A Pro Bowl Snapshot
by Jim Vance on Mar 20, 2009 7:00 AM CDT
in General
107 comments
The Pro Bowl is the place to see the NFL's best players. Because we are in that silly season prior to the NFL draft I thought it would be interesting to take a look at the roster of the 2009 Pro Bowl teams and look at the rounds that the players were selected. I was interested to see what, if any, draft patterns would emerge.
I looked at the offensive and defensive starters as well as the reserves from both conferences. I did not count those players elected as special teams players. The data yielded some expected results and one very surprising piece of information.
There were a total of eighty six players that were counted . As you would expect, the Pro-bowl was dominated by first round draft choices with forty five and the number of players decreased as the rounds went on.
|
Round |
Players |
|
1 |
45 |
|
2 |
14 |
|
3 |
9 |
|
4 |
4 |
|
5 |
2 |
|
6 |
1 |
|
7 |
2 |
The big surprise was that 10% of the players were undrafted free agents (UDFA's). Nine of the eighty six players selected to play on offense and defense at the Pro Bowl were over looked during the draft. Add up the total of Pro Bowl players taken in rounds four through seven and the UDFA's contributed as many players as the last four rounds of the draft.
So, what conclusions can you draw from this snapshot of the league? First, if you can accept that this snapshot is a microcosm of the league it confirms what we already thought about the first three rounds; this is the best place to find talent. This would also indicate that the drop off from round one to round two is significant and it continues as you move into round three. If you have late round selections in the draft your chances of finding a successful player is about the same as signing an undrafted free agent.
If the Cowboys have to count late round draft picks against their cap, I'm all for trying to unload some of our late picks. I'm sure you have thoughts, should we keep those late round picks?
PS: HutHut recently provided another snapshot of the '09 Pro Bowl and the Draft in his FanPost called ‘Crappy Odds' - Check it out
1 recs |
107 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
+1
I’m all for it.. trade those late round picks & move up.. I like where we’re sittin’ right now, for the most part.
Hooah.
by .FRoST.USAF on Mar 20, 2009 7:04 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
you can't expect to have pro bowlers at every position
the middle rounds should be used to find hidden gems or players that will become competent backups.
The Cowboys currently lack good backups at many positions so I’m hoping the Cowboys use most of their picks to turn over the roster regarding the backup players.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 20, 2009 7:19 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
What was Parcell's quote?
You can’t have steak at every position… or something like that.
by Boundforbeach on Mar 20, 2009 7:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not looking for steak...
at every position nor saying that every player has to be a Pro-Bowler. I used this sampling of players so no one could question that they were quality players. This data suggests that if you are going to try to find a hidden gem, you will have as much success with an UDFA as you will picking in the lowest rounds.
Add to that the rule change that punishes your salary cap. If you have a chance to package up the lower rounds and trade quantity for quality – this year would appear to be the year.
"He has a peculiar felicity of expression." John Adams
by Jim Vance on Mar 20, 2009 8:45 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
May be harder than you think...
Jim… I completely agree with you. It’s axiomatic that the better players are likely found in the higher rounds. I’m all for packing some of our 11 picks and trying to move up. This team has needs, but it is still deep.
But the penalty issue for cutting players you sign but don’t keep is no secret. All the teams are aware of this. It seems to me that the key to this strategy is identifying trading partners who have have a huge need for infusion of talent (e.g. Detroit) or have a ton of salary cap space so they wouldn’t care about the penalty (e.g. Tampa). There is only a handful of such teams and I’m sure the better teams in this league will all be looking to dump multiple low round picks to move up this year. Again, I’m ALL for it. I just don’t know that it’s going to be that easy. Time will tell.
by Boundforbeach on Mar 20, 2009 11:22 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, but we need something better than a
baloney sandwich at all of them.
When did I become a Cowboy fan? When my mom told me I was.
by GunsUp on Mar 23, 2009 11:26 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
now that's funny.......
at least make it a ham sandwich
by texstar on Mar 23, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Jim you are a researching beast.
I just picture stats and facts as an opposing point guard, and you are like a young Gary Payton slapping the floor and barking at them. Anyway…
I’m all for unloading as many of those late rounders as we can. We have the two compensatory picks that we can’t move, so we can take our flyers there.
Draft Day Rules: Rule #4: If Bill Parcells calls, just hang up. Because whatever he want's to talk about ain't gonna be good for you.
by Carl Shelton (GloryDayz88) on Mar 20, 2009 7:25 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It's difficult for me to get excited about our draft this year.
With the picks that we have, if the Cowboys come out of this draft with even 4 players that contribute, I’ll consider this draft surprisingly successful. 9 picks on day 2 is just not that thrilling to me, and even less so having seen the above data.
by Baked Potato Soup on Mar 20, 2009 8:20 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
They...
have picks in every round except the first.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 20, 2009 10:14 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sure, but only 2 on day 1.
A back half second rounder and an early third rounder. Sorry, but that’s not too exciting. Hopefully those 2 players will be solid, but then we probably only get 2 or 3 guys that can maybe make the team out of the other 9 picks. Yuck.
by Baked Potato Soup on Mar 20, 2009 8:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
It's not like their 11 picks are spaced well is what I mean.
They have a lot of cheap picks toward the end of the draft. If we had 2 in the second and/or third, I would be excited.
by Baked Potato Soup on Mar 20, 2009 8:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dont read too much into it
The case study is good, but the Pro Bowl is not the best measure IMO. There is a “popularity contest” factor in the pro bowl, though roy williams would never admit it.
A guy like ratliff might very well play as good next year as this year, and not make the pro bowl.
What about crayton? he’ll never be a pro bowl reciever, but he was a very good pick up in the late rounds.
Will scandrick ever make a pro bowl? only if he has a run on interceptions some year. that doesn’t mean he wasn’t a great pick in the 5th round.
Dallas has, and i suspect will continue to pick up good talent in late rounds. who cares if they make the pro bowl or not? we fans are starving for something else.
by THEjarhead on Mar 20, 2009 8:49 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
True
All though it is interesting.
DeAngelo Hall was making probowls and giving up 10 TDs a year. So you have a big point.
There are way too many uneducated fans that vote on the probowl.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 20, 2009 9:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy Williams made multiple Pro Bowls, skewing this stat
And I’m sure he had company.
by Rafael Vela on Mar 20, 2009 10:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy Williams...
..didn’t make this Pro Bowl team. Even if he did, he would have skewed the numbers of first rounders by 1/45 th. Granted, some players may have been elected to the Pro Bowl based on past performance instead of 2008 performance but these players had to have performed well enough at some point to get that popularity. I’m still surprised at the high number of UDFAs.
"He has a peculiar felicity of expression." John Adams
by Jim Vance on Mar 20, 2009 12:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I thought I read that more first time players made it to this Pro Bowl than ever?? That would seem to make it a little more realiable this last year.
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 20, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is one of the reasons I'm excited for Irvins show
I really hope he digs something up for us. Not counting on it of course, but I’ve always felt there is plenty of talent that has for whatever reason not made it to the NFL. Interesting find you have there Jim, Thanks.
by sublimezg on Mar 20, 2009 8:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Irvin should bring back
Everett McIver as a guest on the show. He could even offer to give him a free haircut AND shampoo to make up for the time he nearly cut his head off “horseplay” incident.
by Johnny Cage on Mar 20, 2009 9:48 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Question to BTB staff...
what’s with the gaycowboycentral.com banner ads on the right??
yikes
by McLovin9 on Mar 20, 2009 9:05 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Adblock
what advertising?
Duane Thomas, Calvin Hill, Dorsett, Herschell, Emmitt ... and now MBIII, Felix, AND Choice!
by DalaiLuke on Mar 20, 2009 9:07 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+1
There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of creatures Chuck Norris has allowed to live.
by kameleon_o on Mar 20, 2009 11:25 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I haven't seen that ad
Can you do a screen capture and send it to me?
by Dave Halprin on Mar 20, 2009 12:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Are the ads based on your past surfing habits?
by WB3forMB3 on Mar 20, 2009 6:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha
Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Red and Black!! Congrats boys first time in team history over .500
by aussie_cowboy on Mar 20, 2009 11:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This study is really impressive... nice work!
While I would love to see a few more years of data, the UDFA numbers are amazing! Another interesting study would be to see the top 2-3 rated offenses / defenses of recent years, broken down by draft round. This is less of a popularity contest and speaks to the team aspect of the game.
ALSO, question: What exactly would be the damage if we were to draft, say, 10 players, and only keep 5? (that seems to me to be about the worst case scenario)
Duane Thomas, Calvin Hill, Dorsett, Herschell, Emmitt ... and now MBIII, Felix, AND Choice!
by DalaiLuke on Mar 20, 2009 9:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
DalaiLuke,
there are negative cap implications associated with that scenario that are unique to 09, due to the end of CBA.
by THEjarhead on Mar 20, 2009 9:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
just becayse you draft them doesnt mean you sign them
What the French?! Toast!
by thebigham on Mar 20, 2009 3:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
not sure about that...
if you draft a guy, you expect to see them in TC with a contract
Duane Thomas, Calvin Hill, Dorsett, Herschell, Emmitt ... and now MBIII, Felix, AND Choice!
by DalaiLuke on Mar 21, 2009 3:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Good piece, Jim
It would be interesting to see how the last Pro Bowl compares with the past 3-5 years, just to see if 09 was an anomaly. I am guessing we would find the same pattern you got — that late picks versus UDFA are a wash.
Keep doing what you been doing, keep getting what you been getting.
by OskieOskie on Mar 20, 2009 9:27 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I once did the same research on Hall of Fame Inductees
You come up with about the same answers, and yes I was surprised at a number of undrafted players that are enshrined in the Hall
by BishopWest on Mar 20, 2009 9:43 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
OFF TOPIC BUT??????????????
are we a better team than we were last february??? I wish i was as convinced as others, but in all honesty, i dont see how brookings is better for us than thomas was, i dont see how miles is better than owens was, and while i was completely down with the whole roy releasing, im not too sure if cutting him was the best way without having a decent replacement (i say this in part becuase i know next to nothing about sensabaugh.)
Do we still have talent??? ABSOLUTELY, still probably more than any other team right now, but (as i beat the dead horse) its the inability to put it all together!!! I dont figgin get it!!!
Maybe Tex is on to somthing here, we havent had our $hit together since Aikman, not too sure weather this is Tony’s fault or not, but regaurdless of whos at fault, it needs to be corrected, cuz im getting sick of losing seasons, and promosing ones that end in one and done!!!
by missingthe90s on Mar 20, 2009 9:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Would you know anyways?
I mean everyone, or almost everyone, thought that last year the team was a better team than the team that went 13-3.
There are too many things to evaluate to know that answer, progression, the draft, etc.
I’m pretty positive it isn’t all Romo’s fault that there hasn’t been a playoff win for a while.
Considering that he wasn’t the starting quaterback for most of that era.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 20, 2009 9:58 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
agreed
however, I wasnt pointing the finger directly at Romo, I was simply saying somthing is off and i have no idea what in the hell has taken over a decade to make right… It’s rediculous when you have a storied franchise such as dallas in over a decade long drought for a PLAYOFF GAME!!!!!!!! thats just frustrating….
And the sad thing is I can sit here, debate, argue, and bitch all we want about these things, and it will not change.. No one in this world is more pationate about the Dallas Cowboys than those who operate and participate on this blog, So these frustrations just might be the ramblings of a fan who has waited intirely too long for his team to succeed.. But in any event, it sure does feel good to let out every once in a while
by missingthe90s on Mar 20, 2009 10:35 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Dude...
your writing style and ideas are excellent, but… spell-check
Duane Thomas, Calvin Hill, Dorsett, Herschell, Emmitt ... and now MBIII, Felix, AND Choice!
by DalaiLuke on Mar 20, 2009 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
ha
sorry buddy, i drive by post man, dont have time for it.. and i naturally suck at life with grammer and punctuation.
by missingthe90s on Mar 20, 2009 2:38 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
so does my Step-Father... can't spell worth a lick!
And he makes more $$$ than his 4 boys, my 3 siblings and me COMBINED! (but couldn’t resist the comment?)
Duane Thomas, Calvin Hill, Dorsett, Herschell, Emmitt ... and now MBIII, Felix, AND Choice!
by DalaiLuke on Mar 21, 2009 3:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
We are MUCH better
Olshansky = Canty, foror 1/2 the price…net positive.
Brookings is better than Thomas (in 3-4). Zach really was exposed in the run D and wore down.
Sensabaugh is WAY better than Roy Willy. Even if you know nothing about the Jags S, you know Roy sucks.
Henry was a liability and Jenkins and Scandrick have shown much better upside. Also a salary cap gain.
Anyone is better than T.O. Not production-wise, but overall team chemistry and offensive scheme-wise.
It’s also a misnomer saying Austin replaces T.O. It’s really Williams vs. T.O. and Austin vs. Crayton. Roy didn’t have the offseason, nor half the initial games, and was never able to gain RHG or Romo’s full trust. This year he will. So while T.O. may be a better receiver than Roy, Roy is younger, cheaper, and brings much better intangibles.
So just based on the starter replacements, we’re ahead of the game.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 20, 2009 10:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
again
I sure do wish i could share your optimism, I just dont see it that way…. i wish i could, but i dont..
Again, i stated previously that i dont care how much TO bitched, as long as he was putting up numbers i would simply ignore him, aparently thats too much to ask from other grown men who cant seem to take their balls out of their purses long enough to stop there bitching and win a damn playoff game
by missingthe90s on Mar 20, 2009 10:39 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Agree, kinda-sorta
I’m with you on the shut up and play part. They needed to man up. And I agree with GM Jerry saying that chemistry is overrated.
But the offensive scheme suffered last year. Is it all T.O.’s fault? Of course not. But Romo and Garrett focused the attention of the offense entirely too much on getting Owens his touches. Right or wrong, neither wanted him back.
Garrett (aka RHG) will no longer have to scheme to please any one player. The fact that he did, reflects poorly on HIM, not T.O.
But overall, we are a better talented team right now than when the season ended. Even if only slightly better.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 20, 2009 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
but he didnt really scheme anything
he was calling the same plays that didnt work in the first quarter in the 4th quarter from week 1 to week 17… he didnt move owens around or really use anyone to their ultimate talent level. I hated it. You get my drift
What the French?! Toast!
by thebigham on Mar 20, 2009 3:09 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Spags has a good article on DC.com
Even with Romo out 3 games, the offense produced the 6th greatest season EVER.
And it was obvious that Romo wasn’t quite right anytime after that game.
Worse (and I do mean the worst) was the play of the offensive line.
And not moving T.O. from the X receiver to the Z receiver has more to do with T.O.‘s inability to get off the line than Garrett’s unwillingness to move him around. You don’t simply move your best receiver from the X spot to the 3rd WR spot without sacrificing your scheme.
I get your drift, but Spags (via Moose) really puts in ink what I’ve been trying to convey for some time now.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 20, 2009 3:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You have to wonder
How much of him not moving TO around was due to his lack of trust in him. While he’s a physical beast and a very dedicated player, how focused was the guy? How many times have you heard of him running the wrong routes and not being in the right place at the right time? If he can’t do that without being moved around how could that possibly make JG want to put more onto his plate? Obviously he’s capable (he’s was moved around more in Philly) but once you leave a bad impression on some people, it’s hard to reverse.
by sublimezg on Mar 20, 2009 4:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
lol....i caught that drift....
Garrett sux…………
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 20, 2009 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Roy Williams is cheaper???
Roy Williams Wide Receiver 10/19/2008: Signed a six-year, $54 million contract. The deal contains $26.6085 million guaranteed. 2009: $3,655,900 (+ $10 million option bonus), 2010: $3,452,629 (+ $9.5 million option bonus), 2011: $5,109,971, 2012: $6.802 million, 2013: $8.498 million (Voidable Years), 2014: $9 million, 2015: Free Agent
from rotoworld.com
Owens signed a four year 34 million dollar contract last year with the Cowboys, but will now be looking for work with a new team. Included in that contract was a guaranteed 12 million dollar signing bonus.
from ballhype.com
by DaBoys on Mar 20, 2009 11:42 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tried to find a definitive source
T.O. was to count somewhere between $8.5 – $9 million this year.
From what I can tell, Roy Williams counts somewhere near $5.5 – $6 million. Next year he’ll go up about $2 million.
But my previous statement was somewhat misleading because T.O. will still cound $9.6 million this year in dead money…so it could hardly be seen as cheaper.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 20, 2009 1:36 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Next year...
We will have some cap room….finally
by nicholas.rodriguez on Mar 20, 2009 3:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
we're better if for no other reason than
our cancerous tumor, #81, is no longer on the team. We simply became much better on March 5, no doubt about it.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 20, 2009 12:49 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
AGAIN
Were better on your own agenda and moral. to me i would have simply told owens that hes a whiny douche and never spoke to him again…. had every single person not given owens the time of day we wouldnt have been in the mess we were in. but NO, thats not how things worked out, we had too many players letting their frustrations out via media.
Had none of that happened, I have a hard time believing were a better team without 81 on the feild. and in all honesty, thats all i care about, production on feild!!!!
Owens could have been that guy in the group of friends everyone hated, but when he was around they would be cool… then when they all went out at night no one would call him, but would manage to somehow end up at the same bar at the same time that night… that to me would have been terrell owens..
by missingthe90s on Mar 20, 2009 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Like Garcia, or McNabb, or ...
How many times has it been tried?
How many ways?
It’s not our agenda, it’s the teams…and they feel better. THAT is the end of the debate. Dude’s gone. For better or worse (and you’re most certainly in the minority thinking it’s worse) we no longer have to deal with the petulant child.
I for one am most happy about it…and I’m not a T.O. hater. If he were still here, I’d be cheering him and just gritting my teeth when he opened his mouth. But I feel much better now that he’s gone.
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 20, 2009 1:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Owens was a choir-boy when we were 13-3
Grizz was calling him the pod, as in some alien possessed him… but as soon as we started struggling this year, the infamous TO returned. You cannot ignore a guy like that in the locker room. Professionals or not, these guys are human.
We definitely improved tremendously on March 5.
Duane Thomas, Calvin Hill, Dorsett, Herschell, Emmitt ... and now MBIII, Felix, AND Choice!
by DalaiLuke on Mar 20, 2009 2:01 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
no...I believe there was a poll conducted, and the majority would have chosen to keep TO, rather than lose him, and take a 9.666 million cap hit...
look it up..
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 20, 2009 5:08 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Where?
What poll? Was it scientific or simply a blog poll?
ESPN had an un-scientifc that asked do you want T.O. on your team. An astounding 90% said no. Given the 80/20 rule, that’s unheard of.
DMN had another blog poll that came back 75% for getting rid of him (without mentioning the cap hit).
Res firma mitescere nescit
by Fighter15 on Mar 20, 2009 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
..why would it matter what a Bengals fan thinks ? this is a Cowboy issue...and this site represents the majority of Cowboy fans that actually blog about their team....
The number one rated Dallas Cowboy blog site in the world…
It was a blog poll…on THIS blog site, with over 500 respondants, had over 60% in favor of keeping TO….WHILE he was still a member of this team this post season..
You don’t take polls after he’s gone….that’s absurd.
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 20, 2009 5:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
its obvious he poisoned
many fans minds unfortunately
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 20, 2009 6:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
posted only about 8 months ago.......interesting reading.......especially this lovely tid bit..
Romo and T.O. are pretty close to being equally as indispensable, just like IMO Brady and Moss are the most indispensable to the Pats.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Jul 22, 2008 1:14 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs
Break out the TO cyanide, my oh my
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 21, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was refering to T.O. on the field
and obviously that was before he regression this past season and his spouting off the mouth.
Obviously I had a change of heart.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 21, 2009 3:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
when you say 'he' you mean romo right
What the French?! Toast!
by thebigham on Mar 21, 2009 3:16 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Haha
I thought I was the only one that remembered Terry’s T.O. lovefest from the old BTB days. I guess it was okay as long as he was propping up Romo’s stats.
Does this sound like a familiar Terry quote:
“T.O. isn’t going anywhere, and he is going to be a great player for the next 3 years because of his training regimen. He’s a young player in football years.”
As soon as Romo needs a fall-guy, boom! — “LOWER THE AXE ON T.O.”
Everything's looking up, Milhouse!
by accidental innuendo on Mar 21, 2009 3:57 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
your mistaken
I never had a lovefest with T.O., I just respected him as a player and an athlete but I always disliked him…always.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 21, 2009 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think I'd play a game before.....
you make such a bold statement as….“We simply became much better on March 5, not doubt, about it.” Neither of us do at this point know what’s in store, but you can’t honestly say this team will be better without T.O. and you don’t know is he was the “cancerous tumor” either. Have you heard anyone out of the Cowboys organization say this? I haven’t. I honestly hope that the Boys will be better this year as you state, but their are no absolutes in football.
by texstar on Mar 20, 2009 1:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I can honestly say it and did
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 20, 2009 3:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
+10000000000000 ...tex
don’t believe the hype….
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 20, 2009 5:10 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
thankfully Jerry did, God bless him
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 20, 2009 6:56 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
You do realize that there were 23 passes for over 30 yards completed last year......
and 9 were to T.O. That is about 40%. You have to find someone to replace that production don’t you?
by texstar on Mar 20, 2009 2:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I've said it many times, but why not: my worst nightmare is the Washington game
two years ago, when TO was injured. 3/4 of you will say we had nothing to play for, but you play to win the game. Romo was trowing passes for COMPLETIONS, not the other way around. everyone played for “stats”? what stats QB rating? YPA? rushing average?
Yes, we had a lot of second stringers, but they did not start the game.
My thought was that the rational for trading for RW is to help TO out of constant double teaming by bringing another legitimate treat and not because TO is expandable. Nevertheless, I hope I’ll feel much better after the first month of the season.
by dcfanz on Mar 20, 2009 2:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
of course and Austin and the Cat will
produce more than enough big plays next season.
In Romo we Trust
by Terry on Mar 20, 2009 3:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
wrong again
Don't believe everything you think.
Your causes are cute!!!
by stoproyce on Mar 20, 2009 3:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Off topic again but...
The more I hear of this Jay Cutler scenario, the more my opinion of him is soured.
This whole thing with them changing the offensive staff when they said they wouldn’t and him asking for a trade afterwards just seems very childish.
And it would seem alot less tacky if Cutler was this perrenial Pro Bowl QB that had a couple of super bowl titles, I mean playoff wins, I mean division titles, I mean wildcard births, I mean ummm winning seasons…
If this was Tom Brady or Peyton Manning.. or you know what even Donovan McNabb throwing a bit of a temper tantrum.. I’d understand a little.
But while I was thinking that McDaniels was a goofball for putting a QB on the trading block, now I’m starting to think that maybe he was just trying to appease a very immature QB.
Webster's definition of irony: Keyshawn Johnson calling another football player selfish.
by AirforceBat on Mar 20, 2009 10:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I read in SI that Cutler's agent was also
Brett Farve’s agent last year, and also Steve McNair’s agent in Tennesse, when he had that messy split
by AustonianAggie on Mar 20, 2009 11:47 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Do these numbers include special teams?
Taking out kickers, punters, and longsnappers would probably thin out the lower rounds and UDFAs.
In fact, what might be interesting is to take positions of need and look at pro bowlers at those positions? For example, where do teams find pro bowl safeties or nose tackles?
by cstorm15 on Mar 20, 2009 11:21 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
We're barking up the wrong tree...
Are we more talented or less talented than last year?
Its moot.
I dont know how many times I heard from a member of the cowboys (coach and/or player) this last year that the team was the “most talented” in football.
Who cares? The team was 9-7 and missed the playoffs. thats all they are, and that should be posted on signs all over valley ranch right now: “THIS TEAM IS 9-7 AND SAT OUT OF THE PLAYOFFS LAST YEAR.”
They’re good enough to get to the promised land, just like philly and zona were last year, but more talented or less talented is not the issue.
They’ve got the players, and i’ll bet they’ll pick up a couple more in the draft. They need to get on the same page and pull together. their success will ride on them being able to do that when it matters most.
BTW, on the cutler thing. The biggest knock i hear from the masses on romo is his lack of “leadership.”
What exactly has cutler done or displayed over the last two weeks to make anyone think he is a “leader?”
by THEjarhead on Mar 20, 2009 12:38 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
great job Jim
good god we’re lucky to be cowboys fans and have this site…..every writer is a gem…every Cowboy fan that doesn’t know about this site, i feel sorry for them….but im glad everybody here atleast know what the hell they’re talking about….
by slash on Mar 20, 2009 3:11 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
trade the low round picks
id be fine with 4-5 picks in this draft, if we can atleast grab somebody potentially valuable at filling a need……..and sine we 2 picks that we can’t trade in the lower rounds, trade everything up and if we an get an extra 2nd or 3rd, i’dbe a very happy man….
by slash on Mar 20, 2009 3:14 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I wonder what the composition of the previus lets say two pro-bowls are?,
are they comparable to the last one? although interesting I think the sampling size has to be bigger
by dcfanz on Mar 20, 2009 3:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Here's the problem I see with trading those late round picks
You have to have another team that wants to trade. The trade value for the 6 and 7th rounds aren’t very high. Hopefully another team has that many needs and hardly any picks!
by torchindefenses on Mar 20, 2009 4:47 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
A team like Cleveland or NO that only have like 4 picks in the whole draft..
we need dance partners…
by CowboysRnumba1 on Mar 20, 2009 5:15 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
We could also potentially trade for higher picks next year...
if we cant find dance partners for moving up this year.
by WB3forMB3 on Mar 20, 2009 7:00 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Now I Understand
Why the Cowboys are 0 for 12 in the playoff dance, we suck at picking in the first round. That is, when Jerry hasn’t given the first round picks away for overrated wide receivers.
by Iowacowboy on Mar 20, 2009 7:42 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Great stats Jim:
I’ve always been surprised at the number of udfa that make the roster while we waive some drafted players. As far as ridding ourselves of some late round picks, I say go for it. If we need to package some to move up great. If need be , trade some late rounders to teams lacking picks this year for draft picks next year. If the player that we want or need Isn’t there, this is not the year to take that flyer on a maybe. Someone on this site likes to remind us that “Hope is not a plan.” This year you might pay dearly if that idea is forgotten.
by oldboysfan on Mar 20, 2009 8:16 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
One thought on the "cost" of cutting draft picks...
Worst case scenario seems to be that we end up keeping most picks, say 10… and then only 5 make the team. Assuming we keep our 2nd and 3rd round picks, the average salary of the 5 guys that we would cut would be CHEAP – as in the 3-4 million range.
This is WORST CASE scenario. And this worst-case scenario has some benefits if you believe in Parcells theory of competition in training camp.
The bottom line: all this talk about the cap hit is a bit over-rated. I am in favor of trading up, but the bottom line is that the cost / benefit is not all that bad.
Duane Thomas, Calvin Hill, Dorsett, Herschell, Emmitt ... and now MBIII, Felix, AND Choice!
by DalaiLuke on Mar 21, 2009 3:51 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Great research
It would be really interesting to see a similar list for all the starters in the league, not just probowlers. A solid LG, MLB, NT or S in the 4th or 5th round, getting 4th or 5th round pay, is as valuable as a “pro bowler”, earning pro bowl level salaries, to a teams overall cap space.
by CapitalT on Mar 21, 2009 7:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
