Geno signs with Seahawks for 3 years 105 mil

[LysleE]

That's what teams say about us because of Dak, ya know?

Agreed…I don’t think the Cowboys scare anybody; most teams know the Cowboys are undisciplined and will lay down when punched in the mouth.

 

[jazzcat22]

It's not about the money. It's about the talent.

You can't pay what the Cowboys are paying for Dak's talent and win a Super Bowl.

Basically. Dak sucks and has been and always will be a product of the talent around him.

So to your logic which is illogical at times…
It is all Dak’s fault they have not reached a SB yet. However if they were to reach it, it will be because the talent around him got them there? Even if that talent is overall the same they have now.

 

[rags747]

Good for Geno, finally hits the NFL lottery. Very nice to see his persistent attitude finally pay off!

 

[CowboyRoy]

That is an incredible deal for Seahawks. And 3 years is a great number as it allows them to go looking for a QB now and develop him.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I'll play...

Then his leftover restructure bonus will be an even bigger (than it already is) cap hit after his contract is done and/or he is no longer on the team?

Does it matter? So Geno's average is 6 million less than Dak's?

Is 6 million going to give Jerry the ammo he needs to make us a champion? LOL

He blew 18 million on Zeke last year. Give me a break.

We had Dak almost for free for 4 years and Jerry couldnt get us past the 2nd round.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

So to your logic which is illogical at times…
It is all Dak’s fault they have not reached a SB yet. However if they were to reach it, it will be because the talent around him got them there? Even if that talent is overall the same they have now.

They will never reach it with Dak. So, that point of yours means nothing.

You can give him all the talent possible and he will eventually find a way to fail.

He's a loser on the football field and losers lose.

 

[DCCowboys11]

Good for Geno. Revived his career in Seattle.

 

[mattjames2010]

Good for him, but he did not look good down the stretch.

 

[TNCowboy]

I'll take Contracts that Teams will Regret by 2024 for $1,000, Alex.

 

[Aven8]

Lol, and all these years later the Jets are still searching for a QB.

 

[Hoofbite]

People said this Romos whole career, and it never affected he cap. Their money people are smart. They put these triggers in their qbs contracts. What if I told you Dak has only cost Dallas 68mil in the last 3 yrs on the cap? That's even with a franchise tag in 2020 that accounts for almost half number. Then the first 2 yrs of his new deal. So daks AAV has been 22.66 mil since his rookie deal was over. Funny how they make it work huh

Once they restructure or extend dak, he'll have a caphit of around 25mil right around where he's been on AAVsince his franchise yr.

Tony had dead money and that certainly impacts the teams cap. Literally lost space for zero production.

 

[Ranching]

It's not about the money. It's about the talent.

You can't pay what the Cowboys are paying for Dak's talent and win a Super Bowl.

Basically. Dak sucks and has been and always will be a product of the talent around him.

Damn.....take hating to the next level....lol!!

 

[DandyDon52]

so you are arguing over 5M per year average!!! really.....Geno sucked for years. he had a career year last year.
he has one playoff apperance in his entire career and is 28-35, having been relegated to a back up for better part of his career. now he makes 35M per year....

welcome to the NFL son

Well if jones boys extend dak this off season, dak might get 50-55 ,mil a year.
35 mil for geno is a good deal if he keeps playing good.
Better than having russell who has aged for 55 mil a year.

Also I doubt geno has a no trade clause, and it could be the seahawks that wanted a 3 year deal instead of a longer one.
Dak demanded a 4 year deal, jones boys wanted a 6 year deal.

The longer the contract the better it is for the team, as they have plenty of time to move $ in years they need it.

 

[DandyDon52]

Tony had dead money and that certainly impacts the teams cap. Literally lost space for zero production.

yeah I think it was 70 mil, not sure, and dak will cost the team dead money at some point.

 

[GINeric]

This is what the dak deal should be

Compare G. Smith career production and winning percentage vs Daks. That's why Dak got paid what he did and Geno got paid what he did.

Either you've just started following football, or you believe that players with weaker production should get paid identical or more than the better players in their position.


Which one is it....

 

[LatinMind]

Tony had dead money and that certainly impacts the teams cap. Literally lost space for zero production.

He did, 19 mil over 2 yrs. So it was there but it didn't hurt them.

 

[LatinMind]

So to your logic which is illogical at times…
It is all Dak’s fault they have not reached a SB yet. However if they were to reach it, it will be because the talent around him got them there? Even if that talent is overall the same they have now.

There's credit to give along as it's not to dak or the jones'

 

[GINeric]

It's not about the money. It's about the talent.

You can't pay what the Cowboys are paying for Dak's talent and win a Super Bowl.

Basically. Dak sucks and has been and always will be a product of the talent around him.

There are quarterbacks who are currently being paid more than Dak and has less wins AND production than Dak. So what should we make of this phenomenon??

Jim Kelly had tons of talent around him and never won a Superbowl. Nobody believes Dak was better than Kelly, but according to your "product of talent" message.... what should I make of it.

Aaron Rodgers was said to be the second best quarterback in history, but have the same amount of Superbowl wins as Trent Dilpher, Nick Foles and Joe Theismann. What were these quarterbacks the product of?

Mahomes loss a superbowl with some of the best offensive talent ever assembled. What do I make of this?


Lastly, name me one quarterback in modern times that won a superbowl without "talent around them"? I'll wait....

 

[LatinMind]

There are quarterbacks who are currently being paid more than Dak and has less wins AND production than Dak. So what should we make of this phenomenon??

Jim Kelly had tons of talent around him and never won a Superbowl. Nobody believes Dak was better than Kelly, but according to your "product of talent" message.... what should I make of it.

Aaron Rodgers was said to be the second best quarterback in history, but have the same amount of Superbowl wins as Trent Dilpher, Nick Foles and Joe Theismann. What were these quarterbacks the product of?

Mahomes loss a superbowl with some of the best offensive talent ever assembled. What do I make of this?


Lastly, name me one quarterback in modern times that won a superbowl without "talent around them"? I'll wait....

The same people who say daks trash are the same people who will ride Herberts jock. Lol then will say he doesn't have the talent with Allen and Williams and eckler ect...

 

[GINeric]

The same people who say daks trash are the same people who will ride Herberts jock. Lol then will say he doesn't have the talent with Allen and Williams and eckler ect...

Those same people are lame *** frauds who never back up their dumb comments with actual facts and production when called out or asked to back up their statements.

Cowardly behavior at its best!!