QB Solution - Stafford

[JBS]

Knew this thread was coming.

If (when?) they move on from Dak, you'd want a QB who can step in and win with this coach, this O Line, and this WR group. If you look at circumstances around the league, Stafford fits that bill. He'll be 33 and even though he'll command a salary in the $25-30M range, it won't be a long term deal that we are stuck with for 5 years. The Lions can save $14M in cap room by moving on from him after this season and what is very likley to be a another losing season in Detroit. McCarthy' system, the Cowboys offensive tools, and Stafford make a potentially dangerous combination.

A lot of you have become so enamored with the draft that you have unrealistic expectations. This team is anywhere from 8-8 to 13-3 this year, We will not be drafting high enough to get a sure-thing QB prospect. So now you're hoping the braintrust who brought you Quincy Carter, Chad Hutchinson, Drew Henson, and Clint Stoerner, almost drafted Johnny Manziel, and then later on would priortize Paxton Lynch and Connor Cook over Dak, are now suddenly going to nail the pick on a quarterback drafting in the 20 to 28 range?

You could do a lot worse than Matt Stafford with this current group of players and circumstances in 2021.

Stafford is probably the best option this team can do in 2021

 

[QuincyCarterEra]

I never said cheap..I think 30m is probably the number..dal offered dak 35..so I'm sure they'd pay stafford 30-35 as well

Why the hell would they offer Matt roughly the same as Dak instead of just paying the younger and better player?

"Hey let's downgrade the most important position in sports, and add 8 years, while saving no money. What say you?"

 

[JBS]

Even if Stanford would be slightly cheaper than Dak, he would be in his upper 30s at the end of his contract, so age could start catching up before he finishes out a 4 or 5 year deal. Dak would still be in his early 30s

You can probably land stafford on a cheaper contract that dak..so what is your point

 

[JBS]

Why the hell would they offer Matt roughly the same as Dak instead of just paying the younger and better player?

"Hey let's downgrade the most important position in sports, and add 8 years, while saving money. What say you?"

Obviously bc the front office wouldn't agree w that assessment..pretty simple

 

[QuincyCarterEra]

Obviously bc the front office wouldn't agree w that assessment..pretty simple

Pretty simple that whatever you are assuming as their assessment is... dead wrong.

 

[JBS]

Pretty simple that whatever you are assuming as their assessment is... dead wrong.

Obviously not. Dak didn't get paid. That's the only fact we have. So you are speculating the rest.

 

[OmerV]

You can probably land stafford on a cheaper contract that dak..so what is your point

Lol, did you actually read my post before replying? I actually indicated they may be able to sign Stafford cheaper, so what is your point in pretending you’ve said something different?

And I pretty clearly made my point that because Stafford is older he is much more likely to be declining though the life of the contract than Dak is, so being somewhat cheaper may not be better.

 

[JBS]

Lol, did you actually read my post before replying? I actually indicated they may be able to sign Stafford cheaper, so what is your point in pretending you’ve said something different?

And I pretty clearly made my point that because Stafford is older he is much more likely to be declining though the life of the contract than Dak is, so being somewhat cheaper may not be better.

All of that can be tailored in structuring the contract

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

I think Stafford would do great here. I have Stafford a better pure passer with Dak being the better leader/clutch/dual threat.

Dalton will command over 30 million. Maybe his experience would come to the forefront here if he didn't have to do everything.

Sky is the limit with Garrett gone.

Matt is a better passer than Dak and can make all of the throws, but would still probably go Dak just because of the leg factor.

 

[starfan1]

Obviously not. Dak didn't get paid. That's the only fact we have. So you are speculating the rest.

As are you

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Why the hell would they offer Matt roughly the same as Dak instead of just paying the younger and better player?

"Hey let's downgrade the most important position in sports, and add 8 years, while saving no money. What say you?"

I asked the same thing and he looked at me crazy lol.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Matt is a better passer than Dak and can make all of the throws, but would still probably go Dak just because of the leg factor.

According to the scouting reports he has the same issues you guys say Dak has. He "throws a pretty spiral" but he's wildly inaccurate.

 

[OmerV]

All of that can be tailored in structuring the contract

That’s only the case if Stanford agrees to take significantly less guaranteed money if the team wants to let him go early, which I doubt, and even then, that only addresses the cost in pay and not the cost in lack of continuity and possible loss in competitiveness because the team would have to scramble for a new option to cover the position. The difference between a few million dollars a year isn’t worth that risk.

 

[Jake]

I see a lot of "this team is built to win now" comments which remind me that fans only look at offense.

What aspect of the defense is built to win now?

 

[jterrell]

Knew this thread was coming.

If (when?) they move on from Dak, you'd want a QB who can step in and win with this coach, this O Line, and this WR group. If you look at circumstances around the league, Stafford fits that bill. He'll be 33 and even though he'll command a salary in the $25-30M range, it won't be a long term deal that we are stuck with for 5 years. The Lions can save $14M in cap room by moving on from him after this season and what is very likley to be a another losing season in Detroit. McCarthy' system, the Cowboys offensive tools, and Stafford make a potentially dangerous combination.

A lot of you have become so enamored with the draft that you have unrealistic expectations. This team is anywhere from 8-8 to 13-3 this year, We will not be drafting high enough to get a sure-thing QB prospect. So now you're hoping the braintrust who brought you Quincy Carter, Chad Hutchinson, Drew Henson, and Clint Stoerner, almost drafted Johnny Manziel, and then later on would priortize Paxton Lynch and Connor Cook over Dak, are now suddenly going to nail the pick on a quarterback drafting in the 20 to 28 range?

You could do a lot worse than Matt Stafford with this current group of players and circumstances in 2021.

Again, nonsense.
Dallas isn't letting Dak go when they can tag him again just to pay Stafford 27AAV over 3 or more years if they can even get him that cheaply.
They aren't paying Dak 5 years to tag him for just the one so that point is moot.
Stafford isn't coming in for 1 year and DET won't cut him except as a post June 1st move and likely after they talk restructure or buying his freedom.

Exactly zero teams would prefer Matt Stafford to Dak Prescott.

Dallas would go draft an R1 QB and take their chances because they'd have cost certainty for 5 seasons.
Dallas has A LOT of picks next year and can move up in R1 to take a QB.

Is that dumb compared to keeping Dak? Sure is which is why they would just tag him a 2nd time and try to go with a title.
But they aren't bringing in an aging, beat up Stafford to stop gap.

 

[JBS]

As are you

This is accurate as well. I made that clear in my original post.

 

[Whirlwin]

Staffords time in Detroit is probably coming to an end. There were some rumblings his time there was over earlier this off-season. I think due to cap implications the team decided to hang onto him for another season.

Obviously I'm speculating, but I think 2020 is Staffords last year in Detroit. Matt is a Texas kid and I think the perfect solution for both sides is for Stafford to take over the qb job here in Dallas. This offensive line, these weapons, MM has to know him really well, I think the fit is really really good. This team is in win now mode and you are getting a super talented qb who has experience. What do you guys think?

We need to get rid of Dalton. But why do that for the money. As much as I think Stafford is a good quarterback he’ll never beat out Prescott

 

[JBS]

That’s only the case if Stanford agrees to take significantly less guaranteed money if the team wants to let him go early, which I doubt, and even then, that only addresses the cost in pay and not the cost in lack of continuity and possible loss in competitiveness because the team would have to scramble for a new option to cover the position. The difference between a few million dollars a year isn’t worth that risk.

What loss in competitiveness? I'm not following.. In addition, you are getting a similar qb at worst, with potential to improve at the position.

 

[Whirlwin]

OK..so what is the point of bringing up dak then? You need to find a replacement..

Why do we need to find a replacement. It’s all going to work out it’s just posturing.

 

[JBS]

We need to get rid of Dalton. But why do that for the money. As much as I think Stafford is a good quarterback he’ll never beat out Prescott

What the heck are you saying. Stafford is infinitely better than dalton. Are you comparing the two? Stafford at worst is on par w dak...in similar situations, he might be better..but that's arguable..