Scout's Grade

[kirkjrk]

I know we've blamed Jerry and Jason a lot for the team's problems but just where do the Scout's rank in this scenario. Since the leak of the Teams 2013 Draft Board and the ranking the team received from several draft sites--D+, for their picks, just what part of that ranking should be assigned to the Scout's.

Possibly one of our experts has looked in depth at the board and has thoughts--good,bad or indifferent that they can share with CZ.

I thought overall this draft brought the team a lot of talent. Time will tell if that proves out.

 

[perrykemp]

I thought overall this draft brought the team a lot of talent. Time will tell if that proves out.

It would be nice. It <feels> like the team has been getting more talent via recent drafts. That talent has to play up to it's potential, however.

Not a single player drafted by the Cowboys in the last eight years (since 2006) has been selected to the Probowl -- although Mike Jenkins did go as an injury replacement in 2009).

 

[mmillman]

they got who they wanted, I guess. Even though they skipped over higher rated players like Floyd and Eifert.

I think you win with elite talent so we will see how Frederick, Escobar do compared to Floyd and Eifert.

 

[TwoDeep3]

A man and woman have a child together.

Outside of health issues, mental and physical, what that child will become in adulthood is speculation.

So too with drafting and draft boards. The value is in the eye of the beholder.

With this team, as with most going concerns, the decisions of success or failure reside in the lap of the man who leads.

Fair or unfair, that is the way it goes.

This is why Romo catches such flack, justified or unjustified. He is the leader of the offense and the face of the team, therefore he will be the focal point of success.

How these guys will pan out is anyone's guess at this juncture. What grade the draft board gets from others is the same as putting a blind man in a dark room and asking him to find a needle.

There is no accurate ruler to gauge what any team has done.

Brand names tend to get more attention and higher grades. It stands to reason since brand names have a habit of fulfilling the predictions for them, by and large.

But there are success stories that come from nowhere, and again Romo's name comes up in those discussions.

What others think is of no consequence to me.

My belief is this may go down as one of the better drafts. I think Dallas walked away with some talent. But just like everyone else, I have no idea what the truth is.

In the end they will be judged, just like all the other teams in four years, in regard to the success they had in this draft.

Until then, any speculation will get the usual knee-jerk on this site, with people defending and people railing on this draft.

And again, like the child who is still an infant, not one of the people here, as well as other places will know caca.

Unless they look in the diaper.

 

[Wood]

I know we've blamed Jerry and Jason a lot for the team's problems but just where do the Scout's rank in this scenario. Since the leak of the Teams 2013 Draft Board and the ranking the team received from several draft sites--D+, for their picks, just what part of that ranking should be assigned to the Scout's.

Possibly one of our experts has looked in depth at the board and has thoughts--good,bad or indifferent that they can share with CZ.

I thought overall this draft brought the team a lot of talent. Time will tell if that proves out.

It was a clean board (meaning good attitude players who love football). Clearly Dallas was trading down from #18 as 5 players with 1st round grades were available with their pick. I thought Terrance Williams (on cowboys board) as 2nd rounder was too high. He ultimately got drafted where I felt he belonged as 3rd round pick. Also, I think Dallas is just off on their ranking of Kyle Long as 3rd round pick. He is better player than that.

 

[Picksix]

they got who they wanted, I guess. Even though they skipped over higher rated players like Floyd and Eifert.

I think you win with elite talent so we will see how Frederick, Escobar do compared to Floyd and Eifert.

Really, it should be Frederick, Escobar, and Williams compared to Floyd and Eifert.

 

[CoCo]

Really, it should be Frederick, Escobar, and Williams compared to Floyd and Eifert.

Frederick and Williams versus Floyd or Eifert

 

[xwalker]

I know we've blamed Jerry and Jason a lot for the team's problems but just where do the Scout's rank in this scenario. Since the leak of the Teams 2013 Draft Board and the ranking the team received from several draft sites--D+, for their picks, just what part of that ranking should be assigned to the Scout's.

Possibly one of our experts has looked in depth at the board and has thoughts--good,bad or indifferent that they can share with CZ.

I thought overall this draft brought the team a lot of talent. Time will tell if that proves out.

Giving a draft class a grade immediately after the draft is dumb. The draft analyst gives a high grade if the team drafted according to the pre-draft opinion of the analyst and a low grade if they didn't.

If you agree with me, then you get a good grade.

If you disagree with me, then you get a bad grade.

It is less fun for the analysts to give out grades 2 or 3 years later because it not only proves the team right or wrong, it proves the analysts right or wrong (wrong is the not fun part).

 

[Yakuza Rich]

To me, most of what the draft is about is the organization's ability to develop players. A couple of years ago I looked at Tom Coughlin's drafts when he was with the Jaguars, then with Ernie Accorsi and now with Jerry Reese as his GM's.

Comparing it to the rest of the league, the drafts under Coughlin with 3 different GM's were quite good, if not excellent.

So, did Coughlin just happen to have 3 great GM's? Did Accorsi go from having some rough drafts to becoming a great drafting GM overnight?

This also reminded me of the Bears and their former GM, Jerry Angelo. Angelo had questionable drafts and then Lovie Smith comes along and they started drafting very well on defense. And players drafted by Angelo before Lovie came along went from being mediocre players to 'draft steals' that blossomed.

For the most part, these boards are pretty much the same throughout the league. I believe that Frederick was likely a top-50 player on almost every team's board. It's really a question of not over-reaching for a player and much more importantly; being able to develop the player into a good talent.

I don't like reaching in the draft. I don't think if the reach becomes a good player that it was a 'good pick.' But, it certainly helps soften the blow quite a bit if the reach becomes a good player for the team.

IMO, the development of these draft picks is what fans should really worry about.





YR

 

[big dog cowboy]

Since the leak of the Teams 2013 Draft Board and the ranking the team received from several draft sites--D+, for their picks

I have figured out what your problem is from that statement alone.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

To me, most of what the draft is about is the organization's ability to develop players. A couple of years ago I looked at Tom Coughlin's drafts when he was with the Jaguars, then with Ernie Accorsi and now with Jerry Reese as his GM's.

Comparing it to the rest of the league, the drafts under Coughlin with 3 different GM's were quite good, if not excellent.

So, did Coughlin just happen to have 3 great GM's? Did Accorsi go from having some rough drafts to becoming a great drafting GM overnight?

This also reminded me of the Bears and their former GM, Jerry Angelo. Angelo had questionable drafts and then Lovie Smith comes along and they started drafting very well on defense. And players drafted by Angelo before Lovie came along went from being mediocre players to 'draft steals' that blossomed.

For the most part, these boards are pretty much the same throughout the league. I believe that Frederick was likely a top-50 player on almost every team's board. It's really a question of not over-reaching for a player and much more importantly; being able to develop the player into a good talent.

I don't like reaching in the draft. I don't think if the reach becomes a good player that it was a 'good pick.' But, it certainly helps soften the blow quite a bit if the reach becomes a good player for the team.

IMO, the development of these draft picks is what fans should really worry about.





YR

Those are good points and I've long felt like the circus atmosphere and neutering of the head coaches to mere "puppets" has hurt the team's chances at developing their players

 

[Eskimo]

To me, most of what the draft is about is the organization's ability to develop players. A couple of years ago I looked at Tom Coughlin's drafts when he was with the Jaguars, then with Ernie Accorsi and now with Jerry Reese as his GM's.

Comparing it to the rest of the league, the drafts under Coughlin with 3 different GM's were quite good, if not excellent.

So, did Coughlin just happen to have 3 great GM's? Did Accorsi go from having some rough drafts to becoming a great drafting GM overnight?

This also reminded me of the Bears and their former GM, Jerry Angelo. Angelo had questionable drafts and then Lovie Smith comes along and they started drafting very well on defense. And players drafted by Angelo before Lovie came along went from being mediocre players to 'draft steals' that blossomed.

For the most part, these boards are pretty much the same throughout the league. I believe that Frederick was likely a top-50 player on almost every team's board. It's really a question of not over-reaching for a player and much more importantly; being able to develop the player into a good talent.

I don't like reaching in the draft. I don't think if the reach becomes a good player that it was a 'good pick.' But, it certainly helps soften the blow quite a bit if the reach becomes a good player for the team.

IMO, the development of these draft picks is what fans should really worry about.





YR

I think the draft is pretty darn inexact and projecting the future of these young men is very difficult.

I think the best teams will try to find guys who will fit what they are trying to do. But I also think the best teams will always somewhat modify what they do to fit the talents of the player they acquire.

I don't agree it is always about lack of ability of coaches to develop talent. The player themselves have to have a good work ethic and they need to be coachable. If it were all about the top picks just not getting the proper coaching then you would see team's giving up lots for highly drafted busts with the idea of reclaiming that player's rightful destiny of becoming a great NFL player. Instead that doesn't happen often and most players who bust out with their first team don't suddenly become stars on another. So I don't think it is quite as simple as nearly everyone has the same board and the only difference is in the coaching staffs ability to develop them.

Another probably underrated aspect of things is the interaction between scout/GM and HC/Coordinators/Position coaches in deciding who should be targeted. To some extent I think good coaches decide which players will work well with them better than others and thus have a positive influence in the selection of the players.

It is hard for me to say why Garrett's drafts have been better than those under Phillips. Phillips' best draft was actually probably his first one when he traded away a future #1 pick which netted the 2008 #20 pick which was used on Felix Jones, Anthony Spencer and Doug Free. Felix was a good player until he got that shoulder surgery, Free was good until he got that second contract. Then they seemed to get worse and worse until 2010 when they got better. But the 2010 draft was pretty uncertain when Wade left because Dez was still a huge risk and Lee couldn't get on the field. Would those players' careers followed to same arc under Wade's guidance?

In the end, I think the team has been doing a decent job in bringing in quality football players and trying to build an organization that is strong in player development. When either of those elements aren't in place you are not going to be a successful franchise for very long given the short shelf-life of the typical NFL player.

 

[Disturbed]

The grades and reviews are largely done on tangible numbers and do not measure the "heart and desire" a player has... I always thought it meant more to look at how a player performed in the 3 or 4 years in college, not just the numbers at the NFL combine. So much focus is on the combine, and it seems to be the primary reason to move guys up or down the draft board.

Many times it seems that once a players gets a big payday in the NFL, they have reached the goal they set and relax. Players seem to play for a paycheck at times...winning and losing is secondary.

The rare player seems to really love the game and continues to strive to get better, no matter what -- unfortunately you can't really can't measure this intangible when drafting.

 

[NinePointOh]

Not a single player drafted by the Cowboys in the last eight years (since 2006) has been selected to the Probowl -- although Mike Jenkins did go as an injury replacement in 2009).

Your facts are off.

First of all, 2006 is 7 years ago, not 8 (and if you meant "in the last eight drafts" it would make no sense to include 2013 since it would be impossible for anyone in this draft class to have made the Pro Bowl yet).

Second, Anthony Spencer and Nick Folk were drafted in 2007 (not 2006) and each has made the Pro Bowl. That's six years, even if you choose to ignore Mike Jenkins' Pro Bowl for some odd reason.

And furthermore, Sean Lee and Dez Bryant have both been easily deserving of Pro Bowl selections even if they weren't chosen. Fortunately they both seem to have a lot more upside ahead of them, but "not living up to expectations" doesn't appear to be a significant issue with either of them.

 

[perrykemp]

Your facts are off.

First of all, 2006 is 7 years ago, not 8 (and if you meant "in the last eight drafts" it would make no sense to include 2013 since it would be impossible for anyone in this draft class to have made the Pro Bowl yet).

Second, Anthony Spencer and Nick Folk were drafted in 2007 (not 2006) and each has made the Pro Bowl. That's six years, even if you choose to ignore Mike Jenkins' Pro Bowl for some odd reason.

And furthermore, Sean Lee and Dez Bryant have both been easily deserving of Pro Bowl selections even if they weren't chosen. Fortunately they both seem to have a lot more upside ahead of them, but "not living up to expectations" doesn't appear to be a significant issue with either of them.

Spencer wasn't selected for the pro bowl either... He was an injury replacement for Clay Matthews.

I forgot Folk... So you are right.... The Cowboys HAVE drafted a single player since 2006 that made it to the probowl as -- not as an injury replacement.

 

[xwalker]

To me, most of what the draft is about is the organization's ability to develop players. A couple of years ago I looked at Tom Coughlin's drafts when he was with the Jaguars, then with Ernie Accorsi and now with Jerry Reese as his GM's.

Comparing it to the rest of the league, the drafts under Coughlin with 3 different GM's were quite good, if not excellent.

So, did Coughlin just happen to have 3 great GM's? Did Accorsi go from having some rough drafts to becoming a great drafting GM overnight?

This also reminded me of the Bears and their former GM, Jerry Angelo. Angelo had questionable drafts and then Lovie Smith comes along and they started drafting very well on defense. And players drafted by Angelo before Lovie came along went from being mediocre players to 'draft steals' that blossomed.

For the most part, these boards are pretty much the same throughout the league. I believe that Frederick was likely a top-50 player on almost every team's board. It's really a question of not over-reaching for a player and much more importantly; being able to develop the player into a good talent.

I don't like reaching in the draft. I don't think if the reach becomes a good player that it was a 'good pick.' But, it certainly helps soften the blow quite a bit if the reach becomes a good player for the team.

IMO, the development of these draft picks is what fans should really worry about.

YR

Good post, but I disagree somewhat about the "reach" not being a good pick. The Cowboys could have traded their entire set of draft picks in 2009 for a 1st round pick and selected Max Unger (2012 Pro Bowl, 2012 All-Pro). That pick would have been considered a reach by the draft media and fans; however, in retrospect it would have been a great pick, especially considering how many problems the team has had at the C/G positions since 2009.

 

[NinePointOh]

Spencer wasn't selected for the pro bowl either... He was an injury replacement for Clay Matthews.

I forgot Folk... So you are right.... The Cowboys HAVE drafted a single player since 2006 that made it to the probowl as -- not as an injury replacement.

That's three Pro Bowlers in six years. Why should we care whether they were injury replacements?

They were recognized as among the best in the conference at their position, and that doesn't even include Lee or Bryant. These are top-notch players who *are* living up to their expectations, at least in those particular seasons. Whether they won a popularity contest doesn't add much.

 

[Eskimo]

The one thing about the "reach" comment is no one knows how the teams actually had TFred rated. We know that the pro mocksters often get it wrong like when Antaj Hawthorne was talked up as a first round pick to us back in 2004 oand ended up as a 6th round draft pick for reasons that the mocksters didn't understand. Or then there was 2005 when up until the draft most of them had Demarcus Ware as a 2nd round guy but he ended up going #11 overall as they had not clued into how much he had been upgraded. If you remember comments later made by the Cowboys FO they had Ware as the #1 player in that draft and gave him basically a perfect score and they were right. Some might call Ware a reach but the Cowboys felt he was by far the best player left on the draft board.

I know a little while ago someone put up an article on blogging the boys or SB nation about how some players have a very narrow range of valuations put on them and they are likely to go where everyone thinks. Then there are other players with very wide range of different assigned valuations based on how different teams value different characteristics of a player. Where those players vary a great deal from concensus depending on multiple factors including how likely those who value the player highly guess how other teams value the player.

So was TFred a reach when he was our BPA at pick #31? I would argue it probably wasn't a reach but we haven't seen other team's draft boards to know how likely it is that they would have picked him before our #47 pick came along. Obviously the Cowboys were convinced there was considerable risk of this happening and felt they couldn't take that risk given the monstrous need they felt they had at the spot. Some might say that were BPA and need meet you usually have a player who represents a very good value to the drafting team.

Now all we need to do is develop the player. Based on early results of OTA it looks like TFred is going to be a day 1 starter but we won't really know much until we see him playing in PS to see how he does against #1 defenses. Then the ultimate test comes in the regular season when true team gameplans emerge and the vanilla defenses go away.

 

[perrykemp]

That's three Pro Bowlers in six years. Why should we care whether they were injury replacements?

They were recognized as among the best in the conference at their position, and that doesn't even include Lee or Bryant. These are top-notch players who *are* living up to their expectations, at least in those particular seasons. Whether they won a popularity contest doesn't add much.

They've had one player drafted since 2006 selected to a probowl. The other two, Spencer and Jenkins, weren't initially selected as starters OR backups for the probowl... they simply made it as injury replacements for players who <where> selected...

I wonder how the Cowboys compare in this regard to top NFC teams like the Giants, Packers, Falcons, 49ers? I suspect they've drafted many more Probowlers in recent years.

 

[NinePointOh]

They've had one player drafted since 2006 selected to a probowl. The other two, Spencer and Jenkins, weren't initially selected as starters OR backups for the probowl... they simply made it as injury replacements for players who <where> selected...

Um ... yes, we've established that. I asked you why we should care about that distinction. The team, the NFL, and the media agree that Pro Bowlers are Pro Bowlers, and the difference between an original selection and an injury replacement isn't large enough to be important to your argument.