Stephen Jones is a terrible negotiator

[MikeT22]

People still are beholden to that draft value chart?

Interesting how we are always on the short side of that draft value chart.

 

[Proximo]

DE - Selvie
DT - Hayden
DT - Melton
DE - Spencer

Both Melton and Spencer are basically on one year rentals. With Hayden being more of a depth guy vs. starter, we still have a lot of work to do especially inside.

What we really need is for Crawford and Bass to pan out and be at least solid impact rotation guys if not starters. I believe they'll both end up on the inside. Plus whatever they get in the remainder of the draft. We're definitely going to have some faces on that D line that weren't there last year.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

True. Lawrence might start. Either way, we really need Hayden to step up, occupy a couple of blockers so Melton can make some moves.

Hayden will not be the starter... Even as of right now before any draft picks tomorrow. McClain will be.

 

[MikeT22]

It was the cost of trading with a division rival.

Actually, the cost of panicking.

 

[honyock]

Like the player, don't like the trade.

As for valuing trades, though, we should be making our decisions based on where we slotted the value of the pick, not the actual pick we're trading into. If you get a top 15 guy on your board and you have to trade up to the top of the second to do it, then from your perspective, you'd be willing to overpay the top-of-the-second value in order to get a top-15 player. Or you ought to be. You just need to be right on the guy you scouted.

That's probably where the discrepancy creeps in.

Either way, the draft charts are just attempts to measure value. Value changes from draft to draft, and from round to round within the draft, and from team to team from round to round within the draft. It's not an objective scale, and we shouldn't use it to try to find a real objective value. It's just a framework for trying to measure an exchange of abstract value for abstract value. It's a guestimate.

That's a good point and that's probably how they looked at it. The value they gave up would have gotten them (and again, just using the Jimmy chart) up to about pick 29 or 30 in round one. That would have been an even trade just looking at point value. So they may have looked at it from their player slotting point of view.

Is that a good way to look at it? I'm still smarting from the value they gave up, so I dunno. But if you do that, you'd better be right on the player. You can get away with losing at horsetrading if you ended up trading for Secretariat. But it makes it even more important that your scouting was spot on.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

What we really need is for Crawford and Bass to pan out and be at least solid impact rotation guys if not starters. I believe they'll both end up on the inside. Plus whatever they get in the remainder of the draft. We're definitely going to have some faces on that D line that weren't there last year.

I'm more confident in Crawford, just because he has played 300 snaps when live bullets were flying... Bass hasn't.

 

[btcutter]

Like the player, don't like the trade.

As for valuing trades, though, we should be making our decisions based on where we slotted the value of the pick, not the actual pick we're trading into. If you get a top 15 guy on your board and you have to trade up to the top of the second to do it, then from your perspective, you'd be willing to overpay the top-of-the-second value in order to get a top-15 player. Or you ought to be. You just need to be right on the guy you scouted.

That's probably where the discrepancy creeps in.

Either way, the draft charts are just attempts to measure value. Value changes from draft to draft, and from round to round within the draft, and from team to team from round to round within the draft. It's not an objective scale, and we shouldn't use it to try to find a real objective value. It's just a framework for trying to measure an exchange of abstract value for abstract value. It's a guestimate.

Understood but this D needs more than 1 impact player. It certainly could have benefited from getting eventual starters in 2nd and 3 rd picks.
As with bunch of 7th rounders..... Well, they are only slightly better than priority FAs.

 

[Proximo]

Good post. I'd rather read one week of posts kvetching about the 3rd round pick than 16 weeks of posts kvetching about Selvie or Mincey as our starting DE.

Good point.

 

[Avery]

Regardless of who starts, I think all of would be perfectly fine with burning another 5-6 picks for the front seven.

 

[Hoofbite]

The reason I'm thinking they lost is that their chart, based on what they've hinted about regarding trades the past couple of years, seems to resemble one of the charts floating around online. That's just a guess of mine, but it seems to fit what they've said about their trades.

And if so, their chart doesn't value high picks as much as the old chart. So it would like this trade for the team trading up even less than the old chart.

I haven't looked it up yet...doing all this on the run. But I bet their chart shows this as a loss point-wise, and like they seemed to be saying in the presser, they were willing to lose on points to get their guy.

I don't think it's so much as their chart valuing the higher picks less. From what I've seen it appears as though they've scaled the entire point curve down a bit. The whole curve is shifted down so every pick is less than the traditional.

 

[Hoofbite]

Sorry, but the chart I'm looking at is working for everyone else but Dallas.
How is that we lose both when we are trading up AND trading down. If the chert was wrong it would devalue it one way or the other...not both ways.

Look, having said that, if they had Lawrence graded that much better than the rest, and he ends up very good, then who really cares...or at least cares that much.

All I know is if Jerigan, Creighton, or Ealy ends up better or as good as Lawrence, we got played.
One thing for sure though, Lawrence would not have been there at 47.

They lost last year by 1 full round. Won this year.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Actually, the cost of panicking.

How did we panic? It was just the 2nd pick of the day.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I'm more confident in Crawford, just because he has played 300 snaps when live bullets were flying... Bass hasn't.

Yeah but Bass can walk on water. I read it in here so it has to be true.

 

[honyock]

I don't think it's so much as their chart valuing the higher picks less. From what I've seen it appears as though they've scaled the entire point curve down a bit. The whole curve is shifted down so every pick is less than the traditional.

Well, the newer charts I've seen have a smoother curve. They value early picks less and later picks more than the old chart. Somewhere in the middle, the difference isn't as great as it is at the edges. That may be more or less what you're saying.

 

[Rockytop6]

Why does this keep happening to us?

Seriously somebody please tell me what the hell Stephen Jones contributes to this organization???

Why does Jerry ALWAYS winds up on the short end of the stick in every trade. I cri every time

I hate it too. Always getting shorted by our trade partners.

I cringe every time it is announced 'trade' when it involves the Cowboys! Jerry ALWAYS comes up with the short end of the stick. He might be very astute in business, but he doesn't know beans about trading.

 

[DFWJC]

Again, fwiw, the ranking service I'm looking at has given out two "A"s so far and Dallas' pick was one of them

 

[Hoofbite]

Well, the newer charts I've seen have a smoother curve. They value early picks less and later picks more than the old chart. Somewhere in the middle, the difference isn't as great as it is at the edges. That may be more or less what you're saying.

I get what your saying. If you were to plot the two curves you have the Cowboys chart being lower than traditional in round 1, while the Cowboys chart is higher than traditional at the end of round 7. Somewhere in the middle the two charts intersect.

I would agree with that.

 

[Kaiser]

Also you never know what would have happened, but at this point Lawrence, Hegeman, Attaochu, Murphy and Tuitt are all of the board by pick #50. Its possible that if we had stood pat at 47 we would have lost out on all the players we rated as DL who could help us this year.

 

[Vanilla2]

move back 13 picks in the 1st round last year and only got back a 3rd from San Fran.

move forward 13 picks in the 2nd round this year and get bamboozled for a 3rd from Wash.

nobody has any issue with this??????

Change your av.

 

[Idgit]

...Is that a good way to look at it? I'm still smarting from the value they gave up, so I dunno. But if you do that, you'd better be right on the player. You can get away with losing at horsetrading if you ended up trading for Secretariat. But it makes it even more important that your scouting was spot on.

That's the rub, right? It's the right way to make the decision, but then you're doubling down your bust-risk on one player. The chances of being wrong on a high second rounder are higher than being wrong on both a mid second and a mid third rounder. The chances of one high second rounder being great are lower than the chances of one of two 2nd and 3rd rounders being great. Just like the article you posted a few days back.

That said, we've some holes, but I don't think they're as many as our fans like to say there are on draft day. Even so, teams start a lot more players in the 7th and from CFA than I think most fans realize:

Not that many more players from the third round than there are from the seventh, when you looks at it. Rosters get filled out by inexpensive young players. Though I imagine a graph of longevity by round would look very different, we're still going to be adding a bunch of players for next season in the next few days. Those 7ths aren't just throwaways.