Lack of big FA Spending

[LittleD]

Guy's the Cowboys love the guys they draft or acquire and spend most of their money on them. FA for the Cowboys FO begins with re-signing their own FA that they want to keep.
This year they have begun to fill holes on the team with the money they have available. They do this every year so they can draft BPA based on position need. That is the strategy and
they got that strategy from Parcells. Jerry is sold on it.

 

[Creeper]

Except maybe Russell Maryland.

Since Russell Maryland in 1991. My original comments on this included that detail.

 

[Trajan]

Relax.

Per usual when people think about spending in free Agency they often discount dollars we spend on our own guys. This year it was Dak securing the bag.

While this team has underachieved for numerous reasons... Not routinely buying other teams' players at market price isn't it.

Reading this, 1/2 of the teams who won Super Bowls spent $50mil on FA ? So, doesn’t this actually show that spending $50mil is far better then the teams that do not spend that amount statistically ?

Not sure this post is as pro-Jerry as the OP thinks it is.

 

[MaineBoy]

Resign our own and don’t over spend in free agency. I won’t argue

Yah, overpay our own and don’t get any contributors in free agency. You can’t argue with how well it hasn’t worked.

 

[csirl]

Jerry approaches player contracts in the same way his own industry - oil - approaches off shore drilling.

With oil you throw a huge amount of money at each exploration well knowing that most wont ever work out, but those that do will be so profitable you will win financially.

How many times do we see Jerry overpaying on football conttacts, most of which dont work out. Unlike the oil business, you need a high success rate to win.

 

[Ekspozed]

There's guys that could have and could be had for reasonable money and start on our defense. Yet we've signed backups.

 

[BigD_95]

Yah, overpay our own and don’t get any contributors in free agency. You can’t argue with how well it hasn’t worked.

last year Dallas signed several players and how did that work out

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Reading this, 1/2 of the teams who won Super Bowls spent $50mil on FA ? So, doesn’t this actually show that spending $50mil is far better then the teams that do not spend that amount statistically ?

Not sure this post is as pro-Jerry as the OP thinks it is.

No waht this says is that only one team has spent $100MM or more in FA in the last decade and won the superbowl. 4 of 10 teams who won the superbowl in the last decade were in the top 16 teams in FA spend. That is to say 6 of 10 were in the bottom half of FA spending.

Big spending in FA is simply not correlated with winning it all.

 

[MaineBoy]

last year Dallas signed several players and how did that work out

my point exactly....

 

[JoeKing]

Relax.

Per usual when people think about spending in free Agency they often discount dollars we spend on our own guys. This year it was Dak securing the bag.

While this team has underachieved for numerous reasons... Not routinely buying other teams' players at market price isn't it.

Exactly right!

 

[jaythecowboy]

No waht this says is that only one team has spent $100MM or more in FA in the last decade and won the superbowl. 4 of 10 teams who won the superbowl in the last decade were in the top 16 teams in FA spend. That is to say 6 of 10 were in the bottom half of FA spending.

Big spending in FA is simply not correlated with winning it all.

Every teams spending on that list was at least 26th. Dallas is dead last by a wide margin. No Super Bowl winning team has spent that little in free agency.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Every teams spending on that list was at least 26th. Dallas is dead last by a wide margin. No Super Bowl winning team has spent that little in free agency.

Imagine thinking 26th in free agency spending is appreciably different than 32nd.

Also imagine doing this analysis without identifying who is paying good money to their OWN players.

Imagine.

 

[Sydla]

No waht this says is that only one team has spent $100MM or more in FA in the last decade and won the superbowl. 4 of 10 teams who won the superbowl in the last decade were in the top 16 teams in FA spend. That is to say 6 of 10 were in the bottom half of FA spending.

Big spending in FA is simply not correlated with winning it all.

But you are largely making a strawman argument here. Few have said Dallas needs to spend “big” in FA. They’ve argued Dallas should spend more than the pittance they typically spend signing a bunch of JAGs that almost always end up bombing out.

It’s bizarre to me that one can look at the on field results, see what we spend in FA and see the enormous list of wasted bargain bin players we’ve signed and conclude, you know what? These Cowboys are doing it right.

 

[kskboys]

That's definitely true.

Do you think the FO understands this or do you think they simply think they are better than they are?

Part of me wants to think this is a two year plan. It's the only way I can make sense of the approach.

It's always a 1-2 yr plan

 

[Aviano90]

Same song and dance every year. Pretty soon it will be time for the “relax guys, it’s just preseason” posts. We missed those last year due to the cancellation of the preseason.

 

[jaythecowboy]

Imagine thinking 26th in free agency spending is appreciably different than 32nd.

Also imagine doing this analysis without identifying who is paying good money to their OWN players.

Imagine.

It certainly is in the case of the Cowboys' lack of free agent spending. The Cowboys are dead last by a wide margin. If you are only paying your own players you're just treading water.

This was already a convo on here a couple weeks ago.

https://cowboyszone.com/threads/over-the-cap-analyzes-nfl-teams-fa-success.474668/

Cowboys spent so little in free agency overthecap didn't even include them on the chart of their analysis. So yes there is a huge difference between 26th and the Cowboys at 32.

 

[mperfection]

Right. Every other team in the league has used a 1st round pick on a DT, at least 1. Only the Cowboys have never drafted a DT in the first round.

WRONG! Cowboys drafted DT Russell Maryland out of Miami in 1991. He actually played under Jimmy Johnson in Miami.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It certainly is in the case of the Cowboys' lack of free agent spending. The Cowboys are dead last by a wide margin. If you are only paying your own players you're just treading water.

This was already a convo on here a couple weeks ago.

https://cowboyszone.com/threads/over-the-cap-analyzes-nfl-teams-fa-success.474668/

Cowboys spent so little in free agency overthecap didn't even include them on the chart of their analysis. So yes there is a huge difference between 26th and the Cowboys at 32.

Teams spending big in free agency means that often they did not have talent worth spending on. In many ways it is a zero sum game. For instance why do the Jags ALWAYS have money to spend? It's because the guys they drafted were never developed and often not worth 2nd contracts.

When you have a lot of guys worth 2nd contracts you won't be giving out 3rd contracts to guys in free agency. Contracts that have historically been less fruitful than signing your own.

 

[blueblood70]

WRONG! Cowboys drafted DT Russell Maryland out of Miami in 1991. He actually played under Jimmy Johnson in Miami.

wasn't spears a DT? i mean we got ware then spears in the first that year correct, running a 4-3 im sure spears was more of an inside guy..i know he was listed a FDE but maybe in 3-4 but technically in our system didnt he play inside a lot?

 

[Sydla]

Teams spending big in free agency means that often they did not have talent worth spending on. In many ways it is a zero sum game. For instance why do the Jags ALWAYS have money to spend? It's because the guys they drafted were never developed and often not worth 2nd contracts.

When you have a lot of guys worth 2nd contracts you won't be giving out 3rd contracts to guys in free agency. Contracts that have historically been less fruitful than signing your own.

Yet somehow other teams re-sign their best players and still are more active in FA. You seemingly like to debate in extremes.

- Spending big in FA or spending nothing.

- Sign your own or don’t and spend a ton in FA.

There is a wide chasm of middle ground here where you can sign your better players and still be more active in FA than the Cowboys are.