My Case Against Re-signing Spencer

[CowboysLaw87]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

Comp picks are a balance of who you sign vs. who you lose.

The only way your argument works is if we don't sign guys to fill any needs. And that is an insane proposition.

Given the obvious holes we have we are going to need to sign at least one DL, an offensive lineman, a safety (this would likely be the big money target), an SLB to replace Connor, possibly a backup running back and a blocking TE.

We'll likely sign more than we lose.

It's not just about the number of guys acquired v. number of guys lost, it's also about quality. This is determined by a "totality of the circumstances" type analysis... size of the FA contract, production on the field, etc.

If we lose Spencer that'll be a MAJOR factor in the "balancing test." And there's nearly no chance we sign more than we lose anyway (Spencer, Felix, Jenkins, Butler, Phillips). We'll get picks.

[CowboysLaw87]

Originally Posted by Shinywalrus

These two points seem to conflict a bit. On the one hand you argue that this last season wasn't really all that much better than his prior ones, but that line of logic says that Spencer was always quite good, we just didn't see it because we're focusing on sacks instead of pressures.

If that's the case, then why worry about motivation?

Seems to me Spencer has always been effective and among the most consistent players on our defense. I don't think the motivation issue is any more relevant for him than it is for any FA or even draft pick, for that matter.

Oh I'm totally saying that he's always been quite good. I was a huge proponent of tagging him last year. All I'm saying is that I think QB pressures is a better indicator of a player's pass rush ability than just looking at sacks. With that said, he's always been very good, and this year was no different. But just because his sack totals rose, I don't think that 100% means that his play was much better than in years past. He had about the same amount of pressures as previous years. I think the difference was that extra split second the QB held onto the football because of better coverage (Carr, Claiborne) that allowed Spencer to convert a few more pressures to sacks.

[Erik_H]

You make some legit points here, although I don't agree with all of them, they are reasonable concerns.

Originally Posted by CowboysLaw87

1. Spencer turned 29 last week. If we made the Super Bowl next season, he'd play the game at 30 years old. Handing out massive, long-term contracts to players who are around age 30 is just not smart. He's been durable, but has a lot of wear and tear because of it (career snap count). If we re-signed him, our potential starting 4 DL would ALL be 30+, with the exception of Spencer (29). We need to focus on getting younger, not guarantee that we'll be extremely old along the front for years.

If he's 29, then he should still be good for 3-4 years. Saying he'd be 30 if we made the Super Bowl next year is a bit of a weak argument there. It's stretching to be able to put the dreaded 30+ argument in there. It exaggerates his age and weakens your argument.

2. While his sack totals rose, his total pressures did not (or not significantly). He played really well this year, no doubt. But all he really did was convert the near-misses he'd been having in prior years. It's not like he became a pass-rushing terror. Now, his sacks are clutch and his overall pressure very good. I just think that his "improvement" is a bit overrated.

That's a way to look at it I suppose. It's true that there hasn't been that much improvement, the but that actually supports keeping him. The extra second of time given to him by an improved secondary (CBs anyway) means that he's playing the same but getting better results. Rather than overrating his improvement, it's his play in previous years that has been underrated.

3. The big question... will he remain motivated after getting the huge deal? He very well may shut it down. There's so much precedence for this on our own team, whether it's a motivation issue or otherwise (Free, Austin, Hamlin, Barber, Ratliff, etc.). Of all those guys, I think you can argue that Spencer might love football the LEAST and be motivated by the paycheck the MOST.

While I think it's unfair to say he likes football the LEAST, especially comparing to Any of the players you listed, the worry that he may not play as hard after his pay day is a valid concern. There is no actual and factual information to support the idea that Spencer is going to sit back and relax once he gets his money. He's been in a contract year 2 years in a row now. This year just looks better because of a few extra sacks. However, we have been burned a lot lately. It's fair to have this as part of the equation.

4. We're in a terrible salary cap situation. We'd be compounding the issue both now and in the future if we sell out to resign Spencer. Might be smarter to simply bite the bullet, not take on the contract, and have more flexibility for years to come. Which leads to...

Yeah, our cap is pretty tight. We'll be right up against it even after we do all the restructuring we end up doing. In the end we'll probably have enough to get one mid to high price FA and some role players. The question is whether we want our mid to high priced guy to be Spencer.

5. We'll need to resign Romo, Lee, Dez, Murray, etc. in the near future. Would be nice to go into those offseasons with a little less financial strain already on us.

Romo will be extended in the next few months and will actually alleviate some of this year's cap problems. It just comes down to how much of a hole missing Spencer will make. We do have some other pay days coming up that you mentioned, so it's a matter of shuffling who gets what for which year to make it work. Could be tough.

6. We'd get a very nice compensatory pick in the 2014 Draft for losing him. Like a 3rd rounder. That's extremely significant, as I think we can all agree that a late 3rd round pick has the potential to be a starter.

Add it all up and I think it's just better to bring in a guy via the draft and let him compete with Crawford for the LDE job this year. If it results in subpar play, we can always make DE a higher priority next year. Just my thoughts, and thanks for reading.

The compensatory pick would be nice, but that would depend on other players we bring in in FA. Odds are pretty good that Spencer would net a 3rd, But I wouldn't be surprised if Jenkins falls in that range too. He's gone and should get a pretty decent contract.

[GimmeTheBall!]

Originally Posted by CowboysLaw87

It is scary going into the unknown, and it is sad to lose a player via FA who has been a lifetime Cowboy and has grown into a very productive player. That said, there is more good than bad when it comes to letting #93 leave. Many of this has been said before, but some things some people are not fully aware of. Here we go...

1. Spencer turned 29 last week. If we made the Super Bowl next season, he'd play the game at 30 years old. Handing out massive, long-term contracts to players who are around age 30 is just not smart. He's been durable, but has a lot of wear and tear because of it (career snap count). If we re-signed him, our potential starting 4 DL would ALL be 30+, with the exception of Spencer (29). We need to focus on getting younger, not guarantee that we'll be extremely old along the front for years.

[View Full Quote]2. While his sack totals rose, his total pressures did not (or not significantly). He played really well this year, no doubt. But all he really did was convert the near-misses he'd been having in prior years. It's not like he became a pass-rushing terror. Now, his sacks are clutch and his overall pressure very good. I just think that his "improvement" is a bit overrated.

3. The big question... will he remain motivated after getting the huge deal? He very well may shut it down. There's so much precedence for this on our own team, whether it's a motivation issue or otherwise (Free, Austin, Hamlin, Barber, Ratliff, etc.). Of all those guys, I think you can argue that Spencer might love football the LEAST and be motivated by the paycheck the MOST.

4. We're in a terrible salary cap situation. We'd be compounding the issue both now and in the future if we sell out to resign Spencer. Might be smarter to simply bite the bullet, not take on the contract, and have more flexibility for years to come. Which leads to...

5. We'll need to resign Romo, Lee, Dez, Murray, etc. in the near future. Would be nice to go into those offseasons with a little less financial strain already on us.

6. We'd get a very nice compensatory pick in the 2014 Draft for losing him. Like a 3rd rounder. That's extremely significant, as I think we can all agree that a late 3rd round pick has the potential to be a starter.

Add it all up and I think it's just better to bring in a guy via the draft and let him compete with Crawford for the LDE job this year. If it results in subpar play, we can always make DE a higher priority next year. Just my thoughts, and thanks for reading.

GOOD post.

Spencer, after all these years, has a good year in 2012. All of a sudden he is a franchise-type player? Only in JerraWorld.
In general, he is as pedestrian as Ratliff and Hatcher and we just have to get away from these "great" players and focus on younger, more talented players.

[LatinMind]

Originally Posted by AbeBeta

This is faulty logic. You don't get picks just for losing a guy.

You will most def get a pick because of spencer leaving. basically because Dallas wont be doing much in FA. They're going to lose Spencer, Jenkins, Felix, all will most likely either start or have a role(Felix) with another team. I doubt Dallas signs any starters in FAs

[Rynie]

Originally Posted by CowboysLaw87

3. The big question... will he remain motivated after getting the huge deal? He very well may shut it down. There's so much precedence for this on our own team, whether it's a motivation issue or otherwise (Free, Austin, Hamlin, Barber, Ratliff, etc.). Of all those guys, I think you can argue that Spencer might love football the LEAST and be motivated by the paycheck the MOST.
.

I don't think so. He fully admitted in an interview to mailing it in the 2010 season.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by CowboysLaw87

It's not just about the number of guys acquired v. number of guys lost, it's also about quality. This is determined by a "totality of the circumstances" type analysis... size of the FA contract, production on the field, etc.

If we lose Spencer that'll be a MAJOR factor in the "balancing test." And there's nearly no chance we sign more than we lose anyway (Spencer, Felix, Jenkins, Butler, Phillips). We'll get picks.

I think that it is based on the contract that the player signs after he leaves. Spencer and Jenkins should get big contracts. The contracts that Felix, Butler and Phillips receive are probably not significant.

If the Cowboys sign Zero Expensive Free Agents this off-season, then they should get a decent comp pick in 2014.

If they sign 2 expensive Free Agents then it's doubtful that they will get any comp picks.

If they sign 1 expensive Free Agent then they might get a comp pick in 2014.

[xwalker]

Originally Posted by Rynie

I don't think so. He fully admitted in an interview to mailing it in the 2010 season.

He didn't say that he was consciously mailing it in. He said that at some point, months later, he was reviewing film of practice or games and realized that the guy on film (himself) was not giving "110 percent".

[Aven8]

My question, does he and Ware for that matter get paid as a DE now or an OLB? I seem to remember DEs as some of the highest paid players in football.

[Chocolate Lab]

Originally Posted by Aven8

My question, does he and Ware for that matter get paid as a DE now or an OLB? I seem to remember DEs as some of the highest paid players in football.

I was wondering the same thing about the tag. Wasn't it Suggs who tried to argue he was a DE even though he played 34 OLB because the DE got paid more?

Either way, it does seem like it would be a sticky question. He's been a 34 OLB of course, but he'd undoubtedly be a 43 DE in the new scheme. I don't think the Cowboys would even try to argue otherwise.

Adam?

[gimmesix]

Originally Posted by CowboysLaw87

It is scary going into the unknown, and it is sad to lose a player via FA who has been a lifetime Cowboy and has grown into a very productive player. That said, there is more good than bad when it comes to letting #93 leave. Many of this has been said before, but some things some people are not fully aware of. Here we go...

1. Spencer turned 29 last week. If we made the Super Bowl next season, he'd play the game at 30 years old. Handing out massive, long-term contracts to players who are around age 30 is just not smart. He's been durable, but has a lot of wear and tear because of it (career snap count). If we re-signed him, our potential starting 4 DL would ALL be 30+, with the exception of Spencer (29). We need to focus on getting younger, not guarantee that we'll be extremely old along the front for years.

[View Full Quote]2. While his sack totals rose, his total pressures did not (or not significantly). He played really well this year, no doubt. But all he really did was convert the near-misses he'd been having in prior years. It's not like he became a pass-rushing terror. Now, his sacks are clutch and his overall pressure very good. I just think that his "improvement" is a bit overrated.

3. The big question... will he remain motivated after getting the huge deal? He very well may shut it down. There's so much precedence for this on our own team, whether it's a motivation issue or otherwise (Free, Austin, Hamlin, Barber, Ratliff, etc.). Of all those guys, I think you can argue that Spencer might love football the LEAST and be motivated by the paycheck the MOST.

4. We're in a terrible salary cap situation. We'd be compounding the issue both now and in the future if we sell out to resign Spencer. Might be smarter to simply bite the bullet, not take on the contract, and have more flexibility for years to come. Which leads to...

5. We'll need to resign Romo, Lee, Dez, Murray, etc. in the near future. Would be nice to go into those offseasons with a little less financial strain already on us.

6. We'd get a very nice compensatory pick in the 2014 Draft for losing him. Like a 3rd rounder. That's extremely significant, as I think we can all agree that a late 3rd round pick has the potential to be a starter.

Add it all up and I think it's just better to bring in a guy via the draft and let him compete with Crawford for the LDE job this year. If it results in subpar play, we can always make DE a higher priority next year. Just my thoughts, and thanks for reading.

It's hard to go to the 4-3 without pass rushers, and Spencer is our second best. If we can find a better one than Spencer in FA, I'm all for it. Otherwise, I believe we need to franchise him again and see what he can provide as a DE. If he fails, we can let him walk next year.

Put the tag on him, look at available FAs while he waits to sign it and pull it if you sign a DE worthy of replacing him.

[LatinMind]

Originally Posted by Aven8

My question, does he and Ware for that matter get paid as a DE now or an OLB? I seem to remember DEs as some of the highest paid players in football.

Ware will most likely just restructure his deal and move most of his base salary into a signing bonus to free up cap. Not get a new contract

[Aven8]

Originally Posted by LatinMind

Ware will most likely just restructure his deal and move most of his base salary into a signing bonus to free up cap. Not get a new contract

My point is does Ware have a 20 sack season next year, which is likely if healthy, rushing the passer on every down. Does he want super Mario money? I sure would ask for it.

[CyberB0b]

I agree on most points.

[Shinywalrus]

Originally Posted by CowboysLaw87

Oh I'm totally saying that he's always been quite good. I was a huge proponent of tagging him last year. All I'm saying is that I think QB pressures is a better indicator of a player's pass rush ability than just looking at sacks. With that said, he's always been very good, and this year was no different. But just because his sack totals rose, I don't think that 100% means that his play was much better than in years past. He had about the same amount of pressures as previous years. I think the difference was that extra split second the QB held onto the football because of better coverage (Carr, Claiborne) that allowed Spencer to convert a few more pressures to sacks.

Fair enough. Thanks.