Which model to you yields the best chance at SB?

[75boyz]

Interesting points. Especially when we look at the obsession with stopping the run (even in the three 12-5 years). Why did/are we obsessed with stopping the run......because we've a QB who's stats drop off a cliff when the clocks ticking down and we're behind on the scoreboard.
@ShiningStar post above outlining the SB winning QB's need in others is kind of pertinent, but doesnt go far enough with Dak, WHO NEEDS EVERYTHING.

The model is, tear down everything, inc Dak and Jerry steps back and employs a GM.

Yeah,
@ShiningStar's take seems to once again minimize the importance of the one position handling every offensive snap and what that QB did with those opportunities.
The easiest counter to that argument is do those teams even reach the SB without the performance of that guy handling every snap of the ball?
I followed this up with a quick coaches and quarterbacks names list on my post #37.
The common denominator to winning Super Bowls and even making Super Bowl appearances alot of times is hall of fame level quarterbacking, coaching or both.
Everything else is secondary.

 

[kskboys]

Yeah,
@ShiningStar's take seems to once again minimize the importance of the one position handling every offensivecsnap and what that QB did with those opportunities.
The easiezt counter to that argument is Do those teams even reach the SB without the performance of that guy handling every snap of the ball.
I followed this up with a quick coaches and quarterbacks names list on my post #37.
The common denominator to winning Super Bowls and even Super Bowl appearances alot if times is hall of fame level quarterbacking, coaching or both.
Everything else is secondary.

Well, sure, but there's only 2-3 HOF level QBs at any given time in the NFL. So, instead of HOF level, you take competent and build around them. Look at the non-HOF level QBs who have won recently: Eli, Wilson, Flacco, Hurts, Stafford. Hades, Kaper dang near won one.

I'd replace HOF level QBing w/ D. Talent in the right areas and coaching. Which teams have won the super bowl w/o stellar play from DT? I really can't think of even one.

 

[75boyz]

Well, sure, but there's only 2-3 HOF level QBs at any given time in the NFL. So, instead of HOF level, you take competent and build around them. Look at the non-HOF level QBs who have won recently: Eli, Wilson, Flacco, Hurts, Stafford. Hades, Kaper dang near won one.

I'd replace HOF level QBing w/ D. Talent in the right areas and coaching. Which teams have won the super bowl w/o stellar play from DT? I really can't think of even one.

No worries brother. I just prefer the foundational team starting point to have the 2 most important leadership positions manned by a hall of famer. Or at least one of those positions have a hall of famer.

The majority of Super Bowl winning teams and many of those who made appearances and lost support my opinion.

Defense winning championships may be your choice, but in my opinion, Dak still don't get the 70 plus yards on the ground that Hurts did or drop those long dimes against the Chiefs, and especially with the way Barkley was shut down.
In my opinion the Eagles still lose with Dak.

Difference of opinion.
I can respect yours no prob.

 

[Blitzen]

his running game was solid but his WRs were incredibly good, and the defense would have been ok. but if we re going by the model you need a top notch QB, well that model doesnt float. and it floats less in this era. remember he didnt take eras into account. than that really shifts a lot. Marino had a good coach too, lets not play that "the game left him behind" crap either. So, the mere fact people say you need a great QB and stuff to win. nope, because if Terrell Davis doesnt come around, guess who else doesnt win? Thtats right, John Elway.

The other main model I provided does not require a great QB. Marino never had an even good defense for playoff football-they were giving up 30 or more points in their playoff losses his first 8-10 years in the league.

 

[Blitzen]

Blitz - the above paragraph is the simplest way to build the type of team we should try for.

We don’t have an elite QB, so if we are ever going to be serious about getting at least to a conference championship, having a strong running game and defense that can at least keep you in close low scoring games, would give us a decent chance.

Unfortunately unless our FO changes they just seem to play fantasy football by paying a few “stars” they can market and then blame the coaches when it doesn’t get playoff wins.

True, but the current QB lost his B-level status when his legs started to go. Teams aren’t allowing them to quick pass to Ceedee off motion like that great stretch in 2023. He was unable to even scramble or evade pressure while healthy this past season. Other teams’ defenses will run blitz the offense into submission this next season with him being so immobile. They will not buy that he can run for enough yards on his own-or that he can even evade some pressure (also his arm is now looking like he’s lost velocity making it a double whammy). Even with the team’s offensive line playing better, this is not some dominant running team even with an elite RB. The Eagles’ and Lions’ offensive lines are light years above this one.

I still believe that method of team building is the best. I want them to draft a lineman (offense or defense) with pick 12 in the draft. Trade back if your favorite guys are already picked and you feel certain other guys you really like will still be there. I would not mind if they took their favorite offensive guard-no matter how much they like Bass. Would love a DT there or at pick 44. A great offensive line could make a Rico Dowdle type back into a 14-1500 yard RB in 17 games.

Above all else, I want the team to invest in futures with as many A-level players as possible. I’m not sure I would pay a huge premium for an elite kicker like Aubrey or RB that is close to 30. If you have (under contract) several years of elite offensive line play (and a really good young defense), you might be able to pay a B-level QB and succeed. Otherwise, I think it best to move on from that QB and continue to build the second model. Draft, trade, or sign another B-level QB on the cheap.

 

[Blitzen]

I agree that building dominant lines on both sides of the both is probably the smartest way to approach the problem. But like drafting QBs, it may not be as easy as it seems. First you have to find the dominant guys on both sides of the ball. That means you can swing and miss on draft picks like they apparently did with Mazi Smith. It means using free agency to fill in gaps when necessary. The Eagles were successful becoming dominant in the trenches because the are good talent evaluators. The took a chance on Mekhi Becton, moving him inside and it worked out for them. This was a smart move and he cost them practically nothing for 1 year. When they had high draft picks they used them to grab value in the DTs. Last year thy took two DBs in the first round despite having Slay and Bradberry.

When we talk about Dallas's draft picks this year half of us are talking about RB and WR. That's going in the opposite direction of where some of us think we need to go. But I think those guys advocating skill positions are probably thinking the same way Jerry is.

I agree. You cannot always find a great lineman at the bottom third of the first round. It’s much less likely. If you force it, you can completely miss.

Also, this team seems to pick too many guys that have severe effort or character concerns that they did not know or care enough about-which calls into question their scouting details. Once the elite talents are gone in the draft, the amount of drive and love of the game should take more precedence.

 

[kskboys]

No worries brother. I just prefer the foundational team starting point to have the 2 most important leadership positions manned by a hall of famer. Or at least one of those positions have a hall of famer.

The majority of Super Bowl winning teams and many of those who made appearances and lost support my opinion.

Defense winning championships may be your choice, but in my opinion, Dak still don't get the 70 plus yards on the ground that Hurts did or drop those long dimes against the Chiefs, and especially with the way Barkley was shut down.
In my opinion the Eagles still lose with Dak.

Difference of opinion.
I can respect yours no prob.

Noooo, I'd absolutley prefer a HOF type QB. However, they're not available, so you do w/ competent at QB and a great DLine.

Hurts is not HOF type, he's the competent type I'm referring to. It's not a choice, it's what you have to do if you don't have Mahomes at QB.
I'm not a Dak fan, BTW, and I'm more than ready to move on. However, the reality is that he's here for the next 3 seasons, min. So, you build a great Dfront. Can Jerry do that? Highly doubtful.

Funny thing is, you take Brady out and most of the QBs in the super bowl during that time are not HOF types. Oh, they'll prolly put some of them in, the media that votes for the HOF falls for stupid crapp to put QBs in.

And mostly HOF type QBs who don't have a good DLine don't win super bowls.

 

[kskboys]

I agree. You cannot always find a great lineman at the bottom third of the first round. It’s much less likely. If you force it, you can completely miss.

Also, this team seems to pick too many guys that have severe effort or character concerns that they did not know or care enough about-which calls into question their scouting details. Once the elite talents are gone in the draft, the amount of drive and love of the game should take more precedence.

Yup. That's because Jerry is so bad at personnel evaluation, he takes players that obviously have NFL talent that have slid in the draft. And Jerry is not competent enough to analyze why they were sliding, so he takes druggies, dummies, and injury prone dudes. And not only that, he falls for draft hoopla and drafts players who don't have NFL talent(Escobar, Trysten Hill) high in the draft.

 

[Dalmations202]

Model I would use, if I were the owner of the Cowboys.
#1 -- Find the best talent evaluator out there who is the biggest a$$hole and wants discipline, accountability, and results. Make him GM. Have him get me the absolute best scouts out there. He is also in charge of the coaches.
#2 -- Find the best HC -- who can motivate, discipline, teach and monitor.
#3 -- Find the best "football chess" evaluators and coordinators. Make them the Coordinators. They need to know talent, concepts, and the what to do and why against any and all other talents and concepts.
#4 -- Find the best football teachers. Make them position coaches. They need to be smart, and efficient.
#5 -- Find the best capologist and lawyer to negotiate contracts.
#6 -- Get the best strength and conditioning team. Games are won in the offseason with work.

All contracts both coaching and players would have winning tied to them.

Coaches do not have a salary cap. Why have the most valuable franchise in the world and skimp anything on coaching? Pay coaches for the job they do, eliminate the want to be a head coach because of the money. Head coach, coordinators, and position coaches have three totally different roles and skill sets -- failure mainly happens when they want more money/power and go to a position they are not qualified for (see Wade Phillips who was an awesome DC but eh HC).

Use free agency to better one or two positions each year based upon need.
Design the offense based upon the talent you have. Be versatile. Keep accumulating the talent and use it. Be able to run so you can control the clock and help your defense get rest. Be able to use screens to get outside the box. Be able to get in the seams. Use simple concept reads and flood zones. Throw the deep ball at least a couple times a game to keep teams honest and not playing under all the time. Need to be versatile and run/short zone/deep, and have the personnel to execute.

Design your defense to be able to show 3-4 and 4-3 and definitely the nickel. Try to keep at least 2 playmakers on the field in hybrid positions where they can play either/or to keep the offense guessing. LB/DE and LB/SS are the way I would go. Lets say we have the current D, but draft JWalker. JWalker/Parsons would be fine with one at DE and the other at LB, or maybe both at OLB in a 3-4, or maybe one giving the other a break, or maybe one at Mike and one at Sam. If you also integrated Overshown/DWilson into that as LB/SS hybrids that had run responsibility first, then short zone or back/TE, then you have an ability to be very good. I want players that would allow you to excel at all the variants of D.

Evaluate your own team first. Build your draft board based upon bpa (skills, heart, injury, intelligence) and current talent. Always be trying to upgrade the overall talent of the team. Do not pass on a guy if he is the next highest guy on the board (see Joe Montana). Spend time building the board, and then stick to it. This requires you to have outside people to evaluate your team, and a group (scouts) to evaluate incoming available players. Example of why not to go BPA only: The next guy on your list BPA skill wise is a TE, but you already have 3 TE on the team that all grade out higher than him. Waste of a pick that will not play.

Last but not least...hire a play caller to advise the coaches. There are some guys out there that are much better at play calling than others, and I don't understand why you don't go out and find the best one. The coaches might have final say, but I would want to know why they deviated from the play caller and both would be sitting in front of the HC or GM or me or whomever if it isn't working. This would be part of the accountability. Team game of concept of what to do, player ability - injury, and calling would all need to be seamless teamwork. The game isn't just the players, and all need to work to the highest level or be replaced.

 

[ShiningStar]

The other main model I provided does not require a great QB. Marino never had an even good defense for playoff football-they were giving up 30 or more points in their playoff losses his first 8-10 years in the league.

Three times, he had a defense that ranked in the top five (1983, 1990, and 1998), and twice, his defense led the league in fewest points (1983 and 1998). That destroys the myth that Dan Marino never had a good defense to win a Super Bowl.

 

[ShiningStar]

Correct. I mean, the better the QB the better your chances, but you just need competent w/ no TOs. Eli Manning for instance. He was never more then decent, but he made some plays at the right time and didn't turn the ball over and let his D win the game for him.

exactly right

and most of these posters are looking for a Mahomes at every draft and would pass up on a Kurt Warner or Qbs you dont need to be awesome but can do their job. a lot of them were out there but on bad teams.

 

[75boyz]

Noooo, I'd absolutley prefer a HOF type QB. However, they're not available, so you do w/ competent at QB and a great DLine.

Hurts is not HOF type, he's the competent type I'm referring to. It's not a choice, it's what you have to do if you don't have Mahomes at QB.
I'm not a Dak fan, BTW, and I'm more than ready to move on. However, the reality is that he's here for the next 3 seasons, min. So, you build a great Dfront. Can Jerry do that? Highly doubtful.

Funny thing is, you take Brady out and most of the QBs in the super bowl during that time are not HOF types. Oh, they'll prolly put some of them in, the media that votes for the HOF falls for stupid crapp to put QBs in.

And mostly HOF type QBs who don't have a good DLine don't win super bowls.

Fair enough.
I just have seen far too often how "defense played well enough to win" circumstances with the Cowboys and other teams and know full well that with a better QB that that team would have won.

 

[Blitzen]

Three times, he had a defense that ranked in the top five (1983, 1990, and 1998), and twice, his defense led the league in fewest points (1983 and 1998). That destroys the myth that Dan Marino never had a good defense to win a Super Bowl.

And the other elements that I mentioned for the first model? The HOF type elite receiver (I didn’t say very good receiver)? He had one of those in the years of those elite defenses? 1998-when he was 37 years old with knees made of fiberglass (no longer an A-level QB at that point)??

Quit avoiding the fact that I never said all the SB winning teams had some variance-but I did point out that most of them had similar elements of one of two models. It’s not random and lightning in the bottle the enormous majority of the time. Most SB teams were strategically built with the elements I mentioned in the two models. Accept it. It’s reality.

 

[BoyzBlaster]

There is no model. Lets kick that right off the table.

The NFL has tried to science that which cant be scienced. Horrible idea but lets face it, its like every sport, anything for a dollar and attention.

Most SB winners, if you track their seasons, come at different ways. some hit lightning in a bottle. some get lucky that other teams ran out of roster, and some get lucky that a player just happens to emerge. Some, just got lucky with a position being filled correctly.

Does Elway win without the RB.?

Does Eli win without a great defense?

Do the patriots win without playing a bad miami and bengal teams?

Does Patrick Mahomes win without Andy?

So many variables, i dont see how anyone can say "ok this is the model to win the SB" someone else is going to point out another factor and just be correct.

I agree with you there are different recipes for success...but outside of Trent Dilfer they all had QBs capable of playing at a high level at least in stretches AND who could play under the most intense pressure. But winning with a QB who folds under pressure is impossible.

 

[kskboys]

Fair enough.
I just have seen far too often how "defense played well enough to win" circumstances with the Cowboys and other teams and know full well that with a better QB that that team would have won.

I don't call Dak competent. Too many 3 and outs, too many TOs, and just too many times where he doesn't move the ball.

A competent Qb is able to move the ball on a regular basis. He seldom has long periods of time w/ no production. Brad Johnson, for instance.

 

[75boyz]

exactly right

and most of these posters are looking for a Mahomes at every draft and would pass up on a Kurt Warner or Qbs you dont need to be awesome but can do their job. a lot of them were out there but on bad teams.

?
Are you talking how he entered the NFL ?
Cuz Brady was a 6th rounder too.
Kurt Warner is a Hall of Famer who
took 2 different teams to a SB and won one.
LED one of the most productive offenses in NFL history.

So, not sure I follow the "pass up" angle unless you're talking about him being an UDFA when he entered the NFL.
And yeah, he wasnt some wannabe game manager bus driver type. He wasn't a product of surrounding team parts.
He was the engine.

 

[kskboys]

I agree with you there are different recipes for success...but outside of Trent Dilfer they all had QBs capable of playing at a high level at least in stretches AND who could play under the most intense pressure. But winning with a QB who folds under pressure is impossible.

Don't turn the ball over and move the chains. 3 and outs is bad for a team in so many ways.

 

[kskboys]

?
Are you talking how he entered the NFL ?
Cuz Brady was a 6th rounder too.
Kurt Warner is a Hall of Famer who
took 2 different teams to a SB and won one.
LED one of the most productive offenses in NFL history.

So, not sure I follow the "pass up" angle unless you're talking about him being an UDFA when he entered the NFL.
And yeah, he wasnt some wannabe game manager bus driver type. He wasn't a product of surrounding team parts.
He was the engine.

Kurt Warner was awesome.

 

[kskboys]

And the other elements that I mentioned for the first model? The HOF type elite receiver (I didn’t say very good receiver)? He had one of those in the years of those elite defenses? 1998-when he was 37 years old with knees made of fiberglass (no longer an A-level QB at that point)??

Quit avoiding the fact that I never said all the SB winning teams had some variance-but I did point out that most of them had similar elements of one of two models. It’s not random and lightning in the bottle the enormous majority of the time. Most SB teams were strategically built with the elements I mentioned in the two models. Accept it. It’s reality.

Disagree about the HOF type. D is much more important.

What you want at WR are sharp route runners and at least one fly guy.

 

[75boyz]

Kurt Warner was awesome.

Exactly.
Did not understand the pass on a Kurt Warner previous post response and needed further clarity on the point he was trying to make.