Discussion in 'Overtime Zone' started by Bluestang, Aug 9, 2014.
You left out the fans.
You may want to listen the "The Fan" Interview where Romo first spoke about how he got hurt in the GB game. The WAS game was the final straw after the numerous hits and then the pull at the foot that finally gave way.
First of all, Dallas had no business trading up for one player because they were not one player away from being SB contenders. Draft charts are inconsistent from team to team. There is no unified standard within the league because each team has their own charts they they go by. So yea according to Dallas' draft charts, the trade was good because it was "their" chart to begin with. I have feeling that St Louis also came on top of the trade as well based on their own charts too. Win, win!
In sample size of six games, Romo had 11/7 TD/int ratio. Do you really want to interpolate that to a 16 game season? Considering that he only had 9 ints the year before....
32 team do not restructure their contracts. If you can provide the proof that all of them do, then please post it.
Yes some team do it as well to get under the cap, but again your pushing more money into the future and making the price to cut that player higher in the future. Dallas routinely does it because they are over the cap and have to get under it before the league year starts. That's the definition of cap hell.
Even though the cap goes up, pushing more money into the future negates that increase that the team will see because now they have less money available because it's tied into future years.
Austin could have been a about $3M cut this year, but the 2013 restructure turned it into a $7M cut instead.
Or if we could fleece a team like you say they did Washington. We have not fleeced anyone since Jimmy Johnson left the building.
He has, with the drunk "Romo is was a miracle" thing in the bar, the *********, the secret sauce, the latest photos. The guy has lost it.
You have to have something to lose it.
My response is not to suggest that our personnel moves could not be improved upon. There is always room for improvement and THAT more than anything IMO is the key to improving our front-line talent and roster depth. Still every club makes mistakes. Yet here it seems implied that they are all avoidable. The criticism of Claiborne is a good example IMO. Claiborne was an undisputed solid value where he was picked - just like Tyron Smith. None are guaranteed. You may have preferred Brockers/Wagner but its unfair to say Dallas talent eval is weak for picking Claiborne at #6. If no credit is due for picking Tyron, no blame is due for picking Claiborne.
Okay, point by point.
A - I'm not sure what the point of this statement is. No one else besides Tyron & Dez? Obviously not true. There have absolutely been failings, like every club. Are we disproportionately less effective in the draft. Name your time period - build a comparative case. Then we can talk.
B - Dez trade-up = BINGO! Claiborne trade-up = heartache. Frederick/Williams trade down = BINGO! Lawrence trade-up = ? I guess I don't see a compelling case that we are routinely blowing it on that front.
C - Is the point we should have done it sooner? This kind of logic doesn't make sense to me unless you can point out where we have talent gluts that should have been invested elsewhere. But we don't.
D - see opening paragraph - we picked him at the consensus slot representing his perceived value.
E - Now Murray gets dismissed because the O-line is getting all the yardage? Hmmm, seems a little disingenuous.
F - Again the primary point seems to be that we should have young talent waiting to take over at every position. Fine. But that point is really about talent evaluation. We HAVE to get better at that IMO. Otherwise I think we're chasing our tail. I just don't buy the point that we grossly neglect certain positions at the expense of others. Point to Escobar - but then it can be argued we're preparing for the decline of our 12 yr vet HOF TE. And lets not forget BAA as a factor in drafting.
To me the far and away most important point is you have to make draft picks and FA signings count (yours and other teams). THAT is about talent evaluation far more than anything else. But I don't buy tha we're compounding things significantly by wasting picks on positions that have no need.
Why stop there? We aren't two players away from a superbowl either. Maybe we should continue to trade down until we have only 4-7th round picks?
Should we have taken Tyron Smith at 9th overall? We weren't one LT away from a superbowl.
There's no GM that I know of that would say you should never trade up in the draft unless you are one player away from a superbowl. It's a risk/reward calculation. The advantage of the higher picks is that you can obtain elite players that are near impossible to come by in free agency while trading down gives you the opportunity for more cost-controlled games under rookie contracts.
Not only does the Cowboys internal board say we won but most of the boards that were available at the time seemed to suggest we got good value.
Under Garret we have finished in the top five in passing TDs four times and top ten six times.
I haven't cruched the numbers yet but we are probably a top 3 team in terms of passing TDs over that span.
Why not include Kitna's numbers with that? He went 16/12 TD/INT
That puts you at 27 TDs 19ints with Kitna and Romo. Drew Brees went for 33TDs and 22 ints that year while Manning went for 33tds and 17 ints. Consider Kitna is basically a career backup that's pretty good.
In 2010 we were 11th in offensive yards per drive and 11th in offensive points per drive. Defensively we were 24th in yards per drive allowed and 28th in points per drive allowed. Clear what the problem is there.
In part the reason why Garrett is not regarded that well as an offensive coordinator is due to the lack of rushing TDs which bog down our overall point totals. I tend to blame the OL more then Garrett however.
-peyton manning restructures
"General manager Ozzie Newsome said that he’s open to restructuring a few deals for specific players but he’s not going to give everyone what they want."
That's 27/32 teams. I could not find recent restructures for:
If you really went back and searched the archives you could probably find them. These are mostly non competitive teams so they have no need to restructure. Seattle will have to restructure some contracts down the road. Pretty much every competitive team restructures at least some contracts.
Regardless it is simply not the case that contract reshuffling is unique to Dallas. That extra 4 million you cite on the Austin contract while a mistake is not exactly crippling. You also have to take into account that you can probably make that up with some smart restructures that take advantage of cap inflation. While you do incur some risk you also gain immediate flexibility and even an overall cap advantage if it works out.
We are ten million under the cap right now after signing Tyron Smith to a 100 million dollar contract. That's with 24 million in dead money which will largely be coming off the books next year. We will probably have to take our lumps on defense this year but we will definitely be in a position to make some moves in the near future. Cap hell is an overstatement.
I would argue what has hurt the Cowboys most is not dead money but inefficient use of funds on the defensive side of the ball. The Cowboys actually had there cap space allocated 50/50 last year for offense/defense. The problem has been that although the Cowboys have had good individual performers on defense it has not translated into good overall team defense.
And how are we supposed to be able to do that with Jerry taking advice from Lacewell on defensive coordinators and Jason just sitting back and smiling the whole time.
Or Stephen doling out contracts that require restructures the next year so that the team can get under the cap and then has to wait until the FA market settles a week later and get guys that nobody else wants.
This organization is poorly structured from the top, and guess what...it's trickled down all the way to the bottom.
This is really good news. Perhaps we can blow it all on a ridiculous contract for another CB like Brandon Carr.
We can do whatever we want in free agency. So, you are right.
Yep. That's a lot easier to do when you've got the second pick overall in a draft and a team is desperate for a QB.
By the time half the teams in the league have passed on a guy, you look silly asking for the three #1s.
But I'm all for it if and when we can swing it. Even lower percentage middle round picks help you diversify draft risk.
Now you've taken the argument into a ridiculous notion. Your better than that so don't try to twist my argument.
I'm probably right in the line of thinking that a top OT prospect is valued much higher than a top CB prospect.
And yet still Garrett has tendencies to disregard the run, even when it's working to the pass. Jason may be a good HC at some point in his career, but his track record right now isn't that great. He may need to get more experience from a veteran HC to learn the finer points of calling plays and managing a team.
Think of this way, if we had $24M available instead of it being dead money now, where would this defense be with a few quality FAs.
Factor in if Carr is cut after this year, that is more dead money that is going to get piled on in 2015 and 2016 (if a June 1 cut) - thats $12.151M
Do you see the cycle yet? Restructuring contracts is not a good idea, moreso if you keep doing it every year.
Claiborne may very well gone above Smith if they were in the same draft. Patrick Peterson went above Smith and Claiborne was consider a better overall CB prospect with Peterson being the better overall athelete/returner.
Fans continue to stick to the 'win in the trenches' meme but clearly NFL GMs disagree about the value of corners. Otherwise they wouldn't make the kind of money they do.
What I would point out is that when we have had good OL play the rushing TDs have come. In 2007 it was the Barbarian and last year there was a big jump from the previous 3-4 years with Frederick coming into the pictures. We will see how they do with Martin.
That 24 million is not mostly due to restructuring. It's due to guys sustaining injuries and natural decline.
It's part of the risk of FA. The amount of players that sign on the first few days of FA that actually play out their contracts are slim to none. It's much more likely then not that the player will be cut prior to ending the contract.
Even if we had the money and we signed Free Agents as you have suggested odds are that eventually we would be eating those contracts as well. Just like we will probably end up eating some of the Carr contract sooner or later. It doesn't matter who your GM is either. Free agency is really a tradeoff between how much I want help now and how much contract I am willing to eat 5 years from now.
The key is to know when to go all in and when to fold.
Well we will have flexibility next year. They do have a chance to reallocate some cap resources so hopefully they will do a better job then from 2010-2013.
I would much rather see them spread it out and sign 4-5 middle of the road types rather then invest a ton in one or two marquee players. We will see.
As long as we do not knee jerk like we did with Carr, I am all for it.
I had to re-read this a few times. The good GMs absolutely believe in "you win in the trenches". How are the Cardinals doing these days? Winning with Peterson? How are they competing against the likes of the Seahawks and 49ers these days?
The Seahawks had a dominant OL and DL, the Ravens did too, the Giants did too, so did the Packers, etc, etc. You don't build a winner without dominating the LOS. It's pretty clear cut.
All the big name cuts were restructured, with Ware doing the deed 3 times. Your not doing your research.
Lets look at who was cut:
Ware - http://espn.go.com/dallas/nfl/story/_/id/8996867/demarcus-ware-dallas-cowboy-restructures-contract
Ratliff - http://sportsblogs.star-telegram.co...restructuring-jay-ratliff-and-two-others.html
Austin - http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap10...austin-deal-leads-cowboys-restructuring-spree
Just those three guys accounts for a little more than $18M in dead money now.
But Austin added $4M extra, Ratliff ate an extra $3M, and then Ware was restructured 3 different time which accounts for his $8.8M dead money hit.
I'm pretty good at math and that comes out to $15.8M in those three guys alone.
Subtract that from the approximate $24M in dead money and you would have had $8.2M in dead money instead of $24M.
An extra $15.8M to spend on FA or to roll into next year...but were not in cap hell. ROFLMAO.
But you are now a fake fan and a hater.
Well, for your sake, I hope you are a typing toddler.
That's fine by me, because I don't need anyone telling me what kind of fan I am.
What does Lacewell's advice on DC's have to do with talent evaluation? And I'm not sure what Jason smiling the whole time is even referring to.
Regarding Stephen and the cap lets stop and think about that for a second. Restructures are really only a vehicle for moving cap hits from one year to another. And leftover cap room from one year can be rolled to the next. With those two facts as a premise restructures really aren't the problem are they? Rather, its spending beyond our current cap year means. Why would we need to do that? It suggests we are or have been overpaying our talent. And in particular since we are only producing 8-8 results but spending this year AND future years cap room to do so. Which brings us back once more to ... talent evaluation!
The rest of your points that I responded to (A-F) aren't really the issue. I'm not sure they're even issues at all.
Finding ALL the specific player roots of the problem are difficult. A complete washout on the 2009 draft would be a key piece. Add the Roy11 trade and contract. Barber's contract. Add in the 2008 draft that produced Felix, Jenkins, Bennett & Choice - Scandrick in Round 5 now looks like good value. Those are 3 major reasons why we end up having talent holes and future year cap borrowings.
Put all that at Jerry's feet. It belongs there.
But I think much of the rest that you are trying to call causes are really just inevitable outcomes of failed talent evaluations.
Great, great thread, Bluestang. Too bad it got dumped to the Rant Zone for some reason. It is more relevant than anything in the Fan Zone right now. Until these issues are fixed, the team will continue to flounder. It is so apparent, it is amazing how many people can't see it.
The team has no team building philosophy. They hop from problem to problem, scheme to scheme and it is mainly because they don't have a strong, knowledgeable voice at the top.
Sturm summed it best when he described the team as desperately running from hole to hole in the dam sticking their finger in a hole only to see another pop up. They never build depth and, frankly, how can they when they are wasting valuable 2nd round picks on back up tight ends......not once, but three times in 8 years. Just one small example of their misguided team building philosophy.