Cowboys losing Ground? For the Record . reinforces how 2016 was a missed opportunity ***MERGED***

[waldoputty]

You don't even know what the final roster will look like and you're punting 2017? That seems unreasonable. It's not unreasonable to think we could be better this year. Even if you think we're worse, we were the best team in the NFC over the course of the 2016 season. We have way more going for us than most teams.

i only care about the superbowl.
this team will be very very good because of the offense assuming the lack of a replacement RT does not get Dak injured.
discounting injuries, it can easily go 10-6 to 12-4.

but who cares about getting to the playoffs if you have no realistic chance of winning.
everyone else other than the superbowl winner is a loser.

since all the major FAs are gone, the only hope left is trading such as Richardson assuming they are any good.
without a significant pass rush, we may as well mail the year in and go 6-10 and get the daddy through the draft.
that would maximize the chance for getting the most superbowls in the next 10 years.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

i only care about the superbowl.
this team will be very very good because of the offense assuming the lack of a replacement RT does not get Dak injured.
discounting injuries, it can easily go 10-6 to 12-4.

but who cares about getting to the playoffs if you have no realistic chance of winning.
everyone else other than the superbowl winner is a loser.

since all the major FAs are gone, the only hope left is trading such as Richardson assuming they are any good.
without a significant pass rush, we may as well mail the year in and go 6-10 and get the daddy through the draft.
that would maximize the chance for getting the most superbowls in the next 10 years.

I differ because I care that they are good. I'm not a Super Bowl or bust fan. My Sundays in the fall are much more enjoyable if Dallas wins more than it loses. And winning the Super Bowl can come down to who has the hot team, so I'll settle for being in the mix enough that hopefully we'll break through a time or two.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

As of right now we still have the best backup QB in the league.

Otherwise agree.

I appreciate your assessment, bloke, of Romo's backup abilities.
However I based my praise of Garropolo on his youth and sturdiness.
If Romo had not had all these health issues, he'd be neck and neck with Dak. Possibly ahead because of his dozen years of experience.
But Romo cannot be depended upon to stay healthy. He is brittle. He is not getting younger. And, my oh my, he is the richest playoffs-failed QB in history.
Otherwise other teams, by now, would have tempted Sir Jones with No. 1 and No. 2 draft picks.

 

[TheHerd]

I appreciate your assessment, bloke, of Romo's backup abilities.
However I based my praise of Garropolo on his youth and sturdiness.
If Romo had not had all these health issues, he'd be neck and neck with Dak. Possibly ahead because of his dozen years of experience.
But Romo cannot be depended upon to stay healthy. He is brittle. He is not getting younger. And, my oh my, he is the richest playoffs-failed QB in history.
Otherwise other teams, by now, would have tempted Sir Jones with No. 1 and No. 2 draft picks.

True enough. But Jimmy G has played 2 games, one in which he got hurt, in the most QB friendly system ever to exist, with the best coach ever to coach.

Any team that pays a kings ransom for that deserves to watch the Pats hoist more trophies. Though there are clearly a lot of idiot owners and GMs out there. Which we know all too well!

 

[waldoputty]

I differ because I care that they are good. I'm not a Super Bowl or bust fan. My Sundays in the fall are much more enjoyable if Dallas wins more than it loses. And winning the Super Bowl can come down to who has the hot team, so I'll settle for being in the mix enough that hopefully we'll break through a time or two.

so that is why our FA preferences are different.
i want to go for broke as many years as possible.
the other year, i dont really care and in fact i want the team to lose.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

so that is why our FA preferences are different.
i want to go for broke as many years as possible.
the other year, i dont really care and in fact i want the team to lose.

That and the fact I think FA is usually fools gold. For every Randy Moss to the Patriots and Aqib Talib to the Broncos success story there are a dozen Nnamdi Asomugha to the Eagles and (insert name here) to the Commanders that blow up in the team's face.

 

[waldoputty]

That and the fact I think FA is usually fools gold. For every Randy Moss to the Patriots and Aqib Talib to the Broncos success story there are a dozen Nnamdi Asomugha to the Eagles and (insert name here) to the Commanders that blow up in the team's face.

there is risk in evaluating draft picks and free agents.
forcing free agents like the Commanders does not work, but smart FOs like denver showed that it can be done.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

there is risk in evaluating draft picks and free agents.
forcing free agents like the Commanders does not work, but smart FOs like denver showed that it can be done.

But draft picks cost a whole bunch less and are much lower risk that signing FA. It's easier to sustain success as a team by drafting well than by going for broke in FA.

 

[waldoputty]

But draft picks cost a whole bunch less and are much lower risk that signing FA. It's easier to sustain success as a team by drafting well than by going for broke in FA.

i would argue losing a 1st round pick is every bit as bad as blowing a major fa signing.
how many 1st round picks can we expect in 6 years - about 6.
how many major free agents can be signed in 6 years - about 6.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

i would argue losing a 1st round pick is every bit as bad as blowing a major fa signing.

If it's a high first round pick I'd agree, but Dallas has shown a pretty good track record in the first round in recent years.

 

[TheHerd]

If it's a high first round pick I'd agree, but Dallas has shown a pretty good track record in the first round in recent years.

In the first round we've been arguably the best team. Second round, arguably the worst.

 

[CATCH17]

True enough. But Jimmy G has played 2 games, one in which he got hurt, in the most QB friendly system ever to exist, with the best coach ever to coach.

Any team that pays a kings ransom for that deserves to watch the Pats hoist more trophies. Though there are clearly a lot of idiot owners and GMs out there. Which we know all too well!

I agree that giving up loads of picks for Jimmy G is such a sucker move for whoever does that.

Not 1 of their backup QB's that they've traded off have gone on to have any kind of real success and Jimmy G will be no different.



As far as Dak vs Romo...

Dak is cheaper and he's the only QB that has ever had real success under JAson Garrett that's not named Tony Romo.

They have to stick with Dak and move on from Tony. I'm sure JG loves the fact that he is winning with a QB not named Tony Romo and probably feels validated as a coach knowing he can win with another QB not named Tony Romo.

 

[waldoputty]

If it's a high first round pick I'd agree, but Dallas has shown a pretty good track record in the first round in recent years.

in terms of resource allocation, it is rough a 1st round pick and an expensive FA per year.
the FAs turnsover every 5 year or so, so say you have 5x15mil under contract = 75M - which is less than half of the cap.
one can argue the value of the 1st round pick is about the same as the remainder of the picks.
so it is pretty darn close.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

in terms of resource allocation, it is rough a 1st round pick and an expensive FA per year.
the FAs turnsover every 5 year or so, so say you have 5x15mil under contract = 75M - which is less than half of the cap.
one can argue the value of the 1st round pick is about the same as the remainder of the picks.
so it is pretty darn close.

If you hit on 50% of your draft picks, you're doing great. If you hit on 50% of your FA signings - and you are aggressive - you end up in cap hell

 

[waldoputty]

If you hit on 50% of your draft picks, you're doing great. If you hit on 50% of your FA signings - and you are aggressive - you end up in cap hell

if you hit on 50% of your FA signing, then only 50% of your FA signings work.
nobody said to blow up the cap.
that is why i said an average of 1 top FA per year so that the math works out.
in fact i could be conservative and it may well be 1.3 to 1.5 top FAs per year if you calculate the cap out.

 

[erod]

Not really big on bold moves (this year is the boldest), but they are calculating.

Their pro personnel department does a great job getting Belichick the spare parts he can plug in at dirt cheap prices.

Randy Moss was pretty bold. So was Corey Dillon and Lagarette Blount. And Marty B took some nads.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

Randy Moss was pretty bold. So was Corey Dillon and Lagarette Blount. And Marty B took some nads.

All were short-term deals.

 

[windward]

All were short-term deals.

And trades mostly.

 

[MileyDancer]

So what do we do now? Give up?

No, just accept we'll miss the playoffs, and be lucky to get 9 wins. I've said this before we started FA.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

No, just accept we'll miss the playoffs, and be lucky to get 9 wins. I've said this before we started FA.

Might be more meaningful if you hadn't said the same last year. But alas.