Scout's Grade

[DFWJC]

Frederick and Williams versus Floyd or Eifert

This...

And as for the OP. Because Dallas' board was different than many of the more popular mock drafts, that would guarantee that the intial "grades" will be low.
It has no meaning whatsoever. All anyone has to do is look back at over the years at these grades to see how radically off they are.

We'll find out in the coming year or three how we actually did.

Would I have done it differently? Yes.
Do I think it was a terrible draft? No

 

[Risen Star]

When you have a GM like we do, it's really impossible to evaluate the job the scouts are doing. You don't know when they are being listened to and when they aren't. You also don't have any faith in their length of term with the Cowboys since the guy evaluating their job performance is the same guy operating as GM. Does it mean anything if they've been here a long time under this front office? I don't think so. It could. But it also couldn't.

Maybe Tom Ciskowski is a really good personnel guy and he's consistently overruled. Maybe if we had a new GM he would flourish.

Or maybe Ciskowski isn't fit for that job and would be quickly replaced with another GM here. We simply don't know because we can't trust the upper management of this team.

 

[Risen Star]

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.

That wouldn't make it not a reach though. It's about value. If I overpay for a part for my truck and it works, that doesn't mean the price was right. A reach is overpaying for a prospect. It's subjective, of course, because there is no set value on these players. All teams think differently. What's clear is Travis Frederick was not thought of as a first round talent by most. So most consider the pick overpaying and a reach. In their mind, you can get a better player there and think about Frederick in the 2nd round.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

That wouldn't make it not a reach though. It's about value. If I overpay for a part for my truck and it works, that doesn't mean the price was right. A reach is overpaying for a prospect. It's subjective, of course, because there is no set value on these players. All teams think differently. What's clear is Travis Frederick was not thought of as a first round talent by most. So most consider the pick overpaying and a reach. In their mind, you can get a better player there and think about Frederick in the 2nd round.

If you could definitively conclude that the Ravens would have taken Frederick at 32, can you still call him a "reach?" You're making no sense. Who cares how he is "viewed" by the media. The media undervalued the top offensive lineman in this draft.

 

[speedkilz88]

Quotes from scouts and personnel people before the draft on Travis Frederick.
From Bob McGinn Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin)

"I thought he'd run at least 5.4," an executive in personnel said. "He's not a good athlete on tape, but I didn't think he'd run 5.6."

"Yes, the workout did expose him," said an AFC personnel man. "His feet are so (expletive) slow. He's beginning to scare me the more I watch him. Before, I had him 25 to 40. There's no way he goes first round now."

"His workouts were horrible, but I just don't think it's that big of a deal," another AFC personnel director said. "He needs to quit losing weight and be a 335-pound Wisconsin guy. He's talented. He's going to start and be a good pro."

"His play is more indicative of who he is than the 40 time," Tennessee scout Johnny Meads said. "He can identify things and run the offensive line."

One scout said Frederick, who scored 34 of a possible 50 on the Wonderlic intelligence test, "might be the smartest guy in the draft." His intellect was renowned at UW, and line coaches that have interviewed him are amazed at his recall and football knowledge.

Last season, Atlanta general manager Thomas Dimitroff used a second-round pick for what he hopes will be his center for the next decade in Wisconsin's Peter Konz. He watched Frederick as the left guard in 2011 and at center last season, and is convinced he moves well enough to succeed.

"Sure he can," said Dimitroff. "This guy is an urgent, aggressive, tough guy. He is adept and alert inside in a small area. He has really good feel for it."

"Wisconsin guys have played well in the league," an AFC personnel man said. "Frederick can play center, but I think he's going to play guard. I think he's a second-round pick, but he may go in the back end of the first because there's not that many centers."

The Journal Sentinel polled 16 personnel people, asking them to rank their six favorite linemen in order regardless of position. A first-place vote was worth six points, a second-place was worth five and so forth.

Luke Joeckel led with 90 points (12 firsts), followed by Eric Fisher, 80 (three firsts); Lane Johnson, 50; Jonathan Cooper, 41 (one first); Chance Warmack, 36; D.J. Fluker, 19; Menelik Watson, 14; Frederick, three; and Kyle Long, Justin Pugh and Brennan Williams, each one.

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/subp...r-uws-travis-frederick-rt9i5ug-203715111.html



Write Up By Bob McGinn Journal Sentinel

1. TRAVIS FREDERICK, Wisconsin (6-3 ½, 316, 5.56, 2) - Fourth-year junior with 18 starts at center and 13 at LG. "I'm enthralled with him," one scout said. "He's a first-rounder to me. If people don't like him they're crazy. He's better than (Peter) Konz and (Kevin) Zeitler from last year. He was the best offensive lineman Wisconsin had in 2011. He's a bull. Smart. He's better than (David) DeCastro." Worked out poorly at the combine, including merely 21 reps on the bench. "He's just a bad athlete . . . surprisingly bad," another scout said. "Usually those Wisconsin guys aren't top-flight, but he just doesn't move very well. Great (intelligence), effort, the whole deal." Graduated from Walworth Big Foot High school, from Sharon, Wis. "I'd take him in the third or fourth round," said a third scout, adding that the terrible 40 time had no bearing on his grade. "I didn't think he was a very good athlete. He's a great leader. Tough as nails. But I don't think he can play center and guard at a rate that makes me feel he will become a starter any time soon."

http://www.jsonline.com/sports/draft19g-rt9i5uh-203726121.html

 

[xwalker]

That wouldn't make it not a reach though. It's about value. If I overpay for a part for my truck and it works, that doesn't mean the price was right. A reach is overpaying for a prospect. It's subjective, of course, because there is no set value on these players. All teams think differently. What's clear is Travis Frederick was not thought of as a first round talent by most. So most consider the pick overpaying and a reach. In their mind, you can get a better player there and think about Frederick in the 2nd round.

You could have bought a $75 battery that was dead in 6 months with no warranty or a $100 battery that lasted 5 years.

Some internet shoppers that have never manufactured a battery or installed one on an automobile, rated any battery for your truck as "worth" $80.

Which battery was the best value?

Immediately after it was purchased (drafted), the $75 battery was a value pick and the $100 battery was a reach.

After 5 years, you either purchased the $100 battery once or purchased 10 of the $75 dollar batteries. You can say thanks to the internet shoppers (internet draft gurus) for convincing you to pay $750 for 5 years of battery life while your neighbor paid $100 for his.

 

[Eskimo]

That wouldn't make it not a reach though. It's about value. If I overpay for a part for my truck and it works, that doesn't mean the price was right. A reach is overpaying for a prospect. It's subjective, of course, because there is no set value on these players. All teams think differently. What's clear is Travis Frederick was not thought of as a first round talent by most. So most consider the pick overpaying and a reach. In their mind, you can get a better player there and think about Frederick in the 2nd round.

But it is also true that the Cowboys didn't have a first round grade on Frederick either and traded down to the bottom of the first round where there were no true first round graded players left. If they had stayed at the pick the players of interest remaining were Floyd who someone didn't apparently want or Eifert who wasn't ranked much ahead of Escobar who we took in the second.

When Frederick was selected he was the BPA on our board. To say he was a reach is to say the scouting dept and coaches got their rankings wrong on player ability but we really won't know for sure on that one for 2-3 years. I also don't know that anyone can stand on firm ground to say he was a reach as we don't know how any of the other teams graded him. What seems clear is they wanted an anchor the interior and after TFred the next interior player is given a bottom of the 3rd round grade. So if they didn't address the pick with a bottom of the first round pick for a top of the second round graded player they ran the risk of losing the only first year contributing player along the OL left. I think they played the situation well under the assumption that they had to get one of Pugh or Frederick for next year to upgrade the OL play. We do know they had a hope that one of Cooper or Warmack would fall but that didn't happen. They actually had Frederick rated above Fluker who went #11 overall. I think doing the trade down to where Frederick was the BPA and acquiring a pick that let them get the #23 player on their board was getting excellent value compared to just taking a marginally higher ranked TE than the one we got in the second (Eifert vs Escobar) or taking a DL that the DC doesn't particularly want since he has enough DLs and the player isn't a good scheme fit.

As for getting value in the trade down, no one knows what a draft pick is really worth. It really depends on:

1. How much the other team wants to trade up which itself is usually based on how they value a particular player left on the board based on his ability and team need at the position, how likely the team feels the player will be picked if left available before their next turn to pick.

2. How much the current team wants to trade down which usually is a result of how much they value the player they would pick at this slot of the draft and how likley they feel they will get a player they covet if they trade down which may be a different player than the one they would pick with the current pick.

3. It also probably depends on some leaguewide concensus on what kind of value you are getting at different stages of the draft compared to the normal draft value chart. For example, this year's top of the first round was noted to be historically weak so any such traded pick would not have the usual points value and we saw this when the Raiders traded out of the #3 overall pick with the Dolphins. We also know that because the second and third rounds were very deep those picks may have had a higher value than is normally the case. If everyone in the league accepts this than the perceived points value of those lower picks is going to be higher than the usual points chart that was created about 30-40 years ago.

4. There have apparenlty been some studies down that conclude that the classic circulated points chart for draft pick tends to vastly overrate early picks and vastly underrate the value of later picks.

So I think it is hard to conclude the Cowboys didn't get fair value in the trade. What we can conclude is the Cowboys valued those picks from the 49ers better than what anyone else was offering to move up to that spot. Moreover, the Cowboys valued those later picks higher than they valued the right to draft whoever they would have drafted at #18 but presumably either Eric Reid, Tyler Eifert or Sharif Floyd.

 

[Picksix]

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.

Yeah, but really who cares about pro bowlers? We had 13 of them in 2007, and where did it get us? So much of being a pro bowler is name recognition and popularity, which is why we've had guys go who shouldn't have, and also had guys not go who should have.

 

[Picksix]

That wouldn't make it not a reach though. It's about value. If I overpay for a part for my truck and it works, that doesn't mean the price was right. A reach is overpaying for a prospect. It's subjective, of course, because there is no set value on these players. All teams think differently. What's clear is Travis Frederick was not thought of as a first round talent by most. So most consider the pick overpaying and a reach. In their mind, you can get a better player there and think about Frederick in the 2nd round.

I see exactly what you're saying, but I would change the wording a bit. You can get a higher ranked player there, but not necessarily a better one. I think we get too caught up in value from a ranking perspective. If we take guys at or below where they were ranked, we got good value. If we take guys ahead of where they're ranked, we didn't. But that's where that stops. Now it's a matter of how well the guy plays, which brings in a whole different aspect of value.

Yes, if I pay too much for something, well then I overspent, but it works great for a long time, then in the end I'm much better off than if I spent less on something that doesn't. Yes, responsibility in regards to how much we spend is important, but to use your example, I would much rather pay too much for a car part that works great for a long time, than to get a bargain on one that fails. Overall, I got much better value out of the first one.

So, is there a correlation between getting "good value" during the draft, and quality play down the line, versus not getting good value in the draft, and poor play downt the line?

 

[perrykemp]

Yeah, but really who cares about pro bowlers? We had 13 of them in 2007, and where did it get us? So much of being a pro bowler is name recognition and popularity, which is why we've had guys go who shouldn't have, and also had guys not go who should have.

It's just one possible measure of draft success. Making the AP All Pro team is another. If none of the guys you draft over a 5-7 year period achieve that kind of recognition, it probably means a team isn't drafting well.

 

[Verdict]

Regarding the car battery scenario .... This year you could either buy the last battery on the shelf (Frederick) and maybe overpay or you can wait until next year and buy one off the shelf in 2014 (in the draft) but if you do that your car isn't going to run until next year. Lol.

 

[Eskimo]

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).

Why did you pick 2006? Could it be that if you put in 2005 you would have to include Ware, Rat and Barber?

You also need to think about players in terms of quality and not solely on the basis of popularity which in a typical year is heavily influenced by performance in past years that generated Pro Bowl berths and overall team performance which usually favors those teams who have won a lot of games.

If you were to ask me what players currently play at a Pro Bowl level on the roster, I would answer:

Tony Romo
Dez Bryant
Jason Witten
Demarcus Ware
Anthony Spencer
Sean Lee

If you were to ask do we have any up and coming players that might soon may be playing at a Pro Bowl level I would answer:

Bruce Carter
Mo Claiborne
Tyron Smith

This is clearly not a team devoid of talent that came out of draft and UDFA. The bigger problem that we have had is too many weak players that play too many snaps. From last year this list included:

Ryan Cook
Mack Bernadeau
Tyron Smith (first half of the year)
Nate Livings (second half of the year)
Doug Free
Derrick Dockery
John Phillips
Kevin Ogletree
Felix Jones
Lawrence Vickers
Sean Lissemore (may have been injured)
Dan Connor
Ernie Sims
Danny McCray
Gerald Sensabaugh
Charlie Peprah
Peter Frampton
Brady Poppinga

So that is a pretty long list of players who were far below average last year and that is why we struggled so much as a team. Part of the reason some of these players played is we had a number of key injuries that led to backups, backups to backups and guys off the street having to play a meaningful number of snaps.

The biggest part of the problem has been concentration of resources at key positions but without development of reasonable amount of depth at those key positions and without adequate quality of starters at the lesser priority positions. If you have huge weaknesses than other teams will try to exploit them and that is something that Jerry has never entirely wrapped his mind around. He won with the triplets, Haley and Deion and he thinks that's the way you win. It does appear as though we are paying more attention now to developing players who can fill out the roster from top to bottom.

So I don't really think the issue is that we haven't found enough Pro Bowlers. As soon as we put up a winning season we'll have lots of them again because of our exposure and the way the hype machine gets going when we are successful. The bigger issue is player development from the top to the bottom of the roster and that is where we seem to have improved more than in the number of stars that we have.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Why did you pick 2006? Could it be that if you put in 2005 you would have to include Ware, Rat and Barber?

The biggest part of the problem has been concentration of resources at key positions but without development of reasonable amount of depth at those key positions and without adequate quality of starters at the lesser priority positions.

I heartily disagree with the bolded aspect of your post.

The problem is generating a pass rush and protection and blowing holes for the running game.

This team has ignored the lines to bolster the DB's and skill positions to the point we have aging stars who would be injured more frequently, or running the offense with cast-offs that cannot block girl scouts from ice cream trucks.

This game, no matter how advanced it is from the leather helmet days, is still won in the trenches.

And although this is not my argument, I suspect 2005 was left out because we are talking 8 years back to 2006. That is way long for a players career versus the league average.

 

[Eskimo]

I heartily disagree with the bolded aspect of your post.

The problem is generating a pass rush and protection and blowing holes for the running game.

This team has ignored the lines to bolster the DB's and skill positions to the point we have aging stars who would be injured more frequently, or running the offense with cast-offs that cannot block girl scouts from ice cream trucks.

This game, no matter how advanced it is from the leather helmet days, is still won in the trenches.

And although this is not my argument, I suspect 2005 was left out because we are talking 8 years back to 2006. That is way long for a players career versus the league average.

As for pressure - you are wrong. We have had 3 pressure players go to the Pro Bowl and two of them have been All-Pro. One of them is destined for the Hall of Fame.

As for the OL, I would argue they were very good in 2006 and 2007 although they did wear down a bit by the end of 2007.

However, in Jerry's scheme the interior of the OL is not a key position in his schema. He does view pressure as key and he views protection of the QB's edge as a key but he doesn't value the interior the same way. The problem with the team isn't so much that the interior isn't a strength, the problem is that it was a huge negative. In 2011 when we went on the run the interior was okay with Holland-Costa-Kosier. It was when Holland got hurt and Kosier's legs fell apart at the end of the year that we started to struggle.

I do agree that we need to start drafting DL again as Rat is about to go, Hatcher is 31, Ware is 31 and coming off an injury plagued year with his arm and has that neck issue and Spencer is a UFA again. But I don't agree that pressure has been a big weakness of this team. I think the biggest problem defensively is that the coverage has been terrible and that involves the LBs, Safeties and CBs. Jerry has always focused on the CBs but in recent years he has lost sight of the importance of having adequate Safeties and adequate LBs in coverage. Brooking and James were terrible. Sensy and whoever lines up beside him have been terrible. Spencer has not been good when he dropped back. This has allowed opposing OCs to exploit us mercilessly through the air. The fact that none of the players outside of Sean Lee had any ball skills allowed them to launch the ball at ease knowing the worst outcome was likely an incomplete pass.

This year we hope to have adequate players. Lee, Carter and Durant will be a very good set of LBs in coverage and all should be good tacklers. Church I know is also good from the 3 games he got to play last year - so long as he has his movement skills back after the surgery he will be good. That leaves one huge question mark at the other Safety that has yet to be answered but if Johnson is healthy I think he can play. The other question remains adequate depth behind those guys and I do like Albright and think one of the rookies might be able to hold his own. The backup Safety is also a huge issue with a bunch of untested rookies and a meh veteran who hasn't done much in the league in ten years. Our best bet in the backups may actually be Hamilton the UDFA or some guy off of the street if one of the starters goes down so that is still a key area of vulnerability.

As for the interior OL I like Frederick but don't expect anything more than average play from him this year. I am skeptical about Livings and Bernadeau. The part I am more optimistic about this year is the quality of the backups with a year older and a healthy Kowalski, Leary having adjusted mentally to the pro game and Costa ready to step in now in his 4th year. We also have a ready Parnell waiting to come in at a drop of a hat if Free struggles right of the bat.

So I do think the key areas of weakness have been at least partially addressed. We have great players at all the key spots (QB, WR1, DE1, CB1, LT1) but now we have a better supporting cast, better roster depth and now finally have a brilliant DC to control that side of the ball.

 

[Idgit]

...This game, no matter how advanced it is from the leather helmet days, is still won in the trenches..

It's really not. It's won in through the passing game, and by winning the turnover battle.

That requires adequate protection. Pressuring the other guy's QB is obviously really important, too, but that's only a quarter of the trenches equation.