Review of LB Anthony Hitchens against LSU

[big dog cowboy]

This pick kind of upsets me for two reasons:

2. Drafting backups. This was the strategy of the 2009 draft.

That is all there was in that draft. There were 31 other teams who drafted tons of backups.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Does the spot a player is taken mean anything if the player can play?

I think Freddie exemplifies this point. So many of the experts suggested he was a second or third rounder, I believe. Dallas takes him at the tail end of the first.

So the question is, are you unhappy Dallas took him there and does that make his performance less valuable last year?

So much of this is the buying a car theory. Bragging rights for what you paid for the guy. Romo fits here perfectly. What if Dallas gave up a top ten pick in the first for Romo and ESPN and all the people who are in the "know" ripped them apart for a guy who should not have been drafted.

Who was right?

But more importantly, what difference does it make?

Until we all see this kid in the defense and how he absorbs the information and is able to execute, what other teams, scouts, coaches, draft gurus, or posters on this board think or believe has no meaning.

I think this argument has more to do with being right than the actual player.

 

[speedkilz88]

One of the reporters that works for the Seahawks website said that the Seahawks were planning to take Hitchens.

Did you ask him why they didn't put that in print?

 

[xwalker]

Did you ask him why they didn't put that in print?

It was on twitter.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

"Routinely"?

Where? A comment in an article? I must have missed it. Source please.

And what was his source? Was it named or is it in the vague nether sphere of rumor that somehow becomes "fact" when it is convenient.

Was it "birddog" who somehow is the secret "Deep Throat" source that BTB seems to hold up on a pedestal?

If the Cowboys rated Hitchens as a fourth round choice, fine. I just have a real concern with attaching his selection to the idea other teams "wanted him".

Other teams wanted Quincy Carter and it prompted Jerry Jones to react.

He blogs for the Cowboys and he has said this multiple times. Take it for what it's worth. I doubt we'll ever hear his source. I also doubt he just took it from an obscure twitter feed and ran with it. Not that any of this matters. I like the work Will has done.

Hitchens was going to Seattle at the end of the fourth, from what I've heard, so there's that. Since a ton of you have asked the same question, here goes one more time: I think the Cowboys look from within for help for the time being while keeping an eye on what's available. When the preseason begins, I think they'll look at the spot hard if those in-house options don't look to be panning out.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/50660/cowboys-with-todd-archer

 

[Alexander]

Eagles:

1. Marcus Smith OLB........
Draft Projection
Rounds 3-4

2. Jordan Mathews WR......
Draft Projection
Rounds 2-3....so it's about right

3. Josh Huff WR.....
Draft Projection
Rounds 5-6

I have no idea as a base point for Huff.

From what I know, he was in a group with Herron and others as a 3rd to 4th in a deep WR class. At worst 5 to 6 as you suggest. Far cry from a shallow LB group.

Nobody and I will repeat nobody had Hitchens within two to three rounds where he was chosen. If someone can provide that please do.

 

[Alexander]

One of the reporters that works for the Seahawks website said that the Seahawks were planning to take Hitchens.

So their Mickey Spagnola said this? Awesome.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Does the spot a player is taken mean anything if the player can play?

I think Freddie exemplifies this point. So many of the experts suggested he was a second or third rounder, I believe. Dallas takes him at the tail end of the first.

So the question is, are you unhappy Dallas took him there and does that make his performance less valuable last year?

So much of this is the buying a car theory. Bragging rights for what you paid for the guy. Romo fits here perfectly. What if Dallas gave up a top ten pick in the first for Romo and ESPN and all the people who are in the "know" ripped them apart for a guy who should not have been drafted.

Who was right?

But more importantly, what difference does it make?

Until we all see this kid in the defense and how he absorbs the information and is able to execute, what other teams, scouts, coaches, draft gurus, or posters on this board think or believe has no meaning.

I think this argument has more to do with being right than the actual player.

Well yes. Where you acquire players matters.

It's about value maximization.

The issue here is the selective use of media player projection as gospel and completely ignoring others.

 

[Alexander]

He blogs for the Cowboys and he has said this multiple times. Take it for what it's worth. I doubt we'll ever hear his source. I also doubt he just took it from an obscure twitter feed and ran with it. Not that any of this matters. I like the work Will has done.

Of course, he is an international man of mystery. A Twitter personality without flaw, a source never beyond question.

I have followed that one on Twitter and honestly he is no different from the message board wannabe insiders who claim they "have heard" and "are being told" a variety of things.

And if you know anything about the scouting industry, they have a culture of their own that often loses translation when GMs, head coaches, assistant coaches and the like get their input in on the situation.

http://espn.go.com/sportsnation/chat/_/id/50660/cowboys-with-todd-archer

Ah. I see a comment in a chat counts as "routinely" stating. Good to know.

I hope you hold that same standard when judging everything else you see.[/quote]

 

[TwoDeep3]

Well yes. Where you acquire players matters.

It's about value maximization.

The issue here is the selective use of media player projection as gospel and completely ignoring others.

Really? What real value does a draft pick have other than salary? They are slotted for payment. Since this is a crap shoot at best, taking a guy that plays well for the team at the top of bottom or the draft has meaning only in how he is paid.

I just don't see the need to get bent over where this player was taken. Either he will or won't be good enough. His draft slot doesn't mean much in the results.

 

[xwalker]

So their Mickey Spagnola said this? Awesome.

Well Mickey does not know much, but he does usually know which players the Cowboys liked in the draft.

I remember in the 2009 draft, Mickey was on the radio and he didn't say anything about Max Unger until after the Seahawks picked him at which point he had a meltdown. Afterwards it became very common knowledge that Unger was the Cowboys top target in that draft.

It's not as if the Seattle reporter had any reason to say it if it wasn't true.

 

[Alexander]

Well Mickey does not know much, but he does usually know which players the Cowboys liked in the draft.

I remember in the 2009 draft, Mickey was on the radio and he didn't say anything about Max Unger until after the Seahawks picked him at which point he had a meltdown. Afterwards it became very common knowledge that Unger was the Cowboys top target in that draft.

It's not as if the Seattle reporter had any reason to say it if it wasn't true.

I will have to ask for that link too.

Got it?

 

[Alexander]

Really? What real value does a draft pick have other than salary? They are slotted for payment. Since this is a crap shoot at best, taking a guy that plays well for the team at the top of bottom or the draft has meaning only in how he is paid.

I just don't see the need to get bent over where this player was taken. Either he will or won't be good enough. His draft slot doesn't mean much in the results.

Did you feel about it that way with Carter? So it did not bother you then we reached for him?

Sorry, taking players out of value is where teams make their biggest errors.

If you are drafting a backup, it is better to do it later than say the fourth round. That is is the edge of the starting quality talent. It is where you start shooting in the dark.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Of course, he is an international man of mystery. A Twitter personality without flaw, a source never beyond question.

I have followed that one on Twitter and honestly he is no different from the message board wannabe insiders who claim they "have heard" and "are being told" a variety of things.

And if you know anything about the scouting industry, they have a culture of their own that often loses translation when GMs, head coaches, assistant coaches and the like get their input in on the situation.




Ah. I see a comment in a chat counts as "routinely" stating. Good to know.

I hope you hold that same standard when judging everything else you see.

[/quote]

Yes he has said it multiple times. I jsut remember that one because it was most recent. Go read the NFC East blog. It's there. I don't care if you believe the truth or not,

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Really? What real value does a draft pick have other than salary? They are slotted for payment. Since this is a crap shoot at best, taking a guy that plays well for the team at the top of bottom or the draft has meaning only in how he is paid.

I just don't see the need to get bent over where this player was taken. Either he will or won't be good enough. His draft slot doesn't mean much in the results.

Opportunity cost. This shouldn't be difficult to understand.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Did you feel about it that way with Carter? So it did not bother you then we reached for him?

Sorry, taking players out of value is where teams make their biggest errors.

If you are drafting a backup, it is better to do it later than say the fourth round. That is is the edge of the starting quality talent. It is where you start shooting in the dark.

Thanks for bringing back my nervous tick. That entire episode was just dredged up for me, like last nights Tuna surprise.

 

[cowboy_ron]

I have no idea as a base point for Huff.

From what I know, he was in a group with Herron and others as a 3rd to 4th in a deep WR class. At worst 5 to 6 as you suggest. Far cry from a shallow LB group.

Nobody and I will repeat nobody had Hitchens within two to three rounds where he was chosen. If someone can provide that please do.

Link?

 

[Alexander]

Link?

Seriously?

Okay.

You can look them up for yourself. It should not take you long.

And in fact, if you want, you could spend hours upon hours, scouring every single draft site you could and you would not find it.

Even the most staunch supporter of the pick cannot find a single solitary source that states Anthony Hitchens was chosen where his pick meant value. Instead it means off hand quotes in a chat, citing a Seahawks source, etc.

It still does not refute the reality. He was viewed as a reach. Whether he is or not, is up to him.

Right now, that is what we have from an empirical standpoint. Overall, he was viewed as a reach. Period. Move on.

It is another thing entirely if you want to discount popular opinion.

If you do, then please state who do believe.

Honestly, it seems like whenever the Cowboys reach on a player, it means digging and grasping for validation.

And rarely does it pay off. And don't start with the Frederick thing. He was not projected as a third round/fourth round guy. He was always acknowledged as one of the better center prospects in that draft as far as a year out. He had a bad Combine and the barometer went down. But he was not some unearthed gem that Dallas somehow discovered.

That is the big difference here. He is the LB version of Matt Johnson.

A "clever" pick that apparently some coach had a fancy to.

There is a reason why players get assigned consensus values. The scouts are a rarely heard bunch and they are the ones who feed the mass media draftniks most of their information.

When coaches get involved, which they clearly did here, you have reaches.

 

[speedkilz88]

Seriously?

Okay.

You can look them up for yourself. It should not take you long.

And in fact, if you want, you could spend hours upon hours, scouring every single draft site you could and you would not find it.

Even the most staunch supporter of the pick cannot find a single solitary source that states Anthony Hitchens was chosen where his pick meant value. Instead it means off hand quotes in a chat, citing a Seahawks source, etc.

It still does not refute the reality. He was viewed as a reach. Whether he is or not, is up to him.

Right now, that is what we have from an empirical standpoint. Overall, he was viewed as a reach. Period. Move on.

It is another thing entirely if you want to discount popular opinion.

If you do, then please state who do believe.

Honestly, it seems like whenever the Cowboys reach on a player, it means digging and grasping for validation.

And rarely does it pay off. And don't start with the Frederick thing. He was not projected as a third round/fourth round guy. He was always acknowledged as one of the better center prospects in that draft as far as a year out. He had a bad Combine and the barometer went down. But he was not some unearthed gem that Dallas somehow discovered.

That is the big difference here. He is the LB version of Matt Johnson.

A "clever" pick that apparently some coach had a fancy to.

There is a reason why players get assigned consensus values. The scouts are a rarely heard bunch and they are the ones who feed the mass media draftniks most of their information.

When coaches get involved, which they clearly did here, you have reaches.

So Todd Archer no longer counts?

 

[Proximo]

Seriously?

Okay.

You can look them up for yourself. It should not take you long.

And in fact, if you want, you could spend hours upon hours, scouring every single draft site you could and you would not find it.

Even the most staunch supporter of the pick cannot find a single solitary source that states Anthony Hitchens was chosen where his pick meant value. Instead it means off hand quotes in a chat, citing a Seahawks source, etc.

It still does not refute the reality. He was viewed as a reach. Whether he is or not, is up to him.

Right now, that is what we have from an empirical standpoint. Overall, he was viewed as a reach. Period. Move on.

It is another thing entirely if you want to discount popular opinion.

If you do, then please state who do believe.

Honestly, it seems like whenever the Cowboys reach on a player, it means digging and grasping for validation.

And rarely does it pay off. And don't start with the Frederick thing. He was not projected as a third round/fourth round guy. He was always acknowledged as one of the better center prospects in that draft as far as a year out. He had a bad Combine and the barometer went down. But he was not some unearthed gem that Dallas somehow discovered.

That is the big difference here. He is the LB version of Matt Johnson.

A "clever" pick that apparently some coach had a fancy to.

There is a reason why players get assigned consensus values. The scouts are a rarely heard bunch and they are the ones who feed the mass media draftniks most of their information.

When coaches get involved, which they clearly did here, you have reaches.

The bottom line is you don't know what 31 other teams' draft boards looked like so all of this "reach" talk is BS. It's based on speculation, so there is nothing empirical about it at all.

And the Cowboys didn't reach for him if they had him graded as a 4th rounder. Now if they had him graded as a 5th or 6th rounder and drafted him in the 4th it'd be a reach.

Get over it.