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

[Whyjerry]

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?

Absolutely

 

[Swanny]

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?

Would you do 3 super bowls then have 30 years of nothing?

 

[75boyz]

Yes.
Perfect example is the Giants.
They won a trophy after both the 2007 and 2011 seasons.

They are a bottom 3 team in wins since 2012.

We have 4, or is it 5 playoff wins in 28 years?

I'd take one amazing run ending in a championship and then sucking for 5 years(OR MORE) over the "Jerry Jones regular season relevance" standard.

Others here actually are okay with the now long established one and done ceiling of this team.
A championship, however accomplished, and however long we suck afterwards, trumps everything.
Others who dont see it that way truly confuse me.
And with whom I strongly disagree.

 

[Cowboys5217]

Have to be honest here. Have loved the Cowboys since 1969, Calvin Hill was our #1 pick. The Cowboys winning a Championship changes my life Zero, Zilch Nada. If it somehow changes your life I would love to know how. Thx…

Why does it have to be life changing? I think you are bordering into hyperbole with that. A lot of us just want to feel that excitement again. Is that okay with you, Sigmund?

 

[kskboys]

Beyond any doubt whatsoever.

 

[The Fonz]

For me it is too little too late I don't care much about The Jones Club. I can't be fooled again with false hope

 

[youngjerryjones]

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?

Live here in Toronto and what Kawhi Leonard did for us is unforgettable...that 1 year makes up for the abysmal decisions made by the franchise 100x over again and always will

 

[Vegas_Cowboy]

Easiest yes ever.

 

[Bobhaze]

12-5 with a one and out in the playoffs is the equivalent of a participation trophy.

Agree 100%!!!

 

[gimmesix]

The problem with the scenario is that you can go all in, face those 5 lean years, but accomplish nothing due to chemistry or injuries or coaching.

I think that is the Joneses' fear (or excuse). Me, I'd rather try and fail than keep spinning our wheels. At least you have a better chance of rebuilding if you spectacularly crash and end up drafting top 10 for multiple years.

 

[erod]

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?

Is take one for 25 years of irrelevance. We've already done that once.

 

[IrishAnto]

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?

YES!!!!!!!!!

 

[Streifenkarl]

5 years in between? What kind of question is that?

I'd even think about it when there's 15 years of nothing until the next SB.

 

[Diehardblues]

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?

Hell yea!!!!!!

Unfortunately it appears to be easier and more profitable or at least more consistently profitable to remain around the rim than the extreme ups and downs. At least to our ownership.

 

[HeavyBarrel]

Have to be honest here. Have loved the Cowboys since 1969, Calvin Hill was our #1 pick. The Cowboys winning a Championship changes my life Zero, Zilch Nada. If it somehow changes your life I would love to know how. Thx…

Remember though, this mindset comes with age and changing priorities in life. I was going through a divorce at the same time the Rangers won their first World Series and I can tell you for me, just for a few days I cracked a smile or 2 that normally would not have been there......

 

[Diehardblues]

The priority with our dysfunctional ownership is to remain “ interesting and relative”.

While they’d love to luck out with a championship their greatest fear is hitting rock bottom. Tough to hype and promote 5-11.

 

[MarkP88]

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?

Yes.

 

[plasticman]

I totally understand the idea of getting a championship, partially by sacrificing future opportunity, especially if it's been such a long time.

However, how long do you want that great feeling to last? How long do you want to feel good about your team's success? The natural reaction would be the idea of repeating. When your team is at the very top you want to ride success as long as you can. It's great to hear the respect/hate from the media and other fans and it's great to revisit that victory with fellow Cowboys fans or anyone for that matter.

However if a team goes "all in" it implies that they sacrificed future assets in order to apply them to a championship run. Your team is going to weaken significantly for some years.

Your only opportunity to truly celebrate that Super Bowl is the offseason leading up to the next year. That's all. There is going to be nothing to build on and there is going to be nothing to build with. Instead of remaining competitive for a significant period of time, it's over in a flash.

This makes a SB championship far less meaningful. The team took all the excitement of the future and threw it into one season and there is nothing to look forward to.

The Cowboys did go all in in 1995 by signing Sanders to a ridiculous contract. It is now 2024. Was it worth it? Prior to 1995, Cowboys fans went into the next seasons with realistic expectations of competing for another championship. These are the kind of teams that are remembered by all. They are the ones that win in clusters because they have a great team they can keep for several seasons.

History honors the teams that win championships in clusters, teams like the Cowboys in the 70's and 90's, the Steelers, the Chiefs, the Patriots, etc. A team might have a great year but the great teams have eras. They aren't built for a single opportunity. They are built to compete every season with a realistic opportunity to win it all. If they don't win it all there is next year.

If a team is built to be "all in" then there is no next year for quite a while.

 

[Diehardblues]

I totally understand the idea of getting a championship, partially by sacrificing future opportunity, especially if it's been such a long time.

However, how long do you want that great feeling to last? How long do you want to feel good about your team's success? The natural reaction would be the idea of repeating. When your team is at the very top you want to ride success as long as you can. It's great to hear the respect/hate from the media and other fans and it's great to revisit that victory with fellow Cowboys fans or anyone for that matter.

However if a team goes "all in" it implies that they sacrificed future assets in order to apply them to a championship run. Your team is going to weaken significantly for some years.

Your only opportunity to truly celebrate that Super Bowl is the offseason leading up to the next year. That's all. There is going to be nothing to build on and there is going to be nothing to build with. Instead of remaining competitive for a significant period of time, it's over in a flash.

This makes a SB championship far less meaningful. The team took all the excitement of the future and threw it into one season and there is nothing to look forward to.

The Cowboys did go all in in 1995 by signing Sanders to a ridiculous contract. It is now 2024. Was it worth it? Prior to 1995, Cowboys fans went into the next seasons with realistic expectations of competing for another championship. These are the kind of teams that are remembered by all. They are the ones that win in clusters because they have a great team they can keep for several seasons.

History honors the teams that win championships in clusters, teams like the Cowboys in the 70's and 90's, the Steelers, the Chiefs, the Patriots, etc. A team might have a great year but the great teams have eras. They aren't built for a single opportunity. They are built to compete every season with a realistic opportunity to win it all. If they don't win it all there is next year.

If a team is built to be "all in" then there is no next year for quite a while.

While going all in for 1995 had ripple effects for following declining seasons, I’m not sure it’s a valid argument for 3 decades?

 

[buybuydandavis]

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?

Problem is that you can't "choose" that.

You can sell out for one year and marginally increase your odds that year. The time to do that, IMO, is *after* you've just won one. You've demonstrated that you're there. Spend again in an attempt to stay there.

"One player away" is more credible on the down side through injury than on the upside of signing a new player.

The Tampa-Brady example wasn't "one player away" because *other* quality players came to play with The Goat (on a well below market value contract) on a team that was credibly close. Hard to recreate that one.

The Jets tried "one player away" with Rodgers last year and his Achilles spontaneously exploded.