Give Dak a nonexclusive franchise tag

[BobbyFlame469]

Where did you get that 50M figure?

I’m an NFL owner

 

[Future]

Actually, you still have control - the decision of what is better for your team? The forfeited picks or the contract offer. No team, none, is going to over offer for Dak just to try to box the Cowboys in. A competing team will make a market offer, maybe a little more, only if they they are willing to give up the draft capital for Dak. There is also the possibility that an offer comes in less than what the market is perceived. I venture to say the RB market topped with Zeke.

The “loss of control” is illusionary. Dak and his agent don’t have to sign your contract offer. They don’t even have to sign the tag. The team isn’t controlling anything other than their ability to make a value decision the same as with the NEFT.

A lot wrong here.

No team is going to "over offer" to box the Cowboys in, but they'll do it because they don't have a quarterback. That's how free agency works at every position, in every sport. There is no chance Dak gets offers at less than "market." Crazy to think that.

It doesn't matter if they sign the tag or not. The Cowboys control if he accrues a season by using the tag. If Dak chooses to sit out - which would be beyond stupid - the Cowboys can just place the tag on him next year again. By opening the door for other teams, you're losing control of the price. Dallas, with the tag, sets the price at $38, and that's where negotiations start. Same thing they did last year at $31. When you go non-exclusive, you let some team - say San Fran or NE - offer $45 and Dallas now has no negotiating control. You're delusional if you think a team wouldn't do that.

There is just absolutely 0 upside to the non-exclusive. It results in having a more expensive quarterback or no quarterback.

 

[DasSchnitzel]

Just a reminder to everyone that the only people still debating if Dak is a top 10 QB or debating if 40M is going to be a bargain in 3 years....

...are the fans who watch the games, ESPN, and put little thought into this other than what is needed to get online and repeat false narratives.

Do what I do and make mental notes of all the people who believe Dak sucks or Dak isn't worth market value or Dak isn't worth 2 first round picks. Then, when they say something else dumb in another thread, you can say "ah, it is not worth my time to argue, because he's that person that thinks Dak sucks since Dak didn't win a Lombardi within 4 years".

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

We could get lucky and receive 2 first round picks for him. The Colts traded for Wentz so they're out of the running. The Saints don't have enough cap room. Maybe a team like the Panthers (8th pick), Jets (2nd pick), or Broncos (9th pick) sign him.

No. Keep Dak.

 

[Ranched]

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

Not being stuck with a $40 million/year QB and getting 2 1st round picks in return are ENORMOUS UPSIDES in my book.

LOL.

 

[DasSchnitzel]

A lot wrong here.

No team is going to "over offer" to box the Cowboys in, but they'll do it because they don't have a quarterback. That's how free agency works at every position, in every sport. There is no chance Dak gets offers at less than "market." Crazy to think that.

It doesn't matter if they sign the tag or not. The Cowboys control if he accrues a season by using the tag. If Dak chooses to sit out - which would be beyond stupid - the Cowboys can just place the tag on him next year again. By opening the door for other teams, you're losing control of the price. Dallas, with the tag, sets the price at $38, and that's where negotiations start. Same thing they did last year at $31. When you go non-exclusive, you let some team - say San Fran or NE - offer $45 and Dallas now has no negotiating control. You're delusional if you think a team wouldn't do that.

There is just absolutely 0 upside to the non-exclusive. It results in having a more expensive quarterback or no quarterback.

Dude they just don't like Dak and are racking their brains to find any avenue possible to dump him.

You're arguing with logic, about not having a QB, but these people genuinely think that a lottery ticket on a rookie QB is a safer bet than Dak, so they don't get your point. They view the outcome you are (rightly) concerned about as somehow positive.

 

[Robbieac]

Dallas, with the tag, sets the price at $38, and that's where negotiations start. Same thing they did last year at $31. When you go non-exclusive, you let some team - say San Fran or NE - offer $45 and Dallas now has no negotiating control. You're delusional if you think a team wouldn't do that.

There is just absolutely 0 upside to the non-exclusive. It results in having a more expensive quarterback or no quarterback.

I will repost my previous post since you still think there is "absolutely 0 upside" to the non-exclusive tag......

Not being stuck with a $40 million/year QB and getting 2 1st round picks in return are ENORMOUS UPSIDES to the non-exclusive tag.

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

Dude they just don't like Dak and are racking their brains to find any avenue possible to dump him.

You're arguing with logic, about not having a QB, but these people genuinely think that a lottery ticket on a rookie QB is a safer bet than Dak, so they don't get your point. They view the outcome you are (rightly) concerned about as somehow positive.

Yup if this was prime Aikman or Romo, all the Dak haters would do a 180.

 

[ondaedg]

And if that price is outrageous.....we get 2 1st round picks in exchange.

The nonexclusive tag is the smart business decision........therefore the Jones' will not do it........

Two first round picks may not be enough to replace him. Drafting QBs is a gamble that even Vegas can’t figure out which is why letting go of a young franchise QB is a huge risk. Let’s say we start over and bring in a young guy who struggles for two seasons and we have to start over again. We just wasted two seasons and Ya we save $38 mil or something like that but is that money going to make up for an average or worse QBs? Probably not.

Just because you can’t get a great “deal” for him doesn’t mean we shouldn’t keep him.

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

I will repost my previous post since you still think there is "absolutely 0 upside" to the non-exclusive tag......

Not being stuck with a $40 million/year QB and getting 2 1st round picks in return are ENORMOUS UPSIDES to the non-exclusive tag.

No it isn't.

 

[aikemirv]

Yes. For the most part. Teams that have been signing QBs to stupid contracts have been regretting it rather quickly more often than not.

For example: see the Rams and Goff
For example: see Houston and Watson
For example: see the Eagles and Wentz
For example: see the trade talk about Seattle and the fighting Russell Wilsons
For example: see the trade talk with Vegas and Carr

This is going to continue to happen if teams have to pay "the market" for QB's. They soon realize that the market price has too much negative effect on their cap and their competitiveness overall and there is a small handful of QB's that can make up the difference.

 

[Ranched]

Yes.

If the Commanders kept Kirk Cousins they would have made the playoffs every year since Eagles won the Super Bowl.

Where did you get that 50M figure?

I’m an NFL owner

 

[Future]

I will repost my previous post since you still think there is "absolutely 0 upside" to the non-exclusive tag......

Not being stuck with a $40 million/year QB and getting 2 1st round picks in return are ENORMOUS UPSIDES to the non-exclusive tag.

NO IT ISN'T. I read it and ignored it because it's dead wrong.

This is not upside. Your team is worse, you're still going to have to pay a worse quarterback, and you have no chance of winning a Super Bowl.

 

[BobbyFlame469]

That’s a cover

 

[ondaedg]

NO IT ISN'T. I read it and ignored it because it's dead wrong.

This is not upside. Your team is worse, you're still going to have to pay a worse quarterback, and you have no chance of winning a Super Bowl.

Exactly. There is zero guarantee that those two first round picks equate to an equal or better qb through the draft.

 

[Future]

Exactly. There is zero guarantee that those two first round picks equate to an equal or better qb through the draft.

There is pretty much no chance they do lol.

The idea is basically that you trade Dak for Jimmy G, K'Lavon Chasson, and Patrick Queen and that you're more of a SB contender because of it. It's just really, really stupid.

 

[Robbieac]

No it isn't.

NO IT ISN'T. I read it and ignored it because it's dead wrong.

This is not upside. Your team is worse, you're still going to have to pay a worse quarterback, and you have no chance of winning a Super Bowl.

And there we have it my friends.

There is no use in pointing out clear and obvious facts and discussing this any further with some folks. No matter what......some people will never see the writing on the wall if they choose not to believe the truth....

 

[Future]

And there we have it my friends.

There is no use in pointing out clear and obvious facts and discussing this any further with some folks. No matter what......some people will never see the writing on the wall if they choose not to believe the truth....

Or maybe you're just wrong.

If you don't have a quarterback, you do not have a SB winning team. It's that simple. Getting those picks isn't upside, it's a consolation prize.

 

[Robbieac]

There is pretty much no chance they do lol.

The idea is basically that you trade Dak for Jimmy G, K'Lavon Chasson, and Patrick Queen and that you're more of a SB contender because of it. It's just really, really stupid.

Okay cool. So we are a Superbowl contender if we keep Dak? But we have absolutely no chance of being a Superbowl contender if we use multiple first round picks and $40 million a year elsewhere?

That's great! We are now the fighting Daks and will be perennial Superbowl contenders! Why didn't you just say so?