We need to stop trading up for now

[jterrell]

You are right we have no idea what Fisher would have done and it is only speculation on my part,

could've ended post there because the rest is make believe based on what you want to believe.

 

[TwentyOne]

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.

Success throu the draft is achieved by maximizing the numbers of picks in round 1-3.

Theres a good scientific work about it. In essence it says: Drafting (good) players is pure luck. Therefore to be successfull you have to upper your chances. That means the more picks you have the bigger the chance is to be successfull.

When you look at teams that are successfull in the draft they do it exactly that way.

JJ in one of his last interviews about Manziel said something like "To be successfull you have to be willing to take a big risk." He believes only in taking big risks you can be successfull in the draft.

Thats exact the opposite what the scientific works says and how successfull teams do it.

To me thats the main reason why we are not good at drafting. Just look at the trade we did for Lawrence. Good teams dont do such trades. Regardless of the players quality - you lose one pick. If you want to be successfull in the draft you stock pile picks and dont trade them.

That does not mean you trade down just to get more picks in later rounds. It means what i wrote: You find ways to get more picks in round 1-3 and dont trade up and lose picks in round 1-3.

 

[Sinister]

could've ended post there because the rest is make believe based on what you want to believe.

It's not necessarily what I want to believe.

Mo has not lived up to his draft position. It was poor strategy by the front office.

We don't agree, but that is OK.

 

[Galian Beast]

Success throu the draft is achieved by maximizing the numbers of picks in round 1-3.

Theres a good scientific work about it. In essence it says: Drafting (good) players is pure luck. Therefore to be successfull you have to upper your chances. That means the more picks you have the bigger the chance is to be successfull.

When you look at teams that are successfull in the draft they do it exactly that way.

JJ in one of his last interviews about Manziel said something like "To be successfull you have to be willing to take a big risk." He believes only in taking big risks you can be successfull in the draft.

Thats exact the opposite what the scientific works says and how successfull teams do it.

To me thats the main reason why we are not good at drafting. Just look at the trade we did for Lawrence. Good teams dont do such trades. Regardless of the players quality - you lose one pick. If you want to be successfull in the draft you stock pile picks and dont trade them.

I definitely wouldn't say pure luck. I do agree with the logic that the more draft picks you have in the first 3 rounds the more likely you are to obtain good players though.

 

[Craig]

I agree that they need to stop trading up the way they have, but citing Claiborne or Lawrence isn't really a great argument for it. There was nothing wrong with either of those picks where they were picked.

 

[Common Sense]

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.

Eh, go back and read the edit I made to the top of my post. I was a doofus and left out the most important thing to this argument. By decreasing the probability of landing a starter, it is an irrational trade at best and an illogical one at worst. Just like landing an 18 in blackjack and not staying put. You might hit on the player, but it was still the wrong move based on the mathematical improbability of success.

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??

We agree that the actual outcome is irrelevant. What matters is that you play the odds in a sensible way. Trading down to the point of stockpiling picks with a low probability of panning out doesn't increase your odds of finding a quality starter, which is why 2009 was such a disaster (aside from the RW trade). Trading down in the first and picking up an extra premium pick is almost always a good idea, but taking that first and turning it into as many third day picks as possible isn't, because those picks are too unlikely to pan out.

My whole point was that burning a first and second round pick for the privilege of picking sixth overall actually DECREASED the team's chance of landing a quality starter.

Your point was that if he's Patrick Peterson, then it's okay (depending on who's predicting it). You're assuming board infallibility, which you later argued against.

Your syllogism only works when comparing apples to apples, not apples to some unknown quantity that has the same numerical grade assigned to it an apple. It could be a 3. It could be a Jack. It could be an orange.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

This is indeed a truly entertaining discussion!

On one hand, I agree with those that argue Mo Claiborne was a bad transaction and the Cowboys should not have made the trade to move up. As Sinister already mentioned, they had more than one need on defense. With all the weapons on the d-line, the Cowboys believed premier corners (including Carr) would dramatically improve their defense and elevate the production of the front seven. IMO, however, they should have stayed put and taken the best defensive player on the board given their overall needs.

On the other hand, Claiborne was compared to Patrick Peterson by many draft experts who claimed he would be as good if not better as a shutdown corner. Peterson went to the Pro Bowl his first year and was recognized by many as one of the best in the game. It makes sense for the Cowboys to want to duplicate the Cardinals' success by trading up to draft the player they believed could help their team the most.

Bottom line is that each situation is unique. Sometimes, it a good idea to trade up if you have a good grasp of your team's needs and, you know how to evaluate that talent. In hindsight, it was not a great trade but that would not discourage me from ever trying it again depending on the circumstances.

 

[TwentyOne]

I definitely wouldn't say pure luck. I do agree with the logic that the more draft picks you have in the first 3 rounds the more likely you are to obtain good players though.

I wrote "in essence".

Of course its not pure luck. Scouting the players has its worth. But not that much people tend to believe. In the end luck has much more to do with it then anything else. That was the essence of the work i mentioned.

To me it sounds logical. And when i look at how we do it and other teams do it i find coherencies of why we dont succeed but others do.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

... the actual outcome is irrelevant. What matters is that you play the odds in a sensible way.

This is as succinct as I could put it.

Dallas needs to study each situation carefully taking into consideration (honesty and realistically) current talent, specific needs, and opportunities.

 

[wileedog]

I agree that they need to stop trading up the way they have, but citing Claiborne or Lawrence isn't really a great argument for it. There was nothing wrong with either of those picks where they were picked.

There was nothing wrong with where they were picked, but considering that we used a 1st, 2 2nds and a 3rd to get 2 players on a defense that needs a lot more than 2 players is the exact problem.

That fact that one has been sub-par to expectations and the other got immediately hurt only further shows the huge risks in this strategy of trading up for premium picks.

 

[Tobal]

The Roy Williams trade has been the biggest pain point in our recent moves, I wanted Roy, but not at that price. I wasn't for trading up for Claiborne but it wasn't a horrible move. It turned out bad but those things happen to everyone. Jenkins was a solid player, but the team for whatever reason wrote him off.

 

[cowboyvic]

Won't happen. Jerry loves making moves to try and show us he has a football brain and to make his stamp on the draft. He can't help himself. There is no logical reasoning why this team in our state should be forfeiting 2nd and 3rd round picks. But we do.

And no, trading down was equally as bad all those years. Stay put.

Bingo. your post is spot on. and that's why this team sucks.

 

[Wolfpack]

Success throu the draft is achieved by maximizing the numbers of picks in round 1-3.

Theres a good scientific work about it. In essence it says: Drafting (good) players is pure luck. Therefore to be successfull you have to upper your chances. That means the more picks you have the bigger the chance is to be successfull.

When you look at teams that are successfull in the draft they do it exactly that way.

JJ in one of his last interviews about Manziel said something like "To be successfull you have to be willing to take a big risk." He believes only in taking big risks you can be successfull in the draft.

Thats exact the opposite what the scientific works says and how successfull teams do it.

To me thats the main reason why we are not good at drafting. Just look at the trade we did for Lawrence. Good teams dont do such trades. Regardless of the players quality - you lose one pick. If you want to be successfull in the draft you stock pile picks and dont trade them.

That does not mean you trade down just to get more picks in later rounds. It means what i wrote: You find ways to get more picks in round 1-3 and dont trade up and lose picks in round 1-3.

Great post.

 

[Galian Beast]

The Roy Williams trade has been the biggest pain point in our recent moves, I wanted Roy, but not at that price. I wasn't for trading up for Claiborne but it wasn't a horrible move. It turned out bad but those things happen to everyone. Jenkins was a solid player, but the team for whatever reason wrote him off.

Even worse when you consider the Anquan Boldin trade.

 

[InDakWeTrust]

I really like this thread. A lot.

I'm all for trading as your board, or available players dictates, but, not if it means losing 2nd through 4th rounders. Also, I'd only trade up and use those premium picks on a QB, only. Regardless of being the next Deion, J.J. Watt or Clowney.

 

[jterrell]

various:

---There is some logic to staying where you are or trading down and collecting top 3 round bodies if you need help. It is pretty popular. The only problem with that argument would be that Bruce Carter was a top 50 pick. David Arkin was pick 110.
There is zero doubt as you move up in the draft you reduce the odds for missing on an NFL talent. The success rate over time is completely in line with draft order. The draft value chart realizes that and thus fine tuned so that the odds of success are invariably even if the trade is even.

---Had Dallas traded up with the Felix Jones and Mike Jenkins picks they could've drafted a cornerstone player instead of guys they let walk for nothing.

--- some 21-100 picks since 2000
Dwayne Goodrich
QCar, Dixon, W Blade
Gurode, ABryant, Ross
AlJohnson, Witten
Julius Jones, Rogers, Peterman
Kevin Burnett
Fasano, Hatcher
Spencer, Marten
Felix, Jenkins, Bennett
JWilliams, Brewster (McGee 101)
Dez, Lee
Carter, Murray
Crawford
TFred, Esco, TWill, Wilcox
DLaw

Truth is if you remove the 1st round guys that list is pukeworthy. If you think Dallas needed more picks between 30-100 I have to ask exactly you think they were going to do with them?
Of the non round 1 guys Dallas has Carter barely hanging on as a starter, and TWill as the 2nd WR tho apparently now he may be out injured week 1, and Wilcox who was abominable at times last year.

Compare that to the rate of success amongst top 20 draft picks and you'll see why Dallas trades up....

Top 20 picks since 2000:
RW31
TNew
Ware, Spears
Carpenter
Tyron
Mo
Zach

4 of those guys made Pro Bowls
1 was so bad he couldn't play.

 

[Kaiser]

How many players have traded up for recently like we did Claiborne? Because if I'm not mistaken, did we not trade up for Dez, Anthony Spencer, Sean Lee and a few others?

Spencer is the move I kept waiting to see referenced. We trade a second and third to get a good player in the late first, and the picks we traded to Philly ended up being scrubs.

April 28, 2007: Traded by Eagles as 2007 1st round pick (26th overall) to Cowboys for 2007 3rd round pick (87th overall, Stewart Bradley), 2007 2nd round pick (36th overall, Kevin Kolb) and 2007 5th round pick (159th overall, C.J. Gaddis)

 

[jterrell]

Spencer is the move I kept waiting to see referenced. We trade a second and third to get a good player in the late first, and the picks we traded to Philly ended up being scrubs.

April 28, 2007: Traded by Eagles as 2007 1st round pick (26th overall) to Cowboys for 2007 3rd round pick (87th overall, Stewart Bradley), 2007 2nd round pick (36th overall, Kevin Kolb) and 2007 5th round pick (159th overall, C.J. Gaddis)

Virtually every non top 20 player Dallas has had success with in the Jerry era was someone we identified and moved on, either up or down or in Spencer's case both.
The exceptions that are not undrafted or round 7 spitballs are few and far between led by Jason Witten/Andre Gurode.
Dallas percentage of hitting on guys they sat still for from rounds 2-5 is absolutely dreadful.

 

[kiheikiwi]

Good argument on both sides of this debate.
I railed on Jerry about the Floyd draft, the principle was wrong - but boy, they sure got it right with Fredrick and Williams. Mo, Was just dumb. All the way round. I agree to the not giving away top 3 round picks theory. Either side of the football, offence or defense, having those picks is a premium. After that draft fiasco, I did not believe they would go the same route again. And while the F.O. explanation sort of made sense as to why going after Lawrence - the price was just too step. I was screaming at my T.V. NOOOOOO don't do it !!!
This team is devoid of lots of talent that we have traded away over the years, not just the last couple. So, you would think that the F.O. would stay away from making those "high risk, high reward" type trades.
Supposedly, Garret and now McClay know they were/are trying to rebuild this roster without tanking at the same time. You cannot rebuild and give premium picks away. Claiborne, Lawrence are not going to change the makeup of this roster by themselves - so why throw away picks when you must have more, not less ? Go look at the 53 man roster up on the mother-ship today. The years of players taken, on the team and the rounds picked. Its very sobering.
So, while I agree in point with comments made on both sides of this debate. My overwhelming thought is, a team as devoid of talent as we are and have been for awhile, simply cannot draft the way we have been. And they MUST know that. I do think McClay is got a better plan in place, but Trading away premium picks - for this team must simply stop !!!

 

[Cowboy_Shawn]

Won't happen. Jerry loves making moves to try and show us he has a football brain and to make his stamp on the draft. He can't help himself. There is no logical reasoning why this team in our state should be forfeiting 2nd and 3rd round picks. But we do.

And no, trading down was equally as bad all those years. Stay put.

You nailed it. In recent memory trading down has been just as bad as trading up.

Unfortunately Jerry is so preoccupied with hitting home runs/taking risks/driving it across the water, however you want to put it....that making the smart safe decision will often take a back seat. So that means we'll probably see more ill-advised trade ups in our future.