Drafting for Sufficiency

What you need to do is look at how many players fall into that, “oh yeah, definitely a stud” grouping and how many are JAGs. Maybe even look at the “that guy sucks” category too. For instance, in the trenches where teams are defined and where games are won and lost, how many of the guys (Free, Kosier, Gurode, Bigg and Colombo) on the O-line and D-ine (Spears, Rat and Igor) would rate highly. Now compare those groups to the Pats. I count 4 on the Dallas O-line and 2 on the D-line. That’s 6 of 8. Now, find me 6 Pats among their 8 that would rate similarly.

There are too many guys on the Dallas roster (many of whom collect bigg paychecks) that have not played well enough to be considered more than a JAG.

One JJ = more of the same

It was more like One Cool Nostradamus.

Great post, BED. Although I recognized the value of One Cool’s theory at the time, it was interesting looking at how it played out in the season.

Antithesis’ Antichrist’s Baby’s birthdate was September 9, 1995.

In finance we have the concept of valuation models. Say I want to buy a company that is researching cures to diseases. There’s a chance they’ll develop the cure for cancer and make billions, a chance they’ll make a cure for a more benign desiese and make millions, and a chance they won’t develop anything that works and make no money at all. How do I decide how much to pay for this company? Well, you create a financial valuation model that weighs all the factors and comes up with a price.

Similarly, this is what NFL draft scouting is all about. They’re trying to valuate players the same way institutional investors valuate companies. Wes Buntings grades are very much like a “price” for a player, a value; some players are an 8.5 others a 5.8. What you’re saying is “just create a better valuation model than anyone else and you’ll be fine!” And that’s kind of a well… duh, statement. Every team is trying to be the most precise they can be with their player grades. If you can do better, cool. But most teams have players roughly graded the same way. You don’t see one team picking players in the first round that the rest of the league thinks are 4th round players. You don’t see consensus top-10 picks fall to the 7th round even though they turn out to be busts just as bad as a 7th rounder. The valuation is about as good as it’s going to be in the league, it’s hard to get a competitive advantage on valuation. If you could scout way better than anyone else, that’s cool, but that’s not really a strategy to go to your scouts and say “SCOUT BETTER!”.

I am talking about draft strategy. You could have the exact same scouting department and the exact same board in front of both the Patriots and Jerry 1.0. The exact same board Jerry 1.0 would trade up and get the splashy player, the Patriots would trade down and get two solid players.

The argument I am making in this post is a strategy argument. It says that this Cowboys team has stars and scrubs on it. If you look at teams that are successful over the long-term their strategy isn’t to add more stars but to eliminate the scrubs. I think this team has enough stars to win a superbowl but it needs to take all the positions with poor play and bring them up to average rather than trying to make one position exceptional. That’s the strategy that is going to be successful on draft day.

Tactical components are all supposed to support the strategic objective. Our problem, as fans is we see Football as the critical objective whereas ownership sees is as a tactic. The strategic objective for JJ is commercial success – i.e., maximize profitability, value of the franchise.

To most of us simpletons, or perhaps idealists, that means make the product successful and the commercial side will be so as well. As we’ve seen, that is not necessarily the case.

Student of the game. No magic, just hard work.

It’s precisely “an issue of identity or vision”. Specifically, of vision. Of having clear-sighted, well-reasoned definition and articulation of a specific objective. Of having a structured plan to achieve said objective. Of adhering to said plan and not descending into tactical reactionism to the point it supplants the strategic guidelines and parameters of the plan.

Drafting, coaching, team sports affairs, franchise buisness, the lot, are merely constituent elements of the “problem”. Regarding the one in question, drafting, your “why” answer is merely part of the equation, not complete unto itself. That “good player, good coaching” was part of a plan, not mere chance circumstance. To solve a problem you need a plan.

Simplified, if you don’t define endpoint B, it likely won’t be achieved. All else, all consituent elements suborned to the ovcerall strategy and directed towards achieveing said objective, can be defined, refined and put into action once that is done. Otherwise, it’s a chaotic hodgepodge wandering aimlessly in search of an mirage-like “goal”.

A plan with no vision, no defined objective? I’d laugh if it wasn’t so freakin’ sad. If I hadn’t seen that BS situation one too many times. If I didn’t see it these past many years with respect to this franchise and team.

If the vision and objective is to make the Cowboys more valuable financially, garner attention and such non-sports/athletics-related things, things’re a-ok. If there’s any other ultimate objective, something’s wrong, there’s a problem.

Plan to solve it without vision? Fool’s errand.