Dak Contract Preposition

Corso said:

The spicy, smoky lemon pepper is going to be an act of love. I'm going to make both hunter's strips and thin flanks.
We'll see how it goes! I'll let you know when I start.

Click to expand...

Captain-Crash said:

pay him 15 million and set him up with commercial sponsors so he can get his other 20 million. When he starts sucking they can pull his endorsements. problem solved.

Click to expand...

ClappingCarrot said:

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.

Click to expand...

AmariChill said:

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.

Click to expand...

Captain-Crash said:

pay him 15 million and set him up with commercial sponsors so he can get his other 20 million. When he starts sucking they can pull his endorsements. problem solved.

Click to expand...

Hadenough said:

Dallas needs to have an alternate plan if Dak doesnt except a lower tier QB offer. They should bring in Case Keenum or even bring in Marcus Mariotta.

Click to expand...

AmariChill said:

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.

Click to expand...

Rogerthat12 said:

Does one mean proposition or preposition?

Click to expand...

Sydla said:

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.

Click to expand...

Rayman70 said:

FIRST, we will be paying him. Secondly, MM likes QB and values the back up guy. Which means I can see MM drafting another QB as well. Its how he rolls. Nothing against Dak at all. Cooper Rush better watch his back.

Click to expand...

garyo1954 said:

If you could rent Brady or Brees for two years, would you still sign Dak at $35 - 40 million?

Hmmmm? Would you? Would you?

Click to expand...