Comfortable no.
But the Cowboys have said they weren't going to pay for age.
I'm just confused as to the meaning of this post. If you're agreeing with it, okay. If you're saying it as that's the Cowboys new criteria, then I disagree with it.
Veterans are a valuable piece of FA, because they're inherently cheap and they've been around the block. The Panthers, even with their years of top 10 picks, had two players 32 or over starting and playing well on their defense. Tillman was also used effectively in spot duty. Denver went out and bought every defensive FA they could get.
It's foolish to set such debilitating criteria when it comes to talent acquisition. No one is signing vets to 5 year 50 million dollar deals. If you're not going to "overpay" for guys in their prime, and you're also not going to sign anyone over 30 to a reasonable deal, you're left with the Mincey's and Church's of the world while you pray a guy like Wilcox actually develops.
I'm not Jerrys accountant. I care about having enough cap space to resign our own when the time comes, but other than that I want to win football games.
How many teams won SB's in the last 10 years by being completely inactive during FA and not utilizing vet contributions? I can't really think of any. The 2013 ravens off the top of my head were really cheap, but even they had quite a few contributing vets on that team.