CFZ Trent Dilfer and 13 other guys

[gtb1943]

Romo entered the league in 2003 and retired in 2016.

The fanboobs......act your age man we're talking football lol. My post wasn't even a shot at Romo it was more so the fact that there's a part of this fanbase who even at 36 years old wanted to stick with Romo and feel he had a shot to win a SB. But Dak at 29 is finished. There's just a huge double standard for two guys who's career are damn near similar.

You are such a joke. Romo never was the starter until 2006. Dak was starting his rookie year. So its nine years vs eight years so far.
Elementary for those with a brain

 

[FanofJerry]

The question I want answered from the anti-pay crowd is this:

If your defense wins you a Super Bowl on your above average but not great QB's last year of his contract...are you paying him because he won a Super Bowl and that justifies your action....or are you kicking him to the curb and going with a cheap Rookie? Did the QB or the Defense win you that Super Bowl? And...are you offering a strict 15% to the Super Bowl winning bus driver? Or does he qualify for 20% now that the Defense won him a Super Bowl?

What is your action here?

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

You are such a joke. Romo never was the starter until 2006. Dak was starting his rookie year. So its nine years vs eight years so far.
Elementary for those with a brain

I don't care when Romo was a starter. That's only relevant when comparing the two. I have no interest in comparing Romo to Dak. Just because he wasn't good enough to start in 2003 doesn't mean anything. He came into the league in 2003.

Its hilarious you're insulting me but Dak was drafted in 2016...which would make it 7 years lol. Genius lol. You can't make this up. Someone knocking someones intelligence and doesn't know simple math. Romosexuals at its finest lol.

 

[Cowboys5217]

The question I want answered from the anti-pay crowd is this:

If your defense wins you a Super Bowl on your above average but not great QB's last year of his contract...are you paying him because he won a Super Bowl and that justifies your action....or are you kicking him to the curb and going with a cheap Rookie? Did the QB or the Defense win you that Super Bowl? And...are you offering a strict 15% to the Super Bowl winning bus driver? Or does he qualify for 20% now that the Defense won him a Super Bowl?

What is your action here?

How long did the Eagles hang on to Foles after he won them a SB?

How long did it take them to climb back into contender status after that?

Why can't we do the same?

 

[SinceDayOne]

How long did the Eagles hang on to Foles after he won them a SB?

How long did it take them to climb back into contender status after that?

Why can't we do the same?

Why can't we? Management....the pure and simple short answer. Inability of our people to accurate evaluate talent and coaching. Hopefully that is getting better but as a Cowboy fan you must remain skeptical of the team owners/managers....

 

[SinceDayOne]

The folks who want to say you can win a SB without an elite QB or a great defense are correct. It CAN happen.....but it is tough. The stats tell us that it is much more likely to happen if you have one or both. Are those folks so adamant about the subject because they are trying to cover for the Cowboy's poor team management the past 3 decades or so?

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

How long did the Eagles hang on to Foles after he won them a SB?

How long did it take them to climb back into contender status after that?

Why can't we do the same?

simple. its because we have Jerry as the GM. that's all you need to know

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

The folks who want to say you can win a SB without an elite QB or a great defense are correct. It CAN happen.....but it is tough. The stats tell us that it is much more likely to happen if you have one or both. Are those folks so adamant about the subject because they are trying to cover for the Cowboy's poor team management the past 3 decades or so?

you are correct. chances are lower, but not zero. about a 1/3 of the QBs who played in superbowl are not elite. you can thus build a team. the right team. and you are correct, we haven't done it for three decades because we don't have the right GM that is able to that. the owner has made the franchise the most valuable in sports though.

 

[kskboys]

There have been 57 Super Bowl. Thirteen QBs have been on the winning team at least twice. These same 13 have been the winning QB on 36 of the 57 (63%). Also, in 42 of the games (74%) one of these 13 have been a starting QB. Six times both of the starters in the SB have been one of the 13. Some of them have won with rosters that differed quite a lot. At least three have won with different head coaches. Two have won with completely different NFL teams.

Point is the QB matters in the NFL. They matter a lot. That is why they are paid twice as much and more as any of the other players. That is why any college QB that show potential is going to get drafted early regardless of "red flags" in their resume. Many of the draftees end up being disappointments and even "busts." But every teams management is looking for the next "real thing."

Some fans look at stats like this and respond with something like, "Look at Trent Dilfer, yuck yuck." Dilfer stand alone ability as a QB was no where near "elite." He probably is one of the least talented QBs to start a SB. But he had some positives going for him also. His Ravens had a great defense...one of the top 5 or so in the SB era. They have a very good running attack. They had a coach who for that season understood what he had and how to use it. And he had Dilfer who listened to the coaches and managed the game like he was told. He never went rogue and tried to the the super hero QB. He filled his role and was a big part of a team that was at the right time/right place and all the parts worked.

If you can get the "elite" QB then your odds of winning go up. But it can be done sometimes with a Trent Dilfer type if everything else aligns perfectly (rare IMO).

Ravens 2000 D is the best of all time. Not sure there's a close 2nd. No other D that I'm aware of would've been able to win the super bowl w/ such a sorry O, often stagnant.

 

[Floatyworm]

There have been 57 Super Bowl. Thirteen QBs have been on the winning team at least twice. These same 13 have been the winning QB on 36 of the 57 (63%). Also, in 42 of the games (74%) one of these 13 have been a starting QB. Six times both of the starters in the SB have been one of the 13. Some of them have won with rosters that differed quite a lot. At least three have won with different head coaches. Two have won with completely different NFL teams.

Point is the QB matters in the NFL. They matter a lot. That is why they are paid twice as much and more as any of the other players. That is why any college QB that show potential is going to get drafted early regardless of "red flags" in their resume. Many of the draftees end up being disappointments and even "busts." But every teams management is looking for the next "real thing."

Some fans look at stats like this and respond with something like, "Look at Trent Dilfer, yuck yuck." Dilfer stand alone ability as a QB was no where near "elite." He probably is one of the least talented QBs to start a SB. But he had some positives going for him also. His Ravens had a great defense...one of the top 5 or so in the SB era. They have a very good running attack. They had a coach who for that season understood what he had and how to use it. And he had Dilfer who listened to the coaches and managed the game like he was told. He never went rogue and tried to the the super hero QB. He filled his role and was a big part of a team that was at the right time/right place and all the parts worked.

If you can get the "elite" QB then your odds of winning go up. But it can be done sometimes with a Trent Dilfer type if everything else aligns perfectly (rare IMO).

Take Tom Brady out of that equation....

 

[Hadenough]

People always point to Dilfer about being able to win with an average to below average QB. The guy played on pretty much the best defense in NFL history. They allowed something like 10 points a game that season and allowed a singular TD in the playoffs. Any of us could've QB'd that team to a super bowl victory. We don't have that kind of defense, no team currently does. So we must rely on our QB more...and you see the results.

The league has made sure to take away those physically intimidating defenses for the safety of the offensive players. Never again will we see a defense like that. Rules favor the offense now and that's why your 100% correct that the QB is even more important. If your stuck with a slightly above average QB your screwed. It's just an illusion of a chance to win anything.

 

[75boyz]

Very nice post.
Your research here shows a link to elite QB play and post season success.
I believe in how an elite talent at QB can be the main reason for team success.
Not to say that he doesn't need team support, but that the elite ones are capable of carrying their teams in a variety of circumstances that non elite ones can not do.
I believe too many here try to down play or minimize the role of QB and resort to its a team game to fit their personal narrative when debates arise regarding whether a loss can be attributed directly to QB play OR a variety of team factors.
All of a sudden it becomes a hot potato blame game of whose fault was it.

Some here can see that non elite QBs should not be paid on the elite tier pay scale REGARDLESS if its some made up "market or going rate" contract that team ownership failed to negotiate accurately. Others can't seem to see that since player A got this, player B whose contract follows him should at least get this...
Thats where the league seems to have fallen into this type QB contract trap no matter IF they have shown any ability to lead their team to consistent post season success.
Not playoff appearances. But consistent playoff wins.

So finally, since the guy here has already been paid elite level money and failed to deliver consistent post season success we are stuck here hoping that Trent Dilfer's defense shows up to carry this non elite QB to a SB.

It's that simple.

 

[FanofJerry]

How long did the Eagles hang on to Foles after he won them a SB?

How long did it take them to climb back into contender status after that?

Why can't we do the same?

Again...we are back to posters advocating for using a player and getting rid of him before he can get paid...and hiding behind "business" as an excuse.

If this is mainly about sports but posters want to bring business into it, making it a duality...why cant discussion be about what is good for both sides? Seems like some underlying 4th dimensional greed propaganda going on where posters arent allowed to speak about fair and have to push some narrative against paying players.

I doubt Front Offices start using QBs like they do running backs....but they might. The market is crazy for QBs but whats also crazy is setting the bar at "Super Bowl or you aint worth getting paid". Its along the lines of a car dealership wanting to use a minor paint chip on your trade in to decrease the value you your 3 year old Lambo in great condition to Honda Accord prices. Or...when you have never been late in over 20 years on your credit card payment but are late by one day on a payment and your credit score decreases by 400 points. Its absurd. And yes...QB prices are absurd...but even busdrivers are hard to find.

Yes...QBs and players get paid well if this is all real...but so do the owners and the players are getting a percentage of what their entertainment produces dollar wise.

Play for cheap for 4 or 5 years...if you havent won the Super Bowl we want to pay you nickels on your second contract or we are going to gripe until the cows come home even if you are a good but not great QB.

Cap QB pay at 17.5 and teams can increase pay 2% of cap for each Super Bowl won? Even if in the 2nd year of a 5 year contract...the league allows a team to do this with some accounting rule that allows teams to increase the QBs pay even in the middle of a contract? Would that stop the CONSTANT griping about QB pay? Maybe have an accounting rule that allows QBs who won a Super Bowl on their rookie contract to be paid a little more on their second contract because of their success on cheap contract?

 

[FanofJerry]

The league has made sure to take away those physically intimidating defenses for the safety of the offensive players. Never again will we see a defense like that. Rules favor the offense now and that's why your 100% correct that the QB is even more important. If your stuck with a slightly above average QB your screwed. It's just an illusion of a chance to win anything.

Can you please address the "losing the locker room" issue GMs and Coaches have to deal with if they spend 10 years recycling QBs looking for Tom Brady while other players careers are being wasted?

This is a big issue that no one wants to talk about with the QB issue. And...using a lazy response like "theyre paid to play and should shut up and act like a professional" probably isnt going to work well and probably cause players to complain even quicker and louder.

I still dont think using rookie contracts to pay everyone else is going to silence a locker room full of dudes paid a little bit more who still want to win and not lose every season.

 

[gtb1943]

I don't care when Romo was a starter. That's only relevant when comparing the two. I have no interest in comparing Romo to Dak. Just because he wasn't good enough to start in 2003 doesn't mean anything. He came into the league in 2003.

Its hilarious you're insulting me but Dak was drafted in 2016...which would make it 7 years lol. Genius lol. You can't make this up. Someone knocking someones intelligence and doesn't know simple math. Romosexuals at its finest lol.

Well I was one year off while you are 4 years off so I win

And clearly you do not care about real facts only your BS

Its when the guy is on the field that counts to people with a brain

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Well I was one year off while you are 4 years off so I win

And clearly you do not care about real facts only your BS

Its when the guy is on the field that counts to people with a brain

That's because you are comparing the two. I'm not. I'm not talking about how good Romo or Dak were. HE had a 13 year career. Nobody says uhhh Kobe was on the bench his first few years so we are going to pretend like he never played lol. INSANE.

 

[SinceDayOne]

One last final post on this thread about the importance of a QB then I am done I promise. I mentioned in my OP that 13 guys had been the starting QB in 36 of the 57 Super Bowls. There is another list of 8 HOF quarterbacks (or soon to be in the HOF) that have won just one SB. They are Namath, Dawson, Unitas, Stabler, Steve Young, Farve, Brees and Rodgers. That makes 21 elite or very near elite QBs who have started and won 44 of the games (77%). The same 21 have also started and lost a pot full of Super Bowls. Yes, the QB matters...big time.

 

[75boyz]

How long did the Eagles hang on to Foles after he won them a SB?

How long did it take them to climb back into contender status after that?

Why can't we do the same?

Spot ON.
Plain and Simple.
AND... you keep drafting yearly or every other year and assessing opportunities for an upgrade until its proven by consistent playoff success regardless of supporting roster.

That's the PLAN.
NOT sticking with status quo for a decade cuz you're scared of not winning 9 to 10 games with the average guy you've already got who has reached his ceiling.

Otherwise you get a Dak Garrett as CaptainCrash refers to.

And he's right.
THAT'S the plan.
The PLAN is taking the risk to get better not stay stagnant.

Period.

 

[75boyz]

One last final post on this thread about the importance of a QB then I am done I promise. I mentioned in my OP that 13 guys had been the starting QB in 36 of the 57 Super Bowls. There is another list of 8 HOF quarterbacks (or soon to be in the HOF) that have won just one SB. They are Namath, Dawson, Unitas, Stabler, Steve Young, Farve, Brees and Rodgers. That makes 21 elite or very near elite QBs who have started and won 44 of the games (77%). The same 21 have also started and lost a pot full of Super Bowls. Yes, the QB matters...big time.

I so appreciate the research. I may not agree with Reid1Boys on all his posts, but he too has posted very credible info regarding Elite QBs and the significance they hold to post season success. And that's where I usually strongly support him.
Even some well respected posters and mods here would be hard pressed to simply pull their "It's a team game" agenda after reading your facts on how important this ONE position is to winning.

Unfortunately we're stuck in the category of one of the other guys with Dak and praying that Dallas's defense can rise to Dilfer's Baltimore SB team level in order to accomplish anything in the post season.

Great job again.
Appreciate it.

 

[Hadenough]

Can you please address the "losing the locker room" issue GMs and Coaches have to deal with if they spend 10 years recycling QBs looking for Tom Brady while other players careers are being wasted?

This is a big issue that no one wants to talk about with the QB issue. And...using a lazy response like "theyre paid to play and should shut up and act like a professional" probably isnt going to work well and probably cause players to complain even quicker and louder.

I still dont think using rookie contracts to pay everyone else is going to silence a locker room full of dudes paid a little bit more who still want to win and not lose every season.

You begin your cycle while you have a QB that is sustainable. Just like when Alex Smith was QB and Mahomes was drafted. Or Favre as QB and Rodgers was drafted.
They also drafted Love while still having Rodgers. By the way it sure was annoying that a guy like Rodgers was sitting there on the board when Dallas was picking.
How about the Rams getting rid of Goff and Eagles getting rid of Wentz and both those teams have rebounded. I know we all are talking about this team needs another offensive linemen or LB or DT but my gawd If Will Levis is there in the first round Dallas should consider taking him. These players are not stupid. Parsons knows Dak choked and don't think these guys won't really be upset WHEN it happens again.