CFZ Two different philosophies to build an NFL championship roster

[zeke21]

I think the 'new' model is the evolution and might actually see a correction at QB contract sizes eventually.

I still think both models work.. but ONLY if you wait until you find an absolute, locked in, no brainer elite QB before you pay the $$.

Clearly the stafford 'win' may have prolonged/delayed the brutality of the new wave of thinking.. but I don't see that lasting long. I think it is going to become harder and harder for 'middle rung' guys like Dak/Cousins/Carr etc etc to get big contracts. Teams will instead keep going back to the draft to find another quality rookie QB to build a great roster around.

Going to be interesting times because it is a game of chicken/egg really.. because the importance of the QB position seemingly increases every year. I don't think we see any other team sport in the world that is so heavily dependent on just one position on the field.. overly so.

 

[SinceDayOne]

I think a good GM must access the talent on a roster and decided what the wise choices are. Of course that GM must first convince his owner that his plan will work. Basically it comes down to two choices. 1) The GM likes much/most of the current roster and thinks he can add pieces thru the draft, FA or trades to have a true contender. 2) The GM does not like enough of the current roster to build with/around it and starts churning the roster and rebuilding. If and when the roster comes together there must be in place a coach who can work with the players and hire good assistants. It is a very hard job and that is why such a high percentage of GMs fail.

 

[Diehardblues]

IMO- the problem is there are only maybe 4-5 truly elite QBs. So unless you have Mahomes or Burrows you may have to find a different way to build a champion.

Agree and understood . My bigger question is or are franchises building in that mindset to build a championship team. Super Bowl or Bust.

Or are they just trying to build a contender. And if the championship comes then that’s just gravy.

If that’s the case then the teams might differ some from the priorities of some fans .

I think the cost of Busting and staying in bottom tier is not only more costly but cumbersome and flat out exhausting to franchises .

And why just building a playoff team or contender is enough. Some might win a championship . Some might not .

It all goes back to the “ relative and interesting “ theory. Which is sound theory for a sports entertainment product.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

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 fire though.

Thoughts?

2014 <==== We were working the second model. We had invested heavily in the O-line, and we found a running back who could get us a super amount of yards. The defense was just decent, but they stayed off the field a lot, thanks to our running game and ball control. After that year, I couldn't wait for the team to come back with a better defense. But it didn't work out. There was enough left of it in 2016, plus the addition of a superb running back, which is what made a deep playoff run possible with a rookie quarterback.

IMO, you've just got to go with #2. There aren't enough elite quarterbacks to go around, and that's what you need for #1. It's why I was so peeved at Jerry for grossly overpaying for Zeke and then also for Dak.

Yes, the team that went #1 won this year's Super Bowl, but it was one of the closest games in NFL history.

 

[Diehardblues]

If you get the QB, build around him. That's limited to the available studs and there aren't many and while I feel Herbert and Lawrence are on that cusp, they are not there yet.

Even Allen has some questions around his mental state to handle the job. That BUF-CIN game was a real study in QB contrast regarding pressure, self-imposed pressure. I question Allen's emotional maturity.

While I do not think Prescott is close to that stud label, it was not all his fault and this speaks to Bullet's thread. In fact, I do not feel it was mostly his fault.

Think about this for a minute. They go into the season without a real #1WR, see their QB struggle and pull the trigger on the Cooper trade. Then, they see the immediate connection with Cooper. Then they trade away Cooper and do what? Sign an injured WR, sign Washington and draft Tolbert. That's it? That, is what you are giving your QB that has already proven he needs better WR's?

The brain trust of the Cowboys did neither of Bullet's options this past season.

Part of the reason is because they thought Lamb was their new #1 receiver and Gallup a solid #2 they just anty upped some sweet change recovering from an injury. And they taggedShultz who is in effect Daks #3 receiver .

So, in Jethro’s mind they did bring back a solid receiving corp. And honestly if Gallup had been healthy I might have agreed. Unless we don’t think Lamb is a #1 receiver .

But that made Cooper expendable . And throw in his inconsistent play. And not really a team player missing games cause he wouldn’t get vaccinated. Cooper always played to his own drum.

 

[Bobhaze]

2014 <==== We were working the second model. We had invested heavily in the O-line, and we found a running back who could get us a super amount of yards. The defense was just decent, but they stayed off the field a lot, thanks to our running game and ball control. After that year, I couldn't wait for the team to come back with a better defense. But it didn't work out. There was enough left of it in 2016, plus the addition of a superb running back, which is what made a deep playoff run possible with a rookie quarterback.

IMO, you've just got to go with #2. There aren't enough elite quarterbacks to go around, and that's what you need for #1. It's why I was so peeved at Jerry for grossly overpaying for Zeke and then also for Dak.

Yes, the team that went #1 won this year's Super Bowl, but it was one of the closest games in NFL history.

Good points Rev.
I would say that 2014 was actually the traditional pay the QB model. Romo was on a very large contract which was one reason this team had a hard time putting together a well rounded roster. That 2014 defense was pretty mediocre.

 

[75boyz]

The ability to actually get your home run QB is the hardest part.
But, be it by draft, free agency or whatever, when I think of sustained superior performance my preference is for acquisition and retention of the elite QB model.

Brady's Pats, Ben's Steelers, Russ's Hawks, Brees's Saints, Manning's Colts, Rodger's Pack all represent consistent longterm winning excellence.

And now ya got Mahomes. With Burrow also showing strong potential to support the elite QB model followed by Allen.

Those elite QBs seem so hard to find, but when you do, the rewards are worthwhile imo.

Then there is the Cowboy Lucky QB Model of crossing your fingers on an UDFA and very limited 4th rounder over the past decade and a half.
And here we are.

jmo

 

[Diehardblues]

The bigger problem as I see it is our meddling of ownerships agendas.

First of all we should be a run dominating offense . Our QB has proven to be more effective and efficient as such. Stop trying to prove he’s a prolific passer to warrant his contract.

And start your best and most productive RB, not the most overpaid RB in the league .

Both of these are huge obstacles for our team to overcome . It’s why we really can’t strategize a normal plan with our dysfunctional ownership.

 

[john van brocklin]

i don't disagree. There seems to be (2) issues, imo. #1, do we really wanna go through the crap between Aikman and Romo again? #2, The blueprint seems to be, win a SB on a rookie contract QB.

Yep, we had our chances while dak was on his rookie deal.
Thanks Jerry for Garrett.
We wasted those opportunities

 

[Bobhaze]

I think a good GM must access the talent on a roster and decided what the wise choices are. Of course that GM must first convince his owner that his plan will work. Basically it comes down to two choices. 1) The GM likes much/most of the current roster and thinks he can add pieces thru the draft, FA or trades to have a true contender. 2) The GM does not like enough of the current roster to build with/around it and starts churning the roster and rebuilding. If and when the roster comes together there must be in place a coach who can work with the players and hire good assistants. It is a very hard job and that is why such a high percentage of GMs fail.

Yes…and a good GM cannot afford to fall in love with any single player when they know their job is on the line and a championship is the goal. But when your GM has a lifetime contract and his first goal is selling jerseys…well you get what we’ve had the last 28 years.

 

[Diehardblues]

Yes…and a good GM cannot afford to fall in love with any single player when they know their job is on the line and a championship is the goal. But when your GM has a lifetime contract and his first goal is selling jerseys…well you get what we’ve had the last 28 years.

Yep.. good stuff as usual.

Honestly , I’m amazed these fools have put together this good of team and we haven’t been a 5-11 type team throughout.

I’m thankful every season we have 17 meaningful games. A couple playoff games was a bonus. Lol

 

[MikeT22]

Jerry/Stephen don't try either way.

We haven't drafted a QB in the first in over 30 years. Only once in that time have we drafted a QB in any of the first 3 rounds and that was over 20 years ago. Jerry/Stephen are content with finding a QB who may win more than he loses but isn't elite and then give him a 2nd contract and ride him for a decade or so while also not using both the draft and FA's to build a roster.

 

[Cowboys5217]

Go with model 2 unless you get lucky with a QB, and you'll know it right away because they will likely get to or even win a SB by year 4. If you do get lucky then you switch to model 1.

There's really just 4 steps to building a championship team.

1) QB
2) Offensive Line
3) Defensive Line
4) Everything Else

 

[doomsday9084]

https://www.spotrac.com/spots/super-bowl-qb-cap-percentages-1397/

Putting a great team around a QB on a cheap deal has ALWAYS been the only model. The exceptions are very rare.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/cap/2022/
Mahomes might go down as one of the greatest QB's of all time and even still, his cap hit this year was 17.2% and was the highest ever winning QB%. Most winners are 12% or under.

 

[Jake]

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 fire though.

Thoughts?

If your QB gets to the end of his rookie contract with little or no playoff success it seems foolish to pay "market value" to keep him. It's just too much of a price.

Paying him won't make him a better QB, it'll just make it harder to have a quality roster around him, so what are you buying? If your goal is to win titles then draft a QB regularly until you strike gold - find one who can get you to conference title games or beyond. Otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels.

The Cowboys philosophy of paying "their guys" would make sense if they actually won something. They've got 3 playoff wins since 2010, and never more than one and done. Running it back year after year, expecting different results, just doesn't make sense. But when there's never turnover at the top the philosophy doesn't change.

 

[Bobhaze]

The Cowboys philosophy of paying "their guys" would make sense if they actually won something. They've got 3 playoff wins since 2010, and never more than one and done. Running it back year after year, expecting different results, just doesn't make sense. But when there's never turnover at the top the philosophy doesn't change.

This should be made into a massive sign at Cowboys headquarters. In red letters.

 

[SuspectCorner]

Cowboys stuck with Dak for next couple of years - so load up for the run game by drafting OL, RB, FB, TE. Try to get Dak’s attempts per game closer to 20. And Dak CAN run in the RPO. It’s where he shines. Play to strengths - Dak is NOT a pocket wiz. Better on the move.

 

[john van brocklin]

I think a good GM must access the talent on a roster and decided what the wise choices are. Of course that GM must first convince his owner that his plan will work. Basically it comes down to two choices. 1) The GM likes much/most of the current roster and thinks he can add pieces thru the draft, FA or trades to have a true contender. 2) The GM does not like enough of the current roster to build with/around it and starts churning the roster and rebuilding. If and when the roster comes together there must be in place a coach who can work with the players and hire good assistants. It is a very hard job and that is why such a high percentage of GMs fail.

A good GM?
Well, I guess we're sunk.....

 

[Diehardblues]

If your QB gets to the end of his rookie contract with little or no playoff success it seems foolish to pay "market value" to keep him. It's just too much of a price.

Paying him won't make him a better QB, it'll just make it harder to have a quality roster around him, so what are you buying? If your goal is to win titles then draft a QB regularly until you strike gold - find one who can get you to conference title games or beyond. Otherwise, you're just spinning your wheels.

The Cowboys philosophy of paying "their guys" would make sense if they actually won something. They've got 3 playoff wins since 2010, and never more than one and done. Running it back year after year, expecting different results, just doesn't make sense. But when there's never turnover at the top the philosophy doesn't change.

What if your goal isn’t to win titles?

Sure ,they’d love to have more but is that really the main priority. I’d argue no.

And our owner has attempted to tell us that in so many words but too many fans refuse to listen.

 

[SinceDayOne]

Yes…and a good GM cannot afford to fall in love with any single player when they know their job is on the line and a championship is the goal. But when your GM has a lifetime contract and his first goal is selling jerseys…well you get what we’ve had the last 28 years.

"cannot afford to fall in love with any single player"......indeed!!!! Landry was considered distant by his players...even his best players. Jimmy Johnson was almost as bad. Good GMs and COACHES have to keep their relationship with players on a professional level. It is a business. Look for friends elsewhere....not with the players.