A philosophy crossroads: Which one is better?

[Bobhaze]

Let me be very clear at the beginning: Talent matters in the NFL. You simply cannot win without it. The Cowboys in 2019 have likely gathered our most talented roster since the glory days of the 90s and expectations for this team should be high going into this season.

But talent alone is not enough. More importantly, I would argue you win a championship with talent that has been molded into a team by a talented, adaptable coaching staff. We all know TEAMS win championships.

With that said, I believe this organization is near a philosophy crossroads regarding its future not only for this year, but the next 5-7 years as well. Here are their choices:

• 1. Become a “star centered” team built around 10 stars (mostly on offense plus DLaw) that take up about 70% of future cap space, leaving about 30% of cap space for the rest of the team, hopefully on rookie contracts. Upside of this is you keep your most talented players for longer periods. The downside to this is if the injury bug hits many of your stars, you’re probably in trouble because there is less cap space for quality depth.

• 2. Become a balanced team that is mostly built around a few stars (maybe 5) along with a lot young talent on rookie deals. No more than approximately 50% of cap space is dedicated to stars on either side of the ball. The upside of this is you hang onto a few of your best players while also being able to mix in a few FAs for depth. The downside of this you can’t keep as many of your stars as you might want.

So which philosophy would you choose? Either philosophy can work. And coaching is of course a huge part of any NFL team's success. There are good arguments for both.

I would probably choose option 2 because I think it’s a more sustainable philosophy going forward. You would have to make some very tough decisions about who to let walk. But it also means we probably need a better HC. The problem with the option 1 star system IMO is it locks you down with less flexibility to build a strong roster.

If the FO chooses option 1, it may signal it believes this is a “win now” moment and that Garrett can’t win without having a bigger star base of talent.

Which philosophy would you choose? Or is there another you believe we can have?

 

[IndianaCowboys1994]

Let me be very clear at the beginning: Talent matters in the NFL. You simply cannot win without it. The Cowboys in 2019 have likely gathered our most talented roster since the glory days of the 90s and expectations for this team should be high going into this season.

But talent alone is not enough. More importantly, I would argue you win a championship with talent that has been molded into a team by a talented, adaptable coaching staff. We all know TEAMS win championships.

With that said, I believe this organization is near a philosophy crossroads regarding its future not only for this year, but the next 5-7 years as well. Here are their choices:

• 1. Become a “star centered” team built around 10 stars (mostly on offense plus DLaw) that take up about 70% of future cap space, leaving about 30% of cap space for the rest of the team, hopefully on rookie contracts. Upside of this is you keep your most talented players for longer periods. The downside to this is if the injury bug hits many of your stars, you’re probably in trouble because there is less cap space for quality depth.

• 2. Become a balanced team that is mostly built around a few stars (maybe 5) along with a lot young talent on rookie deals. No more than approximately 50% of cap space is dedicated to stars on either side of the ball. The upside of this is you hang onto a few of your best players while also being able to mix in a few FAs for depth. The downside of this you can’t keep as many of your stars as you might want.

So which philosophy would you choose? Either philosophy can work. And coaching is of course a huge part of any NFL team's success. There are good arguments for both.

I would probably choose option 2 because I think it’s a more sustainable philosophy going forward. You would have to make some very tough decisions about who to let walk. But it also means we probably need a better HC. The problem with the option 1 star system IMO is it locks you down with less flexibility to build a strong roster.

If the FO chooses option 1, it may signal it believes this is a “win now” moment and that Garrett can’t win without having a bigger star base of talent.

Which philosophy would you choose? Or is there another you believe we can have?

I think both can win. However, option 2 is the best "long-term" choice. I agree, you can't keep stars for a long time. It is nice in 2019 because we still have some guys cheap. But after this year Dallas needs to make big decisions. How much do you pay Dak? Do you keep Zeke and Amari? Do you pay Byron? Do you keep all three of your top linemen? What if Tank doesn't live up to his contract? I'd rather have 3-5 stars and draft well with the capability of signing decent free agents (Randall Cobb for example-IF he is healthy). For me, my 5 stars are Dak, Zeke, Zack, Jaylon, and LVE. You can make an argument for Amari. I think Tank will be good, but not worth the $$ they are paying him. Tyron and Travis I think will be in that same boat. I think there are plenty of WRs, OL, and DL guys who don't have to be "stars" and can still be effective.

 

[Stash]

Let me be very clear at the beginning: Talent matters in the NFL. You simply cannot win without it. The Cowboys in 2019 have likely gathered our most talented roster since the glory days of the 90s and expectations for this team should be high going into this season.

But talent alone is not enough. More importantly, I would argue you win a championship with talent that has been molded into a team by a talented, adaptable coaching staff. We all know TEAMS win championships.

With that said, I believe this organization is near a philosophy crossroads regarding its future not only for this year, but the next 5-7 years as well. Here are their choices:

• 1. Become a “star centered” team built around 10 stars (mostly on offense plus DLaw) that take up about 70% of future cap space, leaving about 30% of cap space for the rest of the team, hopefully on rookie contracts. Upside of this is you keep your most talented players for longer periods. The downside to this is if the injury bug hits many of your stars, you’re probably in trouble because there is less cap space for quality depth.

• 2. Become a balanced team that is mostly built around a few stars (maybe 5) along with a lot young talent on rookie deals. No more than approximately 50% of cap space is dedicated to stars on either side of the ball. The upside of this is you hang onto a few of your best players while also being able to mix in a few FAs for depth. The downside of this you can’t keep as many of your stars as you might want.

So which philosophy would you choose? Either philosophy can work. And coaching is of course a huge part of any NFL team's success. There are good arguments for both.

I would probably choose option 2 because I think it’s a more sustainable philosophy going forward. You would have to make some very tough decisions about who to let walk. But it also means we probably need a better HC. The problem with the option 1 star system IMO is it locks you down with less flexibility to build a strong roster.

If the FO chooses option 1, it may signal it believes this is a “win now” moment and that Garrett can’t win without having a bigger star base of talent.

Which philosophy would you choose? Or is there another you believe we can have?

I think it's clear that option 1 hasn't worked. But I put most of that on an underperforming coaching staff.

That change needs to happen regardless of which option you choose in my opinion, unless Garrett suddenly turns that corner after a decade in the organization. Color me skeptical on that happening.

But I would make the tough decisions and decide which guys I could keep and which ones I simply have to let go.

If I have to pay big money, I'd pay the quarterback and the wide receiver, and let the running back and cornerback leave. I still wouldn't pay Dak silly money over $33 million a year, but I have to keep my quarterback and the receiver who is an anti-diva and arguably the best route runner in the league. I saw the slog that my offense was without Cooper and with Elliott and I have no desire to go back there.

 

[NeathBlue]

Option 2 is the best option, but hardest to get right in the short term... If you do get it right though, you can be competitive for a decade.
Option 1 can get you a title shot quicker, but once a couple of high earners get injured, then you’re back to paying players who are no longer here big bucks and we know how that’s hurt us in the past.
It’s like do you take the red pill or the blue pill...
I think Jerry knows option 2 is the one to take, but he won’t be able to not take option 1 at the end of the day.

 

[ShiningStar]

Give me a coach who can keep it balanced. Not that i am worried about JJs money, but it also comes down to, is the diva worth the headache. Its dependent on the coach. Jimmy could deal with drama queens, i dont think Garrett can. this is not a garrett bash post, i jst feel Jimmy could deal with a bigger platform.

 

[Bobhaze]

I think it's clear that option 1 hasn't worked. But I put most of that on an underperforming coaching staff.

That change needs to happen regardless of which option you choose in my opinion, unless Garrett suddenly turns that corner after a decade in the organization. Color me skeptical on that happening.

But I would make the tough decisions and decide which guys I could keep and which ones I simply have to let go.

If I have to pay big money, I'd pay the quarterback and the wide receiver, and let the running back and cornerback leave. I still wouldn't pay Dak silly money over $33 million a year, but I have to keep my quarterback and the receiver who is an anti-diva and arguably the best route runner in the league. I saw the slog that my offense was without Cooper and with Elliott and I have no desire to go back there.

It will be interesting to see if Jerry opts for the philosophy of signing and keeping all his stars. If he keeps Zeke, Dak and Coop, along with the already big commitment to the OL, will it signal his continuing commitment to Garrett? I hope not. Garrett has clearly underperformed and anything short of an NFC championship appearance should be grounds for his exit. But we’re talking about Jerry here.

 

[Cowboys22]

Option 2 all day but it starts with competent coaching which Dallas doesn’t have. I agree you need talent to win but you need coaching more. Poor or average coaching will usually cause talent to underperform. Good coaching finds ways to get the most out of their talent. Dallas has a young talented team, has a good drafting record going, and just needs a real head coach to become an upper echelon team for the next 6-8 years and possibly longer if they can keep drafting well. It’s maddening to think they will continue wasting their talent with Garrett. Sign as many key guys as you can and keep drafting like you have and hand this off to a real football coach and we’re in business like it’s 1992 again.

 

[GenoT]

I’d choose 2.

Best coaching available and build for sustainability.

 

[Stash]

It will be interesting to see if Jerry opts for the philosophy of signing and keeping all his stars. If he keeps Zeke, Dak and Coop, along with the already big commitment to the OL, will it signal his continuing commitment to Garrett? I hope not. Garrett has clearly underperformed and anything short of an NFC championship appearance should be grounds for his exit. But we’re talking about Jerry here.

I don't be think the decisions are interconnected. I think they'll keep the players because they feel they're worth it, not in any attempt to save Garrett's behind.

He either makes it further in the playoffs or he's history. End of story.

 

[Jake]

I keep reading about the greatest roster since the 90s but they haven't earned that distinction, yet. We can go on about "coaching" but until Jerry decides he wants the best coach for the players - as opposed to the best coach for him - the dynamic won't change. You're going to get a coach whose power is limited, whose owner undermines him, all while hoping he happens to be a really good X and O guy (because that's not the hiring priority in Dallas).

 

[Bobhaze]

Option 2 all day but it starts with competent coaching which Dallas doesn’t have. I agree you need talent to win but you need coaching more. Poor or average coaching will usually cause talent to underperform. Good coaching finds ways to get the most out of their talent. Dallas has a young talented team, has a good drafting record going, and just needs a real head coach to become an upper echelon team for the next 6-8 years and possibly longer if they can keep drafting well. It’s maddening to think they will continue wasting their talent with Garrett. Sign as many key guys as you can and keep drafting like you have and hand this off to a real football coach and we’re in business like it’s 1992 again.

Well said! I especially agree with the part I bolded. Great coaches maximize the talent they have. It’s one of my biggest concerns about Garrett.

 

[GoCowboysGo]

The amount of cap space eaten up by stars drops each year, right? So, if these 10 stars are eating up, say, 70% of the cap, wouldn’t it be around 50% or less in three years?

Then there’s a new TV deal on the horizon which is thought to be the biggest ever, making the impact even less?

I remember how many reacted after signing Tyron Smith to his 10-year, $____ Million contract, most reactions were that we were ruining our cap situation.now his deal seems like a real bargain!

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

I keep reading about the greatest roster since the 90s but they haven't earned that distinction, yet. We can go on about "coaching" but until Jerry decides he wants the best coach for the players - as opposed to the best coach for him - the dynamic won't change. You're going to get a coach whose power is limited, whose owner undermines him, all while hoping he happens to be a really good X and O guy (because that's not the hiring priority in Dallas).

I honestly don't see where it's the best roster since the 90's. Maybe the defense but they flopped in the playoffs as usual.

 

[BourbonBalz]

Jerry is getting older and he wants another title. We haven’t won one in a long time. He’s loading up for a run. If we were to win a Super Bowl this season or next, I’d be O.K. with a couple of rebuilding seasons, although with all the young talent on the roster I don’t think it would be a true rebuild. It would be more of a team missing a handful of players at key positions that we had to let walk. That can be rectified fairly quickly.

 

[12+88=7]

Drafting well is the key to both options.

If you don't draft well, option 1 will keep you competitive and relevant.

If you don't draft well, option 2 will have you in the top ten in the draft year after year.

The secret is draft well and it doesn't matter.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I'd rather have option 1. In regards to this defense.......none of these guys deserve to get paid aside from LVE and Jaylon. Maybe Xavier Woods. The rest of those guys need to be either upcoming draft picks or free agency guys. On defense you need a solid foundation. I think you have that with those 3 guys. Well.....those 4 if you include DLaw.

 

[Bob-Lillys-War]

If Garrett is coaching, both choices are not gonna help .

 

[visionary]

Let me be very clear at the beginning: Talent matters in the NFL. You simply cannot win without it. The Cowboys in 2019 have likely gathered our most talented roster since the glory days of the 90s and expectations for this team should be high going into this season.

But talent alone is not enough. More importantly, I would argue you win a championship with talent that has been molded into a team by a talented, adaptable coaching staff. We all know TEAMS win championships.

With that said, I believe this organization is near a philosophy crossroads regarding its future not only for this year, but the next 5-7 years as well. Here are their choices:

• 1. Become a “star centered” team built around 10 stars (mostly on offense plus DLaw) that take up about 70% of future cap space, leaving about 30% of cap space for the rest of the team, hopefully on rookie contracts. Upside of this is you keep your most talented players for longer periods. The downside to this is if the injury bug hits many of your stars, you’re probably in trouble because there is less cap space for quality depth.

• 2. Become a balanced team that is mostly built around a few stars (maybe 5) along with a lot young talent on rookie deals. No more than approximately 50% of cap space is dedicated to stars on either side of the ball. The upside of this is you hang onto a few of your best players while also being able to mix in a few FAs for depth. The downside of this you can’t keep as many of your stars as you might want.

So which philosophy would you choose? Either philosophy can work. And coaching is of course a huge part of any NFL team's success. There are good arguments for both.

I would probably choose option 2 because I think it’s a more sustainable philosophy going forward. You would have to make some very tough decisions about who to let walk. But it also means we probably need a better HC. The problem with the option 1 star system IMO is it locks you down with less flexibility to build a strong roster.

If the FO chooses option 1, it may signal it believes this is a “win now” moment and that Garrett can’t win without having a bigger star base of talent.

Which philosophy would you choose? Or is there another you believe we can have?

Option 2 is way better but is not an option for us. This option requires an owner who wants a SB winner not a team that is ‘relevant’ and in the headlines, a full time real GM whose job depends on winning, an innovative HC whose job depends on winning, players that are going to be held accountable and understand they have to submit their will to the benefit of winning, a top tier QB

None of these things we have
Not even one

 

[Sydla]

#2 needs a great coach IMO.

We don't have that.

 

[McKDaddy]

I honestly don't see where it's the best roster since the 90's. Maybe the defense but they flopped in the playoffs as usual.

so you think the rosters from turn of the century up until now have been better than now?