Sturm: Why Dallas can't afford to use No. 4 pick based on need

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,695
Sturm: Why Dallas can't afford to use No. 4 pick based on need

By Bob Sturm , Special contributor

I know, I know. The Mailbag is supposed to be answering mail. And, it will be in Part 2. I promise. And that comes out in just a little bit. But, Part 1 -- the first 1,000 words or so -- is going to be all about getting on to paper my vision for picking No. 4. It is one thing to say parts of this on Twitter at different times over the course of 100 days from the end of the season until the Cowboys are on the clock, but now, I think I should spend some of my Friday morning making sure this is all on paper in long form.

We shall call it, basically, the answer to the following question:

Q: "Bob, what do you think is the smartest thing to do with the fourth pick in the draft?"

There are some vital things to understand as we go here. They must remain top of mind. Let's start here: Picking No. 4 is incredibly rare.

We should review with some historical context. The Cowboys have not picked with their own earned selection this high in the draft since 1989. That's right, during the generation where you think the Cowboys have been as disappointing as they have at any point of their existence, they have never been bad enough to get up into the tip-top of the draft. Given the welfare program that the NFL has this time of year to help the "football needy", this is worth noting. The Cowboys have had some very rough times, but since they selected Troy Aikman they have never been this bad. The Russell Maryland No. 1 pick in 1991 was from New England, by the way. The Dave Campo years gave the Cowboys the seventh, eighth, and fifth picks. The first one went to Seattle to pay for Joey Galloway, the 8th was Roy Williams. The fifth became Terence Newman. They also traded up to No. 6 to get Morris Claiborne in 2012, but I know everyone is trying to forget about that. So, while you have seen plenty of bad seasons in the last 20 years, you haven't been "Top of the draft bad," and this one time is that one time.

However you digest that last paragraph, the point is this: You haven't had this pile of capital in the draft in a long, long time. So, let's focus on not blowing it.

And that requires us to move on to the next objective which is not always in play: This pick is so good that you cannot afford to select a player for need.

That will simply mean this -- Do not tell me about how the roster looks in March 2016 to do your picking. Rosters change quickly and we have no idea its coming. The team will say everything is fine over here and then unexpectedly, one guy gets suspended and another guy gets banned internally from ever setting foot in the facility again. Injuries hit out of nowhere. The point is, your roster condition is like the Texas weather: you don't like it? Wait a few hours. It is constantly evolving. To be so small minded that the only reason you want Joey Bosa is because it is six months before the start of the season and you have no idea who your opening day left defensive end is, would be an incredibly poor way to blow your best pick in decades. You need a left DE? Sign Jeremy Mincey or Jack Crawford for $2 million to plug the hole and save your amazing pick for something amazing -- for all the right reasons. Then, circle back and add a DE later if all you are trying to do is make sure you aren't starting a fern at defensive end.

You don't get a shot at generational talent very often. You must ask yourself when making this pick the following question: Do I think that this player can be the face of my franchise and the cover of my yearbook in 2023? That is eight seasons away. If you do this correctly, in eight seasons Tyron Smith, Zack Martin, Byron Jones, and possibly an aging Dez Bryant are still a part of this thing. Other than that, I need to use this pick on adding to that group. This is the "Big Picture" approach.

You may notice that the "big picture" approach is the exact opposite of the "what can help me right now" approach. This is what I get the most grief about from the fans and I am telling you, you cannot think about September 2016 with this type of currency. Out of the Top 10? This conversation changes. But, in the top five? You simply owe it to your franchise and its longevity to take the talent that is most likely to be a great player for you in eight years, not eight months.

This is why when I am constantly asked about Ezekiel Elliott and Myles Jack, I generally offer a less-than-excited response. It isn't that those aren't talented players. They are wonderful players that I think will be great talents between now and 2020. But, those two positions in particular have a mountain of evidence that indicates the life-span is short. They may be elite players for a bit, but unfortunately, for every RB that lasts two full contracts with his team (8-10 years) there are about 100 that don't. And for me, high-tackle inside linebackers are essentially the RB of the defense, in that they are generally involved in many high-speed collisions where they are taking the punishment directly. Again, some last. But, most get wore down as they head towards 30 years old. I just think at No. 4, you must consider the life-span of an asset. Is it reasonable to assume that a player at either of these positional spots in today's NFL can both play at an elite level and play with health and longevity like a quarterback, left tackle, pass rusher, or even a cornerback? Evidence tells us "no."

So, if you take Elliott or Jack, you are getting a fine player at a risky position. I assume most people don't need a further explanation on this, but let's look at RB vs. QB briefly:

In 2004 (12 drafts ago), the league saw three franchise QBs selected within the first two hours. The Giants left with Eli Manning, the Chargers left with Philip Rivers, and the Steelers snagged Ben Roethlisberger within the first 11 picks. As we sit here 143 months later, those three teams still employ those three assets. One other player from that top group remains with his franchise, WR Larry Fitzgerald in Arizona.

Now, let's fast-forward to the 2008 draft. This is merely eight years back. Again, teams addressed franchise QB with Atlanta selecting Matt Ryan and Baltimore found Joe Flacco. As you know, both teams will have both of those QBs for probably several more seasons.

But, in that 2008 first round -- eight seasons back -- five teams decided to go with a RB. Oakland selected Darren McFadden and he played in Oakland for seven seasons. Carolina grabbed Jonathan Stewart and he remains there today (still just 28 years old). Dallas snagged Felix Jones and let him go after his first and only contract. Pittsburgh drafted Rashard Mendenhall (who they allowed to leave in 2012) and he retired at 26. Tennessee drafted the fantastic Chris Johnson and then released him after 2013.

Am I cherry-picking the data? Sure. But, the point is that we don't think it is weird that Big Ben, Eli, and Phil are still with their original teams 12 years later. But, we do raise an eyebrow that the Panthers have received 8 years from Stewart at RB. That is called "positional longevity." Some spots you expect three contracts. Some you are surprised if they finish their second deal.

So, let's circle back and tie this up in a bow. I am not selecting at No. 4 for need. I am not selecting at No. 4 for a short-term position. But, I am selecting at No. 4 for the type of guy who can perhaps affect the direction of my franchise for the next generation of talent.

That is why I keep coming back to finding my quarterback. If the data tells us that almost all starting QBs -- especially those in the "elite" conversations -- are found in the first round, and if it then tells us that most of them are found high in the first round, then priority No. 1 must be to get the guy who by reasonable projections could be my QB in 2028 -- and it would not seem odd by Roethlisberger/Eli/Rivers-comparable spans. Why does it matter if he plays in 2016? Or even 2017? If the best place to get your next guy is high in the draft, and if picking high in the draft is extremely rare around here, why would anyone resist this fit in a year where the Cowboys may actually have a chance to take the top QB talent in the entire draft? And at a time where Tony Romo does not seem like a cinch to play 16 games in a season ever again?

But, Bob, what if that guy isn't in this draft? You are right. I might like Jared Goff more than the professional scouts. I think he will be great in the pros (especially when he is 25 years old -- in October of 2019!), but I have been wrong before (many times). So, then I go down my list and look for the best talent that has the best chance of joining Tyron, Zack, Byron, and maybe old Dez in 2023.

Personally, I think that would make my list at No. 4 this: Jared Goff, then Jalen Ramsey (a generational defensive back that has a chance to make the impact of Charles Woodson, who just retired after 18 amazing seasons), then Joey Bosa. Just to clarify, Bosa plays a position that ages extremely well and he is amazingly young. If he is the athlete he seems to be, there is no reason he isn't going strong when he turns 30 (in July of 2025!) There is about a 99 percent chance that I can have one of those three at pick No. 4. If all of those are gone, now, you can talk to me about trading backwards, Carson Wentz, or if none of those options are happening, then let's talk about Zeke.

I am not worried about who is on this roster right now. Laremy Tunsil is the wildcard here because he appears to be a bit of a Tyron clone, and perhaps it is hypocritical to say that left tackle is blocked, but he might be the one guy I would pass on because of where my franchise is currently at.

Otherwise, that is my take on your considerations and decision making at No. 4.

This is just too good of a pick with too many good talents to make a poor, short-sighted decision.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Agree, 1000%, we need to stop worrying about the shutting window, and figure out how to open it back the fuck open. O line and QB are the foundation of the franchise. If we want to be "relevant" in the next decade it comes from picking Romo's successor.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,695
Agree, 1000%, we need to stop worrying about the shutting window, and figure out how to open it back the fuck open. O line and QB are the foundation of the franchise. If we want to be "relevant" in the next decade it comes from picking Romo's successor.
Pretty much.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
I agree but I have Wentz in the conversation with Goff.
Totally agree. The article was cherry picking some examples but ultimately the point holds true. You don't look for short term solutions with the fourth pick in the draft. A RB is by definition a short term solution in today's NFL. Even the one RB example he gives of a guy who stuck with his team for a period of time (Jonathan Stewart) could easily be considered a bust. The guy has gone over 1000 yards in a season exactly once in his career. He misses a ton of games with injuries. I sure as shit wouldn't take him in the first round of any draft.
 

GShock

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
6,384
Personally, I think that would make my list at No. 4 this: Jared Goff, then Jalen Ramsey (a generational defensive back that has a chance to make the impact of Charles Woodson, who just retired after 18 amazing seasons), then Joey
I like Sturm and all, but he needs to stop with this nonsense.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,834
I like Sturm and all, but he needs to stop with this nonsense.
Indeed. Ramsey isn't in Woodson's league with respect to position or productivity coming out of college. Not even fucking close.
 

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,162
In 2004 (12 drafts ago), the league saw three franchise QBs selected within the first two hours.
Got it. So this is the 2004 draft, then. Just because Dallas is picking 4th?

That's what the team looking at the 2nd QB in the draft has been telling themselves for the last 11 and now 12 drafts.

I knew people would cite these once in a generation draft (literally 1983 and 2004) as examples of how three HOF-type QBs can be taken in the 1st round.

1 out of 20 == a 5% chance.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Got it. So this is the 2004 draft, then. Just because Dallas is picking 4th?

That's what the team looking at the 2nd QB in the draft has been telling themselves for the last 11 and now 12 drafts.

I knew people would cite these once in a generation draft (literally 1983 and 2004) as examples of how three HOF-type QBs can be taken in the 1st round.

1 out of 20 == a 5% chance.
Honestly I think it has much more to do with the team than the player. If Aaron Rodgers had gone to Cleveland he would have been a bust like the rest of them. Ben Roethlisberger, Philip Rivers, and Eli Manning all went to decent teams recovering from QB droughts. Obviously Mallett, Leaf, and Manziel would be a failure anywhere, but a Blake Bortles could probably make it if he wasn't drafted into a black hole.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Honestly I think it has much more to do with the team than the player. If Aaron Rodgers had gone to Cleveland he would have been a bust like the rest of them. Ben Roethlisberger, Philip Rivers, and Eli Manning all went to decent teams recovering from QB droughts. Obviously Mallett, Leaf, and Manziel would be a failure anywhere, but a Blake Bortles could probably make it if he wasn't drafted into a black hole.
I think this is true. Certain guys like Leinart busted too because of where they ended up.
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Leinart ended up on a team that went to the Super Bowl after they stopped wasting time with him.
Yeah, but the second Warner left that team they were helpless again. I think it's safe to say he was already developed at that point. If Leinart had played for Gruden, Reid, Sherman, or Jim Harbaugh I think has an okay career.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,453
Got it. So this is the 2004 draft, then. Just because Dallas is picking 4th?

That's what the team looking at the 2nd QB in the draft has been telling themselves for the last 11 and now 12 drafts.

I knew people would cite these once in a generation draft (literally 1983 and 2004) as examples of how three HOF-type QBs can be taken in the 1st round.

1 out of 20 == a 5% chance.
You missed the point entirely. Name a draft where you have 3 RBs go in the first round who are playing at an elite level 12 years after the fact? I doubt that you can. His point was the fourth pick in the draft has a lot of value. Longevity is a big deal. You don't want to use the fourth pick in the draft on a guy who burns out in 5-6 years. You want a truly "franchise guy." Hell even Stewart who he points to has been basically a bust.
 

DLK150

DCC 4Life
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
8,789
Franchises with sustained success with a solid foundation are the ones that can afford to go BPA. Franchises like Dallas that have more or less floundered for literally decades and generally have multiple positions of need any given year should draft the BPA based on need. You will almost never fill every hole in any given draft but if you have multiple positions in need of an upgrade, you need to pick the best player available at whatever position is in need of an upgrade if you're drafting anywhere in the top 10, 15, 20. JMO.

Also, top ten picks should always be used on someone that can be a considered a sure thing that can contribute for 5-10 years and while that will never be a certainty, there are players where you can gauge their body of work throughout their career, consider all the intangibles and make an informed decisions. Drafting someone high purely off their college production or combine stats will always be a crap shoot. It's really no different than recruiting high school kids based off their star ranking or some such shat. It doesn't account for their level of competition or their ceiling. It's largely based on potential and it doesn't always pan out. The difference between high school and college is immense because it's a completely different level of competition and the same holds true for the transition from college to the NFL. If every first round pick was a surefire thing, you wouldn't have 1st round bust lists.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Franchises with sustained success with a solid foundation are the ones that can afford to go BPA. Franchises like Dallas that have more or less floundered for literally decades and generally have multiple positions of need any given year should draft the BPA based on need. You will almost never fill every hole in any given draft but if you have multiple positions in need of an upgrade, you need to pick the best player available at whatever position is in need of an upgrade if you're drafting anywhere in the top 10, 15, 20. JMO.

Also, top ten picks should always be used on someone that can be a considered a sure thing that can contribute for 5-10 years and while that will never be a certainty, there are players where you can gauge their body of work throughout their career, consider all the intangibles and make an informed decisions. Drafting someone high purely off their college production or combine stats will always be a crap shoot. It's really no different than recruiting high school kids based off their star ranking or some such shat. It doesn't account for their level of competition or their ceiling. It's largely based on potential and it doesn't always pan out. The difference between high school and college is immense because it's a completely different level of competition and the same holds true for the transition from college to the NFL. If every first round pick was a surefire thing, you wouldn't have 1st round bust lists.
Key words " it will always be a crap shoot". You just hope the prognosticators have gotten it right with their ratings. After they are the tailwaggers in the process.
 

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,162
Leinart ended up on a team that went to the Super Bowl after they stopped wasting time with him.
Right. This "busted because the team was bad" is a bit lame. Players bust because they don't put in the work or don't have the talent.

And if it is true, Dallas is hardly a great QB incubator so we should never draft a QB.
 

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,162
You missed the point entirely. Name a draft where you have 3 RBs go in the first round who are playing at an elite level 12 years after the fact? I doubt that you can. His point was the fourth pick in the draft has a lot of value. Longevity is a big deal. You don't want to use the fourth pick in the draft on a guy who burns out in 5-6 years. You want a truly "franchise guy." Hell even Stewart who he points to has been basically a bust.
No one has 12 year careers except QBs and... QBs.

His is whole argument was ridiculous and bent towards drafting a QB.

He actually mentioned the 2004 draft.

So I'll mention the 1983 draft where Eric Dickerson and Curt Warner went 2 and 3 overall and played for years just because I want a RB.

Basically he's saying only QBs and "generational" CBs should go in the top four. Plain stupid. You draft the best talent you can, period.
 
Top Bottom