That goes hand and hand though, yes? Is giving the DT position $100 million worth it when it could go towards improving the rest of the team? I say no. The only player who should make anything close to that is the QB. Teams like NE, Pittsburgh, Greenbay, Denver(before Millers contract) are consistently winning games without giving other guys enormous contracts.
Btw, isn't it kind of ironic that Denver gives Miller all that money, they lose their HOF QB and don't even make the playoffs the next year?
Denver didn't make the playoffs because they went from a broken down Manning who was frankly playing awful, but still was the smartest QB in football which offset his poor play by quite a bit... to basically rookies and it showed.
it wouldn't have mattered if no defender made over $5M, they weren't going to the playoffs with that QBing.
Now, we are hopefully in the position where we have our franchise QB and finally have someone who can develop him.
Our situation is far different from Denver's in a lot of ways. When both Tampa and Denver fell out while paying guys like Miller and Sapp big money, it was because they didn't have a QB. We do.
Our biggest issue was coaching and by extension, scheme. Hopefully, that's been thoroughly addressed.
Frankly, if Houston had any kind of QBing last year or the year, they'd have been very, very dangerous. And with a healthy JJ Watt coming back and Jadaveon Clowney living up to his potential? That freakin' D is gonna be monstrous.
Which is why Dallas is holding out for a LOT from Houston...because Houston with Romo is going from a playoff team to maybe a SB favorite.
One of the reasons football is so hard to predict is that it takes they synergy of coaching, player execution, scheme and, frankly, a LOT of luck regarding injury and the bounce of the oblong ball to win. That's why the "rules" in football don't tend to hold up as solidly as those in say, baseball.