Depth over Superstar

[Sully]

Here is another --lay up-- I am going to give those mockers....

Would people rather have 2-3 Superstars ( Dak/Lamb/Parsons) over a team filled with average/above average players PLUS good depth?

The superstars want their $$$$ and I/we can understand that. If we were in the position, we would also.
But we are "FANS", which is short for FANATICS. We really don't care about their contracts. We --as fans-- want our team to WIN.
Players want their money far, far, FAR more than winning. They can buy their own ring(s) and want to set themselves up and their family for financial security. Majority of players are not loyal to any team. Some yes, but majority are not. They will chase the best contract to achieve their goal of security. Again, it is understandable. Their careers are short. If the player(s) can get that security while staying with the team that drafted them--BONUS to them.

Teams love those rising stars so get get the fans to buy jerseys and have the media shows the stats off as auctions slaves to get the fanatics to watch the game(s) so to sell advertising dollars, which then the owners get a kick back.

The stars then want those long - term HUGE contracts adding to their stability. Setting the market on the next BIG contract which will still be the team years after they either retire or leave because the salary is now crippling the team. Players move on, while the fanatics are still loyal to their team, with the players spitting out the newest cliches how they want to win . When the player has now achieved that financial stability on the back side of their careers, then winning that Superbowl becomes MORE important to them, meanwhile it has ALWAYS been the #1 object for the fanatic.

So instead of getting in cap hell, would it be a better angle of attack of trading away that SUPERSTAR for multiple picks. Don't have to get into the financial crap of that superstar "setting the mark" in their position for their ego/stability.

Hypothetical: Could Dallas get (2) 1st rd picks for Lamb and Parsons? Maybe even alttle more. Is it better to have (2) good/decent WRs than one superstar ? (2) good/decent DE than one superstar? If Lamb/Parsons goes down from injury, there is little depth behind them because of their salary cap. Rather have two decent players than that ONE start. Pay 2-3 players what it would cost for one. Depth and stay away from cap hell. If one of those "decent/above players" gets to superstar level, trade that player away for MORE draft picks and you stay younger and avoid to pay for FA to fill holes. Keep the youth movement going, with the trading away diva players asking for ego to be stroked with setting the market.

OK-- mock away. Have fun

 

[tomokawan]

Here is another --lay up-- I am going to give those mockers....

Would people rather have 2-3 Superstars ( Dak/Lamb/Parsons) over a team filled with average/above average players PLUS good depth?

The superstars want their $$$$ and I/we can understand that. If we were in the position, we would also.
But we are "FANS", which is short for FANATICS. We really don't care about their contracts. We --as fans-- want our team to WIN.
Players want their money far, far, FAR more than winning. They can buy their own ring(s) and want to set themselves up and their family for financial security. Majority of players are not loyal to any team. Some yes, but majority are not. They will chase the best contract to achieve their goal of security. Again, it is understandable. Their careers are short. If the player(s) can get that security while staying with the team that drafted them--BONUS to them.

Teams love those rising stars so get get the fans to buy jerseys and have the media shows the stats off as auctions slaves to get the fanatics to watch the game(s) so to sell advertising dollars, which then the owners get a kick back.

The stars then want those long - term HUGE contracts adding to their stability. Setting the market on the next BIG contract which will still be the team years after they either retire or leave because the salary is now crippling the team. Players move on, while the fanatics are still loyal to their team, with the players spitting out the newest cliches how they want to win . When the player has now achieved that financial stability on the back side of their careers, then winning that Superbowl becomes MORE important to them, meanwhile it has ALWAYS been the #1 object for the fanatic.

So instead of getting in cap hell, would it be a better angle of attack of trading away that SUPERSTAR for multiple picks. Don't have to get into the financial crap of that superstar "setting the mark" in their position for their ego/stability.

Hypothetical: Could Dallas get (2) 1st rd picks for Lamb and Parsons? Maybe even alttle more. Is it better to have (2) good/decent WRs than one superstar ? (2) good/decent DE than one superstar? If Lamb/Parsons goes down from injury, there is little depth behind them because of their salary cap. Rather have two decent players than that ONE start. Pay 2-3 players what it would cost for one. Depth and stay away from cap hell. If one of those "decent/above players" gets to superstar level, trade that player away for MORE draft picks and you stay younger and avoid to pay for FA to fill holes. Keep the youth movement going, with the trading away diva players asking for ego to be stroked with setting the market.

OK-- mock away. Have fun

Yea, let's have a team with no superstar at all. That is a great winning formula. SMH. Trading Superstars for multiple picks. The picks turn into future Superstars and you are right back in same situation again or the picks suck and now you have an awful team.

 

[Boysdaboys]

If you want to see the perfect example of depth over superstar, take a look at the Chiefs trading Hill for a boatload of picks. Are the Chiefs more exciting to watch with Hill, and more explosive? Absolutely. Do they win the past few SB's with him? No imo. Because they don't have the depth on defense and cap space etc. They may have Mahomes. But, there's no SB this year, or close to one, without that defense.

Now, Mahomes/Kelce are superstars. But most importantly in 2023, Chris Jones was a superstar.

I would like to see if/how this team would find that balance.

 

[Jipper]

I’m all for trading Anyone if the price is right, but the sum of the parts has to be greater.

If we got 2 high firsts for Micha I would do it, ceedee id take 2 firsts anywhere…it’s more about the contracts at this point bc paying both those guys is going to really limit other positions

 

[Sully]

Yea, let's have a team with no superstar at all. That is a great winning formula. SMH. Trading Superstars for multiple picks. The picks turn into future Superstars and you are right back in same situation again or the picks suck and now you have an awful team.

Understand you point but has this model worked for Dallas -- having superstars-- for 30 years??? What happens to Dallas if Lamb goes down and it is going to happen. Rather have (2) WRs with 900+ yards that one player having 1500.
The example with investments: You do NOT put all your eggs in ONE basket-- you diversify when the market goes down. Put all your eggs in one basket/superstar and when the market goes down/injury, you can with stand the down turn/injury/setting the salary cap headache

 

[Sully]

I’m all for trading Anyone if the price is right, but the sum of the parts has to be greater.

If we got 2 high firsts for Micha I would do it, ceedee id take 2 firsts anywhere…it’s more about the contracts at this point bc paying both those guys is going to really limit other positions

I’m all for trading Anyone if the price is right, but the sum of the parts has to be greater.

If we got 2 high firsts for Micha I would do it, ceedee id take 2 firsts anywhere…it’s more about the contracts at this point bc paying both those guys is going to really limit other positions

Agree-----Look at a person tool box. You do not have just one hammer, but other tools to get the job done.

 

[jazzcat22]

Yea, let's have a team with no superstar at all. That is a great winning formula. SMH. Trading Superstars for multiple picks. The picks turn into future Superstars and you are right back in same situation again or the picks suck and now you have an awful team.

Right.
This is like the ones that never want to give 2nd contracts to drafted players, as it is too much against the cap.
But yet they whine about the team never signing any big FA players.

 

[Big_D]

If you want to see the perfect example of depth over superstar, take a look at the Chiefs trading Hill for a boatload of picks. Are the Chiefs more exciting to watch with Hill, and more explosive? Absolutely. Do they win the past few SB's with him? No imo. Because they don't have the depth on defense and cap space etc. They may have Mahomes. But, there's no SB this year, or close to one, without that defense.

Now, Mahomes/Kelce are superstars. But most importantly in 2023, Chris Jones was a superstar.

I would like to see if/how this team would find that balance.

Boils down to being able to make the tough decisions. You’re dealing with 4 year contracts, some players you keep and some you have to move on from. This team tries to and would actually keep everyone if they could. It’s out of the ordinary compared to the rest of the league and pretty ridiculous on top of it. It’s a league of tough decisions and this team consistently fails in this area.

 

[jazzcat22]

Understand you point but has this model worked for Dallas -- having superstars-- for 30 years??? What happens to Dallas if Lamb goes down and it is going to happen. Rather have (2) WRs with 900+ yards that one player having 1500.
The example with investments: You do NOT put all your eggs in ONE basket-- you diversify when the market goes down. Put all your eggs in one basket/superstar and when the market goes down/injury, you can with stand the down turn/injury/setting the salary cap headache

You are describing all the NFL teams. A player or two go down and look how they look average.

CMC and Deebo went down for SF, and they lost what 3 in a row, or 3 of 5 games. They return and start winning again.
so ask their fans that same question.

 

[Boysdaboys]

Boils down to being able to make the tough decisions. You’re dealing with 4 year contracts, some players you keep and some you have to move on from. This team tries to and would actually keep everyone if they could. It’s out of the ordinary compared to the rest of the league and pretty ridiculous on top of it. It’s a league of tough decisions and this team consistently fails in this area.

Because of personal relationships & overestimating the abilities of the players. Which is a horrible way to run a business.

 

[jazzcat22]

Because of personal relationships & overestimating the abilities of the players. Which is a horrible way to run a business.

The NFL and all sports are an unusual business. Can’t be applied the same way as working at a Home Depot or similar.

 

[Big_D]

Because of personal relationships & overestimating the abilities of the players. Which is a horrible way to run a business.

That’s exactly it. And it’s a big problem here. It’s pretty pathetic from a management standpoint to think 31 other teams can’t possibly have a better option. It continuously kills this team.

 

[CTcowboy203]

Is there an actual team that’s won in the nfl that doesn’t have a superstar? The closest you get is teams who have the quarterback on rookie deals but they typically have superstars around them

 

[big dog cowboy]

So instead of getting in cap hell, would it be a better angle of attack of trading away that SUPERSTAR for multiple picks.

Imagine the 90's teams had Aikman, Emmitt and Irvin been traded.

 

[Boysdaboys]

That’s exactly it. And it’s a big problem here. It’s pretty pathetic from a management standpoint to think 31 other teams can’t possibly have a better option. It continuously kills this team.

The biggest sin of all was keeping Garrett for over a decade.

 

[Boysdaboys]

Is there an actual team that’s won in the nfl that doesn’t have a superstar? The closest you get is teams who have the quarterback on rookie deals but they typically have superstars around them

Looking at the past ten SB winners, seven were won by an elite QB (Brady/Mahomes). Each had generational type TE's at their disposal.

Foles won. But that team was pretty loaded.

Stafford isn't on the Brady/Mahomes tier. But he's definitely very very good. And they had stars everywhere.

Honestly, I can't think of the last time a team devoid of talent won a SB. 2001 Patriots maybe?

 

[Pessimist_cowboy]

The Cowboys “superstars” haven’t shown up in the playoffs for 28 years.

 

[jazzcat22]

That’s exactly it. And it’s a big problem here. It’s pretty pathetic from a management standpoint to think 31 other teams can’t possibly have a better option. It continuously kills this team.

As I posted above. NFL and other sports are a different type of business.
of course the have personal relationships butmthey know it is all still business.

It is not like they hang out together and are at each others dinner parties.

Our fans are hilarious.

 

[jazzcat22]

The Cowboys “superstars” haven’t shown up in the playoffs for 28 years.

Maybe they just did not have the right superstars.

Or the best of the above average were the only ones to choose from.

 

[Big_D]

As I posted above. NFL and other sports are a different type of business.
of course the have personal relationships butmthey know it is all still business.

It is not like they hang out together and are at each others dinner parties.

Our fans are hilarious.

Huh? They are the clear cut #1 team when it comes to resigning their own players. That’s not something the fans are making up. And it’s certainly not hilarious, just pathetic.