CFZ Two different philosophies to build an NFL championship roster

[exciter]

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?

Except outside of a very small percentage of outliers you have to invest a top 10 pick at QB, which means you have spend multiple years at suck level for the new model even to be possible. Then there’s no guarantee. Just ask the Bears and Jets, oh and the Browns before them etc! That’s why when teams find a QB that can play in this league, they will continue to pay them. It’s really just that simple!!!

 

[vlad]

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’ve been thinking about this, the skew seems out of control.

I think the eagles will be the ultimate test.

Great post bud

 

[buybuydandavis]

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

"Draft an Elite QB" isn't a strategy, it's a hope.
"Sign your elite guy to elite money" is not a proven long term strategy unless he is The GOAT. Roethlisberger. Anyone else?
Brees? Rodgers? Wilson?
"Sign the elite guy you drafted to elite money if you have a SB team"
Working out in the *first* year of real money for Mahomes.

And if you need an Elite QB, the worst strategy is paying elite money long term for a non elite QB, and that's made worse if he's expected to carry a non-SB ready team.

Really, Burrow > Stafford, but he lost.

Recent QB history is distorted by The GOAT.
Sure. Pay The GOAT long term is a good strategy. But he has retired. What now?

Playing a cheap QB lets you improve your team.
And those cheap QBs will *look* a lot more elite with 40 million more of talent around them.
And if you get them cheap, you can run them and get that extra dimension that pushes them into the elite category.

Keeping the cheap QBs coming is a *strategy*.

 

[CATCH17]

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

That’s actually an old model for me since I’ve been ahead of most fans and nearly the entire NFL on this matter.

 

[CATCH17]

Random thought…


When Jerry spoke about drafting a QB more often do you think he had in mind not wanting to be held hostage by a QB like Dak so at least he had a shot at having a replacement ready?

 

[xwalker]

I’ve been thinking about this, the skew seems out of control.

I think the eagles will be the ultimate test.

Great post bud

The Eagles are only a "test" if they replace Hurts when he is due for a new contract.

The Chiefs won both with Mahomes on a rookie contract and on a mega contract.

 

[xwalker]

Except outside of a very small percentage of outliers you have to invest a top 10 pick at QB, which means you have spend multiple years at suck level for the new model even to be possible. Then there’s no guarantee. Just ask the Bears and Jets, oh and the Browns before them etc! That’s why when teams find a QB that can play in this league, they will continue to pay them. It’s really just that simple!!!

Good post!

 

[KJJ]

Hard to win a championship with a decent QB these days unless they play beyond decent in the playoffs and Super Bowl. Too many games, especially in the playoffs and Super Bowl fall on the shoulders of the QB. If KC had a “decent” QB they would’ve never gotten to the Super Bowl. No way do they have the success they’ve had with a decent QB. The top teams in the AFC all have better than decent QBs.

 

[vlad]

The Eagles are only a "test" if they replace Hurts when he is due for a new contract.

The Chiefs won both with Mahomes on a rookie contract and on a mega contract.

I think both cases will be a test if i understood op.

Sign him does the cost cause the the roster to feel apart?

Don’t sign him, can Minshew or whatever replacement find similar success with the stacked roster?

 

[shabazz]

"Draft an Elite QB" isn't a strategy, it's a hope.
"Sign your elite guy to elite money" is not a proven long term strategy unless he is The GOAT. Roethlisberger. Anyone else?
Brees? Rodgers? Wilson?
"Sign the elite guy you drafted to elite money if you have a SB team"
Working out in the *first* year of real money for Mahomes.

And if you need an Elite QB, the worst strategy is paying elite money long term for a non elite QB, and that's made worse if he's expected to carry a non-SB ready team.

Really, Burrow > Stafford, but he lost.

Recent QB history is distorted by The GOAT.
Sure. Pay The GOAT long term is a good strategy. But he has retired. What now?

Playing a cheap QB lets you improve your team.
And those cheap QBs will *look* a lot more elite with 40 million more of talent around them.
And if you get them cheap, you can run them and get that extra dimension that pushes them into the elite category.

Keeping the cheap QBs coming is a *strategy*.

Hurts was a “cheap quarterback”…… he might not be cheap very long……is he elite enough to carry their franchise for years to come?

with a cheap quarterback a team may only have 1 shot at a SB but with an elite quarterback he will cover up many weaknesses and keep his team relevant…….I dont speak in absolutes; just my opinion

 

[Reid1boys]

What is missing from the Cowboys is the need to build a NFL championship roster.

Why were Sneed and Roseman leaving no stones unturned? And Sneed even mortgaged some of the future. They were told to by their bosses.

Booger has a terrible boss.

championship rosters are a mirage...................... nobody has a "championship roster" by itself. What does that even mean? Just a team that wins a championship has a championship roster? Well, I guess only 1 out of the 32 has a championship roster then.

 

[TequilaCowboy]

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?

And the third philosophy is the Jerry route.....hire puppet coaches and their friends and wobble back and forth each year on what to do depending which way the wind blows. Resigning your own players based on favoritism and ego boosting. Sift through the garbage for cheap roster upgrades. Be reactive rather than proactive. Have your son as your backup and/or advisor. 28 years and counting.

 

[Reid1boys]

I think both cases will be a test if i understood op.

Sign him does the cost cause the the roster to feel apart?

Don’t sign him, can Minshew or whatever replacement find similar success with the stacked roster?

if Hurts plays at or near the level he played this year, we all know what will happen... he will be signed. 100%, not a chance in hell they let him walk... NONE, zip, nada... so that throws the entire original post in the toilet. im still waiting for an example of single team that has let an outstanding young qb walk when their rookie deal expired... hell, I bet the OP cant give me one example in the history of the league where that has happened.

 

[Reid1boys]

Always? Not sure about that. Balt hasn’t (to my knowledge) resigned Lamar Jackson. Wash did not resign Kurt Cousins.

Baltimore tried to lock up Lamar LAST year and couldnt do it. Lamar wants huge money and he wants it guaranteed just like Watson got... thats the only reason they have not signed Lamar. Trust me, they aint taking your second "Philosophy."

And Kirk Cousins is some kind of championship qb? Washington decided Cousins wasnt the man to take them to a title and let him walk,.... how has using your second philosophy worked out for Washington?

Since you have said there are two ways to build a championship roster, Im still waiting for you to give me a single example of a team that has been doing it with any success.... that is your second philosophy . I mean, if it is one of the ways teams are building their rosters, as you say, you have to have at least a couple examples of this, no?

 

[Reid1boys]

I think the Ravens will resign him. Cousins is probably the best example, but that franchise didn't do much with and without him.

what kind of example was Washington? Did they get anywhere near a SB with Cousins?? Nope... so I dont know how you could possibly use a team that has had .... how many different starting qbs in the last 7 years?

 

[ConstantReboot]

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.

He is average with the Chiefs because they filled that position with more weapons than they could use. What did we do to try and replace Amari?

 

[CaptainAmerica12]

Where are you getting new model and old model?

What do you think 90s cowboys was?

That was building a championship roster around a non elite qb.

Aikman was basically a bus driver in what they asked him to do.

What a horrible take. During that 4 year period when the Cowboys won the SuperBowl, Aikman's QB rating was: 92- 3rd, 93 -2nd, 94 - 6th, 95 - 3rd. He was an elite QB. He was also most likely the difference in winning and losing those superbowls if you were to compare the teams position by position.

 

[visionary]

What a horrible take. During that 4 year period when the Cowboys won the SuperBowl, Aikman's QB rating was: 92- 3rd, 93 -2nd, 94 - 6th, 95 - 3rd. He was an elite QB. He was also most likely the difference in winning and losing those superbowls if you were to compare the teams position by position.

Exactly
I’ll take Aikman over any Cowboys QB not named Roger

 

[Havic]

what kind of example was Washington? Did they get anywhere near a SB with Cousins?? Nope... so I dont know how you could possibly use a team that has had .... how many different starting qbs in the last 7 years?

That was the example provided by Bob, I was just commenting on that. Any other examples come to mind?

 

[Reverend Conehead]

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.

Yeah, looking back, one wishes that Romo had gotten his job back as soon as he was healthy. They kept Dak in because they were winning with him, but they probably would have done better in the playoffs with Romo under center. It's just really hard to pull a quarterback when you're winning with him.