A Dose of Reality

[Reality]

There have been a lot of discussions and concern about the loss of several players from last year, just like there was the year before when we lost other players like Ware, Ratliff, Hatcher, etc. Unfortunately, that is the consequence of having a salary cap. It sometimes means you have to let players go while they can still help your team, but it also helps keep teams from holding on to players too long. It's a normalization process that is tough to deal with as fans, especially when it comes to the extreme ends of that spectrum.

When players' rookie contracts are up, you have to weigh their importance to the team beyond the first season after that. Would Murray be worthy 8 million this year? Absolutely, but would he be worth 8 million next year or the year after that? Not sure about that. Would Parnell be worth $5-6 million this year? What about next year or the year after that? What about Harris? or Carter?

The point is that everyone complaining or concerned about players that we should have resigned for a lot of money this year are only thinking about this season. A lot of the fans who are complaining or pointing out the loss of players as potential season-killing moves would also be the same ones complaining in 2016, 2017, etc. about how Jerry and Co. have poorly managed the salary cap by giving out horrible contracts to backup or declining players. This scenario would be amplified if the Cowboys were to have overpaid for Murray, Harris, Parnell, Spencer, Carter, etc. and then failed to make it to the Super Bowl this or next season.

Am I concerned about finding replacements for the players we lost? Absolutely! Will at the end of the season I look back and blame a non-great year on the loss of those players? Not at all. Why? Because it's not like the Cowboys season was doomed by the loss of those players. Instead, it would mean they did a poor job of replacing them when you consider they had players already on the roster that they had inside knowledge of in their ability to replace the players not resigned and beyond that, they had free agency, the draft and the upcoming post-training camp cuts that will include a lot of veterans that could be signed to reasonable or overpaid (if desperate enough) one or two year contracts rather than long-term cap-harmful contracts.

In the past, the Cowboys front office tried year after year to win by retaining as many of their players as possible which led to salary cap hell year after year filled with overpaid contracts and millions in dead money. They finally started to think beyond the current season like most of the other successful teams. What this does though is put the success or failure of each season more on the front office and coaching staff rather than the players. The best teams trust in their front office and coaching staffs to weather the loss of players without hampering the team's success. Basically, it's time for the Cowboys front office and coaching staff to prove themselves and so far, with this new strategy the last couple of seasons, I think there is obvious reason to be optimistic for a change.

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

Nice post Reality. You should post more.

 

[5Stars]

Very nice post. A team always has to plan for the future and not look back to the past.I think that most of the x-generation thinks the Cowboys should be what the 90's team was, however, back then there was no salary cap. Smart teams, as your post described, use that planning for the future which was not done for the last 20 years or so. Times are changing and to keep up with that change you need to get rid of a high salaried "pet cat" in order to maintain enough money to keep a young team competitive.

 

[TwoDeep3]

There have been a lot of discussions and concern about the loss of several players from last year, just like there was the year before when we lost other players like Ware, Ratliff, Hatcher, etc. Unfortunately, that is the consequence of having a salary cap. It sometimes means you have to let players go while they can still help your team, but it also helps keep teams from holding on to players too long. It's a normalization process that is tough to deal with as fans, especially when it comes to the extreme ends of that spectrum.

When players' rookie contracts are up, you have to weigh their importance to the team beyond the first season after that. Would Murray be worthy 8 million this year? Absolutely, but would he be worth 8 million next year or the year after that? Not sure about that. Would Parnell be worth $5-6 million this year? What about next year or the year after that? What about Harris? or Carter?

The point is that everyone complaining or concerned about players that we should have resigned for a lot of money this year are only thinking about this season. A lot of the fans who are complaining or pointing out the loss of players as potential season-killing moves would also be the same ones complaining in 2016, 2017, etc. about how Jerry and Co. have poorly managed the salary cap by giving out horrible contracts to backup or declining players. This scenario would be amplified if the Cowboys were to have overpaid for Murray, Harris, Parnell, Spencer, Carter, etc. and then failed to make it to the Super Bowl this or next season.

Am I concerned about finding replacements for the players we lost? Absolutely! Will at the end of the season I look back and blame a non-great year on the loss of those players? Not at all. Why? Because it's not like the Cowboys season was doomed by the loss of those players. Instead, it would mean they did a poor job of replacing them when you consider they had players already on the roster that they had inside knowledge of in their ability to replace the players not resigned and beyond that, they had free agency, the draft and the upcoming post-training camp cuts that will include a lot of veterans that could be signed to reasonable or overpaid (if desperate enough) one or two year contracts rather than long-term cap-harmful contracts.

In the past, the Cowboys front office tried year after year to win by retaining as many of their players as possible which led to salary cap hell year after year filled with overpaid contracts and millions in dead money. They finally started to think beyond the current season like most of the other successful teams. What this does though is put the success or failure of each season more on the front office and coaching staff rather than the players. The best teams trust in their front office and coaching staffs to weather the loss of players without hampering the team's success. Basically, it's time for the Cowboys front office and coaching staff to prove themselves and so far, with this new strategy the last couple of seasons, I think there is obvious reason to be optimistic for a change.

How long will Romo play?

Is the window now or later?

So while we all have our opinions, the clock on Romo's is the arbiter of what is and what isn't. Because this franchise will not pull a top flight QB out of a hat like a magician if and when Romo is done. And what we have seen in the past is a QB in Aikman who went down hill so rapidly it was shocking. Irvin is another player - albeit not a QB - who dropped off the NFL map with one play.

I do agree with your premise on cap and all that. Yet it takes one moment in time for this team to have solid support players and no leader.

Hence the concern with the now and not the later for some of us.

Because this Dallas Cowboy solar system rotates around the sun named Romo.

 

[Doc50]

There have been a lot of discussions and concern about the loss of several players from last year, just like there was the year before when we lost other players like Ware, Ratliff, Hatcher, etc. Unfortunately, that is the consequence of having a salary cap. It sometimes means you have to let players go while they can still help your team, but it also helps keep teams from holding on to players too long. It's a normalization process that is tough to deal with as fans, especially when it comes to the extreme ends of that spectrum.

When players' rookie contracts are up, you have to weigh their importance to the team beyond the first season after that. Would Murray be worthy 8 million this year? Absolutely, but would he be worth 8 million next year or the year after that? Not sure about that. Would Parnell be worth $5-6 million this year? What about next year or the year after that? What about Harris? or Carter?

The point is that everyone complaining or concerned about players that we should have resigned for a lot of money this year are only thinking about this season. A lot of the fans who are complaining or pointing out the loss of players as potential season-killing moves would also be the same ones complaining in 2016, 2017, etc. about how Jerry and Co. have poorly managed the salary cap by giving out horrible contracts to backup or declining players. This scenario would be amplified if the Cowboys were to have overpaid for Murray, Harris, Parnell, Spencer, Carter, etc. and then failed to make it to the Super Bowl this or next season.

Am I concerned about finding replacements for the players we lost? Absolutely! Will at the end of the season I look back and blame a non-great year on the loss of those players? Not at all. Why? Because it's not like the Cowboys season was doomed by the loss of those players. Instead, it would mean they did a poor job of replacing them when you consider they had players already on the roster that they had inside knowledge of in their ability to replace the players not resigned and beyond that, they had free agency, the draft and the upcoming post-training camp cuts that will include a lot of veterans that could be signed to reasonable or overpaid (if desperate enough) one or two year contracts rather than long-term cap-harmful contracts.

In the past, the Cowboys front office tried year after year to win by retaining as many of their players as possible which led to salary cap hell year after year filled with overpaid contracts and millions in dead money. They finally started to think beyond the current season like most of the other successful teams. What this does though is put the success or failure of each season more on the front office and coaching staff rather than the players. The best teams trust in their front office and coaching staffs to weather the loss of players without hampering the team's success. Basically, it's time for the Cowboys front office and coaching staff to prove themselves and so far, with this new strategy the last couple of seasons, I think there is obvious reason to be optimistic for a change.

Oh, so you're into realism.

Refreshing.

 

[Thefeelofcotton]

NFL teams have to be thinking two or more years in advance. If they only worry about the short term you end up with teams like the Commanders who were good for one year and have been complete let downs since. Teams like the Patriots plan ahead to replace players like Bruschi, Wilfolk, etc because they've already planned for their departure. The Cowboys are starting to do the same with the way they have been drafting.

 

[5Stars]

Oh, so you're into realism.

Refreshing.

lol Sometimes he is.

 

[Nightman]

There have been a lot of discussions and concern about the loss of several players from last year, just like there was the year before when we lost other players like Ware, Ratliff, Hatcher, etc. Unfortunately, that is the consequence of having a salary cap. It sometimes means you have to let players go while they can still help your team, but it also helps keep teams from holding on to players too long. It's a normalization process that is tough to deal with as fans, especially when it comes to the extreme ends of that spectrum.

When players' rookie contracts are up, you have to weigh their importance to the team beyond the first season after that. Would Murray be worthy 8 million this year? Absolutely, but would he be worth 8 million next year or the year after that? Not sure about that. Would Parnell be worth $5-6 million this year? What about next year or the year after that? What about Harris? or Carter?

The point is that everyone complaining or concerned about players that we should have resigned for a lot of money this year are only thinking about this season. A lot of the fans who are complaining or pointing out the loss of players as potential season-killing moves would also be the same ones complaining in 2016, 2017, etc. about how Jerry and Co. have poorly managed the salary cap by giving out horrible contracts to backup or declining players. This scenario would be amplified if the Cowboys were to have overpaid for Murray, Harris, Parnell, Spencer, Carter, etc. and then failed to make it to the Super Bowl this or next season.

Am I concerned about finding replacements for the players we lost? Absolutely! Will at the end of the season I look back and blame a non-great year on the loss of those players? Not at all. Why? Because it's not like the Cowboys season was doomed by the loss of those players. Instead, it would mean they did a poor job of replacing them when you consider they had players already on the roster that they had inside knowledge of in their ability to replace the players not resigned and beyond that, they had free agency, the draft and the upcoming post-training camp cuts that will include a lot of veterans that could be signed to reasonable or overpaid (if desperate enough) one or two year contracts rather than long-term cap-harmful contracts.

In the past, the Cowboys front office tried year after year to win by retaining as many of their players as possible which led to salary cap hell year after year filled with overpaid contracts and millions in dead money. They finally started to think beyond the current season like most of the other successful teams. What this does though is put the success or failure of each season more on the front office and coaching staff rather than the players. The best teams trust in their front office and coaching staffs to weather the loss of players without hampering the team's success. Basically, it's time for the Cowboys front office and coaching staff to prove themselves and so far, with this new strategy the last couple of seasons, I think there is obvious reason to be optimistic for a change.

It's too easy to say people worried about the Murray's and Parnell's are only thinking about this year and it is also not true.

The myth of DAL ever being in cap trouble is one of the most overblown tales around Cowboy Nation. The cap stayed flat at 122m from 2009 to 2013, that was the cause of any discomfort. The cap has gone up 20m in the last 2 years. DAL isn't getting better at contracts.

DAL has improved their drafting immensely but that also means they can take more chances with re-signs. No one was begging to the team to go on a FA spending spree(outside a Suh or Hardy thread or two) but re-signing guys that performed like Murray should be a no-brainer. Parnell showed enough to be extended but the price got a high for a backup but it was still cheaper than what we gave Free.

DAL is still 10m under the cap after accounting for Hardy and they didn't even touch Carr's deal. The next couple years are the window for Romo and getting cheap now is foolish. One, the cap is guaranteed to rise in the next few years and two, we are too close to risk it. Being frugal with be worthless when we lose Romo.

 

[5Stars]

How long will Romo play?

Is the window now or later?

So while we all have our opinions, the clock on Romo's is the arbiter of what is and what isn't. Because this franchise will not pull a top flight QB out of a hat like a magician if and when Romo is done. And what we have seen in the past is a QB in Aikman who went down hill so rapidly it was shocking. Irvin is another player - albeit not a QB - who dropped off the NFL map with one play.

I do agree with your premise on cap and all that. Yet it takes one moment in time for this team to have solid support players and no leader.

Hence the concern with the now and not the later for some of us.

Because this Dallas Cowboy solar system rotates around the sun named Romo.

Well, one good thing about Romo is that he was not all beat up when he was learning, he almost did not make the team but QC left and that opened up a spot. So, he was a little older but not as beat up when he started. Little did he know what was coming? lol

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

It's too easy to say people worried about the Murray's and Parnell's are only thinking about this year and it is also not true.

The myth of DAL ever being in cap trouble is one of the most overblown tales around Cowboy Nation. The cap stayed flat at 122m from 2009 to 2013, that was the cause of any discomfort. The cap has gone up 20m in the last 2 years. DAL isn't getting better at contracts.

DAL has improved their drafting immensely but that also means they can take more chances with re-signs. No one was begging to the team to go on a FA spending spree(outside a Suh or Hardy thread or two) but re-signing guys that performed like Murray should be a no-brainer. Parnell showed enough to be extended but the price got a high for a backup but it was still cheaper than what we gave Free.

DAL is still 10m under the cap after accounting for Hardy and they didn't even touch Carr's deal. The next couple years are the window for Romo and getting cheap now is foolish. One, the cap is guaranteed to rise in the next few years and two, we are too close to risk it. Being frugal with be worthless when we lose Romo.

It is the farthest thing from a no-brainer. There are certainly arguments that could be made. You've made many of them well and I agree with a lot of your view on the situation. But to act as if there weren't real and significant reasons to abstain from paying an older back with an extensive injury history coming off a season where he had nearly 500 touches is not an apt description of the decision.

 

[jobberone]

Not keeping Ware or resigning Murray for too much money along with others IS a sign of cap restraint by the Cowboys despite the claims of some. It's not rocket science. Not signing too many FAs as well as spending money on finding UDFAs and lower round picks is also part of the plan.

 

[Reality]

How long will Romo play?

Is the window now or later?

So while we all have our opinions, the clock on Romo's is the arbiter of what is and what isn't. Because this franchise will not pull a top flight QB out of a hat like a magician if and when Romo is done. And what we have seen in the past is a QB in Aikman who went down hill so rapidly it was shocking. Irvin is another player - albeit not a QB - who dropped off the NFL map with one play.

I do agree with your premise on cap and all that. Yet it takes one moment in time for this team to have solid support players and no leader.

Hence the concern with the now and not the later for some of us.

Because this Dallas Cowboy solar system rotates around the sun named Romo.

I used to follow the "how many years do the best players on the team have" philosophy, but experience over time has taught me that when you plan the upcoming season around your top 1-3 players, you usually lose for other reasons. For example, if a team overpays and sacrifices the next 2-3 seasons to win now, and they don't win or even make it to a Super Bowl, they then have a salary cap nightmare that will severely limit their potential for years to come.

Think about last season. We let Ware, Hatcher, etc. go, but could have easily said, "Romo's only got 2-3 years left so let's keep/resign them" and then had issues resigning Dez or other players. Romo has been great even before last year, but ultimately, this team has to be focused on the team, not just Romo. If we overpaid Murray for the next 3-4 years just to get a great year this season and either he gets hurt or one or more of our other "best" players gets hurt, we would then have salary cap issues for the next few years and basically got nothing for it.

Ultimately, NFL teams have to think beyond the current season to be successful, while we fans tend to focus more on this season. It's even worse when you have one or two top NFL players who are beyond 30 years old and you can hear the clock ticking. Unfortunately, that's life within the salary-capped NFL.

 

[5Stars]

I used to follow the "how many years do the best players on the team have" philosophy, but experience over time has taught me that when you plan the upcoming season around your top 1-3 players, you usually lose for other reasons. For example, if a team overpays and sacrifices the next 2-3 seasons to win now, and they don't win or even make it to a Super Bowl, they then have a salary cap nightmare that will severely limit their potential for years to come.

Think about last season. We let Ware, Hatcher, etc. go, but could have easily said, "Romo's only got 2-3 years left so let's keep/resign them" and then had issues resigning Dez or other players. Romo has been great even before last year, but ultimately, this team has to be focused on the team, not just Romo. If we overpaid Murray for the next 3-4 years just to get a great year this season and either he gets hurt or one or more of our other "best" players gets hurt, we would then have salary cap issues for the next few years and basically got nothing for it.

Ultimately, NFL teams have to think beyond the current season to be successful, while we fans tend to focus more on this season. It's even worse when you have one or two top NFL players who are beyond 30 years old and you can hear the clock ticking. Unfortunately, that's life within the salary-capped NFL.

This is fun...this is an experience. It will be exciting to see this team even if they don't win the SB this year. But, they might have a real good chance to afford the smart players that need a job.

 

[Reality]

It's too easy to say people worried about the Murray's and Parnell's are only thinking about this year and it is also not true.

The myth of DAL ever being in cap trouble is one of the most overblown tales around Cowboy Nation. The cap stayed flat at 122m from 2009 to 2013, that was the cause of any discomfort. The cap has gone up 20m in the last 2 years. DAL isn't getting better at contracts.

DAL has improved their drafting immensely but that also means they can take more chances with re-signs. No one was begging to the team to go on a FA spending spree(outside a Suh or Hardy thread or two) but re-signing guys that performed like Murray should be a no-brainer. Parnell showed enough to be extended but the price got a high for a backup but it was still cheaper than what we gave Free.

DAL is still 10m under the cap after accounting for Hardy and they didn't even touch Carr's deal. The next couple years are the window for Romo and getting cheap now is foolish. One, the cap is guaranteed to rise in the next few years and two, we are too close to risk it. Being frugal with be worthless when we lose Romo.

And what happens if during the season, they lose one or more highly paid players and need to replace them? What happens next season if a top tier player is available via trade or free agency? Smart teams don't stay right at the salary cap because any moves require extending contracts or players who will never finish them that will ultimately damage the team even more in the future.

I agree that the salary cap situation is always overblown in the media and as such with fans, but it still does not change the fact that teams have to be smart and forward-thinking with their salary cap if they want to be able to not only sign new players, but more importantly to be able to pay much larger resigning contracts to their existing players who are currently still under rookie contracts.

Madden and fantasy sports have created a "must win now, screw the future" mentality, but fortunately most NFL teams think long term, not just now.

 

[WPBCowboysFan]

Because this Dallas Cowboy solar system rotates around the sun named Romo.

We better hope he has learned to win when it matters most, when its win or go home, and hope he can play in those big audience tv games then.

 

[Nightman]

It is the farthest thing from a no-brainer. There are certainly arguments that could be made. You've made many of them well and I agree with a lot of your view on the situation. But to act as if there weren't real and significant reasons to abstain from paying an older back with an extensive injury history coming off a season where he had nearly 500 touches is not an apt description of the decision.

We are a worse team with McFadden instead of Murray. That was a strictly financial decision.

If we kept Murray we would still have Randle and Dunbar. That is what we have now but they would be depth instead of starters.

The Cap is going up. It is simple math. Now was not the time to get cheap.

 

[Reality]

We are a worse team with McFadden instead of Murray. That was a strictly financial decision.

If we kept Murray we would still have Randle and Dunbar. That is what we have now but they would be depth instead of starters.

The Cap is going up. It is simple math. Now was not the time to get cheap.

Are we a worse team this season without Murray? At this point, I definitely agree with you. Would we be a better team with an overpaid Murray in 2016, 2017 and 2018? I really don't think so. As I said, teams have to think beyond one season. It's easy for us as fans to think only about this year, but if they had paid Murray $8+ million per season for 4-5 years, and then he rushed for only 1,000 to 1,200 yards this season or he got injured, there would be a huge anti-Jerry/Garrett rampage by fans claiming "they should have known", "they were stupid to overpay for a one-year wonder", etc.

Unfortunately, it does mean the team is worse off without him this season, at least right now it appears so (there is still a chance that changes once we see our full team on the field), but no matter what happens this year, I will be glad we are not locked into a declining and injury-plagued running back for 2-3 years after this season.

 

[Nightman]

And what happens if during the season, they lose one or more highly paid players and need to replace them? What happens next season if a top tier player is available via trade or free agency? Smart teams don't stay right at the salary cap because any moves require extending contracts or players who will never finish them that will ultimately damage the team even more in the future.

I agree that the salary cap situation is always overblown in the media and as such with fans, but it still does not change the fact that teams have to be smart and forward-thinking with their salary cap if they want to be able to not only sign new players, but more importantly to be able to pay much larger resigning contracts to their existing players who are currently still under rookie contracts.

Madden and fantasy sports have created a "must win now, screw the future" mentality, but fortunately most NFL teams think long term, not just now.

I've studied the cap more than most. My name isn't Adam but the cap isn't that complicated once you learn the tricks.

If Murray got hurt we would still have Randle. That is good drafting.

We can also lose Carr, Free and Claiborne next year. We drafted BJones and Green already to help replace them.

Hardy and TCrawford are the big FAs next year, but with a couple pen strokes we are 40m under the cap.

We are 10m under the cap right now, if we roll over 5m that is great for next year, but it could've been Murray this year.

 

[Reality]

I've studied the cap more than most. My name isn't Adam but the cap isn't that complicated once you learn the tricks.

If Murray got hurt we would still have Randle. That is good drafting.

So, you're saying if we resigned Murray, but lost Murray, we would still have Randle? Well, good news! We lost Murray, but we do indeed still have Randle so we're all set

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

We are a worse team with McFadden instead of Murray. That was a strictly financial decision.

If we kept Murray we would still have Randle and Dunbar. That is what we have now but they would be depth instead of starters.

The Cap is going up. It is simple math. Now was not the time to get cheap.

That's fine. But that doesn't mean that it was an easy decision. What actually happened and the sheer amount of discussion over it is ample evidence of there being more than one side to the story. There were substantial reasons to bring him back and significant reasons to not bring him back. Arguing totally in one direction or another is misguided.