CFZ Two different philosophies to build an NFL championship roster

[Rockport]

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 don’t think big contracts for QB’s are as much as a detriment to building a team as you do. It’s a nice talking point by some, but it doesn’t play out like people think. Some look at 5 years for 250 mil and think the cap hit is 50 mil a year. That’s not the case usually and when the year comes to where it is 50 mil they end up restructuring.

 

[CowboyFrog]

I don’t think big contracts for QB’s are as much as a detriment to building a team as you do. It’s a nice talking point by some, but it doesn’t play out like people think. Some look at 5 years for 250 mil and think the cap hit is 50 mil a year. That’s not the case usually and when the year comes to where it is 50 mil they end up restructuring.

Rock I think the bigger argument is when you have a decent QB on a rookie contract and can put big bucks into your trenches and few other spots then is the overall team better ....Forget about the crazy "Dak love/hate" war on here and ask yourself if you think the Eagles were built to win better than we were this year. Obviously it would be just an opinion but to me a valid argument.

 

[Rayman70]

one can argue that Cincinatti subscribes 2 the Jerry way of building. They DID get 2 a SB and nearly again this year using that template. Their roster is largely built using the draft. It can work. But its the long way around the barn so 2 speak.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Velus Jones was the only wr that went from Sam Williams to Tolbert.

Was Velius Jones worth not getting Williams?

I also don't see anyone else after Tolbert who was any good either. So they would have had to go WR in the first and miss Smith....not a good choice imo.

They needed to be more agressive in FA and/or Trades. Or they should have spent the money on a different wr than Gallup.

I think Christian Watson and Sky Moore could have been taken instead of Williams.

Also there were several on the board. There was also Alec Peirce, Romeo Daubs, Danny Gray, Bo Melton just to name a few that were better prospects than Tolbert.

 

[CowboyFrog]

one can argue that Cincinatti subscribes 2 the Jerry way of building. They DID get 2 a SB and nearly again this year using that template. Their roster is largely built using the draft. It can work. But its the long way around the barn so 2 speak.

True and if you look at todays NFL one way is built for a fast reload and can take the QB missing some games while the other is hurt pretty bad if the QB goes down or falls off a cliff talent wise.

 

[Rayman70]

True and if you look at todays NFL one way is built for a fast reload and can take the QB missing some games while the other is hurt pretty bad if the QB goes down or falls off a cliff talent wise.

exactly

 

[Jake]

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.

Winning "their way" is the priority.

They'd rather go to their graves trying, and coming up short, than change how they operate. Worst case? They never win another one and live like kings, anyway.

I've diminished my emotional investment and accepted I'll never see another Cowboys SB. I just watch and hope they get lucky one year.

 

[Rockport]

Rock I think the bigger argument is when you have a decent QB on a rookie contract and can put big bucks into your trenches and few other spots then is the overall team better ....Forget about the crazy "Dak love/hate" war on here and ask yourself if you think the Eagles were built to win better than we were this year. Obviously it would be just an opinion but to me a valid argument.

It’s a valid argument for sure. My point is only that a team is not limited by a high QB salary as much as people make it out to be.

 

[CowboyFrog]

It’s a valid argument for sure. My point is only that a team is not limited by a high QB salary as much as people make it out to be.

Maybe, the league kinda rolls in "META's" it will be funny to see what happens if teams decide QB's are not worth the price and the "Money Cow's" for the NFL start going all over the place...amazingly enough I bet we see the QB's salaries get moved off the cap. "Ummm we can have the one player the common fan comes to see on his 4th team, we need to fix the cap"...

 

[Reverend Conehead]

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.

Yeah, that 2014 defense at best could be called barely adequate. The team masked that weakness by with it's outstanding ball-control/running game offense. But you're right. Romo had a big contract. I was super looking forward to 2015, figuring they could still do ball control, but with an improved defense. Instead we got a season with Romo hurt and totally inadequate QBs under center.

I would love to have our 2014 offense together with our 2023 defense. That would be a team that can go places.

 

[xwalker]

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?

What GM always uses one method or the other?

Model: A GM or HC always uses that method.

Happenstance: A GM or HC win with their best option at QB.

The Chiefs won the 2019 season SB with Mahomes on a rookie deal and the 2022 season with Mahomes on a big contract.

The Rams made it to the SB twice in recent years. Once with a rookie contract QB and once with an older QB.

The Cowboys have made the playoffs with both methods.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Bob, I have to go with the elite Qb scenario. The Niners have done exactly one of your options by building a complete team and going with either rookie qbs or qbs on cheap contracts and the one thing that has stopped their playoff runs have been poor to average quarterback play.

the last few qbs that have won the last 9 SBs are Mahomes, Stafford, Manning, Brady which were elite at the time. The only outlier was Foles winning with the Eagles…….just food for thought.

Brady is The Goat and Mahomes was playing on his rookie contract on his first ring, and on his first big cap hit on his next.

 

[DandyDon52]

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 like the new model, as it isnt qb dependent, you are more able to plug and play that position.
The only way going the elite qb is good is if you have a mahomes, and there is only one of him.
Rodgers has gone a decade with no SB appearance, Josh allen seems to keep falling short etc.

and if your QB gets hurt or knocked out that is it.

Teams like dallas are trying to do it with a lesser qb's, like dak, cousins,etc, and they just are not good enough, and they get paid too much
for what they can do to win games in playoffs.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Yeah, that 2014 defense at best could be called barely adequate. The team masked that weakness by with it's outstanding ball-control/running game offense. But you're right. Romo had a big contract. I was super looking forward to 2015, figuring they could still do ball control, but with an improved defense. Instead we got a season with Romo hurt and totally inadequate QBs under center.

I would love to have our 2014 offense together with our 2023 defense. That would be a team that can go places.

Could have gone to back to Romo in 2016. Zeke and the oline in 2016 were just *better* than Murray plus the oline in 2014. Defense much better come the playoffs too. Just the best team around the QB since 2007. The best team since Romo became the starter. And Romo had been playing his best ball in 2014.

 

[CowboyFrog]

I like the new model, as it isnt qb dependent, you are more able to plug and play that position.
The only way going the elite qb is good is if you have a mahomes, and there is only one of him.
Rodgers has gone a decade with no SB appearance, Josh allen seems to keep falling short etc.

and if your QB gets hurt or knocked out that is it.

Teams like dallas are trying to do it with a lesser qb's, like dak, cousins,etc, and they just are not good enough, and they get paid too much
for what they can do to win games in playoffs.

I am leaning this way but also am kinda excited to what MM/DQ can do this next year to me it has gotten better every year with them, we shed some of Zeke's money restructure Dak and maybe they add the right pieces...who knows. We do know it will be Dak next year just dont know what the restructure will look like or what pieces they are looking to add.

 

[DandyDon52]

shabazz said:


Bob, I have to go with the elite Qb scenario. The Niners have done exactly one of your options by building a complete team and going with either rookie qbs or qbs on cheap contracts and the one thing that has stopped their playoff runs have been poor to average quarterback play.

the last few qbs that have won the last 9 SBs are Mahomes, Stafford, Manning, Brady which were elite at the time. The only outlier was Foles winning with the Eagles…….just food for thought.

the niners got purdy hurt 6 min into the game, then the bkup to him was knocked out.
So you can really say they failed in their approach.
They failed because their OL or their blocking schemes could not protect purdy, so that isnt a good team or coaching.

Shanahan does good during season, but he always chokes or screws up in the big games and SB.

 

[Ken]

I think Christian Watson and Sky Moore could have been taken instead of Williams.

Also there were several on the board. There was also Alec Peirce, Romeo Daubs, Danny Gray, Bo Melton just to name a few that were better prospects than Tolbert.

Watson went 2nd pick in the 2nd round and Moore went 2 picks before Williams. Sky Moore was pretty average all year for the Chiefs as well.

 

[Rockport]

I like the new model, as it isnt qb dependent, you are more able to plug and play that position.
The only way going the elite qb is good is if you have a mahomes, and there is only one of him.
Rodgers has gone a decade with no SB appearance, Josh allen seems to keep falling short etc.

and if your QB gets hurt or knocked out that is it.

Teams like dallas are trying to do it with a lesser qb's, like dak, cousins,etc, and they just are not good enough, and they get paid too much
for what they can do to win games in playoffs.

No QB can win consistently with only 1 WR. Ask Rogers.

 

[shabazz]

Brady is The Goat and Mahomes was playing on his rookie contract on his first ring, and on his first big cap hit on his next.

Im not completely sold on which path is better it was just pointing out that Elite qbs have come up big in the biggest games……do the Bengals go as far as they’ve gone the last 2 seasons without Burrow?

the point is that whether an Elite Qb is in his rookie contract OR in the next big contract, it’s the Elit’s Qb that has won the day

 

[CowboyFrog]

Im not completely sold on which path is better it was just pointing out that Elite qbs have come up big in the biggest games……do the Bengals go as far as they’ve gone the last 2 seasons without Burrow?

the point is that whether an Elite Qb is in his rookie contract OR in the next big contract, it’s the Elit’s Qb that has won the day

The Bengals are a very young team, they have more than just Burrow who are comming for paychecks very soon...Odds are better he doesnt make it back to the SB than the odds he does once everyone gets thier money.