Depth over Superstar

[Blast From The Past]

Gotta know when to hold em and when to fold em. Let them go a year too early not a year too late. Trade a superstar for multiple high picks is an option if salary cap demands it. Depends on the state of the team as to the best options available in regards to the teams situation at any given time.

 

[jazzcat22]

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.

I did not say anything about resigning their own. I said it is a different type of business. So of course the relationships are different.
Just like owning a small business. Say less than 10 people. Those employer / employee relationships are different than at a Home Depot or a Walmart.

 

[CTcowboy203]

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?

Yea that’s exactly what I had also. I don’t think it’s possible to win without superstars. The argument is likely more teams having to be prudent with who they sign at certain positions and along the middle tier.

You need superstars to win in sports- at least at some part of the roster.

 

[Big_D]

I did not say anything about resigning their own. I said it is a different type of business. So of course the relationships are different.
Just like owning a small business. Say less than 10 people. Those employer / employee relationships are different than at a Home Depot or a Walmart.

I don’t care about Home Depot or Walmart, I care about this ridiculous “we like our players” strategy the team utilizes on a regular basis.

 

[FLWarpigrpig]

I don't think either way is bad or good. The issue, I believe, is paying solid players as if they are superstars. You can probably overpay 1 at the superstar level and not get that return. While you may be OK with one, depending how bad the miss, anymore then that is definitely an issue when it comes to the rest of the roster.

 

[visionary]

This model requires a competent GM, HC and QB

We are 0-3

 

[Ranching]

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

Since i have no say in the matter, I'll take whatever Jerry gives us, and not worry about.
Go Cowboys!

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

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

You need stars. I know people think maybe the Chiefs don't have them outside of Mahomes but no they do. Chris Jones and Kelce are stars. You need stars to build a team.

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

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

Very good question- and like most, the answer is shades of grey not black and white.

Dallas has been too afraid to take the leap into the unknow and trade away a quality player. Instead, they'll sign that player to a long expensive deal they will never play out, watch the player's ability decline and injuries increase, and ultimately be stuck with a lot of dead money.

A team needs elite talent at certain positions too though. Just as a team can be too top heavy with little depth, the opposite can also be true.

The secret is being smart. Picking and choosing some elite talent to keep, and knowing when to trade a very good player away. Some positions are more important than others.

The cap game is won with draft picks. High draft picks are gold because they represent not only good players, but cheap players too.

 

[tomokawan]

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.

Not trading all your superstars for picks like OP said.

 

[tomokawan]

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

Thanks

 

[Chasing6]

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.

The part people forget or don't seem to understand is the following. Let's use CD for example.

If we traded him for 2 # 1's and free up $30M per year. What do you think you could sign with $30M a year. Maybe another Super Star and now you have 2 number 1 picks.

Really not that hard to comprehend.

 

[tomokawan]

Very good question- and like most, the answer is shades of grey not black and white.

Dallas has been too afraid to take the leap into the unknow and trade away a quality player. Instead, they'll sign that player to a long expensive deal they will never play out, watch the player's ability decline and injuries increase, and ultimately be stuck with a lot of dead money.

A team needs elite talent at certain positions too though. Just as a team can be too top heavy with little depth, the opposite can also be true.

The secret is being smart. Picking and choosing some elite talent to keep, and knowing when to trade a very good player away. Some positions are more important than others.

The cap game is won with draft picks. High draft picks are gold because they represent not only good players, but cheap players too.

Huh??? The cap game is not won with draft picks. It is won by managing and balancing free agency, the draft, trades, resulting in winning. The Rams were way over the cap by adding thru free agency not the draft. That is an example of cap be damned.

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

Huh??? The cap game is not won with draft picks. It is won by managing and balancing free agency, the draft, trades, resulting in winning. The Rams were way over the cap by adding thru free agency not the draft. That is an example of cap be damned.

Dallas maybe needs a new center. Drafting a quality center in the draft is FAR cheaper than signing a free agent.

A team that is able to fill more of its needs via cheaper players in the draft effectively increases available salary cap dollars to be used elsewhere.

 

[FVSTONE]

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

I'll take a team full of Bill Bates over a TOAD HUNTER and a ONE TRICK PONY!

 

[Coogiguy03]

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

You call that the team that beat us in the playoffs

 

[tomokawan]

Dallas maybe needs a new center. Drafting a quality center in the draft is FAR cheaper than signing a free agent.

A team that is able to fill more of its needs via cheaper players in the draft effectively increases available salary cap dollars to be used elsewhere.

You have to do both. Who said anything about getting the center position in Free agency??? You have to use free agency as well to fill positions. Why can't a team do both?? It depends on who is available in the draft and free agency. Of course you fill most of your team thru the draft. That is common football sense.

 

[Rockport]

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.

They’re moving on from Gallup and Tyron as well as others just this year. This narrative is just wrong.

 

[Captain-Crash]

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

dak said, "hold my purse"

 

[Big_D]

They’re moving on from Gallup and Tyron as well as others just this year. This narrative is just wrong.

After over paying him. It’s not a narrative it’s exactly what they do. He was coming off an injury and they paid him anyway. Even Gregory had to back out of a deal or he’d still be here too. The #1 team resigning their own players isn’t something fans are making up.