Long post incoming. This is not a thread to spend much time on why Jerry and/or Stephen suck and cannot build a SB winner-nor about the players on the Cowboys that suck and will not win a SB. There are plenty of threads for that discourse.
This is about your philosophy on what model you would focus on to build a SB championship contending roster. First, you would need to define what determines when a team can be close to universally considered a SB contender. Do you believe in windows of contention, and when you define it open and closed? What models have yielded the most consistent SB contenders historically? Which model is the easiest to plan out? Do you believe that teams need to clean house in a rebuild/reset situation when the team cannot achieve SB contention? Are some players untouchable/untradeable? What percentage of credit can you attribute to winning in this league (players vs front office vs coaching)?
I define SB contender as a team that at least gets to the CCG one year, and gets to the playoffs 66% or more of the time. However, I say the window of contention resets after 4 years if the team does not reach at least the CCG again in that timeframe. I think if a team goes 6 consecutive years with mostly the same core, and never reaches a CCG the team must move on from most of the core of the team that has played those 6 seasons.
From a historical perspective, finding an elite QB that you pair with a solid offensive line and at least one elite receiving option and a high end defense is the most consistent SB winning model. The problem is that the league has between 0-3 elite QBs most years. The league can easily go 5-10 years with no elite QB’s in the draft.
That is why I believe the easiest way to plan out a SB contending team is the other proven model. Building lines of scrimmage to elite levels to employ a strong running game and defense, with good receiving weapons to hit on playaction. Using a mobile QB that has the gumption to hit the playaction plays or use their mobility to run for necessary yardage-this model can be effective. This model is more difficult to repeat success in consecutive years because of the percentage of reliance on such a broad portion on the roster (injuries, free agency, etc).
I believe in the Jimmies and Joes theory much more than I believe in X’s and O’s. Systems and coaches get exposed routinely when too many elite players get lost to free agency or injury. Players can also get exposed as to their importance if a team continues to consistently win without them playing. For me, the front office is tied to the players they choose and thus make it the chicken and egg circle debate as to whom to credit/blame. I don’t bother assigning credit/blame to either side on big picture success/defeat because of their interdependency. Coaches to me only impact the overall success/failure by a percentage point or less in the huge bulk of teams. If the coach gets to handle many front office decisions, then that goes on the front office side of the ledger to me.
The team does need to settle on the model or identity that they are trying to achieve though. Both models require a front office that can identify talent and flaws of players and view them as commodities. No player should be untouchable, but proper valuation of each player is perhaps the most critical element of a successful front office. Constant vigilance and reassessment are necessary to keep the team going toward SB contention. It can mean a rebuild/reset is necessary to the current core of the team at times. Swiftly moving on from a once valued player can speed up the rebuild/reset. Delaying can damage the next rebuild/reset. Obviously, analyzing all potentially available players is ideal when making decisions of roster construction.
