The biggest surprise about the Frederick pick

[ThreeandOut]

There's very little chance that BPA leaves you with no players at the OL year after year. You're talking about 5 positions and having one player head and shoulders above any other on your board isn't that common.

What's true is the Cowboys don't value those positions. So when they're sitting there looking at a small group of players at the top of their board, they favor the irrelevant cornerback over the non sexy pick of a C or G.

They had to do something this year. Once they did, they completely ignored the OL the rest of the way and including UDFA.

I don't think you can say that any team that has selected an OL in 2 of the last three years doesn't value OL. After being burned by so many 2nd and 3rd round busts, they've just gotten very selective. They are probably not going to take an OL in the first three rounds unless they feel they can contribute immediately (just like any other position).

This issue is probably magnified because they generally only take 7 OL's on the active game day roster. So any OL that they take early either needs to be an immediate starter or versatile enough to play multiple positions as a backup.

 

[5Stars]

I don't think you can say that any team that has selected an OL in 2 of the last three years doesn't value OL. After being burned by so many 2nd and 3rd round busts, they've just gotten very selective. They are probably not going to take an OL in the first three rounds unless they feel they can contribute immediately (just like any other position).

This issue is probably magnified because they generally only take 7 OL's on the active game day roster. So any OL that they take early either needs to be an immediate starter or versatile enough to play multiple positions as a backup.

:starspin :starspin

 

[speedkilz88]

Et tu belichick?

Duron Harmon - DB - Patriots
According to NFL Draft insider Tony Pauline, the Patriots' scouts were "overruled" and the brain trust "made the choice" when New England selected S Duron Harmon with the No. 91 overall pick.
In other words, Bill Belichick loved Harmon while his scouts didn't. Pauline wrote that "no one I spoke with" thought Harmon would be a top-100 pick before the draft. New England selected him at No. 91 overall. Pauline also reports there was "a lot of disagreement" over the Patriots' second-round selection of OLB Jamie Collins. "Many" Pats scouts graded Collins as a "last-day pick."
Source: TFY Draft Insider
May 7 - 11:56 AM

 

[Idgit]

Et tu belichick?

Things are tough all over. Thanks for sharing that tidbit, though. Nice to hear the issues aren't just in Dallas. Sometimes it's easy to forget.

 

[Risen Star]

But, we've drafted two OLs in the first in two of Garrett's three drafts, so it's not accurate to say 'no players.'

On a roster completely devoid of OL talent and is reason #1, 2 and 3 on why we can't win.

I'd also disagree that it's uncommon to have a player ranked head and shoulders above over players for a given pick. I'd say it probably happens as often as not.

I'd say it's rare. These aren't snowflakes. You don't have a separate and unique grade on every player on the board. You have clusters and need should factor into those clusters.

I'm tired of hearing about how there was no value at OL again, but here's a couple more DBs for you. We haven't changed our approach, so the results should be expected to be the same. They do not know better. If they did the OL wouldn't look like it does.

The Cowboys are pretty much like other teams when it comes to valuing OL positions. They value OTs, and, under Callahan, the apparently place a lot of value on C.

The offensive coordinator shouldn't dictate philosophy and approach to team building. That's for the GM and VP of Personnel to decide. If what you say is true, and you or I have no way of knowing, this team is woefully mismanaged.

They don't value OGs as highly, because everybody knows OGs are more plentiful and maybe the easiest position on the OL to hide a marginal player. There are just too many options there with small school guys who can develop from mid round picks and college OTs who move inside at the next level. It's pretty much supply and demand.

Yes. Quality Gs fall off trees. Which is why we have a whopping none on our roster and haven't for years.

Tsk tsk on that G talk. Let's focus on our 5th CB spot. Because what if Carr, Claiborne and Scandrick go out one night and get in an accident?

Except around here, where it's taken as an article of blasphemy for some reason. Most likely because it's so unlikely the team is going to reach for an OG, so it gives people something to complain about for longer about how the more things change, the more they stay the same.

I'm not on a mission to defend the team. That's probably where I'm losing you. I'm being real here. This draft overall was weak. Everywhere but OL and DL. It was tailor made for our needs and we ended up with a total of 1 player through 7 picks and dozen and a half UDFAs. Now we hear the May rallying cry of improvement from within and coaching magic.

It's worthy of criticism. It's the same thing we've done to get to this point. It's not the way out of it.

BTW, Larry Warford wouldn't be a reach. He was universally a higher ranked player than Escobar on every draft board I looked at.

 

[Idgit]

Yes. Quality Gs fall off trees. Which is why we have a whopping none on our roster and haven't for years.

We're just never going to agree, because you massively overrate OGs each year, and then end up dumbfounded by how the team keeps underrating them as a result. It's no great mystery.

But the OGs aren't even in the top 5 things that were wrong with this team last season, so I'm not surprised in the least that we didn't reach for an OG in the second round. Especially given how picked-over the options were at that point. OG wasn't the biggest need on the OL. And it wasn't the second biggest.

The biggest OL needs were C and RT. And, while coordinators don't dictate who a team drafts (and I never implied they did), you're fooling yourself if you don't think the scouts start the process by sitting down with the HC, coordinators, and position coaches to find out what sorts of players they want. And that the pro personnel scout aren't evaluating the current roster v. available college players for each position to determine where the upgrades are most likely to be available.

If that group thinks OG is not a glaring need, you're welcome to vehemently disagree with them. But the reality is, they do sit down and evaluate every play for every player for the year, and then compare that with what's available in VFA and the draft. If they do that, and then pickup a C and start to work on a change at RT, when other posters have been telling you all off season that the changes are needed at C and RT, and you're still puzzling over why there isn't a priority placed on OGs, well, then, you might have to start considering at some point that your evaluation of what's wrong with the team is simply inaccurate.

 

[honyock]

We're just never going to agree, because you massively overrate OGs each year, and then end up dumbfounded by how the team keeps underrating them as a result. It's no great mystery.

But the OGs aren't even in the top 5 things that were wrong with this team last season, so I'm not surprised in the least that we didn't reach for an OG in the second round. Especially given how picked-over the options were at that point. OG wasn't the biggest need on the OL. And it wasn't the second biggest.

The biggest OL needs were C and RT. And, while coordinators don't dictate who a team drafts (and I never implied they did), you're fooling yourself if you don't think the scouts start the process by sitting down with the HC, coordinators, and position coaches to find out what sorts of players they want. And that the pro personnel scout aren't evaluating the current roster v. available college players for each position to determine where the upgrades are most likely to be available.

If that group thinks OG is not a glaring need, you're welcome to vehemently disagree with them. But the reality is, they do sit down and evaluate every play for every player for the year, and then compare that with what's available in VFA and the draft. If they do that, and then pickup a C and start to work on a change at RT, when other posters have been telling you all off season that the changes are needed at C and RT, and you're still puzzling over why there isn't a priority placed on OGs, well, then, you might have to start considering at some point that your evaluation of what's wrong with the team is simply inaccurate.

Well, I do think that OG was seen by the team as a big need this year, with the reports that Warmack and Cooper were high on their wish list at #18, with Pugh (who I'm just guessing they saw as an OG) in the same tier as Frederick. It will be telling whether they put Frederick at center or guard, at least for this year. I've thought all along that guard was a bigger need than tackle, so hey, I'm a little prejudiced in this instance.

 

[Idgit]

Well, I do think that OG was seen by the team as a big need this year, with the reports that Warmack and Cooper were high on their wish list at #18, with Pugh (who I'm guessing they saw as an OG) in the same tier as Frederick. It will be telling whether they put Frederick at center or guard, at least for this year. I've thought all along that guard was a bigger need than tackle, so hey, I'm a little prejudiced in this instance.

Don't get me wrong, OG was a definite need. And either Cooper or Warmack represented a significant upgrade for us if either had made it to 18. I'd have been upset if we didn't pick them. You've got to upgrade your roster as much as you can with each selection if you're getting maximum value for your picks.

So...yeah, maybe being a bit unfair to the OG position here, but the reality is that, if you're hiding a soft spot on your OL, you'd rather do it at OG than at C or OT. Upgrading C and RT made more sense than bringing in an upgrade at OG outside of the top two elite players at that position group.

 

[dogberry]

Jerry said his dream situation ended by the fifth pick. I took that to mean he wanted one of the Ts to drop to us. (didn't take much horse power to figure that out on my part)

 

[CyberB0b]

But the OGs aren't even in the top 5 things that were wrong with this team last season,

What?

 

[Idgit]

What?

The OGs aren't even in the top 5 things that were wrong with this team last season.

 

[honyock]

Don't get me wrong, OG was a definite need. And either Cooper or Warmack represented a significant upgrade for us if either had made it to 18. I'd have been upset if we didn't pick them. You've got to upgrade your roster as much as you can with each selection if you're getting maximum value for your picks.

So...yeah, maybe being a bit unfair to the OG position here, but the reality is that, if you're hiding a soft spot on your OL, you'd rather do it at OG than at C or OT. Upgrading C and RT made more sense than bringing in an upgrade at OG outside of the top two elite players at that position group.

I agree, with the caveat that none of us know exactly how high the team is on Parnell. Who knows, they may have gone into the draft seeing that nothing outside the top three tackles (and maybe four if you count Fluker) would be an immediate upgrade over Parnell.

In truth I'd have been happy with an upgrade over anyone to the right of Smith. I've got hope that Parnell proves he's ready. We'll find out soon enough if my fan's evaluation is way off base on that.

 

[CyberB0b]

The OGs aren't even in the top 5 things that were wrong with this team last season.

Career high sack total (Romo) and worst running game in the history of the team and they weren't one of the biggest problems? I would like to see your top 5, if you don't mind.

 

[Idgit]

Career high sack total (Romo) and worst running game in the history of the team and they weren't one of the biggest problems? I would like to see your top 5, if you don't mind.

Sure. I'll ask you, in turn, how well you think a productive running game correlates to wins, and how you think Romo's sack rate last year compared to previous years (hint 5.3%, his 4th highest rate last year in 7 years as a starter).

In no particular order my top five problem areas would be:

Offensive giveaways
Deffensive takeaways
Red zone scoring
Injuries
Safety play

And then, OL play, overall. The OL play included OGs, but, frankly, I had bigger problems with both RT and C along the OL.

 

[jnday]

We're just never going to agree, because you massively overrate OGs each year, and then end up dumbfounded by how the team keeps underrating them as a result. It's no great mystery.

But the OGs aren't even in the top 5 things that were wrong with this team last season, so I'm not surprised in the least that we didn't reach for an OG in the second round. Especially given how picked-over the options were at that point. OG wasn't the biggest need on the OL. And it wasn't the second biggest.

The biggest OL needs were C and RT. And, while coordinators don't dictate who a team drafts (and I never implied they did), you're fooling yourself if you don't think the scouts start the process by sitting down with the HC, coordinators, and position coaches to find out what sorts of players they want. And that the pro personnel scout aren't evaluating the current roster v. available college players for each position to determine where the upgrades are most likely to be available.

If that group thinks OG is not a glaring need, you're welcome to vehemently disagree with them. But the reality is, they do sit down and evaluate every play for every player for the year, and then compare that with what's available in VFA and the draft. If they do that, and then pickup a C and start to work on a change at RT, when other posters have been telling you all off season that the changes are needed at C and RT, and you're still puzzling over why there isn't a priority placed on OGs, well, then, you might have to start considering at some point that your evaluation of what's wrong with the team is simply inaccurate.

This is why me and you will always disagree as well. Risen doesn't overrate a guards value at all. If you watch the pressure that Romo felt on passing plays because of poor guard play, you would understand. I bet Murray has a high opinion of the the guard position as well. From your post I gather that you are much like Jerry. You want the skill positions filled with top quality players and use the remaining resources for positions like guard. Dallas has failed with this approach to team building for more years than I want to think about. Your (and Jerry) approach to team building has not worked in the past and it will fail in the future. You must not have played the game or you would realize that wuality linemen makes the QB, RBs, TEs and WRs better players. Guards also control the LOS and can keep the defense fresh. The flaw in your approach is based on your assumption that only players that touch the ball have alotta value. This approach looks fine on paper with the stats and all the super talented players at the skill positions. It just doesn't look pretty on the scoreboard. How many more years of failure will it take to admit that your view is wrong? Yoou have to look no further than the Ravens and 49ers to see the results of Risen's and my approach.

 

[Eskimo]

It may be true that Center play was worse but we were also playing with our 4th string Center during the year. Now there was an automatic fix on getting by Costa this year so long as he can remain healthy. So this was an area that didn't have to be addressed but they did manage to find a 1st round Center who arguably plays better at OG.

The RT situation was probably worse than the OG play but Free is on his way out and Parnell on his way in. Parnell played okay for only being in his second year at the new position and should improve a great deal over another offseason focusing on football instead of basketball. I also think he will be even more comfortable with his body now that he has acclimated to his size. I think he was 245 pounds as a Junior, 290 pounds when we signed him from the Saints PS and now he is up around 320 pounds which looks like a good weight for him. I think he would beat out Free if we have an open competition this year in camp.

Now as for OG, Livings was kind of broken down last year and hopefully he'll do better this year. Bern had two leg surgeries last offseason so he probably was playing without proper anchor and explosion last season. I still hope that Brandon Moore will be signed in place of Livings as a stop gap for a couple of years while we try to find a long-term solution. I hope that one of Leary, Arkin or Kowalski shows himself of capable to playing the spot but doubt more than one of them would ever be average at the position. Maybe we have something in one of the UDFAs we signed to futures contracts. OL are notorious late developers so maybe it will click for one of them this year.

I do think the expected improvement of Tyron, the expected improvement from Parnell, the addition of TFred, the return of Costa and hopefully better health from Livings, Kowalski and Bern will give us a much better unit this year. We won't really know what we have until they go out there and play the opposition. I do think there is room for optimism from the performance last season. I'm also still disappointed that we haven't brought Holland back in for a look but I guess that boat has sailed.

 

[Idgit]

This is why me and you will always disagree as well. Risen doesn't overrate a guards value at all. If you watch the pressure that Romo felt on passing plays because of poor guard play, you would understand. I bet Murray has a high opinion of the the guard position as well. From your post I gather that you are much like Jerry. You want the skill positions filled with top quality players and use the remaining resources for positions like guard. Dallas has failed with this approach to team building for more years than I want to think about. Your (and Jerry) approach to team building has not worked in the past and it will fail in the future. You must not have played the game or you would realize that wuality linemen makes the QB, RBs, TEs and WRs better players. Guards also control the LOS and can keep the defense fresh. The flaw in your approach is based on your assumption that only players that touch the ball have alotta value. This approach looks fine on paper with the stats and all the super talented players at the skill positions. It just doesn't look pretty on the scoreboard. How many more years of failure will it take to admit that your view is wrong? Yoou have to look no further than the Ravens and 49ers to see the results of Risen's and my approach.

Yeah, I think you're drawing the wrong conclusions here. My opinion about linemen is: it depends on the position. A starting LT you're going to have to spend a high pick on, or get incredibly lucky. RTs are typically 1st or 2nd round picks. A good 3-tech DT you're going to have to get in the first round. Same with any pass rushing DE.

But whether Dallas has done it or not, teams fill OG positions from the third rounds on down, all the time. And they let premium OGs walk in free agency when they have to. As I said above, it's a simple supply an demand equation, and there are more of these guys who can play in a box than there are guys who can play at tackle. They're not as rare, as a result, and they don't get drafted as high or paid as much because they're relatively easier to find. You may not like it, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.

If we can't find starters at positions like OG and RB and FB and the 4-3 SLB in the middle rounds where they can be found, then we have got to start reaching for them. And by reaching for them, we're spending premium picks on spots where the supply is relatively abundant. You're never going to build a competitive team that way. What you're going to end up doing is wasting resources on positions you could otherwise cover up, and then taking long shots at positions that are legitimately a lot harder to fill. That's stupid.

No, if we haven't been successful in the past with value picks, the obvious right thing to do is identify why we haven't been successful and address it. The right thing is not to then start reaching for the Larry Warfords of the world whom your scouts aren't high on and who they don't think represents an upgrade over the middling talents you have at his position on the roster already.

 

[ThreeandOut]

I can give you five reasons why the Cowboys have been very selective in their OL's and why they've avoided taking them in the 2nd and 3rd rounds in recent years: 1) Al Johnson, 2) Jacob Rogers , 3) Stephen Peterman, 4) James Marten, and 5) Robert Brewster. Since 2010, we seemed to be emphasizing more of a BPA available approach which had lead to greater success with the 2nd and 3rd round selections (Lee, Carter, Murray, Crawford).

For as much flake as Dallas has taken for taking TE's in the 2nd round (Fasano and Bennett), those TE's were more productive for the Cowboys than any of the OL's mentioned above that they selected. Those TE's are also still playing in the NFL, which is more than you can say for any of the linemen other than Peterman.

 

[IrishAnto]

.
No, if we haven't been successful in the past with value picks, the obvious right thing to do is identify why we haven't been successful and address it. The right thing is not to then start reaching for the Larry Warfords of the world whom your scouts aren't high on and who they don't think represents an upgrade over the middling talents you have at his position on the roster already.

And that’s the problem.

They seem unable to find OL talent outside of the top two rounds.

The reason for that is anybody’s guess, but the facts over the last 15+ years speak for themselves.

I do think they finally realise this (the fact that they’ve drafted two linemen in the last three drafts would indicate this) however they don’t seem to be able to address the reason(s) for their poor evaluations skills in the lower rounds.

 

[IrishAnto]

For as much flake as Dallas has taken for taking TE's in the 2nd round (Fasano and Bennett), those TE's were more productive for the Cowboys than any of the OL's mentioned above that they selected. Those TE's are also still playing in the NFL, which is more than you can say for any of the linemen other than Peterman.

I could care less if they’re still playing in the NFL.

We’re not drafting for the rest of the NFL.

They should be playing for the Cowboys!

If they can’t play for the Cowboys then we shouldn’t be wasting picks on them.