The Escobar Pick: Revisting the Cowboys Draft Board

[ThreeandOut]

Rhodes may be a better fit in Kiffen's D scheme than Claiborne. So if they had traded Mo and took the X-Man at 18, I would not have balked too much. I am just glad the Cowboys did not take Floyd.

I think they should have done it just to troll Risen Star.

 

[BAT]

I think they should have done it just to troll Risen Star.

That would have shook the entire board, moreso than Frederick pick.

 

[Sasquatch]

Judging according to their own board, with the exception of the Federick over Floyd decision, the Cowboys got exceptional value with their picks and had themselves one hell of a draft.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Judging according to their own board, with the exception of the Federick over Floyd decision, the Cowboys got exceptional value with their picks and had themselves one hell of a draft.

This. All. Day.

 

[Cowboys22]

The whole problem with this entire discussion is that it is basically irrelevant because the Cowboys only rank and put about 125 players on their board. They are nowhere near the best 125 available out of the 600+ players available every year. Thus, when they have Escobar as the 27th ranked player, it is absolutely meaningless. He was not even close to being the 27th best player in the draft. I think this is all done on purpose so they can claim great value according to their board with every pick but their board leaves off tons of very talented players each year based on a whole hosts of reasons.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Thus, when they have Escobar as the 27th ranked player, it is absolutely meaningless. He was not even close to being the 27th best player in the draft. I think this is all done on purpose so they can claim great value according to their board

They do rank players by draft round also.

 

[TheCount]

I'm just frustrated from having this conversation over and over. And to me i've tried to simplify it as much as possible. Your response completely ignored all rationale and assumes that the only way to be true to one's draft board is to follow a rigid sense of just select the highest guy rated who is available. If that was the case trading down would ALWAYS be incorrect. Surely you don't believe that.

Well that's not exactly the case. If you've got pick 15 and the guys you had graded out as being worthy of that pick aren't there, but the next guy up is graded as being a 2nd round prospect, trading down is still "sticking to the board".

That being said, my entire point of what I said was that no one "sticks to the board" in the literal sense. That they don't always stick to the letter and law of their draft boards once the draft gets rolling so you can't say, "If they hadn't taken Escobar, they'd have taken Ryan Nassib because he was next on the list." when they already DIDN'T take Floyd where they had him graded at. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Risen Star]

Wasn't even on the Cowboys board.

Get a new board.

I know your mission is to rubber stamp everything the team does but an honest evaluation tells you this braintrust has issues evaluating OL. So to justify a draft pick based off their draft board is really short sighted. What about the possibility that...~gasp~....their draft board is wrong? Again.

Larry Warford will be an infinitely better player than Gavin Escobar. It won't even be close when you look back at in 5 years.

 

[Risen Star]

The whole problem with this entire discussion is that it is basically irrelevant because the Cowboys only rank and put about 125 players on their board. They are nowhere near the best 125 available out of the 600+ players available every year. Thus, when they have Escobar as the 27th ranked player, it is absolutely meaningless. He was not even close to being the 27th best player in the draft. I think this is all done on purpose so they can claim great value according to their board with every pick but their board leaves off tons of very talented players each year based on a whole hosts of reasons.

They certainly do float information out there to back up their decisions.

And the sheep flock accordingly.

I'm all about results. If the player busts, I don't give two bleeps where he was on your draft board. That doesn't justify a bad decision.

 

[visionary]

I know I know beating a dead horse. But I had a little free time on my hands and based on some of the discussion I thought it might be worth while to take a look.

Basically I went back through the draft and tried to recreate what the draft board would have looked like when the 47th pick came around. All the players with a first round grade were gone at this point. Assuming I didn't make any mistakes these are the players with a second round grade that were available:

+2 Terrance Williams, WR
0 Gavin Escobar, TE
-4 Ryan Nassib, QB
-5 Margus Hunt, DE
-7 Matt Barkley, QB
-12 Blidi Wreh-Wilson, CB
-14 Eddie Lacy, RB

The number represents the number of spots below or above Escobar the player was. For instance Williams was the best player remaining on the board and two spots above Escobar.

The most interesting name on this list is DE Margus Hunt from SMU. He was selected six picks later by the Bengals at 53. Doing a small amount of research on him he has very very good measurables. Raw talent however so I would say he's a classic boom or bust type guy. Worth noting he is already 26 years old. Even if he does boom it might be a limited window for his career.

The thing about drafting for need is that if the player is not a year one starter the point is somewhat moot. That's because the team will have other drafts/Free agency within that time frame to address the need.

I think Hunt is a slight reach but I would find it acceptable if he were taken by the Cowboys at 47. For me I would be okay with either Hunt, Escobar, Williams and maybe Nassib. I tend to be a pure BPA guy so if I'm in Jerry's shoes I'm taking Williams. However as it turned out Williams was available at 73 so taking Escobar is actually the move which maximized the Cowboys potential value.

People have said they would have rather taken next best OL/DL instead of Escobar. The next best DT had a third round grade and that was Bennie Logan. Cowboys had him at number 51 on their board he ended up being selected with the 67th pick of the third round by the Eagles. Keep in mind Escobar was ranked 25th on the Cowboys board.

For the offensive line it gets worse. All remaining offensive lineman had a fourth round grade or lower. When Jerry said Frederick was the last of the Mohicans he wasn't kidding.

Next Available OL:

C: Khaled Holmes 70th player on Cowboys board
T: Dallas Thomas 78th player on Cowboys board
G: Brian Winters 89th player on Cowboys board

Basically if you had substituted Escobar for next best available DT or O-lineman you would have been reaching by at least one round. The scouts may end up being wrong on Escobar but I do not fault the draft strategy. What say you zoners? Do you favor the Escobar pick or do you think the Cowboys should have gone OL/DL?

Good thread and makes sense
Just trying to understand why we followed our board for these picks but not for the 18th pick

 

[ThreeandOut]

Get a new board.

I know your mission is to rubber stamp everything the team does but an honest evaluation tells you this braintrust has issues evaluating OL. So to justify a draft pick based off their draft board is really short sighted. What about the possibility that...~gasp~....their draft board is wrong? Again.

Larry Warford will be an infinitely better player than Gavin Escobar. It won't even be close when you look back at in 5 years.

So whose board should they get?

 

[visionary]

Get a new board.

I know your mission is to rubber stamp everything the team does but an honest evaluation tells you this braintrust has issues evaluating OL. So to justify a draft pick based off their draft board is really short sighted. What about the possibility that...~gasp~....their draft board is wrong? Again.

Larry Warford will be an infinitely better player than Gavin Escobar. It won't even be close when you look back at in 5 years.

Absolutely correct

 

[Risen Star]

So whose board should they get?

If the board is flawed, revamp the scouting department.

Who's in charge of that? He's the one to blame.

 

[visionary]

M

So whose board should they get?

maybe they should get better scouts and actually listen to what they have to say

And perhaps..... (and I know this sounds completely out of left field since only 30 other NFL teams do it).....perhaps... get a real GM who actually has a track record of evaluating players well and (gasp) whose job depends on his performance

 

[jnday]

Get a new board.

I know your mission is to rubber stamp everything the team does but an honest evaluation tells you this braintrust has issues evaluating OL. So to justify a draft pick based off their draft board is really short sighted. What about the possibility that...~gasp~....their draft board is wrong? Again.

Larry Warford will be an infinitely better player than Gavin Escobar. It won't even be close when you look back at in 5 years.

Warford should have been a Cowboy. I don't think this was a good year for drafting olinemen after the first considering the run on linemen that started early. The draft before was the draft to build the line and get great value. Looking back is only good for raising your blood pressure.

 

[Common Sense]

It's a weird thread for sure, IMO.

We validate the Escobar pick by using the Cowboys board that had Escobar as the 2nd best player available but at the same time we don't acknowledge that Escobar hasn't looked anything like a 2nd round pick.

This. You don't draft 3rd-string projects in the 2nd round coming off of back-to-back 8-8 seasons. Questionable scouting here, just like ranking a player 5th overall whom the coaches don't even feel fits the scheme.

 

[85Cowboy85]

The whole problem with this entire discussion is that it is basically irrelevant because the Cowboys only rank and put about 125 players on their board. They are nowhere near the best 125 available out of the 600+ players available every year. Thus, when they have Escobar as the 27th ranked player, it is absolutely meaningless. He was not even close to being the 27th best player in the draft. I think this is all done on purpose so they can claim great value according to their board with every pick but their board leaves off tons of very talented players each year based on a whole hosts of reasons.

He is actually very very close to being 27th best player. The Cowboys board has him ranked 25. There were only 1-3 guys picked before him that were not on the Cowboys board. I know this because I actually went through every pick and crossed them off.

Most of the 600 players available are UDFAs. That's why they aren't all on the board.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Get a new board.

I know your mission is to rubber stamp everything the team does but an honest evaluation tells you this braintrust has issues evaluating OL. So to justify a draft pick based off their draft board is really short sighted. What about the possibility that...~gasp~....their draft board is wrong? Again.

Larry Warford will be an infinitely better player than Gavin Escobar. It won't even be close when you look back at in 5 years.

Warford gives up penetration entirely too easily and doesn't have the quickness to ever be anything other than average in that regard.

It's a passing league. Get used to the idea.

 

[Jerruh]

You have to stick to your board. Otherwise you end up with the 2009 draft and get no production at all. During draft day I was pretty upset they didn't take another lineman but after seeing the draft board I am pleased with the work they did this year.

Also it's a bit too early to revisit the draft seeing as the complete version of the offense hasn't even seen the field yet. Talk to me at the end of the season.

 

[85Cowboy85]

He is actually very very close to being 27th best player. The Cowboys board has him ranked 25. There were only 1-3 guys picked before him that were not on the Cowboys board. I know this because I actually went through every pick and crossed them off.

Most of the 600 players available are UDFAs. That's why they aren't all on the board.

To clarify here I just went back and counted how many players I crossed off. There were 46 picks before we took Escobar at 47. I crossed off 41 players. Assuming I didn't miss anybody that means there were five players not on our board who were drafted before Escobar.

In short there is no conspiracy to make the cowboys look good by keeping players off the board.