Which offensive system should the Cowboys use?

[TheMarathonContinues]

Just look at the numbers a lot I mean a lot more more on O like most years

I understand but there is money being spent. And those guys are bringing nothing except Q.

 

[patrick0215]

Cool great point.

In case you guys missed the memo... every point LouBrown makes is apparently incredible. Just ask LouBrown.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

If your point is just "Dallas spends more on offense" then there's nothing to comprehend. So does most teams.

The only reason that observation of spending matters is how it translates to the field (in other words, spending on defense). If your point isn't that spending on offense means they've limited the defense, then you might as well just be saying that the sky is blue or water is wet.

You’re getting closer to my actual argument.

Yes, most NFL teams spend more on offense than defense. That doesn’t make the degree of disparity irrelevant (we have one of the biggest ratio disparities, more objective facts for you to ignore), nor does it make the organizational philosophy behind that disparity immune from criticism.

My argument isn’t simply that Dallas spends more on offense. It’s that Dallas has consistently prioritized offensive investment while pursuing a defensive roster-building strategy heavily dependent on draft success, player development, and relatively inexpensive free-agent acquisitions.

And when that strategy produces a genuinely elite defensive player like Micah Parsons, the front office trades him rather than retaining him as a foundational piece.

THAT is how the allocation of resources translates to the field.

You’re also conflating available cap space with the absence of financial opportunity costs. Having room under the cap doesn’t mean a franchise can make unlimited long-term commitments without consequences. Every major contract affects future flexibility, and every decision to retain, trade, or replace a player reflects organizational priorities.

Now, you can argue that Dallas has allocated its resources wisely and simply failed in player evaluation, coaching, or execution. That’s a defensible position, even if I disagree with it as a holistic explanation of the franchise’s 30 years of ineptitude.

But pretending that a sustained disparity in spending, combined with years of identifiable personnel decisions, tells us absolutely nothing about the front office’s priorities is ridiculous.

The question isn’t whether Dallas spends more on offense. It’s whether its chosen allocation of resources has produced a roster capable of competing for championships and after three decades without an NFC Championship Game appearance and only one year (2007) where we even looked the part, I think that question is more than justified.

 

[Brax]

I understand but there is money being spent. And those guys are bringing nothing except Q.

I agree they need to balance monies but Jerry has always been a offensive guy. Maybe the D will pick up as season goes on but it’s been a tough 3 seasons

 

[LouBrown]

You’re getting closer to my actual argument.

Yes, most NFL teams spend more on offense than defense. That doesn’t make the degree of disparity irrelevant (we have one of the biggest ratio disparities, more objective facts for you to ignore), nor does it make the organizational philosophy behind that disparity immune from criticism.

My argument isn’t simply that Dallas spends more on offense. It’s that Dallas has consistently prioritized offensive investment while pursuing a defensive roster-building strategy heavily dependent on draft success, player development, and relatively inexpensive free-agent acquisitions.

And when that strategy produces a genuinely elite defensive player like Micah Parsons, the front office trades him rather than retaining him as a foundational piece.

THAT is how the allocation of resources translates to the field.

You’re also conflating available cap space with the absence of financial opportunity costs. Having room under the cap doesn’t mean a franchise can make unlimited long-term commitments without consequences. Every major contract affects future flexibility, and every decision to retain, trade, or replace a player reflects organizational priorities.

Now, you can argue that Dallas has allocated its resources wisely and simply failed in player evaluation, coaching, or execution. That’s a defensible position, even if I disagree with it as a holistic explanation of the franchise’s 30 years of ineptitude.

But pretending that a sustained disparity in spending, combined with years of identifiable personnel decisions, tells us absolutely nothing about the front office’s priorities is ridiculous.

The question isn’t whether Dallas spends more on offense. It’s whether its chosen allocation of resources has produced a roster capable of competing for championships and after three decades without an NFC Championship Game appearance and only one year (2007) where we even looked the part, I think that question is more than justified.

The degree is disparity is irrelevant because they have the money available to spend more on the defense.

You are ignoring that the OP I responded to blamed all of that on Dak.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

In case you guys missed the memo... every point LouBrown makes is apparently incredible. Just ask LouBrown.

I ain’t that impressed.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

The argument isn’t that they won’t spend money on defense. They HAVE to spend money on defense or they can’t field a team.

The argument is that Jerry, for years now, spends way more proportionally on the offensive side of the ball than he does defensively and this is an objective mathematical fact.

When they have a chance to retain the best defensive player we have had in two decades and absolute wrecking ball that elevates the entire defensive unit when he’s on the field, they trade him away at the most inefficient time to do so and made the defense worse in the pprocess. Jerry would not do that with an elite offensive talent he drafted and you know it.

My point is….whether you like the offense players or not…they are doing what they are billed to be.

Pickens, Dak, Javonte, Lamb, Tyler…..highly paid.

Guyton, Beebe, Booker…solid.

Ferg is a waste of money. That’s one person who’s just showing they probably shouldn’t even be starting and probably can’t on most teams in this league.

Steele as well. Not as bad as Ferg but replaceable.


They are hurting their future cap by restructuring the offensive guys in favor of the defense who aren’t doing their job.

On defense you have 40 million invested in Gary and Clark. You signed Bland and Diggs a few years ago to 80-100 million. You gave Osa 80 million.

We can complain we should spend more on defense but you should spend smarter on defense first. Defense isn’t about money it’s about drafting or signing guys. They have wasted draft picks on defense time and time again and a big part of it is because you have had 4 different DCs the last 4 years. You can’t win or get good doing that.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Doesn't matter what we think. Until Dak is gone, it'll be basically this same system we've had since Garrett, the one he's comfortable with.

I hear people say this and ask people to explain the system but no one ever can. What system are they even running? I watch the Steelers play and the Saints and I don’t see Kellen or McCarthy running something spectacular.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

In case you guys missed the memo... every point LouBrown makes is apparently incredible. Just ask LouBrown.

lol damn

 

[morat1959]

In case you guys missed the memo... every point LouBrown makes is apparently incredible. Just ask LouBrown.

LouBrown talks like a 15 year old who has never stepped on the field or court in any athletic arena.

 

[xwalker]

One without Dak Prescott...He's literally killed 5 coaches around here.

All those QBs between Aikman and Dak were big winners...

 

[Dorsett99Yards]

If Schottenheimer is fired, the cowboys will also need to hire another offensive coordinator.I was curious as to what type of system Cz members think Would be beneficial for Dak and the rest of the offense and help them perform at a high level?

Admittedly, I don’t know a lot about football. I know many cz members have played football and or coached football , so I thought that I would ask for my fellow cz members opinion

There are no more this system or that system on offense. It's all been blended together. That's why the whole NFL is so pass happy.

 

[CarolinaFathead]

My point is….whether you like the offense players or not…they are doing what they are billed to be.

Pickens, Dak, Javonte, Lamb, Tyler…..highly paid.

Guyton, Beebe, Booker…solid.

Ferg is a waste of money. That’s one person who’s just showing they probably shouldn’t even be starting and probably can’t on most teams in this league.

Steele as well. Not as bad as Ferg but replaceable.


They are hurting their future cap by restructuring the offensive guys in favor of the defense who aren’t doing their job.

On defense you have 40 million invested in Gary and Clark. You signed Bland and Diggs a few years ago to 80-100 million. You gave Osa 80 million.

We can complain we should spend more on defense but you should spend smarter on defense first. Defense isn’t about money it’s about drafting or signing guys. They have wasted draft picks on defense time and time again and a big part of it is because you have had 4 different DCs the last 4 years. You can’t win or get good doing that.

Those are all valid variables. I agree with pretty much all of your post.

That is still separate and distinct from our organizational philosophy, which is to subsume defensive needs below offensive needs when it comes to salary cap spending ratios.

Nested inside that is the FO’s disdain for spending money on competent coaching staffs, which just feeds the dysfunctional view on roster construction. Your DC-revolving-door point is an example of that.