Making a Mediocre Team

[Blitzen]

Just some generalized thoughts. Why do the Cowboys go through generally mediocre seasons and rarely go less than 6 wins total? Is it because JJ does not want to go through full rebuild seasons where you cut loose players that could likely get you that win against another sub to mediocre squad in the coming season? Does JJ run the player personnel like a sentimental fan instead of a shrewd calculating businessman? Does winning more than 6 wins help sell the team to average fans that do not expect much in terms of playoff success? Do the average fans use the mediocre and occasionally very good seasons as a way to characterize success of the team compared to other squads (that cannot consistently get over 6 wins or become a division leader)? Do other teams go full rebuild before a season begins or realize mid-season they will not make the playoffs and go into tank mode?

Why does a team like Cleveland never get out of the less than 6 wins funk? Is it because they keep hiring low quality coaching staffs or because they have no consistent leadership and are always tearing down old staff's rosters and starting over every 2-3 years? Is it because the systems are bad or never finished? Is it because a team like Cleveland also never picked a true franchise QB to build the team around and thus never even made it to mediocre status?

My general instinct is that JJ runs the team's player personnel side like a fan and the marketing side like a cold hard businessman. This leads to poor player personnel decisions when emotions run hot or cold because the decisions are based on a feeling rather than numbers/data. There is also enough evidence of a disconnect between his player acquisitions and coach's player preferences that say he will disregard a coach's input and move forward with a unilateral decision.

Teams that are perennial bottom dwellers are typically guilty of rebuilding too quickly. Teams that are perennial mediocre teams are typically guilty of not rebuilding or retooling quickly enough. Impulsive decisions (free agency, draft, or trade) can derail a team that is in build mode and set them back a number of years that is proportionate to the degree of mistake (number of years committed, salary cap used, draft assets squandered, etc). I will qualify that my definition for build mode turned to built mode is conference championships or multiple years with at least 1-2 playoff wins within a span of 3 years (if the team never gets over the hump and wins a SB they then go into rebuild mode once they no longer are getting the playoff victories I specified).

Do general decisions such as this team will be a run-based offense and quick attacking defense matter as much as making correct player acquisitions without overpaying? Does player acquisition go hand in hand with the chosen style of offense/defense and thus one comes before the other? Can a coach take a player such as Vince Wilfork and turn them into a quick penetrating 3 technique DT? Is it the coach's fault to change the entire style of offense/defense based on one player's strengths/weaknesses? Should a head coach and GM be intimately involved in player acquisition in order to avoid wrong fits within scheme? Can a very good QB mask poor team depth in other areas - if so to what degree?

 

[ShiningStar]

The cowboys have gotten like how the Eagles, Browns, Chargers, Buffalo, cardinals train of thought, if we win great, but its not our goal anymore. Many ways to make money and they want to capitialize on other avenues to make them money.

Browns are just using blind loyalty to keep bringing in enough money. Winning the SB is not a goal.

JJ realized he cant run a football team but wont admit it. Some mistakes people will not admit. This is one of them and he wants to leave it to his son if he gets anyone successful the organization will not want Stephen in charge.

The league runs the show, not the teams. Its a club, nothing more. Make them money or dont, they ll get along without you.

There is not enough good players to go around. every offense and defense are basically the same. Offense to score, defense to stop the offense, no matter what you call red, red is red. Every running back has to go forward, every reciever has to catch the ball.

 

[Section446]

We've got this mediocre thing down to a science.

 

[Kaiser]

Welcome to the Salary Cap Era, my name is Paul Tagliabue and I figured out that the entire league being right at .500 records makes us the most money. For any complaints, write your congressman.

 

[SoupcanSam]

We've got this mediocre thing down to a science.

I'd really like to see what this team does with a revampd FO. We wouldnt know how to act. We'd be totally in there!!!

 

[Stash]

Just some generalized thoughts. Why do the Cowboys go through generally mediocre seasons and rarely go less than 6 wins total? Is it because JJ does not want to go through full rebuild seasons where you cut loose players that could likely get you that win against another sub to mediocre squad in the coming season? Does JJ run the player personnel like a sentimental fan instead of a shrewd calculating businessman? Does winning more than 6 wins help sell the team to average fans that do not expect much in terms of playoff success? Do the average fans use the mediocre and occasionally very good seasons as a way to characterize success of the team compared to other squads (that cannot consistently get over 6 wins or become a division leader)? Do other teams go full rebuild before a season begins or realize mid-season they will not make the playoffs and go into tank mode?

Why does a team like Cleveland never get out of the less than 6 wins funk? Is it because they keep hiring low quality coaching staffs or because they have no consistent leadership and are always tearing down old staff's rosters and starting over every 2-3 years? Is it because the systems are bad or never finished? Is it because a team like Cleveland also never picked a true franchise QB to build the team around and thus never even made it to mediocre status?

My general instinct is that JJ runs the team's player personnel side like a fan and the marketing side like a cold hard businessman. This leads to poor player personnel decisions when emotions run hot or cold because the decisions are based on a feeling rather than numbers/data. There is also enough evidence of a disconnect between his player acquisitions and coach's player preferences that say he will disregard a coach's input and move forward with a unilateral decision.

Teams that are perennial bottom dwellers are typically guilty of rebuilding too quickly. Teams that are perennial mediocre teams are typically guilty of not rebuilding or retooling quickly enough. Impulsive decisions (free agency, draft, or trade) can derail a team that is in build mode and set them back a number of years that is proportionate to the degree of mistake (number of years committed, salary cap used, draft assets squandered, etc). I will qualify that my definition for build mode turned to built mode is conference championships or multiple years with at least 1-2 playoff wins within a span of 3 years (if the team never gets over the hump and wins a SB they then go into rebuild mode once they no longer are getting the playoff victories I specified).

Do general decisions such as this team will be a run-based offense and quick attacking defense matter as much as making correct player acquisitions without overpaying? Does player acquisition go hand in hand with the chosen style of offense/defense and thus one comes before the other? Can a coach take a player such as Vince Wilfork and turn them into a quick penetrating 3 technique DT? Is it the coach's fault to change the entire style of offense/defense based on one player's strengths/weaknesses? Should a head coach and GM be intimately involved in player acquisition in order to avoid wrong fits within scheme? Can a very good QB mask poor team depth in other areas - if so to what degree?

I couldn't possibly try to answer all of the questions you presented, but I will say this.

This league is a lot more "sudden" than some want to admit. Empires rise and fall annually (unless you're Bill Belicheck), and teams are contenders and rebuilders quickly.

There is no "slow build" anymore. In a salary cap league with four year contracts before players hit free agency, you just can't keep things together forever. There are Windows of opportunity that open and close quickly.

Jones and the Cowboys had better realize that there isn't no "process". There is success or there is failure. Clear, measurable results, or baseless rhetoric.

They have already stubbornly invested too much time in a head coach not up to the task. And they need to move on. They've already cast their lot for 2018, but unless there is a huge playoff/championship run this year, they simply have to make fundamental changes in the way they're operating.

 

[foofighters]

Wait...we're mediocre??? Jerry just said we are pretty close to the Eagles!!!!!!!

 

[ShiningStar]

Wait...we're mediocre??? Jerry just said we are pretty close to the Eagles!!!!!!!

hes using the statistic of "I pulled it from my butt"

 

[OmerV]

I couldn't possibly try to answer all of the questions you presented, but I will say this.

This league is a lot more "sudden" than some want to admit. Empires rise and fall annually (unless you're Bill Belicheck), and teams are contenders and rebuilders quickly.

There is no "slow build" anymore. In a salary cap league with four year contracts before players hit free agency, you just can't keep things together forever. There are Windows of opportunity that open and close quickly.

Jones and the Cowboys had better realize that there isn't no "process". There is success or there is failure. Clear, measurable results, or baseless rhetoric.

They have already stubbornly invested too much time in a head coach not up to the task. And they need to move on. They've already cast their lot for 2018, but unless there is a huge playoff/championship run this year, they simply have to make fundamental changes in the way they're operating.

Great post. This is why I don't give much thought to the "window is closing" type of posts, or the "we have to cut everyone and start over" type of posts, or the "we cannot compete this year" kind of posts. Who thought the Cowboys had a prayer in the world of being competitive in 2016 when Romo went out and we started the season with Dez injured? Things can change quickly, and as you said, the Pats are the only team that has really shown sustainability.

 

[Stash]

Great post. This is why I don't give much thought to the "window is closing" type of posts, or the "we have to cut everyone and start over" type of posts, or the "we cannot compete this year" kind of posts. Who thought the Cowboys had a prayer in the world of being competitive in 2016 when Romo went out and we started the season with Dez injured? Things can change quickly, and as you said, the Pats are the only team that has really shown sustainability.

While I agree with you, I also see at least three teams standing in the way of the Cowboys accomplishing much in 2018 - The Super Bowl champs, the restocked and reloaded Rams, and the Vikings with a good quarterback.

I'm not sure whether these Cowboys can compete with those three - at minimum - or not.

 

[OmerV]

While I agree with you, I also see at least three teams standing in the way of the Cowboys accomplishing much in 2018 - The Super Bowl champs, the restocked and reloaded Rams, and the Vikings with a good quarterback.

I'm not sure whether these Cowboys can compete with those three - at minimum - or not.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Cowboys are starting off on equal footing or have as good a chance as every other team. I definitely agree those teams have to be viewed as having better odds of success in 2018 than the Cowboys. I'm just saying it's not written in stone that those teams will be better. A year ago most would have put the Cowboys ahead of all those teams, and Philly would have been viewed as on the outside looking in. Nothing is set in stone except the Patriots will be a contender, and Cleveland will suck.

 

[Stash]

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the Cowboys are starting off on equal footing or have as good a chance as every other team. I definitely agree those teams have to be viewed as having better odds of success in 2018 than the Cowboys. I'm just saying it's not written in stone that those teams will be better. A year ago most would have put the Cowboys ahead of all those teams, and Philly would have been viewed as on the outside looking in. Nothing is set in stone except the Patriots will be a contender, and Cleveland will suck.

Agreed.

 

[Blitzen]

I couldn't possibly try to answer all of the questions you presented, but I will say this.

This league is a lot more "sudden" than some want to admit. Empires rise and fall annually (unless you're Bill Belicheck), and teams are contenders and rebuilders quickly.

There is no "slow build" anymore. In a salary cap league with four year contracts before players hit free agency, you just can't keep things together forever. There are Windows of opportunity that open and close quickly.

Jones and the Cowboys had better realize that there isn't no "process". There is success or there is failure. Clear, measurable results, or baseless rhetoric.

They have already stubbornly invested too much time in a head coach not up to the task. And they need to move on. They've already cast their lot for 2018, but unless there is a huge playoff/championship run this year, they simply have to make fundamental changes in the way they're operating.

That was all I wanted-just a general discussion from my questions and thank you for offering some thoughts. I think that there a degrees of sudden and the windows can be stretched depending on a team's front office management and commitment to fundamental philosophies (of course hiring competent coaches that can execute those philosophies is a given).

For example I disagree with your lone exception of empires falling annually for all but New England. New England has enjoyed the most long-term success of course, but that comes from successful offseasons (and steering clear of impulse decisions). In our division alone, Philadelphia has won 8 division titles since the 2000 season (gone to five NFC championship games, two SB and won one SB); New York has won 4 division titles in the same time frame (gone to 3 SB and won two of them), Dallas has won 4 division titles (won 2 wild card games), Washington has won only 2 division titles. In the NFC North (created in 2002); GB has won the division title nine times (gone to NFC championship game 4 times and won 1 SB) and Minnesota comes in second with 4 division titles (with two NFC championship game appearances). In the NFC West (created in 2002), Seattle has won the division title eight times (gone to three NFC championships, 2 SB and won one SB) with the Cardinals and 49ers claiming 3 division titles apiece. AFC North (created 2002) Pittsburgh with 8 division titles (5 AFC championship games 3 SB and won 2 SB) and Baltimore four division titles (three AFC championship games and 1 SB win). AFC South (created 2002), Indianapolis won nine division championships (four AFC championship games 2 SB appearances and 1 win) with Houston picking up 4 division titles.

Sustained success is had by those that have a consistent star or franchise QB and overall good decisions when it comes to free agency and draft strategy. The idea that everyone other than NE is flash in the pan is malarkey (actually I would use stronger language if the censors would not care). The hard data backs up my assertions. The cap era forces those in charge that want sustained success to find a star QB, but most importantly sound financial and draft strategy to fill the roster with quality players year after year. Other teams have found the ability to mostly dominate or stay relevant during those time periods. It's not all that "sudden." Many of the sustained high success teams are found with the same QB year after year though...

 

[Stash]

That was all I wanted-just a general discussion from my questions and thank you for offering some thoughts. I think that there a degrees of sudden and the windows can be stretched depending on a team's front office management and commitment to fundamental philosophies (of course hiring competent coaches that can execute those philosophies is a given).

For example I disagree with your lone exception of empires falling annually for all but New England. New England has enjoyed the most long-term success of course, but that comes from successful offseasons (and steering clear of impulse decisions). In our division alone, Philadelphia has won 8 division titles since the 2000 season (gone to five NFC championship games, two SB and won one SB); New York has won 4 division titles in the same time frame (gone to 3 SB and won two of them), Dallas has won 4 division titles (won 2 wild card games), Washington has won only 2 division titles. In the NFC North (created in 2002); GB has won the division title nine times (gone to NFC championship game 4 times and won 1 SB) and Minnesota comes in second with 4 division titles (with two NFC championship game appearances). In the NFC West (created in 2002), Seattle has won the division title eight times (gone to three NFC championships, 2 SB and won one SB) with the Cardinals and 49ers claiming 3 division titles apiece. AFC North (created 2002) Pittsburgh with 8 division titles (5 AFC championship games 3 SB and won 2 SB) and Baltimore four division titles (three AFC championship games and 1 SB win). AFC South (created 2002), Indianapolis won nine division championships (four AFC championship games 2 SB appearances and 1 win) with Houston picking up 4 division titles.

Sustained success is had by those that have a consistent star or franchise QB and overall good decisions when it comes to free agency and draft strategy. The idea that everyone other than NE is flash in the pan is malarkey (actually I would use stronger language if the censors would not care). The hard data backs up my assertions. The cap era forces those in charge that want sustained success to find a star QB, but most importantly sound financial and draft strategy to fill the roster with quality players year after year. Other teams have found the ability to mostly dominate or stay relevant during those time periods. It's not all that "sudden." Many of the sustained high success teams are found with the same QB year after year though...

I certainly agree about having that franchise quarterback.

The team's that do are the ones that stay in the picture. My comment regarding New England was more specific to them being the ones that stay in that Super Bowl picture consistently.