Would you choose winning a Super Bowl even if it meant 5 lean years after?

Bobhaze

Bobhaze

Staff member
Messages
20,030
Reaction score
80,717
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I would choose winning a SB even if it meant a decade of irrelevance. In a heartbeat! Championships are forever. No one remembers or cares if you were close, “around the rim” or the most profitable franchise. Fifty years from now no one will give a rats behind what our cap numbers or TV ratings or the value of the franchise were. Lombardi trophies are what lasts.

How about you? Would you be good with winning a SB even if we were terrible for 5 years afterward?
 
Bobhaze said:
I would choose winning a SB even if it meant a decade of irrelevance. In a heartbeat! Championships are forever. No one remembers or cares if you were close, “around the rim” or the most profitable franchise. Fifty years from now no one will give a rats behind what our cap numbers or TV ratings or the value of the franchise were. Lombardi trophies are what lasts.

How about you? Would you be good with winning a SB even if we were terrible for 5 years afterward?
Click to expand...
A SB appearance every 6th year? Hell yes, I take that in a heartbeat.
 
Bobhaze said:
I would choose winning a SB even if it meant a decade of irrelevance. In a heartbeat! Championships are forever. No one remembers or cares if you were close, “around the rim” or the most profitable franchise. Fifty years from now no one will give a rats behind what our cap numbers or TV ratings or the value of the franchise were. Lombardi trophies are what lasts.

How about you? Would you be good with winning a SB even if we were terrible for 5 years afterward?
Click to expand...
It doesn't have to mean five lean years, though. The Rams made the Super Bowl in 2019, then retooled and went again in 2022. However, I'd take it even if it mean 10 lean years.
 
To win a Superbowl then be terrible for 5 years probably means you bought a Superbowl through free agents or got very lucky with other teams bad play, injuries, etc. Or both.

Is there any real pride in that? Nah, but I'd probably take it then take a long shower LOL.
 
Bobhaze said:
I ask because our FO seems to worry more about cap restrictions than going for it.
Click to expand...
Agreed. I think they would rather be "competitive" most of the time than really going for it.
The reality is, you wouldn't even face five lean years after going for it. If you draft well, and know when to start trading players, you can be rebuilt again in an offseason or two.
 
Bobhaze said:
I would choose winning a SB even if it meant a decade of irrelevance. In a heartbeat! Championships are forever. No one remembers or cares if you were close, “around the rim” or the most profitable franchise. Fifty years from now no one will give a rats behind what our cap numbers or TV ratings or the value of the franchise were. Lombardi trophies are what lasts.

How about you? Would you be good with winning a SB even if we were terrible for 5 years afterward?
Click to expand...
I dont think any reasonable fan wouldnt be ok with this. Jerrys approach is be stingy in FA and go all in on draft and its hard to accomplish winning the SB like that. You cant miss on many picks. Jerry has not figured out the whole salary cap era formula for winning maybe we get lucky this year


edit winning in playoffs
 
Kolemmitt said:
Agreed. I think they would rather be "competitive" most of the time than really going for it.
The reality is, you wouldn't even face five lean years after going for it. If you draft well, and know when to start trading players, you can be rebuilt again in an offseason or two.
Click to expand...
Serious question: Why would any NFL owner hire a GM who would rather be “competitive“ than going “all in” for a championship?
 
Bobhaze said:
I would choose winning a SB even if it meant a decade of irrelevance. In a heartbeat! Championships are forever. No one remembers or cares if you were close, “around the rim” or the most profitable franchise. Fifty years from now no one will give a rats behind what our cap numbers or TV ratings or the value of the franchise were. Lombardi trophies are what lasts.

How about you? Would you be good with winning a SB even if we were terrible for 5 years afterward?
Click to expand...
No I wouldn't chose one SB followed by 5 lean years.

I'd chose ZERO superbowls and 30 lean years.

Yours truly,
Jerruh
 
Hell yeah! By that math that's two super bowls per decade.
We'd be up to 14 by now :flagwave:
Edit my math is a little off but we would have more than five that's for sure :laugh:
 
Last edited:
That’s the
Bobhaze said:
I would choose winning a SB even if it meant a decade of irrelevance. In a heartbeat! Championships are forever. No one remembers or cares if you were close, “around the rim” or the most profitable franchise. Fifty years from now no one will give a rats behind what our cap numbers or TV ratings or the value of the franchise were. Lombardi trophies are what lasts.

How about you? Would you be good with winning a SB even if we were terrible for 5 years afterwards
Click to expand...
That’s the objective, a SB worry about the next season afterwards.
 
Would you rather have a Championship or $100k with your Monday morning stock pick? Serious question.
 
Funny alternative way of looking at it? Would you take 3 Super Bowls just to not win another one for 30? Because that's our reality right now. :lmao2:

It's like a lump sum settlement we'll give you all 3 Super Bowls in a 4 year span instead of 1 every 10 years but no more for 30.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

Total: 2,019 (members: 23, guests: 1,996)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
466,179
Messages
13,921,245
Members
23,795
Latest member
Derekbsenior
Back
Top