Dak Hater's Myth: We Can't Build Around a QB Market Value Contract

mattjames2010 · Feb 18, 2020

Qcard said:
Please all you Dak Hater's I kindly ask you answer 2 questions

1. Which players did we lose to Free Agency because of Tony Romo's Market Value setting contract?

2. Which players on the roster will we lose that we would have wanted to keep if we sign Dak to Market Value Contract.

Thank you!

How many teams have won a Super Bowl with their QB on a massive contract?

Aviano90 · Feb 18, 2020

fivetwos said:
The world points to the Dez non catch as the play that decided that game. There was over 4 minutes left. As if Rodgers couldnt pull a comeback. Especially when the actual result was we couldnt get the ball back.

If Murray scores on that play, and the only thing between him and the goal line was one hand of...I think it was Peppers....Dallas wins that game.

The only reason people believe Murray scores on that play is because Troy Aikman exaggerated and claimed Murray had nothing standing between him and the end zone, which was incorrect. Ha-ha Clinton-Dix was back there at safety and another defender was blazing from the left. Murray had already demonstrated he lost his home run hitting ability with the team and there was really no way he was scoring on that play.

That said, he would have most likely gotten us into FG range and the drive would have continued which may have ultimately led to a TD. It was a big fumble no doubt, but we can't boil the entire game down that fumble because the team still could have overcome it and won. The last possessions of the 1st have on both offense and defense were also huge when we missed a FG and allowed GB to kick a FG of their own. Romo failing to throw the ball away on 1st and 2nd down on our 2nd to last possession put us in bad down and distance stalling that drive hurt. Their were plenty of other wasted opportunities besides Murray's fumble.

morat1959 · Feb 18, 2020

One question sums up both questions. What did we ever win with Romo? NOTHING! Well that’s exactly what we’ll win with Dak under center no matter who we sign around him!

mattjames2010 · Feb 18, 2020

By the way, this is a problem LEAGUE WIDE. It's not just a Prescott problem. Chiefs will probably struggle to get back to the Super Bowl as well - heck, they might not even be able to bring back Chris Jones

QB contracts are bloated and owners have allowed this to happen. They somehow managed to overvalue the most valuable position. In desperation to keep their franchise guy, they ultimately hurt other positions and, more importantly, depth.

Hawkeye19 · Feb 18, 2020

You can’t really compare Romo’s contract situation with Dak’s in terms of impact on the team being able to add pieces in FA.

The issue with Romo was not whether he was worth that contract— but his inability to stay healthy and perform his role.

When he did stay healthy— like in 2014– we competed in the playoffs and were a catch away from potentially playing in the NFCCG.

Bottom line: Dak has his flaws, but to this point— his durability has been outstanding. We were too often at the mercy of Tony’s health under that contract— and we were never able to perform at a high level when he missed time

StuckMojo · Feb 18, 2020

Just because I don’t want another bad contract or make Dak highest paid player doesn’t make me or anyone else a hater. I pull hard for Dak every game because he is a Cowboy. I want to build a complete team with a killer defense and think overpaying these offensive guys will impede the complete team building process.

CWR · Feb 18, 2020

817Gill said:
Ronald Leary was with us until 2017..

True and we had his replacement in tow. Regardless of cap Leary wasn't getting re-signed. There wasn't a single player we truly wanted to keep that we ended up losing.

They took the stance Dwares production would no longer bring value at his price. They projected forward and assumed he was on his downhill slide.

Demarco Murray may have an argument, but we knew we had ran the wheels off and we had also dealt with his injuries prior. We also had built the oline up so well right or wrong there was an assumption we could plug and play another RB. As it was it took an 11th hour bid from Philly before we lost him.

LittleD · Feb 18, 2020

mattjames2010 said:
How many teams have won a Super Bowl with their QB on a massive contract?

Not many...You can't ever mention Brady because he always provided NE a giant discount. Brees was pretty well paid when he won. Peyton Manning was pretty well
paid when he won I think. You can bet that KC chiefs will be paying Mahomes big money next year if they make it to another SB.

CATCH17 · Feb 18, 2020

morat1959 said:
One question sums up both questions. What did we ever win with Romo? NOTHING! Well that’s exactly what we’ll win with Dak under center no matter who we sign around him!

The CBA might save us and give us another window to have success again.

Next year we might be ok too. We'll see.

blueblood70 · Feb 18, 2020

817Gill said:
Literally the only pro bowler who will leave next year is Byron, and it has nothing to do with Dak. From everything I’ve heard the team views him as a 10ish million dollars CB, FO wouldn’t pay him regardless.

Maliek Collins, Jeff Heath, Anthony Brown (who could get resigned) are all nice players but aren’t core guys. You pay the core and you draft and use smart FA/trades to build a middle class and depth. From a Peter King article I read today,

“Football salaries, particularly quarterback salaries, are Monopoly-money deals. I think a smart GM can pay a superstar quarterback the going rate and still have enough to build a championship team if he drafts well. The key, to me: turn over the midsection of the roster often, and have a good contributing middle class. Look at San Francisco. They paid a quarterback, but they got to a Super Bowl because of shrewd personnel management by GM John Lynch and personnel czar Adam Peters—with strong non-first-round picks like George Kittle (fifth round), Fred Warner (third), Dre Greenlaw (fifth) and Deebo Samuel (second), and signings of important contributors off the street, like wideout Kendrick Bourne, running backs Raheem Mostertand Matt Breida, and corners K’Waun Williams and Emmanuel Moseley.”

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2020/02/17/tom-brady-philip-rivers-nfl-qbs-fmia-peter-king/

I dont see it as shrewd, the stars aligned they brought in JG after 3 really bad seasons, he started out shaky blew a knee and they ended up with Bosa.. im sorry but having top picks 4 straight years because you sucked is not shrewd IMO ..they made good choices but most were easy cant miss picks when you are top 5 or 10 4 straight years in draft position because of DOUBLE DIDGIT LOSSES..BTW his 28mil is sure looking good right now because players like Dak wants 35 and arent better...

yes SF did a great job and made the SB but it too historically bad years to do so and they had a great coaching staff to make it work unlike Browns who have as much talent but couldn't get it done.. you should have great players constantly picking the best players in the draft and re-booting your cap by setting 70% of your team go in that time period....

this is not agreat argument for the DC as we have not been that bad in so long we dont have those opportunity's very often..

OmerV · Feb 18, 2020

charron said:
1. Yes we absolutely hit a wall with adding talent once Romo was paid.

2. We don't yet know who we will add and lose for sure.

3. We do know this. Most good teams that pay a QB top dollar also don't have to pay top dollar for most of their OL, Wr, RB, to make the QB function. Guys like Brees, Brady, Rodgers, wilson etc skimp on offense cause those guys can help over come a lack of talent while the team builds defense.

First, Brees, Brady and Rodgers are rare breeds - so rare that it takes going back 15-20 years to find when they were drafted. People have to quit believing those kinds of QBs are just there for a team to take when it chooses.

Second, Brady didn't function as well without Gronk.

And finally, while it's true those 3 over their careers can make up deficiencies better than other QBs, let's quit acting as if they didn't have offensive talent around them. Brady has had Gronk, Edelman, Welker, Hernandez, Moss, Dillon and a bevy of RBs who caught passes out of the backfield. Rodgers has had Driver, Jennings, Finley, Nelson, Adams, Cobb, Grant and Lacy. Brees has had Tomlinson, Gates, McCallister, Kamara, Ingram, Graham, Thomas, Colston, Cooks …

817Gill · Feb 18, 2020

cern said:
We still owed romo money.

Eh, we gained 14M dollars on the cap when we released Romo. The dead money we owed him we spread over the next two seasons. We went from 6M under the cap to 20M once Romo was designated a June 1st cut.

https://www.espn.com/blog/dallas/co...o-release-official-cowboys-have-room-to-spare

Leary was never going to be resigned man, we just got La’el and he was starting over Leary. Only reason Ron got in at LG was because of LC’s injury. Team wasn’t going to pay 5 o-lineman lol one had to go and they chose the younger more talented player. When you already have 3 lineman you pay, and then a highly touted young guy coming in, it makes 0 sense to pay for a left guard. No matter what cap space you have

blueblood70 · Feb 18, 2020

Hawkeye19 said:
You can’t really compare Romo’s contract situation with Dak’s in terms of impact on the team being able to add pieces in FA.

The issue with Romo was not whether he was worth that contract— but his inability to stay healthy and perform his role.

When he did stay healthy— like in 2014– we competed in the playoffs and were a catch away from potentially playing in the NFCCG.

Bottom line: Dak has his flaws, but to this point— his durability has been outstanding. We were too often at the mercy of Tony’s health under that contract— and we were never able to perform at a high level when he missed time

right WAS it was great durability but lets look back,

we needed ONE WIN MORE to make the playoffs and win the division, down the stretch Dak allegedly hurt his wrist in maybe NE or BUFF game then his hand and then his shoulder in the rams game..all used as excuses and non more then the 2nd half of the Philly game where he missed like 4 wide open streaking WRs for Huge plays..he had time and couldn't hit himself in the face.. so lets let him say he was injured and couldn't complete his duties as a QB..his being on the field with no backup the coach trusted cost us GAMES at the end of the year..

so no longer can we say Daks health and durability is plus..he maybe didnt miss games but he sure played some horrible ones that cost us some..his inconsistency's every year where he has 3-5 bad game streak of inaccuracy is concern about his ability to complete his duties as a starting qb making elite money..its a huge concern IMHO

mattjames2010 · Feb 18, 2020

OmerV said:
First, Brees, Brady and Rodgers are rare breeds - so rare that it takes going back 15-20 years to find when they were drafted. People have to quit believing those kinds of QBs are just there for a team to take when it chooses.

Second, Brady didn't function as well without Gronk.

And finally, while it's true those 3 over their careers can make up deficiencies better than other QBs, let's quit acting as if they didn't have offensive talent around them. Brady has had Gronk, Edelman, Welker, Hernandez, Moss, Dillon and a bevy of RBs who caught passes out of the backfield. Rodgers has had Driver, Jennings, Finley, Nelson, Adams, Cobb, Grant and Lacy. Brees has had Tomlinson, Gates, McCallister, Kamara, Ingram, Graham, Thomas, Colston, Cooks …

He didn't suggest those QBs are easy to find, he said they are able to overcome limited talent around them (and outside of Brady, Rodgers, Brees, and Wilson have struggled to get their second rings)

Also, Brees had Tomlinson and Gates while he was still on a rookie deal until 2005. As for Rodgers, he had Driver and Jennings early on in his career and he wasn't exactly destroying a cap at that point either. And I'm not entirely sure why you're leaving out offensive line when discussing Rodgers, one of the biggest problems for Rodgers in the past was the fact that he had skill position players, but no offensive line. You know, which is why he was sacked 50 times in a season twice in his career, with 40+ sacks in as season 4 times. Because of this he has been injured quite often as well. Same as Romo.

817Gill · Feb 18, 2020

USArmyVet said:
Patrick Mahomes on rookie contract and KC was allowed to build around him. End results was a Super Bowl victory.

Only 2 teams in the last 10 Superbowls had QB’s on rookie deals start the game. KC and Seattle.

The idea that the most successful way to build a SB team is with a QB on a rookie deal is unsubstantiated and a myth. For every rookie deal team to reach the Conference Championship Game, there’s another team who’s quarterback isn’t on a rookie deal.

Every SB team is constructed and strategized differently, 2 out of 10 teams isn’t enough to sit here and think that it’s the best way to go about winning a ring.

G2 · Feb 18, 2020

Aviano90 said:
The only reason people believe Murray scores on that play is because Troy Aikman exaggerated and claimed Murray had nothing standing between him and the end zone, which was incorrect. Ha-ha Clinton-Dix was back there at safety and another defender was blazing from the left. Murray had already demonstrated he lost his home run hitting ability with the team and there was really no way he was scoring on that play.

That said, he would have most likely gotten us into FG range and the drive would have continued which may have ultimately led to a TD. It was a big fumble no doubt, but we can't boil the entire game down that fumble because the team still could have overcome it and won. The last possessions of the 1st have on both offense and defense were also huge when we missed a FG and allowed GB to kick a FG of their own. Romo failing to throw the ball away on 1st and 2nd down on our 2nd to last possession put us in bad down and distance stalling that drive hurt. Their were plenty of other wasted opportunities besides Murray's fumble.

Exactly. The sideline view clearly showed how close defenders were and as soon as he fumbled, they shifted attention to the ball.

G2 · Feb 18, 2020

OmerV said:
First, Brees, Brady and Rodgers are rare breeds - so rare that it takes going back 15-20 years to find when they were drafted. People have to quit believing those kinds of QBs are just there for a team to take when it chooses.

Second, Brady didn't function as well without Gronk.

And finally, while it's true those 3 over their careers can make up deficiencies better than other QBs, let's quit acting as if they didn't have offensive talent around them. Brady has had Gronk, Edelman, Welker, Hernandez, Moss, Dillon and a bevy of RBs who caught passes out of the backfield. Rodgers has had Driver, Jennings, Finley, Nelson, Adams, Cobb, Grant and Lacy. Brees has had Tomlinson, Gates, McCallister, Kamara, Ingram, Graham, Thomas, Colston, Cooks …

When you have your mind made up that Prescott is "average," there's no real point debating that sort of mentality. Some believe Prescott has elite talent at every position including coaching, while others have "no names."

OmerV · Feb 18, 2020

mattjames2010 said:
He didn't suggest those QBs are easy to find, he said they are able to overcome limited talent around them (and outside of Brady, Rodgers, Brees, and Wilson have struggled to get their second rings)

Also, Brees had Tomlinson and Gates while he was still on a rookie deal until 2005. As for Rodgers, he had Driver and Jennings early on in his career and he wasn't exactly destroying a cap at that point either. And I'm not entirely sure why you're leaving out offensive line when discussing Rodgers, one of the biggest problems for Rodgers in the past was the fact that he had skill position players, but no offensive line. You know, which is why he was sacked 50 times in a season twice in his career, with 40+ sacks in as season 4 times. Because of this he has been injured quite often as well. Same as Romo.

He's obviously saying that's the kind of QB we need - what's the point of complaining that Dak can't overcome deficiencies like them if he isn't saying that's the kind of QB we need. Are we to believe it was mindless rambling without a point?

So, you are arguing that it was different with other QBs early in their careers because they hadn't yet got the big payday. Well, that's exactly the same with Dak over the first 4 years of his career, so it's really not different.

The reason I'm leaving out the O-Line is because I don't know O-Linemen around the NFL like I do position players. I would guess we probably have a little better O-Line than some, but I don't think those guys were suffering behind theirs most of their careers. A quick look at 2019 though shows that the Saints O-Line had 3 Pro-Bowlers and one 1st team All-Pro, so that's not exactly shabby.

817Gill · Feb 18, 2020

Aviano90 said:
Oh yeah. The staff played a hand in that debacle too. It was Jason Garrett that rushed out on the field to call a timeout when we got a very favorable 1st down spot on a play occurring right in front of him. Instead of rushing to the line to take advantage of the first down, Garrett's timeout enabled the booth to overturn the 1st down, changing it to 3rd down. Even if the booth would have stopped it, we would have kept a timeout and instead of throwing on 3rd and short, we could have ran. Thanks, Garrett.

God Garrett suuuucked lol

mattjames2010 · Feb 18, 2020

817Gill said:
Only 2 teams in the last 10 Superbowls had QB’s on rookie deals start the game. KC and Seattle.

The idea that the most successful way to build a SB team is with a QB on a rookie deal is unsubstantiated and a myth. For every rookie deal team to reach the Conference Championship Game, there’s another team who’s quarterback isn’t on a rookie deal.

Every SB team is constructed and strategized differently, 2 out of 10 teams isn’t enough to sit here and think that it’s the best way to go about winning a ring.

LOL let's go ahead and look at this

Nick Foles was a backup, wasn't destroying the cap and Wentz still on a rookie deal
Brady had x3 Super Bowls in the past with a home town discount
Joe Flacco got his first Super Bowl win the same year he got his new contract, with Lewis and Reed on their final deals. How did it play out after that?
Aaron Rodgers got a contract in 2008, guaranteed $20 million

Eli Manning is the one who broke the mold here. 2x Championships despite being one of the wealthiest QBs in NFL history. On his second contract when he got his 07 and 11 Super Bowls.

If, in 2008, the Packers knew what Rodgers would become he would have got an even bigger contract. And good luck getting a home town discount out of Prescott.

Dak Hater's Myth: We Can't Build Around a QB Market Value Contract

Well-Known Member

Go Seahawks!!!

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

1st Round Pick

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Taco Engineer

Taco Engineer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member