The Cost of Not Signing Dak (lengthy)

[USArmyVet]

What about the cost to signing Dak and the big hit to the team salary cap? No thanks.

 

[kskboys]

How did you come up with this?

His refusal to negotiate.

 

[G2]

His refusal to negotiate.

Link?

 

[75boyz]

Nice cherry picking stats to fit your narrative. He's also taken us to the Divisional round twice in 4 full seasons. And I don't know if you know how football works but it takes more than just a QB to win games. You need at least a decent defense. Dak constantly puts the team in a position to win. I do blame last year's failure to make the playoffs on many of Garrett's coaching decisions, the defense, and we would have one at least 2 more games had they cut Maher earlier in the season far more than I blame Dak. If you're ignoring all of those factors and acting like Dak should have won in spite of them then you are truly hopeless or just don't understand football or the NFL.

Time will tell with McCarthy. I was not happy with many of his decisions this year. But yeah, when your entire offensive line and franchise QB are injured I'm not going to crucify him. An excessive amount of turnovers (some of which Dak made, sure) that were more an anomaly than the norm and a historically bad defense cost us every game Dak lost when he did play this year, and the offense was consistently scoring over 30 points a game. Dak was making great throws and has looked better and better each year. If there was some perfect alternative to Dak then maybe I'd be OK with letting him walk but there's not. You're taking a huge risk either way. Either you pay him and have an elite QB and a smaller cap or you don't and are back to square one at the position without a top 3 pick to replace him and without any elite prospects on the horizon in the next few years and you waste the remaining time you have with several pro bowl offensive players while you try washed up vets or try to develop a new QB. IF you even hit on one. I'd much rather roll the dice and slightly overpay Dak since this team is already built to succeed with a potent offense.

Fair enough, difference of opinion. No worries.

 

[kskboys]

Link?

He didn't?

Link?

 

[G2]

He didn't?

Link?

Come on man, lol. I'm interested in where you gather that statement, respectfully. How or why would I attempt to locate a link I don't know exists?

 

[Winonesoon]

How did you come up with this?

 

[kskboys]

Come on man, lol. I'm interested in where you gather that statement, respectfully. How or why would I attempt to locate a link I don't know exists?

It was all over the news at the time.

 

[cern]

Boils down to what does the Front Office believe Dak needs with supporting personnel in order to accomplish leading a consistent playoff contender.

All the variables must be considered.
Smith and Collins at both tackle spots and the uncertainty regarding their health.
Thus, should a tackle be drafted high?
Erving/Knight/Steele considered full season starter potential?
Martin as the RT if needed as the long term solution?

Need a FS
Need LBs. Pick your numbers...2 or 3 needed.
Need DTs. Depending on your feelings for the Gallimore/Hill duo still leaves a spaceeating 1T.
Gregory's last year. Aldon Smith re-up?

Then the Daks contract money and how it affects the ability to sign above dumpster/has been/never was or will be FAs.

Kirk Cousins has some impressive end of year numerical stats. You would think he would have won more games by the numbers he has put up over the years.

Ryan kinda similar and even had the one MVP season.

Wentz and Goff, from the same class, have proven their recent contracts may have been mistakes.


So, with ALL of these type variables to be considered, is the best course of action to tie up that type money at the expense of being able to effectively fulfill roster holes?

More simply put, is Daks talent a generational type that singlehandedly can carry a team while ignoring certain areas because he is so good to mask over them?

I know my answer.

Jerry's team's future depends on his.

I liken dak to donovan mcnabb.

 

[kskboys]

I liken dak to donovan mcnabb.

Good comparison.

 

[CATCH17]

Good comparison.

I think he's Alex Smith.

McNabb was a difference maker on the field for several years. Dak's just a guy on the field.

 

[Denim Chicken]

PAA:Number of points contributed by a quarterback, accounting for QBR and how much he plays, above the level of an average quarterback.

 

[Jake]

1. Fractured Locker-room. The players love him. He is the unquestioned leader and this is "Dak's team". If we choose to not pay him, the move will NOT be well received by the players and a riff occurs and eyebrows are raised.

2. You lose top 10 level QB play on the field. No-- he is not top 3. But he is not middling either. IMO-- he is trending up, and his quality of play is top 10 in the NFL-- and that will win a lot of games. If you let him leave-- how do you replace his production?

3. Leadership intangibles. Related to point #1 for sure-- but Dak may have the best leadership skill of any QB in the NFL right now. Yes, Rodgers is a HOF player, but some of his teammates hate the guy...Dak just is a natural born leader.

4. You stand to lose Rep/Cred. If you let Dak walk, and he gets signed by another team, and hoists a Lombardi-- you will forever be the FO that "couldn't get a deal done with a high caliber franchise QB". Ouch. This franchise is already a laughing stock...

Nice post. Thanks for sharing. At this point I'm not sure it matters if Dak leaves or stays. While I agree items 1, 2, and 3 are important, they are all neutralized by item number 4. A QB can only overcome so much.

Aikman had a far better TEAM around him than any QB since (I don't want to hear about Pro Bowlers, I'm talking about TEAM - this includes coaches as well as cohesion). He also had a top 10 defense when he won rings.

The only time this team has had any real leadership has been under Landry, Jimmy, and Parcells. Jerry fired Landry, was miserable with Jimmy, and only bit the bullet on Parcells to get his stadium deal done. When the Tuna left what did we get? A dish rag happy to get another HC gig (Wade), which is exactly what we have again with McCarthy. In between Jerry wasted a decade waiting for Garrett to make him look like a genius.

Sign Dak, don't sign Dak, this team is only going so far either way. It's a rudderless ship steered by guys who can't decide what kind of defense they even want much less know how to put one together.

 

[75boyz]

I liken dak to donovan mcnabb.

I guess I could see it if Dak were able to dominate this poor division and it's poor QBs. Because if you remember those early 2000s Reid/McNabb Eagles while they were good, they still kinda took advantage of a weak/poor NFC East during that time.
Very similar to now.
So if Dak could distance himself from these other 3 current divisional QBs with superior performance, I could see it.
Jones, Hurts/Wentz and ? for WFT as QBs don't have DCs shaking in their boots.

But yeah, Daks ceiling may be Mcnabb you may be right.

 

[75boyz]

Nice post. Thanks for sharing. At this point I'm not sure it matters if Dak leaves or stays. While I agree items 1, 2, and 3 are important, they are all neutralized by item number 4. A QB can only overcome so much.

Aikman had a far better TEAM around him than any QB since (I don't want to hear about Pro Bowlers, I'm talking about TEAM - this includes coaches as well as cohesion). He also had a top 10 defense when he won rings.

The only time this team has had any real leadership has been under Landry, Jimmy, and Parcells. Jerry fired Landry, was miserable with Jimmy, and only bit the bullet on Parcells to get his stadium deal done. When the Tuna left what did we get? A dish rag happy to get another HC gig (Wade), which is exactly what we have again with McCarthy. In between Jerry wasted a decade waiting for Garrett to make him look like a genius.

Sign Dak, don't sign Dak, this team is only going so far either way. It's a rudderless ship steered by guys who can't decide what kind of defense they even want much less know how to put one together.

Love when you share big picture perspective in your post. Great job.

 

[doomsday9084]

IMO, the Cowboys are in deep trouble. The coach isn't particularly good. They have significant holes in several spots that aren't going to be easy to fill. They have a bunch of bad contracts. Hell, the GM seems to be an idiot.

I used to be in the "don't pay him" crowd but screw it. Pay the man. Last year he wanted a shorter deal . . . well, give it to him. Give him $40m per year for 3 years. When this whole thing just comes undone as the team cuts and eats the salary of Jaylon, Tyron, Zeke, etc. over the next two years, Dallas can just cut bait with everyone and start from scratch in 2024. Until then, I can just root for something good to happen in the mean time.

The OP is generally right. Letting him walk gets Dallas virtually nothing other than moving that "reset" date from 2024 to 2023 or something. Its not like Dallas is going to win *more* by letting him walk.

 

[Mobinvans]

Dak sucks...he’s certainly not a Tom Brady, Manning type that can carry a team

let him walk for that kind of money

Middle of the pack QBs are pretty common now

 

[morat1959]

TLDR: Letting Dak walk hurts this franchise a lot more than it helps us, in both the short and long term.

I have gone back and forth on the Dak-Dilemma for months. I am not a Dak hater. I consider myself a Dak-realist. He is not "elite" in my opinion (Mahommes, Rodgers are the only 2 QBs this year that qualify as elite in my estimation). Nor is he "mediocre" or "average" as many on this site claim. He is good. At times, he is really good. At other times, his play is borderline average.

And so we have arrived at a crossroads. To pay or not to pay? 2 years ago-- fans were arguing on whether or not he was worth 30 mil per year. Many said "not worth more than 25". Then Wentz and Goff signed-- and the needle moved to 34-35 mil per, and the counter was "not worth more 30". Then Mahommes and Watson signed, and the conversation is now 40 mil per and the counter is now "not worth more than 35". The simple truth is the QB market has been drastically reset over the past 2 years, and the cost of good QB play has significantly risen. Had we signed Dak 2 years ago for 30 mil, we would be in the middle of a sweetheart of a deal. But I digress....

If you let him walk... you gain cap space, yes-- but what do you lose? I've been thinking about the following items:

1. Fractured Locker-room. The players love him. He is the unquestioned leader and this is "Dak's team". If we choose to not pay him, the move will NOT be well received by the players and a riff occurs and eyebrows are raised. Add to that the pressure you put on Dak's replacement to fill his shoes on the field, and with his buddies off it-- and you have a bad situation ready to explode.

2. You lose top 10 level QB play on the field. No-- he is not top 3. But he is not middling either. IMO-- he is trending up, and his quality of play is top 10 in the NFL-- and that will win a lot of games. If you let him leave-- how do you replace his production?

3. Leadership intangibles. Related to point #1 for sure-- but Dak may have the best leadership skill of any QB in the NFL right now. Yes, Rodgers is a HOF player, but some of his teammates hate the guy. Mahommes is a stud and well-liked-- but Dak just is a natural born leader. He says the right things. He does the right things. He is football smart, but he has a high emotional IQ as well. Yes, you could trade up to draft a rookie-- but what you might gain (stress "might") in the football talent category, you more than likely lose a TON when it comes to leadership and "face of the franchise" factor.

4. You stand to lose Rep/Cred. If you let Dak walk, and he gets signed by another team, and hoists a Lombardi-- you will forever be the FO that "couldn't get a deal done with a high caliber franchise QB". Ouch. This franchise is already a laughing stock-- but that would take things to a new low-- especially if the "solution" they bring in to replace Dak doesn't pan out.

Therefore-- the best thing for the entire franchise is to sign Dak to a 4-5 year deal. We will overpay. But the number most fans are comfortable with paying him has already moved from 25 million per year 2 years ago, to 35 million per year now. As a fan-- Are you really willing to let him walk and potentially suffer the fallout over a 5 million per year difference?

The only thing letting Dak walk does is gets us closer to getting back to a Super Bowl.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

TLDR: Letting Dak walk hurts this franchise a lot more than it helps us, in both the short and long term.

I have gone back and forth on the Dak-Dilemma for months. I am not a Dak hater. I consider myself a Dak-realist. He is not "elite" in my opinion (Mahommes, Rodgers are the only 2 QBs this year that qualify as elite in my estimation). Nor is he "mediocre" or "average" as many on this site claim. He is good. At times, he is really good. At other times, his play is borderline average.

And so we have arrived at a crossroads. To pay or not to pay? 2 years ago-- fans were arguing on whether or not he was worth 30 mil per year. Many said "not worth more than 25". Then Wentz and Goff signed-- and the needle moved to 34-35 mil per, and the counter was "not worth more 30". Then Mahommes and Watson signed, and the conversation is now 40 mil per and the counter is now "not worth more than 35". The simple truth is the QB market has been drastically reset over the past 2 years, and the cost of good QB play has significantly risen. Had we signed Dak 2 years ago for 30 mil, we would be in the middle of a sweetheart of a deal. But I digress....

If you let him walk... you gain cap space, yes-- but what do you lose? I've been thinking about the following items:

1. Fractured Locker-room. The players love him. He is the unquestioned leader and this is "Dak's team". If we choose to not pay him, the move will NOT be well received by the players and a riff occurs and eyebrows are raised. Add to that the pressure you put on Dak's replacement to fill his shoes on the field, and with his buddies off it-- and you have a bad situation ready to explode.

2. You lose top 10 level QB play on the field. No-- he is not top 3. But he is not middling either. IMO-- he is trending up, and his quality of play is top 10 in the NFL-- and that will win a lot of games. If you let him leave-- how do you replace his production?

3. Leadership intangibles. Related to point #1 for sure-- but Dak may have the best leadership skill of any QB in the NFL right now. Yes, Rodgers is a HOF player, but some of his teammates hate the guy. Mahommes is a stud and well-liked-- but Dak just is a natural born leader. He says the right things. He does the right things. He is football smart, but he has a high emotional IQ as well. Yes, you could trade up to draft a rookie-- but what you might gain (stress "might") in the football talent category, you more than likely lose a TON when it comes to leadership and "face of the franchise" factor.

4. You stand to lose Rep/Cred. If you let Dak walk, and he gets signed by another team, and hoists a Lombardi-- you will forever be the FO that "couldn't get a deal done with a high caliber franchise QB". Ouch. This franchise is already a laughing stock-- but that would take things to a new low-- especially if the "solution" they bring in to replace Dak doesn't pan out.

Therefore-- the best thing for the entire franchise is to sign Dak to a 4-5 year deal. We will overpay. But the number most fans are comfortable with paying him has already moved from 25 million per year 2 years ago, to 35 million per year now. As a fan-- Are you really willing to let him walk and potentially suffer the fallout over a 5 million per year difference?

I don't agree with any of this. We won't fall apart and blow away in the wind if we don't sign him. The team will still play games on Sundays.

You say that if we had signed Dak to 30 two years ago, we would be good. What makes you think that Dak would have signed that deal? I mean, I heard it said that 27 would get it done but it didn't. I heard that 30 would get it done, but it didn't. I heard that 35 would get it done but it didn't. Why do people seem to insist that if we had offered X amount to Dak, he would sign because it has been reported/speculated that Jerry has offered all of those deals to Dak and France over the last two years and no deal was done. Has it ever occurred to folks, I wonder, that they don't want to do a deal until they get the window they want. Now, why is that? Because it allows them to leverage the CBA renegotiation and the new TV deal, in order to maximize earning potential. What is happening here is no accident and it's not Jerry or the team not being smart enough to renegotiate a deal with Dak. This is France trying to leverage the team, just like he did with Romo.

There are more ways to win games then just throwing the Football. It's interesting because you make that point that Dak is not top 3 but he's like top 7 or 10 correct? Well, that means that there are anywhere from 25 to 22 teams in the NFL that are doing it another way. It doesn't have to be pay Dak or there is no tomorrow. It can be, build a Defense and draft a guy and take advantage of the cap relief.

Players can love whatever they want but to hell with them. They get paid to play football at a high level. They don't get paid to make personnel decisions so the minute they want to stop playing football and start applying for front office jobs, they can go on ahead and do that. Until then, be more worried about doing their job and less about worrying who is playing QB. That's the truth and it's been way too much catering to public opinion on this kind of stuff for way too long IMO.

"If", if is an interesting word. "If" Dak gets signed by somebody else and wins a championship. "If" we give him a record deal and he turns out to be Romo 2, then what? "If" he leaves and does nothing at all, then what? "If" we draft a young QB and go on too win one, what then? See, you can't base decision on What IF. You have to base decision on what you are capable of doing and what offers you the best chance to win going forward.

I just don't agree.

 

[G2]

It was all over the news at the time.

No it wasn't. I think you are confused again about what negotiate means. He turned down a 5 year offer and wanted a 4 year. They tagged him and he stated he was happy to be a Cowboy.
I'm fine with being wrong, but illustrate when he refused to negotiate.