News: Why Don’t The Cowboys Invest In “War Daddies” During Free Agency?

[MichaelWinicki]

I'd rather we not.

Your 'War Daddys' are almost exclusively day 1 free agency signings. Day 1 free agency signings are usually horrendous. If you're signing a Free Agent on Day 1, you're essentially looking at a 'win now' mentality because historically Day 1 free agent signings are well overpaid and the real value is in the first 2 years of their contract and they don't live up to the rest of the contract.

The Win Now mentality doesn't work because it puts you closer to missing the playoffs in the future. After year 1 or 2, you're now more likely to have to give up valuable players to keep your big day 1 FA signing(s) from years before.

And this is even more incredibly risky with defensive players who have historically been more than twice as likely to get injured as offensive players in the NFL. If anything, good defensive football in the NFL starts with quality depth and signing 'War Daddys' in FA, particularly on Day 1, is going to to hurt your depth on defense in the long run.

In the end, the best way to win the Super Bowl is to position yourself to make the playoffs as often as you can and that increases the odds of finally winning the Super Bowl.





YR

B.I.N.G.O.

You don't go "all in" for any one season. You build to make the playoffs (year after year) and then let thing get sorted out from there.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

No but I do like drinking pina coladas and getting caught in the rain.

LOL!

In 1979... That song was everywhere.

 

[waldoputty]

Wonder what Barwin has left. Let's see if he can help

barwin is not a rde and i dont think there are any rde left except the freeney.

we have like 8 DL already: tcrawford (guaranteed salary 2017), paea (just signed), collins (5 sacks in 2016), irving (perhaps the best we have), mayowa (6 sacks in 2016), thornton, dlaw (question about injured back), tapper (questions remain).
that is not counting moore (flyer) they just signed as well as 1-2 DEs to be drafted.

the FO will loathe wasting cap dollars to release players.
how many DL did they carry in 2016 - 9? 10?

if they want a war daddy, the only option I see is richardson - assuming he is still a war daddy.
he plays at the 1 or 3, but if he is a dominant player, room could be made.

 

[LocimusPrime]

barwin is not a rde and i dont think there are any rde left except the freeney.

we have like 8 DL already: tcrawford (guaranteed salary 2017), paea (just signed), collins (5 sacks in 2016), irving (perhaps the best we have), mayowa (6 sacks in 2016), thornton, dlaw (question about injured back), tapper (questions remain).
that is not counting moore (flyer) they just signed as well as 1-2 DEs to be drafted.

the FO will loathe wasting cap dollars to release players.
how many DL did they carry in 2016 - 9? 10?

if they want a war daddy, the only option I see is richardson - assuming he is still a war daddy.
he plays at the 1 or 3, but if he is a dominant player, room could be made.

They carried 12 before the draft last year. 6 defensive ends and 6 DTs
https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/www....depth-chart-and-how-the-draft-might-affect-it

Then they cut the ones they didn't like after the draft and training camp. Also I'm sure than anticipate some injuries to happen- there's always 2-3 freaky injuries at training camp

 

[haleyrules]

I'd rather we not.

Your 'War Daddys' are almost exclusively day 1 free agency signings. Day 1 free agency signings are usually horrendous. If you're signing a Free Agent on Day 1, you're essentially looking at a 'win now' mentality because historically Day 1 free agent signings are well overpaid and the real value is in the first 2 years of their contract and they don't live up to the rest of the contract.

The Win Now mentality doesn't work because it puts you closer to missing the playoffs in the future. After year 1 or 2, you're now more likely to have to give up valuable players to keep your big day 1 FA signing(s) from years before.

And this is even more incredibly risky with defensive players who have historically been more than twice as likely to get injured as offensive players in the NFL. If anything, good defensive football in the NFL starts with quality depth and signing 'War Daddys' in FA, particularly on Day 1, is going to to hurt your depth on defense in the long run.

In the end, the best way to win the Super Bowl is to position yourself to make the playoffs as often as you can and that increases the odds of finally winning the Super Bowl.





YR

Makes sense.

 

[waldoputty]

They carried 12 before the draft last year. 6 defensive ends and 6 DTs
https://www.___GET_REAL_URL___/www....depth-chart-and-how-the-draft-might-affect-it

Then they cut the ones they didn't like after the draft and training camp. Also I'm sure than anticipate some injuries to happen- there's always 2-3 freaky injuries at training camp

Fine, this is what we have right now counting everyone:
DE - Irving, Mayowa, Tapper, DLaw, Moore
DT - Paea, Collins, Thornton, TCrawford, Ash

Suspect we draft at least 1 or 2. And at least 1 UDFA
That gets us to 11-12.
Of which Ash, at least 1 UDFA are long shots. Moore has the talent but may be crazy - so sort of a long shot.

Last year, there were Walker, Renfro and Mcadoo that were long shots

 

[JPostSam]

Why Don’t The Cowboys Invest In “War Daddies” During Free Agency?
http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2017...in-war-daddies-rod-marinelli-free-agents-2017



...In 2016, the defensive lineman who played the most snaps in the NFL was Olivier Vernon of the New York Giants, who signed an $85 million contract in the offseason, making it the richest contract for a defensive end in NFL history. No wonder they used him for 1,040 defensive snaps.

How many snaps did the leading Cowboy lineman have in 2016? The answer is rookie Maliek Collins, who played 656 snaps. That ranked him 50th in the NFL. Only three teams out of 32 had defensive linemen lead with fewer snaps - Atlanta (630), Baltimore (636), and Indianapolis (645).

In 2015, who had the most snaps on the Cowboys line? It was Tyrone Crawford, who had 705, ranking him 38th in NFL. DeMarcus Lawrence was one spot behind with 700 snaps. Notably, Greg Hardy got in 595 snaps in 2015, despite being the highest paid lineman Dallas has had under Marinelli. Of course, Hardy missed four games due to suspension, so he was on pace for 793 snaps. But would Marinelli have used him that much spread over 16 games?...

because real "war daddies" are usually retained by their current teams, and the ones that go on to sign huge contracts are usually overpriced.

 

[waldoputty]

because real "war daddies" are usually retained by their current teams, and the ones that go on to sign huge contracts are usually overpriced.

the real war daddies just dont have a chance to set the even larger contracts that would make your overpriced contracts look cheap

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

The simple answer is there weren't many (if any) "war daddies" on the market. That's why.

The more complicated answer is they are following the Packers-Steelers model of using FA very sparingly and building mostly through the draft and only giving big contracts to homegrown guys. It's a good model. There's a reason those two teams are always in the hunt. And the teams that usually win free agency aren't the teams that are playing in late January.

 

[CCBoy]

because real "war daddies" are usually retained by their current teams, and the ones that go on to sign huge contracts are usually overpriced.

A tendency...but I think that the current Giants are for real.

 

[waldoputty]

The simple answer is there weren't many (if any) "war daddies" on the market. That's why.

The more complicated answer is they are following the Packers-Steelers model of using FA very sparingly and building mostly through the draft and only giving big contracts to homegrown guys. It's a good model. There's a reason those two teams are always in the hunt. And the teams that usually win free agency aren't the teams that are playing in late January.

the packers steelers model are for small market teams.
while they are rich, i am not sure whether those type of signings constraints their budgets.

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

the packers steelers model are for small market teams.
while they are rich, i am not sure whether those type of signings constraints their budgets.

Small market? This isn't baseball. Market size doesn't impact a team's ability to compete. TV money is split equally and that's a tremendous piece of the revenue pie.

And to think the Steelers and Packers - two of the top 4 national brands in the league - are small market to begin with is silly.