"Why I'm neither high nor low on Switzer", otherwise titled "A History of Cowboys 4th Rounders"

[jobberone]

Would be nice to see them in a game.

 

[speedkilz88]

 

[_sturt_]

Odd comment. Anybody with something positive to say about anything could be classified as a cheerleader. It's not a slight against a persons opinion whatsoever. It's pretty obvious why Switzer was a fourth rounder, pure talent seems to play little part in it. And as far as I'm concerned this obsession with comparing players to other players picked in the same round is just lazy. Assess the player as an individual.

I might be missing something here, so I apologize in advance if that's the case... but my immediate reaction to this is, "how else can you assess a player if you're not looking at some basis of comparison?" You can assess the individual descriptors, but then you have to put those descriptors into some context, and one of the naturally reasonable ways to do that is to consider other players who similarly selected at about that same point over the years in the draft.

One might reply, "Well, but for instance you rarely find teams selecting offensive guards high in the draft. Zack Martin, as high as he went, by most accounts should have went even higher."

And I can buy this to an extent... ie, that teams perceive what a good player at a specific position can bring to their offense as a lesser priority, and that accordingly pushed his stock down in the draft. There's some legitimacy to that line of logic. Perhaps a player at a lesser priority position/role deserves to be drafted higher if the draft position was exclusively a reflection of the NFL production he's perceived likely to have based on the preponderance of what scouts say.

But. Then. If that's your reasoning, don't stop there, argue with yourself a little more... that is, what's changed about that? Is there something different about how slot receivers are perceived now and where they tend to get drafted in comparison to the 19 drafts before?

I don't see that, and to the contrary, I'd even be inclined to think their perceived worth probably has slightly increased in recent years, related to how successfully NE has used them in the Brady era.

The argument only helps if it can be asserted that slot receivers are less valued now than they've been, and therefore, being taken in the 130s now should be interpreted similarly to being taken in the 70s (or whatever number you want to suggest) before.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Forgive me if I don't take the word of people who never mentioned the player before the draft. Not a single person here, minus that UNC homer who pimped every Tar Heel, has any credibility over Ryan Switzer. You didn't like him enough to talk about him before the draft. Your words are hollow after the draft. Don't care. Means nothing to me. You're just a cheerleader.

I know you were talking about me but I knew about Switzer pre-draft. My good friend's brother was drafted in the 4th round this year from Carolina.

But more than that...is there some type of secret scouting tape that people only get if they tune in pre-draft? If the answer is no then you're opinion isi no more informed than anyone else who has taken the time to watch the film.

 

[Oh_Canada]

Forgive me if I don't take the word of people who never mentioned the player before the draft. Not a single person here, minus that UNC homer who pimped every Tar Heel, has any credibility over Ryan Switzer. You didn't like him enough to talk about him before the draft. Your words are hollow after the draft. Don't care. Means nothing to me. You're just a cheerleader.

I messed around on those first pick.com mocks about a half dozen times. At least half those mocks I took him in the sixth and would have in fifth had he been there. Like the player a lot. Before and after the draft. My three most commonly picked players were Josh Jones, TJ Logan and Switzer.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

I messed around on those first pick.com mocks about a half dozen times. At least half those mocks I took him in the sixth and would have in fifth had he been there. Like the player a lot. Before and after the draft. My three most commonly picked players were Josh Jones, TJ Logan and Switzer.

I wanted Logan and Switzer........Hood and Mack Hollins.......and Bug Howard haha

 

[LocimusPrime]

Bradie James was a decent 4th rd pick. Not great by any means, but better than Hitchens, Wilbur, and Wilson

• Led cowboys with 202 tackles in one season - wow
• 5 straight 100 tackles + seasons
• Only missed two games as a Cowboys linebacker.

 

[Stash]

Right.

And so, when I said, "It says nothing about any one player"... it would make sense that we agree on that specific point. I've said it more than once. To zero in on that as-if I'm contending that he's bound to be a bust is disingenuous, imo. I'm not.

"Disingenuous"? This entire thread looks disingenuous to me. Data collected and cobbled together in some effort to show where it has any bearing on this player whatsoever, when it obviously doesn't mean a thing.

It may prove to be (ie, a trend). But for now, you don't know. You're only supposing because you're an optimistic kind-of person. And I, for one, appreciate that we have optimists like you around here. I loathe those boards you visit where everyone is a cynic and a pessimist, and always trying to aim low, seemingly in some pursuit of reassuring themselves that they're right more than those silly-azzed optimists.

But in your attempt to be optimistic, don't shill your credibility by claiming that averages mean nothing. No. They do. Like I said, "it gives us context." It gives us indication of what history suggests is the norm that we ought to expect to occur. It's a baseline.

And, again, be fair to my original point... the average doesn't tell us anything about what one player will achieve or won't achieve. It only suggests a likelihood. Again, it's just like when Mike Trout comes to bat... his past history says nothing about what he will do or won't do in his next plate appearance. But nonetheless, it is informative to know his batting average, because it suggests what we ought to expect.

But you know that already.

It's okay to be bullish on a given player's prospects. But it's also okay to be bullish while acknowledging the rest of the context. And, maybe just from where I sit, that seems better than not. He could end up being an even newer and better version of Cole Beasley. He also could end up being more like Sklyer Green. I share your high hopes, but I'm also careful to keep some sober recognition of what 4th rounders historically have achieved.

That's all.

It's definitely a better indicator than going back 10 years before, when just about everyone involved in the organization wasn't here, but yeah, sure, go back to 1960 and count those guys too. It still won't have anything to do with Switzer.

This is a failed exercise.

 

[Stash]

Last 4 are currently on roster and could all be playing solid roles next year. I'm the same way with all our draft picks. Our drafts the last few years have all been really solid compared to the decade or so before.

Quit it with that talk, you'll ruin all of his "work"...

 

[haleyrules]

Bradie James was a decent 4th rd pick. Not great by any means, but better than Hitchens, Wilbur, and Wilson

• Led cowboys with 202 tackles in one season - wow
• 5 straight 100 tackles + seasons
• Only missed two games as a Cowboys linebacker.

Heck yeah! Very underrated player.

 

[haleyrules]

The Cowboys have had some outstanding 4th rd. picks...Tom Rafferty and Tony Tolbert ,Pat Donovan come to mind.

 

[haleyrules]

It's a dumb argument anyway. Somebody talking about Beasley before the draft has little connection to somebody talking about him immediately after. And when he then turned out to be a good player, that post-draft analysis wasn't then suddenly hollow.

Not everybody researches every player in college football for their fitness for the Cowboys roster. Lots of people go back and look after a player's been drafted. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Thats normal and what most fans do.

 

[Risen Star]

Bradie James was a decent 4th rd pick. Not great by any means, but better than Hitchens, Wilbur, and Wilson

• Led cowboys with 202 tackles in one season - wow
• 5 straight 100 tackles + seasons
• Only missed two games as a Cowboys linebacker.

James doesn't deserve to be mentioned with that slop. He was a legit quality player.

I still have some hope for Wilson but the other two are NFL Europe players.

 

[aikemirv]

I count about 1 out of every 3 actually being impact players who end up at some point in their careers being productive enough to start.

Maybe we'll continue our recent good fortune. Maybe we're due to regress back to the mean. Who knows.

Basing your whole opinion on a player by the results of previous picks is just well - ridiculous!

 

[Risen Star]

He's going to be the Switz army knife of the offense.

~Furley sniff~

 

[Risen Star]

Basing your whole opinion on a player by the results of previous picks is just well - ridiculous!

Yeah, past performance doesn't matter otherwise you'd have to like put together non existing things like a resume for any job interview.

 

[_sturt_]

Basing your whole opinion on a player by the results of previous picks is just well - ridiculous!

Yes. That is correct. We agree.

Please. Read. If that's your opinion of what I've said, you're...

Just.

Not.

Reading.

It's really a little disturbing that people are quite this doggedly determined to ignore the actual message as opposed to the knee-jerk.

 

[Stash]

Yes. That is correct. We agree.

Please. Read. If that's your opinion of what I've said, you're...

Just.

Not.

Reading.

It's really a little disturbing that people are quite this doggedly determined to ignore the actual message as opposed to the knee-jerk.

If it's that many people, maybe it's "the actual message" and not everyone else.

 

[Dhragon]

And you are just a greasy vat of snark.

Reminded me of this =

You're a mean one, Mr. Risen
You really are a heel
You're as cuddly as a cactus
You're as charming as an eel, Mr. Risen!
You're a bad banana
With a greasy black peel!

 

[_sturt_]

If it's that many people, maybe it's "the actual message" and not everyone else.

Cop out.