The NFL Draft: Where Talent Evaluation and Luck Collide

[Verdict]

A lot of posters on this site have been bashing the Cowboys for achieving what they perceive are poor results from our talent acquisition efforts in the draft. While it is true that talent evaluation is a critical aspect of the draft process, and bears heavily on drafts results achieved, luck plays an equally critical part in a team's overall draft success.

In my view, the following factors bear heavily on a team's draft success, but a team's ability to evaluate talent has little to no bearing on these factors:

1. The level of OVERALL TALENT in the draft varies significantly from year to year.

2. The DISTRIBUTION OF TALENT varies from draft to draft. In other words is the draft top heavy, or weak at the top of the draft. Is this a deep draft or a shallow draft pool?

3. The Talent Level (Positional Depth) Varies widely from draft to draft.

4. The TEAM NEEDS of the teams drafting above you affect the players that may fall to you, or increase the cost of acquiring the player the team seeks to acquire.

5. The composition of the draft pool may not meet team "Needs".

6. The win/loss records of your opponents will probably affect your draft position.

All of the above have a very direct, and important affect on a team's draft success, and any or all can outweigh even the best talent evaluation process imaginable.

 

[jazzcat22]

Good post and is correct.

however when your GM passes on a player that can't be a very good player for years, because he thinks the team has talent [and still does.. ]

Then proceeds to trade down for these lessee players in a weak draft class. Becuase he drafts for ST's type HOPING they can become the eventual starters. Then this is where, and rightfully so, the criticism starts / or is at least warranted.

 

[Dodger12]

A lot of posters on this site have been bashing the Cowboys for achieving what they perceive are poor results from our talent acquisition efforts in the draft. While it is true that talent evaluation is a critical aspect of the draft process, and bears heavily on drafts results achieved, luck plays an equally critical part in a team's overall draft success.

In my view, the following factors bear heavily on a team's draft success, but a team's ability to evaluate talent has little to no bearing on these factors:

1. The level of OVERALL TALENT in the draft varies significantly from year to year.

2. The DISTRIBUTION OF TALENT varies from draft to draft. In other words is the draft top heavy, or weak at the top of the draft. Is this a deep draft or a shallow draft pool?

3. The Talent Level (Positional Depth) Varies widely from draft to draft.

4. The TEAM NEEDS of the teams drafting above you affect the players that may fall to you, or increase the cost of acquiring the player the team seeks to acquire.

5. The composition of the draft pool may not meet team "Needs".

6. The win/loss records of your opponents will probably affect your draft position.

All of the above have a very direct, and important affect on a team's draft success, and any or all can outweigh even the best talent evaluation process imaginable.

I'm surprised no one has commented on your post Verdict because you make some good points. A team can do a ton of homework on a player/pick and that player could still be a bust. Drafting is not an exact science.

Having said that, I've heard people say that we "lucked" into Romo and some other players. While that may be partially true, someone had to see something in Romo, Rat, Austin, etc. and develop them. They need to make roster decisions to keep them from being claimed by other teams if you put them on the practice squad.

Jerry wanted Henson and we gave up a third for him because he failed to see what others saw in Romo. Sometimes a player gets drafted for a specific role on the team and that adds to our depth. Where we go wrong is thinking that players like Felix and Barber are meant for other roles and we try and fit a square peg in a round hole which usually causes us to overspend and use valuable cap space. That's not luck, that's miss-evaluating your roster and causes us to spend another draft pick to correct that oversight. Think about if for a second: we miss-evaluate Barber and overpay him, we pick Felix in the first round in 2008 then have to correct our mistake with Barber by using a 3rd round pick on Murray in 2011.

People never thought that Keith Davis would be an adequate safety or that he'd ever be able to co-exist with BP but BP saw him as a special teams ace (which he was) and that was his role. When we don't have an organizational philosophy that is reflected in the way we draft and develop our roster, then we fail and that's where I believe we go wrong.

As Alexander mentioned in another thread, everyone knows what a LB in Pittsburgh is going to look like. GB drafts with a plan and you can usually find a decent back-up QB on their squad that some team will give up draft picks for.

We draft and try to find a diamond in the rough. People are high on Bruce Carter but we didn't expect him to contribute last year and he'll so this upcoming season will basically be his first. We may not see results until a couple of years down the road. I just don't think that's a wise way to use your second round pick. But we hit on Lee so that validates Jerry's way of doing business in his mind.

We thought that Bennett would miraculously flip a switch when the scouts had him accurately pegged as being lazy. A comment was made on draft day the coaches would have to put their foot on his throat, or something to that effect. yet, we still picked him in the second after we just traded our TE for a lower round pick. The same with Roy Williams which necessitated us spending a first on Bryant. In essence, we create our own needs.

I mentioned in another thread that Garrett is changing our drafting philosophy which I like. He's trying to draft leaders and players who were team captains. I like the fact that we're drafting guys who are hard workers because that will always give you a chance to succeed moreso than just "luck." But the reality is that we've wasted Romo's prime years and by the time we do get it right, we'll be looking for another QB which could take years. It's a completely dysfunctional way we've done business.

 

[sonnyboy]

Good post and is correct.

however when your GM passes on a player that can't be a very good player for years, because he thinks the team has talent [and still does.. ]

Then proceeds to trade down for these lessee players in a weak draft class. Becuase he drafts for ST's type HOPING they can become the eventual starters. Then this is where, and rightfully so, the criticism starts / or is at least warranted.

Most here have a problem with us trading down in 2009 or any other draft. Some have such a bad taste in their mouth from that draft, they can only see the negative in trading down for this team......

"we can't draft, so we should never trade down and or try to get cute"

If I had a dollar for every time I read that nonsense.

If you can't draft, you can't draft and your players are going to reflect that if you trade up, down or stay put.

BTW this franchise can draft.


I'm not a fan of trading down, up or staying put. I'm a fan of making the right move at the time given all the info at hand.

2 reasons our draft in 2009 stunk.....

• We traded our 1st and 3rd for a player.(who stunk) That's a huge amount of the draft resources we had to start with and left much less opportunity.
• We drafted poorly.

Trading down had nothing to do with it.

We had a player we wanted in rd 2. That player came off the board a few spots ahead of us and the we choose to trade down rather than select a player not worthy of the spot..... OR didn't fit our system.....OR in no way filed a need and would be burried on the depth chart.

 

[Dodger12]

If you can't draft, you can't draft and your players are going to reflect that if you trade up, down or stay put.

BTW this franchise can draft.

• We traded our 1st and 3rd for a player.(who stunk) That's a huge amount of the draft resources we had to start with and left much less opportunity.
• We drafted poorly.

Trading down had nothing to do with it.

 

[sonnyboy]

A lot of posters on this site have been bashing the Cowboys for achieving what they perceive are poor results from our talent acquisition efforts in the draft. While it is true that talent evaluation is a critical aspect of the draft process, and bears heavily on drafts results achieved, luck plays an equally critical part in a team's overall draft success.

In my view, the following factors bear heavily on a team's draft success, but a team's ability to evaluate talent has little to no bearing on these factors:

1. The level of OVERALL TALENT in the draft varies significantly from year to year.

2. The DISTRIBUTION OF TALENT varies from draft to draft. In other words is the draft top heavy, or weak at the top of the draft. Is this a deep draft or a shallow draft pool?

3. The Talent Level (Positional Depth) Varies widely from draft to draft.

4. The TEAM NEEDS of the teams drafting above you affect the players that may fall to you, or increase the cost of acquiring the player the team seeks to acquire.

5. The composition of the draft pool may not meet team "Needs".

6. The win/loss records of your opponents will probably affect your draft position.

All of the above have a very direct, and important affect on a team's draft success, and any or all can outweigh even the best talent evaluation process imaginable.

BTW Great post. BUT you do understand that all this applies to all 32 teams? And this is still a results oriented league.

The Cowboys, like everyone else, need to do their homework in every way.....

1) Evaluate every prospect properly and stack the board accurately. If you do this really really well, most everything else will either fall into place and or balance out in your favor.

2) General Intelligence. Understand what the league thinks. What does the average board look and how might yours differ??? This allows you to best work the draft from a value stand point. Ex: You have an OG you love and value him on your board as the 70th best player. If you're confident most other teams aren't ranking him in the top 100, perhaps you pass on him early in round 3 (given the right set of circumstances) with the confidence you'll nail him early in rd 4.

3) Specific Intelligence. Know as much as possible about every other team. This plays into the 2nd point and can help make critical decisions.....
Ex: You're sitting their in RD 2 and a player you love (like a Sean Lee) is sliding big time. 5 teams left to draft before you're on the clock and you have an offer on the table to trade up.
Do you take it? Do you feel confident you know what those teams are going to do and if you have to or should trade up?
Anybody else right behind you in the draft order love the kid and have they been calling around looking to trade up?

Lots and lots of options......I love the draft.

 

[MapleLeaf]

...the only concern I have is whether we have an accurate evaluation of ourselves as a team when our turn comes up.

 

[sonnyboy]

What's to figure? We draft well, we just don't do it every year.

 

[sonnyboy]

I'm surprised no one has commented on your post Verdict because you make some good points. A team can do a ton of homework on a player/pick and that player could still be a bust. Drafting is not an exact science.

Having said that, I've heard people say that we "lucked" into Romo and some other players. While that may be partially true, someone had to see something in Romo, Rat, Austin, etc. and develop them. They need to make roster decisions to keep them from being claimed by other teams if you put them on the practice squad.

Jerry wanted Henson and we gave up a third for him because he failed to see what others saw in Romo. Sometimes a player gets drafted for a specific role on the team and that adds to our depth. Where we go wrong is thinking that players like Felix and Barber are meant for other roles and we try and fit a square peg in a round hole which usually causes us to overspend and use valuable cap space. That's not luck, that's miss-evaluating your roster and causes us to spend another draft pick to correct that oversight. Think about if for a second: we miss-evaluate Barber and overpay him, we pick Felix in the first round in 2008 then have to correct our mistake with Barber by using a 3rd round pick on Murray in 2011.

People never thought that Keith Davis would be an adequate safety or that he'd ever be able to co-exist with BP but BP saw him as a special teams ace (which he was) and that was his role. When we don't have an organizational philosophy that is reflected in the way we draft and develop our roster, then we fail and that's where I believe we go wrong.

As Alexander mentioned in another thread, everyone knows what a LB in Pittsburgh is going to look like. GB drafts with a plan and you can usually find a decent back-up QB on their squad that some team will give up draft picks for.

We draft and try to find a diamond in the rough. People are high on Bruce Carter but we didn't expect him to contribute last year and he'll so this upcoming season will basically be his first. We may not see results until a couple of years down the road. I just don't think that's a wise way to use your second round pick. But we hit on Lee so that validates Jerry's way of doing business in his mind.

We thought that Bennett would miraculously flip a switch when the scouts had him accurately pegged as being lazy. A comment was made on draft day the coaches would have to put their foot on his throat, or something to that effect. yet, we still picked him in the second after we just traded our TE for a lower round pick. The same with Roy Williams which necessitated us spending a first on Bryant. In essence, we create our own needs.

I mentioned in another thread that Garrett is changing our drafting philosophy which I like. He's trying to draft leaders and players who were team captains. I like the fact that we're drafting guys who are hard workers because that will always give you a chance to succeed moreso than just "luck." But the reality is that we've wasted Romo's prime years and by the time we do get it right, we'll be looking for another QB which could take years. It's a completely dysfunctional way we've done business.

I don't understand the problem so many have with the Bruce Carter pick. And this is coming from someone who's head almost exploded when we didn't draft OL or DB with that pick........

Teams often trade selctions in the draft for a future pick a round or so higher. A 3 this year gets you a 2 in 2013, that's the general rule of thumb.

Drafting and injured player who isn't likely to play right away, presents a nice value propostion as I see it.
The general consensus as I understand it, is that we selected him a good 20 spots or more lower than most felt he'd have gone if healthy. (obviously that's open to debate)

Now we lose a year, but do we really? I mean the kid has had a year to learn our system and how things work in the NFL. You'd have to think he'll have a major leg up to get on the field and produce right from the jump. At least more so than most any other rookie LB.

Now understand this is all in theory. Carter's an individual and what he becomes we ultimately determine if his selction was a good one.

But assuming he does start and plays well, it will have been a very good pick. We had two older ILBs going into 2011 and grooming a replacement was neccesary.

 

[Dodger12]

Teams often trade selctions in the draft for a future pick a round or so higher. A 3 this year gets you a 2 in 2013, that's the general rule of thumb.

If we'd have been able to acquire an extra "first day" pick in 2012 then one can argue the gamble was worth it but we didn't.

Drafting and injured player who isn't likely to play right away, presents a nice value propostion as I see it.

This is where I disagree. In my opinion, a team needs it's first day picks to play. The only exception I can think of is drafting a QB and giving him some time to develop. But even in today's day and age, QB's are thrown to the wolves in their first season.

The general consensus as I understand it, is that we selected him a good 20 spots or more lower than most felt he'd have gone if healthy. (obviously that's open to debate)

We can say that in most every draft. Players fall because of health concerns. Canty was a likely first rounder who fell to the 4th round. To me, in that instance, the pick was worth the risk considering it was a lower pick we used.

Now we lose a year, but do we really? I mean the kid has had a year to learn our system and how things work in the NFL. You'd have to think he'll have a major leg up to get on the field and produce right from the jump. At least more so than most any other rookie LB.

But assuming he does start and plays well, it will have been a very good pick. We had two older ILBs going into 2011 and grooming a replacement was neccesary.

Yes, we lost a year any way we slice it. We screwed the pooch in 2009 which necessitated picking Carter. That's my point. We make our own needs because we haven't drafted well, overall. Now we're left hoping that Carter can become a player or we'll have to spend another (possibly high) draft pick to correct that one. My point was that the Op pointed to having some luck but sometimes our drafting philosophy is at fault and it has nothing to do with luck.

 

[Verdict]

In my original post, I didn't take any position on whether or not the Cowboys are doing a good job evaluating talent. The original premise was that "other factors" besides the ability to evaluate talent directly affect the success of the draft. And many of those things you have little to no control over.

The points made above, such as historically, we have had some drafts that suck are valid. Whether that is due to a failure to evaluate talent properly or had bad luck, or both, remains an unresolved issue.

Although I cannot "prove up" this opinion, I will go on record as stating that it "appears". to me at least that we are doing a pretty good job of evaluating talent. You need look no further than the last two drafts to see that we are having some success in that area. However, we were also LUCKY in that the the available talent (Tyson Smith) happened to also match an area of need.

Make no mistake about it .... the fact that Tyson Smith was there when our pick came up was partially a function of luck (factors we had no control over), but we ALSO evaluated talent well enough to make the right selection with that pick.

Sean Lee, is another example. I was told before the draft, by posters that I respect that Lee was one of the main targets in our sights on draft day. He obviously was. We obviously correctly evaluated his talent level. But if memory serves me correctly, we even thought enough of him to trade UP to get him rather than take a chance of missing out on him. For those of you who think everything Jerry Jones does is wrong, you obviously have to give him credit for making that decision and pulling the trigger.

To those of you who point out that the 2009 draft sucked (based in part on a lack of draft picks) I would agree with that sentiment. However, I don't believe that you can judge an organization based on one draft. If you look at the last 2 years, it looks as if we are doing an exceptional job drafting. If you look at the last 3, a little less so, but the trend seems to indicate we are doing a better job and more being more consistent.

None of the above PROVE anything, but the indications are that we are doing a much better job now drafting now than we have in years. I predict that if this years draft equals either the 2010 draft or the 2011 draft a majority of the posters will be lauding our draft success and saying how awesome we are at the whole draft process.

 

[sonnyboy]

If we'd have been able to acquire an extra "first day" pick in 2012 then one can argue the gamble was worth it but we didn't.



This is where I disagree. In my opinion, a team needs it's first day picks to play. The only exception I can think of is drafting a QB and giving him some time to develop. But even in today's day and age, QB's are thrown to the wolves in their first season.



We can say that in most every draft. Players fall because of health concerns. Canty was a likely first rounder who fell to the 4th round. To me, in that instance, the pick was worth the risk considering it was a lower pick we used.



Yes, we lost a year any way we slice it. We screwed the pooch in 2009 which necessitated picking Carter. That's my point. We make our own needs because we haven't drafted well, overall. Now we're left hoping that Carter can become a player or we'll have to spend another (possibly high) draft pick to correct that one. My point was that the Op pointed to having some luck but sometimes our drafting philosophy is at fault and it has nothing to do with luck.

No we didn't lose a year with Carter. He was here, did play some and did have an opportunity to gain valuable experience.

Will he be a good player? We'll see. But you can't say the time we've had him as a complete waste. It's not like when we drafted Chad Hennings and he had to srve a few years in the military.

Lets assume for just a second that Carter was healthy when we drafted him. Is it any stretch that we would have gone into the 2011 season with a plan to play the Vet ILBs we had while slowly working Carter into the lineup?

Much like we had done with Lee the year before?

We all want every draft pick to fill a role yr one. We want the 1st rd guys to start day one. We want the 2nd and 3rd rd guys to contribute and perhaps earn a starting spot some time in the 1st season. And we all love the idea of finding that day three diamond in the rough who does something within 2yrs.

I get it. But sometimes you need to role the dice a little.

Dez had top 5 talent, but a somewhat checked back ground and character questions that pushed him down the draft. At 23 in rd one, that's a risk worth taking.

Carter wasn't just some player who slipped in the draft. He was a top performer in college for a few years and certainly warranted a 1st rd pick and he not been injured. Getting him where we did in rd 2 was a smart play.