Twitter: Rapoport: The Cowboys are still looking for edge help, hosting former Lions DE Jason Jones

[Toruk_Makto]

Columnist Rick Gosselin recently held a chat to talk all things D-FW sports. Here are some highlights:

Question: How have the Cowboys done in the later rounds of the past few drafts in your opinion? I can't really pick out any good finds that they've snatched up. Dwayne Harris would get my vote for best pick but he's gone...

Gosselin: Past few? Try the past several drafts. This is where the Cowboys have fumbled the ball. When this franchise was competing for Super Bowls, Jimmy Johnson was finding gems in the later rounds -- a Leon Lett and a Brock Marion in the seventh, a Ron Stone in the fourth, Larry Brown in the 12th -- starter caliber players, in many cases Pro Bowl caliber players. But those contributing players from the later rounds have been absent for too long, which is why this team has been struggling. Every NFL team can have a good draft in the first three rounds of the draft, the premium rounds. Those players are by and large known commodities. But it's how well you fare in rounds four through seven that can make a good draft great.

http://sportsday.***BANNED-URL***/d...vs-stars-questions-11-monday-march-28-ask-now

Quick to point to columnists if they agree with you (even when they are egregiously wrong)....meanwhile you've made your hay here on the Zone professing to be the smartest guy in the room who routinely dismisses those same columnists as idiots completely out of their depth.

That is....convenient.

 

[Idgit]

Pretty much this.

I always laugh when people say things like if we didn't walk away with 3 above average starters and quality depth then the draft was a bust!

Clearly, most fans have little idea what a reasonable hit rate looks like.

That said, the best drafting teams clearly do still outperform us. It's where we need to improve, given how we've set the team up. Part of it's player selection. Part of it's player development. It requires stability on the staff and time to put the consistency in place.

If we draft a QB high to develop this year, we're going to need even more of that. There really aren't short cuts if you're trying to build an identity.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Clearly, most fans have little idea what a reasonable hit rate looks like.

That said, the best drafting teams clearly do still outperform us. It's where we need to improve, given how we've set the team up. Part of it's player selection. Part of it's player development. It requires stability on the staff and time to put the consistency in place.

If we draft a QB high to develop this year, we're going to need even more of that. There really aren't short cuts if you're trying to build an identity.

Causation verse correlation is always something I wonder about when it comes to drafting. Every research i've seen is that no team has shown long-term persistence in great drafting.

Do we think the great teams are great drafters because they hit...perhaps by chance...on a cluster of great drafts....which made them great teams? Because if we know over the long-term no teams have shown the ability to outperform perhaps we're being fooled by randomness? I'd say yes. And i'm in good company.

Google "NFL teams have no idea what theyre doing in the draft"

 

[jobberone]

Gosselin's done nothing more than stagger around making farting noises since he gave up the only thing he was good at in the first place. He can barely string together a rational thought. On top of that, he's got a face that screams "punch me harder."

He's a giant, annoying Yutz.

Don't hold back. Tell us what you really think!

 

[jobberone]

Causation verse correlation is always something I wonder about when it comes to drafting. Every research i've seen is that no team has shown long-term persistence in great drafting.

Do we think the great teams are great drafters because they hit...perhaps by chance...on a cluster of great drafts....which made them great teams? Because if we know over the long-term no teams have shown the ability to outperform perhaps we're being fooled by randomness? I'd say yes. And i'm in good company.

Google "NFL teams have no idea what theyre doing in the draft"

I think some are better than others long term. We did for a long time a fair piece back. But it's still a crap shoot. We need to pick it up a bit.

 

[Wolfpack]

Averaged around 4 sacks or so per year the last few years.

I guess the new approach to fixing DE will be throw as many bodies at the problem as you can and hope something works out.

That is exactly their approach. Was one of the stated reasons to move on from the 3-4. Stephen watched the movie moneyball.

 

[Galian Beast]

First let me say that people should stop shilling for the front office. They haven't had real success in decades.

Now, let's look at the numbers. The team with the most sacks last year was the Broncos with 52 sacks. I don't think you need to be the broncos necessarily to get a good pass rush.

But if you look at the top 10 range it goes from 52 to 42, obviously with 42 being the low end of top 10. The Cowboys had 31 sacks last year.

If you aren't going blitz, you're going to need to get the lion share of that from your defensive line, but with that said, you got 6.5 sacks from your linebackers last year.

You lose 6 sacks from Greg Hardy and 4 from Jack Crawford, and more importantly I think you lose more than 10 sacks here. The pressure and attention Hardy creates probably allowed others to improve their sack numbers, which won't be there next year. I wonder if they are accounting for this, but let's ignore that for now. Losing their 10 sacks alone brings you to 21 sacks.

Cedric Thornton maybe gives you 1-2 sacks next year. Not that he can't be put into a situation where he does much better than this, but never has in his career, so you can't expect it. You're at 22-23 sacks.

Benson Mayowa is also a player who has never gotten more than 1 sack in a season. Let's be generous and say for the sake of argument the Cowboys see in him a player who can get 4 sacks next year (again maybe he can get more, but he has never done it before). You're now at 26-27 sacks.

You can't count on Jason Jones for more than 5 sacks a year, which only brings you up to 31-32 sacks... Which places us exactly where we were last year, which wasn't good.

But there is still the draft, but there is that factor I mentioned earlier where much of the success came from the opportunities Hardy created for people.

You can argue that Lawrence will continue to develop and that Gregory if he doesn't get himself suspended for the rest of the season may contribute greatly, but the latter here I think is all pipe wish at this point.

Maybe, part of the Cowboys' thinking they expect an even better year from Lawrence. Maybe part of their thinking is that Gregory is still going to be a player. Maybe part of their thinking is they can still get some help in the draft.

Let's say Lawrence jumps to 15 sacks next year and Gregory is a season on pace for 10 sacks (suspended for a quarter of it, so drop it to 7.5). That gets you into the 41 range, but I again, I think you've assumed too much here for organic growth. I guess you also have to factor in a healthier Crawford, who will be playing DT exclusively for only the second year.

I'm not ruling everything out, but I'm saying they haven't done enough on the face of it to suggest real improvement and Jason Jones isn't it.

 

[Galian Beast]

I'd love to see the sacks per snap these guys have and even more importantly the pressures per snap.

 

[fivetwos]

If you want to build almost exclusively through the draft AND have on the field success, you cant swing and miss in rounds 3-7 as often as they do and chalk it up to "that's what's supposed to happen"

Personally I think every missed draft pick needs to be made up with a free agent signing. If not you really aren't improving. Adding 1.5 good players each offseason doesn't get you over the hump.

The 2014 team was within striking distance of a title. Why didn't the team take the opportunity to build on that and get to the next level?

Would that have contradicted the organizational philosophy? And, what exactly is that as it pertains to the Dallas Cowboys? Most of the time it does not seem very clear, almost as if each move is unrelated to the next in nature.

 

[JohnsKey19]

If you want to build almost exclusively through the draft AND have on the field success, you cant swing and miss in rounds 3-7 as often as they do and chalk it up to "that's what's supposed to happen"

Personally I think every missed draft pick needs to be made up with a free agent signing. If not you really aren't improving. Adding 1.5 good players each offseason doesn't get you over the hump.

Seems like the Cowboys find more contributing players in undrafted free agents than they do in Rounds 3-7. I may be wrong but it seems that way. Scandrick is the last real "hit" we've had after round 3.

 

[cowboyblue22]

the reason the cowboys are dipping into free agency is because the don't draft very well in the later rounds the better drafting teams like the packers ravens steelers seahawks hit on there late round picks.

 

[superonyx]

First let me say that people should stop shilling for the front office. They haven't had real success in decades.

Now, let's look at the numbers. The team with the most sacks last year was the Broncos with 52 sacks. I don't think you need to be the broncos necessarily to get a good pass rush.

But if you look at the top 10 range it goes from 52 to 42, obviously with 42 being the low end of top 10. The Cowboys had 31 sacks last year.

If you aren't going blitz, you're going to need to get the lion share of that from your defensive line, but with that said, you got 6.5 sacks from your linebackers last year.

You lose 6 sacks from Greg Hardy and 4 from Jack Crawford, and more importantly I think you lose more than 10 sacks here. The pressure and attention Hardy creates probably allowed others to improve their sack numbers, which won't be there next year. I wonder if they are accounting for this, but let's ignore that for now. Losing their 10 sacks alone brings you to 21 sacks.

Cedric Thornton maybe gives you 1-2 sacks next year. Not that he can't be put into a situation where he does much better than this, but never has in his career, so you can't expect it. You're at 22-23 sacks.

Benson Mayowa is also a player who has never gotten more than 1 sack in a season. Let's be generous and say for the sake of argument the Cowboys see in him a player who can get 4 sacks next year (again maybe he can get more, but he has never done it before). You're now at 26-27 sacks.

You can't count on Jason Jones for more than 5 sacks a year, which only brings you up to 31-32 sacks... Which places us exactly where we were last year, which wasn't good.

But there is still the draft, but there is that factor I mentioned earlier where much of the success came from the opportunities Hardy created for people.

You can argue that Lawrence will continue to develop and that Gregory if he doesn't get himself suspended for the rest of the season may contribute greatly, but the latter here I think is all pipe wish at this point.

Maybe, part of the Cowboys' thinking they expect an even better year from Lawrence. Maybe part of their thinking is that Gregory is still going to be a player. Maybe part of their thinking is they can still get some help in the draft.

Let's say Lawrence jumps to 15 sacks next year and Gregory is a season on pace for 10 sacks (suspended for a quarter of it, so drop it to 7.5). That gets you into the 41 range, but I again, I think you've assumed too much here for organic growth. I guess you also have to factor in a healthier Crawford, who will be playing DT exclusively for only the second year.

I'm not ruling everything out, but I'm saying they haven't done enough on the face of it to suggest real improvement and Jason Jones isn't it.

Well said.
I don't believe we or any team can hope to get near the Broncos sack totals...and pressure totals, without scheme creating the pressure. Just lining up and rushing the QB just doesn't work in the NFL much anymore. The Offensive linemen are just too good. Teams like the Broncos are so good because they send pressure from disguised places so the offense is completely confused over who is rushing and when they are coming.

Rod Marinelli was a good defensive coordinator at one point. In Dallas what I have seen is a defensive scheme that plays Corners way off the ball while rushing only 4 Defensive linemen and hoping everyone can win one on one match ups. That's the formula for mediocrity on defense. Great defenses like the Broncos, Seahawks, Panthers put the offense under stress by scheme. We just pay back and hope that the offense will eventually make a mistake on third down and be forced to punt. There is a reason we are so low in sacks and turnovers.
It's not just about talent.

 

[Section446]

Not a bad rotational guy.

 

[CWR]

First let me say that people should stop shilling for the front office. They haven't had real success in decades.

Now, let's look at the numbers. The team with the most sacks last year was the Broncos with 52 sacks. I don't think you need to be the broncos necessarily to get a good pass rush.

But if you look at the top 10 range it goes from 52 to 42, obviously with 42 being the low end of top 10. The Cowboys had 31 sacks last year.

If you aren't going blitz, you're going to need to get the lion share of that from your defensive line, but with that said, you got 6.5 sacks from your linebackers last year.

You lose 6 sacks from Greg Hardy and 4 from Jack Crawford, and more importantly I think you lose more than 10 sacks here. The pressure and attention Hardy creates probably allowed others to improve their sack numbers, which won't be there next year. I wonder if they are accounting for this, but let's ignore that for now. Losing their 10 sacks alone brings you to 21 sacks.

Cedric Thornton maybe gives you 1-2 sacks next year. Not that he can't be put into a situation where he does much better than this, but never has in his career, so you can't expect it. You're at 22-23 sacks.

Benson Mayowa is also a player who has never gotten more than 1 sack in a season. Let's be generous and say for the sake of argument the Cowboys see in him a player who can get 4 sacks next year (again maybe he can get more, but he has never done it before). You're now at 26-27 sacks.

You can't count on Jason Jones for more than 5 sacks a year, which only brings you up to 31-32 sacks... Which places us exactly where we were last year, which wasn't good.

But there is still the draft, but there is that factor I mentioned earlier where much of the success came from the opportunities Hardy created for people.

You can argue that Lawrence will continue to develop and that Gregory if he doesn't get himself suspended for the rest of the season may contribute greatly, but the latter here I think is all pipe wish at this point.

Maybe, part of the Cowboys' thinking they expect an even better year from Lawrence. Maybe part of their thinking is that Gregory is still going to be a player. Maybe part of their thinking is they can still get some help in the draft.

Let's say Lawrence jumps to 15 sacks next year and Gregory is a season on pace for 10 sacks (suspended for a quarter of it, so drop it to 7.5). That gets you into the 41 range, but I again, I think you've assumed too much here for organic growth. I guess you also have to factor in a healthier Crawford, who will be playing DT exclusively for only the second year.

I'm not ruling everything out, but I'm saying they haven't done enough on the face of it to suggest real improvement and Jason Jones isn't it.

I think you're pretty on point here, however Thorton will get into the backfield and cause pressure the likes of which we didn't see from Hayden. While I believe his sack totals will not show up on the stat line, he will be a big factor in the success of the rest of the dline.

 

[Kevinicus]

If you want to build almost exclusively through the draft AND have on the field success, you cant swing and miss in rounds 3-7 as often as they do and chalk it up to "that's what's supposed to happen"

Personally I think every missed draft pick needs to be made up with a free agent signing. If not you really aren't improving. Adding 1.5 good players each offseason doesn't get you over the hump.

The 2014 team was within striking distance of a title. Why didn't the team take the opportunity to build on that and get to the next level?

Would that have contradicted the organizational philosophy? And, what exactly is that as it pertains to the Dallas Cowboys? Most of the time it does not seem very clear, almost as if each move is unrelated to the next in nature.

You don't think they tried? They added Hardy, drafted Jones and Gregory, and had a returning Sean Lee on the defensive side of the ball.

 

[conner01]

I'd love to see the sacks per snap these guys have and even more importantly the pressures per snap.

Replacing sacks is gonna be tough when the goal is really to add a dozen. You are right there. But another huge factor is turnovers and we have to get top 10 there for this defense to work. That's was the biggest difference in the defense last year over the year before

 

[Stash]

I think you're pretty on point here, however Thorton will get into the backfield and cause pressure the likes of which we didn't see from Hayden. While I believe his sack totals will not show up on the stat line, he will be a big factor in the success of the rest of the dline.

I tend to agree with this. I believe that Hayden's ineffectiveness, and the ease at which opponents were able to handle him one-on-one, was a detriment to the rest of the line. He was a player that opponents never had to game plan for, and his presence negatively affected the rest of the defensive line.

It allowed opponents to focus on Greg Hardy and frequently chip or double team him. And while that's expected, it should, have helped other players on the line yo have more success. While Lawrence did, Crawford's shoulder injury likely prevented him from truly reaping all of the benefits. Hayden simply isn't good enough.

It would be nice to see what a starting front of Hardy-Crawford-Thornton-Lawrence could accomplish.

I'm bummed out that we likely won't ever get to find out and just when we've upgraded 1-technique, we'll end up downgrading right defensive end.

 

[CWR]

I tend to agree with this. I believe that Hayden's ineffectiveness, and the ease at which opponents were able to handle him one-on-one, was a detriment to the rest of the line. He was a player that opponents never had to game plan for, and his presence negatively affected the rest of the defensive line.

It allowed opponents to focus on Greg Hardy and frequently chip or double team him. And while that's expected, it should, have helped other players on the line yo have more success. While Lawrence did, Crawford's shoulder injury likely prevented him from truly reaping all of the benefits. Hayden simply isn't good enough.

It would be nice to see what a starting front of Hardy-Crawford-Thornton-Lawrence could accomplish.

I'm bummed out that we likely won't ever get to find out and just when we've upgraded 1-technique, we'll end up downgrading right defensive end.

Yeah it sucks that we supposedly had this "elite" edge rusher and he was too big of a deuche bag to be brought back. We will have a downgrade in talent there, but hopefully not production. I don't think anyone thought Hardy played up to his capabilities.

 

[Stash]

Yeah it sucks that we supposedly had this "elite" edge rusher and he was too big of a deuche bag to be brought back. We will have a downgrade in talent there, but hopefully not production. I don't think anyone thought Hardy played up to his capabilities.

I don't think he played up to 'expectations' rather than to his capabilities. It's difficult for me to understand how he started off so well, and then faded so noticeably. But I still think he's the best pass rusher the team had.

 

[Jstopper]

the reason the cowboys are dipping into free agency is because the don't draft very well in the later rounds the better drafting teams like the packers ravens steelers seahawks hit on there late round picks.

How did this notion become so prevalent around here? A poster (i don't remember who) already debunked this and showed that packers Steelers etc don't really do all that well in the later rounds as we have been programmed to believe.