The Cost of Not Signing Dak (lengthy)

fivetwos said:

I'll say it again....this is right up there with debating Jerry stepping down.....

There's ZERO shot of it happening so why debate it?

Click to expand...

Hawkeye19 said:

TLDR: Letting Dak walk hurts this franchise a lot more than it helps us, in both the short and long term.

I have gone back and forth on the Dak-Dilemma for months. I am not a Dak hater. I consider myself a Dak-realist. He is not "elite" in my opinion (Mahommes, Rodgers are the only 2 QBs this year that qualify as elite in my estimation). Nor is he "mediocre" or "average" as many on this site claim. He is good. At times, he is really good. At other times, his play is borderline average.

And so we have arrived at a crossroads. To pay or not to pay? 2 years ago-- fans were arguing on whether or not he was worth 30 mil per year. Many said "not worth more than 25". Then Wentz and Goff signed-- and the needle moved to 34-35 mil per, and the counter was "not worth more 30". Then Mahommes and Watson signed, and the conversation is now 40 mil per and the counter is now "not worth more than 35". The simple truth is the QB market has been drastically reset over the past 2 years, and the cost of good QB play has significantly risen. Had we signed Dak 2 years ago for 30 mil, we would be in the middle of a sweetheart of a deal. But I digress....

If you let him walk... you gain cap space, yes-- but what do you lose? I've been thinking about the following items:

1. Fractured Locker-room. The players love him. He is the unquestioned leader and this is "Dak's team". If we choose to not pay him, the move will NOT be well received by the players and a riff occurs and eyebrows are raised. Add to that the pressure you put on Dak's replacement to fill his shoes on the field, and with his buddies off it-- and you have a bad situation ready to explode.

2. You lose top 10 level QB play on the field. No-- he is not top 3. But he is not middling either. IMO-- he is trending up, and his quality of play is top 10 in the NFL-- and that will win a lot of games. If you let him leave-- how do you replace his production?

3. Leadership intangibles. Related to point #1 for sure-- but Dak may have the best leadership skill of any QB in the NFL right now. Yes, Rodgers is a HOF player, but some of his teammates hate the guy. Mahommes is a stud and well-liked-- but Dak just is a natural born leader. He says the right things. He does the right things. He is football smart, but he has a high emotional IQ as well. Yes, you could trade up to draft a rookie-- but what you might gain (stress "might") in the football talent category, you more than likely lose a TON when it comes to leadership and "face of the franchise" factor.

4. You stand to lose Rep/Cred. If you let Dak walk, and he gets signed by another team, and hoists a Lombardi-- you will forever be the FO that "couldn't get a deal done with a high caliber franchise QB". Ouch. This franchise is already a laughing stock-- but that would take things to a new low-- especially if the "solution" they bring in to replace Dak doesn't pan out.

Therefore-- the best thing for the entire franchise is to sign Dak to a 4-5 year deal. We will overpay. But the number most fans are comfortable with paying him has already moved from 25 million per year 2 years ago, to 35 million per year now. As a fan-- Are you really willing to let him walk and potentially suffer the fallout over a 5 million per year difference?

Click to expand...

Hawkeye19 said:

TLDR: Letting Dak walk hurts this franchise a lot more than it helps us, in both the short and long term.

I have gone back and forth on the Dak-Dilemma for months. I am not a Dak hater. I consider myself a Dak-realist. He is not "elite" in my opinion (Mahommes, Rodgers are the only 2 QBs this year that qualify as elite in my estimation). Nor is he "mediocre" or "average" as many on this site claim. He is good. At times, he is really good. At other times, his play is borderline average.

And so we have arrived at a crossroads. To pay or not to pay? 2 years ago-- fans were arguing on whether or not he was worth 30 mil per year. Many said "not worth more than 25". Then Wentz and Goff signed-- and the needle moved to 34-35 mil per, and the counter was "not worth more 30". Then Mahommes and Watson signed, and the conversation is now 40 mil per and the counter is now "not worth more than 35". The simple truth is the QB market has been drastically reset over the past 2 years, and the cost of good QB play has significantly risen. Had we signed Dak 2 years ago for 30 mil, we would be in the middle of a sweetheart of a deal. But I digress....

If you let him walk... you gain cap space, yes-- but what do you lose? I've been thinking about the following items:

1. Fractured Locker-room. The players love him. He is the unquestioned leader and this is "Dak's team". If we choose to not pay him, the move will NOT be well received by the players and a riff occurs and eyebrows are raised. Add to that the pressure you put on Dak's replacement to fill his shoes on the field, and with his buddies off it-- and you have a bad situation ready to explode.

2. You lose top 10 level QB play on the field. No-- he is not top 3. But he is not middling either. IMO-- he is trending up, and his quality of play is top 10 in the NFL-- and that will win a lot of games. If you let him leave-- how do you replace his production?

3. Leadership intangibles. Related to point #1 for sure-- but Dak may have the best leadership skill of any QB in the NFL right now. Yes, Rodgers is a HOF player, but some of his teammates hate the guy. Mahommes is a stud and well-liked-- but Dak just is a natural born leader. He says the right things. He does the right things. He is football smart, but he has a high emotional IQ as well. Yes, you could trade up to draft a rookie-- but what you might gain (stress "might") in the football talent category, you more than likely lose a TON when it comes to leadership and "face of the franchise" factor.

4. You stand to lose Rep/Cred. If you let Dak walk, and he gets signed by another team, and hoists a Lombardi-- you will forever be the FO that "couldn't get a deal done with a high caliber franchise QB". Ouch. This franchise is already a laughing stock-- but that would take things to a new low-- especially if the "solution" they bring in to replace Dak doesn't pan out.

Therefore-- the best thing for the entire franchise is to sign Dak to a 4-5 year deal. We will overpay. But the number most fans are comfortable with paying him has already moved from 25 million per year 2 years ago, to 35 million per year now. As a fan-- Are you really willing to let him walk and potentially suffer the fallout over a 5 million per year difference?

Click to expand...

Hawkeye19 said:

Jerry stepping down for sure is a zero chance scenario. Dak not getting signed is unlikely, but this situation has not gotten done the past 2 years, and now Dak is coming off injury and the D is clearly broken and in desperate need of rebuilding. There is a chance Dak's agent plays real hardball here. The tag is 38 mil. Mahommes is getting 50 mil per... what is to stop Todd France from asking for 45?

If he drives the price up-- and Dallas tags Dak again-- the divorce is on. Players hate the tag. And Dak already got seriously hurt once on a tag. He wants (and deserves) security considering what other QBs are making. If Dallas doesn't adjust their posture, and try and play hardball back-- I think there is a chance they lose him. Again, not likely-- but stranger things have happened. Definitely worth discussing because until the Dak situation resolves, we can't build out the rest of the roster because of too many unknowns.

Click to expand...

fivetwos said:

I'll say it again....this is right up there with debating Jerry stepping down.....

There's ZERO shot of it happening so why debate it?

Click to expand...

kskboys said:

Dak does not want security. He was offered that and refused.

Click to expand...

Hawkeye19 said:

Therefore-- the best thing for the entire franchise is to sign Dak to a 4-5 year deal.

Click to expand...

Hawkeye19 said:

TLDR: Letting Dak walk hurts this franchise a lot more than it helps us, in both the short and long term.

I have gone back and forth on the Dak-Dilemma for months. I am not a Dak hater. I consider myself a Dak-realist. He is not "elite" in my opinion (Mahommes, Rodgers are the only 2 QBs this year that qualify as elite in my estimation). Nor is he "mediocre" or "average" as many on this site claim. He is good. At times, he is really good. At other times, his play is borderline average.

And so we have arrived at a crossroads. To pay or not to pay? 2 years ago-- fans were arguing on whether or not he was worth 30 mil per year. Many said "not worth more than 25". Then Wentz and Goff signed-- and the needle moved to 34-35 mil per, and the counter was "not worth more 30". Then Mahommes and Watson signed, and the conversation is now 40 mil per and the counter is now "not worth more than 35". The simple truth is the QB market has been drastically reset over the past 2 years, and the cost of good QB play has significantly risen. Had we signed Dak 2 years ago for 30 mil, we would be in the middle of a sweetheart of a deal. But I digress....

If you let him walk... you gain cap space, yes-- but what do you lose? I've been thinking about the following items:

1. Fractured Locker-room. The players love him. He is the unquestioned leader and this is "Dak's team". If we choose to not pay him, the move will NOT be well received by the players and a riff occurs and eyebrows are raised. Add to that the pressure you put on Dak's replacement to fill his shoes on the field, and with his buddies off it-- and you have a bad situation ready to explode.

2. You lose top 10 level QB play on the field. No-- he is not top 3. But he is not middling either. IMO-- he is trending up, and his quality of play is top 10 in the NFL-- and that will win a lot of games. If you let him leave-- how do you replace his production?

3. Leadership intangibles. Related to point #1 for sure-- but Dak may have the best leadership skill of any QB in the NFL right now. Yes, Rodgers is a HOF player, but some of his teammates hate the guy. Mahommes is a stud and well-liked-- but Dak just is a natural born leader. He says the right things. He does the right things. He is football smart, but he has a high emotional IQ as well. Yes, you could trade up to draft a rookie-- but what you might gain (stress "might") in the football talent category, you more than likely lose a TON when it comes to leadership and "face of the franchise" factor.

4. You stand to lose Rep/Cred. If you let Dak walk, and he gets signed by another team, and hoists a Lombardi-- you will forever be the FO that "couldn't get a deal done with a high caliber franchise QB". Ouch. This franchise is already a laughing stock-- but that would take things to a new low-- especially if the "solution" they bring in to replace Dak doesn't pan out.

Therefore-- the best thing for the entire franchise is to sign Dak to a 4-5 year deal. We will overpay. But the number most fans are comfortable with paying him has already moved from 25 million per year 2 years ago, to 35 million per year now. As a fan-- Are you really willing to let him walk and potentially suffer the fallout over a 5 million per year difference?

Click to expand...

kskboys said:

Dak does not want security. He was offered that and refused.

Click to expand...

big dog cowboy said:

Said the same thing 2 years ago. Now it's going to cost A LOT more.

Click to expand...

75boyz said:

Boils down to what does the Front Office believe Dak needs with supporting personnel in order to accomplish leading a consistent playoff contender.

All the variables must be considered.
Smith and Collins at both tackle spots and the uncertainty regarding their health.
Thus, should a tackle be drafted high?
Erving/Knight/Steele considered full season starter potential?
Martin as the RT if needed as the long term solution?

Need a FS
Need LBs. Pick your numbers...2 or 3 needed.
Need DTs. Depending on your feelings for the Gallimore/Hill duo still leaves a spaceeating 1T.
Gregory's last year. Aldon Smith re-up?

Then the Daks contract money and how it affects the ability to sign above dumpster/has been/never was or will be FAs.

Kirk Cousins has some impressive end of year numerical stats. You would think he would have won more games by the numbers he has put up over the years.

Ryan kinda similar and even had the one MVP season.

Wentz and Goff, from the same class, have proven their recent contracts may have been mistakes.


So, with ALL of these type variables to be considered, is the best course of action to tie up that type money at the expense of being able to effectively fulfill roster holes?

More simply put, is Daks talent a generational type that singlehandedly can carry a team while ignoring certain areas because he is so good to mask over them?

I know my answer.

Jerry's team's future depends on his.

Click to expand...

Future said:

Without getting into specifics here...

If you don't have a quarterback, you don't have anything. There's no sense in building a roster with everything but a quarterback, because your team is going to suck anyway.

Click to expand...

OmerV said:

Are you are saying there is zero shot of the team letting Dak leave, or of signing Dak, as the OP recommends?

Click to expand...

Hawkeye19 said:

Jerry stepping down for sure is a zero chance scenario. Dak not getting signed is unlikely, but this situation has not gotten done the past 2 years, and now Dak is coming off injury and the D is clearly broken and in desperate need of rebuilding. There is a chance Dak's agent plays real hardball here. The tag is 38 mil. Mahommes is getting 50 mil per... what is to stop Todd France from asking for 45?

If he drives the price up-- and Dallas tags Dak again-- the divorce is on. Players hate the tag. And Dak already got seriously hurt once on a tag. He wants (and deserves) security considering what other QBs are making. If Dallas doesn't adjust their posture, and try and play hardball back-- I think there is a chance they lose him. Again, not likely-- but stranger things have happened. Definitely worth discussing because until the Dak situation resolves, we can't build out the rest of the roster because of too many unknowns.

Click to expand...