Look at the results. What has Belichick accomplished over the last 20 years versus Jerry Jones? How many divisional titles, how many playoff appearances, how many conference championship apperances, how many Super Bowl appearances?

Nobody says you don't take calculated risks. Belichick and the Patriots organization use a different approach for evaluating players and deciding when to take risks. Belichick and Jerry Jones are not even in the same universe.

I have never heard of the DE from OU, was he even a starter there? Talk about your no name guy, another defensive player that isn't likely to help much this year. Jerry is drafting like he is 50 years old and has forever to put together a champio ship team.

quote:

---

quote:

---

I don't have any heartburn on the 1st round pick. You could make a reasonable case for either player considered.


The second round pick is yet another example of Jerry playing riverboat gambler with his personnel decisions because he thinks the player's potential upside is worth it. We could get away with that if it only happened very infrequently, but it is a consistent pattern. Jerry consistently views players with injury issues and suspension issues as bargains that will all magically hit their peak potential once they join the Cowboys and be cornerstone contributors.

We have a 20 year run of franchise futility because Jerry is an incompetent player personnel manager. He gets no benefit of the doubt.

---

This is pretty funny because I just heard the EXACT same description used for Bill Belichick. He targets guys who have slipped in the draft due to injury or off field questions. Sure, its gambling to some extent but its not like they don't do their homework on these guys.

---

I'm fine with the Jaylon Smith pick, because as others have said, pegging the improvement on your defense on a 2nd round pick is ridiculous. However, Belichick is successful taking gambles on injured or character concern players because the Patriots regularly trade down in the draft in order to gather more picks in case those guys are busts. Statistics indicate that most teams are about the same at picking in the latter rounds, it's the ones that pick more often that come out looking good.

Still waiting for the team that went from awful to awesome based upon a single draft though, which is why Jaylon Smith is cool with me. Maliek Collins apparently fit their defense better than the other DTs available and the DEs available weren't high on their board. We'll see how it works out, but the Cowboys have done much better in recent years when it comes to drafting.

quote:

---

I have never heard of the DE from OU, was he even a starter there? Talk about your no name guy, another defensive player that isn't likely to help much this year. Jerry is drafting like he is 50 years old and has forever to put together a champio ship team.

---

He was first team all Big-12, and an honorable mention for all American.

Dude is 6'3 270 and runs a sub 4.6 40. The tools are there but he is raw.

The DE is a nice fit for Marinelli's scheme. A really solid pick IMO.

That was my favorite Dallas selection so far.

Marinelli is a genius. Give him a really big guy that can run fast. Marinelli will teach him technique and motivate the guy. Marinelli can make chicken salad from chicken crap. It's about time he had some better materials to work with.

Yeah, can't complain about this pick. At worst he adds some much-needed depth.

Tapper is their best pick so far and it's not close.

If you haven't ever heard of him you probably shouldn't be message boarding about football.

quote:

---

I have never heard of the DE from OU, was he even a starter there? Talk about your no name guy, another defensive player that isn't likely to help much this year. Jerry is drafting like he is 50 years old and has forever to put together a champio ship team.

---

If you're going to make statements like this why are you even on the thread complaining? You've never heard of Charles Tapper? He was a 3 year starter at OU, with 44 career games played including 38 starts, and made All-Big 12 three consecutive seasons.

quote:

---

If you haven't ever heard of him you probably shouldn't be message boarding about football.

---

quote:

---

I'm can't tell if there simply is a blind hate for Jerry shaping these opinions or if most people just don't understand the "best player available" approach to the draft.

The day Stephen took over was the day this team started using this approach and they have not wavered. It started with drafting Dez and it absolutely is a longer term view. A few points:

1. Best player available is based on THEIR evaluations, not ours or any pundits. That was apparent when they took Frederick many slots ahead of where the draft nerds had him going. The reality is he was the top guy on their board at the time, they tried to trade back but there wasn't the right deal so they just took him. I remember the years where we reached for a pass rusher because we just needed one. It never worked and it set the team back for a decade.

2. Picking the best RB they have evaluated in 10 years is not a short term view. He should be a cornerstone for 5 years at a minimum. Sure, many are questioning that evaluation but the reality is the Cowboys had Elliott rated higher than Gurley.

3. Picking the LBer who can't help this year does not mean they are switching priorities. They are just taking the best guy. I heard a pundit basically say the Cowboys are now doomed to have the worst defense in the league because they didn't take Ramsey. The reality is... drafting one guy to save your unit in his rookie year is asinine. Its the opposite of best player available. The Boys also feel very good about Smith long term. The team doctor did the surgery and he seems to have zero questions on or off the field.

4. Listening to the Jones' and Garrett, they clearly think they made some nice moves in free agency that address all these short term concerns you all have. They like to build a complete roster prior the draft so they can just take the best guys. They feel they did that. We can question it all we want but the strategy is consistent.

---

So if you disagree that a top 5 pick on a RB is a good call for this team and its OL then you simply don't understand the complex idea of "best player available."

Got it.

Dak Prescott to the Cowboys

quote:

---

Dak Prescott to the Cowboys

---

Best pick of the draft!!!

quote:

---

Dak Prescott to the Cowboys

---

Should have taken him in the second

quote:

---

So if you disagree that a top 5 pick on a RB is a good call for this team and its OL then you simply don't understand the complex idea of "best player available."

Got it.

---

I think you're the one with the misunderstanding...

Complex? The team ranks players based on THEIR CRITERIA, not yours, period.

They saw EE as the BPA. They drafted him.

I don't think most understand what this will do to defenses.

I for sure know you aren't in anyone's war room.

Really like this pick considering its our comp pick. Let's put it this way... I love my Aggie brother, but he makes so much more sense than Stephen McGee ever did.

Dak either blows up to be Romo's replacement, or he turns into a career backup. Either way nice pick here.

what is confusing about the jaylon smith pick, and im sure this has been discussed ad-nausea, but if your first round pick is "win now" then I don't get the 2nd round pick.

Like the dak pick up

quote:

---

So if you disagree that a top 5 pick on a RB is a good call for this team and its OL then you simply don't understand the complex idea of "best player available."

Got it.

---

If you disagree because you think another player was better, fine. But most arguments are that they don't "need' a RB because they have some already or that the defense stinks so it was a bad pick.

quote:

---

what is confusing about the jaylon smith pick, and im sure this has been discussed ad-nausea, but if your first round pick is "win now" then I don't get the 2nd round pick.

---

Well because the EE isn't a "win now" pick. Its a "win for 5 years" pick.

I don't know if I believe picking EE over Ramsey is a "win now" pick. I loved Ramsey, but there were enough questions about him (particularly his ball skills) that made him not a sure thing. Elliott not only gives you a nice boost in the interim, he is also set up to be a corner stone on an offense that is very talented (although it remains to be seen what happens at the QB spot).

Jaylon is an investment in the future and is one that could start paying dividends as early as next year. If/when he's healthy, he is going to be an absolute stud. I don't think any of the other available players would be good enough this year to make them worth it over Jaylon's long term prospects.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if you disagree that a top 5 pick on a RB is a good call for this team and its OL then you simply don't understand the complex idea of "best player available."

Got it.

---

I think you're the one with the misunderstanding...

Complex? The team ranks players based on THEIR CRITERIA, not yours, period.

They saw EE as the BPA. They drafted him.

I don't think most understand what this will do to defenses.

I for sure know you aren't in anyone's war room.

---

Good call. If you aren't in the Cowboys war room you can't and shouldn't disagree with their strategy.

Perfect sense.

When Romo gets hurt... Put Dak & Zeke in there running zone read and you might get a win or two.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if you disagree that a top 5 pick on a RB is a good call for this team and its OL then you simply don't understand the complex idea of "best player available."

Got it.

---

If you disagree because you think another player was better, fine. But most arguments are that they don't "need' a RB because they have some already or that the defense stinks so it was a bad pick.

---

Anyone questioning it needs to ask themselves how many RB's did Dallas go through last year?

The Cowboys had the 22nd ranked offense in the NFL last year. And yea, their passing game went to **** and on paper the running game was 9th, but the reality was the passing game went to **** because Romo has shown he can't be the sole offensive source for the team. He has always been that way and he was put in that spot last year because the running game was ****.

Adding Elliott takes pressure off Romo and will open up the passing game. It's the same thing Murray did in 2014 for the Cowboys. It's a great pick based on need.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if you disagree that a top 5 pick on a RB is a good call for this team and its OL then you simply don't understand the complex idea of "best player available."

Got it.

---

If you disagree because you think another player was better, fine. But most arguments are that they don't "need' a RB because they have some already or that the defense stinks so it was a bad pick.

---

Anyone questioning it needs to ask themselves how many RB's did Dallas go through last year?

---

My favorite pick so far. Tapper and Striker were a passrushong force for OU

In a nutshell on this draft so far; it has the potential to be a very good draft, but also has the potential to be something we look back on and say a lot of potential was passed up for more questionable decisions.

Zeke: As a stand alone and filling a need, I'm totally ok with the pick. The ONLY thing that bothered me here was that we needed so much help on D, I feel like we shoulda used Morris' money on a much needed defender instead.

Smith: IF (big IF) he gets on the field in 2016 and shows flashes then this will be the absolute steal of the draft and a great move. Their doctors seem to know things so I'll give it some time. However, as it stands, I believe they shoulda gone with a more immediate impact guy. Obviously though time will tell. Lee and Carter to some degree worked out well but both had injury histories coming out and both have missed time at the pro level too with on and off injuries.

Collins: This is the one pick I really just did not like in any way shape or form. Most had him projected as a 4th, 5th, or even 6th rounder and he's been called lazy and disinterested at times. If you really like him then fine, like him but take him at an appropriate spot like in the 5th.

Tapper: At this stage in the draft this was a great value pick. His measurables are A+ and a case can be made that OU didn't get the most out of his potential because they had him outa position in a 3-4 a lot of the times.

Prescott: Coming into the draft I wasn't a fan of taking project QBs. They just rarely work out long term as your starter. Personally I wanted them to address LB or S but maybe they see something. On a side note, a buddy of mine is a huge MSU fan/alum and die hard Cowboys fan and he believes Prescott doesn't have it between the ears to be a starter in this league. He wasn't happy with the pick.

This is the 2nd draft in a row that the Cowboys have done a great job. We've addressed some defensive needs (although not as adequately as some may have desired), we've taken back our identity as a ground and pound team, and we've drafted a nice little project with Dak. We still have plenty of picks. Let's add some depth to LB, CB and DE and we are good to go.

How did we get 4 6th round picks and none in the 5th?

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if you disagree that a top 5 pick on a RB is a good call for this team and its OL then you simply don't understand the complex idea of "best player available."

Got it.

---

If you disagree because you think another player was better, fine. But most arguments are that they don't "need' a RB because they have some already or that the defense stinks so it was a bad pick.

---

No one does a complete Best Player Available strategy early on in the draft. If they have a best player available strategy, it's best player available at a position of need. For instance, if a team with a superstar quarterback has a best player available strategy, they aren't picking a QB in the first round, even if they truly think he's the best player available. So it's completely reasonable for people to argue that it wasn't a good pick even if he was the BPA (I don't think he was but let's just say the Cowboys had him ranked as BPA) because the Cowboys have a great line and proved last year that they could run with the backs they have. Just like if the Cowobys had Tunsil ranked as their BPA, it would be a terrible pick because it's not a position of need. Many people don't think rb was a position of need, considering how well we ran the ball last year. It's not a stupid argument, even if the Cowboys have some sort of BPA strategy.

I'm sure Elliot will do fine. If he does well, all the guys in love with him will point to his yardage, etc and argue that it was a great pick. But the guys on the Ticket made a great point earlier today. Let's assume Elliot has a great year and the Cowboys run the ball better. A majority of that increase in production will be because Romo is playing and opening up the field and the defenses aren't able to key in on the run and stuff the box, especially in short yardage situations. So even if Elliot has better production than Mcfadden, a good portion of that production will not be because of Elliot (who knows what Mcfadden could have done if Romo had played all year).

quote:

---

How did we get 4 6th round picks and none in the 5th?

---

traded our fifth for Cassell I believe.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

So if you disagree that a top 5 pick on a RB is a good call for this team and its OL then you simply don't understand the complex idea of "best player available."

Got it.

---

If you disagree because you think another player was better, fine. But most arguments are that they don't "need' a RB because they have some already or that the defense stinks so it was a bad pick.

---

No one does a complete Best Player Available strategy early on in the draft. If they have a best player available strategy, it's best player available at a position of need. For instance, if a team with a superstar quarterback has a best player available strategy, they aren't picking a QB in the first round, even if they truly think he's the best player available. So it's completely reasonable for people to argue that it wasn't a good pick even if he was the BPA (I don't think he was but let's just say the Cowboys had him ranked as BPA) because the Cowboys have a great line and proved last year that they could run with the backs they have. Just like if the Cowobys had Tunsil ranked as their BPA, it would be a terrible pick because it's not a position of need. Many people don't think rb was a position of need, considering how well we ran the ball last year. It's not a stupid argument, even if the Cowboys have some sort of BPA strategy.

I'm sure Elliot will do fine. If he does well, all the guys in love with him will point to his yardage, etc and argue that it was a great pick. But the guys on the Ticket made a great point earlier today. Let's assume Elliot has a great year and the Cowboys run the ball better. A majority of that increase in production will be because Romo is playing and opening up the field and the defenses aren't able to key in on the run and stuff the box, especially in short yardage situations. So even if Elliot has better production than Mcfadden, a good portion of that production will not be because of Elliot (who knows what Mcfadden could have done if Romo had played all year).

---

Someone has been listening to The Ticket.

Yea, I gave them credit and cited the Ticket as the source for the last paragraph, haha.

quote:

---

Yea, I gave them credit and cited the Ticket as the source for the last paragraph, haha.

---

Oops. Guess I should finish reading.