Cowboys @ Chargers Preseason Game Day Thread (PS #2)

[QSmokey]

The trade up for Jones, by contrast, was a lock. Our picks in the same rounds had more value than HOU's did. Our version of the same offer would have been better and would have been taken had it been made because teams like getting better value for their picks. That trade, for a pick that was actually traded, just not to us and for lesser value that what we would have offered, would have allowed us to jump in front of BAL since everyone knew that BAL was taking Jones because BAL actually knows how to secure value with its draft picks (what a concept).

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. No trade is "a lock", IMO. There are factors beyond just the very unscientific value chart to consider. Trades have been turned down simply because the (potential) trading team doesn't want to make said trade with the team that's asking for the trade. Example: Making a trade within your own division; happens all the time. Trading within your own conference (which a Balt-Charger trade would have been). Baltimore might not have wanted to help make a strong team in their own division (like the Chargers) stronger. Or maybe Baltimore was like you: They LOVED Jones to the moon and back and weren't going to entertain trading him to ANYBODY.

Point: NOBODY knows why the trade wasn't made. In all fairness, it could be exactly as you said: Telesco is an idiot, locked into "his" guy, and wasn't going to let ANYTHING stand in the way of him drafting Woods. Very plausible. Or it could have panned out for any one of the 2-3 reasons I mentioned above. Or some other reason.

You need to let it go. Just some friendly advice from an old man who has a hell of a time letting things go.

[21&500]

We just got him to get INT’s I guess

Works for me.

[jamrock]

Can you promise me that the receiver will just give himself up if Woods does not make the INT and there is a reception?

Sure that seems reasonable

[Guest]

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree here. No trade is "a lock", IMO. There are factors beyond just the very unscientific value chart to consider. Trades have been turned down simply because the (potential) trading team doesn't want to make said trade with the team that's asking for the trade. Example: Making a trade within your own division; happens all the time. Trading within your own conference (which a Balt-Charger trade would have been). Baltimore might not have wanted to help make a strong team in their own division (like the Chargers) stronger. Or maybe Baltimore was like you: They LOVED Jones to the moon and back and weren't going to entertain trading him to ANYBODY.

Point: NOBODY knows why the trade wasn't made. In all fairness, it could be exactly as you said: Telesco is an idiot, locked into "his" guy, and wasn't going to let ANYTHING stand in the way of him drafting Woods. Very plausible. Or it could have panned out for any one of the 2-3 reasons I mentioned above. Or some other reason.

You need to let it go. Just some friendly advice from an old man who has a hell of a time letting things go.

The potential trade was with DEN, not BAL. The whole point of the trade was to jump in front of BAL because everyone knows that BAL is smart and will draft for value, which means they were taking Jones. Multiple posters in real time, including myself, predicted that BAL would take Jones. If we could figure that out, Telesco should have been able to do so. Assuming Telesco is not clueless, he simply did not want Jones.

Of course, DEN would have happily taken more from us than they actually took from HOU to do basically the same trade. HOU traded its round 3 and round 5 picks to move up. Our round 3 and round 5 picks were earlier and more valuable than HOU's picks were. DEN would not have known (at least not with certainty) what we were going to do with their pick and would not have cared as long as the consideration was better than what HOU was offering. Sacrificing their own draft pick value to avoid trading with us so they can take less from another team (HOU) represents an idiotic strategy that would soon get a GM fired.

Also, I did not love Jones to the moon and back, but I love draft pick value to the moon and back. If we are waiting to draft someone in the third round with a 70+ pick and the consensus #44 ranked player at a position of need (perhaps the position of greatest need) is just sitting there on the board in the 70s, the need for aggressiveness to make that pick happen is clear. There were numerous pundits that had Jones as high as a late first round player.

The problem, however, is that Telesco is a Polian disciple, which means that he undervalues DL players in general (unless they are really bad and played for Notre Dame). Telesco/Staley have their own idea and we are seeing the "fruit" of their concept this preseason as their reach picks have looked very bad for the most part, effectively killing our back end depth unless some of those players play way better than what they have shown so far. Woods in particular has pretty much crapped the bed this preseason in both games, looking like the worst player on the field much of the time (and that is not easy to do when Tillery is in the game).

The lesson is that usually the consensus of the 100+ pundits is much more likely to be accurate than the early outlier view of any one GM or head coach. The early outlier view has to be correct for the GM/HC to even break even if the player is selected in the early outlier range, so the "I know better than everyone else" reach strategy is destined to fail. That is why teams that go after consensus value like BAL are great at drafting and other teams that reach for players have lesser drafts.

[Formula 21]

Is Wood's problem tackling receivers, or coming up and tackling running backs? The 2nd option is much more difficult.

Lets not resort to hyperbole in attempting to buttress a point.

Woods assignments in Staley's defense are not Bradlyesque: that point should be taken under consideration.

It doesn't matter, the free safety is the last line of defense, he HAS to tackle everybody.

[Formula 21]

The potential trade was with DEN, not BAL. The whole point of the trade was to jump in front of BAL because everyone knows that BAL is smart and will draft for value, which means they were taking Jones. Multiple posters in real time, including myself, predicted that BAL would take Jones. If we could figure that out, Telesco should have been able to do so. Assuming Telesco is not clueless, he simply did not want Jones.

Of course, DEN would have happily taken more from us than they actually took from HOU to do basically the same trade. HOU traded its round 3 and round 5 picks to move up. Our round 3 and round 5 picks were earlier and more valuable than HOU's picks were. DEN would not have known (at least not with certainty) what we were going to do with their pick and would not have cared as long as the consideration was better than what HOU was offering. Sacrificing their own draft pick value to avoid trading with us so they can take less from another team (HOU) represents an idiotic strategy that would soon get a GM fired.

Also, I did not love Jones to the moon and back, but I love draft pick value to the moon and back. If we are waiting to draft someone in the third round with a 70+ pick and the consensus #44 ranked player at a position of need (perhaps the position of greatest need) is just sitting there on the board in the 70s, the need for aggressiveness to make that pick happen is clear. There were numerous pundits that had Jones as high as a late first round player.

The problem, however, is that Telesco is a Polian disciple, which means that he undervalues DL players in general (unless they are really bad and played for Notre Dame). Telesco/Staley have their own idea and we are seeing the "fruit" of their concept this preseason as their reach picks have looked very bad for the most part, effectively killing our back end depth unless some of those players play way better than what they have shown so far. Woods in particular has pretty much crapped the bed this preseason in both games, looking like the worst player on the field much of the time (and that is not easy to do when Tillery is in the game).

The lesson is that usually the consensus of the 100+ pundits is much more likely to be accurate than the early outlier view of any one GM or head coach. The early outlier view has to be correct for the GM/HC to even break even if the player is selected in the early outlier range, so the "I know better than everyone else" reach strategy is destined to fail. That is why teams that go after consensus value like BAL are great at drafting and other teams that reach for players have lesser drafts.

Sorry, but you cannot predict draft picks with more than perhaps 50% certainty. Tops. Waiting until your pick has proven the best course of action to maximize your draft value. Don't give away draft picks.

[gzubeck]

Sorry, but you cannot predict draft picks with more than perhaps 50% certainty. Tops. Waiting until your pick has proven the best course of action to maximize your draft value. Don't give away draft picks.

Bottom of the first has to be where most of the busts happen and Tillery is no exception. When you get drafted there it really is a 50/50 proposition as there are "Holes" in your game. Drafting the best of a certain position available should be thrown out and drafting the best player left on the board that you can use should be the plan. What players went in the second round that year that are successes that we could have used?

:coffee:

[blueman]

More weepy man crush BS. This is not football talk, it’s Oprah.

[Duck of Death]

SJD & Austin Johnson are both proven commodities & among the best run stoppers in the league. With $15 mil (avg per yr) already spent on the position, DT depth was not deemed as high a priority as Safety depth.

Whether we like JT Woods or not (I wanted Cross), the Safety position absolutely needed to be addressed. Esp with DJ & Nas both having injury histories, & the latter on a soon expiring contract. And I totally agree that the early signs on JT are very troubling. But we've little choice other than to be patient - certainly not ready to give up on him yet. If he is as studious & hardworking as rumored, it's possible that he turns it around in reasonable time.

Without question, Telesco deserves plenty of blame for his mediocre performance during his first 7 yrs. But we must admit that he has stepped up his game considerably these last 2 off-seasons. Sure it could be argued that maybe they wouldn't need all these recent blockbuster transations if only he'd been better at his job in previous years. But criticizing him for a hypothetical trade that wasn't made seems to be a bit nit-picky, even for his most vocal detractors. Although improved, TT is still far from perfect - and many of us are still uneasy about the Pipkins gambit. But the fact remains that the man has definitely earned a stay of execution for the time being.

[QSmokey]

The potential trade was with DEN, not BAL. The whole point of the trade was to jump in front of BAL because everyone knows that BAL is smart and will draft for value, which means they were taking Jones. Multiple posters in real time, including myself, predicted that BAL would take Jones. If we could figure that out, Telesco should have been able to do so. Assuming Telesco is not clueless, he simply did not want Jones.

Of course, DEN would have happily taken more from us than they actually took from HOU to do basically the same trade. HOU traded its round 3 and round 5 picks to move up. Our round 3 and round 5 picks were earlier and more valuable than HOU's picks were. DEN would not have known (at least not with certainty) what we were going to do with their pick and would not have cared as long as the consideration was better than what HOU was offering. Sacrificing their own draft pick value to avoid trading with us so they can take less from another team (HOU) represents an idiotic strategy that would soon get a GM fired.

First, yes, I misunderstood. We would have been been trying to get ahead of BAL, not trade with them. My bad.

As for the bolded part, that actually strengthens my point, as I contend that DEN would be reluctant to agree to a trade with a division rival if they knew/suspected that said team had a boner for a player they believed would help their team. Of course I suppose we could have WAY overpaid to entice them to make the trade, but is that a sound strategy? Was Jones THAT much of a value pick?

Again, the assumption/opinion - being presented as fact - is that Denver OF COURSE would have made the trade with the Chargers because, well, we could have offered more than HOU (again, an opinion) and DEN would OF COURSE have accepted those terms. Another opinion/assumption that doesn't necessarily fly with me.

But we're all entitled to our own opinions, so it's all good.

[Boltjolt]

Sorry, but you cannot predict draft picks with more than perhaps 50% certainty. Tops. Waiting until your pick has proven the best course of action to maximize your draft value. Don't give away draft picks.

Not to mention teams you call to trade with always ask who you are targeting so again CC....wrong. They want to know if you are targeting their guy for one thing.

[Guest]

First, yes, I misunderstood. We would have been been trying to get ahead of BAL, not trade with them. My bad.

As for the bolded part, that actually strengthens my point, as I contend that DEN would be reluctant to agree to a trade with a division rival if they knew/suspected that said team had a boner for a player they believed would help their team. Of course I suppose we could have WAY overpaid to entice them to make the trade, but is that a sound strategy? Was Jones THAT much of a value pick?

Again, the assumption/opinion - being presented as fact - is that Denver OF COURSE would have made the trade with the Chargers because, well, we could have offered more than HOU (again, an opinion) and DEN would OF COURSE have accepted those terms. Another opinion/assumption that doesn't necessarily fly with me.

But we're all entitled to our own opinions, so it's all good.

Regarding the hypothetical trade with DEN, there are draft pick trading charts that are used as guides. It is not a coincidence that what HOU offered for DEN's pick exactly matched the points assigned for the picks involved in the trade. NFL GMs know the range they need to be in to get a deal like the one I have suggested done.

Also, we are discussing a third round pick here. DEN is not going to avoid maximizing its own draft capital to avoid trading with us in the third round. The reality is that our third round pick and our 5th round pick were better than HOU's 3rd round pick and 5th round pick. This is pretty straightforward. Our version of the same trade (3rd and a 5th to move up in the 3rd) would have offered more to DEN. NO GM is going to take less value on a trade in the third round just to avoid trading with a division rival. GMs are going to take the better offer, which would have been ours.

I think there are many things that can be fairly debated (whether we should have traded up, which player will be better for us, what position we could have drafted in the 3rd round, et cetera), but that we very likely could have made the trade I have suggested is not really one of them.