News: Should Cowboys use draft to further build strengths or fix weaknesses?

[Stash]

You gotta fix the weaknesses at some point. The team is only as strong as its weakest link. We've seen over the last few years that when it comes to crunch time that our defense can't get off the field. That's got to be fixed.

Exactly right. And what have been the Cowboys biggest losses this offseason?

#1 pass rusher?

#1 cornerback?

Or #3 receiver?

It's not hard to figure out.

 

[RodeoJake]

BPA in the 1st round has to depend on position. Ideally, your 1st rounder should be a solid to major contributor. Spending a high pick on a player that is gonna be on the bench more often than not doesn't work in today's NFL.

That said, positions that will offer a rookie the most snaps are S, CB and DE.

 

[Hadenough]

You have to look at several of the best players available on your board and then evaluate who will have the biggest impact on the Cowboys. I would not rule out Hebert if he somehow fell in this draft. If he falls past 10 Dallas should consider going to get him. Dak has become too expensive.

 

[thunderpimp91]

I say draft best available player at position of need. Put the decision through a value filter. If the player has less value trade down.

I don’t understand the whole best available player thing. If the best player available is a RB do you do that? Of course not.

S, CB, TE, DT, C, OT.

I agree that you have to have exceptions to the rule. If you cant get a player on the field its not worth your first round pick, but do you pass up a top WR or LB on your board to take a CB that your scouts are split on?

 

[Nova]

Use draft to infuse talent and build capital

Fix strengths and weaknesses through FA and trades.

Have a coach that can adapt to the hand he’s dealt

 

[Future]

Strengths, especially for this team.

You aren't going to replace Byron Jones or Robert Quinn in the draft.

 

[Nova]

I say draft best available player at position of need. Put the decision through a value filter. If the player has less value trade down.

I don’t understand the whole best available player thing. If the best player available is a RB do you do that? Of course not.

S, CB, TE, DT, C, OT.

I think BPA is not a literal philosophy. It’s more closely described as what you have indicated.

DL, CB, OL, LB, WR - you should probably treat as a literal BPA situation. All other positions? Not so much.

 

[Stash]

I agree that you have to have exceptions to the rule. If you cant get a player on the field its not worth your first round pick, but do you pass up a top WR or LB on your board to take a CB that your scouts are split on?

No. The rankings on the board have to be close, and if they are, need then factors in. It's not best player available or biggest need, it's a combination of both.

 

[thunderpimp91]

BPA in the 1st round has to depend on position. Ideally, your 1st rounder should be a solid to major contributor. Spending a high pick on a player that is gonna be on the bench more often than not doesn't work in today's NFL.

That said, positions that will offer a rookie the most snaps are S, CB and DE.

And i would disagree to an extent. Obviously i don't think you go QB or RB, but I'd rather have a 1st round pick that is a rotational player that could turn into a full time player down the road than one that turns out to be a bust. What i think kills teams are the Taco Charleton, Bobby Carpenter, Mo Claiborne type picks that you get nothing out of.

In recent history they have whiffed on Taco, Traded a 1st for Cooper, and let Byron walk. Miss again and you only have two 1st round picks contributing from the last 5 drafts. That is not a recipe for success. I just dont think you have the roster to allow you to take a huge risk this year.

 

[VACowboy]

Drafting BPA or to fill a need is always an interesting debate.

It's only a debate when people insist on arguing the extremes. No team takes the player at the top of their board or drafts by position ignoring all other factors. Different teams probably lean one way or the other, more or less depending on players and situations, but draft day decision-making is always some combination of the players available and what a team needs. Me, I HATE drafting players to fit a scheme. I would much rather take the best player on the board (with an eye toward roster composition and team needs) and then adjust my schemes to my talent. That is how you maximize a team's ability to win, at least IMVHO.

 

[thunderpimp91]

No. The rankings on the board have to be close, and if they are, need then factors in. It's not best player available or biggest need, it's a combination of both.

And I would agree with that completely. I guess my brain goes to if you see that player who you have as a blue chip type on your board (Lamb or jeudy for example), compared to a CB that you have a late 1st grade on. I would rather have the WR that you see as being a star, but maybe only sees 50-60% of snaps in year one.

If you have similar grades on two players, obviously you go with the one where you can get someone on the field to contribute.

 

[Shuff]

Let's trade Dak, get one of the stud QB's and use extra picks to get DB and Safety help. Maybe anothe WR also.

 

[kevinhickey]

Very simple. Make a board, trust it and take BPA.

This is always the best choice.

 

[Typhus]

Im Popeye the sailor man......

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/202...build-their-strengths-or-fix-their-weaknesses

you should address the weakness. we have seen in the past high scoring offense fizzle in the playoffs. it comes down to defense. even for KC, it came down to adding pieces to their defense. strengthen the defense and automatically offense will get better. will get better field position, will get more chances, we should add defense, defense defense. although everyone likes the signing of McCoy and Poe, I think they are both older, and probably now really close to being a JAG as opposed to being anything above. we also lost Jones and Quinn. Also, the fastest way to a superbowl is building your defense. all you have to do is look at SF that spent a lot of draft capital investing on the defense. if we draft 7 defensive players, I would complain once.

 

[Stash]

you should address the weakness. we have seen in the past high scoring offense fizzle in the playoffs. it comes down to defense. even for KC, it came down to adding pieces to their defense. strengthen the defense and automatically offense will get better. will get better field position, will get more chances, we should add defense, defense defense. although everyone likes the signing of McCoy and Poe, I think they are both older, and probably now really close to being a JAG as opposed to being anything above. we also lost Jones and Quinn. Also, the fastest way to a superbowl is building your defense. all you have to do is look at SF that spent a lot of draft capital investing on the defense. if we draft 7 defensive players, I would complain once.

I'm with you all the way on that.

I have a hard time believing that the Cowboys will not be able to find a comparable defensive player on their board at every point a wide receiver would be available. And defensive players are needed more than what would be a #3 receiver, at the very least for the first 3 rounds of this draft.

I cannot help but to feel that this idea is a fan reading and hearing about how "deep and talented" this year's wide receiver group is and feeling compelled to 'get in on the action'.

That's what stuff like this feels all about.

 

[Dalmations202]

I just don't understand the questioning of who should be drafted. You take the highest player on your board.

Highest player on the board is the question, based upon evaulation.
My board would have evaluation of player 1-100, plus position 0-20, plus intellingence 0-20, plus injury history 0-20, plus intangibles 0-? all of this minus the number of the person in the position that I currently have on the team.

Ex. Joe Burrow might be graded a 90 plus 20 for position plus 20 for intelligence, plus 20 for no injuries ever, plus 20 on intangibles. so he gets a 170. Minus Dak that I will rate a 80 --- so Burrow goes on my board as 90.

Chase Young might rate a 85 plus 18 for position plus 15 for intelligence (no clue), plus 20 for no injuries and 20 on intangibles. So he gets for 158. Minus Gregory/Smith/Crawford/Armstrong/Jackson/Jelks -- which the top score is 35 so Young hits my board at 123.

So Burrow might be the better player, but Young better for the team as constructed, and much higher on the board. If done for enough of these, you just take them off the board as they fall, but remember that if you draft one and it is a larger number than the current player, then you have to put the draftees number in instead of the current player. IE in the above scenario, if you drafted Young, that number to subtract on the next DE would be 85 and not 35.

Done my way, you only have to worry with the evaluation of the players both current and draftable. How well you evaluate both your team and the draftees determines how much gain you have on the team. It also allows for more important positions like QB and DE to be more important than K.
How you weight position, intelligence, injury history, etc determine how good the your board really is.

In the end, you always take the top player on the board, as you have already taken into account position and need.

 

[morasp]

I really liked what the 49s did last year, four of their draft picks were big contributors to their super bowl run.

 

[MarkP88]

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/202...build-their-strengths-or-fix-their-weaknesses

To build their talent base, period.

 

[kskboys]

We use the draft to make the team better. We have no control over who comes off the board before we're on the clock, so when our number is called we choose the best possible talent no matter what side of the ball it's on.

That's how we ended up w/ Taco.