817Gill
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 10,322
- Reaction score
- 19,429
*long post*
We hear this phrase a lot, especially in the last 10 years or so of the salary cap era. This became a central argument point when discussion paying vs. not paying Dak and franchsie QB’s in general.
I’ve always been critical of that school of thought for two reasons. First of all, the data is statistically disingenuous because of the sample size as well as quanification of success.
Only a fraction of NFL QB’s are being measured for the past 25 years (salary cap era). There are only a few QB’s per year being paid that much, each with completely different organizational situations. Those 3/4 teams not winning the championship doesn’t automatically mean it’s because of their commonality in QB salary; there are hundreds of reasons a team fails to win a SB and to reduce them to the salary cap is lazy. It also takes away all culpability from the organization and it’s responsibilities.
Secondly, these statistics typically measure success solely by a SB win. This drastically reduces the amount of data listed for “successful” highly paid QB’s. A simple example would be Matt Ryan’s SB year. He doesn’t show up on the list of highly paid QB’s who’ve won SB’s, when in reality his salary didn’t cause them to lose the game. Teams have successful seasons when they reach a conference championship, because typically at that point your team has proved to be good enough to win it all. To say that not winning a SB is due to a QB’s salary would completely ignore the guys who got to NFCCG/AFCCG’s and lost a close competitive game, or guys who lost in the SB. If success in the exercise of who to pay at QB is solely dependent on SB’s, you’re going to skew your data.
Finally, this doesn’t mean that paying high percentage of the cap deals to a franchise QB doesn’t make team building more difficult. Obviously hitting on a Mahomes/Herbert type on a rookie deal and having the majority of your cap to spend on established starters/stars is the easiest way to build a team. FO’s just have to make sure they hit on their major FA acquisitions and premium draft picks. They have more leeway with errors and mid-round draft pick misfires, less tough decisions.
But that doesn’t mean signing a true franchise QB to a deal is a death sentence either. It just means that your drafting and FA acquisitions have much less room for error, while your coaching must be able to develop and elevate the roster. It’s a slimmer margin for error, but it’s definitely operable.
The good thing is the Cowboys FO’s philosophy for some time has been to acquire the majority of its talent from the draft and resign them, while using FA as a way to fill in the cracks with veteran starters/depth as picks develop. The only issue has been while the team has drafted well, FA has been hit and miss at best while coaching has been consistently below average. With coaching generally being much better (there is more to be desired with Mike but coordinators are money), the past few drafts proving to be even a step up from how we’ve done, and bargain bin FA’s finally hitting the way you intended them to; paying a franchise QB is no longer the death sentence we’ve been persuaded to believe it is.
Again, the margin for error is slim, but if the FO can keep drafting the way it has, keep an above average to high quality of coaching, plus hit on the annual 1/2-year bargain bin FA’s; they have a strategy for continual restock of roster talent while paying for a franchise QB.
We hear this phrase a lot, especially in the last 10 years or so of the salary cap era. This became a central argument point when discussion paying vs. not paying Dak and franchsie QB’s in general.
I’ve always been critical of that school of thought for two reasons. First of all, the data is statistically disingenuous because of the sample size as well as quanification of success.
Only a fraction of NFL QB’s are being measured for the past 25 years (salary cap era). There are only a few QB’s per year being paid that much, each with completely different organizational situations. Those 3/4 teams not winning the championship doesn’t automatically mean it’s because of their commonality in QB salary; there are hundreds of reasons a team fails to win a SB and to reduce them to the salary cap is lazy. It also takes away all culpability from the organization and it’s responsibilities.
Secondly, these statistics typically measure success solely by a SB win. This drastically reduces the amount of data listed for “successful” highly paid QB’s. A simple example would be Matt Ryan’s SB year. He doesn’t show up on the list of highly paid QB’s who’ve won SB’s, when in reality his salary didn’t cause them to lose the game. Teams have successful seasons when they reach a conference championship, because typically at that point your team has proved to be good enough to win it all. To say that not winning a SB is due to a QB’s salary would completely ignore the guys who got to NFCCG/AFCCG’s and lost a close competitive game, or guys who lost in the SB. If success in the exercise of who to pay at QB is solely dependent on SB’s, you’re going to skew your data.
Finally, this doesn’t mean that paying high percentage of the cap deals to a franchise QB doesn’t make team building more difficult. Obviously hitting on a Mahomes/Herbert type on a rookie deal and having the majority of your cap to spend on established starters/stars is the easiest way to build a team. FO’s just have to make sure they hit on their major FA acquisitions and premium draft picks. They have more leeway with errors and mid-round draft pick misfires, less tough decisions.
But that doesn’t mean signing a true franchise QB to a deal is a death sentence either. It just means that your drafting and FA acquisitions have much less room for error, while your coaching must be able to develop and elevate the roster. It’s a slimmer margin for error, but it’s definitely operable.
The good thing is the Cowboys FO’s philosophy for some time has been to acquire the majority of its talent from the draft and resign them, while using FA as a way to fill in the cracks with veteran starters/depth as picks develop. The only issue has been while the team has drafted well, FA has been hit and miss at best while coaching has been consistently below average. With coaching generally being much better (there is more to be desired with Mike but coordinators are money), the past few drafts proving to be even a step up from how we’ve done, and bargain bin FA’s finally hitting the way you intended them to; paying a franchise QB is no longer the death sentence we’ve been persuaded to believe it is.
Again, the margin for error is slim, but if the FO can keep drafting the way it has, keep an above average to high quality of coaching, plus hit on the annual 1/2-year bargain bin FA’s; they have a strategy for continual restock of roster talent while paying for a franchise QB.
