskowski-gives-some-insight-one-why-dallas-cowboys-mightve-passed-on-shariff-floyd.html/

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/?podcast_url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.podtrac.com%2Fpts%2Fredirect.mp3%2Fnyc.podcast.play.it%2Fmedia%2Fd0%2Fd0%2Fd1%2Fd2%2FdO%2FdN%2FdS%2F12ONS_3.MP3%3Fauthtok%3D5562074697461638816_SRQvkhTEV6XuiKhX61pvjCFLZw&podcast_name=Bryan+Broaddus+discusses+pros+and+cons+of+Picking+Frederick&podcast_artist=105.3+The+Fan%2C+CBS+Radio+Dallas&station_id=91&tag=&dcid=CBS.DALLAS

Finally, someone has utilized time, effort, and reasoning capacity (without prejudice) to piece together a very plausible scenario of what happened last Thursday.

Outstanding work!

I see that in a later post, you added in Eifert to the mix. I have a feeling that he played some part in the discussions when they were on the clock at 19. I assume they felt that Escobar and/or Kelce would be available to them later, and also felt that getting an offensive lineman and then tight end would work out better than taking Eifert and hoping an OL would drop. It is interesting to speculate as to whether they could have had both Eifert and Frederick. Of course, then they would have lost out on either Williams or Wilcox.

 

[speedkilz88]

It sounds like they don't see him as a pass rushing 3 and more of a two down player at this time, if they were still in the 3-4 they would have taken him to play NT. Broaddus disagrees with this thinking and thinks he has shown to be a 3 down player.

Also on talkin cowboys it was said that they would have taken Richardson because they did see him as a 3

 

[CashMan]

That was my big question. When a player falls so far, you have to wonder if teams knew something outsiders didn't. Every shred of evidence I've seen says that he actually just fell for scheme/need reasons of all the teams picking ahead of the vikings (and perhaps each team having a pet cat ranked above him that other teams didn't value as much, e.g. Long to Bears, Hayden to Raiders). I don't think any team had him as a top 3 pick like outsiders said, but from all indications he was top 15 at least on almost every board.

Tweet from Ian Rappaport:
"Tried to find out from scouts why Sharrif Floyd fell in the draft. Can't find one reason. He just kinda did. So many like him as a player"

If there was a reason a player fell, it would come out at this point. No reason for a team to hide why they didn't like a player.

You can scheme around a lot of different things without changing the rest of your personnel. If he doesn't work very well the first year, and he looks like he can be dominant in the right scheme (which you never know for any player you draft, maybe he'll just bust), then yes, you change your personnel. Players like Ratliff and Spencer and Hatcher after this year are either free agents or are being paid an unguaranteed salary at what they're worth. If you realize Floyd can be a dominant player in camp...yes, you change your scheme to fit him.

Is it possible, that with the pay scale for rookies now, OL become more valuable? And you just saw a run of them?

If I were sitting at 18, my picks would of been:

Eifert or
Floyd

For me, if the WR does well, then I can accept the trade. I don't doubt the guy they took at 31, just the reach.

 

[xwalker]

That was my big question. When a player falls so far, you have to wonder if teams knew something outsiders didn't. Every shred of evidence I've seen says that he actually just fell for scheme/need reasons of all the teams picking ahead of the vikings (and perhaps each team having a pet cat ranked above him that other teams didn't value as much, e.g. Long to Bears, Hayden to Raiders). I don't think any team had him as a top 3 pick like outsiders said, but from all indications he was top 15 at least on almost every board.

Tweet from Ian Rappaport:
"Tried to find out from scouts why Sharrif Floyd fell in the draft. Can't find one reason. He just kinda did. So many like him as a player"

If there was a reason a player fell, it would come out at this point. No reason for a team to hide why they didn't like a player.

You can scheme around a lot of different things without changing the rest of your personnel. If he doesn't work very well the first year, and he looks like he can be dominant in the right scheme (which you never know for any player you draft, maybe he'll just bust), then yes, you change your personnel. Players like Ratliff and Spencer and Hatcher after this year are either free agents or are being paid an unguaranteed salary at what they're worth. If you realize Floyd can be a dominant player in camp...yes, you change your scheme to fit him.

I think that you adapt scheme to existing players on the roster but not to players that you have not yet drafted.

 

[Mr_Bill]

[snip]

You can scheme around a lot of different things without changing the rest of your personnel. If he doesn't work very well the first year, and he looks like he can be dominant in the right scheme (which you never know for any player you draft, maybe he'll just bust), then yes, you change your personnel. Players like Ratliff and Spencer and Hatcher after this year are either free agents or are being paid an unguaranteed salary at what they're worth. If you realize Floyd can be a dominant player in camp...yes, you change your scheme to fit him.

I believe you only do that for a player you already have, of for a true franchise-type player -- one that comes along once or twice in a decade. Not for just any potential draft pick (not even in the first round) or free agent.

One might argue that they are doing that with Escobar, and that would probably be true. The difference is that the Escobar shift is something the coaches WANT to do. That does not seem to be true with Floyd.

Most people agree that the head coach should shape the direction of the draft and have a strong hand in the selections. Also, that scouts recommendations must be strongly considered. However, when a position coach, who actually has to work with the player says he doesn't fit, and doesn't want him, you do not shove him down his throat.

If the coach is wrong, get a new coach ... but not during the draft.

 

[loblolly7]

One additional point, I have a distinct memory of Jerry stating they wanted an additional 3rd round pick. Consequently, it was my view he valued that more than the player or players that remained. Finally, the DL as a group were solid, but none of them were the pure dominating type sack type folks with the exception of Damontre Moore, who went to the Giants in the 3rd. So, even though Floyd might of been ranked number 7th on the board, he might not of been that highly rated in prior of for that matter future drafts.

 

[The Realist]

Is it possible, that with the pay scale for rookies now, OL become more valuable? And you just saw a run of them?If I were sitting at 18, my picks would of been:

Eifert or
Floyd

For me, if the WR does well, then I can accept the trade. I don't doubt the guy they took at 31, just the reach.

It's not that they are more valuable. They have always been valuable.

It's just easier to use a 1 or a top 10 pick on them now due to the rookie wage scale.

To me it's laughable that Cooper went 7 and Warmack went 10.

As if they are that much better than Hutchinson 17, Iupati 17, Decastro 26, Faneca 26, Grubbs 29, Mankins 32, etc, etc.

It's not that they are better. It's that A) this was a weak draft and, B) 1st round picks are cheaper due to rookie wage scale so teams are more apt to use a 1st on OL.

 

[morasp]

It's possible they were keeping a "clean" board.

That's exactly what Ciskowski said in a pre draft interview. It was on talking cowboys. At the time I didn't think much about it but it sure seems like it caused some confusion when the rubber met the road.

I really like the way the draft went. Offensive line has been an obvious problem for so long it isn't funny. Good center play is critical to how well the offensive line does. After we lost Mark Stepnoski in the 90s the offense really suffered even though we had the same core group that just won super bowls. It wasn't until they signed Ray Donaldson that things got back to normal. I think Frederick with his combination of strength and football intelligence will instantly upgrade our passing and running attack on offense. Going into the draft one of our former lineman said we should take Warmack because our line needed an attitude. From what I've read about Frederick, he will probably add that too.

 

[CashMan]

Floyd was over rated by many clearly- if not why did he last until 23?

So do you try and rearrange your entire front line; perhaps your front 7 for one player- who clearly is not all that great since so many passed on him?

I guess Aaron Rogers was too. He was slotted for the #1 pick at one point. Guess he is just over rated...

 

[CashMan]

It's not that they are more valuable. They have always been valuable.

It's just easier to use a 1 or a top 10 pick on them now due to the rookie wage scale.

To me it's laughable that Cooper went 7 and Warmack went 10.

As if they are that much better than Hutchinson 17, Iupati 17, Decastro 26, Faneca 26, Grubbs 29, Mankins 32, etc, etc.

It's not that they are better. It's that A) this was a weak draft and, B) 1st round picks are cheaper due to rookie wage scale so teams are more apt to use a 1st on OL.

I didn't say they were better, I said more valuable, as in cost effectiveness.

IMO, the draft became more valuable as a whole, with the rookie wage scale. Pick are more valuable. With money being cut from rookies, it has to go somewhere, and rather spend big money on the last couple year of his deal, you can go and get a cheap rookie to take him place. I think the 49ers realized this, maximized this, and executed it, in the draft.

 

[The Realist]

I didn't say they were better, I said more valuable, as in cost effectiveness.

IMO, the draft became more valuable as a whole, with the rookie wage scale. Pick are more valuable. With money being cut from rookies, it has to go somewhere, and rather spend big money on the last couple year of his deal, you can go and get a cheap rookie to take him place. I think the 49ers realized this, maximized this, and executed it, in the draft.

Uh, I didn't say you said they were better. They aren't.

"It's just easier to use a 1 or a top 10 pick on them now due to the rookie wage scale."

It's not that they are better. It's that A) this was a weak draft and, B) 1st round picks are cheaper due to rookie wage scale so teams are more apt to use a 1st on OL.

One might interpret that as being more cost effective. Hopefully.

 

[CashMan]

One might interpret that as being more cost effective. Hopefully.

I really think so. I think, even with a deeper draft, you will see something similar, to what happened in this draft. I really thought when Miami traded up, Lane Johnson was going to get picked. That would of been 3 OTs, in the 1st 3 picks.

 

[hra8700]

Further confirmation.

http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.co...-remains-puzzling-even-to-cowboys-scouts.html

This type of thing is so frustrating...

 

[mmillman]

Dallas should take BPA and stay true to their board. Trading down was stupid if Floyd was ranked 7 and they traded down to draft a Center that was ranked by them to be a 2nd round talent.

Going against your head scout and coach is idiotic also.

On top of that they didn't get enough to trade down that many slots in the first round.

On top of that you might think twice about helping SF get better at a need position.

 

[The Realist]

Great call passing up on Floyd, filling biggest need on the team on interior OL, and getting a stud WR in the process for moving down.

SF reached for a 2nd round S at 18. We "reached" for a 2nd round C 2 picks away from 2nd round.


Freddo will have more impact on team in his career than Reid/Floyd will. So will Williams.

 

[morasp]

Great call passing up on Floyd, filling biggest need on the team on interior OL, and getting a stud WR in the process for moving down.

SF reached for a 2nd round S at 18. We "reached" for a 2nd round C 2 picks away from 2nd round.


Freddo will have more impact on team in his career than Reid/Floyd will. So will Williams.

Exactly correct. I read this morning that Kiffin may have liked Brian Price better than Floyd. Fredericks will start and improve both our passing and rushing. We had Fredericks rated higher than Reid that SF took at 18.

 

[Wood]

"Jerry/Stephen decided it wasn't worth spending the 18 on a player that didn't fit the scheme, and they really wanted to improve the offensive line and thought dline was not a need position."

And there boys and girls is why this team is in perpetual mediocrity. They can't get out of their own way.

 

[Wolfpack]

Further confirmation.

http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.co...-remains-puzzling-even-to-cowboys-scouts.html

This type of thing is so frustrating...

That article talks about going through multiple trade down scenarios, including a trade down to 31 and what the value of that trade down should be. They practice all this stuff...for real. Guess which two guy's missed practice? What's the point of doing all that then?

 

[touchstone]

That article talks about going through multiple trade down scenarios, including a trade down to 31 and what the value of that trade down should be. They practice all this stuff...for real. Guess which two guy's missed practice? What's the point of doing all that then?

The trade down makes sense. This was a deep draft, unlike some years that factored into the trade chart, and they risked losing the last sure starter OL, the team has a gaping hole at center (and G and ORT), and they knew they coulf get an additonal good player at #74 (perhaps one who would equate to a much hgher pick in a mor typically thinner draft) as well a #31. Unfortunately, the team has several giant holes including center and Jerry wasn't wiling to risk no improvement on the OL which had essentially made our offense dysfunctial; we could neither run nor pass protect last year and needed a herculean effert from Romo nealry every game to have a chance of winning. The extra pick asured him of an additional high quality pick to fill another of the many roster holes. Unfortunately, the poor poor prior drafts made this an easy choice- we are one injury away from desperation at a number of positons. Also, the trade value charts are old and were based on a 5 year average from nearly twenty years ago if they are stil using the one JJ commissioned. Even if not, they aren't meant to be blindly followed irrespective of who will actually be available in a specific draft. They are just a frame of reference for a quick evaluation.