A philosophy crossroads: Which one is better?

[PA Cowboy Fan]

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

I think we have been pretty good on offense since Parcells. The defense I tend to agree with you but again they were nowhere to be found in that Rams game. They looked like the same old crap we always put out there. As for depth, I guess we'll just have to wait and see. This whole roster hasn't proven anything yet.

 

[AsthmaField]

• 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.

In option two, you say a balanced team with a lot of young talent on rookie deals. However, the young rookies are going to be there on the team with either option. The team will strive to make good choices in the draft and as many as possible no matter what. That is this team’s foundation and the primary way they want to bring in talent. If they pay as many stars as possible, like you talk about in option 1, the drafted guys on rookie deals will probably be more important than in option 2 where you list it.

So, if you’re talking about having as many young, good rookies as possible either way, then the only real difference is paying more of your stars and supplementing less in other ways, which would be free agency... or paying fewer stars and supplementing more in free agency.

The team has decided that they aren’t going to be big players in free agency, so that would place them closer to being in option 2, philosophically.

They’re going to build with young, drafted guys. They’ve already demonstrated that.

The problem, if you want to call it that, is that they’ve drafted so incredibly well that they have a ton of good players to pay when their rookie deals run out. They have players all over that will want to get paid.

To me, it seems fairly evident that they will sign some of the guys (primarily the true difference makers like Elliott, LVE, Cooper, Dak, etc.) and some of them they won’t sign (Jones, L. Collins, etc.)

This direction will require good drafting in order to fill the holes left by departing guys like Collins and Jones. If they continue to draft as well as they have been, then there won’t really be an issue. If they start missing on a lot of picks, then that’s when they would have to supplement more via free agency, and that is the truly expensive way to go.

Ultimately, I don’t think the options are really clear cut enough to list them as number 1 and number 2. There is a lot of overlap there. Really, they’ll pay their true “stars” and keep as many of the good drafted players as possible. The ones they can’t keep will have to be replaced by young drafted guys and if they keep drafting this way, they’ll be fine.

 

[Bobhaze]

In option two, you say a balanced team with a lot of young talent on rookie deals. However, the young rookies are going to be there on the team with either option. The team will strive to make good choices in the draft and as many as possible no matter what. That is this team’s foundation and the primary way they want to bring in talent. If they pay as many stars as possible, like you talk about in option 1, the drafted guys on rookie deals will probably be more important than in option 2 where you list it.

So, if you’re talking about having as many young, good rookies as possible either way, then the only real difference is paying more of your stars and supplementing less in other ways, which would be free agency... or paying fewer stars and supplementing more in free agency.

The team has decided that they aren’t going to be big players in free agency, so that would place them closer to being in option 2, philosophically.

They’re going to build with young, drafted guys. They’ve already demonstrated that.

The problem, if you want to call it that, is that they’ve drafted so incredibly well that they have a ton of good players to pay when their rookie deals run out. They have players all over that will want to get paid.

To me, it seems fairly evident that they will sign some of the guys (primarily the true difference makers like Elliott, LVE, Cooper, Dak, etc.) and some of them they won’t sign (Jones, L. Collins, etc.)

This direction will require good drafting in order to fill the holes left by departing guys like Collins and Jones. If they continue to draft as well as they have been, then there won’t really be an issue. If they start missing on a lot of picks, then that’s when they would have to supplement more via free agency, and that is the truly expensive way to go.

Ultimately, I don’t think the options are really clear cut enough to list them as number 1 and number 2. There is a lot of overlap there. Really, they’ll pay their true “stars” and keep as many of the good drafted players as possible. The ones they can’t keep will have to be replaced by young drafted guys and if they keep drafting this way, they’ll be fine.

Very well said sir. There is a lot of overlap in making those decisions.

When you mentioned keeping LVE and some others still on rookie deals, are you thinking of a hybrid of option 1 and 2? I don’t want to put words in your mouth or misunderstand.

 

[sean10mm]

Talent matters, but it's the OVERALL talent of the team, not how many "big name" guys who get lots of sports media attention you have. Fans constantly mistake the latter for the former, which is why Cowboys rosters are constantly overrated and Patriots rosters are constantly underrated (outside of Brady). I mean we just went through an era where the entire defense depended on Sean Lee not getting hurt, and once he inevitably did the whole middle of the D imploded because the next guy was a tire fire.

 

[AsthmaField]

Very well said sir. There is a lot of overlap in making those decisions.

When you mentioned keeping LVE and some others still on rookie deals, are you thinking of a hybrid of option 1 and 2? I don’t want to put words in your mouth or misunderstand.

I’m really not saying that they will or won’t keep LVE (although I think they probably find a way)... I’m just saying in a broad sense that they’ll keep some of the players that they value highly and others like Jones or Collins will be let go.

Obviously, I’m not privy to what the Cowboys will do, but common sense tells me that they’ll keep the guys they feel like can’t be replaced by draft picks, and will let go some of the players that they feel can be.

For instance: La’el Collins is a solid player but we’ve already likely seen the team’s plans for RT. With the pick of McGovern in the third round, it is likely that this time next year will see Collins on another roster with McGovern at LG and Connor Williams moving out to RT in Dallas... and a compensatory pick coming to help replace others.

I think that, roughly, is the plan for the players that the Cowboys feel aren’t irreplaceable via the draft.

With Jones, it might be to sign the much cheaper Anthony Brown to a contract, let Byron walk, and then play Brown outside and move Lewis into the slot. Then, Jackson, Olumba, or a draft pick from next season would be the 4th corner.

Would that be as good as the Jones/Awuzie/Brown/Lewis combo they now have in Dallas? Probably not, but I don’t think the drop off would be that significant.

And ultimately, I think that is the decision the Cowboys must make. Which good players leaving will create a big drop off, and which players can be replaced without the position falling off a cliff?

Now, is LVE one of those guys that are irreplaceable? Is he a guy that is really good but won’t kill the team by leaving? That, we don’t know. It is the kind of decision that the team will make over and over in the next few years... and the team needs to get it right more often than not.

Clearly, all of this depends on the team continuing to hit on draft picks like they have been. If they do, I think it’s going to keep them in contention for a long time.

If they don’t, then they’ll slide.

I’m not sure if that is option 1 or option 2 in your scenario... but I do think that is how the team will do it moving forward. I also think it is the best way to go as long as there is a salary cap.

 

[ESisback]

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’d go option 2. To me it’s the most sustainable. One (1!) year of success, and multiple suitors are throwing offers at your tent poles.

 

[CowboyRoy]

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?

Or we could just trade Zeke and get a windfall and only pay Dak and Cooper.

 

[Bobhaze]

Or we could just trade Zeke and get a windfall and only pay Dak and Cooper.

Maybe. I wouldn’t be opposed. But what team would be willing to give up a bundle for a holdout RB wanting a big payday? That has proven his maturity level is about like a sophomore in HS? I’m increasingly intrigued with a trade idea, but I doubtful there’s a good deal to be made.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Maybe. I wouldn’t be opposed. But what team would be willing to give up a bundle for a holdout RB wanting a big payday? That has proven his maturity level is about like a sophomore in HS? I’m increasingly intrigued with a trade idea, but I doubtful there’s a good deal to be made.

Plenty of teams with big cap space. A first and a 3rd for Zeke no problem. Probably would have to wait until the offseason, however.

 

[Jake]

Plenty of teams with big cap space. A first and a 3rd for Zeke no problem. Probably would have to wait until the offseason, however.

So on one hand and Zeke is a "joke" and a "scrub" but on the other Dallas could get a first and a 3rd, no problem.

Either you think the other GMs in the NFL are fools who'd give up prime picks for a "scrub", or you can't make up your mind.

 

[Bobhaze]

Talent matters, but it's the OVERALL talent of the team, not how many "big name" guys who get lots of sports media attention you have. Fans constantly mistake the latter for the former, which is why Cowboys rosters are constantly overrated and Patriots rosters are constantly underrated (outside of Brady). I mean we just went through an era where the entire defense depended on Sean Lee not getting hurt, and once he inevitably did the whole middle of the D imploded because the next guy was a tire fire.

Agree. Other than having a star QB or defender, almost all SB winning teams in this century are built on a balance of just a few big dollar guys mixed in with a lot of young talent on rookie deals. Seattle and Filly are recent examples of this.

 

[bsbellomy]

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'm for whatever gives us the better chance to win it all. And the team as configured seems like 1 is the choice that does that? We may suffer down the road but it will be worth it if he have a SB or 2 to show for it.

 

[Bob-Lillys-War]

Garrett won't win an SB, not even with 53 pro-bowlers .

 

[CouchCoach]

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?

Two things, Bullet. Put all your eggs in one basket and some will get cracked and the only way that has proven to be a sound philosophy is #2 in NE. Although, he's not even into 5 stars and other than QB if he has more than his QB, he doesn't for long because one highly paid star is worth two in the draft bush ala Brandin Cooks, who he never intended on keeping. And I want ownership of the term "draft bush", a first here, I believe.

The problem is that everyone in the NFL knows what Belichick is doing but they can't emulate that and it isn't Brady, although he is the best. Who can beat him at his game when they can't even replicate it? The man is truly one of a kind and the salary cap was created to create him.

I do think I make it seem like that FO job is a lot easier than it really is. "Hey, just sign my guy and let his guy walk", problem solved. Making all of this mesh and sustain it is no easy task and as we've seen it, only one guy has made that work.

So, while I agree his way is the best, it is only the best for him. I think everybody else, including the Cowboys, has to go with #1 and hope they can reach through that window and grab that ring before they have to wait for another window.

That #2 works for a fan like me because I would rather contend for 5 years than win 1 and rebuild for 3 but I am in the minority and while most have failed to reach through that window, that's the better way for this team. So, the FO goes balls to the walls and they miss, I'll take that over a team playing it too safe. This owner is a gambler by nature and I am OK with that.

 

[JeffAtl]

• 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.

10 stars will cost much more than 70% of the cap space though. At an average of $15M/year for a NFL "star", that would take about $150M out of $188M total cap space. That means that every other play has to be playing for league minimum. (The $15M/yr avg is likely low, but is the only number that can actually work within league rules)

A "star centered" team is more like your option #2 as 5 stars (that are being paid as "stars") are about as high as a team can go without totally dismantling the roster every year.

 

[CowboyRoy]

So on one hand and Zeke is a "joke" and a "scrub" but on the other Dallas could get a first and a 3rd, no problem.

Either you think the other GMs in the NFL are fools who'd give up prime picks for a "scrub", or you can't make up your mind.

Scrub and a joke? Making up lies is not way to start a conversation.

 

[Whyjerry]

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?

#2!!!

 

[CouchCoach]

#2!!!

Hey everybody! Whyjerry go #2!!!!

 

[Bobhaze]

Two things, Bullet. Put all your eggs in one basket and some will get cracked and the only way that has proven to be a sound philosophy is #2 in NE. Although, he's not even into 5 stars and other than QB if he has more than his QB, he doesn't for long because one highly paid star is worth two in the draft bush ala Brandin Cooks, who he never intended on keeping. And I want ownership of the term "draft bush", a first here, I believe.

The problem is that everyone in the NFL knows what Belichick is doing but they can't emulate that and it isn't Brady, although he is the best. Who can beat him at his game when they can't even replicate it? The man is truly one of a kind and the salary cap was created to create him.

I do think I make it seem like that FO job is a lot easier than it really is. "Hey, just sign my guy and let his guy walk", problem solved. Making all of this mesh and sustain it is no easy task and as we've seen it, only one guy has made that work.

So, while I agree his way is the best, it is only the best for him. I think everybody else, including the Cowboys, has to go with #1 and hope they can reach through that window and grab that ring before they have to wait for another window.

That #2 works for a fan like me because I would rather contend for 5 years than win 1 and rebuild for 3 but I am in the minority and while most have failed to reach through that window, that's the better way for this team. So, the FO goes balls to the walls and they miss, I'll take that over a team playing it too safe. This owner is a gambler by nature and I am OK with that.

Coach, I bolded your last two sentences there because I agree that I would like to see this team take more chances. The crazy thing is, that’s Jerry’s wildcatter nature, but his HC handles this team like he’s playing poker with his last dollar. It’s so crazy to me that Mr. “Glory H” is still loyal to his overly cautious HC. I’ve seen 80 year old grandmas with more pizazz than Garrett. It’s such a strange combo.

 

[ESisback]

Coach, I bolded your last two sentences there because I agree that I would like to see this team take more chances. The crazy thing is, that’s Jerry’s wildcatter nature, but his HC handles this team like he’s playing poker with his last dollar. It’s so crazy to me that Mr. “Glory H” is still loyal to his overly cautious HC. I’ve seen 80 year old grandmas with more pizazz than Garrett. It’s such a strange combo.

The Gambler and The Church Lady cancel each other out!