Prisco: Re-grading 2006 Draft

[DallasInDC]

I have a feeling our 2007 draft won't look much better when it's regraded. It appears to be up to Anthony Spencer to salvage that class. Tons of pundits keep pointing to how great Ireland/Parcells were, but Ireland threw up back to back bricks with the 2006/2007 drafts.

Funny how the consensus at the time was Parcells brought credibility to the draft room yet in hindsight 3 years later it is Jerry who had a bad draft when the picks didn't pan out.

 

[Bach]

I have a feeling our 2007 draft won't look much better when it's regraded. It appears to be up to Anthony Spencer to salvage that class. Tons of pundits keep pointing to how great Ireland/Parcells were, but Ireland threw up back to back bricks with the 2006/2007 drafts.

That's mainly due in comparison to the crap Jerry and Lacewell provided us for nearly a decade before they came on the scene.

What's funny is how Jerry always wants everyone to think he always has final say and input in all our personnel decisions since day one, yet when it's a bad draft then everyone blames Parcells/Ireland.

It's interesting how everyone on here can identify the '06 draft as Parcells', but then the good ones when he was here they act like Jerry was heavily involved.

I'll stay consistent, the '06 draft was definitely BP and Ireland, as were the 2003, 2004, 2005 drafts. And just like the 89-'93 drafts were mainly Jimmy, Ackles, Wooten, etc. And the 94-02 drafts were Jerry and Lacewell.

 

[TheCount]

I grade drafts differently because I'm not naive enough to think every contributor to a team is a starter. 4 of the 8 guys drafted are still on the team 4 years later.

Carpenter
Hatcher
Watkins
McQuistan

A couple more could lose their jobs this year, but the average life of an NFL player is 4 years. I'd give this Draft a C.

Wish you were my Spanish teacher in highschool, that's pretty generous.

 

[Monster Heel]

That's mainly due in comparison to the crap Jerry and Lacewell provided us for nearly a decade before they came on the scene.

What's funny is how Jerry always wants everyone to think he always has final say and input in all our personnel decisions since day one, yet when it's a bad draft then everyone blames Parcells/Ireland.

It's interesting how everyone on here can identify the '06 draft as Parcells', but then the good ones when he was here they act like Jerry was heavily involved.

I'll stay consistent, the '06 draft was definitely BP and Ireland, as were the 2003, 2004, 2005 drafts. And just like the 89-'93 drafts were mainly Jimmy, Ackles, Wooten, etc. And the 94-02 drafts were Jerry and Lacewell.

I agree with what you're saying, but the problem is that even if you attribute every draft from 2003-2007 to Parcells/Ireland (Ireland in 07), you only have 2 good drafts from that regime. 2003 and 2005. 2004 was just so-so at best (you got some contribution from Julius Jones, Reeves turned into a higher comp pick, Crayton's outpeformed the pick used on him, but they missed on the future of the OL). But then you have the 2006/2007 which was a disaster in the case of 2006 and 2007 looks to be on that order.

 

[THUMPER]

I grade drafts differently because I'm not naive enough to think every contributor to a team is a starter. 4 of the 8 guys drafted are still on the team 4 years later.

Carpenter
Hatcher
Watkins
McQuistan

A couple more could lose their jobs this year, but the average life of an NFL player is 4 years. I'd give this Draft a C.

It is one thing to not be a starter but to be a regular contributor. Watkins is the only one that has started at all and he is likely to be cut this year. McQuistan hasn't done anything, Hatcher has filled in some and shown some ability but he regressed last season IMO. Carpenter just seems to be on Wade's crap list. Granted he has some guys ahead of him but he obviously is not impressing anyone during practice or he would see the field more often.

The area you would really expect these guys to make an impact is on STs but none of them are all that there either.

I would have to give that draft a D- since none of the players we selected have made any sort of real contribution. Only Watkins keeps it from being an F.

 

[Hostile]

Wish you were my Spanish teacher in highschool, that's pretty generous.

Drafts aren't Spanish class. That comparison just doesn't work at all. The fact is the life of an NFL player is short. Injuries, very few jobs, and a yearly influx of incoming talent from the NCAA make it very hard for someone to stick with a team.

Expecting a guy to be a starter, a 10 year contributor, or whatever other unrealistic standard is applied is simply not in conjunction with the real world.

Bradie James was a complete failure for 3 years according to some very vocal fans on this site. Where are all of his critics now that he is a vital part of the Defense? Conspicously absent. Typical.

 

[Apollo Creed]

I grade drafts differently because I'm not naive enough to think every contributor to a team is a starter. 4 of the 8 guys drafted are still on the team 4 years later.

Carpenter
Hatcher
Watkins
McQuistan

A couple more could lose their jobs this year, but the average life of an NFL player is 4 years. I'd give this Draft a C.

If this draft was a C what was the 2008 draft? If 2008 was an A than 2006 was a G.

This draft was definitely an F. Hatcher is the only guy that is going to contribute this year.

 

[tomson75]

I have a feeling our 2007 draft won't look much better when it's regraded. It appears to be up to Anthony Spencer to salvage that class. Tons of pundits keep pointing to how great Ireland/Parcells were, but Ireland threw up back to back bricks with the 2006/2007 drafts.

All but one of the players drafted is still with the team. Nick Folk was an outstanding pick. Deon Anderson (despite the fact that I wish we'd upgrade his position) has contributed heavily. Brown and Ball have seen more time on the field than our first rounder from the year before...the jury is still out on Stanback...although I'd guess we will find out in a few months.

Its not as bad as 2006 IMO.

Neither were very good drafts, but neither we complete wastes either.

 

[Monster Heel]

All but one of the players drafted is still with the team. Nick Folk was an outstanding pick. Deon Anderson (despite the fact that I wish we'd upgrade his position) has contributed heavily. Brown and Ball have seen more time on the field than our first rounder from the year before...the jury is still out on Stanback...although I'd guess we will find out in a few months.

Its not as bad as 2006 IMO.

Neither were very good drafts, but neither we complete wastes either.

I can agree with that. It's comparing burnt toast to molded bread. I'd rather have the burnt toast, but I'm not happy with it.

And I completely forgot Ball was part of that class. For some reason I can see him as a Reeves/N Jones type guy that sticks around for a while and may eventually net the team a nice comp pick. Maybe he does more.

 

[tomson75]

Bradie James was a complete failure for 3 years according to some very vocal fans on this site. Where are all of his critics now that he is a vital part of the Defense? Conspicously absent. Typical.

I'm here!

I have to disagree with this...

I was pretty vocal with my disappointment with Bradie, but when he started to come around, I was equally vocal with my approval. I recall many others doing so as well. I'm sure there are those that just clammed up and pouted because they were wrong, but who cares about those posters anyway?

He's a damn fine 2 down LBr and he's been our best guy in the middle for a while....which I still find kind of sad...but i regress.

 

[TheCount]

Drafts aren't Spanish class. That comparison just doesn't work at all. The fact is the life of an NFL player is short. Injuries, very few jobs, and a yearly influx of incoming talent from the NCAA make it very hard for someone to stick with a team.

Expecting a guy to be a starter, a 10 year contributor, or whatever other unrealistic standard is applied is simply not in conjunction with the real world.

Bradie James was a complete failure for 3 years according to some very vocal fans on this site. Where are all of his critics now that he is a vital part of the Defense? Conspicously absent. Typical.

I just don't see what the average lifespan of an NFL career has to do with grading a draft. If that's the case then C- would be the minimum for just about every teams draft.

How you can be surprised a player would get blasted by fans less after improving, I don't get. Bradie shut up his critics, there's nothing wrong with that.

Why not wait for Bobby, Hatcher, Watkins and McQuistan to do the same before calling their critics naive?

 

[Hostile]

I'm here!

I have to disagree with this...

I was pretty vocal with my disappointment with Bradie, but when he started to come around, I was equally vocal with my approval. I recall many others doing so as well. I'm sure there are those that just clammed up and pouted because they were wrong, but who cares about those posters anyway?

He's a damn fine 2 down LBr and he's been our best guy in the middle for a while....which I still find kind of sad...but i regress.

So opinions and therefore grades are sliding?

Not in my opinion, but whatever justifies it.

 

[Hostile]

I just don't see what the average lifespan of an NFL career has to do with grading a draft. If that's the case then C- would be the minimum for just about every teams draft.

How you can be surprised a player would get blasted by fans less after improving, I don't get. Bradie shut up his critics, there's nothing wrong with that.

Why not wait for Bobby, Hatcher, Watkins and McQuistan to do the same before calling their critics naive?

To me, it has everything to do with it. The 1975 Draft class for the Cowboys was called "The Dirty Dozen." The fondness people have for that class would lead you to believe they all were starters. That simply is not true and a couple of them only played for a couple of years. But they all contributed.

Would an NFL team like to find a Pro Bowl player in every Draft? Of course they would. Do they? Hell no. No team has ever accomplished that.

Several things happen when guys make it to the NFL. The game can be too much for them. Success can spoil them. Injuries can shorten their chance. They could get traded. Does a trade lessen the value of the Draft pick? That is what happened with Fasano.

I think for where the Cowboys picked and what their needs were they did an okay job. 4 years later they still have some guys from that Draft who are going to make this team. If that's an F, then the scale is too rigid and the expectations stilted.

I would have this same opinion of any team's Draft, not just the Cowboys.

 

[tomson75]

So opinions and therefore grades are sliding?

Not in my opinion, but whatever justifies it.

I'll leave the "grading" to the real pros. I have no cause for such things anymore.

...but as far as opinions, why not? Am I not allowed to change my opinion on a players performance if he improves?

One of these days I bet you're going to be loving you some Buehler....

 

[Bach]

I agree with what you're saying, but the problem is that even if you attribute every draft from 2003-2007 to Parcells/Ireland (Ireland in 07), you only have 2 good drafts from that regime. .

I agree. What's sad though is how average those may have been they still far surpassed the 8 or so years prior when Jerry and Lacewell ran things.

It does though totally ruin the notion some throw out there that I and others only attribute the good to others like Jimmy and BP and the bad to Jerry. That obviously isn't the case.
And people, including Jerry, can't say he's made all the picks and been fully responsible for all the personnel decisions since day one, when that clearly isn't the case. Sure he's signed off on others decisions, especially during the Jimmy and BP years, but he wasn't he one making the initial decisions, just the one rubberstamping them so he could say he had final say and take credit for them.

 

[Hostile]

I'll leave the "grading" to the real pros. I have no cause for such things anymore.

...but as far as opinions, why not? Am I not allowed to change my opinion on a players performance if he improves?

One of these days I bet you're going to be loving you some Buehler....

Grades are subjective and always have been. Look at the selection of Felix Jones last year over Mendenhall. Some guys wanted Mendenhall and immediately began to rant. In other words, of course you are allowed to change your opinion. That wasn't my point. I was saying that my way of looking at it has less of a chance to have a slide. I saw Bradie James as on the roster and contributing and therefore was not as critical of him as some were. There is a strange need by some fans to have a guy start or he is a failure. Look at Doug Free. He has given no one any evidence that he is a failure yet he must be because Flo kept playing injured last year. I'm sorry, but that is just as faulty as bad wiring.

I will never love a kicker. Folk gets as close as any of them ever will and he has the advantage of being from my alma mater and I sent the Cowboys scout department a letter about him after his game winning kick against BYU in 2006. I saw him as an answer to years of kicking woes. It doesn't mean I like him. I don't like shots either, but I'll get a shot to ward off lockjaw when I step on a nail.

 

[TheCount]

To me, it has everything to do with it. The 1975 Draft class for the Cowboys was called "The Dirty Dozen." The fondness people have for that class would lead you to believe they all were starters. That simply is not true and a couple of them only played for a couple of years. But they all contributed.

Would an NFL team like to find a Pro Bowl player in every Draft? Of course they would. Do they? Hell no. No team has ever accomplished that.

Several things happen when guys make it to the NFL. The game can be too much for them. Success can spoil them. Injuries can shorten their chance. They could get traded. Does a trade lessen the value of the Draft pick? That is what happened with Fasano.

I think for where the Cowboys picked and what their needs were they did an okay job. 4 years later they still have some guys from that Draft who are going to make this team. If that's an F, then the scale is too rigid and the expectations stilted.

I would have this same opinion of any team's Draft, not just the Cowboys.

There are a couple of steps between C and F, I just happen to think C is too generous even with all this hindsight. I do agree that the draft class doesn't deserve an F grade.

I also think it's pretty unfair to start calling people naive for having a differing opinion than yours on what they think of that particular class, but that's just my opinion.

 

[Bach]

There are a couple of steps between C and F, I just happen to think C is too generous even with all this hindsight. I do agree that the draft class doesn't deserve an F grade.

I also think it's pretty unfair to start calling people naive for having a differing opinion than yours on what they think of that particular class, but that's just my opinion.

I agree. That draft was pretty bad, even if we do have a few fringe players from it still on the team. Carpenter is a major bust. To be fair though, the other guy we were supposedly choosing him over was Manny Lawson and he hasn't done much in the league either. I think nearly everyone thought Fasano was a bad pick, if mainly due to us already having Witten and not needing to use a high round pick on another TE. Then guys like Hatcher seemed like a reach and Skyler was a horrible bust and so on.

What I find intriguing is how everyone says you can't really grade a draft immediately, but you can get a fairly good idea early on and not many thought much on the '06 draft at the time and it's only looked worse since then.

Overall I can't see it having a grade higher than a D right now and it could quickly turn into an F if none of the remaining 4 guys make much contribution in the next year or two. I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[tomson75]

Grades are subjective and always have been. Look at the selection of Felix Jones last year over Mendenhall. Some guys wanted Mendenhall and immediately began to rant. In other words, of course you are allowed to change your opinion. That wasn't my point. I was saying that my way of looking at it has less of a chance to have a slide. I saw Bradie James as on the roster and contributing and therefore was not as critical of him as some were. There is a strange need by some fans to have a guy start or he is a failure. Look at Doug Free. He has given no one any evidence that he is a failure yet he must be because Flo kept playing injured last year. I'm sorry, but that is just as faulty as bad wiring.

I agree wholeheartedly. I've found myself to be guilty of this from time to time (I'm sure you'll note my affinity towards questioning Stanback ), as I have been guilty of defending some that haven't merited it for some time(i.e. Carpenter pre-fall 2008).

I don't necessarily dislike either player now, but when I get all riled up in a discussion on this forum I can often sway my own better judgement in order to make a point...even when I know that's not how I actually think or feel. I shouldn't, but it has happened.

I can empathize with those that you're referring to, but, like yourself, I'd prefer not to join in their misery and apparent denial of common sense.

I didn't realize you were primarily referring to the "He's a third rounder and he doesn't start....he's a bust, and should be traded" crowd.

I will never love a kicker. Folk gets as close as any of them ever will and he has the advantage of being from my alma mater and I sent the Cowboys scout department a letter about him after his game winning kick against BYU in 2006. I saw him as an answer to years of kicking woes. It doesn't mean I like him. I don't like shots either, but I'll get a shot to ward off lockjaw when I step on a nail.

Lmao...but just what IF....this guy can actually tackle? He used to be a safety...if he can get downfield and make tackles after he booms the ball down the field...surely that must merit some measure of respect? Even from you? :

 

[Hostile]

There are a couple of steps between C and F, I just happen to think C is too generous even with all this hindsight. I do agree that the draft class doesn't deserve an F grade.

I also think it's pretty unfair to start calling people naive for having a differing opinion than yours on what they think of that particular class, but that's just my opinion.

Then I am unfair. I will never genuflect just to be PC. Unrealistic expectations are naive. It is as simple as that.

I could have easily added Fasano to the list and made it 5 of the 8 players are still in the NFL 4 years later. In fact I probably should because the measure of a draft is how many make it and for how long and what do they add. To me a Draft gets high grades when they end up with superstars, All Pros, Pro Bowlers, and Hall of Famers.

Some would have me believe that selecting Jimmy Smith in 1992 was a bad choice because he never caught a pass in Dallas. I disagree because the guy went on to have a stellar career. Did Jerry give up on him too soon? Did Jimmy? Who cares who did? They did what they felt was right at the time for the team. It was a good selection, unfortunately for us as Cowboys fans we got to enjoy very little of it.

The fact of the matter is my grade of C is more in line with what actually happens in the NFL to every team with regards to Drafts. They have a core group of players who are unspectacular but contribute for a while and then the team moves on. In other words, average and last time I checked, C was known as average. It has been a long time since I was in school so maybe the PC world has moved that scale down and I am blissfully unaware.