I don't know about this idea that you're more likely to win if you keep adding high-end elite talent. To me that's not trusting the right things.
Since free agency I have rarely seen top winning teams that are like that. It was much more common before free agency---back when a team could draft a guy and he was basically a career long member of that team. For example having Greene, Ham, Lambert, Blount, Shell, Webster, Harris, Bradshaw, Swann and Stallworth on the same team for
years. Or like the old Rams. The Rams had 26 consecutive years--1967 to 1990---with at least one offensive lineman in the pro bowl, and in that span, they had 4 OL in the pro bowl 3 times--68, 78, and 85. Look at the 85 line--it's of course Pankey, Hill, Smith, Harrah, and Slater. Only Pankey was not in the pro bowl that year. In 85 all 5 of those guys were in the league 5 years or more, and in the case of Slater and Harrah, it was 9 and 10 years respectively. A line like that is unimaginable today. No team could afford it without sapping some other part of the roster.
So now, you can afford a handful of elite guys and you build around them with talent that is hopefully good. Even then there will be a high turnover every 4 years (or 5 with 1st rounders). There are only so many big contract guys you can maintain on a team. By big contract, although this is open to debate, right now I would say that's anyone over 10 M for the 2nd tier of "big" and then the 20+ M guys for the 1st tier. It's actually not that common for a team to have 3 or more 1st tier, 20+ M players.
Rams have 3 1st tier contracts (4 actually since they are paying for 2 20 M qbs) and beyond that, they have some good 2nd tier high end contracts--right now that's Whitworth, Woods, Floyd, and Kupp. In terms of contracts it's a top heavy team.
I have defended that approach, saying it's worth it to put a high percentage of that cap into a few guys and then keep adding good but younger guys around them.
But at a certain point, enough is enough.
Which gets me back to where I started. I don't see teams thriving in multiple years by continually adding high-end contract talent. You have to have some, but beyond that it's coaching and luck.
I am not sure how I feel about a coach who thinks they are always just one expensive trade away. Why isn't it the case that you are just some inexpensive good coaching ideas away. It seems to me that the teams that win year in and out have THAT, not the "trade a year" mentality.
To be fair I didn't say that when they got Ramsey or Stafford. But--enough is enough, and there is just no such thing anymore as a sustainable 70s Steelers roster in the NFL's 21st century. And IMO it won't work by doing it the "here's our window" way either. I prefer long term strategies. I never think any player is THE difference. Back in 99 they added Faulk to a team that was just crazy talent rich but that talent did not come from big trades for superstars. That team started 6 UDFAs (Jenkins, Fletcher, Jones, Farr, Nutten, Warner). And of course without Vermeil and Martz, all that would have mattered less.
So that's how I feel about Jones. It's just this guy's take.
...
...
...
...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/31/2021 12:00AM by zn.
