Tyrone Crawford is a Gem

[AsthmaField]

I understand what you're saying but Zman said Crawford is a gem in an otherwise bad 2012 draft. Saying we scored a coup with free agent rookies does not negate his point (of course, assuming no one else we drafted that year is making a noteworthy contribution).

From there the question was asked "Why does it matter" whether we acquire players in free agency or the draft. I responded that it DOES matter otherwise we'd trade our draft picks away and just sign free agents.

I'm not saying you're doing this, but it appears some people just don't like fans criticizing the Cowboys. So a statement made to critique the 2012 draft gets expanded into a discussion about the contribution of free agent rookies from the 2012 class. But that's not what Zman was talking about. And when the question of "What difference does it matter" came up, I felt I needed to respond.

Simply put, the draft DOES matter as it is a system to fairly allocate talent throughout the NFL. If it did not matter, the NFL would just open the process to allow teams to bid for the best players, and let the top talent decide where they wanted to go and what team they wanted to play for. Of course, this system would likely benefit Dallas anyone as it's a team many players would love to play for and our owner has extremely deep pockets.

I hear you and I don't really disagree. Personally, I think zamn's posting history played a part in the responses he got. Had he not been overly critical of Garrett and unwilling to give him credit for just about anything, I don't think people would have felt like his comment was a veiled shot at Garrett or a shot at the people who say the team drafts well since Garrett got there.

The truth is, the interpersonal dynamics of this message board is just fascinating.

 

[Idgit]

Leary, Dunbar and Beasley weren't part of that draft class. Which is what he's referring to.

That 2012 draft class was an abortion.

Yeah, this has been addressed, above. The players in question there were part of that same incoming college class, scouted by the people, at the same time, and all ranked together on the same big board, relative to each other.

If your point is to disappointed in the actual draft picks themselves for 2012, then have at it. Four of those seven guys were big disappointments. But that's a trivial distinction as far as I'm concerned. If you're going to evaluate the job we did getting talent from the college ranks for a given season, you ought to look at all of the talent we added to the roster though that player acquisition channel and compare it to the talent other teams added from the same channel.

I look at the whole college class for that year, and think it's disappointing--mostly because of Claiborne not delivering--but not a disaster. If you prefer to look at the draft picks as an abortion and the college free agents as a big win, I guess that's fine by me.

 

[windward]

We could have had those players and "draftable" talent on top? With the minimal defensive talent and depth on this team? Naw, made no difference. Dallas PR is good.

That's not the point really. We could have picked better players. But that doesn't mean we don't have any key contributors from our rookie class that year. Whether they were drafted or signed is largely irrelevant at this point.

 

[Risen Star]

Yeah, this has been addressed, above. The players in question there were part of that same incoming college class, scouted by the people, at the same time, and all ranked together on the same big board, relative to each other.

If your point is to disappointed in the actual draft picks themselves for 2012, then have at it. Four of those seven guys were big disappointments. But that's a trivial distinction as far as I'm concerned. If you're going to evaluate the job we did getting talent from the college ranks for a given season, you ought to look at all of the talent we added to the roster though that player acquisition channel and compare it to the talent other teams added from the same channel.

I look at the whole college class for that year, and think it's disappointing--mostly because of Claiborne not delivering--but not a disaster. If you prefer to look at the draft picks as an abortion and the college free agents as a big win, I guess that's fine by me.

Yeah, I understand what you were doing and it's typical of a homer fan who just. can't. handle. the stinging criticism. You add stuff in. Like UDFAs here, what the team must think there.

He was talking about the 2012 draft class. None of those players you tried to include were part of that draft class.

 

[Risen Star]

We could have had those players and "draftable" talent on top? With the minimal defensive talent and depth on this team? Naw, made no difference. Dallas PR is good.

Exactly right.

 

[BigStar]

That's not the point really. We could have picked better players. But that doesn't mean we don't have any key contributors from our rookie class that year. Whether they were drafted or signed is largely irrelevant at this point.

We missed when it mattered. When professional scouts/coaches prepared their boards, etc. we missed. The fact that there is higher athleticism/talent in those 4-7 rounds is the problem here. The team is lacking talent on D. A lot of those missed picks could have contributed as depth (@ a minimum) with maybe a few starters to rely on looking forward. We got Crawford and maybe Lawrence/Wilcox over 4 draft classes.

 

[Idgit]

This is how it's related. The original poster said that our 2012 draft class was weak. Someone responded by saying we signed free agent rookies from 2012 who have helped raise the success of our draft.
But free agency isn't the draft - as the original poster pointed out.
The response was what does it matter if we get a player in the draft or via free agency. You and some others seem to be saying, there is no difference.
If that's the case, then why draft? Why not just sign rookies via free agency?
And the reason is that the draft is there to allocate talent. The likelihood a team gets a great/good player is enhanced the higher the player is drafted. The lower the draft pick even into free agency, the less likely the player pans out.

So the draft IS important and it DOES matter. Yes, undrafted players can make a team and become great. Romo is an example. But that doesn't happen as often as when a player is drafted.

That's my point. There is a difference. If there were not a difference, a team could just trade away its draft choice for veterans (like the Commanders of the 70s did) and just stock its roster with free agent rookies.

But we know that's not going to happen because the draft does matter. And that's how it relates.

Presumably, the higher a pick, the more likely they are to pan out. Which is why--before the draft--higher picks are worth a lot more. For the likelihood that they're going to pan out.
Once you get them on the roster, though, and see what you've got, it doesn't matter if you got the talented player in the first round, or you got him in free agency. What matters is whether or not you hit on the guy. What we're saying is we blew the analysis of the high probability guys, but hit on multiple long shots afterward that compensated for that. I mean, how much do you really care whether it's Danny Coale or Cole Beasley who ended up panning out? It really doesn't matter.

If you look at how NFL rosters are made up, you see a surprising number of guys across the league who come from the CFA route when compared to any of the other rounds. That's because, while the chances of each one of them making it are very small, the chances of any of them making it are pretty good, simply because there are so many of them.

 

[Idgit]

We could have had those players and "draftable" talent on top? With the minimal defensive talent and depth on this team? Naw, made no difference. Dallas PR is good.

It made a huge difference prior to the draft. You obviously want your board as accurate as possible so you don't risk losing players who can help you by other teams taking them prior to CFA. But once the draft has happened and CFA is done and the bullets are all dodged, it makes little difference whether they got on your roster via a pick or free agency. Assuming, of course, your coaches are willing to evaluate players based on their performance and not where they were taken, then the only difference is the amount of money you have to commit to them.

 

[BigStar]

It made a huge difference prior to the draft. You obviously want your board as accurate as possible so you don't risk losing players who can help you by other teams taking them prior to CFA. But once the draft has happened and CFA is done and the bullets are all dodged, it makes little difference whether they got on your roster via a pick or free agency. Assuming, of course, your coaches are willing to evaluate players based on their performance and not where they were taken, then the only difference is the amount of money you have to commit to them.

Something tells me this is not how teams want to succeed? Leary is the only talent there. Beasley is in his 3rd season and starting to make an impact in the slot (niche).

 

[windward]

We missed when it mattered. When professional scouts/coaches prepared their boards, etc. we missed. The fact that there is higher athleticism/talent in those 4-7 rounds is the problem here.

Not every team is going to have a great draft year in and year out. Looking at things collectively our drafts in 2011, 2013 and 2014 look productive. Combined with a decent haul of UDFA talent, the team's talent has been upgraded to the point where we have a pretty good team.

 

[Risen Star]

The 2012 draft class was horrible. The 2012 UDFA class was good. One has nothing to do with the other. When teams say they have to start drafting better, they are not referring to signing college free agents.

 

[BigStar]

Not every team is going to have a great draft year in and year out. Looking at things collectively our drafts in 2011, 2013 and 2014 look productive. Combined with a decent haul of UDFA talent, the team's talent has been upgraded to the point where we have a pretty good team.

I like the 1st round picks and am grateful we seem to hit on those most recently. But 2nd round on have only contributed Murray & Crawford (and Lee to be fair) during JG tenure. Some good players there but that seems low.

 

[Idgit]

Yeah, I understand what you were doing and it's typical of a homer fan who just. can't. handle. the stinging criticism. You add stuff in. Like UDFAs here, what the team must think there.

He was talking about the 2012 draft class. None of those players you tried to include were part of that draft class.

Sorry, Risen, but you have to first win your points in your argument before you can make those sorts of dismissive personal observations. Explain how it matters once the players are on the roster. If Jerry Jones fields a roster of 53 probowl college free agents and zero draft picks, you're really going to complain about that?

Of course you are. Because you are looking more for things to complain about than you are seriously interested in evaluating the roster.

 

[Risen Star]

Sorry, Risen, but you have to first win your points in your argument before you can make those sorts of dismissive personal observations. Explain how it matters once the players are on the roster. If Jerry Jones fields a roster of 53 probowl college free agents and zero draft picks, you're really going to complain about that?

Of course you are. Because you are looking more for things to complain about than you are seriously interested in evaluating the roster.

It matters in terms of grading a draft. You only consider the players taken in the draft. What you are doing, in your typical "fair and balanced" defense of the team (they must know something), is trying to include another avenue of player acquisition with the draft. Because if you don't, gasp....you'd have to admit it that it was an epic failure.

Yes. The 2012 UDFA class was good. That has nothing to do with what the man was talking about. Which was our draft class that year.

No. I wouldn't complain about having 53 of the finest UDFAs ever on my roster. But that too would have nothing to do with my performance in the draft.

 

[windward]

I like the 1st round picks and am grateful we seem to hit on those most recently. But 2nd round on have only contributed Murray & Crawford (and Lee to be fair) during JG tenure. Some good players there but that seems low.

It depends on how you want to interpret good I guess. We have added some pro bowl talent in the early rounds. That's great of course. But I think Twill and Dwayne Harris are solid contributors.. Randle has been a vault able reserve. Escobar and Hanna play key roles too. Carter and Hitchens have been solid contributors. Wilcox is showing progress.

 

[Idgit]

Something tells me this is not how teams want to succeed? Leary is the only talent there. Beasley is in his 3rd season and starting to make an impact in the slot (niche).

Obviously, it's better practice to have your best player be the first guy you selected, and the second best by the second guy you selected, and on down. In practice, teams like the Seahawks make a living on really really good players from the middle rounds. My point is only that, once they're on the roster, it really doesn't matter where they came from. Nobody's complaining about stealing Rolando McClain in VFA, for example.

I'm not sure how many players teams add, on average, from each year's rookie class. IIRC, with draft picks, if you're getting three starters a year, you're crushing it. Most teams get 2-and-change. In our case, we got Crawford from that group. And Hanna and Mo, realistically, are in that pocket change category.

Looking quickly at the last few years, it looks like NFL teams add somewhere between a low of 1 undrafted rookie/team and a high of 1.8/undrafted rookies/team from '09 to '11. That gives you a sense, at least, how we did with adding 3, including one full time starter.

 

[Wood]

the numbers have been great for Crawford all year but anyone who watches these games know Dallas hit on this one in draft.

 

[BigStar]

It depends on how you want to interpret good I guess. We have added some pro bowl talent in the early rounds. That's great of course. But I think Twill and Dwayne Harris are solid contributors.. Randle has been a vault able reserve. Escobar and Hanna play key roles too. Carter and Hitchens have been solid contributors. Wilcox is showing progress.

Their contributing and still have hope TW can develop into a stronger #2. Carter was such a letdown as I was a huge fan of his athleticism initially when teamed up inside with Lee. He seems to want to pick dandelions instead of playing football unfortunately. Hitchens has great instincts who I think can start in this D alongside Lee and McClain next year so will give ya that one too. We may see Randle's role expand next year (hope they don't resign Murray tbh) while being teamed up with another back (pick/Williams). Harris is a good ST player. I like the role players on O much more than what we have gotten out of the D. I like Wilcox bc he seems to have the edge and speed you want in a S. Holloman actually looked like a player bf that injury as well. If I had to be more specific The team should have invested more along the DL when contemplating a move to the 4-3 and further shortening TR's window.

 

[BigStar]

Obviously, it's better practice to have your best player be the first guy you selected, and the second best by the second guy you selected, and on down. In practice, teams like the Seahawks make a living on really really good players from the middle rounds. My point is only that, once they're on the roster, it really doesn't matter where they came from. Nobody's complaining about stealing Rolando McClain in VFA, for example.

I'm not sure how many players teams add, on average, from each year's rookie class. IIRC, with draft picks, if you're getting three starters a year, you're crushing it. Most teams get 2-and-change. In our case, we got Crawford from that group. And Hanna and Mo, realistically, are in that pocket change category.

Looking quickly at the last few years, it looks like NFL teams add somewhere between a low of 1 undrafted rookie/team and a high of 1.8/undrafted rookies/team from '09 to '11. That gives you a sense, at least, how we did with adding 3, including one full time starter.

I hear your point. I might not like it, but I hear ya...the fact you looked up the avg. UDFAs that stick to a team deserves that.

 

[windward]

Their contributing and still have hope TW can develop into a stronger #2. Carter was such a letdown as I was a huge fan of his in athleticism initially when teamed up inside with Lee. He seems to want to pick dandelions instead of playing football unfortunately. Hitchens has great instincts who I think can start in this D alongside Lee and McClain next year so will give ya that one too. We may see Randle's role expand next year (hope they don't resign Murray tbh) while being teamed up with another back (pick/Williams). Harris is a good ST player. I like the role players on O much more than what we have gotten out of the D. I like Wilcox bc he seems to have the edge and speed you want in a S. Holloman actually looked like a player bf that injury as well. If I had to be more specific The team should have invested more along the DL when contemplating a move to the 4-3 and further shortening TR's window.

Yeah I would have liked to see more investment along the DL too. But I do think that will be our focus this offseason.