There Is Always A Price

[Shake_Tiller]

Pacman Jones is a tempting option to solve the Cowboys’ need for another cornerback and also could provide dynamism to the return game. The price would likely be relatively cheap (a mid-round draft choice), and there would be great incentive for him to walk the straight and narrow – he really has no other logical choice.

Low risk, big reward… After all, if Pacman fails, he will be suspended, or he can be cut. Either way, the Cowboys aren’t on the hook for cap-killing money. And regardless of how much the media has ignored it, Dallas has become, by NFL standards, one of the model teams, where character is the issue. The Cowboys are one of a handful of teams that has enjoyed a relatively trouble-free roster the past couple of years. Pacman would be in a good situation.

There it is: A no brainer. But…

There is always a price. Potentially, there is a great price to be paid for hitching the star to Pacman Jones, and the reference here is not to the draft pick compensation. Certainly, Pacman’s talent warrants a mid-round gamble. There is a gamble in taking almost any college player, particularly with a mid- to late-round pick. Many of these guys will never become significant contributors to the NFL team by which they are drafted.

The gamble is much greater, and it is one that shouldn’t be forgotten. In choosing to take on a Pacman Jones, the Cowboys are not “solving” any deficiency. They are merely gambling, taking a risk/reward position. If such a gamble is treated as anything less, the results could be devastating – a wasted season.

Hypothetical: Assume the Cowboys acquire Pacman, then look to the draft for some added juice for the offense. Assume they acquire Pacman, then use their first two choices to trade up for a Darren McFadden, or to satisfy their needs for a young receiver (Desean Jackson, James Hardy, et al) and for a rotational running back (Felix Jones, Ray Rice, et al). Assume too that the second round finds Dallas choosing between a second- or third-tier CB, one they have rated as a third round talent. Assume that one of their higher-graded prospects – maybe a talented guard, a safety, or a pass rusher – has slipped down the board and become available. Assume Dallas looks at the scenario, having acquired Pacman, and determines that it needs to go with the prospect it has rated as being clearly better than the available CB.

These are not wild assumptions. The scenario is plausible.

The Cowboys enter the 2008 season relying on Pacman as their third CB. Giving him the benefit of the doubt – his great talent overcomes the time he has missed and the problems he has encountered. He performs well, maybe better than that. He is a star.

At some point, though, the walls come crashing down. Pacman is suspended, or the Cowboys are forced, by his behavior, to cut him. The team is left without a viable alternative to play nickel CB. Worse, maybe this happens in concert with either Terrence Newman or Anthony Henry encountering further injury problems. Weak in the secondary, the Cowboys are unable to overcome their deficiencies on defense and lose a playoff game.

It’s the third consecutive crushing playoff outcome, and Tony Romo has become… Don Meredith.

The Pacman gamble has ended in an awful consequence.

Is this negative thinking? Maybe. Is there a much more inviting potential outcome? Certainly.

But the “worst case” scenario is not at all unlikely. It is entirely possible. It is that potential that Jerry Jones and his braintrust must, very carefully, weigh.

Of course, the Cowboys could acquire Pacman and treat the decision entirely as speculation, not allowing it in any way to have an impact on draft strategy. They could still choose a CB in the first round, and they could choose another later in the draft – further insurance.

In that case, though, the risk/reward equation has changed. The risk is lessened, but so is the reward. Dallas still has the potential to benefit from Pacman Jones’ great talent, but in the 2008 draft, at least, and probably in future drafts, the team cannot allow itself the luxury of ignoring the CB position – and it cannot allow itself to use Pacman’s presence as leverage to free it to trade up for a McFadden or to use its early choices to fill other needs and wants.

Pacman is always on the edge, and the Cowboys cannot be seduced to think otherwise. He is a valuable but unreliable employee. Others must be on hand to mitigate the damage if he lets down the team.

And Jerry Jones doesn’t sleep as well.

 

[Hostile]

Damn that was well written. Great post.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Thank you, sir. I am honored!

 

[BlueStar II]

Damn that was well written. Great post.

I certainly agree...and now, we'll just have to wait and see if it actually happens. Hmmmmm...

 

[TellerMorrow34]

Good post, a good way of looking at it, but still an option I hope they don't even seriously entertain.

 

[sbark]

Risk and reward in everything Jerry does

but, does seem to put a weighted factor toward the reward side if at all justified.

 

[IronCowboy]

Poor, poor post.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

On balance, I hope Dallas stays away from Pacman. I think the seductive power of his talent is too great. I fear the Cowboys would be too tempted to treat him as a base asset rather than as a luxury speculation and would let his presence on the roster color their draft strategy in a dangerous way.

Having said that, I do think there is plenty of evidence that Jerry Jones is at his best when he relies on his gambler’s instincts. He seems to struggle when making the “safe” choice.

Jones gambled when he bought the Cowboys and has significantly increased his personal fortune. He gambled when he hired Jimmy Johnson, rather than keeping Tom Landry (whom I revere) or hiring an experienced NFL coach, and was rewarded with Super Bowl championships.

Jones gambled with the Charles Haley acquisition (If a player couldn’t be happy in the coddled 49ers environment, where could he be happy?) and was rewarded with the last piece of a Super Bowl-caliber defense.

Smaller gambles in acquiring players like Tony Casillas (depression issues), trading to the top of the draft and acquiring Russell Maryland, trading up a few spots to draft Emmitt Smith, though a move had already been made (the trade for Terence Flagler) to solidify the running back position, using a supplemental draft choice to acquire Steve Walsh (the ultimate value of that pick, the choices received from New Orleans, form a legitimate argument as to the wisdom of the move, but it worked out well) generally paid dividends. The gamble in paying big free agent bucks to Deion Sanders, arguably allowed the Cowboys to overcome the devastating loss of Johnson and win one more Super Bowl.

More recently, the Terrell Owens gamble as proved worthwhile. The decision to rely on an original free agent with no pedigree – Tony Romo – to quarterback the team, while somewhat a forced decision, also has been an obvious winner.

When Jones has taken the safe route, the results appear to be less positive. I would argue, for instance, that for Jones, Barry Switzer, given the circumstances, was the “safe” choice to succeed Johnson as head coach. Jones knew what he was getting in Switzer. He saw him as a friend and one who would not make major waves. Switzer won a Super Bowl, but his tenure in Dallas, ultimately, contributed to the problems that saw the team take what I believe to have been a premature trip to the league’s lower rung.

The Cowboys’ drafting strategy was anything but a gambler’s play in the years immediately following Johnson’s departure. The team made a conscious decision to look for foot soldiers rather than stars. It traded down, it took special teams prospects, it did nothing daring. New stars weren’t added to the roster because, in retrospect, the Cowboys didn’t attempt to add new stars.

Jones played it safe again (though loyalty might have been a bigger factor) by paying his veterans, keeping them in the fold, rather than attempting to trade or release them a year to soon, as opposed to a year too late.

Coaching hires subsequent to Switzer (Gailey and Campo) were “safe.”

One can argue whether Jones returned to his gambling roots when he hired Bill Parcells, but given the owner’s desires, I think he did. He turned over the steering wheel, at least partially, to a guy whose ideas were much different than the Cowboys had employed in the past. On balance, I think the gamble was successful. Parcells didn’t win big in Dallas, but his presence returned the mentality at Valley Ranch to a “winner’s mindset,” and his eye for talent was valuable.

Again, Jones gambled and won with Owens, and to some extent with Romo (besides trusting him to take the controls at QB, Jones also passed on the opportunity to draft Brady Quinn). Jones gambled by not doing whatever was necessary to retain Parcells and was rewarded with a 13-3 season.

There are plenty of counter-arguments to all I’ve suggested, and those are welcome, but Jones the gambler has enjoyed a number of notable successes. There is something to be said for being true to your own nature.

I don't think a Pacman Jones gamble is worthwhile, but I can understand why Jones is exploring it. In fact, I think it's a good omen for Cowboys fans. I hope exploration is where it ends but reserve the right to change my mind.

 

[Dodger]

I think you are absolutely correct in that if we do acquire Pacman, relying on him for the 2008 season would be a mistake...which is why taking a corner early, especially if our guy, whomever that is, dropps into Dallas' lap, would probably still be the most prudent course of action. Treat Jones like a luxury, in essense; pretend that he's not on the team come draft time...and draft accordingly.

As much as some of the arguments I've heard about trading up for McFadden make partial sense to me, this cautionary tales does the same. Good post.

 

[Vintage]

I am all for Pacman coming to Dallas. And I still want us to draft a CB in the first round.

Newman, Jones, Henry, 1st round CB. Bam. CB depth and talent.

 

[zrinkill]

And Jerry Jones doesn’t sleep as well.

Nice post man

 

[Cbz40]

Very well done....Man I enjoyed that. Thank you for your time and effort.

 

[Zaxor]

So lets say Dallas does neither... they do not sign Pacman and they could not draft a top prospect at CB because they were all gone...

it sure looks grim at the 3rd CB position and than if as in your scenario suggests Newman or Henry get hurt it becomes a even more dire situation...

So wouldn't have trading for Pacman been a prudent move in hedging your bets that you may not be able to draft a top prospect at CB.

It really depends upon the draft and how the chips fall there... but if Jerry is foolish enough to give up picks to move up in a draft deep in RB's to get a RB well than signing Pacman or not signing Pacman will be no deterent.

It would also be foolish of Jerry to not draft a top CB prospect if one is there as 1) he needs to be aware of the history of injury with Henry 2) to hedge his bet with Pacman 3) to have some kind of leverage with Newman going into next years contract talks...

 

[Hostile]

On balance, I hope Dallas stays away from Pacman. I think the seductive power of his talent is too great. I fear the Cowboys would be too tempted to treat him as a base asset rather than as a luxury speculation and would let his presence on the roster color their draft strategy in a dangerous way.


I don't think a Pacman Jones gamble is worthwhile, but I can understand why Jones is exploring it. In fact, I think it's a good omen for Cowboys fans. I hope exploration is where it ends but reserve the right to change my mind.

That was every bit as good as the OP. Nice job again.

 

[sonnyboy]

Nice thread, you need to get that post count up.

When these type debates come up,
I almost always come down on the side of signing the problem child.

Its not that I dont value character and team chemistry, I do. It's just that I see the media overblowing and fans overestimating the impact of a Pacman Jones.

For what we'd have to invest in Pacman, there is no risk. Pacman can only help us, he cant hurt us.

On a personal note, I know Pacman's an ******. I dont think it, I know it. This will not change. He may learn to controll himself enough to avoid future suspension, but he'll still be an ******.

The point is, I dont care. I want another quality CB to cover opposing WRs. That's all I care about.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Hostile, thank you. I admire your thought processes. Thanks to all of you for the kind words.

Too often, I think, people say “It would be stupid to do this,” or “It’s ignorant of you to suggest that,” or “You don’t know what you’re talking about.” If these decisions were that cut and dried, putting together a football team wouldn’t be difficult.

For many years, the conventional wisdom was “Draft for talent in the early rounds, draft for need in the later rounds.” That’s not to say that all of the teams used that approach – or that any team universally employed it. But it was the conventional wisdom.

More recently, teams have, generally, drafted for need in the early rounds, and to one extent or another, taken risks and flyers on raw talent later in the draft. I think that’s a fair assessment.

I don’t know that I’m qualified to judge the success or failure rate of the two approaches. But it’s been an interesting shift in conventional wisdom.

I think most of us would agree that Dallas can’t afford to leave this off season without having acquired a legitimate CB prospect or two (or a proven player). I do think the methods to get that done some times are oversimplified.

One approach: Trade for a proven player (but that player will have downside and risk, because teams aren’t getting rid of CBs unless there is a problem). Okay… maybe that isn’t fair. There are few absolutes. In general, though, it’s accurate. If the player is relatively risk-free, the price will be very high, in any case.

A second approach: Use an early draft choice, probably followed by a second-day pick to provide insurance against injury or bust.

A third approach: Use more than one relatively early choice – maybe a second and a third, or a third and a fourth… maybe even a second, a third and a fifth. That was an approach Bill Walsh used pretty successfully with the 49ers.

Of course, there are all sorts of variations on each of these approaches. The approaches also can be used in combination.

This is a long-winded way of suggesting that there are several legitimate approaches to solving a problem. The Cowboys are fortunate this year. Their major need is a CB, and there are a variety of decent options. Veterans are available, albeit with risk. There is talent at the position near the top of the draft, and there appears to be some depth in the draft.

One thing I’ve read here: Dallas absolutely shouldn’t trade down because it doesn’t need that many players. I understand the thinking, but there can be exceptions. Suppose the Cowboys aren’t convicted about a particular CB available in the first round, but they really like two or three players who carry third round grades? You could make a case for trading down, accumulating a couple of extra picks, and choosing more than one CB in the third through fifth rounds. While one might bust, another might be the answer. Jimmy Johnson used this approach frequently in acquiring offensive linemen, and he also used it in acquiring defensive linemen and safeties.

I do think, generally, teams should use their first round picks to choose players they think have a legitimate chance to be stars. I’m not suggesting that need shouldn’t be factored. But it’s a mistake to “reach” in the first round, especially given the financial obligation. I would not want Dallas to hold its nose and take a corner if there is a player on the board at another position about which the team’s scouts have strong convictions. Absolutely take need into account but not if the resulting pick is a player about which you have significant questions.

Keep in mind, Dallas might never have moved up to draft players like Too Tall Jones, Randy White and Tony Dorsett if need were the only consideration. Bold moves were made because the team had strong convictions about those players. A trade-up can be worthwhile, even if need isn't the driving force.

Now, I don ‘t care for the kind of strategy that brought in guys like Kavika Pittman… this was a cute, “trade down, save a few bucks, and choose the best option available” approach that was almost bound to fail. It substituted gamesmanship for conviction. The justification for trading down is pretty narrow, in my mind: There isn’t a guy there at a position of any reasonable need that we really like. In my mind, if there is a CB available at 22 that the Cowboys have graded as a first round prospect: Take him. If a slight move upward is needed: Do it. Get that guy. But don’t force a choice if there isn’t a suitable player available.

A last thought: Teams must draft well to make any strategy work. It does no good to accumulate additional picks if they are squandered. It’s folly to trade up if the pick is likely to be blown. Staying in place and taking the player that falls in your lap is no good if that player hasn’t been properly evaluated.

This doesn’t mean that teams are infallible. All teams blow draft choices. All teams. With Jimmy Johnson, perhaps the greatest talent evaluator of his time, on board, Dallas picked Rhondy Weston in the third round, Alexander Wright in the second round, James Richards in the third round, Clayton Homes in the third round, James Brown in the third round, and Mike Middleton in the third round. Fourth round? Curvin Richards, Bill Musgrave, Kevin Harris, Tom Myslinski, and Derrick Lassic.

Of course, Dallas also hit big. And not only in the early rounds. Tony Tolbert, Kenneth Gant, Leon Lett, Larry Brown, and Brock Marion all were taken in the fourth round or later. Maybe more importantly, Dallas didn’t blow its first round picks under Johnson: Troy Aikman, Emmitt Smith, Russell Maryland, Alvin Harper, Kevin Smith, and Robert Jones.

But most importantly, Dallas drafted stars: Aikman, Emmitt, Maryland, and Kevin Smith in the first round; Daryl Johnston and Darren Woodson in the second round; Mark Stepnoski and Erik Williams in the third round; Tony Tolbert in the fourth round; Leon Lett in the seventh round.

Of course, your definition of what constitutes a “star” will differ from mine, but all of these players were the kind of starters a team is not looking to replace.

Look what happened in 1991, when the Cowboys were looking for a defensive end: They drafted Tony Hill and Kevin Harris in the fourth round… and Leon Lett in the seventh. Same year, and the team needed an offensive lineman: They drafted James Richards in the third round, Mike Sullivan in the sixth round, and Sean Love in the tenth round. Oh by the way, they took Erik Williams in the fourth round.

Dallas needed a safety in 1992. Darren Woodson was a pretty good pick. It didn’t matter that the Cowboys busted that same year on four other safeties. That’s right: Five safeties were chosen. The only one who made it should be a Hall of Famer.

In 1993, strangely, Dallas drafted three more safeties. Two were busts. The other was Brock Marion.

Of course, Dallas had extra choices as a result of the Herschel Walker trade, but I have never understood why the media makes that qualification when Jimmy Johnson’s drafts are mentioned. The extra choices came about because the Cowboys were bold enough to make that trade. Few acknowledge how much criticism the team received at the time. Extra choices also were acquired when Steve Walsh was traded to New Orleans, albeit it at great expense (the year Walsh was taken in the supplemental draft, Dallas forfeited the general draft's first choice as a result). Junior Seau and Cortez Kennedy were top five picks that year… but so were Jeff George, Blair Thomas and Keith McCants. Things worked out okay: the Cowboys took Emmitt with a second number one, the 17th pick, to which they traded up.

Dallas also made a few good trades to acquire veterans, developed underappreciated gems from the Landry era, and used other methods – Plan B, et al. Result: Such guys as Tony Casillas, Charles Haley, Nate Newton, Mark Tuinei, Kelvin Martin, Jay Novacek, James Washington, John Gesek, Kevin Gogan, Thomas Everett…

I am arguing that there are many methods to use in order to fill positions of need. If a team has a solid scouting department and makes good choices, the need will get filled, most of the time, though not always in the most obvious route identified by us fans, brilliant though we might be.

 

[Hostile]

One of the best threads I've seen all week.

 

[CowboyWay]

In the original post, you could further add the other risk nobody seems to remember......if pacman screws up, Goodell will be licking his chops, and will hit the cowboys with a loss of a draft pick. Could be a 1st, could be a 7th, who knows.
But either way, maybe we don't take the cb in the 3rd round in your scenario, AND we miss out on another one the next year because we forfeited a pick.

Food for thought.

 

[big dog cowboy]

This thread deserves....

 

[DEA_dad]

There isn’t a guy there at a position of any reasonable need that we really like. In my mind, if there is a CB available at 22 that the Cowboys have graded as a first round prospect: Take him. If a slight move upward is needed: Do it. Get that guy. But don’t force a choice if there isn’t a suitable player available.

Amen, phenomenal post. Props to the OP. The only way I see bringing PacMan in would be if we DID NOT have to depend on him. Also, what we pay for him would not have to be prohibitive to any other areas that we seek to improve. Meaning, that if he costs a 4th rounder and an incentive laden contract that may be too much if someone of value on our draft board is still available at that spot. In retrospect, would we trade an MBIII for a PacMan, most wouldn't, maybe some would. But Marion's production is documented, Pac's is also but how will he respond to the time off?

How many games would it take him to get back up to speed? Tank took a few to get momentum going it seemed but he didn't have the benefit of TC or pre-season that an adopted Pac would get.

Now something along the lines of a late round pick (5th at the earliest) plus NEXT years 3rd round or 4th round pick given performance and an incentive laden contract where we would have a year of film to review what Pacman had contributed might not be unreasonable.

You're correct in that we will probably see an injury to one of our starting CB's before or during the season. Henry always plays lights out and then get a nagging injury somewhere along the line. Its an inevitability in the physical style of ball he plays. I tend to think that T-New's injury was more along the lines of a freak occurance, but who knows?

This forces us to rely on our 3rd CB (which doesn't exist at this point) and our depth beyond that. Say we do take 2 CB's in the draft, as you pointed out, we would insulate ourselves against many scenarios which would drive us fans to drinking frantically in the latter weeks of the season. To stomach another season facing the McNabbs, Mannings, and this year the Rothlisbergers and Palmers of the NFL with a weak secondary makes my stomach turn.

The draft seems to be heavy with RB and CB talent in the earlier rounds and thats where I'd prefer we spend our pics, grab a 1st round CB and RB (Felix Jones & Cromartie or Talib) and then another CB in the later rounds.
Unless there is great WR talent that falls to us in the 1st, they should be there in the 2nd round, but as you pointed out, its always a gamble to think like that.

Also, would the locker room chemistry be affected? We seem to have a very good chemistry right now, how would PacMan affect that? I'm sure they would welcome him in but what happens when he screws up? It will be interesting to see how the cards fall, again great posts!