Does anyone see similarities in the rams downfall and the cowboys?

The rams made the one mistake you simply can't overcome: paying a non superstar qb superstar qb money.

The second mistake is paying a rb for his past performance and assuming his ability won't fall off a cliff.

Jerry jones thinks he has a bunch of superstars because he pays them like superstars. But they arent superstars. All those big contract on the d line and where is the pass rush?

My fundamental conclusion for Dallas is unchanged: because they have an avg coach and undisciplined management, their only hope was to get lucky with a qb on their rookie contract. This is their window. Once they pay dak they will have to be very smart, which they aren't and there is Essentially no chance.

so what's the alternative?

A disgruntled Zeke sits out many games this year, and that gives you a 1 year window to win in 2020 since you aren't going to sign Zeke or Dake long term.

which team used that as a recipe for success?


Dak is going to get "super star" money whether you like it or not. He's only increasing the amount he will stand to get as the season progresses. This should have been locked down over the summer.

and its not remotely fair to say Zeke's ability has fallen off a cliff. Hes still a great RB and the Cowboys are going to lean on him down the stretch.

So... short week and onto the bills. Anyone think we pull this one out? Bills are 8-3 and having a great year. Gotta box up Singletary and keep John Brown from getting hot. And look out... Cole Beasley May be looking for a little revenge

BMX:

The alternative is to either: (a) get smarter or (b) get used to averaging one playoff win per decade (I am already used to that).

To win a superbowl, you need a mix of luck and being smart. For giggles, let's assume you need ten units of luck + smarts to win a superbowl. The Patriots are very smart (8 or 9) and have had a lot of luck (division consistently stinks, tuck rule, Wilson passed on goal line etc). They have been at ten units for a long time.

The cowboys are perhaps a 4-5 for smarts (this includes player personnel and coaching), so they need lots of luck (if you want me to back up this I can make an argument). Dak is a very good QB on his rookie contract, have played alot of backup QB's, plus they are in a crappy division (all lucky). This could compensate for them not being smart but realistically, even with these lucky events, they aren't anywhere close to a ten (perhaps a 7-8). Once they pay Dak, this calculus gets worse. That is great for him he is going to get paid whether or not I like it (I think he is very good by the way), but we have both Zeke and Dak under contract at the moment (with lots of other high priced players we won't be able to afford all of them once Dak signs) and it has gotten us 6-5. Again, once we sign Dak and have to cut some other players, why would you think it would get better? I see lots of parallel with the Rams (the other night wasn't pretty).

I never said Zeke's ability has fallen off a cliff. I said it isn't smart to sign RB's to long term deals (like the Rams) and assume they won't fall off at some point. I would say that at some point in Zeke's contract, the performance per dollar ratio will be very bad - do you agree? I think you could already make that argument. Just look at performance per dollar of Zeke and Pollard.

In summary, the recipe for success for any team is to be smart and hope for some luck. The cowboys aren't smart and so they have had almost no success for ~25 years. Unless they get smarter, this will continue IMHO.

Quote:

---

so what's the alternative?

A disgruntled Zeke sits out many games this year, and that gives you a 1 year window to win in 2020 since you aren't going to sign Zeke or Dake long term.

which team used that as a recipe for success?


Dak is going to get "super star" money whether you like it or not. He's only increasing the amount he will stand to get as the season progresses. This should have been locked down over the summer.

and its not remotely fair to say Zeke's ability has fallen off a cliff. Hes still a great RB and the Cowboys are going to lean on him down the stretch.

---

Talk about a nothing answer.

expresswrittenconsent said:

---

Talk about a nothing answer.

---

exactly.

"be smarter" means "let me see the results and I'll let you know if it was smart"

39-19 vs NFC East
44-45 vs rest of NFL
83-64 overall.

I am a bit confused by your responses. Are you saying you think the cowboys are a smart organization (both in terms of personnel and coaching)?

If so, how do you explain the last ~25 years? We are in rare company when it comes to lack of playoff success..

There are articles written about the cowboy's philosophy on paying players contrasting that to well run organizations like the Patriots.

I even mentioned in my post I would be glad to make my case for why I think the cowboys aren't smart. The lack of positive results prove my point 100% and I don't even know how you could make a counter-argument. Be my guest if you want.

Since the last Cowboys superbowl (i.e. since our last playoff success), the 49ers have rebuilt twice (arguable three times). There is a systematic problem with the Cowboys - they aren't smart.

Quote:

---

Are you saying you think the cowboys are a smart organization (both in terms of personnel and coaching)?

---

No.



And not sure why you would possibly think that based on anything I have written.



You called out the Cowboys for being like the Rams. I asked you what the alternative was. "Be smarter" is not an answer.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

So... short week and onto the bills. Anyone think we pull this one out? Bills are 8-3 and having a great year. Gotta box up Singletary and keep John Brown from getting hot. And look out... Cole Beasley May be looking for a little revenge

---

Having a great year, but like the Cowboys they haven't beaten anyone with a winning record.

Quote:

---

You called out the Cowboys for being like the Rams. I asked you what the alternative was. "Be smarter" is not an answer.

---

Fair enough. I will concede that and I could write a dissertation on what they could do to be smarter. It would start with getting rid of a coach who has lost at least three close games this year due to coaching. I understand new coaches have a learning curve and all coaches make mistakes and have gambles that don't pay off, but once you realize a coach will likely never learn how to win close games, its time to move on and start over.

Also, it would involve drafting QB's almost every year (they are that important you need the statistics working in your favor). In general, you need to get rid of players a year too early not a year too late. I could do a detailed analysis of the OL and DL contracts and the performance and it would be ugly. Don't sign non-superstar QB's to superstar contracts (see the Rams). This philosophy needs to change. Also, Jerry loves the sizzle of stars (it sells jerseys). Therefore, depth is often a problem because they have so much tied up in 'star" starters. This doesn't bode well as the season goes on.

Whether or not you want to admit it, the gurley/Zeke comparisons have some merit. Everyone agrees the Rams messed up big time signing Gurley for past performance, hoping his performance didn't fall off..

Unless they do some of these things, I don't think it matters if they sign Dak or not, they aren't winning a SB anytime soon.

The way the NFL is structured if you are in years where you are (or hope to be) contending for a playoff spot then you simply have to pay your QB and RB if they have shown to be above league average.

The only teams that have the luxury of "nah we're not going to pay you that, you can hold out" are those that aren't in playoff contention.

That's not to say that is the only way to a Super Bowl, but it's the only way that doesn't involve a whole lot of luck (ie. hitting on a cheap replacement QB/RB before their value skyrockets).

Roster strategy really comes into play outside the RB/QB... It's paying the other guys "manageable" amounts so you can spread the talent, and having a coach that players want to play for and thus are more likely to take a bit of a discount to make it work. Cowboys already have the allure of the star on their helmet, but that continues to dwindle the further they get away from their heyday.

Quote:

---

then you simply have to pay your QB and RB if they have shown to be above league average.

---

I'm not sure I agree. When you look a the teams who make the playoffs, it becomes clear they fall into one of two categories:

1) Smart teams with a rookie contract QB
2) superstar QB's getting paid like a superstar

Who tends not to make the playoffs are non-superstar QB's getting paid like a superstar. I took a quick look at this year's playoff's and tried to classify everyone (I did this quickly, let me know if I made a mistake which is likely):

Patriots (superstar)
Ravens (rookie QB contract)
Texans (rookie QB contract)
Chiefs (rookie QB contract)
Bills (rookie QB contract)
Steelers (complicated due to injury)
49ers (non superstar paid like a superstar)
saints (superstar)
Packers (superstar)
Cowboys (rookie QB contract)
Seahawks (superstar)
Vikings (non superstar paid like a superstar)

So in that sense, the 49'ers and Vikings go against my template (notice both are smart with personnel and have good coaches). With that said, just because they get in the playoffs doesn't mean they will go far.

I think this leads to the conclusion that if your QB isn't a superstar, then the team is often better to dump him after his rookie contract if he insists on superstar money. I think Dak is a very good QB with off the chart leadership/character, yet I don't think he will ever be a superstar (I could be wrong but I doubt it).

Just look at this stat from warren sapp's twitter and tell me which situation you would prefer:

Lamar Jackson cap hits:
2020: 2.6M
2021: 3.0M

Jared Goff cap hits:
2020: 36.0M
2021: 32.5M
2022: 30.5M
2023: 30.0M
2024: 26.0M

Check out Cowherd's piece this week "The bank came to collect from the Rams last night"

We are at 6-5 with Dak, like it or not, if we pay him I don't see how it gets better....

I think Dallas handles the Bills this week.

I'm surprised people are still saying Dak isn't top tier or that we shouldn't pay him. We're 11 games in and he's playing as well as anyone in the league, while still having the most drops, least defensive turnovers and worst special teams. He is literally the best player on the entire team, and he is carrying them right now.

Now he might regress like Matt Ryan, but thats anyone. Dak's comps for his early career have been Brady and Wilson, so there's no reason to think he's going to start getting worse

perhaps we should define 'top tier' and 'superstar'...

Russel Wilson and Tom Brady both won the SB in their second year...

We are at 6-5 with Dak having a cap hit of ~$2 mil. If that goes to $30-$35mil next year, do you see a way that we will do better? The only possible way I see is if we make a huge upgrade in coaching (which is possible since Garret is avg).

This whole rookie contract QB philosophy has been a great talking point for several years. I think it's a bit overblown. The reality is teams cant make any real decisions based on this concept. In the real world, if you find an above average QB you HAVE to pay him unless you get lucky and find his replacement while hes still there. The Chiefs drafted Mahomes with Smith still there. The Skins didnt want to pay Cousins and now they are back to being terrible with no hope.

BenFiasco14 said:

---

So... short week and onto the bills. Anyone think we pull this one out? Bills are 8-3 and having a great year. Gotta box up Singletary and keep John Brown from getting hot. And look out... Cole Beasley May be looking for a little revenge

---

Doesn't feel like this game is all that important because our division is so terrible,

I wouldn't mind dropping it to see if Jones gets even more pissed then he is right now and just maybe he will fire Garrett in season.

Our playoff hopes will most likely all come down to the philly game in December anyway.

If the Bills win they still wouldn't have beaten anyone over .500

At this point I'm kind of rooting to just lose out. Garrett isn't the guy. We're going to get bounced in the playoffs even if we accidentally win the division. Every loss equals a better draft pick and further reinforces Garrett being gone.

Orlando Ayala Cant Read said:

---

I think Dallas handles the Bills this week.

---

That's my personal feeling as well. The Cowboys have winners on their team... guys with real skill and a fire in their gut... I'm pretty sure they are going to play mad this week.

In fact, I think the NE loss was a turning point... they are going to play hard and play well the rest of the way. I think we'll win the next two for sure. Losing to LA in another 'close but not quite' JG special wouldn't surprise me, but then we win the last 2 and take the division with a 10-6 record.

Expect similar playoff results though...1 or 2 and done.

So the idea is continue to roll the dice on rookie qbs? Seems like a quick way to irrelevancy with just a few wrong evals (or bad draft classes).

Quote:

---

So the idea is continue to roll the dice on rookie qbs? Seems like a quick way to irrelevancy with just a few wrong evals (or bad draft classes).

---

We haven't been relevant for some time. It is risky I agree. The salary situation for rookie QB's and RB's needs to be fixed I feel.

I think Dak has been pretty damn good this year. And anyone who says otherwise just hasn't been watching the games. At this point, you definitely pay the guy rather than letting him walk. You simply cannot go back to square zero at QB now when you've invested so much into the team around him.

As I said, I like Dak a lot. With that said, we are 6-5 with him. If we give him a raise from $2mil to ~$33mil, go through the roster and find that $31 mil in players we need to cut to make up for Dak's raise - then tell me what our record would be...

Hot take guy with a cowherd article as backup = chef kiss.

lespaul said:

---

As I said, I like Dak a lot. With that said, we are 6-5 with him. If we give him a raise from $2mil to ~$33mil, go through the roster and find that $31 mil in players we need to cut to make up for Dak's raise - then tell me what our record would be.

---

And likewise, take Dak out of the equation and tell me what the record is?

The way football works is you start with a QB. If you have an above average QB you at least have a prayer to win. Then if you are really lucky and the QB is great then you become a consistent contender. The gap in performance at the QB position is so enormously impactful on the game. If you end up cutting a really good defensive player or a WR and replace them with a draft pick that has a much lower impact than doing it with your QB. The other thing no-one talks about is the fact that cerebral QBs get better over time. Their prime is age 29-35. If your guy has all of the intangibles, the brains, the work ethic, and enough athletic ability to get it done then you have a franchise guy. I personally think its very difficult to know for sure in years one and two. With Dak, he has done enough in my mind to believe his arrow is going up and he can carry this team for 10 years.

Letting Dak walk would be insanity. He is a legit star at the position. He is our franchise going forward as far as I am concerned.

I thought Dallas would get a signature win against the Pats, but it's looking like that may come against the Bills tomorrow:

Home game
Bills have had a very weak schedule
Cowboys have their back against the wall.
Bills QB is pedestrian

If Dak runs the damn ball 10 times, Dallas wins 27-20

Southlake said:

---

I thought Dallas would get a signature win against the Pats, but it's looking like that may come against the Bills tomorrow:

Home game
Bills have had a very weak schedule
Cowboys have their back against the wall.
Bills QB is pedestrian

If Dak runs the damn ball 10 times, Dallas wins 27-20

---

Philly beat the bills already.

I wouldn't describe a win against Buffalo as a " signature" win. We've blown all opportunities for a big win except of course the game with philly in December.

Bills are 8-3. We haven't beaten a team with a winning record yet (Philly was 3-3 when we beat them) And it's the only game on national TV. Yes, it would be a signature win.

No it won't. They are going to catch 2 more L's minimum on the season and will probably finish up 10-6 if Dallas beats them.

Southlake said:

---

Bills are 8-3. We haven't beaten a team with a winning record yet (Philly was 3-3 when we beat them) And it's the only game on national TV. Yes, it would be a signature win.

---

Bills really aren't that good.

Hardly anyone respects or thinks highly of them. If you really think beating them would qualify as a signature win on the level of beating New Orleans, New England, Green Bay, or San Francisco then I don't know what to tell you. The aforementioned teams are actually good opponents and beating them would get the cowboys some credibility.

"Only game on national tv"
By this measure, the winner of bears lions (both enter with losing records) will have a signature win.