We need to stop trading up for now

[Angus12]

Two players... What are you even talking about? And we signed Sanders and Haley in free agency, not the draft... and there was no cap then....

We traded for Haley.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/244362/49ERS-DEAL-CHARLES-HALEY-TO-COWBOYS.html?pg=all

 

[Sinister]

There is no debate that you don't put in a NO TRADE UP mandate.

Agreed, the no trade up mandate is unworkable and terrible strategy.


The grassy knoll is where the questions have to be asked, sometimes.
1. The Cowboys just had too many needs to trade up.
2. Even if Mo turned out to be a great player this team needed lineman both offensive and defensive.
3. The Cowboys already had three adequate cornerbacks on the roster.
4. Fisher passed on their biggest need (which was corner at the time) a red-flag in my opinion whether they needed bodies or not.
5. The Cowboys didn't do their due diligence
"The Cowboys hadn't spent much time with Claiborne during predraft workouts because, as executive vice president Stephen Jones said Thursday night, they "didn't think it was realistic" the team would be able to draft him from the No. 14 position.

Only assistant secondary coach Joe Baker and a few scouts had spoken to Claiborne. Baker talked to Claiborne at the scouting combine in Indianapolis."

There is another quote "Jones said the scouts told him Claiborne was the highest-rated corner on their draft boards since Deion Sanders."

Yet no one talked to Claiborne except a few scouts and Joe Baker?

6. Jerry Jones wanted to move up for Claiborne without having all the information necessary another red-flag.

There are just too many questions that should have occurred to the Cowboys front office before this pick was taken.

 

[EST_1986]

we traded up for Emmitt when we terribad and that worked out OK.
we traded up for Dez and that worked out OK.

the biggest hits in the franchises history have been trading up.

we did a lot of trading down or sitting tight in 2009....

you make the move that makes the most sense at the time.
sometimes you get it right, sometimes you don't.

Right... We just have to evaluate and scout better so when we decide to pick we pick a player that can contribute.

 

[Galian Beast]

We traded for Haley.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/244362/49ERS-DEAL-CHARLES-HALEY-TO-COWBOYS.html?pg=all

Thanks for the correction, for some reason I thought he signed here as a free agent. Not sure how I thought this.

 

[Common Sense]

No, actually it isn't.

PP is the type of player Dallas had scouted Mo to be.

He was ranked 2nd on their board behind only Andrew Luck.
If he met the grade Dallas scouting had in house which is all they had to go by, it would have been a very successful trade and no one would be complaining.


The logic follows thusly:
If Patrick Peterson is worth picks 14 and 45.
And Dallas graded Mo Claiborne equal or higher than Patrick Peterson.
Mo Claiborne must be worth picks 14 and 45 at time of the evaluation.

The problem is you're assuming you have a crystal ball in this situation, which you don't.

If I draw an 18 in blackjack,
And I can hit on a 3,
I'll have 21, meaning the hit was worth it at the time of the evaluation.

It just doesn't work that way. You're dealing in hindsight, when the draft deals in probabilities. Gambling is not a commodity exchange.

 

[Sinister]

If you substitute Patrick Peterson for Mo Claiborne no one is complaining about this trade.

That's how you know the logic isn't faulty.
While still early the scouting looks to be.

Would Fisher have traded out if it was Patrick Peterson and not Mo Claiborne. I seriously doubt it.

 

[Idgit]

The problem is you're assuming you have a crystal ball in this situation, which you don't.

If I draw an 18 in blackjack,
And I can hit on a 3,
I'll have 21, meaning the hit was worth it at the time of the evaluation.

It just doesn't work that way. You're dealing in hindsight, when the draft deals in probabilities. Gambling is not a commodity exchange.

Actually, he's dealing in probabilities, and your dealing in hindsight in this case.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Just the passing on Floyd issue, I know that the coaches didn't feel that he fit the system, but then you have to question why was he a top five player on their board? From what I understood it was the coaches that nixed the idea of Floyd, which is fine unless they did it on draft day. There seems to be some confusion on what happened and I just believe that, confusion on draft day of this magnitude is inexcusable.

I saw several threads on the days following the draft, my main point is that strategy, especially on draft day has to be worked out beforehand and I don't get the feeling that the Cowboys are working on every possible scenario. Maybe, I'm wrong on this, that is just the impression that I am getting.

That whole Floyd issue was a total fiasco.

You draft your board, that is the entire reason you put a board together. Now if a player does not fit your system, no way in hell he should be listed as a top 5 pick on your board. And if you say that he was never expected to drop that far, then that means you are putting players on your board you have no intention of drafting. This is known as "window dressing your board". Bottom line is that when you start drafting "off board" then the entire process of spending months putting a board together becomes moot. You might as well just start throwing darts at names on wall if you are going to do this.

Even Steven Jones has acknowledged that this whole situation with Floyd was one big screw up and that is why they went to using "pods" this year where both coaches and scouts work together putting the board up. Now this does bring up another question. Jerry has said that he is mad that they passed on Johnny Football and that he was the number one player on their board when they were on the clock.

Again, the team seems to be not following their board. Regardless of how you feel about Manzel, if he is number one on your board when you are on the clock, you take him. If Zach Martin is better, he should be ranked above JFB on your board. It seems like a repeat of the Floyed fiasco all over again. Jerry telling the media that he wanted to draft Manzel and that Manzel was number one on their board at the time is not helping things either.

Clearly there is a problem with this team's drafting. While they are getting better, the fact that we have had entire draft classes that have produced next to nothing is the number one reason this team has struggled. Poor drafting is what leads to a lack of depth on the team, thus when injuries happen to your front line starters you have nobody to play in their place but scrubs.

 

[Common Sense]

Actually, he's dealing in probabilities, and your dealing in hindsight in this case.

The blackjack example was sarcasm.

 

[ufcrules1]

Trading up has really not worked out for us, and if you look at it, it has really hurt us.

We have way too many holes (especially on defense) to take the risk of combining draft picks towards players who may or may not work out.

It may make more sense to trade up to a player who has slipped like Dez, but trading up to get guys like Claiborne... just a disaster.

If anything, trading down has proven much more successful for us.

I have been seeing this forever on this forum. I was pissed when we traded up for DL too. Team full of holes cannot afford to give up in the top 3 rounds.

 

[jterrell]

The problem is you're assuming you have a crystal ball in this situation, which you don't.

If I draw an 18 in blackjack,
And I can hit on a 3,
I'll have 21, meaning the hit was worth it at the time of the evaluation.

It just doesn't work that way. You're dealing in hindsight, when the draft deals in probabilities. Gambling is not a commodity exchange.

No, actually I am not.
Results have ZERO to do with the logic.

The decision was logical as I've demonstrated.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Normally a team that is rebuilding needs quantity over quality, thus trading down is the right move. Conversely, when a team is a contender and is just a couple of pieces away, trading up is the right move. They need quality over quantity. The entire problem has been that the front office has treated this team as a contender and drafting accordingly when in reality it is rebuilding.

Like another poster said, this is a good strategy for maximizing profits, not winning games.

 

[Plumfool]

I think we developed Julius poorly. Tried to make him into a RB that he's not. Dorsett spoke openly about it. And I'm honestly not a big Steven Jackson fan. He gets injured too often and is poor at picking up the blitz.

I just think in the end, you're better off erring on the side of trading down than trading up. I do think we traded down too far in the Jackson trade because I would still want that first round talent. But, I think they were Parcells moves and I don't think Jones fit the type of RB he wanted him to be and Spears didn't fit the 3-4 quite like he thought he would.

The problem with the Claiborne trade is that it had been established that this isn't the same passing game that it was back pre-2008. And if you look at the successful defenses and really the successful teams in the league...they were doing it by focusing on getting top-tier safeties and paying less for cornerbacks and getting big, physical, good tackling corners at a cheaper price.

The league developed into a lot of quick hitting passes that required the CB's to be good tacklers. The league developed into frequent use of pass catching tight ends and quick slot WR's and a lot of pick play patterns. Now you had to have safeties that could share both FS and SS responsibilities. They had to play deep and mid-zone coverage. They had to blitz. They had to stop the run. They have to defend TE's, RB's and slot WR's while helping over the top.

And by focusing on getting top-tier talent at safety and going cheaper on CB's...the end result was a better cap figure so they could spend their cap money on other positions on the team.

Jerry, Garrett and Ryan were not keen on recognizing that. So we end up with paying Carr huge dollars, trading up for Mo and having lousy safeties (maybe Wilcox and Church work out, but until then...)







YR

This is a fair analysis. I think the league changed quickly and they weren't ready. And it's changing again.

 

[jterrell]

Would Fisher have traded out if it was Patrick Peterson and not Mo Claiborne. I seriously doubt it.

You are making an assumption based upon current data.

Peterson went pick 5 the year prior to Mo going 6.
Mo was graded higher on most scouts boards than Peterson according to media reports.
Both were the consensus top CB in their draft and top 5 overall consensus draft picks.

We don't know what Fisher would have done because he wasn't hired yet.
We do know he traded down twice and picked a DL then took a CB in round 2 who was a value because other teams had character concerns.
If that was his plan all along then I fail to see PP being graded differently than Mo to the extent you abandon that plan but not even Fisher himself truly knows because he wasn't in football thus had no reason to grade PP.

Again that really matters zero.
What does matter is Dallas.
We know enough about their decision making and scouting to know it was a logically sound trade as it would have been for PP.

The difference of course is Dallas picked at 9 and was desperate for an OL in 2011 so stuck at 9 and took Tyron Smith.
But picking at 14 you do not have access to that level of player.
Moving up from a Michael Brockers and getting truly elite always makes sense.

Mo is in year 3, not 7 or 8. If he follows the pattern Tyron and Dez set he could be special by the end of this season and fans will feel quite foolish and largely ignore they ever really questioned him.

 

[DFWJC]

I chuckle every time I see somebody travel down this road. Yeah, the team said they had interest in Wagner in the 2nd round. But that choice was a looooong way away from what transpired at the top of the first round. Once the trade up was completed and Claiborne selected, the entire draft shifted away from "what could have been". Nobody has any clue of how the draft would have developed after that. Would we have taken Brockers? And if so, what direction would the Rams have went? Causing the next team to go another direction, causing another team to go another direction, which would have caused another team to go in another direction, etc...

Coulda, woulda, shoulda. About as useless as teats on a boar pig.

Chuckling is a good thing. Keep smilin'

And true, nobody knows anything for sure. Face it, if we're taking two players there was along list that would have been light years better than Mo Cali...as you said, in hindsite.

This thread was about trading up so I chimed in. Not against it in general, but that particular one irked me on draft day and still does maybe 1-2 times a year. That's my problem, I realize that.

 

[jterrell]

Normally a team that is rebuilding needs quantity over quality, thus trading down is the right move. Conversely, when a team is a contender and is just a couple of pieces away, trading up is the right move. They need quality over quantity. The entire problem has been that the front office has treated this team as a contender and drafting accordingly when in reality it is rebuilding.

Like another poster said, this is a good strategy for maximizing profits, not winning games.

That is interesting in many ways.

Part of the issue is defining what Dallas is/was/has been:
Since 2005, Dallas has finished below .500 only 1 season.
So has Dallas truly been rebuilding?
Maybe they should have been (as mediocrity has been the result) but they clearly HAVEN'T been.
The draft strategy and FA strategy have been clear there.

This is actually the first year they really cut or passed on high priced, valuable guys in house.
They've kept Romo and paid him top 5 QB money.
They've handed out huge sums to a number of players.

The overall team strategy has clearly not been to rebuild.
Instead they've tried to replace and plug leaks.
Ware is the first guy I can think of that really had value that we've released.
Austin and others before him were basically done.
Ratliff basically held the org hostage to get his release.
Felix was washed up, Mike Jenkins has been a spare part.
We've not been cutting legit players or signalling any type of rebuild until perhaps now.

In 2011 Dallas thought they were right back in the playoffs. They had made it 3 or 4 years ending in the Wade demise 2010 season that saw us start as the worst team in football but finish 5-3.

All in all, this is much like the rest of the Mo complaints imho, based upon present day knowledge and not truly grounded in reality of the situation at the time.

 

[Common Sense]

EDIT: I realized I left out the fact that studies have shown that trading up minimizes the probability of landing a starter in the draft due to the high bust rate. It's better to have two fairly high picks (say, a mid first and second rounder) than one Top 10 pick from a talent acquisition standpoint. My argument doesn't make much sense without stating this first.

No, actually I am not.
Results have ZERO to do with the logic.

The decision was logical as I've demonstrated.

No. It isn't. One more time:

No, actually it isn't.

PP is the type of player Dallas had scouted Mo to be.

He was ranked 2nd on their board behind only Andrew Luck.
If he met the grade Dallas scouting had in house which is all they had to go by, it would have been a very successful trade and no one would be complaining.


The logic follows thusly:
If Patrick Peterson is worth picks 14 and 45.
And Dallas graded Mo Claiborne equal or higher than Patrick Peterson.
Mo Claiborne must be worth picks 14 and 45 at time of the evaluation.

Your statement would only be logical if it were worded this way:
If Patrick Peterson is worth picks 14 and 45.
And Dallas Mo Claiborne's NFL production is equal to or higher than Patrick Peterson.
Mo Claiborne must be worth picks 14 and 45 at time of the evaluation

You are trying to justify the outcome of a draft pick based on the initial grade, when the quality of a draft pick hinges solely on that player's NFL production. Nobody grades drafts based on how true someone stays to their board. If you board is wrong, then you will make poor decisions in the draft. In this case, Mo Claiborne obviously should not have been graded anywhere near Patrick Peterson. I don't care who else got it wrong because that is irrelevant.

Here's another syllogism, for grins:
If Patrick Peterson is worth picks 14 and 45.
And Mo Claiborne is vastly inferior to Patrick Peterson.
Mo Claiborne must NOT be worth picks 14 and 45 at time of the evaluation.

Either (A) Your argument is illogical because it incorrectly compares proven production to speculative production, or (B) Your argument is technically logical because the criteria you use to determine draft day success revolve around board purity rather than on-field production (rendering the distinction between proven and speculative production irrelevant). If it's B, you have a syllogism that is technically logical but is entirely irrational, given that the purpose of the draft is to acquire the talent necessary to win football games and not to see who can follow a board the closest.

 

[Sinister]

You are making an assumption based upon current data.

Peterson went pick 5 the year prior to Mo going 6.
Mo was graded higher on most scouts boards than Peterson according to media reports.
Both were the consensus top CB in their draft and top 5 overall consensus draft picks.

We don't know what Fisher would have done because he wasn't hired yet.
We do know he traded down twice and picked a DL then took a CB in round 2 who was a value because other teams had character concerns.
If that was his plan all along then I fail to see PP being graded differently than Mo to the extent you abandon that plan but not even Fisher himself truly knows because he wasn't in football thus had no reason to grade PP.

Again that really matters zero.
What does matter is Dallas.
We know enough about their decision making and scouting to know it was a logically sound trade as it would have been for PP.

The difference of course is Dallas picked at 9 and was desperate for an OL in 2011 so stuck at 9 and took Tyron Smith.
But picking at 14 you do not have access to that level of player.
Moving up from a Michael Brockers and getting truly elite always makes sense.

Mo is in year 3, not 7 or 8. If he follows the pattern Tyron and Dez set he could be special by the end of this season and fans will feel quite foolish and largely ignore they ever really questioned him.

You are right we have no idea what Fisher would have done and it is only speculation on my part, but I think it is a pretty good guess that if it was Peterson on the board at that point and not Mo, Fisher would not have turned around and traded out of that pick.

Fisher, unlike the Cowboys knew Mo backward and forward. Fisher knew that the Rams needed a corner. Fisher did his homework and what did it tell him?

That Mo was not worth the 6th pick. We can infer that because he turned around and traded Mo for only a second round pick. He felt that Jenkins and Mo were on the same level. Obviously he knew Jenkins was going to fall because of the character issues, but he took a small gamble because he had so many picks.

Jerry being Jerry saw the deal, but it was fools gold. He got played.
Sometimes, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.

 

[jterrell]

No. It isn't. One more time:



Your statement would only be logical if it were worded this way:
If Patrick Peterson is worth picks 14 and 45.
And Dallas Mo Claiborne's NFL production is equal to or higher than Patrick Peterson.
Mo Claiborne must be worth picks 14 and 45 at time of the evaluation

You are trying to justify the outcome of a draft pick based on the initial grade, when the quality of a draft pick hinges solely on that player's NFL production. Nobody grades drafts based on how true someone stays to their board. If you board is wrong, then you will make poor decisions in the draft. In this case, Mo Claiborne obviously should not have been graded anywhere near Patrick Peterson. I don't care who else got it wrong because that is irrelevant.

Here's another syllogism, for grins:
If Patrick Peterson is worth picks 14 and 45.
And Mo Claiborne is vastly inferior to Patrick Peterson.
Mo Claiborne must NOT be worth picks 14 and 45 at time of the evaluation.

Either (A) Your argument is illogical because it incorrectly compares proven production to speculative production, or (B) Your argument is technically logical because the criteria you use to determine draft day success revolve around board purity rather than on-field production (rendering the distinction between proven and speculative production irrelevant). If it's B, you have a syllogism that is technically logical but is entirely irrational, given that the purpose of the draft is to acquire the talent necessary to win football games and not to see who can follow a board the closest.

You do not understand logic, clearly, nor the basic concept of time.

The decision CAN NOT FACTOR RESULTS AT ALL because those results didn't exist at the time.
The value can only be assessed as related to the grade of the players at the time.
If their is a grade that makes the trade a value (and there clearly is) and if the team assigned that grade or higher (and they clearly did) then it is logically a sound trade.

And no, your board being right or wrong is a non-factor. Because your board can be just as wrong on any subsequent player drafted.
Trading up for Kavika Pittman would be bad, but staying where you were and drafting David Beuhler and Mike Mickens is even worse.
Your board is your board and it has EQUAL value in both trade scenarios. You ARE ASSUMING you can somewhat be wrong on Mo and right on later picks which may occur but is not a logical assumption.
In fact the worse your scouting department the MORE important it is to land the consensus guys because finding guys late is actually a challenge whereas everyone spots guys with elite talent.

Dallas drafted A LOT of players in 2009. How did that work out? Should we have traded back like in 2011??

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Remember, at the time we had just signed Carr to a huge free-agent deal, Mike Jenkins and Orlando Scandrick were on the team.

Seeing the 'results' of this particular draft I do not see how it would ever be a good idea to do that again.

Mike Jenkins was on borrowed time though. He already stated he was essentially leaving.


And in this league you can never have enough corners. And I actually liked our corners that year. The one position we were rather deep at.