A philosophy crossroads: Which one is better?

[CouchCoach]

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.

It is but Garrett understands his role better than any HC Booger has had.

 

[Risen Star]

Seems like our philosophy right now is to put together an amazing collection of talent and see what happens.

 

[CCBoy]

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.

Team directions and play on the field are routinely evaluated on a year to year basis. If Jason Garrett is eventually tagged with the reason for not succeeding at the top levels...oh, Jerry will issue a pink slip.

 

[GMO415]

Give Billechic this team and we're instant SB contenders.

 

[Diehardblues]

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 think that’s exactly what Jerry will do.

Jerry is the X-factor in all of this. We don’t operate like normal franchises. We must think outside the box.

 

[Oz-of-Cowboy-Country]

Building a team becomes easier when you know what style of play you want.

 

[MCMetal69]

The problem with constantly rotating in young talent , is making sure you hit on a lot of your draft choices (which McClay has done , IMO) ; but also , as has been discussed , you need the coaching to go along with it...................

This regime doesn't have that , plain and simple............................

 

[catiii]

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 for the same reasons. Plus, more successful teams than us the last 20 years, use option 2. Losing one player to injury under this option does not sink the ship as readily as option 1. It's just a more solid team built to weather the storm for the long haul I think.

 

[75boyz]

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?

Another outstanding post Bob,

My vote is 2 to include a much more qualified coaching staff.

 

[ArtClink]

Give Billechic this team and we're instant SB contenders.

Very true and conversely, take the super bowl winner each year and put their roster in Dallas with our subpar coaching and a losing culture (remember winning is defined by deep post-season runs and we are 24 years removed from our last one) and you will produce the results of the past 24 seasons.

 

[TwoDeep3]

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?

Here's the issue 2 leans toward having consistency and a long term solution.

However if anything we have learned about football over the fifty years, and especially since the cap, is that your window opens and closes. Long term is a tough act. New England is a aberration.


And your position on coaches, which many share has a blind spot. A coach can coach 'em up, but a player cannot run faster because of a coach. Or play [ast their anilities.

if you do not have players that can physically execute the game plan, all the scheming will not make them do so.

I have a theory, Garrett and Campo are the same guy. Campo had three 5-11 and Garrett had three 8-8. The difference is three games each season.

Garrett had Romo. Campo had a broken Aikman and nothing else.

The difference was a player that could execute versus players that could not in the same position.

 

[Bobhaze]

The problem with constantly rotating in young talent , is making sure you hit on a lot of your draft choices (which McClay has done , IMO) ; but also , as has been discussed , you need the coaching to go along with it...................

This regime doesn't have that , plain and simple............................

Talent + Great Coaching = Maximized chances to win

 

[Richmond Cowboy]

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 this year we have option 1.5, a little bit of both. We have the stars as well as quality young depth. It’s now or never because these windows don’t stay open forever. As the “young depth” eventually turn into stars you can’t keep everyone.

 

[atlantacowboy]

We don't have a football philosophy as an organization. In the Landry era, the Cowboys had a way of doing things.......Jimmy Johnson had his own way of running a team.......Parcels has his way. Garret doesn't have a way of doing things b/c he's never built a super bowl team. So, its ever evolving and changing. IMO, he's not capable of the achievement. Literally, we are just tossing things out to see what sticks.

 

[Diehardblues]

We don't have a football philosophy as an organization. In the Landry era, the Cowboys had a way of doing things.......Jimmy Johnson had his own way of running a team.......Parcels has his way. Garret doesn't have a way of doing things b/c he's never built a super bowl team. So, its ever evolving and changing. Literally, we are just tossing things out to see what sticks.

That’s an interesting thought. HC’s don’t have a way until they’ve built a Super Bowl team.

By this definition there’s a bunch of HC’s out there without a way.

Basically what I’m hearing is you aren’t successful or your ways aren’t successful unless you win a Super Bowl.

Maybe some fans don’t know how to measure success unless they win a Super Bowl?

 

[atlantacowboy]

That’s an interesting thought. HC’s don’t have a way until they’ve built a Super Bowl team.

By this definition there’s a bunch of HC’s out there without a way.

Basically what I’m hearing is you aren’t successful or your ways aren’t successful unless you win a Super Bowl.

Maybe some fans don’t know how to measure success unless they win a Super Bowl?

It may be more accurate to say that Garret does have a way and it just doesn't work. How many more years of evidence will you require?

And generally speaking, most coaches don't get to reach the level of Garret's mediocrity before they are fired for not winning. But, our coach holds a special place in his bosses heart.

Super Bowls are the measuring stick and always have been.

 

[sean10mm]

We do have a philosophy, Garrett is basically trying to xerox the 90s teams in both roster construction and game-day approach. The problem is the rules of the game have changed to make that approach untenable. Nobody just sits on more talent than everybody else for a 5 year stretch anymore, and game-day tactics that were fine in the 90s when you had an overwhelming roster are just stupid in 2019 where there's a hard cap everyone has to live with.

At best teams can get a temporary talent edge if they have a run of good drafting and aren't on the hook for any expensive veterans who have aged out of their prime. Getting the most total talent (not 2-3 most expensive players) for your salary cap dollar and quality coaching are how you compete long-term.

 

[Diehardblues]

It may be more accurate to say that Garret does have a way and it just doesn't work. How many more years of evidence will you require?

And generally speaking, most coaches don't get to reach the level of Garret's mediocrity before they are fired for not winning. But, our coach holds a special place in his bosses heart.

Super Bowls are the measuring stick and always have been.

Here again you’re using winning a Super Bowl as your only means to measure his success here.

 

[Stash]

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.

There isn't.

But fans can say whatever they want, and then just shrug their shoulders when no trade happens.

No GM is trading premium draft capital to then have to pay top of the market money to then hope that a well-documented bonehead doesn't screw up again.

This ain't Madden.

 

[atlantacowboy]

Here again you’re using winning a Super Bowl as your only means to measure his success here.

I'm judging Garret in a historical context. Coaches are judged on super bowls. There is no other measuring stick. If you want to poop out an arbitrary measurement, go for it.