News: Fox: Ezekiel Elliott invokes Emmitt Smith as he breaks silence on contract talks

[PJTHEDOORS]

Surely Jerry knows he doesnt have Aikman at quarterback this time, who still started 0-2 without Emmitt.. As much as Zeke has irritated me with all this, we need him out here.

This team is deeper at wr than what Aikman had and there was no one behind Emmitt (behind Zeke is Pollard).

 

[Dwight]

He’s not Emmitt Smith tho. He hasn’t won a super bowl. Emmitt Smith was never suspended. I like Elliott and have been a fan of his, but I’m ready for this to end one way or another. At this point I could take him or leave him!

I agree with everything you stated.

The only aspect that is unfair to Zeke is the Cowboys management and head coach. Emmitt had a better coach and a better structure of management at the time compared to Zeke.

If Zeke had a strategic coach he probably would have a Super Bowl ring right now.

Production wise Zeke's contract demand is valid but his mental decisions off the field concerns me. I understand why Stephen and Jerry are concern about this (plus running backs don't last long anyway).

 

[Bullflop]

Do you think he will sign him before or during the season?

I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that -- least of all, yours truly!

 

[Diehardblues]

I don't think anyone really knows the answer to that -- least of all, yours truly!

Of course no one knows but I was asking for his opinion. Sorry you didn’t get that

 

[lostar2009]

Smith actually held out all of training camp his rookie deal (record length at the time for a rookie holdout) to get a 4 year deal and then held out again when the 4th year was starting. His 4 year deal was signed September 4th 1990

https://news.google.com/newspapers?...AIBAJ&sjid=IAcEAAAAIBAJ&pg=1718,2070698&hl=es

All the articles i'm reading are saying Emmitt held out as a rookie to get a 4 year deal and then held out his 4th year. I'm not sure why people are saying he wasn't under contract because he was

Once again Smith held out for more money when he was not SIGN !!! How can one hold out if there is no deal sign???? He didn't have a contract to honor. It's different to hold out for negotiation versus holding out because you don't like your current contract situation !!!

 

[noshame]

Translated: Whoever gives me the most jack, I'm gone.

 

[TexasHillbilly]

Mods need to merge the two threads on this.

The Mod is the OP

 

[TwoDeep3]

Myth.. . Smith NEVER HELD OUT. He PLAYED OUT HIS ENTIRE CONTRACT. He just wanted more money than JJ was willing to give.

He refused to sign the offer Dallas made when he was drafted. That is why Jimmy didn't start him and why he posted less than 1000 yards the first season. JJ caved then and gave him more money.. As he did when Emmitt held out again. So your assertion he never hold out is wrong.

Before he played one down of football in the NFL. Before he went to one practice. He held out for more money.

JJ will cave now. And this will all go away.

However, if the league didn't treat this position as toilet paper, use it once and toss it out, top flight players would not hold out.

The real issue here is the Rams giving Gurley so much money. Zeke is the best running back in the league. He wants an assurance he will be able to cash a check on that fact.

If the league owners were serious about hold outs, they wouldn't eventually sign them for more money.

 

[lostar2009]

He refused to sign the offer Dallas made when he was drafted. That is why Jimmy didn't start him and why he posted less than 1000 yards the first season. JJ caved then and gave him more money.. As he did when Emmitt held out again. So your assertion he never hold out is wrong.

Before he played one down of football in the NFL. Before he went to one practice. He held out for more money.

JJ will cave now. And this will all go away.

However, if the league didn't treat this position as toilet paper, use it once and toss it out, top flight players would not hold out.

The real issue here is the Rams giving Gurley so much money. Zeke is the best running back in the league. He wants an assurance he will be able to cash a check on that fact.

If the league owners were serious about hold outs, they wouldn't eventually sign them for more money.

That may be the case but that is different. He never ink a deal with the Cowboys then held out. I have to bad blood over those moves it's business. The same with Joey Bosa. It's different when he already have a deal and want more money.

 

[TwoDeep3]

That may be the case but that is different. He never ink a deal with the Cowboys then held out. I have to bad blood over those moves it's business. The same with Joey Bosa. It's different when he already have a deal and want more money.

Then why do the owners condone thus behavior from the top flight players?

And if the league has decided these guys are use once and dispose, why shouldn't the top guys try to get more than the slotted amount the league imposes to keep their salaries down?

The owners created this issue, and they allow this behavior from the elite, which still keeps the average slotted and discarded.

 

[Tussinman]

Once again Smith held out for more money when he was not SIGN !!! How can one hold out if there is no deal sign???? He didn't have a contract to honor. It's different to hold out for negotiation versus holding out because you don't like your current contract situation !!!

The rookie year I could see not being a legit holdout but the 1993 refusal to play was a 100% holdout. He had a 4 year contract and only played 3 years

He PLAYED OUT HIS ENTIRE CONTRACT. He just wanted more money than JJ was willing to give.

His contract ran through the whole 1993 season so not he did NOT play out his entire contract

 

[lostar2009]

Then why do the owners condone thus behavior from the top flight players?

And if the league has decided these guys are use once and dispose, why shouldn't the top guys try to get more than the slotted amount the league imposes to keep their salaries down?

The owners created this issue, and they allow this behavior from the elite, which still keeps the average slotted and discarded.

It's difference since there is no commitment, no contract sign. A player isn't held to nothing, now we can say it's poor behavior requesting more than what's cap but it's totally businesses. With Zeke it's businesses but he neglected his contract. With Emmit it was too business but I place him the same as Joey with the rookie contract. He played it in full and didn't hold out. When it was done he simply wanted more than what JJ was offering. Once again business, can't compare ES to that drunk Zeke.

 

[lostar2009]

The rookie year I could see not being a legit holdout but the 1993 refusal to play was a 100% holdout. He had a 4 year contract and only played 3 years

His contract ran through the whole 1993 season so not he did NOT play out his entire contract

This has already been discussed by ES himself. ES corrected ppl on this. He played out his rookie contract and was no longer under contract. So it was NOT a hold out. Comparing ES to that drunk is so disrespectful !!!

 

[TheStarInFLA]

Call it what you will but I can assure you we all called it a hold out at the time.

If you’re not playing while negotiating a contract it’s generally considered a hold out of some sorts.

So you do not see the difference? Really?

 

[TheStarInFLA]

Translated: Whoever gives me the most jack, I'm gone.

EXACTLY!! And if he didn’t honor this contract why would we trust anything he says or signs?

 

[Diehardblues]

So you do not see the difference? Really?

Of course I see a difference but it was still considered a hold out.

 

[Melonfeud]

That’s exactly how it could go without him. Do you think Jerry is willing to take that risk?

And let’s assume we did start 3-0 against perhaps our easiest stretch of the season then what happens if we begin to struggle when the schedule toughens up.

Which would be similar to the scenario in 2017 where we struggled without Elliott against tougher opponents but not lesser competition. Ultimately 3-3 without Elliott though ended our playoff hopes.

But you’re right , the longer we have success without Elliott it could go badly for him. That’s always the risk of holding out if the team chooses to move forward. And of course there’s risk for the Cowboys as well and why this is such an interesting situation.

The bottom line is what do we think Jerry will do?

Is Jerry willing to risk a slow start which could jeopardize the season. Is Jerry willing to place Dak out there without the production Elliott provides and his presence that helps keep defenses honest at LOS. Is it worth the risk potentially exposing Dak like he was during Elliott’s suspension and or before Cooper trade especially if you just sign him to a huge extension.

One other scenario Is that if Dak isn’t willing to take less then maybe Jerry might want to humble Dak into taking less to see if his passing can carry us without an Elite RB and dominating running game. That doesn’t seem as likely to me but as always attempt to entertain all angles.

* there's a Football Dad
" news worthy blurt" over on that 'official/none other genuine' Cowboy's google-foo, in where JJ is espousing the positive "boosting" aspects a tardy, yet, late season returning of the #21 would have,,,er,,, something, something, Dustin Hoffman in Marathon Man,something, I can't rightly recall,,,

 

[Bullflop]

Of course no one knows but I was asking for his opinion. Sorry you didn’t get that

I'm sorry, too but what you don't get is that if nobody knows, it also follows that their opinions are worthless.

 

[TwoDeep3]

It's difference since there is no commitment, no contract sign. A player isn't held to nothing, now we can say it's poor behavior requesting more than what's cap but it's totally businesses. With Zeke it's businesses but he neglected his contract. With Emmit it was too business but I place him the same as Joey with the rookie contract. He played it in full and didn't hold out. When it was done he simply wanted more than what JJ was offering. Once again business, can't compare ES to that drunk Zeke.

In this type of contractual business relationship the leverage transfers during time.

You and I cannot just tear up a contract, or try to renegotiate its terms. But they live in a different world

As this ticked toward the last days of this contract, considering the way the owners value running backs in general, the more Jerry had the leverage. But the window of maximum leverage for Zeke was at this moment in time. The owner will always have the advantage, like the house in Vegas. But there are certain circumstances which find prevailing winds to renegotiate from a power position. At no other time would things be as they are now.

Cooper needing a new contract and raise
Dak needing a new contract and raise
The team in position with the best roster since 1995

All these things come into play, which have weight in these discussions between Jones and Elliott.

If he played out this season and then asked to renegotiate, Jerry would never do so at that point. The team could already have failed at their bid for the SB, which means paying Zeke more is a fruitless decision.

Or the team could have made the SB, thus blunting the leverage of Zeke.

The Zeke Who crowd bases their opinions on many things. The fact these people make huge money and can rewrite their agreement if they possess enough talent irks some.

Others toss out Emmitt as if he were faultless. Fact is Emmitt has a huge ego, and back in the day it was pretty common knowledge he would refuse to give autographs to kids because, "You'll give it to your Dad and he will sell it." That story was on this site several times by different people back in the day. So his signing something for a kid was giving away a commodity in the mind of Emmitt.

Others lay claim that if they were Zeke they would play for less just to be a Cowboy.

Personally I see this as an issue I cannot control., and will work its way out.

If I were Jones I would want to pay less. If I were Zeke I would want to make more. Neither position is wrong. And because the owners don't take the player into court and sue their arses off indicates this is business as usual.

All the rest of this is hurt feelings for some fans.

Which amounts to swinging at a pitch in the dirt.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Then why do the owners condone thus behavior from the top flight players?

And if the league has decided these guys are use once and dispose, why shouldn't the top guys try to get more than the slotted amount the league imposes to keep their salaries down?

The owners created this issue, and they allow this behavior from the elite, which still keeps the average slotted and discarded.

Everybody should do that. That way, the league can just fold up and move on to something else.

Or perhaps, the league already decided on this. RBs used to be one of the highest paid positions in the NFL. That has changed, maybe that change is the result of the owners decision on what it will condone and not condone?