The Escobar Pick: Revisting the Cowboys Draft Board

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Looks like bad evaluation.

Escobar is slow and can't block.

First of all the cannot block thing is overstated. He has improved in that area. What I see mostly is grandstanding on a poor block and crowing about it. There is a breakdown on bloggingtheboys from the Raiders game where he pancakes a 275 lbs DE inline. That was completely ignroed and that tells me that confirmation bias is in play here. If there is good and bad then that tells me that he is inconsistent and needs to develop. He is a rookie after all.

I also do not see how you can say that he is slow seeing that they never sent him on deep routes. Callahan never used the TE as anything other than a decoy or a dumpoff. For example, Miles TD in the Bengals game, Escobar and Witten charged hard into 5 yard curls which pulled the LB up and prevented them from defending the back of the endzone. They ran no flags, posts and screens downfield which are staples of Witten's game. But I guess you can tell Escobar's speed from all the short curls, in, outs, and flares that he was asked to run.

Further there were 16 passes in the preseason caught by TE. Escobar got 10 of them, scored a TD, and almost had another. He dropped 1 ball by my count. Yeah he has nothing to contribute....

 

[Cover 2]

I think a better rule of thumb would be, "don't let the fans see your board, that way they don't have an entirely new way to criticize you with the help of hindsight".

I don't get why people act like it's ridiculous to judge a team's draft by hindsight. If we don't judge them by hindsight what should we judge them by?

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I don't get why people act like it's ridiculous to judge a team's draft by hindsight. If we don't judge them by hindsight what should we judge them by?

Don't have a problem with judging a team's draft even five minutes after if you want. What's ridiculous is saying they should have gone with "their board" (which fans shouldn't even see anyway) as if the board was some tablet handed down by Moses that is the exact talent ranking of every player and distributed to every team. The "board" was made by the same organization that is deciding to ignore the board. Just because the board sometimes looks better when it becomes exposed and with hindsight does not mean that the board wasn't made by Jerry Jr. and Stephen pulling names blindfolded out of a hat. If you can't be trusted to follow a board, then why should you be trusted to make a board?

I understand that some people want to break the process down to see if the problem is scouting, coaches, or just Jerry flat out imposing his will on the pick when the clock has ticked down. But the bottom line is there is no standout part of this organization after 20 years with 1 playoff win. People need to stop acting like there is some genius behind the scenes making a board and that Jerry and the coaches are fouling things up. I have no doubt Jerry's fingerprints are all over that board.

 

[Hoofbite]

First of all the cannot block thing is overstated. He has improved in that area. What I see mostly is grandstanding on a poor block and crowing about it. There is a breakdown on bloggingtheboys from the Raiders game where he pancakes a 275 lbs DE inline. That was completely ignroed and that tells me that confirmation bias is in play here. If there is good and bad then that tells me that he is inconsistent and needs to develop. He is a rookie after all.

Grandstanding on a poor block? Is that better or worse than grandstanding on a single pancake block? By the way, the block you keep mentioning was a double team effort from both him and Hannah.

Here's the play sequence from the BTB article.

See Escobar highlighted and Hannah just to his inside.

I'll admit. It looks pretty good at first glance. Hell, it looks fantastic by looking at the stills but then you realize that Hannah mysteriously disappears after the first still shot and reappears in the last shot.

What you don't see is that Hannah was on the backside of that Escobar block in the 2nd and 3rd still shots before releasing and going after another defender, captured in the 4th photo.

Here's the video of the play.



I'll give him credit, he finished the block well. Not sure I'd hitch my wagon to such a block as evidence of why he's not all that bad. Not when there's a handful of bad blocks for every block that he gets the job done just enough or for every block where he and another TE block someone like this.

 

[85Cowboy85]

I don't get why people act like it's ridiculous to judge a team's draft by hindsight. If we don't judge them by hindsight what should we judge them by?

I think you can evaluate a teams scouting by hindsight. I think its ridiculous to evaluate a teams decision making by hindsight.

For instance I think it would have been very stupid for Jerry to draft a player with a 5th round grade in the 2nd round. It does not really matter to me if that player turns out to be a Hall of Famer. All drafting is somewhat probabilistic so it's possible to make poor decisions and have good results (although not in the long run).

If three years from now all our draft picks are no longer in the league and people want to go back and criticize the scouting I have no problem with that.

 

[Hoofbite]

I think you can evaluate a teams scouting by hindsight. I think its ridiculous to evaluate a teams decision making by hindsight.

For instance I think it would have been very stupid for Jerry to draft a player with a 5th round grade in the 2nd round. It does not really matter to me if that player turns out to be a Hall of Famer. All drafting is somewhat probabilistic so it's possible to make poor decisions and have good results (although not in the long run).

If three years from now all our draft picks are no longer in the league and people want to go back and criticize the scouting I have no problem with that.

I disagree.

I don't think teams expect to, or even try to, rank players with such infallible accuracy to where you could honestly say that the #33 player on your board is truly better than the #35 player. I think more often than not players are grouped which ultimately leaves a decision to be made.

Secondly, teams do make decisions against scouting's grades. Happens all the time because there are players who rank highly at positions of no need. BPA sounds great but doubtful the Colts will spend another 1st round pick on a QB no matter if that player is the highest ranked player on their board. Dallas went against the scouts multiple times in the last draft.

Lastly, the people who would get criticized for decisions are the people who tapped the scouts in the first place. You may be relying on them to feed you information but if they tell you trash and you go with it, blame yourself putting them in that position

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Grandstanding on a poor block? Is that better or worse than grandstanding on a single pancake block? By the way, the block you keep mentioning was a double team effort from both him and Hannah.

Here's the play sequence from the BTB article.

See Escobar highlighted and Hannah just to his inside.

I'll admit. It looks pretty good at first glance. Hell, it looks fantastic by looking at the stills but then you realize that Hannah mysteriously disappears after the first still shot and reappears in the last shot.

What you don't see is that Hannah was on the backside of that Escobar block in the 2nd and 3rd still shots before releasing and going after another defender, captured in the 4th photo.

Here's the video of the play.



I'll give him credit, he finished the block well. Not sure I'd hitch my wagon to such a block as evidence of why he's not all that bad. Not when there's a handful of bad blocks for every block that he gets the job done just enough or for every block where he and another TE block someone like this.

I never said that he was a good blocker. I said that he was inconsistent because I SAW BOTH THE GOOD AND BAD.

As for your bucket counting of good versus a 'handful' of bad, those aren't even numbers. They are made up qualitative estimates. Unless you have charted the games I can put little stock into them. Sorry mang if I am coming across as adversarial. I just get a bit hostile when I see fans that are looking for an excuse to take a big ole deuce on one of our players. Not that you are btw.

 

[85Cowboy85]

Don't have a problem with judging a team's draft even five minutes after if you want. What's ridiculous is saying they should have gone with "their board" (which fans shouldn't even see anyway) as if the board was some tablet handed down by Moses that is the exact talent ranking of every player and distributed to every team. The "board" was made by the same organization that is deciding to ignore the board. Just because the board sometimes looks better when it becomes exposed and with hindsight does not mean that the board wasn't made by Jerry Jr. and Stephen pulling names blindfolded out of a hat. If you can't be trusted to follow a board, then why should you be trusted to make a board?

I understand that some people want to break the process down to see if the problem is scouting, coaches, or just Jerry flat out imposing his will on the pick when the clock has ticked down. But the bottom line is there is no standout part of this organization after 20 years with 1 playoff win. People need to stop acting like there is some genius behind the scenes making a board and that Jerry and the coaches are fouling things up. I have no doubt Jerry's fingerprints are all over that board.

Call me crazy but I suspect if the Cowboys draft board said Escobar was a 4th round talent you would be bashing Jerry like crazy for taking him in the 2nd. Rightfully so I might add. But if the board is totally worthless there is no reason for you to do so.

The board was made by a team scouts who actually make a living by evaluating talent. I can assure you that Jerry and Stephen do not randomly pick players out of a hat to create the board. While not infallible to board is a very valuable expert opinion.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Call me crazy but I suspect if the Cowboys draft board said Escobar was a 4th round talent you would be bashing Jerry like crazy for taking him in the 2nd. Rightfully so I might add. But if the board is totally worthless there is no reason for you to do so.

No, if I thought they were idiots for making the pick then by default their board is also idiotic because they made it. It would just make me suspect that Escobar is actually really either a 2nd day pick or the best player in the draft...

 

[coult44]

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?

Without reading all the other responses to this thread, I wanted to post my response, and then read what everyone else thought. So I will make this real quick. Kind of a question and comment all at once. It's hard to do any research or have any questions about our draft using the "DALLAS COWBOYS OFFICIAL DRAFT BOARD"...WHY? Because the GM and front office of the Dallas Cowboys don't use their board during the draft anyways. It makes me wonder why they take the time, spend the money, and go out of the way to hide it, when they don't stick to it on draft day. There were plenty of OL and DL in this draft that should have been rated above Escobar. Now that he's a Cowboy, I wish him nothing but the best and hope he become the next JW. BUT, There is no way we should have drafted a TE in the 2nd round, no way at all!!!

 

[85Cowboy85]

I disagree.

I don't think teams expect to, or even try to, rank players with such infallible accuracy to where you could honestly say that the #33 player on your board is truly better than the #35 player. I think more often than not players are grouped which ultimately leaves a decision to be made.

Secondly, teams do make decisions against scouting's grades. Happens all the time because there are players who rank highly at positions of no need. BPA sounds great but doubtful the Colts will spend another 1st round pick on a QB no matter if that player is the highest ranked player on their board. Dallas went against the scouts multiple times in the last draft.

Lastly, the people who would get criticized for decisions are the people who tapped the scouts in the first place. You may be relying on them to feed you information but if they tell you trash and you go with it, blame yourself putting them in that position

I agree with your first point. Players are clumped together. If you think we should draft the player who best fills a need within the top clump so to speak I am fine with that.

I agree with the second point as well but I think it's misleading. The Colts may not want to draft another QB in the first. But when they do pick it will be in the next clump. It's essentially BPA with an exception for QBs. I would not say they are "going against" their own scouts. Although if the QB was high enough I personally would favor picking the QB even in that case.

Third point sure. Jerry is not blameless because in the end he hires/fires the scouts.

This doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with evaluating the draft decisions in hindsight though. So I am confused as to why you quoted that post. Perhaps my example is somewhat confusing.

To put it another way lets say hypothetically Warford is on the Cowboy's board. He is ranked one slot behind Escobar at 26 and they both have basically the same grade. Now lets say the Cowboys draft Warford. The result is Escobar becomes All Pro and Warford busts completely.

It would be illogical to me to criticize the draft day decision because Warford had the same grade as Escobar and better fit the need. No person could sit there with that information and determine that Escobar would go on to be All-Pro and Warford would bust. Much more logical to look at the scouting and see how well the grades matched up with the future results. This is why I separated the scouting and decision making.

 

[Hoofbite]

I agree with your first point. Players are clumped together. If you think we should draft the player who best fills a need within the top clump so to speak I am fine with that.

I agree with the second point as well but I think it's misleading. The Colts may not want to draft another QB in the first. But when they do pick it will be in the next clump. It's essentially BPA with an exception for QBs. I would not say they are "going against" their own scouts. Although if the QB was high enough I personally would favor picking the QB even in that case.

Third point sure. Jerry is not blameless because in the end he hires/fires the scouts.

This doesn't seem to me to have anything to do with evaluating the draft decisions in hindsight though. So I am confused as to why you quoted that post. Perhaps my example is somewhat confusing.

To put it another way lets say hypothetically Warford is on the Cowboy's board. He is ranked one slot behind Escobar at 26 and they both have basically the same grade. Now lets say the Cowboys draft Warford. The result is Escobar becomes All Pro and Warford busts completely.

It would be illogical to me to criticize the draft day decision because Warford had the same grade as Escobar and better fit the need. No person could sit there with that information and determine that Escobar would go on to be All-Pro and Warford would bust. Much more logical to look at the scouting and see how well the grades matched up with the future results. This is why I separated the scouting and decision making.

For that example, I would likely agree.

However, in the context of Escobar I think a more fitting example is that the team has similarly rated guys and they take the one who is at a position of less need.

So the situation in which criticism is deserved is where two similarly rated players are on the board, one at a position of need and the other not, and the team opts for the player who's less likely to contribute.

Place and time for everything I suppose. I see nothing wrong with criticizing draft decisions. I'm not sure you could even evaluate a draft trade from any other perspective. Trades are 100% draft day decisions.

 

[ThreeandOut]

For that example, I would likely agree.

However, in the context of Escobar I think a more fitting example is that the team has similarly rated guys and they take the one who is at a position of less need.

So the situation in which criticism is deserved is where two similarly rated players are on the board, one at a position of need and the other not, and the team opts for the player who's less likely to contribute.

Place and time for everything I suppose. I see nothing wrong with criticizing draft decisions. I'm not sure you could even evaluate a draft trade from any other perspective. Trades are 100% draft day decisions.

I'm not sure you can really say that Escobar was less of a need. I think the decision was between Escobar and Williams with the second round pick. The Cowboys made a decision in the off season to run a base two TE offense. But they only had two TE's on their roster that had been on the active roster last year (Witten and Hanna). So there was a definite need to draft a TE if the two TE is going to be the base offense.

On the other hand, they already had their two starting WR's (Dez and Miles), a decent third WR (Harris) and a promising 4th WR in Beasley. Williams is a talented prospect that may eventually replace Miles, but I don't think there was as immediate need for him as the additional TE.

 

[85Cowboy85]

For that example, I would likely agree.

However, in the context of Escobar I think a more fitting example is that the team has similarly rated guys and they take the one who is at a position of less need.

So the situation in which criticism is deserved is where two similarly rated players are on the board, one at a position of need and the other not, and the team opts for the player who's less likely to contribute.

Place and time for everything I suppose. I see nothing wrong with criticizing draft decisions. I'm not sure you could even evaluate a draft trade from any other perspective. Trades are 100% draft day decisions.

My point is no matter what philosophy you have it only makes sense to criticize the decision aspect based on what is known at the time. It really doesn't matter if you are need based or BPA. That's why I changed my example to a case where the player was taken based on need.

Also I'm not sure Escobar fits the example of an instance where they had similar guys at positions of need on the board. Most of the positions of need were at least one round reaches with the exception of maybe Hunt.

 

[gmoney112]

Let's be real. Escobar wasn't picked to be a great presence in the 2013 NFL season.

Let's also be real. Escobar was arguably the best catching tight-end in the draft and if we didn't draft him he'd be a 49er right now. The Niners took a pass catching Tight End in the 2nd after us within 10 picks, who surprisingly, had problems with blocking.

By all accounts, he seems to be huge. (Never seen him in person, just from observations from camp reports) A season or two will greatly enhance his blocking ability, especially with his frame.

He's the definition of a great prospect, with excellent hands and catching radius. A knock on blocking but he has the frame to fill out and be more than adequate.

 

[ThreeandOut]

My point is no matter what philosophy you have it only makes sense to criticize the decision aspect based on what is known at the time. It really doesn't matter if you are need based or BPA. That's why I changed my example to a case where the player was taken based on need.

Also I'm not sure Escobar fits the example of an instance where they had similar guys at positions of need on the board. Most of the positions of need were at least one round reaches with the exception of maybe Hunt.

Hunt was a SDE. They knew they had Spencer locked up at the time and had a healthy Crawford (who they invested a 3rd round pick on the previous year). So they probably didn't view Hunt as an immediate need.