Which is the more effective team building strategy?

[biggie.]

Both KC and Philly took the "outside-in" approach. Do tou think that's the new approach to teambuilding?

Edited February 6, 2023 by biggie.

[NYRaider]

Building "outside-in" definitely seems like the best route to building a good team because it sets your young QB up for success. How many QB's came into bad situations early on in their careers and were able to overcome it? 

[Nabbs4u]

1 hour ago, biggie. said:

Both KC and Philly took the "outside-in" approach. Do tou think that's the new approach to teambuilding?

Did Philly by your definition really build "outside in"?

Vast majority of Jalen's supporting cast was drafted or traded for after the 2020 season.

Only thing really in place was the OL and Dallas Goedert. To lazy to list them all but curious out of the 22 Starters how many weren't Eagles when he was drafted in 2020.

Did Howie literally do both. 🤷‍♂️

[NYRaider]

14 minutes ago, Nabbs4u said:

Did Philly by your definition really build "outside in"?

Vast majority of Jalen's supporting cast was drafted or traded for after the 2020 season.

Only thing really in place was the OL and Dallas Goedert. To lazy to list them all but curious out of the 22 Starters how many weren't Eagles when he was drafted in 2020.

Did Howie literally do both. 🤷‍♂️

Having an elite offensive line played a role in the Eagles being able to spend two first round picks on WRs. 

[Soko]

“Outside-in” is generally better because you’d rather your young QB (or your limited time with a veteran) be used in a strong environment, compared to them taking some bruises with a bad team. 

But it doesn’t really matter. You do what you can, when you can. If you’re a sorry roster and have a blue chip QB prospect sitting right in front of you - you obviously take him. Look what the Jaguars did in a year. The idea of “breaking a QB” has been overstated, IMO.

[Nabbs4u]

14 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

Having an elite offensive line played a role in the Eagles being able to spend two first round picks on WRs. 

No doubt, absolutely helps. You do realize 2 of the 5 SB Starters came after drafting Jalen Hurts, right? 3 if you count Seomalu replacing Brandon Brooks at RG?

Fact is Howie doesn't believe in rebuilding,  he tries to retool. Did it post Chip Kelly specifically 2 years after in 2017 which led to a SB and just did the same exact thing again in 2022 post Doug Pederson 2 years later.

In both instances he added more players after drafting the QB, then the team being stack and adding the QB to it. Just saying.

I too believe "outside in" is better. Just don't know technically which category these Eagles are in? 🤷‍♂️

Edited February 6, 2023 by Nabbs4u

[NYRaider]

1 minute ago, Nabbs4u said:

I too believe "outside in" is better. Just don't know technically which category these Eagles are in? 🤷‍♂️

I guess it kind of is hard to say for the Eagles because you've been able to add talent pretty consistently. 

[Snotbubbles]

10 minutes ago, NYRaider said:

Having an elite offensive line played a role in the Eagles being able to spend two first round picks on WRs. 

I look at the Eagles as an "outside in" type team.  They had so many pieces in place already before they had Hurts play a snap.  On defense they had Slay, TJ Edwards, Sweat, Graham, Cox, Hargrave, Maddox.  On offense they had Kelce, Johnson, Seumalo, Mailata, Goedert, Sanders.  Sure some of those guys were still developing like Mialata was playing behind Peters but he actually got more snaps in 2020.  Goedert was splitting time with Ertz.  Sure the Eagles put the finishing touches on this offseason to with Reddick, Bradbury, AJ Brown and CJGJ, but the foundation was there for Hurts to succeed.

[Daniel]

Depends entirely on the team, the QB available, and the coaching staff.  Neither approach is inherently better, because it's the context entirely that dictates which route.

I think for most teams, outside in is probably better, because you give yourself a strong team regardless of what's going on at QB, and expand the list of QBs that you can win with.  But if you're a team picking high in the draft, and a great QB is there, you take them, even if your team isn't 100% there.

So neither.

[GangGreen420]

Outside in 100%. I was repeating this in the Jets forum back in 2021 when we just had to draft Zach Wilson because it was a “QB heavy draft” 

[Sugashane]

Outside in is the best to me because you can stack the team around a rookie contract. If you get a franchise QB you can add pieces but by the several years to build the team means you're either nearing or at the end of the rookie deal. So the QB's cost is going to skyrocket.

Unless I thought the QB was top 10 I am not committing to them, likely tag and trade for their last year. Even if only a 3rd it would still be better compensation than a comp pick.

[NYRaider]

9 minutes ago, Sugashane said:

Outside in is the best to me because you can stack the team around a rookie contract. If you get a franchise QB you can add pieces but by the several years to build the team means you're either nearing or at the end of the rookie deal. So the QB's cost is going to skyrocket.

Unless I thought the QB was top 10 I am not committing to them, likely tag and trade for their last year. Even if only a 3rd it would still be better compensation than a comp pick.

This. The most ideal situation is what we're currently seeing in Philadelphia. You want to have a good core in place before you draft your QB but you still have to acquire more core pieces during the first few years of the QB's career so you can ideally chase a ring while he's still on his rookie deal. Because once you have to pay your QB it's almost impossible to keep the team intact. 

[ramssuperbowl99]

49 minutes ago, Daniel said:

Depends entirely on the team, the QB available, and the coaching staff.  Neither approach is inherently better, because it's the context entirely that dictates which route.

I think for most teams, outside in is probably better, because you give yourself a strong team regardless of what's going on at QB, and expand the list of QBs that you can win with.  But if you're a team picking high in the draft, and a great QB is there, you take them, even if your team isn't 100% there.

So neither.

Yep, this right here is the philosophy. No set by position order exists. It's all about maximizing value at each spot, and maximizing the time difference between when resources (cap space, draft picks) are acquired and when they are spent.

Single best thing a rebuilding team can do is trade down. (Same for really any team. Draft picks depreciate at something like 30-40% YOY, which is stupid.)

Edited February 6, 2023 by ramssuperbowl99

[INbengalfan]

In a vacuum, I'd say outside in.  But the best teams don't treat them as mutually exclusive.  Both Philly and Cincy did both through the draft.  Philly had more players already there when they took Hurts, but also had a lot of high draft capitol to play with.  Cincy had a ton of cap space, so basically signed a bunch of guys to fit their defense while drafting Burrow and the young weapons.  

[john305]

It depends on who’s available and what pick I have. If a Peyton Manning type prospect declares and I have the 1st pick in the draft I am 100% drafting him even if the team around him blows.