What hit percentage would you consider realistic

[Woods]

in the Draft?

By "hits", I don't only mean star players, but players who fit certain roles successfully on the team for an extended period of time (let's say for 3-4 years).

For example, it can be a punt returner/kick off returner who excels at his job, or a solid nickel CB.

IMO, if in a normal year you have your full 7 picks (i.e., haven't traded any away), I would consider hitting on 3 picks as realistic - guys who can play a successful role on the team for 3-4 years.

In our case this year, as of today, we only have 6 picks. I think if we hit on 3 of them (so 50%), that's realistic (though maybe slightly optimistic). If we hit on 4 of the 6, that's actually good. Anything over that would be considered very good/excellent.

Given the gaps on our roster, I think we need to hit on AT LEAST 3 of the current 6 picks we have, if not 4 out of the 6 picks.

What do you guys/gals think?

 

[theogt]

Gaps? I don't think we have any obvious gaps that we NEED to fill. Unlike past years, we've got a decent plug in every hole. Fortunately we're now at the point of finding better talent.

 

[Woods]

Gaps? I don't think we have any obvious gaps that we NEED to fill. Unlike past years, we've got a decent plug in every hole. Fortunately we're now at the point of finding better talent.

By gaps I mean improving the OL, Safety position, OLB position, etc.

We don't HAVE to fill any of them . . . . but let's say there are areas for improvement.

 

[Woods]

Gaps? I don't think we have any obvious gaps that we NEED to fill. Unlike past years, we've got a decent plug in every hole. Fortunately we're now at the point of finding better talent.

But you didn't answer the question . . . . what hit percentage do you consider realitic for the Boys?

 

[AsthmaField]

in the Draft?

By "hits", I don't only mean star players, but players who fit certain roles successfully on the team for an extended period of time (let's say for 3-4 years).

For example, it can be a punt returner/kick off returner who excels at his job, or a solid nickel CB.

IMO, if in a normal year you have your full 7 picks (i.e., haven't traded any away), I would consider hitting on 3 picks as realistic - guys who can play a successful role on the team for 3-4 years.

In our case this year, as of today, we only have 6 picks. I think if we hit on 3 of them (so 50%), that's realistic (though maybe slightly optimistic). If we hit on 4 of the 6, that's actually good. Anything over that would be considered very good/excellent.

Given the gaps on our roster, I think we need to hit on AT LEAST 3 of the current 6 picks we have, if not 4 out of the 6 picks.

What do you guys/gals think?

So given that you think we'll hit on 50% of those picks... I'll assume that you think the "hits" will be the first second and third rounder. That means that going into the draft, you expect our 5th, 6th, and 7th round picks to me no more than camp fodder.

I don't neccessarily disagree with that. Our roster is much more talented than it's been since the mid 90's. It's going to be really hard for us to draft guys in the later rounds that will come in and secure a roster spot.

What do we expect? For us to draft a safety in the 6th round and for him to come in and make the roster? For that to happen, he would have to run last year's 6th round safety off the roster, beriault. A late round developmental OT? He would have to put Petitti in the street.

My point is, these late round picks are going to have a very hard time making the roster. This roster. It's pretty deep and talented.

If you truly expect the later round picks to not make the team... why wouldn't you use those picks to move up with your first three picks to secure players that you want? Trade a 5th and a 6th to move up a few spots in the second to grab a player that you like but that will probably not be there at your normal pick.

That way, you are helping the odds of the first three guys you take and not wasting time on late round guys that probably won't ever make it out of training camp.

Just a thought.

 

[theogt]

By gaps I mean improving the OL, Safety position, OLB position, etc.

We don't HAVE to fill any of them . . . . but let's say there are areas for improvement.

If we can upgrade at least two of those positions in the draft and get some more quality backups/potential starters at other positions its a hit.

Thank God we're not in the position we were in last year where he HAD to have a homerun. Fortunately we hit a grandslam last year and can look at improvements this year rather than holes.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I don't think it's unrealistic to think your first day picks should be "hits" by your defination. Most teams have 4 day 2 picks and probably feel they can get at least 1 if not 2 "hits" from them. That adds up to 4 possibly 5 for the weekend. Most teams would accept that.

 

[Woods]

So given that you think we'll hit on 50% of those picks... I'll assume that you think the "hits" will be the first second and third rounder. That means that going into the draft, you expect our 5th, 6th, and 7th round picks to me no more than camp fodder.

I don't neccessarily disagree with that. Our roster is much more talented than it's been since the mid 90's. It's going to be really hard for us to draft guys in the later rounds that will come in and secure a roster spot.

What do we expect? For us to draft a safety in the 6th round and for him to come in and make the roster? For that to happen, he would have to run last year's 6th round safety off the roster, beriault. A late round developmental OT? He would have to put Petitti in the street.

My point is, these late round picks are going to have a very hard time making the roster. This roster. It's pretty deep and talented.

If you truly expect the later round picks to not make the team... why wouldn't you use those picks to move up with your first three picks to secure players that you want? Trade a 5th and a 6th to move up a few spots in the second to grab a player that you like but that will probably not be there at your normal pick.

That way, you are helping the odds of the first three guys you take and not wasting time on late round guys that probably won't ever make it out of training camp.

Just a thought.

Actually, I haven't looked at the Cowboys' draft history over the past 10 years or so. But, I was thinking that in the 1st day we should hit on 2 out of 3 picks, but the 2nd day, the odds are naturally lower. So, we hit on 1 of 3 picks.

For example, this year, a guy like W. Reid (WR) isn't a top WR candidate. He's by most accounts a Day 2 guy. However, he's got some very good return skills. This type of guy could make an impact quite early.

Anyway, I'd expect to hit on 1 of those types on the 2nd day.

 

[theogt]

I was thinking that in the 1st day we should hit on 2 out of 3 picks, but the 2nd day, the odds are naturally lower. So, we hit on 1 of 3 picks.

That would be about par. Anything above that is superb and anything below is a failed draft.

 

[MinnesotaCowboy]

I'm optimistic that we will get our 4th pick back by trading down and will score big on our first 4 picks especially since Ireland is at the helm!

 

[jrumann59]

5 out of 7 that is why you have UDFA for camp fodder

 

[burmafrd]

Outside of years like 75 and last year, you cannot expect to get better then 50% players that will be on your roster for 3 or so years. People like to talk about the great drafts of the early 90's: more then HALF of them were busts. Jimmy averaged about 40% real good picks - which is very good but certainly not world shattering. Burnett, Beriault have injury question marks- but the rest of the draft are keepers it appears now. Even if those two are not around in a year or so, that still puts us at 75% which is GREAT. I happen to think that one of them will stick so that would put us at 85%- which is probably about the best of all time. If by some miracle we could do as well this year - with the talent level so much higher overall on the roster- we really would be at the point of having as much talent as anyone in the NFL.

 

[Dalmations202]

50% is direly needed, and the higher the better.

Somehow they need to find 2 starting OL out of this draft that will be starting in the next 2-3 years. If not, they are going to be in the "Need homerun OL" in about 3 years.