CFZ Two different philosophies to build an NFL championship roster

[Reid1boys]

Big Ben won in his second season, Mahomes his 3rd but both won another one after 2nd contract. Didn’t Flacco? Russel you mentioned.


But it would appear most franchises believe if they find a QB good enough to build around are intent on paying and attempting to surround him as best they can. While it may not bring a championship it delivers stability and a more consistent playoff contender.

But if you can’t find that then perhaps Bobs alternative might be another way to go. Which in some ways they have been doing continuing to look for their next franchise QB. Those are usually more bottom feeders until they hit big on a QB. Like the Bengals.

And here we have it.... this is where the Cowboys are. Dak has had 3 seasons of 12 wins or more and we are in the hunt in each of those years. The risk of starting over and ending up with a mitch trabisky and becoming irrelevant is simply too much for most teams to bear. It is better to be a top 8 team than a bottom 8 is what seems to be the thinking of most teams.... Vikings anyone. We can not say for sure if Dak is not good enough (Ive given up on him after this last playoff loss) but we can not say for sure. He has shown he CAN play at a level good enough... I mean that vaunted Eagles defense got lit up by Dak just a few weeks before the super bowl. So, it appears to me, Dallas has decided it is better to have a qb that they know what he is, and that is a qb that CAN win 12 games and be in the hunt, vs a qb that could put you back where we were between Aikman and Romo... which was a hot mess.

 

[jgboys1]

Jerry Jones likes to use the slow but steady approach for creating a Super Bowl caliber team, with the emphasis on Slow! It seems to be working.

 

[CowboyoWales]

Im not missing any point. IN the context of Bob's post, please tell me what I have missed. NOBODY builds rosters by TRYING to stay on the cheap at QB. Teams stay on the cheap at QB when they have no better option. Cousins is a good example.... and Id argue Washington would have been better off keeping Cousins. Who has been better since Cousins got to the Vikings? Washing or Minnesota?

Teams are starting a QB on a rookie deal because they likely have been in QB hell. The ONLY reason Dallas had a QB on a 1st contract starting is because of Romo's injury. Philly had garage, drafted Hurts in the 2nd as a gamble... Hurts started because the other choice stunk.

Chargers.... Herbert took over because Rivers went away and their other choice stunk.
Burrow started because the Bengals were the worst team in the NFL and Burrows HAD TO BE GOOD for them to be better.
We can keep going..... lets see.........who has a solid veteran qb and the team is going to take Bob's second approach and get rid of the vet JUST to see if they can hit with a rookie. 1st rd QBs are being drafted almost exclusively by teams that have garbage at the position.

You're still missing the point. Just to dumb it down as you obviously didnt read the CAP% SB winners..... Mahomes (2022 = 17%), next highest % was Brady at 12%.... therefore unless you have an elite of the elite QB, youre more likely to be success playing your QB way under the 20% plus we're going to pay Dak.

 

[CowboyoWales]

And here we have it.... this is where the Cowboys are. Dak has had 3 seasons of 12 wins or more and we are in the hunt in each of those years. The risk of starting over and ending up with a mitch trabisky and becoming irrelevant is simply too much for most teams to bear. It is better to be a top 8 team than a bottom 8 is what seems to be the thinking of most teams.... Vikings anyone. We can not say for sure if Dak is not good enough (Ive given up on him after this last playoff loss) but we can not say for sure. He has shown he CAN play at a level good enough... I mean that vaunted Eagles defense got lit up by Dak just a few weeks before the super bowl. So, it appears to me, Dallas has decided it is better to have a qb that they know what he is, and that is a qb that CAN win 12 games and be in the hunt, vs a qb that could put you back where we were between Aikman and Romo... which was a hot mess.

So selecting the one-eyed approach, nobody disagrees he can play well, WHEN EVERYTHING's GOING WELL..
What about the 9ers as soon as Pillard went down.
You do realise his 10% of the CAP is about to double....should we expect double the output and responsibility or should that be left to the rest of the Offense (which is getting paid less, due to Dak's increase).
The whole problem is there's no evidence that he can improve in games that matter....with less talent around him.

 

[kskboys]

Yep

So what percentage of the Cap do you think is ideal in order to build an adequate team around your QB?

Surely Rookie deals aren’t the only or best option. We’ve seen several teams win with QB in second contract that are in the 10-20% range. I suppose it depends on how close to Elite your QB is.

Can we really set a number or are there too many intangibles and contributing factors ?

Looks like to me most teams are willing to resign their franchise QB whether he’s Elite or not . And do the best they can surrounding him.

Don’t Franchise QB on the most part bring stability to a franchise to build around with a consistent playoff contender. Championships aren’t guaranteed of course .

I value your insight on this and look forward to your thoughts .

Maybe 15%ish. To reiterate, there is no exact figure.

We are in brand new territory right now w/ Mahomes. As a QB gets paid huge money, the team slowly loses talent, resulting in a good team, but one that's not good enough. Will that happen w/ Mahomes? Once again, brand new territory.

We've already seen some results as teams have been forced to release some major talent to pay the QB. Chiefs w/ Tyreek is one of the latest examples, and the Chiefs were able to overcome. Chris Jones is the difference maker on D, what happens when he's gone? Not sure the Chiefs beat Cincy w/o Jones. One man wrecking crew in that game.

Plus, Mahomes is the best in the NFL. He can make up for releasing some players by maximizing the ones he has. Not to mention that Kelce is the one who makes that O go. Although Tyreek got the glory, Kelce was much more important to that O. If the Cheifs had paid Tyreek, their downfall would have been accelerated.

 

[Diehardblues]

Maybe 15%ish. To reiterate, there is no exact figure.

We are in brand new territory right now w/ Mahomes. As a QB gets paid huge money, the team slowly loses talent, resulting in a good team, but one that's not good enough. Will that happen w/ Mahomes? Once again, brand new territory.

We've already seen some results as teams have been forced to release some major talent to pay the QB. Chiefs w/ Tyreek is one of the latest examples, and the Chiefs were able to overcome. Chris Jones is the difference maker on D, what happens when he's gone? Not sure the Chiefs beat Cincy w/o Jones. One man wrecking crew in that game.

Plus, Mahomes is the best in the NFL. He can make up for releasing some players by maximizing the ones he has. Not to mention that Kelce is the one who makes that O go. Although Tyreek got the glory, Kelce was much more important to that O. If the Cheifs had paid Tyreek, their downfall would have been accelerated.

Good stuff …

So, what’s the solution. Teams aren’t going to release or move on from proven QB’s.

They are going to pay them. And it’s going to be Market Price . There is really no way around it if you want to remain a contender as well as looking for another QB as good while it definitely lessens your chance to repeat.

It’s quite a conundrum. And why Jethro’s “ interesting and relative “ stance is more of the way franchises are going to go despite the Cap casualties and impact it makes building a championship caliber roster cause it’s so difficult finding a Franchise QB.

 

[Diehardblues]

Franchise QB’s are the cornerstone to a competitive contender.

I suggested years ago with the Cap teams could begin operating much like NCAA does with basically churning the rosters every year and the key positions every 4 or 5 years after their Rookie contract had expired.

We are already seeing the churning going on now like never before at other positions. This could fit perfectly into Bobs alternative QB plan . Loosening up all of this Cap space could also allow for signing more Free Agents for shorter terms deals.

If effective the league could force out these longer and bigger contracts which handicap them on the Cap.

But would teams really be willing to let go of these super stars and consistent staples on the team. I don’t think so because they bring stability and a more consistent contender along with the attachments from fans that spurs revenue which doesn’t necessarily guarantee championships which I’m not sure anymore that’s really the priority while still the ultimate objective.

 

[Reid1boys]

You're still missing the point. Just to dumb it down as you obviously didnt read the CAP% SB winners..... Mahomes (2022 = 17%), next highest % was Brady at 12%.... therefore unless you have an elite of the elite QB, youre more likely to be success playing your QB way under the 20% plus we're going to pay Dak.

you mean if you can pay your starting qb less as a % of the cap that helps you with the roster? Thanks for that bit of info mr. obvious.... I cant believe I missed that . Thanks for pointing that out to me......smh

 

[Reid1boys]

So selecting the one-eyed approach, nobody disagrees he can play well, WHEN EVERYTHING's GOING WELL..
What about the 9ers as soon as Pillard went down.
You do realise his 10% of the CAP is about to double....should we expect double the output and responsibility or should that be left to the rest of the Offense (which is getting paid less, due to Dak's increase).
The whole problem is there's no evidence that he can improve in games that matter....with less talent around him.

there was no evidence steve young could win a SB either..... until he did. You are basically arguing wiht yourself here as you clearly didnt read where I said Ive already given up on Dak and would move on.

 

[Zekeats]

Super 57 was not only a good game to watch, it was an interesting matchup showing two different philosophies to build a championship roster.
Those two philosophies are:

• Build a roster around a highly paid QB (Traditional model)
• Build a more complete roster with a decent QB on a rookie deal (New model)

The last decade or more, conventional thinking was that if you find a young starting QB that is good enough to be a success in the regular season and can get you to the playoffs, you hang onto that QB and pay them market value to build around. It has been a popular idea but the loss of additional cap space to the QB position puts a ton of pressure on the FO to be able to build an overall quality roster without much cap space to work with.

As hard as it is to find even decent QBs, most teams that found a good young QB were willing to make that commitment. To the joy of some fans and the frustration of others, the Cowboys FO made that commitment to Dak Prescott going into the 2021 season with a big contract at market value. Agree or disagree, it was a “traditional” model decision. It what JJ clearly prefers going back years. So far, it has certainly not worked out well for the Cowboys with both Tony Romo and Dak.

BUT…there are many teams these days choosing not to go the traditional route. They are spending cap space not on a QB but on other positions on both sides of the ball. They are aggressive in both trades and FA signings coupled with their drafts to build a roster that is not centered on the QB.

So which model is working? Answer: Both. SB champ Kansas City is certainly an example of a traditional model with Pat Mahomes as the big centerpiece. But the NFC champ eagles were an example of a team built around a rookie deal QB and a lot of help in multiple positions.

There are good and bad points to either model. Frankly, unless you have a Mahomes or Brady, committing huge amounts of cap space to the QB makes it harder to build a total roster. On the other hand, the rookie deal QB model only works if you have a young QB that’s good enough to win some playoff games with a lot of help.

I’m starting lean toward favoring the new philosophy because it does not tie your cap space down for a long time like these big contracts teams typically give to QBs on a second deal. I don’t think Jerry would ever go for the new way of thinking anyway because it would mean you’re drafting QBs every other year and rebuilding the roster often too. It does seem like the wave of the future though.

Thoughts?

You either have an elite QB like Brady, Mahomes, Manning or you don’t. If you don’t you can mask a team to get all the way till they run into one of those elite QBs. The way to do so is to build up the lines on both ends of the ball. Great online and great defensive line. That’s why the nfc championship game was sf and the eagles. Then once they met a real qb, good night

 

[MyFairLady]

Based on what I have seen if you had Dak strapped up to the lasso of truth and asked him if he feels like he can deliver the game winning drive in the playoffs he would say no. In 2016 he would have said yes. If we stick with Dak we need to change everything and somehow get back to something that allows him to believe in himself. What we have been doing is making things worse not better. I would prefer to pay him 40 million and treat him like we pay him 5 million than pay him 40 million and treat him like we pay him 40 million.

 

[Flamma]

Super 57 was not only a good game to watch, it was an interesting matchup showing two different philosophies to build a championship roster.
Those two philosophies are:

• Build a roster around a highly paid QB (Traditional model)
• Build a more complete roster with a decent QB on a rookie deal (New model)

The last decade or more, conventional thinking was that if you find a young starting QB that is good enough to be a success in the regular season and can get you to the playoffs, you hang onto that QB and pay them market value to build around. It has been a popular idea but the loss of additional cap space to the QB position puts a ton of pressure on the FO to be able to build an overall quality roster without much cap space to work with.

As hard as it is to find even decent QBs, most teams that found a good young QB were willing to make that commitment. To the joy of some fans and the frustration of others, the Cowboys FO made that commitment to Dak Prescott going into the 2021 season with a big contract at market value. Agree or disagree, it was a “traditional” model decision. It what JJ clearly prefers going back years. So far, it has certainly not worked out well for the Cowboys with both Tony Romo and Dak.

BUT…there are many teams these days choosing not to go the traditional route. They are spending cap space not on a QB but on other positions on both sides of the ball. They are aggressive in both trades and FA signings coupled with their drafts to build a roster that is not centered on the QB.

So which model is working? Answer: Both. SB champ Kansas City is certainly an example of a traditional model with Pat Mahomes as the big centerpiece. But the NFC champ eagles were an example of a team built around a rookie deal QB and a lot of help in multiple positions.

There are good and bad points to either model. Frankly, unless you have a Mahomes or Brady, committing huge amounts of cap space to the QB makes it harder to build a total roster. On the other hand, the rookie deal QB model only works if you have a young QB that’s good enough to win some playoff games with a lot of help.

I’m starting lean toward favoring the new philosophy because it does not tie your cap space down for a long time like these big contracts teams typically give to QBs on a second deal. I don’t think Jerry would ever go for the new way of thinking anyway because it would mean you’re drafting QBs every other year and rebuilding the roster often too. It does seem like the wave of the future though.

Thoughts?

I was listening to sports talk radio at work last night, and it reminded me of this thread. They were basically saying the same as you. They used Dak, Cousins, Tannehill, and possibly Daniel Jones as examples of what not to do. You have a rookie contract window with those QBs. This is a NY station BTW.

However, there is a way around it for teams that don't have an exceptional QB. Do whatever it takes to get their cap hit under 10%. To mimic your "new model". Basically what the Jones boys have been doing with Dak this entire time. The problem is, they're not supporting him enough in the off season.

I hate the fact that they turned this game so QB oriented. You can almost tell what teams are going to do well. Especially if you have an elite QB on a rookie deal. You can almost count on them to be SB favorites.