Twitter: Todd France and CAA part ways

[Diehardblues]

No. That's a slanted opinion on your part. It's not because I'm sold or not sold on Dak. It's because I don't believe in the idea that the team is screwed if we have to go find a QB. I believe the strength of this team is the OL. I have for many years so I'm not on the "Only Dak can take us to the Promise Land" train.

Ok. So how do you like our chances without Dak. On a team that appears ready to contend now. How long until we find or develop another QB and the risks attached.

And again why if you’re Organization is sold Dak is enough you must take a leap of faith.

 

[kskboys]

In line with what. Every year the top 10 caliber QB’s set a new bar.

If you don’t believe Dak is in the category then that’s a different issue.

OK, then Brady/Brees just signed for around 25, why aren't you saying Dak should've signed for that?

I find it faulty logic that because a team pays a QB, say, 35 mil, that you must then pay yours 36. If you actually analyze that from a logical standpoint, you'll see that you've been misled and that it doesn't make sense. If the market value of a QB is 34 mil/season, that means a range of 32-36, not an exact number. Dak was offered a number well w/i the range of what everyone was being paid. From what came out of the discussions, Dak's side was refusing to counter offer w/ a reasonable offer.

 

[kskboys]

It was said multiple times Dak wanted four years. I have heard nothing of the Cowboys the Cowboys actually offering four years. In fact I read somewhere that the Cowboys refuse to entertain four year deals in general. So I'm not sure the Cowboys would even offer four years next offseason , and Dak might want three years.

If the insistence on 4 years is true, that is purely negotiating in bad faith when it's common knowledge that a team needs more years in order to fit a quality team under the cap. If the years thingie held this up, then honestly Dak aligned himself w/ the worst agent in the NFL. Being that a couple other players of his also ended up playing under the tag, the signs are pointing toward France being a bad agent.

 

[blueblood70]

lol he messed up Daks deal.

does this mean Daks with CAA or France?

 

[CouchCoach]

I don't think we are risking much at all to be honest. But that's opinion on my part.

That's been my point all along. This is a no risk situation for the team. They didn't fail and neither did he. They couldn't come to terms but that doesn't mean they can't in the future.

I want another year with him with this HC and OC for his second year. What Aikman said at the time was fact, QB's do not fix accuracy issues at this level. There are exceptions to every rule and I want to see of Prescott can be that. His history tells me that if a QB can, be could very well be one of those because his story is not the usual path to his position.

Even the Dakaters have to ask themselves "what is is about this guy"? His path to the QB1 spot in high school, college and the NFL isn't odd if it's just one of those, but all three? I've heard what his high school and college coaches said about him once he took over and it's the same, "who is this guy and where has he been"? Prescott is like a dog with a bone and this QB1 thing, hell of a lot easier to keep him away from it before he has it in his mouth.

He intrigues me, the idea of him hooked me like Romo's story did because behind our love of sports is our love of the underdog, that person who defies the odds, that Miracle team in the 80's Olympics, a kid not even invited to the Combine as a QB and one that was the 3rd choice of his own team.

 

[kskboys]

But we never budged off of our 33-35 million 5 year deal.

He’s going to want much more next year.

We might could have signed him for 37ish and 4 years.

Why would we? That offer was more than fair. The negotiating should have been in the details.

 

[Diehardblues]

OK, then Brady/Brees just signed for around 25, why aren't you saying Dak should've signed for that?

I find it faulty logic that because a team pays a QB, say, 35 mil, that you must then pay yours 36. If you actually analyze that from a logical standpoint, you'll see that you've been misled and that it doesn't make sense. If the market value of a QB is 34 mil/season, that means a range of 32-36, not an exact number. Dak was offered a number well w/i the range of what everyone was being paid. From what came out of the discussions, Dak's side was refusing to counter offer w/ a reasonable offer.

Because they aren’t the same level of QB at age 40 they once were.

Much of investing on a QB is the potential moving forward. Rarely do these new QB on their first extension after their Rookie deals reflect their current status but rather the current market value for a franchise qb. Paying Dak more than Wilson doesn’t represent he’s a better QB. Cause it will be blown out next year.

Did anyone think Stafford was best QB in 2017 or Ryan in 2018? I certainly didn’t think Wilson was last year. That’s not what these new contracts define.

 

[CouchCoach]

If the insistence on 4 years is true, that is purely negotiating in bad faith when it's common knowledge that a team needs more years in order to fit a quality team under the cap. If the years thingie held this up, then honestly Dak aligned himself w/ the worst agent in the NFL. Being that a couple other players of his also ended up playing under the tag, the signs are pointing toward France being a bad agent.

A bad agent for which side, his player's or their's?

 

[MarcusRock]

OK, then Brady/Brees just signed for around 25, why aren't you saying Dak should've signed for that?

I find it faulty logic that because a team pays a QB, say, 35 mil, that you must then pay yours 36. If you actually analyze that from a logical standpoint, you'll see that you've been misled and that it doesn't make sense. If the market value of a QB is 34 mil/season, that means a range of 32-36, not an exact number. Dak was offered a number well w/i the range of what everyone was being paid. From what came out of the discussions, Dak's side was refusing to counter offer w/ a reasonable offer.

If you're saying he's on the level of his peers and you're in a market that has gone up every year and you're a year removed from when your peers got paid, it makes absolute logical sense that you pay your QB more. But Tannehill didn't get $35M. Why's that? Because he's not on the level of his peers.

And from a guarantee standpoint (which trumps AAV), Dak didn't get offered in range of what everyone was being paid. They offered Goff's $110M guaranteed for 4 years but over a 5 year deal. That's not fair no matter how you slice it. One guy had guarantees at $130M for 5 years when you compare other deals, yet the guarantee offers from the team weren't even meeting half way at $120M. That's fair? No sir, it's not.

 

[Diehardblues]

That's been my point all along. This is a no risk situation for the team. They didn't fail and neither did he. They couldn't come to terms but that doesn't mean they can't in the future.

I want another year with him with this HC and OC for his second year. What Aikman said at the time was fact, QB's do not fix accuracy issues at this level. There are exceptions to every rule and I want to see of Prescott can be that. His history tells me that if a QB can, be could very well be one of those because his story is not the usual path to his position.

Even the Dakaters have to ask themselves "what is is about this guy"? His path to the QB1 spot in high school, college and the NFL isn't odd if it's just one of those, but all three? I've heard what his high school and college coaches said about him once he took over and it's the same, "who is this guy and where has he been"? Prescott is like a dog with a bone and this QB1 thing, hell of a lot easier to keep him away from it before he has it in his mouth.

He intrigues me, the idea of him hooked me like Romo's story did because behind our love of sports is our love of the underdog, that person who defies the odds, that Miracle team in the 80's Olympics, a kid not even invited to the Combine as a QB and one that was the 3rd choice of his own team.

That’s all fine but the point remains it will cost us more next year. Not to mention risking he might want to look to FA.

Which if you were sold on him doesn’t appear a sound decision. If you’re not sold on him like many of us aren’t then it appears a risk worth taking.

 

[gjkoeppen]

What are you talking about? Dak was going to make more money, either way. There was never a situation where Dak was not going to make more money. The reason it's more beneficial to the Cowboys is because now you have more years to work with on the restructure and that helps the cap big time. That's why it's beneficial to the team. This entire "France" thing is nonsense. Who works for who here? Does France and CAA work for Dak or does Dak work for them?

The vast majority of teams who are dealing with stating QB contracts do restructure early if you have a young starting QB IMO. I don't know about every player but we aren't talking about every player. We are talking about Dak and QBs. So if you think the math is fuzzy, that's fine with me. I haven't been wrong about the entire Dak thing yet. Everything that I said would happen has happened, with the exception of the tag because I thought they would use the transitional tag, and I feel as if it's pretty easy to figure out. I'm not smarter then the next guy here. This was easy to see coming IMO.

But again, we'll see.

Here's a news flash for you. When the very first day the cap started the Cowboys were in cap hell. They remained there because every year they had to renegotiate contracts just to get enough room to resign a couple of their stars and draft choices but by doing this it always ended up putting large chucks on the dead money. This went on for 20 years until the Cowboys stop renegotiating contracts about 5 years ago. Again name all the QB's that demanded to renegotiate their contracts? Again you're confusing teams choosing to EXTENT a QB contract to keep them longer in the last year or two of his current deal . That's adding years to a contract not renegotiating the contract.

Your idea that after the guaranteed years are over that the Cowboys would all of a sudden decide to renegotiate that contract which no doubt will add more guaranteed money on it. The smart thing is to try to get an extension done not renegotiate. The extension would start AFTER the current contract expires,

Just about everybody knew that after France told Prescott to reject that offer prior to week 1 last season that eventually Prescott would get hit with the tag. Don't make it sound like you're such a great foreseer of things to come.
.
.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ok. So how do you like our chances without Dak. On a team that appears ready to contend now. How long until we find or develop another QB and the risks attached.

And again why if you’re Organization is sold Dak is enough you must take a leap of faith.

Hard to say. We haven't really seen the new Offensive or Defensive scheme with the personnel we currently have. We have the added Disadvantage of not having a full offseason to install schemes so to be honest, I never thought it would be advantageous to us to begin with. Having to start another QB may not be ideal either but it is a help to have a vet backup with experience so that's a good thing. Teams with Vet QBs and solid Coaching Staffs have the advantage IMO.

If we have to go without Dak, then it all depends on what Dalton can bring to the table to bridge the gap and we don't know that yet but then again, we don't really know what Dak will do in this offense either so there are questions on both sides.

Either way, you have to manage the cap and if you can't get a deal done that doesn't allow you to do this, then it doesn't really matter.

 

[CouchCoach]

So, what’s their plan without Dak. That has to be part of the equation when you risk drawing a line in the sand.

IMO Dak isn’t enough. He’s had the weapons that Troy and Roger would have done more damage with on offense although he hasn’t had the defenses. There is no perfect storm in Cap era.

We’ve seen what he is without it and with it. Neither are enough to win a championship. But does that really matter to our organization. Being relevant might be enough.

Again, my argument isn’t revolving around my opinion. It’s based on what our organization thinks.

We do not know what they think as individuals within that organization or if they have a plan without Prescott in it.

There is a description I've used for this franchise for many years that fits this QB situation, good enough. Prescott is good enough to keep them relevant because he's now a household word in America. He's a media superstar and they helped make him one.

I believe that good enough is good enough for Booger because relevancy is everything. And right now, this season, Dak Prescott is more than good enough to keep this team relevant, regardless of their record. DakWatch will surpass the team.

 

[Diehardblues]

Hard to say. We haven't really seen the new Offensive or Defensive scheme with the personnel we currently have. We have the added Disadvantage of not having a full offseason to install schemes so to be honest, I never thought it would be advantageous to us to begin with. Having to start another QB may not be ideal either but it is a help to have a vet backup with experience so that's a good thing. Teams with Vet QBs and solid Coaching Staffs have the advantage IMO.

If we have to go without Dak, then it all depends on what Dalton can bring to the table to bridge the gap and we don't know that yet but then again, we don't really know what Dak will do in this offense either so there are questions on both sides.

Either way, you have to manage the cap and if you can't get a deal done that doesn't allow you to do this, then it doesn't really matter.

In the end what’s better for this team to win now.

Over paying Dak or standing strong on Cap without a franchise QB?

 

[kskboys]

Because they aren’t the same level of QB at age 40 they once were.

Much of investing on a QB is the potential moving forward. Rarely do these new QB on their first extension after their Rookie deals reflect their current status but rather the current market value for a franchise qb. Paying Dak more than Wilson doesn’t represent he’s a better QB. Cause it will be blown out next year.

Did anyone think Stafford was best QB in 2017 or Ryan in 2018? I certainly didn’t think Wilson was last year. That’s not what these new contracts define.

I know the details of this flawed idea, I simply don't agree w/ the premise. Kinda surprised that you believe it. When did this get started anyway?

 

[Diehardblues]

We do not know what they think as individuals within that organization or if they have a plan without Prescott in it.

There is a description I've used for this franchise for many years that fits this QB situation, good enough. Prescott is good enough to keep them relevant because he's now a household word in America. He's a media superstar and they helped make him one.

I believe that good enough is good enough for Booger because relevancy is everything. And right now, this season, Dak Prescott is more than good enough to keep this team relevant, regardless of their record. DakWatch will surpass the team.

Yep

But we do know what they present publicly . And thats what we must base our analysis and criticism on.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Here's a news flash for you. When the very first day the cap started the Cowboys were in cap hell. They remained there because every year they had to renegotiate contracts just to get enough room to resign a couple of their stars and draft choices but by doing this it always ended up putting large chucks on the dead money. This went on for 20 years until the Cowboys stop renegotiating contracts about 5 years ago. Again name all the QB's that demanded to renegotiate their contracts? Again you're confusing teams choosing to EXTENT a QB contract to keep them longer in the last year or two of his current deal . That's adding years to a contract not renegotiating the contract.

Your idea that after the guaranteed years are over that the Cowboys would all of a sudden decide to renegotiate that contract which no doubt will add more guaranteed money on it. The smart thing is to try to get an extension done not renegotiate. The extension would start AFTER the current contract expires,

Just about everybody knew that after France told Prescott to reject that offer prior to week 1 last season that eventually Prescott would get hit with the tag. Don't make it sound like you're such a great foreseer of things to come.
.
.

We were not in cap hell. I have to wonder, have you ever really seen cap hell with the Cowboys? Honest question here.

An extension is a renegotiation. I don't understand where you are going there. I am aware that an extension starts after the current contract but so what? You and move money around, it makes it a lot easier to pay out upfront money and then spread it out over years. It's just easier but I'm not going to argue those points with you. That's a waste of time that everybody on this board knows and understands.

I didn't say these things after week one last year. I said all of this after Dak hired CAA and France but that's hear nor there. If you don't like what I'm saying or you don't want to hear it, then don't respond to my posts. It's not really hard.

 

[kskboys]

If you're saying he's on the level of his peers and you're in a market that has gone up every year and you're a year removed from when your peers got paid, it makes absolute logical sense that you pay your QB more. But Tannehill didn't get $35M. Why's that? Because he's not on the level of his peers.

And from a guarantee standpoint (which trumps AAV), Dak didn't get offered in range of what everyone was being paid. They offered Goff's $110M guaranteed for 4 years but over a 5 year deal. That's not fair no matter how you slice it. One guy had guarantees at $130M for 5 years when you compare other deals, yet the guarantee offers from the team weren't even meeting half way at $120M. That's fair? No sir, it's not.

Then France should've sent a counteroffer w/ higher guarantees. That wasn't fair either. No sir.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

In the end what’s better for this team to win now.

Over paying Dak or standing strong on Cap without a franchise QB?

Can you guarantee that with Dak? If you can't, then what does it matter?

 

[CouchCoach]

That’s all fine but the point remains it will cost us more next year. Not to mention risking he might want to look to FA.

Which if you were sold on him doesn’t appear a sound decision. If you’re not sold on him like many of us aren’t then it appears a risk worth taking.

He doesn't have the first choice to look to FA, they still control that and there doesn't seem to be any hangover from not getting a deal done between either party.

If Prescott decides to go another route at agent, he might be extending a hand toward the Joneses because they've been open about agents they don't like dealing with, which would be my first choice as a player.

So he costs more money, so what? The advantage at the most critical position in the game is that the new HC gets to have a call in that. If he wants to go another direction, fine, they've already got a QB friendly HC and OC. If he says good to go with this guy, you make the best deal you can and move onto other things.

Too many act like it's the cap space that keeps these guys from attaining anything, it's not. It's player evaluations and poor play within FA and that's not about money. I would say they're in the top 10 in drafting but the bottom 10 in FA and it is the balance that achieves success. They're actually better at trading than FA.