Dak a Tier-2 QB per NFL Coaches and Execs

jaythecowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,862
Reaction score
2,248
I don't disagree on the facts (no need to split hairs on Dak's ranking). That being said the only alternative solution I agree with is #2.

1. Hardball with Zeke. While I would have likely done it, I think the Cowboys saw 2019 as a potential Super Bowl year and wanted to be at full strength. Obviously the team didn't live up to that, but I have a feeling if Zeke was out that would have given Garrett another out to stay Cowboys coach and I'm glad that didn't happen lol.

2. Get Dak signed after year 3. This is a no brainer and a huge fail on the part of the front office no matter what happens. Like I've said before, even if the Cowboys gave Dak the "pie-in-the-sky" $40 million for 4 years offer, the 5 year average is only $32 million when you include 2019. Cowboys could have structured the cap hit so Dak was around $32 million until after the 2023 season. Instead they let Dak play out the year, and now they have Dak on a franchise tag for $31 million.

3. Non-exclusive tag. I don't think much would have changed positively for the Cowboys had they done this. Most people seem to think Dak would get low offers and sign one, when more likely he would just play on the tag and bid his time till he can get to free agency without a tag on him. No team is gonna give Dak the kinda money he wants and two 1sts on top of it. So it would save the team $4 million but allow Dak to plot out his eventual free agency by allowing him to talk to other teams. Given what happened so far I think that was a good move.

4. Pulling the franchise tag, which others have suggested would be a horrible move imo. I think some teams would clear the cap space to give him the franchise money he wants. The Washington Football team specifically comes to mind as a team that would jump at the chance to get him. And then the Cowboys have given away a franchise qb for nothing. Especially with being true free agency, the team can structure the deal so that the cap hit isn't too crazy the first year. Or Dak could decide to play year-to-year until the new tv money hits and then cash in.
 

JoaquinFenix

Well-Known Member
Messages
236
Reaction score
420
Here's where you are failing to add a stack of chips over on the Cowboys side of your leverage argument.

#1-Andy Dalton

This is a total break with traditional Cowboy roster building and equipping the QB position. I do not ever remember when the Cowboys signed a guy of equal capability as their starter.

Never. You would have to go back to Morton and Staubach to find a competition like that.

Dalton equals leverage. A lot if you want to know the reality of the situation.

#2-the pandemic

Talk about a wild card piece of leverage. Dallas knows anything can happen in this illness environment.

Having the most expensive, talented QB does not make you the favorite to win it. Having the healthiest teammates does when January arrives.

I think the saying goes..

"the best laid plans of mice and men, etc..".
Please note that the theme of the original post was what Dallas could’ve done differently, not what they did right.

Besides, I mentioned Dalton in item no. 3. What good is leverage, however, if you don’t use it? Dalton is on a 1-year deal, as is Dak. The time to use Dalton as leverage was when you rescinded the tag and showed Dak you’d be willing to roll with Dalton. That never happened.

While I agree that the pandemic gives the Cowboys leverage, the extent of that leverage remains to be seen. No extension means no signing bonus for Dak. He gets paid only per game check this year. If games are cancelled, Dak loses paychecks and perhaps trust in his agent along with it. Then comes the salary cap reduction due to lost revenue. That’ll be the next interesting storyline in this negotiation.
 

Aviano90

Go Seahawks!!!
Messages
16,758
Reaction score
24,485
I'm pretty tired of this false dichotomy where every Cowboys fan is either a Dak hater or lover. The reality is that a lot of us think he's a capable quarterback whose contract demands aren't consistent with reality. Those demands have been bolstered by the Cowboys' bungling of the negotiation process, as set forth in my original post.
I am pretty tired of people who can’t comprehend what they read. If someone truly just has an issue with Dak just because of his salary demands, they wouldn’t have been hating him for 4 years.

Those fans who have ragged on him when he was making $465k per year, who like every negative thing said about him, who argue against every positive thing said about him can’t use the excuse of him getting paid. It’s not the reason they don’t want him.

If you can’t tell the difference between someone who has hated on him for 4 years and someone who just got soured by the contract negotiation perhaps you need to pay better attention to the board.

As for hater- not sure why people get upset at this word. That is the term people use when describing someone or something they strongly dislike. If you guys wants to come up with a different term in the language to use, that is fine. But hater is what it is called and if you want to know who they are you can identify them by the ones who always undermine the positives and highlight the negative. They are out there and are very easily identifiable. They are like flies on turd.


hat·er
/ˈhādər/

noun
  1. a person who greatly dislikes a specified person or thing.
    "a man hater"
    • INFORMAL
      a negative or critical person.
      "she found it difficult to cope with the haters"
 
Last edited:

Flamma

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,802
Reaction score
18,666
I don't understand your first paragraph at all.

As for your second paragraph, that's precisely why the Cowboys should've used it. Teams shy away, Dak doesn't get the offers he's expecting, he and his agent are humbled, and the Cowboys save millions on the cap in the process. Win-win for the Cowboys.

If you fully intend to give your player an extension, the best time to do it is after their 3rd season regardless of a 5th year option. A 5th year only gives you the option to wait another year. That doesn't mean it's more beneficial to wait.

On to your second point. Dak would just think it's because of the tag that he isn't getting those offers. Did the non exclusive tag bring down Dlaw's price?


The most basic rule of football personnel management is that you don't pay for running backs. Paying a record contract for a player whose rushing performance doesn't correlate with winning is not "a good deal for the team

How should they have handled Zeke? In your opinion.
 

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,864
Reaction score
22,388
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
It appears you're thinking of Rodgers from 4 years ago when he was still elite. He hasn't been elite for a while now. There's no way a free-agent Rodgers gets top-of-the market money today.

As for Mahomes, that's actually a really bad comp for Dak. Everybody agrees that Mahomes is far superior than Dak, but Mahomes actually took a team-friendly deal. First of all, Mahomes signed a deal with years remaining on his rookie contract, unlike Dak who apparently turned his nose up at Wentz money. Secondly, it's a freaking 10-year extension, unlike Dak who apparently wants a series of short deals to keep maximizing his earning potential. Thirdly, most NFL contracts are analyzed based on how much they pay out over 3 years. After that, the guarantees typically evaporate and the funny money is irrelevant. By all accounts, Dak wanted more over the first three years of his deal than Mahomes got. Lastly, Mahomes' deal is really a 4-year extension. His cap hit skyrockets to $60 million in year 6, which becomes guaranteed after year 5. They will likely renegotiate before incurring that kind of cap hit. In other words, that "highest dollar contract in sports history" is a bunch of headline porn that means nothing.

In sum, not the best comps to support your argument.
How do you know Dak turned his nose up at Wentz money a year ago? I don’t even remember that being reported, much less confirmed. As for Dak wanting short deals, 4 years is 4 years whether it’s Dak or Wentz. Yes, it’s different for the team in terms of spreading the cap hit if they can sign the player before the previous contract expires, but that doesn’t change the fact that an additional 4 years Is the same time period for either. And if you are simply going to assume Mahoney will renegotiate in a few years, why not assume Dak will restructure in a few to spread out the cap hit? Seems the assumption is Dak will always do whatever he can to screw the team and every other QB will always do whatever they can to help the team.
 
Last edited:

Flamma

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,802
Reaction score
18,666
4. Pulling the franchise tag, which others have suggested would be a horrible move imo. I think some teams would clear the cap space to give him the franchise money he wants. The Washington Football team specifically comes to mind as a team that would jump at the chance to get him. And then the Cowboys have given away a franchise qb for nothing. Especially with being true free agency, the team can structure the deal so that the cap hit isn't too crazy the first year. Or Dak could decide to play year-to-year until the new tv money hits and then cash in.

Good post overall, this is just the part I disagree with. I could be wrong, I'm just going by circumstantial evidence. The Commanders drafted at the number 2 position, right? If they were so interested in a QB why did they take a lineman? Why would a team go through all of the trouble of clearing up cap space to pay Dak all of that money when they had any QB on the board not named Burrow for the next 5 years relatively cheap? That doesn't make sense to me.
 

McKDaddy

Well-Known Member
Messages
8,224
Reaction score
8,425
Re: Item 3 Risky how? If somebody offered him a fair deal, then match it. If he got wildly overpaid, then don't and take the 2 first-round picks. After Andy Dalton came into the fold, I felt more than comfortable letting Dak see for himself. Perhaps leverage is all about risk-taking.
They had to make the decision of what tag to use before the draft. I believe they officially tagged him on March 16th. They didn't sign Dalton until May 3rd. So, when the decision had to be made they had no way of knowing Dak's camp would be inflexible, what they would get in the draft and certainly not if they would be able to get a starting QB on a bargain bin deal. At that point I think they felt they could sign Dak to a deal they were comfortable with. If you expose him to offers & he leaves, you have to scramble for a QB to lead an otherwise talented roster. You are potentially wasting your window of opportunity. Now certainly, if you could have had Dalton, Cam, someone in place & any idea you couldn't get a deal done, then yes it would have made it easier to go this route. Certainly not saying you are wrong, just saying its easier to say after the fact than at the time decisions had to be made.

Re: Item 4 I totally disagree that rescinding the tag is "dirty dealing." The NFLPA negotiated this possibility as part of the CBA. You cannot plausibly claim anything is dirty about adhering to an agreement to which the players consented.
To my recollection it has only been done as you approach the deadline & bridges have been burned. To do it with a player who hasn't made disparaging comments publicly, etc., would be setting a precedent. I am reminded of the adage "just because you can do something doesn't mean you should"

Why Jacksonville? Perhaps because they were the only team in the NFL with both the cap space and need for a QB. Foles is a sunk cost and totally irrelevant. Minshew isn't the answer, and they had the money to pay Dak. The key point is that Jacksonville was the ONLY team in the league to fit this profile during the rescind window. If I were the Cowboys, I press that advantage and claw back some leverage.
Info I look at says they have around $37MM in dead cap. Highest in the league. Sunk costs are not irrelevant. Also says they have less than $15MM in available cap and they haven't reached a deal with Ngakoue. Whether Minshew is or isn't the answer is to be determined but he showed promise, he's cheap & they moved Foles which indicates their interest. My point was for these reasons, I don't think Jacksonville would be interested in Dak. I think they are more interested in getting their financials in order while they evaluate Minshew.

Keep in mind that I see flaws in Dak's game and was definitely against paying him top $ so i'm inclined toward your way of thinking, simply saying i also see why the FO didn't go those routes.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
55,143
Reaction score
36,328
How do you know Dak turned his nose up at Wentz money a year ago? I don’t even remember that being reported, much less confirmed. As for Dak wanting short deals, 4 years is 4 years whether it’s Dak or Wentz. Yes, it’s different for the team in terms of spreading the cap hit if they can sign the player before the previous contract expires, but that doesn’t change the fact that an additional 4 years Is the same time period for either. And if you are simply going to assume Mahoney will renegotiate in a few years, why not assume Dak will restructure in a few to spread out the cap hit? Seems the assumption is Dak will always do whatever he can to screw the team and every other QB will always do whatever they can to help the team.
Yea, if it comes out we could have signed Dak for 35 million for going 4 years instead of 5 then the Cowboys will be further criticized .
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,059
Reaction score
46,962
I don't disagree on the facts (no need to split hairs on Dak's ranking). That being said the only alternative solution I agree with is #2.

1. Hardball with Zeke. While I would have likely done it, I think the Cowboys saw 2019 as a potential Super Bowl year and wanted to be at full strength. Obviously the team didn't live up to that, but I have a feeling if Zeke was out that would have given Garrett another out to stay Cowboys coach and I'm glad that didn't happen lol.

2. Get Dak signed after year 3. This is a no brainer and a huge fail on the part of the front office no matter what happens. Like I've said before, even if the Cowboys gave Dak the "pie-in-the-sky" $40 million for 4 years offer, the 5 year average is only $32 million when you include 2019. Cowboys could have structured the cap hit so Dak was around $32 million until after the 2023 season. Instead they let Dak play out the year, and now they have Dak on a franchise tag for $31 million.

3. Non-exclusive tag. I don't think much would have changed positively for the Cowboys had they done this. Most people seem to think Dak would get low offers and sign one, when more likely he would just play on the tag and bid his time till he can get to free agency without a tag on him. No team is gonna give Dak the kinda money he wants and two 1sts on top of it. So it would save the team $4 million but allow Dak to plot out his eventual free agency by allowing him to talk to other teams. Given what happened so far I think that was a good move.

4. Pulling the franchise tag, which others have suggested would be a horrible move imo. I think some teams would clear the cap space to give him the franchise money he wants. The Washington Football team specifically comes to mind as a team that would jump at the chance to get him. And then the Cowboys have given away a franchise qb for nothing. Especially with being true free agency, the team can structure the deal so that the cap hit isn't too crazy the first year. Or Dak could decide to play year-to-year until the new tv money hits and then cash in.
So, your solution is to simply grossly overpay players?
 

CouchCoach

Staff member
Messages
41,122
Reaction score
74,900
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Your diverting the question? I’m not really interested in the other 31 teams .

I’ll rephrase . If we don’t get a full look this season how is our decision influenced?
Our decision? If you are talking about us, most have already arrived at that.

I think he is a tier 2 QB, whether that's 8 or 12 doesn't matter because he'll move up and down that ranking. They do not have a shot at a tier 1 and I do not trust them to not end up with a tier 3 with their track record.

Prescott might not be what everyone wants but he damned well may be the best they can get. Can't rank him without considering the other options.

Some really need to remove that "hey, this is the Cowboys, they have to have a tier 1 QB" thinking. The storied history of the Dallas Cowboys was a long time ago and they've been trying to sell that for too long.

It would help everyone here if they could remove that "this is the Dallas Cowboys" thinking and just look at the last 25 years as a football team, not the Dallas Cowboys. They do that and this franchise looks a hell of a lot different from those glory years. What was was little to do with what is except for the media coverage, which still mystifies me. This team is not worthy of the coverage and hasn't been in a long time.
 

ABQCOWBOY

Regular Joe....
Messages
58,929
Reaction score
27,716
#1 - Totally disagree. The most basic rule of football personnel management is that you don't pay for running backs. Paying a record contract for a player whose rushing performance doesn't correlate with winning is not "a good deal for the team."

#2 - Perhaps you lack basic reading comprehension. I said the reports on this were murky, but that, if the team offered Wentz money and Dak declined, then shame on Dak. Pull your head out.

#4 - "Redesignate Dak and give CAA even more control over him"? This is incomprehensible gibberish. But thank you for making my point that only one team (Jacksonville) would've competed against the Cowboys for Dak. I'm willing to take that risk.

You've got a weird fascination with heads up you know whats.

Interesting.

So I will apologize to you as I was under the impression that these points were from the article you posted and not drafted by you. I would have never used such critical language to you for these opinions.

I don't agree with any of your follow on points.

Have a good weekend.
 

Lutonio

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,927
Reaction score
4,571
That sounds fair. He’s not up there will that crop of players who we know are Hall of Fame bound, but he’s far from a dumpster fire. The problem is getting him to accept a tier 2 contract.
 

Diehardblues

Well-Known Member
Messages
55,143
Reaction score
36,328
Our decision? If you are talking about us, most have already arrived at that.

I think he is a tier 2 QB, whether that's 8 or 12 doesn't matter because he'll move up and down that ranking. They do not have a shot at a tier 1 and I do not trust them to not end up with a tier 3 with their track record.

Prescott might not be what everyone wants but he damned well may be the best they can get. Can't rank him without considering the other options.

Some really need to remove that "hey, this is the Cowboys, they have to have a tier 1 QB" thinking. The storied history of the Dallas Cowboys was a long time ago and they've been trying to sell that for too long.

It would help everyone here if they could remove that "this is the Dallas Cowboys" thinking and just look at the last 25 years as a football team, not the Dallas Cowboys. They do that and this franchise looks a hell of a lot different from those glory years. What was was little to do with what is except for the media coverage, which still mystifies me. This team is not worthy of the coverage and hasn't been in a long time.
I’m not sure if I’m being misunderstood or trying to redirect my message.

My question is directed at how do we evaluate the Cowboys decision . Not our or ours opinion. I’m only interested in analyzing the Cowboys decision not what we think or would do.
 

DFWJC

Well-Known Member
Messages
59,330
Reaction score
48,172
That sounds fair. He’s not up there will that crop of players who we know are Hall of Fame bound, but he’s far from a dumpster fire. The problem is getting him to accept a tier 2 contract.
He was already offered a tier 1 contract--just not tier 1A++
Either way, he doesn't even have to accept a tier 2 deal.
 
Messages
9,688
Reaction score
6,861
On the heels of NFL players ranking Dak as the 46th best player in the league, The Athletic recently published a ranking of NFL quarterbacks based on interviews with NFL coaches and executives.

https://***BLOCKED***/1945894/2020/...coaches-and-evaluators-rank-the-nfl-starters/

According to the men whose job it is to coach and evaluate NFL players, Dak is the 12th-best QB in the league and in the second tier of quarterbacks. This ranking appears to be fairly consistent with the players' ranking of Dak.

If the NFL players, coaches, and executives rank Dak somewhere in the second-tier (e.g., no. 12 quarterback in the league), why do Dak and his agent, Todd France, continue to demand elite, top-of-the-market money?

Leverage.

Contracts are all about leverage. Unlike most other quarterbacks, Dak was willing to play out his full rookie deal before accepting a fair Cowboys' offer. This gave him leverage over the team, and he and France tried to maximize that leverage during contract negotiations.

Fortunately, the Cowboys didn't flinch. However, that's not to say the Cowboys handled this perfectly.

Here are four things the Cowboys could've done differently:

1. Don't set a bad precedent by signing Dak's bro, Zeke, to a record contract with two years left on his rookie deal. This signaled to Dak and France that Stephen Jones' tough talk about not setting the market was a bluff. I think Dak and France tried - and failed - to call this bluff right up until the July 15 deadline. If the Cowboys had played hard ball with Zeke, then Dak and France's approach might've been different.

2. Sign Dak after year 3 as soon as he became eligible for a new contract. This one is a little bit murky, as we don't know for sure how much the Cowboys offered last offseason. If the offer was fair (i.e., Carson Wentz money), then shame on Dak. If not, shame on the Cowboys. It takes two to tango. What we do know is that Dak pressed his leverage after finishing year 4, and the Cowboys should've tried to avoid that outcome, within reason.

3. Apply the non-exclusive franchise tag. The Cowboys could've saved several millions dollars in cap space by applying the non-exclusive franchise tag to Dak instead of the exclusive franchise tag. Additionally, allowing Dak and France to negotiate with other teams would've showed them Dak's true market value instead of his leverage-maximizing value that applies only to the Cowboys. Even if Dak had signed a market-setting tender with another team (a longshot proposition), then the Cowboys could've entered the season with Andy Dalton under center and four first-round picks over the next two drafts. Not a bad deal.

4. Rescind the exclusive franchise tag after free agency/the draft. We know that the Cowboys screwed up by applying the exclusive franchise tag, but they then compounded that mistake by not rescinding it at the right time. What's the right time, you ask? It's after most teams have blown their cap space in free agency and filled their quarterback roster spots through the draft. I've analyzed this before, and if the Cowboys had timed this right, the only team who had both the cap space and the need for a quarterback post-free agency/draft was the Jacksonville Jaguars. Do you really think Dak would've left America's team and signed a deal with the lowly Jaguars for a couple extra million dollars? Being the face of the Cowboys is worth more than enough in endorsement money alone to recoup any lost contract dollars to a team like the Jaguars. This was the Cowboys best opportunity to claw back some of the leverage they'd given to Dak.

So, there you have it. Dak and France's approach to Dak's contract was about leverage, not about Dak's ability relative to his peers. The Cowboys gave Dak that leverage by repeatedly shooting themselves in the foot along the way. Here's hoping they don't continue to do so.

There are plenty of people who think the annual failures were Scott Linnehan's fault,,, and then Jason Garrett's fault. McCarthy's success or failure should settle the matter of Dak's true worth.
 
Top