This Is why we have no depth

[Blackspider214]

Nothing against this kid from Boise St but the fact Jerry loves to give up picks in the top 100 is the reason this team has zero depth. There can never be a depth where he just stays put and pick whom is available. You should only be trading up and forfeiting high draft picks if you are a solid team and just a player or two away.

For some reason, we draft like we are one player away. The Claiborne trade in 2012. Drafting for depth and backups in 2009.

Seems since Haley left in 95, Jerry has been chasing that elusive end rusher. And we end up with the likes of Carver, Ekuban and Pittman. He also passed on Brackens. That's back when he loved to trade out of the 1st round to stockpile picks which became of nothing.

What did everyone say about this draft? We need bodies. We have so many needs at a lot of key spots. And what do we do? We give up a 3rd.

I guess baby steps with Jerry as he trimmed a lot of fat and did not give older players extensions and did not draft Manziel. But him and Stephen can not help themselves doing stuff like this every year.

 

[Nexx]

we have a lack of depth because we havent drafted the right players, not the lack of quantity. we've traded down plenty of times to pick up extra picks only to pick players who didnt work out.

 

[joseephuss]

Have you ever heard of DeMarcus Ware. Seems Dallas caught that elusive end rusher.

 

[CF74]

Yeah that's why Marinelli would rather be coaching another team. Garrett is happy building a team piece by piece minus a few pieces to appease Jerky...

 

[Blackspider214]

we have a lack of depth because we havent drafted the right players, not the lack of quantity.

It's a combination of both. We have the fewest top 100 picks of the last 7 years along with guess who else? Washington. Guess 2 of the 3 teams with the longest drought of a NFC title game appearance.

Them 2. Reckless in the draft is a huge cause of this.

Anyone remember the goofy Roy Williams trade in 2008 or 2009? Jerry can not help himself with these top 100 draft picks.

 

[Alexander]

I agree that the price for Lawrence did pretty much cost us a starter. That I have a problem with. Unless Lawrence performs like a first round pick, the price was too rich.

 

[JoeyBoy718]

Let me ask you something. Be honest. Last year, after we traded back in the 1st and picked up an extra 3rd, were you jumping up and down for joy, shouting from the rooftop, "THIS IS WHY WE HAVE DEPTH!"? Be honest.

 

[Deep_South]

It's a combination of both. We have the fewest top 100 picks of the last 7 years along with guess who else? Washington. Guess 2 of the 3 teams with the longest drought of a NFC title game appearance.

Them 2. Reckless in the draft is a huge cause of this.

Anyone remember the goofy Roy Williams trade in 2008 or 2009? Jerry can not help himself with these top 100 draft picks.

Yeah, I remember that trade. It didn't work out and we had Miles Austin sitting on the bench and running back kickoffs when we made it. Oops.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

By all means make another thread.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

Trading up landed up Dez Bryant and Sean Lee. Trading back landed us Jason Williams and Robert Brewster.

 

[Alexander]

Trading up landed up Dez Bryant and Sean Lee. Trading back landed us Jason Williams and Robert Brewster.

Just because we picked bad players does not make trading back a bad strategy. I get why you want to target players and be aggressive, but the stakes are much higher if you are wrong.

 

[Idgit]

I think this is more fans being disappointed about missing a Christmas present they were looking forward to than it is a measured criticism of the team's draft strategy. That said, I don't like that we moved up, either, or what it cost us.

This is a fairly interesting article, though, for a little league-wide context: http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/eye-on...ams-tend-to-trade-the-most-in-the-first-round

 

[Risen Star]

Trading up landed up Dez Bryant and Sean Lee. Trading back landed us Jason Williams and Robert Brewster.

Trading back also landed us Jason Hatcher and Travis Frederick.

Cherry picking is fun.

 

[JD_KaPow]

we have a lack of depth because we havent drafted the right players, not the lack of quantity.

That's the nature of the draft. The only sure way to draft the right players is to draft lots of players. Expecting to have a much higher success rate than anyone else is a sure path to failure in the draft.

I agree that the price for Lawrence did pretty much cost us a starter.

Here's another example of wildly unrealistic expectations. The chances of getting a starter with a single pick in the 3rd round are way less than 50-50.

Let me ask you something. Be honest. Last year, after we traded back in the 1st and picked up an extra 3rd, were you jumping up and down for joy, shouting from the rooftop, "THIS IS WHY WE HAVE DEPTH!"? Be honest.

Trading down in the 1st has historically been very effective. The complaints last year were not about the idea of trading down, but about (a) the Cowboys appearing not to follow their draft process and (b) getting very poor value in the trade. They got very poor value in the trade again this year. That really worries me, as it appears that they still don't properly value draft picks.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

Trading back also landed us Jason Hatcher and Travis Frederick.

Cherry picking is fun.

Man, when you have to go all the way back to the 2006 draft to prove your point...

 

[Alexander]

That's the nature of the draft. The only sure way to draft the right players is to draft lots of players. Expecting to have a much higher success rate than anyone else is a sure path to failure in the draft.Here's another example of wildly unrealistic expectations. The chances of getting a starter with a single pick in the 3rd round are way less than 50-50.Trading down in the 1st has historically been very effective. The complaints last year were not about the idea of trading down, but about (a) the Cowboys appearing not to follow their draft process and (b) getting very poor value in the trade. They got very poor value in the trade again this year. That really worries me, as it appears that they still don't properly value draft picks.

I strongly disagree that you cannot count on getting a starter in the third. Especially in this draft.

 

[Idgit]

...Trading down in the 1st has historically been very effective. The complaints last year were not about the idea of trading down, but about (a) the Cowboys appearing not to follow their draft process and (b) getting very poor value in the trade. They got very poor value in the trade again this year. That really worries me, as it appears that they still don't properly value draft picks.

Last year, given the shelf of talent in the early rounds, it made sense to me that we'd have to essentially take less value if we wanted to move down. Simple supply and demand.

This year, though, that same principle should have worked in our favor: trading up in a draft where the middle picks are relatively more valuable should have been a decent value for us. But, because we were trading into that top-of-round-2 hot spot where teams try to get their QBs or round 1 players who have fallen...and because ATL was up at the top of that round, coveting the same player we wanted...we were tubed. It sucks, but I think we're seeing a couple examples of differing circumstances, and not a relatively new trend out of Dallas. At least, I hope so.

 

[joseephuss]

It isn't only about where you pick. It matters who you pick. There have been bad early picks and bad late picks. There have been good choices in the early rounds and good choices in the later rounds. Trading up can work at times and hurt at times. Trading back can be beneficial in some years and can be the wrong move in some drafts if you grab the wrong players. The moves up or down can be rendered pointless if you pick poor players or can be seen as great strategy if you draft quality players.

 

[jazzcat22]

We still have 8 picks left...that is a lot to add depth.

Do you think with the 11 picks we had, all of them would make the team. Even now with 10, they all won't make the team, and some will go on the PS possibly, but not all of them.
You also can't say the 47 & 78 picks would be sure starters. We know Martin and Lawrence will be. Larence most likely in a rotation as opposed to being an every down player, at first.
The lower picks would be depth, possibly start, or hopefully eventually start.

 

[wileedog]

The chances of getting a starter with a single pick in the 3rd round are way less than 50-50..

Our last 3 third round picks, Williams, Murray and Crawford, were all immediate starters, and 2 of them were pretty significant contributors their rookie year.

Say what you want about the trade, but too many people are poo-poo'ing the value of a 3rd round pick, especially for a team with as many holes as we have, and in a draft as deep as this one..