Successful teams are not afraid to be unconventional

[Verdict]

Teams seem to want to copycat each other. QBs are an example of that. For so long teams only looked at the prototypical QB. Now that teams are willing to get a dual threat QB there are more high quality QBs in the league.

Teams seem to want to “pay their own” and overpay to keep good (not great players). That’s one way to do it, but it kills your salary cap.

For instance Dallas has been very successful drafting OL but not so good at selecting defenders. Dallas might have been better served by churning the OL (even with high round picks) and flipping them for picks, or other players.

Dallas has found a good player in Biadacz, but what if the Cowboys traded Biadacz for say a third round pick and drafted Creed Humphrey in the second. You get one more year of cheap labor and profit from the trade.

Tyrons contract was very team friendly and is even more so now. But Martin is/was the highest paid guard in the NFL. That’s a cap killer. If you could have flipped Martin for a first and a third prior to his massive contract extension would that have been a better deal? It may have hurt the OL a little but would the defense have more assets?

 

[JoeKing]

Teams seem to want to copycat each other. QBs are an example of that. For so long teams only looked at the prototypical QB. Now that teams are willing to get a dual threat QB there are more high quality QBs in the league.

Teams seem to want to “pay their own” and overpay to keep good (not great players). That’s one way to do it, but it kills your salary cap.

For instance Dallas has been very successful drafting OL but not so good at selecting defenders. Dallas might have been better served by churning the OL (even with high round picks) and flipping them for picks, or other players.

Dallas has found a good player in Biadacz, but what if the Cowboys traded Biadacz for say a third round pick and drafted Creed Humphrey in the second. You get one more year of cheap labor and profit from the trade.

Tyrons contract was very team friendly and is even more so now. But Martin is/was the highest paid guard in the NFL. That’s a cap killer. If you could have flipped Martin for a first and a third prior to his massive contract extension would that have been a better deal? It may have hurt the OL a little but would the defense have more assets?

The Cowboys have an established way of doing business. They build the team through the draft and they try to keep their own guys in FA. You can complain and cry about it all you want but it doesn't seem that strategy is changing anytime soon. They are not a FO that spends a lot in FA.

 

[buybuydandavis]

For instance Dallas has been very successful drafting OL but not so good at selecting defenders. Dallas might have been better served by churning the OL (even with high round picks) and flipping them for picks, or other players.

Dallas has found a good player in Biadacz, but what if the Cowboys traded Biadacz for say a third round pick and drafted Creed Humphrey in the second. You get one more year of cheap labor and profit from the trade.

But Martin is/was the highest paid guard in the NFL. That’s a cap killer.

Pretty cheap if you're pulling the plug on a HOF player. I'm probably keeping those, especially when they're still playing like it.

Biadasz is tradeable. So is McGovern and Williams. But I don't know that we *get* enough for any of them to make it worthwhile. They have to beat comp pick value by a round at least. Not so easy to do.

On Biadasz, why rush? Give up 3 years to get a 3rd instead of a 4th round com pick? And is anyone giving us a 3rd?

 

[dsturgeon]

I am not sold on the dual threat qb's. I don't think they are worth it

What it costs to pay, and a lot of times draft a qb, and they have a higher injury risk. Not to mention a lot of them can not play from the pocket and do not read defenses well.

Time will tell, but I still prefer a tall qb, who stands in the pocket, can read defense well, and takes sacks more than he scrambles

Good ones are hard to find either way

 

[Sydla]

I think you overvalue what some of these guys are worth. You aren’t getting a 3rd round pick for a 4th round C one year later, for example.

 

[Jake]

Teams seem to want to copycat each other. QBs are an example of that. For so long teams only looked at the prototypical QB. Now that teams are willing to get a dual threat QB there are more high quality QBs in the league.

Teams seem to want to “pay their own” and overpay to keep good (not great players). That’s one way to do it, but it kills your salary cap.

For instance Dallas has been very successful drafting OL but not so good at selecting defenders. Dallas might have been better served by churning the OL (even with high round picks) and flipping them for picks, or other players.

Dallas has found a good player in Biadacz, but what if the Cowboys traded Biadacz for say a third round pick and drafted Creed Humphrey in the second. You get one more year of cheap labor and profit from the trade.

Tyrons contract was very team friendly and is even more so now. But Martin is/was the highest paid guard in the NFL. That’s a cap killer. If you could have flipped Martin for a first and a third prior to his massive contract extension would that have been a better deal? It may have hurt the OL a little but would the defense have more assets?

Confident teams are not afraid to be unconventional. Nothing about Jerry & Stephen's performance for 20+ years breeds confidence.

The result is they stick with what they know - "their guys" and trying to recreate the 90s Cowboys.

 

[Sydla]

They don't have to be unconventional. They just need to be smart.

Signing Crawford early because you thought he might explode and be pricier down the road was dumb. You repeated that mistake with Jaylon Smith. Signing Elliott to that big extension? Not smart.

The problem isn't being unconventional and trading arguably the best OG in football. It's that they can't seem to avoid the stupid mistake - employing Garrett for nearly a decade, paying your TB a massive amount of money in a league that has shown you don't need elite TB play to win, etc.

 

[jazzcat22]

Unconventional by what standards. The fans who always think they know better?

Sure the FO has been less successful than more, and this year will probably not be different. As they continue to want to build through the draft.
So they best get it right with drafting defense this year. I like that they do not overspend on FA's. They do overspend on their own players, but that is the way of the sports world now days. So are they really over spending.

So what teams do things unconventional, I really would like to know. Signing high profile FA's to huge contracts is unconventional? Or is it just a way teams choose to operate?
I do not see any teams being "unconventional", just a model they use thinking it is best for the team at the time.

Unconventional is doing what many on here want. When a player is due for a 2nd contract, dump him, and try to get lucky in the draft. Have a complete overall year to year, so we can get a top 5 pick every year, and lose some more. Just to save a few bucks in which is not their money. . Then complain and whine about the FO for losing doing it the way these fans want.

 

[dsturgeon]

I still maintain that owners, gms, and coaches have less to say in winning superbowls than most people think.

The pattern for winning superbowls in the salary cap era for the most part looks like:

--Teams get 1 or 2 adnormally dominant players, on teams built to support them, at the right time, and stay injury free
--They then have a 1-3 year window to win a superbowl
--having high draft picks does not gaurentee those players

13 teams have won superbowls in the salary cap era
--some won 2 in that 1-3 year window
--some only won 1
--patriots won 2 sets of 3

Adnormally dominant players on the right teams
--Tom Brady
--Peyton Manning
--Giants defense/helmet catch
--Ravens defense
--Steelers defense
--Seatle defense/M lynch
--Drew Breeze/onside kick
--Mahomes/Kelse/really fast receivers

That for the most part this is how it works. 31 teams fail each year, some have never even been close. Cowboys are not as bad as people think

The cowboys are built for the offense to dominate. Injuries hampered them last year. They have a nice few year window now

 

[John813]

Biadasz isn't worth much right now.

He's a year 2 guy who played here and there as a rookie and looked ok.

Cowboys struck gold on 3 OL in the draft. 2 of the 3 should be on the way to Canton, and the 3rd retired early before being considered a HOF.

The offensive line also played a key part in the way this team was setup under Garrett.

You make a hole to hopefully fill another hole but are still left with one hole.

There's no guarantee that the draft pick from Martin pans out and now you let a top 2-3 guard go.

 

[Sydla]

Unconventional by what standards. The fans who always think they know better?

Sure the FO has been less successful than more, and this year will probably not be different. As they continue to want to build through the draft.
So they best get it right with drafting defense this year. I like that they do not overspend on FA's. They do overspend on their own players, but that is the way of the sports world now days. So are they really over spending.

So what teams do things unconventional, I really would like to know. Signing high profile FA's to huge contracts is unconventional? Or is it just a way teams choose to operate?
I do not see any teams being "unconventional", just a model they use thinking it is best for the team at the time.

Unconventional is doing what many on here want. When a player is due for a 2nd contract, dump him, and try to get lucky in the draft. Have a complete overall year to year, so we can get a top 5 pick every year, and lose some more. Just to save a few bucks in which is not their money. . Then complain and whine about the FO for losing doing it the way these fans want.

The "continue to build through the draft" is a flawed process. Because it's largely impossible to build a complete team just through draft picks.

I mean geezus, what has this franchise won doing things they way they've done it? Nothing.

This franchise is run by two of the dumber GMs IMO. They don't know how to use FA wisely and their track record of hiring coaches is pretty blah. They are stubborn, not accepting that the way they do things isn't working. They'd sooner just go down with the ship than have to admit they've made real mistakes or that their brilliant philosophy is nothing but a turd.

 

[Sydla]

I still maintain that owners, gms, and coaches have less to say in winning superbowls than most people think.

The pattern for winning superbowls in the salary cap era for the most part looks like:

--Teams get 1 or 2 adnormally dominant players, on teams built to support them, at the right time, and stay injury free
--They then have a 1-3 year window to win a superbowl
--having high draft picks does not gaurentee those players

13 teams have won superbowls in the salary cap era
--some won 2 in that 1-3 year window
--some only won 1
--patriots won 2 sets of 3

Adnormally dominant players on the right teams
--Tom Brady
--Peyton Manning
--Giants defense/helmet catch
--Ravens defense
--Steelers defense
--Seatle defense/M lynch
--Drew Breeze/onside kick
--Mahomes/Kelse/really fast receivers

That for the most part is how it works. 31 teams fail each year, some have never even been close. Cowboys are not as bad as people think

The cowboys are built for the offense to dominate. Injuries hampered them last year. They have a nice few year window now

There are a small handful of teams that haven't been close over the last two decades. The Cowboys are one. So yeah, the Cowboys are as bad as people think. Their performance over the last 20 years has been closer to bottom of the league than the top.

Cowboys fans like yourself just really struggle to admit that reality because you just don't want to believe it's been happening to your franchise.

 

[dsturgeon]

There are a small handful of teams that haven't been close over the last two decades. The Cowboys are one. So yeah, the Cowboys are as bad as people think. Their performance over the last 20 years has been closer to bottom of the league than the top.

Cowboys fans like yourself just really struggle to admit that reality because you just don't want to believe it's been happening to your franchise.

I think if you dont win the superbowl you are a loser. So, I think the cowboys have been complete losers/failures.

There are 31 failures every year.

I don't think the cowboys are as bad as some people think because they have built a few teams that could have won superbowls. That is what puts them above a lot of the other losers. They didn't win, so it doesnt matter, but they coulld have

My point is that owners/gms/coaches dont have as much influence as people think

If the cowboys had different gms/coaches over those years, most likely they would still be losers

Just like the patriots with their amazing owners/gms/coaches, will most likely be irrelevant now that Brady is gone, and be like every other team

 

[CATCH17]

They don't have to be unconventional. They just need to be smart.

Signing Crawford early because you thought he might explode and be pricier down the road was dumb. You repeated that mistake with Jaylon Smith. Signing Elliott to that big extension? Not smart.

The problem isn't being unconventional and trading arguably the best OG in football. It's that they can't seem to avoid the stupid mistake - employing Garrett for nearly a decade, paying your TB a massive amount of money in a league that has shown you don't need elite TB play to win, etc.

Winner.

Then after you make all of those bad decisions they go and throw a 40 million dollar deal for a QB on top of it.

 

[Sydla]

I think if you dont win the superbowl you are a loser. So, I think the cowboys have been complete losers/failures.

There are 31 failures every year.

I don't think the cowboys are as bad as some people think because they have built a few teams that could have won superbowls. That is what puts them above a lot of the other losers. They didn't win, so it doesnt matter, but they coulld have

My point is that owners/gms/coaches dont have as much influence as people think

If the cowboys had different gms/coaches over those years, most likely they would still be losers

Just like the patriots with their amazing owners/gms/coaches, will most likely be irrelevant now that Brady is gone, and be like every other team

Again, this kind of logic - "there are 31 losers" - is just more self soothing to make one feel better about the fact the Cowboys have been a complete failure since the mid 90s.

And yes, if the Cowboys had hired a real GM and he was good at his job, there is zero chance we wouldn't have been more successful over the last two decades than they have been.

 

[Aven8]

The Cowboys have an established way of doing business. They build the team through the draft and they try to keep their own guys in FA. You can complain and cry about it all you want but it doesn't seem that strategy is changing anytime soon. They are not a FO that spends a lot in FA.

That strategy doesn’t work either when you sign your own guys and they suck. See Jaylon.

I get the philosophy, but it’s not working. It needs a shake up.

 

[jazzcat22]

There are a small handful of teams that haven't been close over the last two decades. The Cowboys are one. So yeah, the Cowboys are as bad as people think. Their performance over the last 20 years has been closer to bottom of the league than the top.

Cowboys fans like yourself just really struggle to admit that reality because you just don't want to believe it's been happening to your franchise.

Since 2003, the Cowboys are 159-129.
Did anyone really believe the team was going to be competitive after Irvin and Aikman left, and Emmitt had no team around him. So I went from 2003, when Bill took over. As Campo had nothing to work with. From the late 90's until 2003, can't be blamed on the FO entirely. Fans should expected some down years.

To me it was coaching that held the team back. Parcels started them in the right direction until he set the defense back 10 years by switching to the 3-4. Then he quit on the team. Which made Jerry hire Wade to keep the 3-4. Then his hand picked coach in training and going back to the 4-3, which kept the defense behind, trying to get the correct players. Garrett wasted a lot of talent and opportunities. So this does fall back on Jerry and Stephen for allowing git to go on for too long.

But to say they are in the bottom of the NFL is not even close.

 

[Future]

Choosing to "Pay your own" has absolutely nothing to do with being up against the cap. If anything, the opposite is generally true.

The only time teams get in cap trouble is when they overpay average/bad players.

 

[Sydla]

Since 2003, the Cowboys are 159-129.
Did anyone really believe the team was going to be competitive after Irvin and Aikman left, and Emmitt had no team around him. So I went from 2003, when Bill took over. As Campo had nothing to work with. From the late 90's until 2003, can't be blamed on the FO entirely. Fans should expected some down years.

To me it was coaching that held the team back. Parcels started them in the right direction until he set the defense back 10 years by switching to the 3-4. Then he quit on the team. Which made Jerry hire Wade to keep the 3-4. Then his hand picked coach in training and going back to the 4-3, which kept the defense behind, trying to get the correct players. Garrett wasted a lot of talent and opportunities. So this does fall back on Jerry and Stephen for allowing git to go on for too long.

But to say they are in the bottom of the NFL is not even close.

Since their last SB, the Cowboys are in the bottom third of the league in playoff wins. Do people realize since their last SB, the Cowboys have 4, yes FOUR, playoff wins total. That's it. Four playoff wins in 25 years. That's anemic. So it should not be surprising that they are also one of like 6-7 teams that hasn't even played in a conference title game over that period.

Yes, their performance over the last 25 years or so has been closer to the bottom of the league than the top.

 

[dsturgeon]

Again, this kind of logic - "there are 31 losers" - is just more self soothing to make one feel better about the fact the Cowboys have been a complete failure since the mid 90s.

And yes, if the Cowboys had hired a real GM and he was good at his job, there is zero chance we wouldn't have been more successful over the last two decades than they have been.

You measure success as being a better loser than the last place loser. There is only one winner dude. More successful doesnt exist

Without looking, what teams were almost successful in 2003, 2008, 2004, and so on. Who cares

When you look back at football history, you look at superbowl winners. Therefore 31 teams dont matter each year

I don't need to make myself feel better. I gave you the pattern I see in winning a superbowl in the salary cap era, and a good assesment of how the cowboys relate in it compared to other teams.

Your formula is: the cowboys havent won, so I blame owners/gms, yet I can't give a way to win a superbowl, except not what they are doing. How about giving something of value besides "cowboys bad" cry cry cry