THUMPER's Draft Axioms

[THUMPER]

I have posted these before but here they are again...

I don't get to watch much college football so I have no real opinions on who we should or shouldn't draft but I do have a few standing axioms for the draft that serve pretty well:

1. Draft solid football players! No reaches, no project players, no primmadonnas, no headcases, druggies, criminals, or thugs. No WRs who used to play QB, no QBs who used to play baseball. No me-first players, no sons of friends. Just draft guys who showed they could play every week and wanted to be part of the team. Men who have some sense of what it means to be a man and understand that it is a privilege to be selected to play in the NFL.

2. Draft an OL within the first 3 rounds every year. I am of the opinion that a team wins or loses at the O-Line so having quality depth there is imperative. You can NEVER have too many quality O-Linemen and if you find that you do have more than you can keep then you have good trade bait. We saw in 2008 how important it is to have quality depth when Kosier went down and we were stuck with Proctor at LG. Not good. Also, Adams was playing at less than 100% because neither of our young OTs was good enough to replace him even at 70%.

3. Don't fall in love with certain players. Too many times we will reach for a guy or trade up for him when we didn't have to. Is he REALLY that much better than some other players at that position? Or do you just really like something about him? Jerry has a nagging tendency to do this and it has cost us in the past (think Tony Dixon). The draft is about finding guys that can step in and play when needed, not for stocking your fantasy team.

4. Don't be too quick to trade away multiple high picks for a single player. Jerry has also shown a tendency to go after WRs and trade away multiple high picks for them (Galloway and Williams). WRs are simply not that important and those picks could have been used to pick one plus fill another position.

5. Don't draft backups. If you are selecting a guy make sure he is someone who could start within a year or two. Drafting for depth is not the same as drafting backups.

6. Spread out the positions. We have seen a number of times where we will draft 3 DBs with our first 3 picks, or 3 LBs. Use the draft to fill roster spots, be a sniper not a machine-gunner.

I believe that if a team sticks with these rules they will build a team that can compete for the championship every year.

 

[DavidS]

Yeah, whatever....lmao

 

[Chief]

I have posted these before but here they are again...

I don't get to watch much college football so I have no real opinions on who we should or shouldn't draft but I do have a few standing axioms for the draft that serve pretty well:

1. Draft solid football players! No reaches, no project players, no primmadonnas, no headcases, druggies, criminals, or thugs. No WRs who used to play QB, no QBs who used to play baseball. No me-first players, no sons of friends. Just draft guys who showed they could play every week and wanted to be part of the team. Men who have some sense of what it means to be a man and understand that it is a privilege to be selected to play in the NFL.

2. Draft an OL within the first 3 rounds every year. I am of the opinion that a team wins or loses at the O-Line so having quality depth there is imperative. You can NEVER have too many quality O-Linemen and if you find that you do have more than you can keep then you have good trade bait. We saw in 2008 how important it is to have quality depth when Kosier went down and we were stuck with Proctor at LG. Not good. Also, Adams was playing at less than 100% because neither of our young OTs was good enough to replace him even at 70%.

3. Don't fall in love with certain players. Too many times we will reach for a guy or trade up for him when we didn't have to. Is he REALLY that much better than some other players at that position? Or do you just really like something about him? Jerry has a nagging tendency to do this and it has cost us in the past (think Tony Dixon). The draft is about finding guys that can step in and play when needed, not for stocking your fantasy team.

4. Don't be too quick to trade away multiple high picks for a single player. Jerry has also shown a tendency to go after WRs and trade away multiple high picks for them (Galloway and Williams). WRs are simply not that important and those picks could have been used to pick one plus fill another position.

5. Don't draft backups. If you are selecting a guy make sure he is someone who could start within a year or two. Drafting for depth is not the same as drafting backups.

6. Spread out the positions. We have seen a number of times where we will draft 3 DBs with our first 3 picks, or 3 LBs. Use the draft to fill roster spots, be a sniper not a machine-gunner.

I believe that if a team sticks with these rules they will build a team that can compete for the championship every year.

Good stuff, Thumper.

No. 1 is my favorite.

I'm sold on all but No. 2. Everyone has a different feeling about picking a certain position every year. The Packers used to pick a QB every year. I would pick a cornerback every year.

I would draft an offensive lineman every year, but not necessarily in the first three rounds.

 

[THUMPER]

Good stuff, Thumper.

No. 1 is my favorite.

I'm sold on all but No. 2. Everyone has a different feeling about picking a certain position every year. The Packers used to pick a QB every year. I would pick a cornerback every year.

I would draft an offensive lineman every year, but not necessarily in the first three rounds.

Picking a QB every year is excessive since there is only one starting position available but there are 5 on the O-Line so the chances of a draft pick playing there at some point is much higher.

O-Line is the one position where you cannot afford weak links. If your QB has excellent pocket awareness and can evade the passrush then you can get away with it for a while but eventually it will expose your team when you get into the playoffs.

But like you say, to each his own. Everyone has a different position that they feel is key. With the way the passing game has changed with 3 and 4 WR sets, having 3 starting quality CBs plus good depth is a must so I can definitely see your point.

 

[MONT17]

Draft Playmakers
Jimmy could draft guys like Leon Lett and Larry Brown late on consistant basis... I understand Jerry is not Jimmy and never will be, but even a broken watch is correct twice a day!

Go get your man
If you have a guy who is worth trading up for, then do it!


Draft guys that can multi-task
I dont even want to talk about this bc its so frustrating!



Enough with the Day 1 TEs
Its a position were you dont have to spend high picks to find success. Witten, Novachek were not day 1 picks but bust like Lafluer, Bennett and Fasano were.


Draft OL but not in round 1
Draft OL not bc its the new flavor of the month for Romo heads but bc its the right thing to do....The days of paying Guards free agent money has to end sooner or later. Thanks to Parcells we have been over paying OG since the middle of the decade.


Try to lose in seasons where the draft is stocked
and try not to trade picks for guys like Montrae Holland... EVER!

 

[AsthmaField]

I have to say... I pretty much agree with all of them.

Well done.

 

[THUMPER]

I have to say... I pretty much agree with all of them.

Well done.

Thanks **. :starspin

 

[AsthmaField]

Thanks **. :starspin

The only thing is I would say that sometimes I think it might be ok to trade a couple of picks to move up and nab a player that everyone in the front office feels like will be a dominant player. As long as you don't have to give up too much.

Like a 1, 2, and a 3 to move up is probably too much... but a 1, 3 and a player might be ok if the move up would net a good enough guy.

I realize a lot of people don't agree with that... but under the right circumstance, I would probably do it.

Most of the time, I do agree that it isn't worth it though.

 

[NinePointOh]

Of course, the problem isn't that teams disagree with most of these cliches, but that they disagree with casual fans about whether these labels actually apply to certain players.

Teams don't like drafting headcases and thugs, but the question is, what precisely does a player have to do to get removed from your draft board?

Teams don't try to draft backups, but their scouts might disagree with your favorite draft website about whether a player is capable of starting.

Teams don't go out of their way to "fall in love with certain players," but their draft board may differ from your favorite website's in terms of which players are significantly better than others.

And of course, a team that follows each of these cliches to the T won't be very successful unless they can actually distinguish between a backup and a starter, a headcase and a "solid football player", or a guy they like and a guy they "just fell in love with." The real key is to scout well and to occasionally get lucky. But that's not quite so easy to figure out, which is why it's not quite so easy to draft well and win championships.

 

[THUMPER]

Of course, the problem isn't that teams disagree with most of these cliches, but that they disagree with casual fans about whether these labels actually apply to certain players.

That's quite true.

Teams don't like drafting headcases and thugs, but the question is, what precisely does a player have to do to get removed from your draft board?

Well, we removed Randy Moss from our board in 1998. IMO it was the right move. He was an amazing talent but wasn't worth the risk. His situation worked out much better in Minnesota than it would have in Dallas.

The Rams ignored all of the warning signs about Lawrence Phillips and drafted him anyway. He turned out to be a thug just like everyone knew he would. Lots of guys like that. That loser RB from Ohio State a few years ago is another good example.

Teams don't try to draft backups, but their scouts might disagree with your favorite draft website about whether a player is capable of starting.

When you take a guy that didn't have much of a college career and didn't start many games he is a backup IMO. You want to select guys that played and started and have produced in games.

Teams don't go out of their way to "fall in love with certain players," but their draft board may differ from your favorite website's in terms of which players are significantly better than others.

Like I said, Tony Dixon is a perfect example of a guy Jerry "fell in love with" who should never have been taken when he was. Jerry liked something about him and just wanted him. He said that at the time, he didn't care where anyone else had him rated, he liked him and wanted to be sure we got him so he took him in the 2nd round.

Jimmy made the same mistake with Steve Walsh.

And of course, a team that follows each of these cliches to the T won't be very successful unless they can actually distinguish between a backup and a starter, a headcase and a "solid football player", or a guy they like and a guy they "just fell in love with." The real key is to scout well and to occasionally get lucky. But that's not quite so easy to figure out, which is why it's not quite so easy to draft well and win championships.

I agree to a point. Last year's draft was a very good one IMO considering where we were selecting. In many ways, the Cowboys followed my axioms in that draft. I liked the guys we took and am looking forward to seeing how they pan out.

Of course you have to have good scouting and be able to distinguish between hype and substance and no one is ever really sure how a guy will transition from college to the NFL. My point is that you avoid the obvious pitfalls and stick with solid players. A guy who started a couple of years in college and produced good numbers without having major character issues is a "solid player" and should be considered. A guy who started only a handful of games and/or had issues should be avoided.

Guys who didn't do anything in actual games but had outrageous numbers at the combine should also be avoided. The combine should be used to evaluate players with similar production, not for a guy who never did anything to suddenly shoot up the charts because he ran a fast 40 or did a bunch of reps at 225. I have yet to see any of those type of guys become real players in the NFL.

The later rounds (6 & 7) of the draft are for project players and the like but I do not like to see us taking guys like that earlier than the 6th round.

Obviously, there are no sure-fire methods for drafting players but my axioms are meant to be ways to avoid making dumb picks and stocking areas of need on a regular basis. Of course they are not meant to be followed to a "T" but merely used as guidelines.

 

[NinePointOh]

Well, we removed Randy Moss from our board in 1998. IMO it was the right move. He was an amazing talent but wasn't worth the risk. His situation worked out much better in Minnesota than it would have in Dallas.

The Rams ignored all of the warning signs about Lawrence Phillips and drafted him anyway. He turned out to be a thug just like everyone knew he would. Lots of guys like that. That loser RB from Ohio State a few years ago is another good example.

Right, nobody disputes that there have been bad apples in the past or that they should generally be avoided. But prior examples aren't useful criteria. Would you take Jimmy Clausen off your draft board? Sergio Kindle? Dez Bryant? Anthony Davis? Trent Williams? Chad Jones? Carlos Dunlap? Patrick Robinson? Greg Hardy? How big of an attitude/off-the-field issue would you be willing to overlook?

When you take a guy that didn't have much of a college career and didn't start many games he is a backup IMO. You want to select guys that played and started and have produced in games.

That's one criterion, but it's not a very reliable one. The vast majority of players projected to go in the draft -- even the 7th rounders -- started a lot of games and had at least halfway decent careers, so that's not a very useful way to differentiate the good ones from the bad ones. And even if you did, there are literally hundreds of examples of players whose success as a pro was either far better or far worse than their production in college.

That's why most people would say it's more useful to look at a player's physical tools, technical mechanics, and football awareness than their college stats.

Like I said, Tony Dixon is a perfect example of a guy Jerry "fell in love with" who should never have been taken when he was. Jerry liked something about him and just wanted him. He said that at the time, he didn't care where anyone else had him rated, he liked him and wanted to be sure we got him so he took him in the 2nd round.

Jimmy made the same mistake with Steve Walsh.

Again, examples from the past aren't useful criteria -- they're just characterizations you make in hindsight. So what's the advice? Do whatever Mel Kiper or your favorite draft website says? Which players should be eliminated based on this guideline?

Of course you have to have good scouting and be able to distinguish between hype and substance and no one is ever really sure how a guy will transition from college to the NFL. My point is that you avoid the obvious pitfalls and stick with solid players. A guy who started a couple of years in college and produced good numbers without having major character issues is a "solid player" and should be considered. A guy who started only a handful of games and/or had issues should be avoided.

Of course, depending on how you define "issues", that could mean eliminating just a very small handful of players, or eliminating virtually everybody. Again, the problem isn't that it hasn't occurred to certain NFL teams that they should avoid headcases, but that they have different thresholds for what constitutes a major issue.

Guys who didn't do anything in actual games but had outrageous numbers at the combine should also be avoided. The combine should be used to evaluate players with similar production, not for a guy who never did anything to suddenly shoot up the charts because he ran a fast 40 or did a bunch of reps at 225. I have yet to see any of those type of guys become real players in the NFL.

The later rounds (6 & 7) of the draft are for project players and the like but I do not like to see us taking guys like that earlier than the 6th round.

Besides the problem of performance being an unreliable indicator, it's almost never the case that a workout warrior gets drafted high after doing nothing on the field. Darrius Heyward-Bey was second in Maryland history in career receiving yards, third in receptions, and third in touchdown catches. Mike Mamula had 29 sacks in his junior and senior years. Troy Williamson put up big numbers at South Carolina. The combine maybe bumped them up from the 2nd or low 1st to high first round picks, but they hardly "did nothing on the field."

As for workout warriors who panned out, you can point to guys like Dwight Freeney, Vernon Davis, Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie, Joe Flacco, and Dustin Keller. They all shot up the charts rapidly because of their combine performance.

Obviously, there are no sure-fire methods for drafting players but my axioms are meant to be ways to avoid making dumb picks and stocking areas of need on a regular basis. Of course they are not meant to be followed to a "T" but merely used as guidelines.

My point is that these are not guidelines but cliches. Every NFL team wants to avoid headcases and not reach for players -- the much more important question is, who in this draft class is a headcase, and who is a reach at what point?