Not enough Elite QB’s to go around

Flamma said:
Imagine the 70s Steelers today after paying their offense? No way they have that defense. That D would be trash. That's the one thing the salary cap has taken away. The assembly of truly great teams. They were fun to watch when they weren't beating the Cowboys. I don't mean the Steelers, they were never fun to watch, I mean great teams in general.
Click to expand...
Doomsday would not stay together very long either.
I don't like the salary cap and free agency as a fan.
But I can appreciate it from a players perspective.
 
kskboys said:
Not so sure. If player salaries skyrocketed, certain teams would buy all the players, attendance would plummet, money would dwindle.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it would be similar to baseball. Or how it was before the cap. Which I didn't think was bad. We had rivalries. We had great teams. We had trash teams. Still do to this day in regard to trash teams. Don't want to spend on your team? Yeah, money would dwindle. It would also lessen the impact elite QBs have on the game. In 2013 Peyton Manning thrashed a bunch of averages defenses all year to set records. The second he went up against that Seahawks team he put up a staggering 8 points in the biggest game of the year. They would have lost to the 49ers as well.
 
The choice for every team that does not have that guy is to be happy with what they do have and try and build around him or go shopping.

CLE and DEN decided to try for a top 10 while IND and WAS tried for just upgrades.

As I have asked this board this question many times, I have not received an answer. What is the alternative and do you really want this brain trust QB shopping?
 
Diehardblues said:
Right

Look around our division and most of the conference . Once you get past the top 3 Elite we are in arguably as good of shape as anyone at QB.

What we need is a defense like the 49ers.
Click to expand...

And defence is something we were lacking until this past seasons. Which is particularly annoying considering that was the Cowboys bread and butter for the longest time including under Jimmy. Not sure how Jerry forgot how important a top defence is.
 
DFWJC said:
Nick Foles, Joe Flacco and even Eli Manning prove your point.

Don't even need to bring up the jag standard bearers of Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson.

About 20-25% of SBs are won with QBs that aren't normally great, but either had amazing defensive runs and/or got hot themselves for a few games.
Click to expand...

Or also had great special teams. Zurelein played a big role in us not obtaining a higher seed. Most games come down to less than 3 points, and, if your kicker is missing the amount of field goals he missed, then it's not surprising you might end up missing out on a higher seed. Zurelein, for example, is a big reason we lost to the Bucs. He missed I think 2 or 3 kicks (one of which I don't blame him for as it was a 59+ kick). Had he made one of the two makeable kicks, we probably win that game. So, that cost us the 2nd seed, meaning we missed on playing Philly who we'd smashed for each game. He also missed a lot of extra points, including against the Raiders, which puts more strain on the team. If he was better on XPs (assuming he makes one of the kicks he missed against the Bucs), there's a real possibility we could've finished with a 1 seed. With that, we could have been much deadlier.
 
CouchCoach said:
The choice for every team that does not have that guy is to be happy with what they do have and try and build around him or go shopping.

CLE and DEN decided to try for a top 10 while IND and WAS tried for just upgrades.

As I have asked this board this question many times, I have not received an answer. What is the alternative and do you really want this brain trust QB shopping?
Click to expand...
There really is no alternative answer. Unless of course you decide not to resign your franchise QB. And then either go shopping or give up much to move up in draft.

We had an opportunity to make another decision and take that alternative path but we chose not to. There’s viable arguments on both sides of that . There’s always risk.

Most teams go with what they have . If they are considered upper half or close to top 10 caliber. Some exceptions like we saw with Cousins in Wash a few years ago. But on the most part teams resign QB’s to a second contract who fall into this category.
 
CowboyRoy said:
Dont forget the coaching. Especially during the romo years the coaching was abysmal with Garrett.
Click to expand...
This is the big asterisk for me. I do think the Cowboys have put together some good enough teams over the years, but it's always fell back on quality of coaching. We haven't had a great coach since Parcells, and even with him, a lot of people will argue he was past his prime. McCarthy is still mostly TBD, though, I don't think anybody can confidently say he has shown us much yet. Still went 1 and done in the playoffs.
 
Aerolithe_Lion said:
Thats a little bit of a context stretch though. You’re ignoring the probability of the event to highlight an anomaly.

How many of the SB teams in the last 40 years still win if Trent Dilfer is their QB for the playoff run? Just 1? Maybe 2 if he was Dallas’s starting QB in that Bills blowout win.

How many still win if it was Rodgers instead of the QB they had? 35 at minimum. There is a definite formula for increasing your probability of seeing a title.
Click to expand...
You're just underlining my point really. Teams win super bowls, not quarterbacks.
 
Flamma said:
Imagine the 70s Steelers today after paying their offense? No way they have that defense. That D would be trash. That's the one thing the salary cap has taken away. The assembly of truly great teams. They were fun to watch when they weren't beating the Cowboys. I don't mean the Steelers, they were never fun to watch, I mean great teams in general.
Click to expand...
Very true . The Cap has disabled teams from building elite teams on both sides of the ball.

Basically with few exceptions you can only be great on one side of the ball in Cap era . So you either need an Elite QB or defense . Or as close as you can get to it.

Defense are more easily built thru the draft on Rookie contracts . Once the second contracts arrive these defense are usually dismantled.

Teams with these handful of Elite qb’s more often stay on top as contenders as it’s easier to surround them . That leaves the rest or bulk of the league trying to build around less than Elite QB’s. The closer they are to upper echelon the easier it is to build around .
 
TheMarathonContinues said:
So what is a elite QB then? How do we determine what a elite QB is without factoring in their team accomplishments?
Click to expand...
Great question. One that most recruiters or scouts , even some sports writers could answer.

First of all you have to watch all of the games , even those of these lesser teams . There’s often some great talent on lesser teams . These individual stats are an important contributing factor .

How did we know Barry Sanders was a HOF RB on a mostly dismal Detroit team. Stats helped define but the eye test was crucial.

Fortunately the HOF and other entities recognize great talents even if they weren’t on great teams .

For some reason more than any other time I can recall too many fans only seem to connect greatness with being on winning teams .
 
Flamma said:
Yeah, it would be similar to baseball. Or how it was before the cap. Which I didn't think was bad. We had rivalries. We had great teams. We had trash teams. Still do to this day in regard to trash teams. Don't want to spend on your team? Yeah, money would dwindle. It would also lessen the impact elite QBs have on the game. In 2013 Peyton Manning thrashed a bunch of averages defenses all year to set records. The second he went up against that Seahawks team he put up a staggering 8 points in the biggest game of the year. They would have lost to the 49ers as well.
Click to expand...
In baseball, the top few make all the bucks. Players in general actually make less, IMO.
 
TheMarathonContinues said:
So it’s the dreaded “eye test” lol
Click to expand...
Absolutely, but only by people w/ a practiced eye, ones who are able to evaluate what they are seeing. Most who tout the eye test on here are incapable of using the eye test to judge anything. Too many factors are involved for most to be able to really discern much of anything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 19 more.
Total: 2,212 (members: 119, guests: 2,093)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
466,181
Messages
13,921,373
Members
23,795
Latest member
Derekbsenior
Back
Top