Dak Prescott's rank on NFL's worst contracts list makes no sense at all

MountaineerCowboy said:
It’s the worst contract in NFL history besides Deshaun Watson’s.
Click to expand...
Yep. $231 million guaranteed. 4 year contract. No trade clause. The quarterback in question has a 2-4 in the post season on some good teams. Unbelievable yet it actually happened.

Some people always try to thrown in the likes of Tua, Lawrence and Herbert and claim hey look at their contracts...but the huge difference is that they were all high first round picks and it's their first major contract. When those quarterbacks have been given a modicum of a good team they have all played well. To my knowledge they have longer contracts to work with the team. Plus they can all actually move 2 yards without tearing their hamstring off the bone as well.
 
I'm not ranking this deal against others, that's just click bait and nonsense overall.

But it was a bad deal and you don't do bad just because it could have gotten worse.

- proven non performer in the play offs
- rather severe injury (he did have a good regular season after that but was less mobile)
- age
- was asking for his second big contract
- was asking for a (then) record amount of money, which in itself wasn't justified
- even during his stats raking seasons a no show against contenders
- not Daks fault but the team wasn't about to win a championship and they weren't building a championship bound group, so bad strategy also

All in all they should have gone with a full rebuild. But what they were doing was, once again, going for mediocrity, going for safety. They thought Dak would be always good for a +500 season. He wasn't, even before the injury last year.

As said many times, I don't blame Dak for going for that deal. You only got one career

But I do blame the Jones boys for handing it out. For wasting another half decade of my time. For (seemingly) not thinking in championship windows but rather in "let's just be always part of the upper 50%" boredom.
 
Last edited:
Since jerry had set up a lame duck, losing season with his offseason actions, why sign dak at all?
Why not let him play out that year then sign him after the season ?
Why give him the no trade clause again ??
 
It’s the worst contract because it’s a second high paying one and the highest of all time for someone who’s not only not accomplished anything in the postseason he’s also shown that he can’t handle adversity there and becomes Mr. Choke when it happens.
 
Bamx said:
What else were the Cowboys supposed to do? Come on.

It's very easy to poke fun at the Dallas Cowboys and quarterback Dak Prescott for having failed to progress in the postseason, but the constant hand-wringing and complaining about his contract doesn't have as much weight behind it as many believe.

The Cowboys are all-in on Prescott, as they agreed to a four-year, $240 million contract with him following his past success. That is the type of contract that is instantly going to make any Cowboys hater green with envy when Prescott doesn't end world hunger or solve one of the Millennium Prize Problems every single week.

https://thelandryhat.com/dak-prescott-rank-nfl-worst-contracts-list-makes-no-sense-at-all
Click to expand...
The problem is some view his contract based on his past success. He never should of been given that contract based on his continued failures and his inability to perform in the playoffs at his season level of play. During the season he is a pretty decent QB but during the playoffs his performance makes him look like a bottom of the league QB. If it were up to me Dak would of been let go along with McCarthy after that GB game. And it would of been the right move to date because he played horrible in the beginning of the season and than got hurt. Look at all the money I would saved. You have to follow your eyes not your heart like Jerry does.
 
thunderpimp91 said:
When the primary argument is "What else were they supposed to do?"....Its typically a losing argument.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

And then of course the ole "he was ALMOST an MVP in 2023" (same year he embarrassed everyone once again with a choke for the ages in the playoffs. Again)

Also justifies it by proclaiming him a Top 10 QB.

Who in here wrote that article? Sounds like half the threads in here
 
Swagger said:
Yep. $231 million guaranteed. 4 year contract. No trade clause. The quarterback in question has a 2-4 in the post season on some good teams. Unbelievable yet it actually happened.

Some people always try to thrown in the likes of Tua, Lawrence and Herbert and claim hey look at their contracts...but the huge difference is that they were all high first round picks and it's their first major contract. When those quarterbacks have been given a modicum of a good team they have all played well. To my knowledge they have longer contracts to work with the team. Plus they can all actually move 2 yards without tearing their hamstring off the bone as well.
Click to expand...
You’re giving him too much credit.

He’s 2-5 in the postseason.

The worst record ever for a QB with at least 5 playoff starts.
 

Dak Prescott's rank on NFL's worst contracts list makes no sense at all​

Click to expand...
Oh it makes total sense when you consider that the contract itself makes no sense. This is his third contract one that was handed to him after failing to live up to the second contract they gave him. So yea I’d say it makes no sense .
 
Owners really need to put a stop to this “it’s this QBs turn to get paid so he gets to be the new highest paid player ever” nonsense.

Crappy QBs like Dak are ruining teams chances of competing just by simply being the next QB that gets paid.

It’s insane that owners have been dumb enough to let it get to this point.
 
MountaineerCowboy said:
Owners really need to put a stop to this “it’s this QBs turn to get paid so he gets to be the new highest paid player ever” nonsense.

Crappy QBs like Dak are ruining teams chances of competing just by simply being the next QB that gets paid.

It’s insane that owners have been dumb enough to let it get to this point.
Click to expand...
It seems owners have cottoned on.

A year after Prescott's contract Josh Allen signed a 6 year extension at $55 million a year with $250 million guaranteed. Brock Purdy agreed to a 5 year extension at $53 million a year with $181 million guaranteed. I personally don't think Purdy is worth a big contract and it will effectively kneecap the 49ers like Prescott has done to the Cowboys but at least he can say that he has reached and narrowly lost in a Superbowl against the Chiefs and Mahomes.

$60 million a year with $231 million guaranteed over 4 years for Prescott is horrific in comparison and it was signed a season earlier!
 
Swagger said:
It seems owners have cottoned on.

A year after Prescott's contract Josh Allen signed a 6 year extension at $55 million a year with $250 million guaranteed. Brock Purdy agreed to a 5 year extension at $53 million a year with $181 milion guaranteed.

$60 million a year with $231 guaranteed over 4 years for Prescott is horrific in comparison.
Click to expand...
Dak had to get that money “for the brotherhood” when in reality he might have ruined it for the brotherhood instead.
 
Someone came up with this article just to get my goat I think.

Of course Dak has to be at the top of the list somewhere in terms of bad contracts. Almost every aspect of his deal is bad for Dallas.

The annual salary is far more than Dak has earned, I don't care how well he played in 2023. He failed when it mattered most. Players who play well in the playoffs deserve top dollars. Players who have to prove they can play well in pressure situations do not.

Then there is the term of the deal. 4 years only. This means Dallas will be faced with negotiating with Dak again, or opting for another QB at some point. It also means spreading out his bonus over 4 years, or into voidable years - a bad idea for a QB who has to prove still that he can compete in the playoffs.

Then there is the no trade clause. This means the Cowboys can't get out of the Dak deal with compensation. When he leaves they get nothing in return.

Watson's contract was just stupid. He is another player who never showed he is great - and he had baggage. But Dak's contract is almost as bad for Dallas.

The question posed is what was Dallas supposed to do? They were supposed to say no to $60 million and 4 years. It's called negotiating. But they put themselves in this worst position possible with his previous contract when they gave in to 4 years and a no trade clause - and a no franchise tag clause. The lack of leverage in negotiations was their fault. The question I would ask is what would Dak have done if the Cowboys said no to $60 million, or to 4 years, or to the no trade clause? What was Dak going to go? No team should ever think that the whole team revolves around one player. Every payer has an expiration date so getting on without a player should never be a major problem if the team prepares. If Dallas has to move on without Dak in 2028 or 2024 what's the difference. They will face the problem at some point no matter what.
 
Bamx said:
What else were the Cowboys supposed to do? Come on.
Click to expand...
Is that a serious question? They screwed up by not extending him at the end of his rookie deal and tagged him. Then they screwed up by tagging him again. Then they screwed up by overpaying him. Then they screwed up by overpaying him again.

The Cowboys couldn't have messed up any more if they had tried. They literally made one mistake on top of another and now own a completely terrible contract. Literally anything would have been better than what they did.
 
Johannes44 said:
Dak Prescotts contract is what you get when you operate from a position of fear.
Click to expand...
It is what you get when you operate from a position of ego.
Dallas could have easily done deals earlier with Dak for less dollars.
Instead, they wanted a hometown and brand discount.
They literally said that nonsense, out loud.
They started all of this with the stupidest use of a franchise tag in NFL history.

But they could have torn it all the way down and rebuilt this off-season. Tank for 2 years and then go after a title.
 
Stash said:
Dak wasn’t so ‘prepared to bet on himself’ that he or his agent were willing to risk injury into the season.

They signed that new deal the day of.

When they pushed it that far, the Joneses should have made him play out the season.

How would his market look now, after the 2024 season he had?

Not good.
Click to expand...
So you are saying.

He did not have to bet on himself or do a thing. He knew Jerry would cave and be stupid.
Dak won by not betting or playing.

Wish I could win the lotto without buying a ticket.

:thumbup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 35 more.
Total: 2,014 (members: 135, guests: 1,879)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
465,928
Messages
13,905,800
Members
23,793
Latest member
Roger33
Back
Top