News: Sign QB to bucks, lose top players

KJJ said:

I’m not going to waste a lot of time with this but you’re totally wrong. You’re given an opinion I’m providing facts. These receivers weren’t traded because their teams felt they could just insert another receiver. The Packers trading Davante Adams was about cap space. They franchised him but he didn’t want to play under it. He wanted a new long-term contract and it left the Packers no choice but to trade him. His contract with the Raiders caused Tyreek Hill’s price tag to go way up. KC tried working out a new deal with Hill but couldn’t. The Chiefs weren’t going to be able to pay him his asking price and would’ve lost him in free agency next year. Miami made them a great offer and they traded him. If you think I’m wrong provide a link that proves I’m wrong.

https://www.thecoldwire.com/why-did-the-packers-lose-davante-adams/

Click to expand...

sorry, you are totally wrong on this. its in fact the opposite way, its you that have not provided facts, its your opinion that they couldn't sign,. your only view is because they got traded or signed else where, in the process ignoring all other things that happend and all other facts. its like looking at final stats of the game and decide what happened in the game. in fact offers were on the table and the players rejected it. FACTS, no hypothetical QB cost X amount, so the team can't sign another players.

if Trading Adams was about cap space, why was he offered the same contract and he rejected? FACTS, not made up opinions because it fits a line of argument yu have under taken. seems more like Cooper situation since we at current cap space could afford cooper and could have reduced his cap hit by 15M (as cleveland did...FACTS).
Davante Adams trade: Packers were set to make contract offer similar to Raiders - Sports Illustrated

KC offered hill a contract about $120M, he wanted 140M and chiefs said, we are not going there. thus my comment about a line that teams may not want to cross for a player. if Hill asked for 125M instead, would they have said no? we will never know...and you want to tell me they couldn't structure a deal to afford another 3-4M on the contract? if they were willing to go to 140M he got from dolphins.... they could even structure it to have voidable years like Dak to fit it under the cap much easier. so no you are wrong. they just didn't think he was worth more than what they offered him. in fact the chiefs have 3rd most cap space remaining (23M)..... so don't tell me they couldn't afford Hill.

Tyreek Hill was only going to stay with Chiefs if his deal beat Davante Adams’s - Sports Illustrated

you sound like you have an agenda to drive.....and it will come high water or when hell freezes over before you change our opinion

tm1119 said:

Are the 2 examples Davante and Hill? Because it was very widely reported that both the Packers and Chiefs offered gigantic contracts that were turned down. Both teams had the $ to pay, they just weren’t willing to commit record breaking $ to a WR.

Click to expand...

All about the guarantee, that's how CLE landed Watson.

CowboysFaninHouston said:

sorry, you are totally wrong on this. its in fact the opposite way, its you that have not provided facts, its your opinion that they couldn't sign,. your only view is because they got traded or signed else where, in the process ignoring all other things that happend and all other facts. its like looking at final stats of the game and decide what happened in the game. in fact offers were on the table and the players rejected it. FACTS, no hypothetical QB cost X amount, so the team can't sign another players.

if Trading Adams was about cap space, why was he offered the same contract and he rejected? FACTS, not made up opinions because it fits a line of argument yu have under taken. seems more like Cooper situation since we at current cap space could afford cooper and could have reduced his cap hit by 15M (as cleveland did...FACTS).
Davante Adams trade: Packers were set to make contract offer similar to Raiders - Sports Illustrated

KC offered hill a contract about $120M, he wanted 140M and chiefs said, we are not going there. thus my comment about a line that teams may not want to cross for a player. if Hill asked for 125M instead, would they have said no? we will never know...and you want to tell me they couldn't structure a deal to afford another 3-4M on the contract? if they were willing to go to 140M he got from dolphins.... they could even structure it to have voidable years like Dak to fit it under the cap much easier. so no you are wrong. they just didn't think he was worth more than what they offered him. in fact the chiefs have 3rd most cap space remaining (23M)..... so don't tell me they couldn't afford Hill.

Tyreek Hill was only going to stay with Chiefs if his deal beat Davante Adams’s - Sports Illustrated

you sound like you have an agenda to drive.....and it will come high water or when hell freezes over before you change our opinion

Click to expand...

If anyone has an agenda to drive it’s you. You claimed with the QBs these teams have they could just put another receiver in and not have to pay big money…wrong! The link I provided proved the Davante Adams trade was about cap space. If the Packers thought they could just put in another receiver because they have Rodgers why did they franchise Adams? They were trying to work out a new deal with him but he didn’t want to play under the tag. Tyreek Hill wasn’t going to play for KC unless he got a new contract. They couldn’t pay his asking price and had to trade him or they would lose him in free agency the following year. The deal he got from Miami was better than he was going to get from KC. You just posted an excerpt from Sports Illustrated that said Tyreek Hill wasn’t going to play for KC unless his deal beat Davante Adams. KC couldn’t pay him that much due to the cap. Davante Adams, Amari Cooper and Tyreek Hill were all casualties of the cap.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...-city-until-he-saw-miamis-contract-offer/amp/

CouchCoach said:

All about the guarantee, that's how CLE landed Watson.

Click to expand...

well, Watson was under contract. he got traded. they didn't have to give him a new contract.

KJJ said:

If anyone has an agenda to drive it’s you. You claimed with the QBs these teams have they could just put another receiver in and not have to pay big money…wrong! The link I provided proved the Davante Adams trade was about cap space. If the Packers thought they could just put in another receiver because they have Rodgers why did they franchise Adams? They were trying to work out a new deal with him but he didn’t want to play under the tag. Tyreek Hill wasn’t going to play for KC unless he got a new contract. They couldn’t pay his asking price and had to trade him or they would lose him in free agency the following year. The deal he got from Miami was better than he was going to get from KC. You just posted an excerpt from Sports Illustrated that said Tyreek Hill wasn’t going to play for KC unless his deal beat Davante Adams. KC couldn’t pay him that much due to the cap. Davante Adams, Amari Cooper and Tyreek Hill were all casualties of the cap.

https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.c...-city-until-he-saw-miamis-contract-offer/amp/

Click to expand...

I never claimed that. I said some QBs can do more with WRs than others, elites like Rodgers, Mahomes, Brady. they would do outstanding and great with great WRs. the WRs will help their current QBs, given those QBs aren't elite and they will benefit having a WR like them. so What is GB to do, they made the exact same offer as Raiders and Adams wanted to leave. so it tells me it wasn't the money and it must have been other factors....so no, you are wrong, they didn't lose adams because they couldn't afford him, they lost him because he no longer wanted to be in GB. perhaps he didn't want to always be in shadow of Rodgers. who knows.

Hill wanted a new contract. I never denied that. he got a contract offer from KC. for 120M. he wanted 140M, they weren't willing to go there. they couldn't afford another 5M? they have 23M in cap space. so again, its your opinion they couldn't afford, vs. they didn't want to go to the asking price. instead they got 5 draft picks in return and Hill got the additional 20M he was seeking.

neither had to do with their QBs having large contract and team not being able to afford them. ala we had cooper, signed him to a big contract (20M per year) and signed Dak. then let cooper go, with 28M in cap space and could have just restructured and savedf 15M.

you have been wrong all along. but its bothering you to be proven wrong, so you have dug in and will continue to argue, a losing argument. FACTS clearly present that your argument is invalid.

again, answer me this. if GB couldn't afford Adams why did they offer him the exact contract he got with Raiders?

go ahead and try to spin.

CowboysFaninHouston said:

I never claimed that. I said some QBs can do more with WRs than others, elites like Rodgers, Mahomes, Brady. they would do outstanding and great with great WRs.

Click to expand...

This is what you said and you’re wrong.

CowboysFaninHouston said:

no they weren't. its their teams think with their QBs, they can just put another WR in place and they weren't going to pay them what they wanted. all three teams could have signed those players.

Click to expand...

CowboysFaninHouston said:

well, Watson was under contract. he got traded. they didn't have to give him a new contract.

Click to expand...

Cleveland had to do that to get Watson to play for them.

conner01 said:

You know what they say about opinions

Click to expand...

They are like belly buttons?

MountaineerCowboy said:

My solution is to pay an actual top QB.

Dak is not a top QB.

Click to expand...

.....but he was when he was underpaid. Don't understand that logic.

Ranching said:

Jimmy? Lol!! He's pissed cause he's not in the ROH.....he was great back then and then quit on us when he started talking crap about the guy that brought him in and paid him.....no loyalty, no respect.

Click to expand...

If it weren't for Jimmy this franchise has no rings under Jerrys ownership. It's already been proven. I'm not so sure Jimmy hasn't told Jerry to stick that ROH where the sun don't shine.

Flamma said:

Cleveland had to do that to get Watson to play for them.

Click to expand...

Right. Browns wouldn’t have agreed to trade without knowing Watson would play. The contract sealed the deal.

Cmac said:

.....but he was when he was underpaid. Don't understand that logic.

Click to expand...

Dak has NEVER been a top QB.

He is an overachieving 4th round talent. Nothing more.

Cmac said:

.....but he was when he was underpaid. Don't understand that logic.

Click to expand...

What logic? To only pay top money to top QBs? What's not logical about that?

Sure, instead of paying your QB you can start all over and maybe you'll be lucky and get another good QB.
How many teams without a good QB win a SB? You are by far better off keeping your guy if he is good than trying to start over at teh most important position in the NFL enough. Whether Dak or any other particular QB is good enough is I guess a different topic.

Reid1boys said:

Here is a good article explaining what happens when you give the qb big bucks. We all already know this, so why is everyone so surprised? A couple of things are garbage in the article as it applies to Dallas, but the fallout from Rodgers and mahomes deals is evident.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/how-40...scott-are-losing-the-offseason-001036835.html

Click to expand...

To focus on the article and QB position doesn’t tell the whole story about the special kind of hell the FO put us in. Paying big QB money may be bad enough, but for us add the Zeke and Cooper and Lawrence contracts. We have an evil trifecta too: big QB, RB, and WR contracts. And for an assortment of possible reasons - injury or bad playcalling or bad OL or limited skills - they got D level performance for A level money tied up. They dumped Cooper but still have other albatrosses.

Bill Parcells philosophy anybody?

Build up on the defensive side of the ball, put together a nice OL, then put a bus driver at QB.

Another obvious Dak sucks thread out of the 10,000 others out there.

Dak's cap number is $19.7m this year. That's not breaking any banks. The next two years when he is around $50m will be problematic.

Dallas' problem this year is Zeke at $18.2m. Add in $27m of dead money and you have a pretty big issue.

Ken said:

Dak's contract isn't hindering it. 19 mill is not hindering us.

What is, is the money we are paying swipe, the albatross contract of Zeke and the , up until now, 4.6 sacks per year last 3 years out of the great DLAW.

Dak has performed up to his contract.

Click to expand...

These same turds were talking about how Stafford didn’t have what it takes 2 years ago. Rams and Stafford are a perfect example of how it’s about team. Take a top 10 QB and surround him with a SB contender an then you have something.

doomsday9084 said:

Dak's cap number is $19.7m this year. That's not breaking any banks. The next two years when he is around $50m will be problematic.

Dallas' problem this year is Zeke at $18.2m. Add in $27m of dead money and you have a pretty big issue.

Click to expand...

We’re all still waiting for daks contract to kill the team. It’s year #7 and it hasn’t happened yet.