The Cap: how it has changed the league (and should change Garrett)

[Bobhaze]

The salary cap really wouldn't have affected the 1992 Super Bowl team.

https://cowboyszone.com/threads/1992-cowboys-roster-what-if-2019-cap-rules.435101/

It wouldn't really affect the 1993 team either.

The cap started in 1994 and they won the Super Bowl in 1995.

The decline after 1995 is often blamed on the cap but the biggest issue
was Jimmy being gone which caused poor drafting. Injuries were also
a big reason some players were cut or retired (Haley, Novacek, Kevin Smith, etc.).

I think that’s what I said in the OP. “...in the ‘95 season...”. Wasn’t about the teams prior other than pointing out it was easier to stockpile talent in the early 90s before the cap.

Don’t disagree with what you said about Jimmy and injuries.

 

[Roadtrip635]

Then talent does matter. And you didn’t believe any of those QB’s were more prolific passers than Dak?

Talent matters a lot more when you don't have the coaching to create mismatches or advantages. Culpepper was a good QB, but he wasn't great. He was "prolific" in the sense that he had to throw a lot, but the team wasn't any better for it. Being "prolific" and being great are not the same. Stafford is "prolific", but I would rather have Dak's leadership.

 

[Diehardblues]

30 of 32 NFL Owners usually give their HC 3-5 years to show they are capable of qualifying for and winning in the playoffs. They hold the HC accountable because it’s easier to fire a HC than the whole team.

Look how the rams dramatically improved with the the firing of Jeff Fischer and hiring of Sean McVey. McVey took mostly the same talent to a super bowl in two years.

Garrett has done a pretty good job of making the playoffs 3 of last 5 years but only has two WC wins to show for it. And he’s not made the playoffs 5 of the 8 years he’s served as as HC. Jerry wants Garrett to work so badly (so he can meddle as much as he wants) that he’s been willing to give Garrett a longer time frame than almost any other owner. And I think it would take a colossal collapse for JJ to fire Garrett.

Ok. I’d agree with most of that.

So, why is this on Garrett?

Is it possible Garrett is part of the reason why the culture has improved ,personal decisions and drafts are better overall moving in a better direction?

And possibly why Jerry is providing more time as there might not be more who could have this level of success while coexisting with Jerry’s ways.

It’s why I’m more supportive of Garrett despite not having more success in playoffs. IMO he’s had to basically rebuild or retool this team twice now with two different QB’s. I felt after 2014 that team was on the verge of seriously contending. But we never saw that core of Tripletts on the field together again. And come 2016 a fresh new start basically which appears culminating into another potential contender.

I also agree most HC’s aren’t afforded this type of opportunity but I’d applaud Jerry for not falling victim as most owners would have regardless of Jerry’s motives were selfish and agenda driven. I’m just not sure how much better situation we could have than with a puppet like Jason.

 

[visionary]

One thing the Cap era has proven with few exceptions is how critical having a more Prolific Passer is . Especially once you have to pay him since he’ll need to elevate those around him without the luxury of as much supporting cast.

The league in Cap era has basically been a story of teams with the more Elite prolific passers and the rest of the league either continuing to look for one or trying to surround them with a greater supporting cast.

With the only exceptions generally being #1 Generational defenses carrying these lesser talented QB’s and offenses.

Duck

 

[Diehardblues]

Talent matters a lot more when you don't have the coaching to create mismatches or advantages. Culpepper was a good QB, but he wasn't great. He was "prolific" in the sense that he had to throw a lot, but the team wasn't any better for it. Being "prolific" and being great are not the same. Stafford is "prolific", but I would rather have Dak's leadership.

So you think leadership skills are more coachable than prolific passer?

 

[xwalker]

I think that’s what I said in the OP. “...in the ‘95 season...”. Wasn’t about the teams prior other than pointing out it was easier to stockpile talent in the early 90s before the cap.

Don’t disagree with what you said about Jimmy and injuries.

My point is that it didn't matter if the cap was in place or not when Jimmy built the Super Bowl teams.

His method would work today just as well as it did back then.

Team's don't require massive numbers of proven veterans to win Super Bowls.

 

[Diehardblues]

My point is that it didn't matter if the cap was in place or not when Jimmy built the Super Bowl teams.

His method would work today just as well as it did back then.

Team's don't require massive numbers of proven veterans to win Super Bowls.

I agree. Ultimately it’s about having an eye for talent which fits your schemes. Jimmy had success early on. Won 1st championship within 4 years which is a recipe for success in Cap era also. The difference would have been in maintaining it.

But if the same eye would continue building it I’d like our chances much better with someone like Jimmy if he had total control.

 

[Diehardblues]

I really think it’s time for Garrett to receive his accolades for his coexistence within what was one of the most dysfunctional organizations the NFL has seen.

His coaching as all coaches deserve criticism but the direction this front office and organization has steered under his leadership has turned almost into a normal situation so much we are beginning to believe Jerry isn’t in as much control or making all of the decisions anymore which we know isn’t true.

No one expected anyone to have much success with Jerrys ways.One of the greatest HOF coaches didn’t have any more success. One of the greatest DC of this era didn’t have anymore success.

And Garrett’s retooled this team over twice in 8 years without a HOF caliber 1st round talented QB or #1 defense. I’ve been supported of him ever since the night he took over in the Meadowlands in 2010 and still believe it’s more than we could have hoped for within Jerry’s ways.

I’m still believing this is probably as good as it gets within Jerry’s ways and continue to be thankful to Jerry regardless of what’s driving the Football Idiot to continue supporting Garrett. I’m no less convinced I’m still on the right side of history despite if we ever win a championship with Garrett for I was tiring of the continuing revolving door of puppets.

Thanks Jason for making being a Cowboy fan a little more enjoyable and for sticking with this old fool boss thru thick and thin. If we do win one with you it might be the greatest championship yet. Go Cowboys!!

 

[Dre11]

Lol...again Bob....lol

 

[Roadtrip635]

So you think leadership skills are more coachable than prolific passer?

I think the QB position is a lot more than just being a "prolific" passer. Stafford's teams only have 3 playoff appearances and 0 wins in 10 years, yet he's such a "prolific" passer. Culpepper's teams have only 2 playoff appearances in his 11 years, but he at least had 2 playoff wins, being "prolific" didn't help his team very much.

 

[Diehardblues]

I think the QB position is a lot more than just being a "prolific" passer. Stafford's teams only have 3 playoff appearances and 0 wins in 10 years, yet he's such a "prolific" passer. Culpepper's teams have only 2 playoff appearances in his 11 years, but he at least had 2 playoff wins, being "prolific" didn't help his team very much.

Was their QB a position of weakness? Prolific QB’s don’t guarantee team success.

Are we equating team success with prolific QB’s?

And of course they helped their teams. What was Detroit without Stafford? Were either playoff teams without those QB’s ?

 

[Roadtrip635]

Was their QB a position of weakness? Prolific QB’s don’t guarantee team success.

Are we equating team success with prolific QB’s?

And of course they helped their teams. What was Detroit without Stafford? Were either playoff teams without those QB’s ?

You are the one equating a team's success to having a "prolific"passer. You do it often.
Vikings had made 3 straight playoffs and even went 15-1 the season before drafting Culpepper.
Detroit went 0-16 the year before they drafted Stafford, but they haven't been much of a playoff team with him either. He does have a bunch of hollow stats though, looks nice on paper.

 

[Diehardblues]

You are the one equating a team's success to having a "prolific"passer. You do it often.
Vikings had made 3 straight playoffs and even went 15-1 the season before drafting Culpepper.
Detroit went 0-16 the year before they drafted Stafford, but they haven't been much of a playoff team with him either. He does have a bunch of hollow stats though, looks nice on paper.

I’m saying it makes it easier to have success.

 

[Bobhaze]

Lol...again Bob....lol

I find your responses to me equally entertaining Dre. “Lol.”

 

[Dre11]

I find your responses to me equally entertaining Dre. “Lol.”

As I said again. The man for Garrett threads.
.lol

 

[Bobhaze]

Was their QB a position of weakness? Prolific QB’s don’t guarantee team success.

Are we equating team success with prolific QB’s?

And of course they helped their teams. What was Detroit without Stafford? Were either playoff teams without those QB’s ?

Team playoff success probably best equates with the teams that get more out of their overall roster as a team and are not solely dependent on a few really good individual players. Most fans think Brady’s greatness is the total reason for the pats success. Well he is great, but the greatness of Bill Belichick starts with his ability to get excellent performance from role players. Guys that go to other teams and are not Stars. That’s great coaching.

 

[jazzcat22]

Then you’re assuming our issues aren’t more talent related?

They keep telling us for 15 years this team has talent. And we seen where that has got us.
So is it the coaching or are the players not as talented as they think they are.

Probably some of both.

 

[Diehardblues]

Team playoff success probably best equates with the teams that get more out of their overall roster as a team and are not solely dependent on a few really good individual players. Most fans think Brady’s greatness is the total reason for the pats success. Well he is great, but the greatness of Bill Belichick starts with his ability to get excellent performance from role players. Guys that go to other teams and are not Stars. That’s great coaching.

Like Laurence Robinson and Miles Austin . Romo elevates their performance. Brady same thing and Bill usually has a top 5-10 defense. It’s a great combination.

Who is Prescott elevating?

 

[Bobhaze]

Like Laurence Robinson and Miles Austin . Romo elevates their performance. Brady same thing and Bill usually has a top 5-10 defense. It’s a great combination.

Who is Prescott elevating?

That’s not my point. My point is coaches like Belichick can get the best out of their role players, which augment Brady and any other outstanding players they have.

The pats are rarely the “most talented” team in the playoffs, but they are most often the “best coached” team in the playoffs. Great coaches maximize the talent of ALL their players. Not just their stars. I’m not talking about players elevating others. I’m talking about coaches elevating all their players to make a great team- not just the Stars.

 

[Typhus]

Talent matters a lot more when you don't have the coaching to create mismatches or advantages. Culpepper was a good QB, but he wasn't great. He was "prolific" in the sense that he had to throw a lot, but the team wasn't any better for it. Being "prolific" and being great are not the same. Stafford is "prolific", but I would rather have Dak's leadership.

Tannehill should be included in that group ,but I agree with you that Dak has far superior leadership qualities.