Adrian Peterson Now A Free Agent

[ABQCOWBOY]

Keeping Tony isn't about 5m in savings. It's about 14m in salary. The 5m is just accounting from already accrued costs.

No, that's not it. That money is spent and Tony is going to get whats owed him either way. The 5.1 is the real savings, the rest is already spent and there is no getting it back. However, the point remains that you still gotta go get somebody to come in an back up and that's going to be a couple of million, even to just get a scrub. If you want somebody who can actually win you games, that's much more expensive and as I said before, we've seen what happens when we don't have a miracle Rookie or Tony at QB. Keeping Tony isn't just about 5.1 million. It's about deciding if you want to roll the dice and bet that Dak stays healthy the entire season or if you want to keep a QB like Tony in Dallas, who you know, if healthy, is better then your starter?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Running backs who had 1,000+ yards rushing at 32 or older since 1990:

Ricky Williams (32)
Emmitt Smith (32)
Mike Anderson (32)

No running back has rushed for 1,000+ yards at age 33 or older. Basically there is 0 reason to get excited about Adrian Peterson anymore.

Good info but honestly, even if he was younger, say 29, he wouldn't get 1000 yards in this offense. He wouldn't get enough carries, which is why there is no good reason to sing him IMO.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

And how does this help us? How does this constitute value, should that occur or should we have to consider 5 new guys? More importantly, how does that relate to AD signing here? I don't follow?

Personally Zekes 2nd contract is likely to be an overpay for past performance... So of he walks he walks. Hopefully we'll get a fat comp pick.

And I brought up Zeke being unlikely to willingly leave our offense because you brought up guys leaving if they can't be the man. I'm just pointing out how unlikely that is given our line.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

No, that's not it. That money is spent and Tony is going to get whats owed him either way. The 5.1 is the real savings, the rest is already spent and there is no getting it back. However, the point remains that you still gotta go get somebody to come in an back up and that's going to be a couple of million, even to just get a scrub. If you want somebody who can actually win you games, that's much more expensive and as I said before, we've seen what happens when we don't have a miracle Rookie or Tony at QB. Keeping Tony isn't just about 5.1 million. It's about deciding if you want to roll the dice and bet that Dak stays healthy the entire season or if you want to keep a QB like Tony in Dallas, who you know, if healthy, is better then your starter?

You're not understanding the cap. If we keep Tony we will have to pay him 14mm in new money that isn't already baked into the cake. The 5.1mm in savings is just accounting for if we take the full hit of Tony's accumulated cost today or make him a June 1st cut and split that accumulated cost over two years.

In a keep or go discussion we should only be worried about his base salary.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Personally Zekes 2nd contract is likely to be an overpay for past performance... So of he walks he walks. Hopefully we'll get a fat comp pick.

And I brought up Zeke being unlikely to willingly leave our offense because you brought up guys leaving if they can't be the man. I'm just pointing out how unlikely that is given our line.

It's not unlikely at all. It happens all the time but more to the point, you didn't answer the question. This argument is the same you can apply to Tony Romo, except with Tony, it's true. With AD, it's not. We have two guys on our roster right now that can give you production and those two, together, are likely cheaper then what it would cost to sign AD. You can't argue, on the one hand, that you sign AD because he gives you insurance and then argue against Tony because he's in the way. What's more important, a QB who can win you games or an expensive RB who can produce the same results as the guys you already have on the Roster?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It's not unlikely at all. It happens all the time but more to the point, you didn't answer the question. This argument is the same you can apply to Tony Romo, except with Tony, it's true. With AD, it's not. We have two guys on our roster right now that can give you production and those two, together, are likely cheaper then what it would cost to sign AD. You can't argue, on the one hand, that you sign AD because he gives you insurance and then argue against Tony because he's in the way. What's more important, a QB who can win you games or an expensive RB who can produce the same results as the guys you already have on the Roster?

Tony would be a 14mm backup. Ad would not. We'd only bring in AD on a team friendly deal. Romo's deal is not team friendly.

What about these situations are completely different don't you understand?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You're not understanding the cap. Of we keep Tony we will have to pay him 14mm in new money that isn't already baked into the cake. The 5.1mm in savings is just accounting for if we take the full hit of Tony's accumulated cost today or make him a June 1st cut and split that accumulated cost over two years.

In a keep or go discussion we should only be worried about his base salary.

Ah no. I don't think that's relevant at all. We owe Tony that money and he's going to get paid that base regardless. The only question is, does it all accelerate into one year, is it spread over two or what's the deal. That's money that is part of the guaranteed portion of his contract. Where do you see that base salary going?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Tony would be a 14mm backup. Ad would not. We'd only bring in AD on a team friendly deal. Romo's deal is not team friendly.

What about these situations are completely different don't you understand?

So then, the discussion is over. Tony gets 14 million as a backup or as a player playing for another team or for a guy sitting on his porch, drinking coffee and reading a newspaper all day. That is irrelevant to the discussion.

As for AD, what is team friendly? If it's the same or less then either Morris or DMC, then it's team friendly in my view and that's all good. If it's more, then it isn't and what would be the point of that. More importantly, that is never gonna happen IMO so yeah, this discussion is pretty much over.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Ah no. I don't think that's relevant at all. We owe Tony that money and he's going to get paid that base regardless. The only question is, does it all accelerate into one year, is it spread over two or what's the deal. That's money that is part of the guaranteed portion of his contract. Where do you see that base salary going?

We don't owe Tony a base of 14mm. That money is not guaranteed. Not at all.

You need to review Tony's contract.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

We don't owe Tony a base of 14mm. That money is not guaranteed. Not at all.

You need to review Tony's contract.

We owe Tony the remainder of whatever the 55 million guaranteed is. I see the point you are making, base for the season. However, so long as the guaranteed is paid, the base can be negotiated or restructured or whatever. The point being, you already know what happens if Dak goes down and Tony is gone. AD is not going to make a difference in that instance, one way or the other.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

We owe Tony the remainder of whatever the 55 million guaranteed is. I see the point you are making, base for the season. However, so long as the guaranteed is paid, the base can be negotiated or restructured or whatever. The point being, you already know what happens if Dak goes down and Tony is gone. AD is not going to make a difference in that instance, one way or the other.

Tony has already been paid all the guaranteed money on his contract. It's sitting in his bank account.

Keeping Tony puts another 14mm in his pocket. Money that we do not owe him at this moment in time.

As my first post on the topic of Tony's contract mentioned...everything else St this point is just accounting. The real decision is do we want to pay Tony an additional 14mm.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Tony has already been paid all the guaranteed money on his contract. It's sitting in his bank account.

Keeping Tony puts another 14mm in his pocket. Money that we do not owe him at this moment in time.

As my first post on the topic of Tony's contract mentioned...everything else St this point is just accounting. The real decision is do we want to pay Tony an additional 14mm.

Regardless, the point is that the argument is the same. In fact, it's even more weighted toward QB. If we lose Zeke and are forced to go with DMC and Morris, what happens?

If we lose Dak and do not have Tony, what happens? This thread is not about Tony. This thread is about signing AD.

There is no good reason to do that signing IMO. None.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Regardless, the point is that the argument is the same. In fact, it's even more weighted toward QB. If we lose Zeke and are forced to go with DMC and Morris, what happens?

If we lose Dak and do not have Tony, what happens? This thread is not about Tony. This thread is about signing AD.

There is no good reason to do that signing IMO. None.

How do you get the fundamental cost of Romo wrong...to the tune of an additional $14mm we would owe against the cap and say the argument is the same? Romo is an expensive backup who doesn't want to be a backup. AD would be a team friendly vet signing to be a backup with the understanding he's a backup.

The situations could not be more different.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

How do you get the fundamental cost of Romo wrong...to the tune of an additional $14mm we would owe against the cap and say the argument is the same? Romo is an expensive backup who doesn't want to be a backup. AD would be a team friendly vet signing to be a backup with the understanding he's a backup.

The situations could not be more different.

I have already told you that I understand what you are saying and that the base is not inclusive of the guaranteed. That was my error and I agreed. Now, once again, you can't make the argument that Tony is not needed because he can't be afforded and then turn around and say tht AD is. Get on the subject matter of the thread.

I am not saying Tony should be the backup or he shouldn't be. That is not my call and it's not yours either. What I am saying is that your arguments against Tony hold no water if you say, in the next breath, that we need to sign AD. That does not work on any level.