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

[Walker]

I mean we got 30 years of nothing, so exchanging 5 years for 1 year heck yea.

 

[Bobhaze]

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.

“History honors the teams that win championships…”
Your above quote could and maybe should be emblazoned on the walls of the Star.

History does indeed remember champions. One hundred years from now, the 1971, 77, 92, 93 and 95 teams will still be talked about. The teams in between and since fade pretty quickly. It’s why TV ratings and team monetary value don’t mean anything to me.

In 2050, no Cowboys fan will care that we were “#1 in revenue and TV ratings for decades.”

 

[KJJ]

I can’t imagine anyone not talking a SB win even if they had to endure 5 lean years afterwards. A majority of the fans feel the last 28 years have been lean.

 

[DallasEast]

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?

 

[Loso86]

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?

Most can't live without complaining so this will be interesting responses to see

 

[zrinkill]

Hmmm 5 or 29?

Let me think .....??????

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

I just want a fun team. This one isn’t fun. Back against the wall older overpaid head coach and qb who’s best years are behind them

 

[NFCBeasts]

yes

 

[jwitten82]

Wait, like I would know before the season started? What makes the season enjoyable is the unknown, sure we may have a good idea on how the season will turn out, but theres always a slight chance it might turn out different. I never understood scenarios like because that would take all the fun out of sports. I dont have much hope for this team under Jerry, but the unknown is what makes it exciting.

Anyone remember that twilight zone episode where the guy who is addicted to gambling dies, but in the afterlife he always wins and it gets boring to him? Turns out he was in hell, good episode lol

 

[Diehardblues]

“History honors the teams that win championships…”
Your above quote could and maybe should be emblazoned on the walls of the Star.

History does indeed remember champions. One hundred years from now, the 1971, 77, 92, 93 and 95 teams will still be talked about. The teams in between and since fade pretty quickly. It’s why TV ratings and team monetary value don’t mean anything to me.

In 2050, no Cowboys fan will care that we were “#1 in revenue and TV ratings for decades.”

Yea, that’s true on the most part but I’d argue teams or eras are remembered for more than just winning championships.

I’d like to believe in 2050 Cowboy fans will also be proud of 20 consecutive winning seasons( especially if that record still stands) 5 SB’s in a decade and 12 championship appearances in 17 years. Incredible run in Cowboys and NFL history.

And our popularity is only a bragging line if we’re having that type of success. Otherwise it means nothing.

 

[ArtClink]

Serious question: Why would any NFL owner hire a GM who would rather be “competitive“ than going “all in” for a championship?

Jerry’s lucky he bought the most indestructible sports brand of all time. It’s just so frustrating to see an idiot like the fuhrer insist on running all football operations when he’s incapable of building a winning roster that can mk noise in the playoffs. He’s much better at NDAs, hookers, and booze.

 

[Captain43Crash]

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?

That is a NO BRAINER!!!!!

Of course!!! Those Super Bowl memories last a life time.

Look at the Whiners. I guarantee you all the Whiner fans would take 1 Superbowl instead of all the playoff and Super Bowl heartache over the last 10 or so years.

 

[gimmesix]

We should have had 5 in a row.

Would have been tough, but I'll give Jimmy the benefit of the doubt that he could have overcome the obstacles that sunk us. He may not have been able to overcome Miami's obstacles, but this was the team he built and it still had a good nucleus for him to work with.

 

[Captain43Crash]

Whether it’s a decade or 5 years I would not choose the irrelevance for a Super Bowl win. I want SB’s every year.

Everyone does, but that is not reality.

1 in 5 years would be Awesome considering the last 30 years.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

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?

I like the status quo, chaps.
There is virtue in lethargy, inactivity and settling for JAGs to surround 2 superstars who account for half of the cap.
There is. Allow me to look for some.

 

[Captain43Crash]

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.

Teams are also remembered that win the most Superbowls!!!

We only NEED 1 to be tied for the MOST Superbowls in NFL history!

 

[Rockport]

Everyone does, but that is not reality.

1 in 5 years would be Awesome considering the last 30 years.

That’s the difference between you and I, I don’t consider the last 30 years.

 

[ICP]

Lol, after going with basically nothing for almost 30 years, hmmm, yeah I'd take it

 

[Calvin2Tony2Emmitt2Julius]

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?

That which a man lusts after will constantly avoid him.

 

[CWR]

Serious question: Why would any NFL owner hire a GM who would rather be “competitive“ than going “all in” for a championship?

Only for a constant revenue stream.