Nate Burleson on Dak-Pay him!

[mattjames2010]

No I said that’s what he likely gets based on the market.

The market does not show he's worth 30 million a year. You're only indication of this is Cousin's contract, which the Vikings are already regretting and most people felt was too much.

Dak, even in this market, is 25 million or slightly less. If he asks for 30 million, you cut his butt loose and tank.

 

[BoltsNHorns]

Rodgers?

You’re a fool. Rodgers has won nothing of note without a defense.

0-35 against winning teams who have a 1 point lead in the 4th quarter.

Only

Wilson
Mahomes
Brady

Are worthy of elite carrying status

They ACTUALLY carry their teams.

All of them have elite head coaches.

 

[Oh_Canada]

As usual, the clueless Canada troll has never been told you can’t compare numbers decades apart. Dak is far better than Roger Staubach by this inane logic. There isn’t anything special about Dak’s actual ability to be a QB which is why we always hear the babbling about prime time wins, game winning drives, rushing touchdowns, etc.
It’s time for you to crawl back under your rock now.

Yeah, as usual the SuperKnumnuts uses a guy with a career 47% competion percentage to Dak because his little feelings were hurt when his hero Romo got punked by a rookie.

 

[ShiningStar]

Paying Dak doesnt bother me, this team not using him to his strengths does. Now if Kellen can solve that great, but if the offense stifles Dak, its going to be another long road that ends no where

 

[CowboyRoy]

What does Mahones have to do with anything? Dak is not Mahones so it's not salient to the topic. This is something you are introducing and for what reason, I don't understand. I also don't know what you mean when you refer to "MY theory". If we don't pay Dak, we go out and sign another QB and/or we draft another QB. We do what every team has been doing for countless years when they don't have a QB. I mean, we do what we did in past years. For the record, Brady has always taken less money. This is not new to the who Brady deal but lets be real. Taking less money means not getting paid 25 to 30 million a year, it means making 18 to 20, come on. Instead, why don't we see what the market sets. I'm telling you right now, Dak is not getting a long term 30 mil a year deal guaranteed. He may get a big number contract but it won't be a secure contract with multiple out years guaranteed from any team. That's my opinion. The Cowboys, IMO, will provide him security long term but they shouldn't ruin the cap to do it in my opinion.

Mahones will get like 35 million a year. Will that ruin kc chances of winning it all as your theory claims!

 

[CowboyRoy]

And look how that turned out. They all cried with good reason and they were right.

The reason Romo didn’t win wasn’t his contract. More bozo analysis.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Mahones will get like 35 million a year. Will that ruin kc chances of winning it all as your theory claims!

You tell me. Here are the top QB contracts in the NFL. Since each of those players have signed new contracts, how many championships have they won?

Matt Ryan
Jimmy Garoppolo
Matt Stafford
Aaron Rodgers
Andrew Luck
Cam Newton
Andy Dalton
Alex Smith (the last big QB contract KC signed a QB to was Smith, how many SBs did that bring?)
Russell Wilson

So there they are, the top 10, how many championships have those big contracts brought home?

And for the record, I don't claim this to be my theory. Lots of people are taking notice of this. For the record, if Mahones does sign a ridiculously high contract with KC, then yes I do believe that he will not be successful over the long term. I think it would cripple that franchise over time.

 

[CowboyRoy]

You tell me. Here are the top QB contracts in the NFL. Since each of those players have signed new contracts, how many championships have they won?

Matt Ryan
Jimmy Garoppolo
Matt Stafford
Aaron Rodgers
Andrew Luck
Cam Newton
Andy Dalton
Alex Smith (the last big QB contract KC signed a QB to was Smith, how many SBs did that bring?)
Russell Wilson

So there they are, the top 10, how many championships have those big contracts brought home?

And for the record, I don't claim this to be my theory. Lots of people are taking notice of this. For the record, if Mahones does sign a ridiculously high contract with KC, then yes I do believe that he will not be successful over the long term. I think it would cripple that franchise over time.

Lol........you mean over the last 3 years. Lol

Great example.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

The reason Romo didn’t win wasn’t his contract. More bozo analysis.

I never said that the reason he didn't win was because of the contract. Actually, you just said that so how funny is it to read, in the next breath, you calling your own comments, bozo analysis.

I mean, you are better at insulting yourself then I could ever be. That's funny stuff, can't write that kind of thing.

I said that it was a bad idea to give him the contract and the fact that the people who opposed the idea were correct in doing so. That contract got us nothing except cap strap. The fact that it didn't bring us a championship is true but honestly, any fool could see that it wasn't going to do that because of Romo's age, physical problems and the financial burdens it introduced to the team. All of that is accurate and all those folks were correct in their fears.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Lol........you mean over the last 3 years. Lol

Great example.

Expand please. I asked you how many of these QBs, since signing their deals, have won championships. It's not a difficult question. What part are you having troubles with?

 

[CowboyRoy]

The market does not show he's worth 30 million a year. You're only indication of this is Cousin's contract, which the Vikings are already regretting and most people felt was too much.

Dak, even in this market, is 25 million or slightly less. If he asks for 30 million, you cut his butt loose and tank.

Or you cry like a baby

 

[CowboyRoy]

Expand please. I asked you how many of these QBs, since signing their deals, have won championships. It's not a difficult question. What part are you having troubles with?

Well garapollo signed his contract last year and got hurt. So how does that prove your dumb theory? How many championships could he win in one injured year?

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I never said that the reason he didn't win was because of the contract. Actually, you just said that so how funny is it to read, in the next breath, you calling your own comments, bozo analysis.

I mean, you are better at insulting yourself then I could ever be. That's funny stuff, can't write that kind of thing.

I said that it was a bad idea to give him the contract and the fact that the people who opposed the idea were correct in doing so. That contract got us nothing except cap strap. The fact that it didn't bring us a championship is true but honestly, any fool could see that it wasn't going to do that because of Romo's age, physical problems and the financial burdens it introduced to the team. All of that is accurate and all those folks were correct in their fears.

You may have been right, but you are sort of using revisionist history as to why you were. Romo didn’t have any injury concerns when he signed his final contract and was showing no signs of decline due to age. It was mostly just people who wanted Romo gone for personal reasons (ironically, like the CowboyRoy troll).

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Your theory is stupid and your example is even more laughable. And yes that’s exactly what your posts infer. Was that the contracts were the reasons they didn’t win. Which you point out is dumb.

The long term killer in Dallas is Garrett not one players salary. Another clueless dak hating troll.

He’s made you look dumb. Get over it and move on.

OK, I understand that you don't like the idea and that you believe it to be stupid. My post didn't infer anything. My post was clear, they were right to be upset over the contract. I don't disagree that Garrett is a bigger part of the problem but the contract for Tony was still a bad idea and those who said so were right.

Now, that we've covered all of that, answer the question, how many have won championships since they signed the big deals?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well garapollo signed his contract last year and got hurt. So how does that prove your dumb theory? How many championships could he win in one injured year?

I didn't say that it proved anything. I asked you how many have one the SB and so we are all clear on what should already be crystal clear, there are 10 QBs listed. Not all of them signed a year ago or what have you. How many have won?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You may have been right, but you are sort of using revisionist history as to why you were. Romo didn’t have any injury concerns when he signed his final contract and was showing no signs of decline due to age. It was mostly just people who wanted Romo gone for personal reasons (ironically, like the CowboyRoy troll).

I don't agree with this at all. I recall discussing this at great lengths at the time. Tony did have issue then and I pointed them out, at the time. In fact, it was my major concern. It had nothing, at all, to do with Tony. Heck, I liked Tony and I am on record as having the belief that we wasted him. However, that doesn't have anything to do with why I thought the move was a bad one. One has nothing, at all, to do with the other.

 

[CowboyRoy]

OK, I understand that you don't like the idea and that you believe it to be stupid. My post didn't infer anything. My post was clear, they were right to be upset over the contract. I don't disagree that Garrett is a bigger part of the problem but the contract for Tony was still a bad idea and those who said so were right.

Now, that we've covered all of that, answer the question, how many have won championships since they signed the big deals?

Since only 2 QB's have won a championship in the last 3 years, you can make up any list you want.

Lets reverse your laughable theory:

How many QB's of the lowest salary contracts have won the SB in the last 3 years?

But why stop at QB contracts? Doesn't your theory then apply to all positions overpaying? Or doesn't that suit your agenda?

Now if you want to say that having a top 5 QB on a bargain salary would help a team manage their rest of their salary, then that would be sound reasoning.

OR how about THIS question:

Over the last 6 years how many QB's besides Tom Brady has won a championship?

See how your theory just doesn't hold up? Your example is flawed.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I don't agree with this at all. I recall discussing this at great lengths at the time. Tony did have issue then and I pointed them out, at the time. In fact, it was my major concern. It had nothing, at all, to do with Tony. Heck, I liked Tony and I am on record as having the belief that we wasted him. However, that doesn't have anything to do with why I thought the move was a bad one. One has nothing, at all, to do with the other.

He did not have any issues. That is a fact. If you want to dispute that, state your case.
If you recall, the first hint of a concern with Tony’s back was the cyst they found. Tony signed his extension in March of 2013. The cyst was found two months later.

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...-romo-cyst-found-after-i-signed-108m-contract

Tony did not have any injury concerns when the contract was signed and had just come off two straight seasons of starting every game.

 

[CowboyRoy]

OK, I understand that you don't like the idea and that you believe it to be stupid. My post didn't infer anything. My post was clear, they were right to be upset over the contract. I don't disagree that Garrett is a bigger part of the problem but the contract for Tony was still a bad idea and those who said so were right.

Now, that we've covered all of that, answer the question, how many have won championships since they signed the big deals?

Answer THIS question:

How many QB's have won a championship over the last 5 years besides Tom Brady?

Wait for it...………………...2

The problem is not the QB salaries, but Tom Brady and Bellichick

The other two were Manning and Foles.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Since only 2 QB's have won a championship in the last 3 years, you can make up any list you want.

Lets reverse your laughable theory:

How many QB's of the lowest salary contracts have won the SB in the last 3 years?

But why stop at QB contracts? Doesn't your theory then apply to all positions overpaying? Or doesn't that suit your agenda?

Now if you want to say that having a top 5 QB on a bargain salary would help a team manage their rest of their salary, then that would be sound reasoning.

OR how about THIS question:

Over the last 6 years how many QB's besides Tom Brady has won a championship?

See how your theory just doesn't hold up? Your example is flawed.

No, the question I asked was not, how many QBs have one in the last three years. The question I asked is how many of the top 10 QB salaries have actually won a Championship since signing their contracts? I mean, it's a fairly straight forward question here. You are making it too difficult. Who many of those guys have won a SB since they signed their contract?

I suspect why you don't want to answer this question. I'm actually not surprised that you won't answer because you know the answer already and you also know that it doesn't support your views, I suspect.