This is the Counter point to LonghornRealtor's recent post that argues against the trade up.
Normally it is best to present both sides to the argument if neither point has been made, but since he has argued against the trade up, I will argue for it since that is the side of the debate my conclusion falls.
His basic premise was:
that in most cases two starter quality players will improve your team more than one starter quality player.
It was very nice of him to use the words "most cases" because it helps my case for one thing for him to admit that there are times when it doesn't and this is one of them.
First, it is important to mention that proof is subjective. Proof is based upon conclusions arrived at by looking at evidence. Twelve members of a Jury look at the same evidence an can come up with exact opposite conclusions, Six in favor of Guilty (one conclusion), and Six in favor of Not Guilty, (the other conclusion). This is added to the important fact that "there are always two sides to EVERYTHING". Up/Down, Left/Right, In/Out, Matter/Anti-Matter, etc, etc.
Now for the Other Side:
In the Chart for the "Average Value of Picks 25-50" that was presented, there is at least one flaw in the Conclusion that the author is presenting, and probably more. One of the flaws in the presentation of the chart is that it ignores the value of the position and the needs of a team. Obviously teams will "reach" or "over pay" for a Quarter Back, and they also will over pay for positional need. The reach for the QB is justified in many or most cases because that position is a KEY to the success of the Offensive Scheme, just as the RDE is one of the two keys to our Defensive Scheme.
The Steelers won multiple Superbowls by picking BPA based mostly on "Scheme Fit" or if you will positional need, while during those same 1970' years the Cowboys were picking almost entirely on BPA/Talent. Jack Lambert was one of the best examples of "Scheme Fit" over BPA, but that is a story for another time.
Both philosophies worked for both teams, so both philosophies can be right for their schemes. Well for our scheme to work we need to draft based on BPA for Scheme fit and then need, and not just BPA.
Rod's scheme is based upon two KEY positions. First an Awesome 3-tech Tackle, and Second an Awesome Weak Side Defensive End. By putting pressure on the side that has the Offensive Tackle as the END pass Defender, it helps to keep the Tackle busy with the Weak Side Defensive End One on One and at the same time keeping him from double teaming the 3-tech Defensive tackle and is THE key to making Prow Bowl players like Warren Sap and Henry Melton, etc, etc. (As a side note, Sapp pointed out to the folks in Oakland that he did best in a One-Gap System like he was used in Tampa because he did not have to play "read-and-react" but could just focus on getting by the guy across from him.)
Now fast forward to the draft. We now know that the Cowboys had a plan to get one of three players that had first round grades that could play "SPECIFICALLY" on the Weak Side as the right defensive end and they were....Clowney, Barr and Demarcus Lawrence.
That was it, and in the list in the argument for other side, Lawrence was not even mentioned, yet the Cowboys had him right up there with Barr.
Now for the scenario that made the trade a very wise move:
Clowney and Barr were gone and there was one guy left that was considered and "impact" player at the RDE position and the next best was not even in the same ballpark. So, based upon the fact that Rod needs an impact RDE for his system to work correctly and just any other 25-50 value player would not work there, what to do????
Hope that someone on the roster will work? Hope that an UDFA would some how work? Or, get the guy that the Entire Front Office wanted?
I know what my vote would have been.
Let me give an analogy if I may, with the understanding that it will not convince someone that has a closed mind, and it will not be perfect, but it will be presented to help further clarify if I can make it understandable:
Here goes....You and your wife are shopping for a new couch, a new Leather couch in specific and you walk into the store. The sales man greets you and asks you what your looking for and you mistakenly are not very clear and you answer...."a new couch."
Well the salesman shows you a cloth couch and says, "here are two really good ones." You realize you needed to be more specific and you say..."No we don't need just a really good couch, we want a really good LEATHER couch."
The salesman points out that you could get TWO really good cloth couches for half the price of the LEATHER one you are now looking at, but you reply, "We will be willing to (overpay) spend more money for the one we want, which is also the one we NEED since the recliner and love seat are already in place and they are LEATHER as well."
So, to sum up, we don't want or need just any couch (player), we want a particular couch (RDE) and this looks like the only one that is really, really good and we don't mind paying a little more for THAT one.
Now, to be fair, this deal will only be worth it if the scouts did their job and he turns out to be THE guy Rod needs. But if he doesn't.....ISN'T HINDSIGHT WONDERFUL?