The Cowboys Avoided A Disastrous 2013 First Round

[NeonDeion21]

With the recent news of the New Orleans Saints and Minnesota Vikings benching their 2013 first round picks, it got me thinking about that draft class and the decision Dallas made on that night. For those of you who don’t remember, Dallas dropped from the #18 pick all the way down to #31 and selected a player who they admittedly had a second round grade on. This caused a huge uproar among fans and the media as Dallas was once again, outsmarting themselves.

At the time, the entire Cowboys organization was being laughed at as many wondered why Dallas would drop way down into the draft and to select a player they didn’t even have a first round grade on. Most “experts” gave Dallas failing grades, just for this move along. Here’s some examples of the criticism that occurred on that night:





So I wanted to take a look at a few different things in regards to that first round and the decisions that Dallas made. First of all, I think it’s important to show who the Cowboys had first round grades on. Here’s a list (in order) of all the players that Dallas gave first round grades to with the help of bloggingtheboys.com:

When Dallas was on the board at #18, the only players available to them that they had first round grades on were Tyler Eifert, Sharrif Floyd, Bjorn Werner, Xavier Rhodes and Cordarrelle Patterson. Looking back now, you can see why Dallas felt like none of these players were worth the #18 overall pick in the 2013 draft. Dallas believed it was a deep tight end class (it was) and thought they could get a similar player a round later (which they did.) With DeMarcus Ware and Anthony Spencer, Werner would’ve been a luxury, same thing with Rhodes.

Dallas did like Cordarrelle Patterson, but not at #18. In fact, when the Cowboys traded down, Patterson would’ve been the pick if Minnesota had not trade up for him. Instead, Dallas took the highest rated player on their board in Travis Frederick. And while I’m not here to discuss Frederick’s worth to the team or compare him to the rest of the first round class, I do want to say that Dallas may have gotten one of the best seven players in this first round.

Read the rest at: http://cover32.com/cowboys/2014/12/...a-first-round-disaster-at-the-2013-nfl-draft/

 

[KingintheNorth]

They wanted Vacarro. They bailed out once he was gone.

This was much more luck than skill.

 

[Idgit]

Wow. You know what's an 'F'? That chin-spinach, Marvez. Can't. Stop. Looking at it.

 

[Idgit]

They wanted Vacarro. They bailed out once he was gone.

This was much more luck than skill.

It's not luck when you your backup options happen to pan out. It could have been a different backup option that didn't work out so well.

These masochistic fantasies where everything the organization does that pans out is luck, and everything they do that doesn't pan out is stupidity have to give way at some point to a realization that managing an NFL team is not an exact science, and that what you need to look for is the trends and not put so much value on any one single relatively-low-probability move.

 

[KingintheNorth]

Almost as bad as suggesting we were smarter than everyone else trading down when in fact we wanted Vacarro.

 

[DFWJC]

Have to admit, when our pick was there I wanted us to grab Sharif Floyd or Sly Williams, but at this point it's hard to be disappointing with getting both Freddy and Williams.

 

[JD_KaPow]

It's not luck when you your backup options happens to pan out. It could have been a different backup option that didn't pan you.

These masochistic fantasies where everything the organization does that pans out is luck, and everything they do that doesn't pan out is stupidity have to give way at some point to a realization that managing an NFL team is not an exact science, and that what you need to look for is the trends and not put so much value on any one single relatively-low-probability move.

Amen. This is why you evaluate based on process, not individual results. Do the guys you rank highly pan out at a high rate relative to the guys you rated lower? Are you taking on an appropriate level of risk, or are you risking too much (lots of total busts) or too little (not enough big hits)?

I think the Cowboys' process has been generally pretty good in recent years. I think the whole Floyd debacle was a fluke. The big exception here is that we trade up way too easily. Far better to accumulate picks than trade them away.

 

[Idgit]

Amen. This is why you evaluate based on process, not individual results. Do the guys you rank highly pan out at a high rate relative to the guys you rated lower? Are you taking on an appropriate level of risk, or are you risking too much (lots of total busts) or too little (not enough big hits)?

I think the Cowboys' process has been generally pretty good in recent years. I think the whole Floyd debacle was a fluke. The big exception here is that we trade up way too easily. Far better to accumulate picks than trade them away.

The two most recent trade ups don't look good in retrospect. Jury is obviously still out on Lawrence. But I think I have to agree. We've made some missteps along the way, but it looks and feels like we're starting to learn the error of our ways. This offseason we'll have a couple great opportunities to see if we've really learned anything, or not.

 

[JD_KaPow]

The two most recent trade ups don't look good in retrospect. Jury is obviously still out on Lawrence. But I think I have to agree. We've made some missteps along the way, but it looks and feels like we're starting to learn the error of our ways. This offseason we'll have a couple great opportunities to see if we've really learned anything, or not.

I think the Lawrence trade up was worse than the Mo trade up, personally, because of the price we paid relative to the historical value of the picks in question and because it was a desperation move to chase the last guy in a tier at a position of need. I'm also not sold on Lawrence as a player. I'm no scout, and I don't put a lot of stock in FO's SackSEER methodology, but when an objective evaluation rates a guy as terribly as that one rated Lawrence, I get worried.

 

[PoundTheRock]

So thankful to have the secret GM braintrust of Jason Garrett and Will McClay to help us successfully navigate this minefield.

 

[Alexander]

I think the Lawrence trade up was worse than the Mo trade up, personally, because of the price we paid relative to the historical value of the picks in question and because it was a desperation move to chase the last guy in a tier at a position of need.

14th overall pick and 45th overall pick >>>>> 47th overall pick and 78th overall pick

And how exactly was trading up for Claiborne not a need based reaction? They just had to have that cornerback, regardless of the fact they just handed another a $100 million dollar deal.

There is no possible way a rational person can justify that trade up as more acceptable given all the circumstances if Claiborne's career in Dallas finishes like it has started.

 

[KingintheNorth]

We had signed Carr, Scandrick was locked up, and Mike Jenkins was in a contract year. That trade up made no sense whatsoever. It just becomes worse as Claiborne continues to disappoint.

 

[JD_KaPow]

14th overall pick and 45th overall pick >>>>> 47th overall pick and 78th overall pick

And how exactly was trading up for Claiborne not a need based reaction? They just had to have that cornerback, regardless of the fact they just handed another a $100 million dollar deal.

There is no possible way a rational person can justify that trade up as more acceptable given all the circumstances if Claiborne's career in Dallas finishes like it has started.

Oy, where to begin? 14 + 45 is, historically speaking, a cheap price to get 6 overall. Contrariwise, 47 and 78 is, historically speaking, a steep price to get 34 overall.

Everything I've seen indicates that the 'Boys only traded up for Claiborne because the price was so cheap and they had him rated so highly on their board. It's pretty clear to me that the Lawrence trade was far more a move of desperation. YMMV.

And your last sentence is exactly what I was talking about, evaluating individual results instead of evaluating process.

 

[Risen Star]

I think the Lawrence trade up was worse than the Mo trade up, personally, because of the price we paid relative to the historical value of the picks in question and because it was a desperation move to chase the last guy in a tier at a position of need. I'm also not sold on Lawrence as a player. I'm no scout, and I don't put a lot of stock in FO's SackSEER methodology, but when an objective evaluation rates a guy as terribly as that one rated Lawrence, I get worried.

Man, it's literally impossible for me to disagree with you more.

You traded a 2nd and 3rd for a potential pass rusher? That's worse than trading a 1st and 2nd for a CB. After you just signed one for 50 million.

 

[Alexander]

Oy, where to begin? 14 + 45 is, historically speaking, a cheap price to get 6 overall. Contrariwise, 47 and 78 is, historically speaking, a steep price to get 34 overall.

Everything I've seen indicates that the 'Boys only traded up for Claiborne because the price was so cheap and they had him rated so highly on their board. It's pretty clear to me that the Lawrence trade was far more a move of desperation. YMMV.

And your last sentence is exactly what I was talking about, evaluating individual results instead of evaluating process.

So you evaluate based off of point values on a trade chart? Oh, we gave up a second round choice for an overrated dud, but it was a "cheap price".

The chances we would have received a quality player with that second round choice are far greater than what would have been received with third round choice. You also need to look at the quality of each draft.

Sorry, the Claiborne trade could hurt for years to come considering the talent that could have been drafted had the Cowboys stayed put (Wagner, Brockers). Lawrence could bust out for the rest of his time in Dallas and it would not compare.

 

[KingintheNorth]

Both instances of trading up weren't smart IMO. This defense needs 4 talented players a whole lot more than 2 perceived elite players. Especially when neither appears to be elite. Keep the picks.

 

[Tobal]

Claiborne and the Roy Williams trade were the biggest gaffs, Claiborne was just a bust of a pick. Outside of that and the normal 4th round curse (hoping Hutchens ends that). We've done as well as anyone.

 

[Alexander]

Both instances of trading up weren't smart IMO. This defense needs 4 talented players a whole lot more than 2 perceived elite players. Especially when neither appears to be elite. Keep the picks.

But we were. Just. One. Corner. Away.

 

[Risen Star]

On a side note, I love how the author of this says a pass rusher would have been luxury with Ware and Spencer here. That's the kind of short sighted thinking that causes you to trot out stiffs like George Selvie and Jeremy Mincey every week. That's not team building. That's a dam plugging mentality.

 

[Alexander]

Claiborne and the Roy Williams trade were the biggest gaffs, Claiborne was just a bust of a pick. Outside of that and the normal 4th round curse (hoping Hutchens ends that). We've done as well as anyone.

Picking players here and there and having them not bust out of the league is okay, but it is better to pick players that stick around AND help build a team.

The reason why the Frederick pick was so good is because it was a choice that a team makes to build around a centerpiece of an OL, not a cornerback that can be replaced. There have been 100s of CBs picked since Deion. There are less than five that can be considered game changing players instead of accessories.