Building A Competitive NFL Franchise: The New Normal

[Matts4313]

1 hour ago, The_Slamman said:

You still don’t get it (not surprisingly btw)

no dumb dumb, until you understand AVV, you dont get it.

Figure out how the Cap works, and try again.

[The_Slamman]

11 minutes ago, quiller said:

While I totally agree it is easier to play QB now then ever I still am not sold that it is “the way” to expect to win in the playoffs with 1st or 2nd year QB’s.  As been pointed out over the last decade there has been 1 QB to win a super bowl in his first two years and that was Russel Wilson and believe me that year they won with defense and the beast mode .  And Yes Wilson is a HOF.  One note Mahomes a HOF himself won in his third year in the league. As a rookie he watched from the bench as a Alex Smith led team was 5th in NFL in scoring and Smith was in top ten in NFL in passing TD not a bad offense to be inheriting but also Mahomes is almost guaranteed HOF as well.    
 

I don’t see any other 1st rounder of the last 5 years shown me the consistency needed.  Other then Mahomes to be in the radar for a HOF career.   I would say Allen is the closest.   Watson maybe but his owner coach did him no favor.  Who knows what will happen with Jackson he still has a shot but isn’t winning any important games now.  

So. You really see Murray and AZ doing anything in the playoffs this year if they make it   Good luck with that i recommend a day at Vegas on that belief  

mayfield  might make playoffs they are yes having a good year last year he had a bad one I would say  but they aren’t in the playoffs yet and I don’t see them winning a game if they make it

Allen yes he has a chance and should win a playoff game as they will have a good match up playing the colts/dolphins or Browns I expect 
 

the top three AFC teams KC Pitts Tenn  
 

Trubisky really.  Mahomes uh yeah he is A prime. Watson needs better owners not doing anything right now. 
 

golf Wentz. Uh. Already in second contract so.... oops. They Had some good times on first contract  But Wentz got hurt and fell off the table and Golf wasn’t good enough to beat a long term elite QB. 
 

Mariota really.  
 

see other thing is.  Look that list.  That’s 16 1st rounders.  I would say 6-7 are top 10 worthy over time maybe and that’s pushing it if Murray improves and counting Wentz which is a stretch right now.   That’s over HALF are busts. So  you going with a 1st round QB has a 50/50 at-least chance of being a bust.  I don’t like those odds.   And oh.  On another little tid bit .    Only team in NFC in playoffs off right now with a “young” QB.  That would be AZ 7th place at a blistering 6-5.   Saints Seattle GB TB Packers Rams all ahead of them with you guessed it except of Goff elite old  QB’s.  
 

AFC...

yes you have Allen and Mayfield though I expect Mayfield to drop out of the race by the end. 
 

that means 3 out of 14 teams likely to make playoffs with 1st contact QB’s.  With 1 of those most likely winning a game by default when they okay each other.  And if you are all in in AZ and Cleveland this year or even the next I say good luck with that.  
 

point being then 1 out of 16 is not the odds I want to have a super bowl. Contending team. 
 

compare to the top super bowl contending QB  now. Brees Rogers Wilson Mahomes Big Ben.

who would you put  your money on!!!!

Sure, if you have a truly great HOF QB, they are good enough to overcome deficiencies on their rosters.  Seattle and GB can have subpar defenses and it’s okay because they can put up more points than the other team.  And they can sustain it over a period of time.  They’ve proven it.  So, by all means, they deserve to be paid as truly great players.  Same with Roethlisberger and Brees.  By all accounts Mahoney appears to be that guy as well.  
 

It’s the next level guys that can’t do it and can’t sustain it.  Philip Rivers is a good QB.  Matt Ryan is a good QB.  But paying them as if they are on the same level as the greats is a recipe for disaster, it doesn’t work and it’s not sustainable.  And yes, teams are more likely to have success with a young inexpensive QB and building a complete roster to support the QB than a high paid above average QB.  
 

 

[The_Slamman]

24 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

no dumb dumb, until you understand AVV, you dont get it.

Figure out how the Cap works, and try again.

Okay, champ.  I just did a crash course on the cap and AVV.  Guess what?  Everything I said is still 100% true.  You want to believe so hard that signing Dak to a huge long term contract will make the cowboys better than you simply can’t process the truth... In today’s nfl, it doesn’t work, it’s not sustainable.  The Dallas Cowboys got appreciably worse the second they made the decision to pay Dak $31M at the expense of an already average to below average defense.  You should at least take some comfort in the Eagles making the same mistake with Wentz.  We at least have a chance to learn from our mistake without any further consequences.

[Texas_OutLaw7]

I'm confused over the concept of "sustainable" and I can't help but blame the Patriots for setting unrealistic expectations. 

The window for success is small and missing it should typically reset the cycle. Most (maybe all?) franchises/clubs will be a faustian bargain for the chance to win a SB. It's what the Eagles did with Vick's team in 2010. It's what the Falcons did with Ryan recently. 

Rodgers, for all his talent, has only one ring to his name. That's....standard. 

I don't think a soul here would care if we blew our cap on several players for a chance at just one ring. It's why the "cap hell" years of Romo were so painful. We saw how good we were. In another timeline Romo, Witten, and Ware all retire as Cowboys with a Ring. 

So I guess what bothers me about sustainability is that it flys in the face of the league mandated parity. I'd love for us to be the new patriots, the new cowboys of the 90s, to be the next dynasty - but so would 31 other teams and the probability of any being that successful is low. 

Do what you must to return to glory & damn the consequences.

[DaBoys]

2 hours ago, Texas_OutLaw7 said:

I'm confused over the concept of "sustainable" and I can't help but blame the Patriots for setting unrealistic expectations. 

The window for success is small and missing it should typically reset the cycle. Most (maybe all?) franchises/clubs will be a faustian bargain for the chance to win a SB. It's what the Eagles did with Vick's team in 2010. It's what the Falcons did with Ryan recently. 

Rodgers, for all his talent, has only one ring to his name. That's....standard. 

I don't think a soul here would care if we blew our cap on several players for a chance at just one ring. It's why the "cap hell" years of Romo were so painful. We saw how good we were. In another timeline Romo, Witten, and Ware all retire as Cowboys with a Ring. 

So I guess what bothers me about sustainability is that it flys in the face of the league mandated parity. I'd love for us to be the new patriots, the new cowboys of the 90s, to be the next dynasty - but so would 31 other teams and the probability of any being that successful is low. 

Do what you must to return to glory & damn the consequences.

The Patriots set those (un)realistic  expectations by doing exactly what Slam is talking about.... ..paying a capable QB less than market value over the course of his career. Can we convince Dak to do that? No. He literally and specifically mentioned Brady and said he wouldn’t take deals like that. 

[WizardHawk]

53 minutes ago, DaBoys said:

The Patriots set those (un)realistic  expectations by doing exactly what Slam is talking about.... ..paying a capable QB less than market value over the course of his career. Can we convince Dak to do that? No. He literally and specifically mentioned Brady and said he wouldn’t take deals like that. 

Brady did it, so should you.  It’s a nice sentiment, but finding those guys is like finding the holy grail. 
I was also under the impression Dak was close to signing a $35m-ish/yr deal just before deadline, but both sides screwed around too long.

[Nextyearfordaboyz]

7 hours ago, The_Slamman said:

You want to believe so hard that signing Dak to a huge long term contract will make the cowboys better

No one thinks signing Dak makes us "better". They/we think signing Dak gives us a better chance of fielding a competitive team than the alternatives do. The alternatives you've presented being:

• Sign a retread like Cam Newton for cheap and use the savings to bolster the roster
• Play the young QB lottery, hope you get Pat Mahomes instead of Mitch Trubisky, and use the savings to bolster the roster

You've successfully put together an argument that paying a QB big money can fail. Yes, we already knew that, believe it or not. Every decision you make in life comes with a risk/reward calculation.

But you've not convinced anyone that either of these two alternatives is more likely to lead us to sustainable winning or a Super Bowl.

[Nextyearfordaboyz]

3 hours ago, Texas_OutLaw7 said:

I'm confused over the concept of "sustainable" and I can't help but blame the Patriots for setting unrealistic expectations. 

The window for success is small and missing it should typically reset the cycle. Most (maybe all?) franchises/clubs will be a faustian bargain for the chance to win a SB. It's what the Eagles did with Vick's team in 2010. It's what the Falcons did with Ryan recently. 

Rodgers, for all his talent, has only one ring to his name. That's....standard. 

I don't think a soul here would care if we blew our cap on several players for a chance at just one ring. It's why the "cap hell" years of Romo were so painful. We saw how good we were. In another timeline Romo, Witten, and Ware all retire as Cowboys with a Ring. 

So I guess what bothers me about sustainability is that it flys in the face of the league mandated parity. I'd love for us to be the new patriots, the new cowboys of the 90s, to be the next dynasty - but so would 31 other teams and the probability of any being that successful is low. 

Do what you must to return to glory & damn the consequences.

I actually don't really agree with this.

Most seasons start with the Super Bowl favorite having ~15% chance of winning it all, while the bottom rung has virtually 0%. Football is a funny game. The best way to win a Super Bowl is trot out a team that has a 10-15% chance to win, year-after-year. Not to screw over future seasons because you want to make your 13% chance a 15% chance in a particular season.

I agree that the Patriot model is something that simply can't be replicated. But if you look at the who's who of regular contenders (Ravens, Seahawks, Packers, Saints), they are able to avoid "league mandated parity" as well, by having really good QB play and and strong roster management. There is certainly such a thing as sustainable success in the NFL. 

[Texas_OutLaw7]

12 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

 

I agree that the Patriot model is something that simply can't be replicated. But if you look at the who's who of regular contenders (Ravens, Seahawks, Packers, Saints), they are able to avoid "league mandated parity" as well, by having really good QB play and and strong roster management. There is certainly such a thing as sustainable success in the NFL. 

Not suggesting that is necessarily the best approach, but rather that appears to be the standard approach. 

The four teams you highlighted are certainly a case study, but I'd argue only the Ravens are truly properly built. It's amazing what that continue to do (and that was despite paying Flacco - lol).

The saints almost had to trade for Clowney because they could not afford it given the invested so heavily in the roster. 

The Packers have seemed content to not invest in weapons for Rodgers.

Seattle has insisted Russ has no OL. 

If we could emulate the Ravens Model - in which even bad contracts are manageable - I am all for it. In some ways, their way might be even more challenging to duplicate than the Patriots way. Ravens are fantastic drafters. 

Your point is valid, though. We want a chance to win it every year. The more chances you have the higher your probability is. I simply question the sustainability of it. It requires a tremendous amount of skill, coaching, management, and luck. 

[resilient part 2]

while I side with @Matts4313 on this debate for the most part. I also see @The_Slamman side and do believe there is a middle ground with some things.

Having said that, this is at least one of the better debates on here. Am enjoying the punches and counter punches..

[Nextyearfordaboyz]

1 hour ago, Texas_OutLaw7 said:

Not suggesting that is necessarily the best approach, but rather that appears to be the standard approach. 

The four teams you highlighted are certainly a case study, but I'd argue only the Ravens are truly properly built. It's amazing what that continue to do (and that was despite paying Flacco - lol).

The saints almost had to trade for Clowney because they could not afford it given the invested so heavily in the roster. 

The Packers have seemed content to not invest in weapons for Rodgers.

Seattle has insisted Russ has no OL. 

If we could emulate the Ravens Model - in which even bad contracts are manageable - I am all for it. In some ways, their way might be even more challenging to duplicate than the Patriots way. Ravens are fantastic drafters. 

Your point is valid, though. We want a chance to win it every year. The more chances you have the higher your probability is. I simply question the sustainability of it. It requires a tremendous amount of skill, coaching, management, and luck. 

You said you were confused by the “concept of sustainable”. There are 7 teams over the past decade (Patriots, Raven, Steelers, Packers, Saints, Seahawks, and Chiefs-since Andy), that aren’t confused by the term and don’t operate in 3 year cycles.

How to create a sustainably competitive franchise is a worthy discussion.

I don’t understand how someone could look at the model franchises and then completely discount the appeal of stability at quarterback, however. 

[DaBoys]

2 hours ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

You said you were confused by the “concept of sustainable”. There are 7 teams over the past decade (Patriots, Raven, Steelers, Packers, Saints, Seahawks, and Chiefs-since Andy), that aren’t confused by the term and don’t operate in 3 year cycles.

How to create a sustainably competitive franchise is a worthy discussion.

I don’t understand how someone could look at the model franchises and then completely discount the appeal of stability at quarterback, however. 

The Chiefs were winning with Alex Smith, and likewise the Ravens haven’t always had Lamar. The Patriots aren’t as useless as we are without Tom, and I believe had an 11-5 year with Matt Cassel. The Packers, Saints, Steelers, and Seahawks are pretty dependent on the QB though

[Nextyearfordaboyz]

1 hour ago, DaBoys said:

The Chiefs were winning with Alex Smith, and likewise the Ravens haven’t always had Lamar. The Patriots aren’t as useless as we are without Tom, and I believe had an 11-5 year with Matt Cassel. The Packers, Saints, Steelers, and Seahawks are pretty dependent on the QB though

I'm not entirely sure what the point of this is. The main point of my post was to prove that you can build a sustainably winning franchise in the NFL. The little aside was to counter the outright dismissal that paying your QB big money is a bad strategy for accomplishing that. Each one of those franchises goes about it differently, but there is still a lot of QB investment in there.

Even in two of your examples, Chiefs gave up 2 second round picks and gave Alex Smith a big contract extension in 2014, and the Ravens gave Joe Flacco the biggest contract in the NFL.

Good decision-makers don't tend to talk in certainties regarding uncertain outcomes. Do I think the idea of letting Dak walk is a 100% losing gambit, or that paying him will guarantee a lot of winning? No, I really don't. At the very least, I think it's an interesting debate worth having. What I fight against is the condescending attitude that paying Dak is clearly a mistake, and paying a QB is "not how you win in the NFL anymore". 

[DaBoys]

19 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

I'm not entirely sure what the point of this is.

 

Refer back to:

4 hours ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

I don’t understand how someone could look at the model franchises and then completely discount the appeal of stability at quarterback, however. 

 

1 hour ago, DaBoys said:

The Chiefs were winning with Alex Smith, and likewise the Ravens haven’t always had Lamar. The Patriots aren’t as useless as we are without Tom, and I believe had an 11-5 year with Matt Cassel. The Packers, Saints, Steelers, and Seahawks are pretty dependent on the QB though

 

It was a direct response to the last paragraph. Sorry for not clarifying by editing your quote. 
 

I’m not completely discounting the appeal of quarterback stability. Just pointing out that your model franchises don’t always lose when they don’t have their QB.

Edited December 3, 2020 by DaBoys

[DaBoys]

And the Joe Flacco contract was pretty immediately proven to be a mistake so I’m not sure whose side that argument is for.