Building A Competitive NFL Franchise: The New Normal

[The_Slamman]

1 minute 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. 

Continuity at QB is not as important as cap management.  That being said, there are some generational QBs that are worth the price.  Most are not.  Its an old way of thinking that if you have a good QB you must pay to keep him or the team is doomed to fail.  The truth is the disparity between young QBs on their rookie deal and veteran QBs is not the same as it was 10, 20, 30, and 40 years ago. The learning curve that used to be several years is now down to about 1 year. We are seeing it all over the NFL.  
 

[matt79511]

I feel like it's worth pointing out that Justin Herbert is probably having the best overall rookie season of any QB since Dak Prescott... and the Chargers are 2-8 in games he's started.

Have they had injuries? Yes, tons. Close, heartbreaking, seemingly unsustainable tough losses? You bet. But that seems to be par for the course for that franchise at this point. So maybe "building a competitive franchise" and "the sustainability of success" is rooted in things beyond your roster and cap management, since I don't think Tom Telesco's done poorly there. IMO, some franchises just don't "have it." The Cowboys, who had just completed 20 consecutive seasons without finishing in the Final 4 prior to drafting Dak, appear to be one of them.

I think (/hope) that Dak's injury will compel him to fire Todd France and that both sides will be able to agree to the 5-year structure that Dak declined last offseason. I don't respect an agent gambling someone else's money in a pandemic and I'd like to think that'd be the best move for Dak, and probably also for Dallas. At this point, though, who knows. I wouldn't blame Dak if he thinks, say, the Colts give him a better chance to win, nor would I blame Dallas if they want to reset a roster that seems hard-capped at the divisional round. Let's be clear, though: that's a bigger indictment on the likes of Zeke, Jaylon, D-Law, Amari, et al. than it is Dak. The idea that a very good QB with top-tier intangibles would be squeezed out because (1) the FO never wanted to draft him in the first place, (2) they overpaid everyone else and (3) he shredded his ankle... that strikes me as something a franchise doesn't recover from, from a karmic standpoint. Hope I'm wrong.

[The_Slamman]

49 minutes ago, matt79511 said:

I feel like it's worth pointing out that Justin Herbert is probably having the best overall rookie season of any QB since Dak Prescott... and the Chargers are 2-8 in games he's started.

Have they had injuries? Yes, tons. Close, heartbreaking, seemingly unsustainable tough losses? You bet. But that seems to be par for the course for that franchise at this point. So maybe "building a competitive franchise" and "the sustainability of success" is rooted in things beyond your roster and cap management, since I don't think Tom Telesco's done poorly there. IMO, some franchises just don't "have it." The Cowboys, who had just completed 20 consecutive seasons without finishing in the Final 4 prior to drafting Dak, appear to be one of them.

I think (/hope) that Dak's injury will compel him to fire Todd France and that both sides will be able to agree to the 5-year structure that Dak declined last offseason. I don't respect an agent gambling someone else's money in a pandemic and I'd like to think that'd be the best move for Dak, and probably also for Dallas. At this point, though, who knows. I wouldn't blame Dak if he thinks, say, the Colts give him a better chance to win, nor would I blame Dallas if they want to reset a roster that seems hard-capped at the divisional round. Let's be clear, though: that's a bigger indictment on the likes of Zeke, Jaylon, D-Law, Amari, et al. than it is Dak. The idea that a very good QB with top-tier intangibles would be squeezed out because (1) the FO never wanted to draft him in the first place, (2) they overpaid everyone else and (3) he shredded his ankle... that strikes me as something a franchise doesn't recover from, from a karmic standpoint. Hope I'm wrong.

Here’s the point I’m making and the chargers are a great example... I 100% expect the chargers to put some very good teams together over the next 4 years while they have Herbert on his rookie deal.  I would not be at all surprised if they make the playoffs 3/4 years.  I say this because Herbert will continue to get better and because they money difference between Herbert and Rivers is so great that the chargers can give Herbert far greater support than they could Rivers.  They have a 4 year window of opportunity where they could be very good if they invest the money saved into the team. 

[matt79511]

26 minutes ago, The_Slamman said:

Here’s the point I’m making and the chargers are a great example... I 100% expect the chargers to put some very good teams together over the next 4 years while they have Herbert on his rookie deal.  I would not be at all surprised if they make the playoffs 3/4 years.  I say this because Herbert will continue to get better and because they money difference between Herbert and Rivers is so great that the chargers can give Herbert far greater support than they could Rivers.  They have a 4 year window of opportunity where they could be very good if they invest the money saved into the team. 

Could, yeah, maybe. But it's sure not happening this year, so the clock's ticking.

The Chargers are an interesting case study here for Dallas' situation as they were the last team to let a franchise(d) QB walk in free agency due to health concerns, immediately replacing him with a Top 5 pick. Did that lead to them being "cursed?" I don't know, but they kinda appear to be. They won, what, 3 playoff games with Rivers, a HOF-caliber QB at his peak, in a watered down/top-heavy AFC? They're basically Cowboys West and he's basically sturdy Romo- or was, anyway. Guy sucks now, his arm's completely dead. That's why they let him walk, and why Herbert gives them a better chance the next 4-5 years, more than their contract values- he's simply a much better player.

So again if Dallas could replace Dak with Trevor Lawrence, I totally get it. To me that guy is the rare legitimately generational, essentially infallible prospect. Wilson, Lance, even Fields- man, I don't know. I know sports and life isn't really about what anyone 'deserves,' but still, typically a QB with Dak's overall resume gets more than 5 years to win a SB before his team moves on. Just as a rule, I wouldn't want to use the Chargers or the *******s as my template. I can't shake the feeling that Dallas' standing in league circles/with future players would take a real hit were they to unceremoniously dump Dak after a very ugly, very public contract dispute and a brutal injury. So I just don't really see it happening.

[DaBoys]

2 hours ago, The_Slamman said:

Continuity at QB is not as important as cap management.  That being said, there are some generational QBs that are worth the price.  Most are not.  Its an old way of thinking that if you have a good QB you must pay to keep him or the team is doomed to fail.  The truth is the disparity between young QBs on their rookie deal and veteran QBs is not the same as it was 10, 20, 30, and 40 years ago. The learning curve that used to be several years is now down to about 1 year. We are seeing it all over the NFL.  
 

Qft

[Texas_OutLaw7]

8 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. 

Ah. Sorry. Now I see your point flushed out. 

And yes, this now speaks to the other side (retaining, re-signing, etc). Slam was arguing that it is NOT sustainable to commit money towards the QB position, and I was seeking clarity and I lost myself in the tunnels of my thoughts. 

...I have to say...I've immensely enjoyed this thread. It's been some great reads. 

[matt79511]

4 hours ago, The_Slamman said:

Continuity at QB is not as important as cap management.  That being said, there are some generational QBs that are worth the price.  Most are not.  Its an old way of thinking that if you have a good QB you must pay to keep him or the team is doomed to fail.  The truth is the disparity between young QBs on their rookie deal and veteran QBs is not the same as it was 10, 20, 30, and 40 years ago. The learning curve that used to be several years is now down to about 1 year. We are seeing it all over the NFL.  
 

1 hour ago, DaBoys said:

Qft

Ok, sure, it might be easier to acclimate quickly at the position than ever before, but there's still more nuance to this discussion than that insight provides. From Kaepernick to Bortles to Trubisky to (probably) Wentz, there've been numerous flashes in the pan in this era of rookie QB contract fetishization that turned out to be completely inviable starting QBs- no one in their right mind would argue that's what Dak is. As NYFDB laid out last page, the correlation between stability at the QB position and consistent playoff contention is pretty indisputable. If it's not QB stability that leads to this, then it's competent front office and ownership and overall franchise culture, no? In which case, this whole conversation is kind of moot if you ask me. Replace Dak with who you want, the Joneses and all their hoopla are going nowhere.

[Matts4313]

20 hours ago, The_Slamman said:

Okay, champ.  I just did a crash course on the cap and AVV.

Community college doesnt count

[Matts4313]

13 hours 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. 

Quick reminder that Bradys second contract was the highest in NFL history.

[Matts4313]

10 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. 

We are a Crayton Catch. A Dez Catch. A murray fumble. A Finley show stopper. A Defense collapsing.

away from being listed among these teams. 

[DaBoys]

16 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Community college doesnt count

Of course it does!!

[The_Slamman]

17 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Quick reminder that Bradys second contract was the highest in NFL history.

First, a QB who wins 2 SBs on his rookie deal deserves to get paid an ish ton.  Even with your limited understanding, certainly you can understand there’s a monumental difference between someone who has won 2 SBs on rookie contract and someone who won 1 wildcard round at home.  Or, is that something they don’t teach at AVV school?

Second, Who the eff cares about what happened in 2003?   It was a different era.  Brady’s genius is that he realized that if he really wanted to be the GOAT and win more SBs than any other QB, he needed to have a complete team around him.  His last 6 years+ in NE Brady took an extremely team friendly deal which allowed NE to bring in players like Revis and Gilmore.  NE probably does not win those SBs with the elite talent they brought in.

Aaron Rodgers is definitely a more physically talented QB than Brady.  Mentally they are probably equals.  If Rodgers had the same approach as Brady who knows if Rodgers wouldn’t be considers the GOAT?  Rodgers opted for $.  Brady opted for SBs.

Edited December 4, 2020 by The_Slamman