#34 Darius Jackson

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's obvious what we're disagreeing on you saw McFadden's performance differently than I did. We see a number of things differently and nothing we say is going to change each others opinion. This isn't the first time you and I saw things differently we argued for a number of pages on whether to re-sign Romo back in 2013. You weren't in favor of it claiming we wouldn't have the cap room and I told you that the cap can be massaged many ways and that Romo will be re-signed and to book it. Our debate started on page 3 and didn't end until page 14.

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/would-you-trade-romo-for-the-1-pick.250692/page-3

The Romo issue is still TBD but I still believe that it's going to be a problem for us. What I feared would happen is happening. We are extending it and that means guaranteed money beyond his playing life. It's interesting that you bring this up because I believe Romo's situation is going to impact Elliott's a lot.

This discussion, IMO, is much the same as that one. Financial implications are what is driving my opinions on the selection of Elliott. It actually has nothing at all to do with what I think of him as a player. I think he is an excellent prospect. I just don't like the financial implications down the road.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I agree that the NFL is cyclical, but the best argument for Elliot over any other back or player in the draft is he is more likely to protect Romo's health than any of them, And protecting Romo's health was, I think, the most important consideration in making a selection at 4. Neither the CB/S, the DE, an OL, or another back can do the things Elliot can do on that score. Unless Romo's health is protected the season is as good as lost for all practical purposes, I fear.

Don't agree. I think that there were other backs in this draft who could have done the same but I've covered that in many, many other posts. I understand the reasoning. I just think there was a smarter way to do it. JMO

 

[KJJ]

The Romo issue is still TBD but I still believe that it's going to be a problem for us. What I feared would happen is happening. We are extending it and that means guaranteed money beyond his playing life. It's interesting that you bring this up because I believe Romo's situation is going to impact Elliott's a lot.

This discussion, IMO, is much the same as that one. Financial implications are what is driving my opinions on the selection of Elliott. It actually has nothing at all to do with what I think of him as a player. I think he is an excellent prospect. I just don't like the financial implications down the road.

The issue was determined you didn't think we could re-sign Romo due to our cap situation and you were wrong. I said we could re-sign him and would re-sign and to book it. Romo got paid what all franchise QBs demand check out the list of highest paid QBs. Had the Cowboys not re-signed Romo allowing him to walk or ended up trading him they would very likely be coming off their 3rd non winning season in a row and still be looking for a franchise QB. Without Romo there would have been no 12-4 season and playoff win in 2014. The Cowboys would have been led by some journeyman and would be going through the same thing they went through after Aikman was released. There isn't any position in the NFL harder to fill than the starting QB position. What ended up being the problem was the Miles Austin and the Sean Lee contracts that helped cost us Ware and Murray.

You might not like the financial implications down the road but you have to have a QB to compete in the league and franchise QBs get paid a lot of money. There's no way to avoid it unless you want an average QB leading your team and even they get paid good money just look at Sam Bradford's contract. Had we traded Romo or lost him in free agency it was going to cost the team a lot of draft picks and money to try and replace him. No team in their right mind is going to allow their franchise QB to walk or trade them away due to money. The Cowboys are a bad team without Romo and last season was proof of it. The 2 seasons he was knocked out due to injury and missed most of the season resulted in losing seasons.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The issue was determined you didn't think we could re-sign Romo due to our cap situation and you were wrong. I said we could re-sign him and would re-sign and to book it. Romo got paid what all franchise QBs demand check out the list of highest paid QBs. Had the Cowboys not re-signed Romo allowing him to walk or ended up trading him they would very likely be coming off their 3rd non winning season in a row and still be looking for a franchise QB. Without Romo there would have been no 12-4 season and playoff win in 2014. The Cowboys would have been led by some journeyman and would be going through the same thing they went through after Aikman was released. There isn't any position in the NFL harder to fill than the starting QB position. What ended up being the problem was the Miles Austin and the Sean Lee contracts that helped cost us Ware and Murray.

You might not like the financial implications down the road but you have to have a QB to compete in the league and franchise QBs get paid a lot of money. There's no way to avoid it unless you want an average QB leading your team and even they get paid good money just look at Sam Bradford's contract. Had we traded Romo or lost him in free agency it was going to cost the team a lot of draft picks and money to try and replace him. No team in their right mind is going to allow their franchise QB to walk or trade them away due to money. The Cowboys are a bad team without Romo and last season was proof of it. The 2 seasons he was knocked out due to injury and missed most of the season resulted in losing seasons.

It was much, much more then that and we didn't discuss it in just one thread. I know you know this. There is one way to avoid it and that is to draft a good QB. That gives you financial relief for 5 years. It was a cut and dried "we won't sign him" stand. It was a chances are good that he won't live out the contract. At this point, it doesn't look as if he will.

 

[KJJ]

It was much, much more then that and we didn't discuss it in just one thread. I know you know this. There is one way to avoid it and that is to draft a good QB. That gives you financial relief for 5 years. It was a cut and dried "we won't sign him" stand. It was a chances are good that he won't live out the contract. At this point, it doesn't look as if he will.

Yes it was more than that and you won't find one thing during that entire debate in that thread or in any other thread where I ended up being wrong. The brunt of the argument was you seemed to be positive the Cowboys wouldn't be able to sign Romo under the cap and I was positive they would. You were so emphatic they wouldn't be able to sign him you wanted me to prove it by figuring out the cap numbers. lol You make it sound like drafting a good QB is easy when the fact is it's the toughest thing to do in the NFL. Your chances of landing a solid franchise QB is no better than 50/50 regardless how high you pick.

Parting with Romo after the 2012 season would have very likely resulted in losing seasons the last 3 years. We would have been stuck with the Brandon Weeden's and the Matt Cassel's of the castoff world. Without Romo the Cowboys are a bad team and no better than the Cleveland Browns. With Romo the Cowboys are a good team that has a chance and without him we have no chance. Last season we were 2-0 with him and lost 7 straight without him. We were 1-11 for the season without Romo. Had Romo not had the disastrous season finale vs Washington in 2012 that thread you and I argued in would have never existed.

Had Romo played great that night leading the Cowboys to a win no one would have been suggesting trading him or letting him walk. Even some of his most ardent supporters were throwing the towel in on him after that game. Without Romo the Cowboys might have been one of the teams giving up the farm for Wentz and Goff a few weeks ago. There's no assurances either of those QBs will become franchise QBs. One could end up being Peyton Manning and the other Ryan Leaf or neither one may end up being any good.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes it was more than that and you won't find one thing during that entire debate in that thread or in any other thread where I ended up being wrong. The brunt of the argument was you seemed to be positive the Cowboys wouldn't be able to sign Romo under the cap and I was positive they would. You were so emphatic they wouldn't be able to sign him you wanted me to prove it by figuring out the cap numbers. lol You make it sound like drafting a good QB is easy when the fact is it's the toughest thing to do in the NFL. Your chances of landing a solid franchise QB is no better than 50/50 regardless how high you pick.

Parting with Romo after the 2012 season would have very likely resulted in losing seasons the last 3 years. We would have been stuck with the Brandon Weeden's and the Matt Cassel's of the castoff world. Without Romo the Cowboys are a bad team and no better than the Cleveland Browns. With Romo the Cowboys are a good team that has a chance and without him we have no chance. Last season we were 2-0 with him and lost 7 straight without him. We were 1-11 for the season without Romo. Had Romo not had the disastrous season finale vs Washington in 2012 that thread you and I argued in would have never existed.

Had Romo played great that night leading the Cowboys to a win no one would have been suggesting trading him or letting him walk. Even some of his most ardent supporters were throwing the towel in on him after that game. Without Romo the Cowboys might have been one of the teams giving up the farm for Wentz and Goff a few weeks ago. There's no assurances either of those QBs will become franchise QBs. One could end up being Peyton Manning and the other Ryan Leaf or neither one may end up being any good.

I edited my orignial post because after reading it back, I thought it was too heavy handed as an FYI KJJ.

As I recall, you had little concerns with injuries and it is clear that Romo's health plays a major role in the development of his status, and the teams status, going forward. You will also remember that I said the decisions made on Romo, at the time, will not be felt tell later in his career. Well, it's not witching hour yet but it will be by next year. In short, we haven't reached the point in the contract where we know if it was a good decision or a bad one yet. This year will a long way towards deciding that. So far, we have been seeing the easy part of his contract. Starting this year, his contract is as follows:

2016 $20,835.00
2017 $24,700.00
2018 $25,200.00
2019 $23,700.00


Last year, we paid $14, 973, 00.00 to basically have a bunch of guys play QB for us that we could have signed for a fraction of what we paid Tony and we went 4-12. The Roosters have not yet come home to roost but that day is coming quickly. At the time, many claimed that we would be in a position to get out from under the contract in 2017 and I said that it was unlikely that we would. I said that Jerry would extend the contract to create cap space and it would, more then likely, end up being a situation where we were paying a player who was no longer playing. Well, it sure looks as if that's what's going to happen.

To me, the whole idea was wrong because it's too big of a gamble. Don't misunderstand, I like Tony and I always have as a person. I think he is a very talented QB but his window, IMO, closed two years ago. You look at where the team was at the time and you do the math. I could see that by the time our OL started to gel, he was going to be at a point in his career where injuries would play a factor. I said that then and I think it's proving to be true. The only way that the deal is worth the resources is if he wins a championship but with this Defense, that means serious cap issues going forward IMO. That means cap hell again, more then likely.

My opinion today has not changed from when we originally had these discussions. Many said Tony would play out his contract healthy and win a championship. That might happen but I doubt it. I believe you have to have a defense to do that and I just don't see it.

Parting with Romo did not necessarily mean that we would have had three straight losing seasons. You do realize, of course, that since Tony signed that contract, we have only had a winning season once right? Trading Tony would have likely resulted in draft picks and cap. We would have been in the market for any of the Free Agent QBs available since then or, would have been in a position to trade up for any of the QBs that have come out since. We would likely be at a point now where we had a young QB ready to be in his prime. In fact, I would imagine that had we traded Tony, we probably would have Carr right now as our Starter and been in much better shape long term. That would have meant that we still had a young OL and a good young QB to go along with it. Now, a lot of that is projection but it's really not all that unlikely if you think about it. Carr was a second round pick and we liked him. A trade would have brought plenty of room to trade up or just take him.

Had Romo played great, had he not gotten inured, had this happened or that happened, the situation would be different....... That's the problem with this entire deal. It's based on a lot of things going right and if you are objective about it, you know that it was very unlikely from the outset. Pretty much everything has to go right for it to work. How often does that really happen in life?

We don't agree about either of these issues, probably should have just stuck to "Agree to disagree" but we didn't so we can rehash the Romo thing again or, we can just save it till we actually see which view point ends up being correct. I'm good either way.

 

[jnday]

Whatever the case, the facts of the matter are that once we change up our blocking scheme and gave him carries, he produced at a level that placed him 4th in the league in rushing with only 10 games started. That's a good season.

I am defending him because he played well for us and he cost next to nothing. Zeke and Morris may be better but that has nothing to do with how well McFadden played for us. Why are you throwing the guy under the buss for producing for us at excellent value?

DMac had less impact than any RB that I have ever seen considering his stats. He was not a scoring threat. He was not a big play threat. He was not able to run behind the zone blocking scheme. He simply put up numbers that any RB could have gained behind the line, but he didn't impact games like he should have considering his stats.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

DMac had less impact than any RB that I have ever seen considering his stats. He was not a scoring threat. He was not a big play threat. He was not able to run behind the zone blocking scheme. He simply put up numbers that any RB could have gained behind the line, but he didn't impact games like he should have considering his stats.

It's hard to impact games when every team on the schedule is game planning to stop you. However, it is what it is. If your opinion is that he was not very good, that's OK with me.

I don't agree with you but again, that's OK.

 

[jnday]

I edited my orignial post because after reading it back, I thought it was too heavy handed as an FYI KJJ.

As I recall, you had little concerns with injuries and it is clear that Romo's health plays a major role in the development of his status, and the teams status, going forward. You will also remember that I said the decisions made on Romo, at the time, will not be felt tell later in his career. Well, it's not witching hour yet but it will be by next year. In short, we haven't reached the point in the contract where we know if it was a good decision or a bad one yet. This year will a long way towards deciding that. So far, we have been seeing the easy part of his contract. Starting this year, his contract is as follows:

2016 $20,835.00
2017 $24,700.00
2018 $25,200.00
2019 $23,700.00


Last year, we paid $14, 973, 00.00 to basically have a bunch of guys play QB for us that we could have signed for a fraction of what we paid Tony and we went 4-12. The Roosters have not yet come home to roost but that day is coming quickly. At the time, many claimed that we would be in a position to get out from under the contract in 2017 and I said that it was unlikely that we would. I said that Jerry would extend the contract to create cap space and it would, more then likely, end up being a situation where we were paying a player who was no longer playing. Well, it sure looks as if that's what's going to happen.

To me, the whole idea was wrong because it's too big of a gamble. Don't misunderstand, I like Tony and I always have as a person. I think he is a very talented QB but his window, IMO, closed two years ago. You look at where the team was at the time and you do the math. I could see that by the time our OL started to gel, he was going to be at a point in his career where injuries would play a factor. I said that then and I think it's proving to be true. The only way that the deal is worth the resources is if he wins a championship but with this Defense, that means serious cap issues going forward IMO. That means cap hell again, more then likely.

My opinion today has not changed from when we originally had these discussions. Many said Tony would play out his contract healthy and win a championship. That might happen but I doubt it. I believe you have to have a defense to do that and I just don't see it.

Parting with Romo did not necessarily mean that we would have had three straight losing seasons. You do realize, of course, that since Tony signed that contract, we have only had a winning season once right? Trading Tony would have likely resulted in draft picks and cap. We would have been in the market for any of the Free Agent QBs available since then or, would have been in a position to trade up for any of the QBs that have come out since. We would likely be at a point now where we had a young QB ready to be in his prime. In fact, I would imagine that had we traded Tony, we probably would have Carr right now as our Starter and been in much better shape long term. That would have meant that we still had a young OL and a good young QB to go along with it. Now, a lot of that is projection but it's really not all that unlikely if you think about it. Carr was a second round pick and we liked him. A trade would have brought plenty of room to trade up or just take him.

Had Romo played great, had he not gotten inured, had this happened or that happened, the situation would be different....... That's the problem with this entire deal. It's based on a lot of things going right and if you are objective about it, you know that it was very unlikely from the outset. Pretty much everything has to go right for it to work. How often does that really happen in life?

We don't agree about either of these issues, probably should have just stuck to "Agree to disagree" but we didn't so we can rehash the Romo thing again or, we can just save it till we actually see which view point ends up being correct. I'm good either way.

I agree with every bit of this post. I had the same exact feelings a couple years ago , but you worded this post much better than I did at the that time.

 

[KJJ]

I edited my orignial post because after reading it back, I thought it was too heavy handed as an FYI KJJ.

As I recall, you had little concerns with injuries and it is clear that Romo's health plays a major role in the development of his status, and the teams status, going forward. You will also remember that I said the decisions made on Romo, at the time, will not be felt tell later in his career. Well, it's not witching hour yet but it will be by next year. In short, we haven't reached the point in the contract where we know if it was a good decision or a bad one yet. This year will a long way towards deciding that. So far, we have been seeing the easy part of his contract. Starting this year, his contract is as follows:

2016 $20,835.00
2017 $24,700.00
2018 $25,200.00
2019 $23,700.00


Last year, we paid $14, 973, 00.00 to basically have a bunch of guys play QB for us that we could have signed for a fraction of what we paid Tony and we went 4-12. The Roosters have not yet come home to roost but that day is coming quickly. At the time, many claimed that we would be in a position to get out from under the contract in 2017 and I said that it was unlikely that we would. I said that Jerry would extend the contract to create cap space and it would, more then likely, end up being a situation where we were paying a player who was no longer playing. Well, it sure looks as if that's what's going to happen.

To me, the whole idea was wrong because it's too big of a gamble. Don't misunderstand, I like Tony and I always have as a person. I think he is a very talented QB but his window, IMO, closed two years ago. You look at where the team was at the time and you do the math. I could see that by the time our OL started to gel, he was going to be at a point in his career where injuries would play a factor. I said that then and I think it's proving to be true. The only way that the deal is worth the resources is if he wins a championship but with this Defense, that means serious cap issues going forward IMO. That means cap hell again, more then likely.

My opinion today has not changed from when we originally had these discussions. Many said Tony would play out his contract healthy and win a championship. That might happen but I doubt it. I believe you have to have a defense to do that and I just don't see it.

Parting with Romo did not necessarily mean that we would have had three straight losing seasons. You do realize, of course, that since Tony signed that contract, we have only had a winning season once right? Trading Tony would have likely resulted in draft picks and cap. We would have been in the market for any of the Free Agent QBs available since then or, would have been in a position to trade up for any of the QBs that have come out since. We would likely be at a point now where we had a young QB ready to be in his prime. In fact, I would imagine that had we traded Tony, we probably would have Carr right now as our Starter and been in much better shape long term. That would have meant that we still had a young OL and a good young QB to go along with it. Now, a lot of that is projection but it's really not all that unlikely if you think about it. Carr was a second round pick and we liked him. A trade would have brought plenty of room to trade up or just take him.

Had Romo played great, had he not gotten inured, had this happened or that happened, the situation would be different....... That's the problem with this entire deal. It's based on a lot of things going right and if you are objective about it, you know that it was very unlikely from the outset. Pretty much everything has to go right for it to work. How often does that really happen in life?

We don't agree about either of these issues, probably should have just stuck to "Agree to disagree" but we didn't so we can rehash the Romo thing again or, we can just save it till we actually see which view point ends up being correct. I'm good either way.

You're recalling wrong because I never have little concern for injuries but you can't base a contract extension on future injuries because they can occur at any time just look at Dez. Injuries are part of the game and if a player plays a position that's prone to injury like RB and has had injury issues in the past that's going to play a part in whether to extend them. Murray having injury issues his first few seasons along with the position he plays played a part in the Cowboys allowing him to walk. Romo had yet to sustain his back injury at the time he was up for his extension so there was no question he would be extended. The Cowboys had no other QB to fall back on and they weren't in a position to draft a great QB prospect so they had to extend Romo.

We've reached the point long ago that re-signing Romo was the right thing to do he's the best QB the team has had since Troy Aikman and we can't win without him. Although the team has only had one winning season since he was re-signed we were in position to win the division the following year but he got injured in week 16 and was unable to play in the season finale elimination game vs Philly that we ended up losing. Had it not been for Romo's heroics in week 16 vs Washington the Cowboys wouldn't have been in position to win the East the final week. The Cowboys have either won the division or been in position to win it with Romo on the field and the only season we were out of it was last season due to Romo missing 12 games. It's obvious you don't want to concede anything but you were wrong about the Cowboys inability to re-sign Romo under the cap.

The Cowboys are a bad team without Romo can't you see that? This team can just insert any QB and be successful we need a franchise QB. Franchise QBs don't grow on trees teams have gone decades without being able to land one just look at Cleveland. Had the Cowboys not re-signed Romo 3 years ago we would have come off our 3rd straight year picking in the top 10. Trading Romo after the 2012 season wouldn't have garnered us any draft pick that would have made up for losing him. We would have had to use any picks we got in exchange for Romo on trying to land his replacement. In 2013 the first QB off the board was EJ Manual and the next QB off the board was Geno Smith either one could have been the Cowboys pick had they traded Romo which means they would still be looking for a QB.

I believe since Romo signed his contract extension it's been restructured some to help make some cap room. The Cowboys have a chance with Tony Romo and no chance without him. The Cowboys would be suffering with journeyman QBs and burning up draft picks trying to replace Romo. The last 3 seasons would have been beyond MISERABLE without him. We would have been lucky to win 2 games last season without him. The Cowboys would be a complete and total wreck without Tony Romo and the fanbase would be fed up with 2-6 win seasons every year having to deal with scrubs at QB. We don't need to rehash this any further it's just going to result in us wasting a lot of time like we did 3 years ago going page after page. Arguing it isn't going to change either of our opinions so lets agree to disagree on this topic and move on.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You're recalling wrong because I never have little concern for injuries but you can't base a contract extension on future injuries because they can occur at any time just look at Dez. Injuries are part of the game and if a player plays a position that's prone to injury like RB and has had injury issues in the past that's going to play a part in whether to extend them. Murray having injury issues his first few seasons along with the position he plays played a part in the Cowboys allowing him to walk. Romo had yet to sustain his back injury at the time he was up for his extension so there was no question he would be extended. The Cowboys had no other QB to fall back on and they weren't in a position to draft a great QB prospect so they had to extend Romo.

We've reached the point long ago that re-signing Romo was the right thing to do he's the best QB the team has had since Troy Aikman and we can't win without him. Although the team has only had one winning season since he was re-signed we were in position to win the division the following year but he got injured in week 16 and was unable to play in the season finale elimination game vs Philly that we ended up losing. Had it not been for Romo's heroics in week 16 vs Washington the Cowboys wouldn't have been in position to win the East the final week. The Cowboys have either won the division or been in position to win it with Romo on the field and the only season we were out of it was last season due to Romo missing 12 games. It's obvious you don't want to concede anything but you were wrong about the Cowboys inability to re-sign Romo under the cap.

The Cowboys are a bad team without Romo can't you see that? This team can just insert any QB and be successful we need a franchise QB. Franchise QBs don't grow on trees teams have gone decades without being able to land one just look at Cleveland. Had the Cowboys not re-signed Romo 3 years ago we would have come off our 3rd straight year picking in the top 10. Trading Romo after the 2012 season wouldn't have garnered us any draft pick that would have made up for losing him. We would have had to use any picks we got in exchange for Romo on trying to land his replacement. In 2013 the first QB off the board was EJ Manual and the next QB off the board was Geno Smith either one could have been the Cowboys pick had they traded Romo which means they would still be looking for a QB.

I believe since Romo signed his contract extension it's been restructured some to help make some cap room. The Cowboys have a chance with Tony Romo and no chance without him. The Cowboys would be suffering with journeyman QBs and burning up draft picks trying to replace Romo. The last 3 seasons would have been beyond MISERABLE without him. We would have been lucky to win 2 games last season without him. The Cowboys would be a complete and total wreck without Tony Romo and the fanbase would be fed up with 2-6 win seasons every year having to deal with scrubs at QB. We don't need to rehash this any further it's just going to result in us wasting a lot of time like we did 3 years ago going page after page. Arguing it isn't going to change either of our opinions so lets agree to disagree on this topic and move on.

You can not base a contract on injury history? Is that really what you are saying here? Yes, you can and if you have any brain cells at all, you better. You better understand what you have in a player before you extend him. Heck, we don't even spend a 7th round pick on a guy if we don't understand and evaluate injuries. Surely, that is not what you are trying to say right? I also don't agree on your statement on Romo and his injury Status. He didn't actually Herniate his disk until 2013 but he still had back issues prior to that and shoulder issues as well. The team did not have to extend Romo. They could have accepted the situation, like other teams do, and make a trade or sign somebody else. This idea that we had to sign Tony is completely inaccurate. That's a perspective that you might have and even Jerry might have but that's not reality. We did that because we felt like we were in a position to win but we weren't. Our best year since, we were one questionable call away from losing in the first round and we ended up getting beaten by a one legged Rogers. It is what it is.

But why have we come to this point? We got lucky with Tony because the truth is that this team has never invested seriously in the QB since Troy. Even this year, we took a 4th round QB. I hope he pans out but odds are, he won't. This, in a year where the QB we liked most in this draft was there for the right trade and us seeing what we look like without Tony. A year we should have used the 4th to secure our future and we didn't do it again. This team, to me, just doesn't value the necessity of developing a QB enough. They would rather wait till Tony is done and then replay what we saw after Troy apparently. They will say that the opportunity wasn't there but it was there. It just wasn't there unless you were willing to trade down and pass on Elliott or spend more and trade up for him. To me, it's not a question of no choice. It's a question of making a choice and that choice not investing in the position. If we have no QBs behind Tony, that's because we made the choice not to have one.

Do I see that the Cowboys are a bad team without Tony? Yes, I do see that but why is that? It's because we, as a team, created that situation. Because of all the things I mentioned above, because we don't pay attention to the most important position on the field. If you don't love Geno or EJ then don't draft them but are you suggesting that there hasn't been one QB we've liked enough to draft high since 2011? The proof is in what the Cowboys do at the position.

I agree with your point on restructuring. We have absolutely made those moves to try and win but isn't that a product of the Contract? We are tied to Tony because of that contract and have avoided rebuilding because of it. We've been over this. We could have gone another way and we would have been able to take a good QB and develop that guy. Because we resigned him, we have avoided that move. Jerry said repeatedly that he was not in favor of taking a QB high because he didn't want to pay the salary to both QBs. Well, doesn't that kinda insure that we will be scraping the bottom of the barrel at QB until Tony retires and because we have restructured to try and create cap, doesn't that only further exacerbate the problem because now, instead of being able to make a move to address the position in 2017, we are not tied to Tony in years out, even if he can no longer perform at a high level? We created this situation. It is what it is but it's not a Tony or nothing deal because we had no choice. We had a choice and we elected to go the route we did, which means that we put ourselves in this position. Some might say this is second guessing but I don't see it that way. Many said this before we signed Tony long term. Many said this before we used his contract to create cap and there by, commit us in future years. It's not second guessing if you believe that this would be the result before any of it happened.

We just disagree.

 

[KJJ]

You can not base a contract on injury history? Is that really what you are saying here?

I never said that I said you can't take into account injuries when signing a player because injuries happen and I pointed to Dez. You have to look at a players injury history I pointed that out with Murray as to one of the reasons the Cowboys allowed him to walk he had an injury history. You're having a very difficult time grasping what I'm saying.

The rest of your post I don't have time for this could go on for pages and days. We don't agree on practically anything we're just wasting time. If you have one specific question you want me to answer fine but keep it short because I don't have time to rehash a marathon argument we had 3 years ago.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I never said that I said you can't take into account injuries when signing a player because injuries happen and I pointed to Dez. You have to look at a players injury history I pointed that out with Murray as to one of the reasons the Cowboys allowed him to walk he had an injury history. You're having a very difficult time grasping what I'm saying.

The rest of your post I don't have time for this could go on for pages and days. We don't agree on practically anything we're just wasting time. If you have one specific question you want me to answer fine but keep it short because I don't have time to rehash a marathon argument we had 3 years ago.

OK, that is why I asked you if that is what you were saying. I could not believe that this would be your position. However, we knew that Tony had issues with his shoulder and his back before the contract. For you to say that I am having trouble grasping what you are saying is a bit simplistic, wouldn't you say? The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am incapable of understanding. It means that I just don't agree with you.

I have no specific question I want you to address. We don't agree and that's really not a revelation. You know what I believe and I you. It's a message board and part of the purpose is to discuss. Part of my job is to help facilitate that. We don't agree and that's cool.

 

[KJJ]

OK, that is why I asked you if that is what you were saying. I could not believe that this would be your position. However, we knew that Tony had issues with his shoulder and his back before the contract. For you to say that I am having trouble grasping what you are saying is a bit simplistic, wouldn't you say? The fact that I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am incapable of understanding. It means that I just don't agree with you.

I have no specific question I want you to address. We don't agree and that's really not a revelation. You know what I believe and I you. It's a message board and part of the purpose is to discuss. Part of my job is to help facilitate that. We don't agree and that's cool.

The only issues he had with his shoulder was a broken collarbone and there wasn't anything seriously wrong with his back. He didn't injure it to where it required surgery until after the 2013 season. You've misinterpreted me at least once in this thread claiming I accused you of saying something you didn't. The facts are you didn't think Romo could be re-signed under the cap and I did. You ended up being wrong!

After 3 seasons you're still not convinced re-signing him was the right thing to do despite the fact the team has only won one game the past 5 seasons with a QB other than Romo. Take a poll and see how many Cowboy fans are still in a wait and see mode as to whether re-signing Romo after the 2012 season was the right thing to do.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The only issues he had with his shoulder was a broken collarbone and there wasn't anything seriously wrong with his back. He didn't injure it to where it required surgery until after the 2013 season. You've misinterpreted me at least once in this thread claiming I accused you of saying something you didn't. The facts are you didn't think Romo could be re-signed under the cap and I did. You ended up being wrong!

After 3 seasons you're still not convinced re-signing him was the right thing to do despite the fact the team has only won one game the past 5 seasons with a QB other than Romo. Take a poll and see how many Cowboy fans are still in a wait and see mode as to whether re-signing Romo after the 2012 season was the right thing to do.

I think you are misrepresenting it. I didn't believe we could pay him and Dez and DWare, that is true. I was not in favor of a long expensive contract. I was more in favor of more money and shorter contract. However, if you want to say that I was wrong, that's fine. My thoughts on this haven't changed and I am pretty solid in what I believe.

If you are interested in polling, I think the time to do that is after the contract is over. At that point, all the facts are in and then we can see what the outcome will be. At this point, as I said, we are just starting to enter the part of the contract that will be financially painful. That would seem to be the reasonable approach to me.

You really don't want to agree to disagree do you?

 

[KJJ]

I think you are misrepresenting it. I didn't believe we could pay him and Dez and DWare, that is true. I was not in favor of a long expensive contract. I was more in favor of more money and shorter contract. However, if you want to say that I was wrong, that's fine. My thoughts on this haven't changed and I am pretty solid in what I believe.

If you are interested in polling, I think the time to do that is after the contract is over. At that point, all the facts are in and then we can see what the outcome will be. At this point, as I said, we are just starting to enter the part of the contract that will be financially painful. That would seem to be the reasonable approach to me.

You really don't want to agree to disagree do you?

You didn't believe we could get Romo under the cap under the current situation 3 years ago which is why you challenged me to prove we could get him under the cap. It would have made no sense thinking ahead to Ware who was getting older or even Dez because no player on the team was more important to get re-signed than Romo. No team is going to sacrifice their franchise QB to get two other players signed. We argued for 12 pages and you ended up being wrong. Go ahead and take a poll and see how many Cowboy fans like yourself believe we're still in a wait and see mode on whether Romo was worth his contract extension.

If it was up to you and many others 3 years ago Romo would have been traded or allowed to walk and the Cowboys would be stuck with EJ Manual, Geno Smith or some other scrub they would have ended up drafting to try and replace Romo. If you want to keep arguing go ahead.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

No. I didn't think we could get Murray, Dez, Ware and Tony under the cap and guess, what, two of them are gone. That's the truth.

However, if it was up to me, yes, I would not have signed Tony to as long an extension as we did but the EJ Manual, Geno Smith BS is your BS, not mine or anyone elses. That kinda stuff is what you say to try and lesson another persons point of view. There is no reason that either of those players would have had to become Cowboys accept that it's convenient for your argument.

 

[KJJ]

No. I didn't think we could get Murray, Dez, Ware and Tony under the cap and guess, what, two of them are gone. That's the truth.

However, if it was up to me, yes, I would not have signed Tony to as long an extension as we did but the EJ Manual, Geno Smith BS is your BS, not mine or anyone elses. That kinda stuff is what you say to try and lesson another persons point of view. There is no reason that either of those players would have had to become Cowboys accept that it's convenient for your argument.

I provided the link to that thread so feel free to post your quotes and we'll go over them. According to what you're saying you wanted to sacrifice our franchise QB who had yet to turn 33 years old for a few other players. I've never heard of any team doing that. Romo had no injury concerns at the time the concern was he couldn't win the big games which is why many didn't want him re-signed. Go back to the thread and review the comments on the board many had thrown in the towel on Romo and were disgusted with his performance vs Washington that cost us a playoff spot. That was the 3rd season finale elimination game he had lost since 08 and fans were fed up and wanted to move on from him. That thread was started with the wounds still fresh from that game.

That poor performance by Romo is why the thread was started. Ware was getting older and started suffering injuries the following year so re-signing him to a big contract extension would have been a mistake. As for Murray he was coming off his second injury plagued season there was no thought of re-signing him at the time. Dez's re-signing was a concern which was magnified by the re-signing of Sean Lee to a big contract right after the 2012 season. He was missing games due to injury and still had a year on his contract. Had Jerry waited and signed Dez first he could have gotten Dez and Lee cheaper because as soon as Lee was re-signed he missed 6 games with another injury. No team was going to offer Lee a big contract with all the games he was missing he fell in the draft due to injury concerns.

His stock would have continued to fall while Dez's stock was rising with every productive season. Had Romo been traded or allowed to walk after the 2012 season Jerry would have done exactly what he did when he released Aikman after the 2000 season and that's go after a young QB in the draft. All the Cowboys had behind Romo was Orton so they would have had no choice but to draft a young QB prospect and that prospect would have either been EJ Manual or most likely Geno Smith. Smith was projected to go in the first round in 2013 but lasted to the second round. The Cowboys had the 31st pick in the 2013 draft and would have had to move up for Manual who went #16 so Geno Smith would have very likely been the Cowboys pick instead of Frederick who many felt was a reach. No way would the Cowboys have used that pick on the OL with Romo gone.

With no Romo the team would have desperately needed a QB and Geno Smith would have been considered a good value at #31. There's NO WAY the Cowboys would have moved on from Romo to make cap room to sign other players that's laughable! You can't win in the NFL without a solid QB especially not the Cowboys. They were 1-10 without Romo last season with 2 veteran QBs that had won over 30 games between them in the NFL. The Cowboys are a QB dependent team they can't function without a franchise QB. This is a 4-5 win team AT BEST without Tony Romo.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I provided the link to that thread so feel free to post your quotes and we'll go over them. According to what you're saying you wanted to sacrifice our franchise QB who had yet to turn 33 years old for a few other players. I've never heard of any team doing that. Romo had no injury concerns at the time the concern was he couldn't win the big games which is why many didn't want him re-signed. Go back to the thread and review the comments on the board many had thrown in the towel on Romo and were disgusted with his performance vs Washington that cost us a playoff spot. That was the 3rd season finale elimination game he had lost since 08 and fans were fed up and wanted to move on from him. That thread was started with the wounds still fresh from that game.

That poor performance by Romo is why the thread was started. Ware was getting older and started suffering injuries the following year so re-signing him to a big contract extension would have been a mistake. As for Murray he was coming off his second injury plagued season there was no thought of re-signing him at the time. Dez's re-signing was a concern which was magnified by the re-signing of Sean Lee to a big contract right after the 2012 season. He was missing games due to injury and still had a year on his contract. Had Jerry waited and signed Dez first he could have gotten Dez and Lee cheaper because as soon as Lee was re-signed he missed 6 games with another injury. No team was going to offer Lee a big contract with all the games he was missing he fell in the draft due to injury concerns.

His stock would have continued to fall while Dez's stock was rising with every productive season. Had Romo been traded or allowed to walk after the 2012 season Jerry would have done exactly what he did when he released Aikman after the 2000 season and that's go after a young QB in the draft. All the Cowboys had behind Romo was Orton so they would have had no choice but to draft a young QB prospect and that prospect would have either been EJ Manual or most likely Geno Smith. Smith was projected to go in the first round in 2013 but lasted to the second round. The Cowboys had the 31st pick in the 2013 draft and would have had to move up for Manual who went #16 so Geno Smith would have very likely been the Cowboys pick instead of Frederick who many felt was a reach. No way would the Cowboys have used that pick on the OL with Romo gone.

With no Romo the team would have desperately needed a QB and Geno Smith would have been considered a good value at #31. There's NO WAY the Cowboys would have moved on from Romo to make cap room to sign other players that's laughable! You can't win in the NFL without a solid QB especially not the Cowboys. They were 1-10 without Romo last season with 2 veteran QBs that had won over 30 games between them in the NFL. The Cowboys are a QB dependent team they can't function without a franchise QB. This is a 4-5 win team AT BEST without Tony Romo.

First of all, you made the claims, it is you who needs to post whatever you think it is that I said. Secondly, I didn't want to "Sacrifice" anything. This is not and was not a Satanic Ritual and I am not deranged so nothing so dramatic as that I'm afraid. However, based on your Sacrifice Claim, I can see why you are in the dark here. I never wanted to give up anybody but I never made the decisions to overpay players and put us in a position that we could not manage, cap wise. That came as a result of contract decisions like the one we made with Tony, much earlier. Decisions like those are why we could resign the players we wanted in the first place. It's pretty easy to blame the team for not resigning Murray but in truth, the minute Tony was extended, it meant that either Dez or Murray or Ware were not coming back, just like I explained, in those threads years ago. Those are the facts.

The Poor performance by Tony is here nor there. I didn't start the thread so it really has nothing to do with me to be honest and it has nothing to do with this conversation. You can say that the reason that all started was Tony's poor performance and that might or might not be true, I don't know. That was not the primary reason I didn't want to sign Tony to a long term deal. That's really a circular argument. "The thread was only started because of Tony's poor performane" or "Well yeah, if he would not have played poorly, there would be no reason to discuss it". I mean, when you really think about it, the entire idea of what you said is silly. Of course the thread existed because Tony played poorly. Had he played well, that thread never exists but more to the point, had he not repeatedly played poorly in big games, this would not persist. This is not a shot at Tony, it's just the truth of the matter. I don't agree about the injuries. There were concerns and they proved true. That's just being dishonest. There were plenty of concerns and clearly, they were warranted. Of course realize what it sounds like when you say, "Tony had no injuries (which is not true) but Ware had multiple injuries that season so it was the right move to release him" yes? Same thing with Murray, I mean, I don't necessarily disagree because the book on Murray, coming out of OU was that he was injury prone and the Cowboys new that when they drafted him so it is what it is. I will say this, I believe that once Tony was signed, the Cowboys were never going to give him big money and that's why they had no problem giving him over 400 carries in a season. They new what that meant long term and they could have managed that but they didn't. The Sean Lee contract is not relevant to Dez or any other player. His contract and how it was set up is actually more friendly to the team and allows for flexibility, as well as protection against injuries. The contract is actually cheap through this season and doesn't get expensive till next season. This is probably why we drafted the injured Smith in the 2nd round. The 80% pay for play clause protects the team against injuries on Lee so the Dez vs Lee contract is a none starter. The Dez contract is what it is and honestly, all that really shows is that the concerns over his future contractual demands were valid.

By your logic, Jerry will ride Tony through a bad contract until he retires and we will be saddled with a poor option (like Carter) for years to come. We will suffer through 10 years of failed management poor football before we right the ship and have nothing to show for it because Jerry will repeat his mistakes from the 90s. Is that about it? Just remember that in your scenario, all of the decisions made to prop up Troy were poor and they failed miserably. You can't just take some of the story and use it to support your position without taking all of it. What does that say about the Tony decision? Fortunately, I do not hold with that. There is no reason to think that we would have taken Smith or Manual. We might have but then again, we might not have. We know that Jerry loved Lynch but is he on the team? As I recall, Manning was also an FA then so who is to say that we wouldn't have signed him or some other FA option? Obviously, we would have had the cap to do it. Lets say we went with Smith or Manual, the option would have still been there to take Derek Carr in 2014 and we really like him. I can't imagine we would not have taken him if Smith or Manual would have been the picks but to be honest, it's probably more likely that we would have taken a QB in 2012. It could have been Wilson or Osweiler or Cousins or Foles. I honestly doubt it would have been Manual or Smith.

The Cowboys have created the "Can't Function" situation with Tony themselves. This offense is created to facilitate him and that makes it a problem. However, if Tony is gone, then that problem is gone and you run a more traditional Offense. I don't really buy the whole, "Can't Win Without Tony" theory. At some point, we will have to and then we will see if that is true.

 

[MSCowboyFan]

IMO he's the future "change of pace" or "Zeke needs to be spelled for a series" back. He's very intriguing based on his size/strength/speed, just a freak athlete. Very interested in seeing how he does in pre-season. I think he has a good chance at being the legit back up next year with DMac gone.

Fantastic post and points....plus he can really catch out of the backfield. (not that Zeke can't) Doubt he and Zeke would ever be out there together but it's intriguing. We know Zeke can block so if they do roll them both out there the D would be thoroughly guessing as to who the ball is going to.