Dak Contract Preposition

[MysteryIceGuro]

I say we give Dak a 2 year contract. That way, we don't waste a tag, and he gets what he wants. A short contract so he can "cash" in on the next big market changing price.

However, we draft a QB either this year or next year to sit behind Dak just in case he's average again. We will treat him like the Chiefs did Alex Smith. He will get a chance, however, the rookie sitting under him will have his chance as well. If Dak fails to step up to the plate, we let him walk after his contract year, and play the rookie while we have one or two good years left out of Zeke and the O-line. We may have a Mahomes situation on our hands if we go with this method. Also, this should please the "Pro-Dakers" because they will no longer have a albeit terrible HC to blame. It's all on Dak now. He's going into his 5th year with a new HC. There is no room or reason for failure. If he fails, 2 years is enough time to reveal the truth of who he is.

Now, some will ask, "What if the rookie is a bust?". Well I will answer that question with a question. "What's the worst that could happen?"
Say we enter Dak's contract year and he has yet to reach the big game. The worst we could do with a rookie is we don't reach the big game.
Some will say, "We could go 0-16 with the rookie!" Tell me. What's the difference between 0-16 and 8-8 (let's say we miss the playoffs with 8-8)? You miss the playoffs either way. All it is is a difference in draft pick in the end. You aren't competing in the playoffs, you aren't competing for a superbowl, both seasons end at the 17th game. There is no difference besides a flashy record. Difference is, we have a lot more to build off of with the cheap rookie and 1st-2nd pick in the draft.

If 2 years is not substantial enough, I also saw this post in another thread

Interesting thought here and it's neither for or against Prescott.

Given that we are half way through January, I do not think Prescott will be signed to a long term contract before the 2020 draft.

I concede that he might be signed on a franchise tag beforehand.

The reason being - imagine if Tua or Herbert drop to #17?

There must be a fair chance that we would take him.

Reason being...potential top draw QB on a rookie contract.

People will claim that we have other needs that need addressing with greater priority but it would gives the Cowboys loads of leverage at the QB position.

It would mean that Prescott would have a prove it or lose it season, the rookie would not be rushed in to the fold as Prescott would be playing.

If Prescott plays lights out then we can simply trade the rookie QB as there will always be a taker for a QB like Tua or Herbert.

If Prescott struggles and continues to regress then we can ship him out and bring in the rookie QB for the 2020/21 season.

If he plays ok then we can offer him a mid term deal and if he rejects then see you later.

This makes pragmatic and commercial sense to me and it's neither loving or hating on Prescott.

It simply forces his hand to either step up or get out.

Further, the last time Prescott had a quality QB on his shoulder (Romo) it brought out the best in him.

Tagging is not ideal, but it may not be all that bad.

Tl;dr: we need a rookie QB this year or next year. We can do it by either giving him a short contract or tagging him. If he refuses, we just need to get a rookie. I'm not interested in someone that holds out when that same person just went 8-8 with average play for the latter half of the season.

 

[ClappingCarrot]

If you wanted to land Tua or Herbert, you'd have no choice but to trade up. I think Tua gets picked at #5 and Herbert is being taken at #7 in some of the latest mocks.

 

[CashMan]

I say we give Dak a 2 year contract. That way, we don't waste a tag, and he gets what he wants. A short contract so he can "cash" in on the next big market changing price.

However, we draft a QB either this year or next year to sit behind Dak just in case he's average again. We will treat him like the Chiefs did Alex Smith. He will get a chance, however, the rookie sitting under him will have his chance as well. If Dak fails to step up to the plate, we let him walk after his contract year, and play the rookie while we have one or two good years left out of Zeke and the O-line. We may have a Mahomes situation on our hands if we go with this method. Also, this should please the "Pro-Dakers" because they will no longer have a albeit terrible HC to blame. It's all on Dak now. He's going into his 5th year with a new HC. There is no room or reason for failure. If he fails, 2 years is enough time to reveal the truth of who he is.

Now, some will ask, "What if the rookie is a bust?". Well I will answer that question with a question. "What's the worst that could happen?"
Say we enter Dak's contract year and he has yet to reach the big game. The worst we could do with a rookie is we don't reach the big game.
Some will say, "We could go 0-16 with the rookie!" Tell me. What's the difference between 0-16 and 8-8 (let's say we miss the playoffs with 8-8)? You miss the playoffs either way. All it is is a difference in draft pick in the end. You aren't competing in the playoffs, you aren't competing for a superbowl, both seasons end at the 17th game. There is no difference besides a flashy record. Difference is, we have a lot more to build off of with the cheap rookie and 1st-2nd pick in the draft.

If 2 years is not substantial enough, I also saw this post in another thread



Tagging is not ideal, but it may not be all that bad.

Tl;dr: we need a rookie QB this year or next year. We can do it by either giving him a short contract or tagging him. If he refuses, we just need to get a rookie. I'm not interested in someone that holds out when that same person just went 8-8 with average play for the latter half of the season.

Why would he take that? He could be under Cowboys control for 4 years with the 2 franchise tags.

 

[glimmerman]

Will be a 4 or 5 year deal with a 3 year out.

 

[Sydla]

Yeah I can't see him taking a 2 year deal. He wants a long term deal or will force the Cowboys to tag him.

 

[glimmerman]

Yeah I can't see him taking a 2 year deal. He wants a long term deal or will force the Cowboys to tag him.

I actually hear that JJ wants to lock him up long term but it’s Dak that wants a shorter contract so he can cash in twice. Wanting that big signing bonus check.

 

[MysteryIceGuro]

Yeah I can't see him taking a 2 year deal. He wants a long term deal or will force the Cowboys to tag him.

Actually, I'm sure he wants a short term deal so he can cash in on the next market change. Think about it. Say he gets paid 35 mil this year. 6 years?! No way. Mahomes may get paid 40-45 mil right after he gets his 35 mil contract. 35 mil will look like chump change. If he goes for 2-3 years, he can cash in after Mahomes gets paid.

 

[glimmerman]

Actually, I'm sure he wants a short term deal so he can cash in on the next market change. Think about it. Say he gets paid 35 mil this year. 6 years?! No way. Mahomes may get paid 40-45 mil right after he gets his 35 mil contract. 35 mil will look like chump change. If he goes for 2-3 years, he can cash in after Mahomes gets paid.

If we are going to sign him it needs to be before the market changes. He won’t get mahomes money but it should still drive up the market for the other QBs. Should have done it before goff got signed. Or wentz. IF they are going to sign him anyways.

 

[John813]

2 year deal gives no real benefit over a FT.

Why would he be willing to sign that type of deal too?

The QB's that should still be around when they pick will be the Fromm/Love/Eason level QB's in the first.

The top three of Burrow, Herbet and Tua will be long gone, unless Tua gets a lot of red flags.

 

[MysteryIceGuro]

2 year deal gives no real benefit over a FT.

Why would he be willing to sign that type of deal too?

The QB's that should still be around when they pick will be the Fromm/Love/Eason level QB's in the first.

The top three of Burrow, Herbet and Tua will be long gone, unless Tua gets a lot of red flags.

Well, it solves the Dak/Amari/Byron issue. We pay Dak and tag Byron and Amari. That way, no one has to walk.

2. He'd be willing to sign that deal because he wants a short deal in the first place so he can have 2 market changing contracts. Example: Say we pay him 36 mil this year. 2 years from now, if Dak plays well, after Mahomes gets his 40-45 mil contract, Dak will cash in on the next big market contract amount.

3. Fromm/Love/Eason are good prospects. I see no problems with drafting them, even if Herbert or Tua aren't available.

 

[Polkton31]

I say we give Dak a 2 year contract. That way, we don't waste a tag, and he gets what he wants. A short contract so he can "cash" in on the next big market changing price.

However, we draft a QB either this year or next year to sit behind Dak just in case he's average again. We will treat him like the Chiefs did Alex Smith. He will get a chance, however, the rookie sitting under him will have his chance as well. If Dak fails to step up to the plate, we let him walk after his contract year, and play the rookie while we have one or two good years left out of Zeke and the O-line. We may have a Mahomes situation on our hands if we go with this method. Also, this should please the "Pro-Dakers" because they will no longer have a albeit terrible HC to blame. It's all on Dak now. He's going into his 5th year with a new HC. There is no room or reason for failure. If he fails, 2 years is enough time to reveal the truth of who he is.

Now, some will ask, "What if the rookie is a bust?". Well I will answer that question with a question. "What's the worst that could happen?"
Say we enter Dak's contract year and he has yet to reach the big game. The worst we could do with a rookie is we don't reach the big game.
Some will say, "We could go 0-16 with the rookie!" Tell me. What's the difference between 0-16 and 8-8 (let's say we miss the playoffs with 8-8)? You miss the playoffs either way. All it is is a difference in draft pick in the end. You aren't competing in the playoffs, you aren't competing for a superbowl, both seasons end at the 17th game. There is no difference besides a flashy record. Difference is, we have a lot more to build off of with the cheap rookie and 1st-2nd pick in the draft.

If 2 years is not substantial enough, I also saw this post in another thread



Tagging is not ideal, but it may not be all that bad.

Tl;dr: we need a rookie QB this year or next year. We can do it by either giving him a short contract or tagging him. If he refuses, we just need to get a rookie. I'm not interested in someone that holds out when that same person just went 8-8 with average play for the latter half of the season.

To the fan, the difference between 0-16 and 8-8 may seem miniscule. From a business standpoint, it is huge. The franchise would lose millions based on the difference in those records. No way JJ goes with that approach. Like it or not, this is, has been, and always will be, a business to him. That also explains why the Cowboys haven't sniffed a SB in a couple decades. JJ isn't about to make a decision he thinks will affect his bottom line negatively.

 

[Doomsday101]

I'm expecting a 5 year deal on Dak and they will likely restructure it at some point when they need to free up cap space.

 

[John813]

Well, it solves the Dak/Amari/Byron issue. We pay Dak and tag Byron and Amari. That way, no one has to walk.

2. He'd be willing to sign that deal because he wants a short deal in the first place so he can have 2 market changing contracts. Example: Say we pay him 36 mil this year. 2 years from now, if Dak plays well, after Mahomes gets his 40-45 mil contract, Dak will cash in on the next big market contract amount.

3. Fromm/Love/Eason are good prospects. I see no problems with drafting them, even if Herbert or Tua aren't available.

IIRC he wanted a 4, but the FO wanted a 6 year deal.

4 to 2 loses a lot of guaranteed money, especially if he gets injured.

Doubt he wants to be tagged, but tough **** per the current CBA, lol.

I have no issue seeing this team giving Amari a long term deal unless his demands are at the Thomas level.

They aren't bad prospects, but Love regressed this year and now has big question marks and Fromm seems to be a "limited arm" QB.
I like Eason the most.

I wouldn't tag Jones outside of a transition tag, but even then if they don't counter a deal, they lose a comp pick if he signs the counter.

 

[blueblood70]

not happening

2yrs doesnt benefit either party its why the FT is used..

we do need a plan and I doubt the top qbs slide enough and neither Herbert or Tua is worth trading up for IMHO..

Tua may turn out to be great but any GM who doesnt pan to SIT Tua for a full season to fully heal and get him fully prepared for the system etc..its high risk pick with a lot of injury flags..so sit him for full year is the best approach..

Herbert is a most likely a Daniel Jones type, you just dont know what you are getting so you pick him high or trade up for him and he could be a bust..

My plan as a internet GM would be

1.offer him 4yrs at 30 with 5mil built in incentives earned by big game wins in the playoffs..each game he advances is another mil and a SB ends up getting him 5mil in bonus money.

2. if he turn it down and another stalemate im offering Non exclusive Tag, let him see where his market is maybe he comes back to one before game 1..

as insurance go get a QB like Jhurts maybe 4th round same risk as Dak was but has some Jackson potential. Its better then keeping rush as a backup, maybe Rush stays as a #3 emergency guy , I mean how many teams are going after rush as a primary backup?

 

[Future]

Why would he take that? He could be under Cowboys control for 4 years with the 2 franchise tags.

Bingo. Absolutely 0 reason for Dak to take that.

 

[Hawkeye0202]

I'm expecting a 5 year deal on Dak and they will likely restructure it at some point when they need to free up cap space.

Just as they did with Romo and Aikman deals ........

 

[OmerV]

I actually hear that JJ wants to lock him up long term but it’s Dak that wants a shorter contract so he can cash in twice. Wanting that big signing bonus check.

The compromise is probably 4-5 years. I get why Dak wouldn't want 7 years, but also why he wouldn't want 2. 4-5 would allow the big payday now, but still give him a shot at another big payday. And, for the Cowboys, if they truly believe Dak is the right guy, 2 years isn't enough, and 4-5 years may be the right fit to get a deal done.

 

[MysteryIceGuro]

not happening

2yrs doesnt benefit either party its why the FT is used..

we do need a plan and I doubt the top qbs slide enough and neither Herbert or Tua is worth trading up for IMHO..

Tua may turn out to be great but any GM who doesnt pan to SIT Tua for a full season to fully heal and get him fully prepared for the system etc..its high risk pick with a lot of injury flags..so sit him for full year is the best approach..

Herbert is a most likely a Daniel Jones type, you just dont know what you are getting so you pick him high or trade up for him and he could be a bust..

My plan as a internet GM would be

1.offer him 4yrs at 30 with 5mil built in incentives earned by big game wins in the playoffs..each game he advances is another mil and a SB ends up getting him 5mil in bonus money.

2. if he turn it down and another stalemate im offering Non exclusive Tag, let him see where his market is maybe he comes back to one before game 1..

as insurance go get a QB like Jhurts maybe 4th round same risk as Dak was but has some Jackson potential. Its better then keeping rush as a backup, maybe Rush stays as a #3 emergency guy , I mean how many teams are going after rush as a primary backup?

I like the way you think. Especially the incentives. That'd inspire him to play harder.

I also like the 2nd option. Especially if he decides to hold out. I'd go ahead and let him walk and test his market. No one will pay him the amount he wants to be paid. He will come back. Or, we tag him regardless and trade him for something. He has to be worth something to someone. We could use the picks.

 

[Doomsday101]

Just as they did with Romo and Aikman deals ........

And have done with Tyron Smith. This is how teams free up cap space and Cowboys currently at 81 million under the cap is in good position to get key FA signed. Clearly there will be some turnover as is the case for all teams but I still see the Cowboys in great shape to be able to get key players signed.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/

 

[glimmerman]

The compromise is probably 4-5 years. I get why Dak wouldn't want 7 years, but also why he wouldn't want 2. 4-5 would allow the big payday now, but still give him a shot at another big payday. And, for the Cowboys, if they truly believe Dak is the right guy, 2 years isn't enough, and 4-5 years may be the right fit to get a deal done.

Surprised why it hasn’t been done yet. It seems to be a natural compromise. Either it’s over the money which I have heard it’s not really about or since it didn’t get done before the season started that JJ was in no hurry. He didn’t regress. Actually looked better stat wise. Helped lead the #1 Offense. Strange that wins usually come along with that stat. He will get credit and blame for this season. Lol.