2023 Random Cowboys Stuff Thread

[Cowboysrock55]

will Robinson last that long in the round, though?

Maybe, maybe not. It's just so hard to say with RBs. Back in the Zeke/Barkley/Fournette days he would have been a top 10 pick. RB has been devalued significantly since then. But I wouldn't put it past a coach to think short term and push for him. Knowing that they don't care what happens beyond 3 years.

 

[Sheik]

As Data sort of explained, Purdy's basically doing the same thing Dak did in 2016 where he's not being asked to do a lot.

Plus Purdy has a hell of a lot more talent around him to work with. And the 49ers offensive schemes >>> the Cowboys schemes.

Lastly, at this point in their careers Purdy's not asked to do nearly as much as Dak. I'm not even sure he has the authority to call audibles.

For sure.

I don’t think Purdy is anything special. He’s just doing what he needs to when they call his number.

My thought is, I’ll take the guy who isn’t clearly brain damaged.

 

[Cotton]

 

[mcnuttz]

We had prime Tyron, Fredbeard, and Zack as well.

You're right about that, 2016 was all about that OL and Zeke.

I used to hate that the team wasted the careers of guys like Romo, Ware, Witten, and Lee...but someone should serve time for the injustice that was done to that OL group.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Look at all these shitty free agent running backs we could choose from!

Dumbass.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I don't love that group, though. Most seem small, not a good pairing with Pollard.

I like Montgomery, but from a quick check he might want way too much money.

Maybe Jamaal Williams wouldn't mind getting back with McCarthy? Maybe he wouldn't cost too much.

Still think we're better off drafting one decently high though.

 

[Simpleton]

Look at all these shitty free agent running backs we could choose from!

Dumbass.

Yea, the thing with Robinson is that he might be the BPA at our pick, go where the talent takes you.

I'm not completely gung-ho on it but I'm definitely open to the idea, especially since Pollard is someone who is going to wear down very quickly if you try to make him a 18-20 carry back over 17 games.

Let's say we sign Pollard for like 4/$32 million, if we take Robinson in the first that's the best RB pairing in the league and is perfectly balanced between explosiveness and physicality.

It's probably overindexing on RB's but if you truly believe in BPA it's not that outrageous.

There are other solutions that I'm completely open to but talking about a "RB in the first round" is very different when you're talking a top 5 pick vs. a bottom 5 pick in the round.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

There are other solutions that I'm completely open to but talking about a "RB in the first round" is very different when you're talking a top 5 pick vs. a bottom 5 pick in the round.

I don't know why this concept is so difficult, but too many (not on this board) don't seem to get it.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Yea, the thing with Robinson is that he might be the BPA at our pick, go where the talent takes you.

Exactly. If it comes down to that I'd rather do that and get him on that rookie contract for 5 years than overpay for mediocrity in FA.

 

[1bigfan13]

than our 2016 roster? That was a pretty stacked team, talent wise.

No, I'm talking about the 2022 Cowboys and 49ers teams.

They they have more talent on offense than the Cowboys do.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Yea, the thing with Robinson is that he might be the BPA at our pick, go where the talent takes you.

BPA is always fun but I always wonder how someone really can say BPA when talking about different positions. Because there is just inherent value in some positions over others. The extreme example is obviously that an elite level QB is BPA over an elite level TE. No one would say otherwise. But how do you than quantify that when saying who the BPA is. So a nearly elite level QB, is his value higher than an elite level TE? Or does BPA mean you should take the TE. The TE is elite afterall while the QB is only nearly elite.

These are just random thoughts that go through my head. So when someone says Robinson may be BPA at our pick, what does that really mean? Does it mean he is a better prospect among RBs than the WR is among WR's. Or are we taking position value into consideration at the same time. Meaning yes, we recognize that RB is an inherently lesser value position because there are more of them, they are easier to find, they have shorter shelf lives but after taking all of that into consideration to sort of ding the RB, he still rates out as your BPA.

I'm just curious. It's easy for me to look at a list of WR's and say, here is a ranking and these are the best available. But when you start comparing positions I always wonder what a person really means when they say best player available. Do they mean they ignore the importance of certain positions over others? Or is it all part of the calculation in their head somehow.

 

[Simpleton]

BPA is always fun but I always wonder how someone really can say BPA when talking about different positions. Because there is just inherent value in some positions over others. The extreme example is obviously that an elite level QB is BPA over an elite level TE. No one would say otherwise. But how do you than quantify that when saying who the BPA is. So a nearly elite level QB, is his value higher than an elite level TE? Or does BPA mean you should take the TE. The TE is elite afterall while the QB is only nearly elite.

These are just random thoughts that go through my head. So when someone says Robinson may be BPA at our pick, what does that really mean? Does it mean he is a better prospect among RBs than the WR is among WR's. Or are we taking position value into consideration at the same time. Meaning yes, we recognize that RB is an inherently lesser value position because there are more of them, they are easier to find, they have shorter shelf lives but after taking all of that into consideration to sort of ding the RB, he still rates out as your BPA.

I'm just curious. It's easy for me to look at a list of WR's and say, here is a ranking and these are the best available. But when you start comparing positions I always wonder what a person really means when they say best player available. Do they mean they ignore the importance of certain positions over others? Or is it all part of the calculation in their head somehow.

I don't know about anybody else but to me BPA means how likely I think a player is to be a Pro Bowl/All Pro caliber, elite player at their position. I balance that with the relative importance of the position as well as even what our own roster structure looks like.

For example, I think Robinson is more likely than Addison to be an elite, All Pro type player, but I think it's close enough to where I'd go Addison given the importance of WR vs. RB. Conversely, I don't think it's close enough between Robinson and Johnston to supersede the position they play, so I'd take Robinson.

I'm not certain on where I stand on Robinson as BPA vs. guys like Ika and so forth, but I do think there is a definite possibility, if not likelihood that he would indeed be the BPA if available.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Or is it all part of the calculation in their head somehow.

Speaking for myself as someone who advocates BPA, yes. Part of what would make a QB BPA is that he's a QB. Position plays a part of it. A punter would never be BPA for example, no matter how good he is.

 

[Cotton]

Speaking for myself as someone who advocates BPA, yes. Part of what would make a QB BPA is that he's a QB. Position plays a part of it. A punter would never be BPA for example, no matter how good he is.

Every year we have the BPA debate. But, you can't go solely off BPA. You have to balance BPA with need.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Speaking for myself as someone who advocates BPA, yes. Part of what would make a QB BPA is that he's a QB. Position plays a part of it. A punter would never be BPA for example, no matter how good he is.

And that's kind of where I'm at. I feel pretty confident that Robinson would be a probowl RB here for a few years. But that doesn't necessarily mean I'd take him over say a player who I think can be a probowler but might not really be elite. If I had a shot at another Tyler Smith for example I'd take him over Robinson in the first (Total hypothetical). Even though I think as a rookie Robinson would potentially be a probowl player while Tyler Smith wasn't. So for me at least I'm not looking at BPA in the purest sense of, this guy is top end for his position while another guy is a notch below top end and ranking them accordingly. I can't help but consider that I can get a pretty high end RB in the second or third round of the draft while also getting a high end player in the first at another position.

But if you give me a 900 yard rookie receiver in the first who is an explosive #2 to Lamb, I would consider that a better player available than say Robinson giving us 1200 yards as a rusher.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Every year we have the BPA debate. But, you can't go solely off BPA. You have to balance BPA with need.

I kind of don't agree with that but that's in an ideal world where a team reasonably covers its needs in free agency. If you are drafting for need you have to be real careful because you tempt yourself to reach. Definitely don't target one single position at a single high pick, which is how you end up with Taco Charlton, David Lefleur, Kavika Pittman, etc. At the very least I think you have to have a hybrid plan where you're open to several different positions for each draft slot.

 

[p1_]

And is there any confidence that a team can actually determine who a BPA is at a draft spot when it is a moving target throughout all 225 selections?
It’s a very subjective determination and almost defies a scientific and objective approach.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I'm really curious to see what Hyatt runs by the way. When you watch him play the guy literally just looks like he is running at a different speed than everyone else. He isn't just winning deep balls but he is pulling away from guys who are in a dead sprint. Speed isn't everything but a guy like that would be fun on offense. Plus you can mix some other screens and stuff up with him knowing that he can break one at any second.

I don't know where he ranks but right now to me he might be right up there behind the top 3 WRs.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Surely that can’t be right.

 

[p1_]

Surely that can’t be right.

He’s not wrong. The data supports it. They’ve put up great numbers. What’s not right is an assumption that this offense can match with the 9ers defense. Or produce results with Zeke being a central figure.