Attention Dak Haters: His Criticism is like Aaron Rodgers’

[Legend]

So would you rather have Dak over AR?

Yes since AR is towards the end of his career and has a massive contract at $33.5M a year.

Can instead use that $ for #1 WR, #2 WR, TE, etc.

 

[Blitzen]

Yes since AR is towards the end of his career and has a massive contract at $33.5M a year.

Can instead use that $ for #1 WR, #2 WR, TE, etc.

Not if Dak gets $20 plus million per season coming up, unless you happen to draft them all. Just saying.

 

[BoysForLife]

Yes, consistency is needed. But for so many of the Dak detractors , when Dak does poorly it's "that's what he is". When he does good, it's "well, it's just one game".

Can't have it both ways. Frankly I think the "that's what he is" has more evidence at this point, but the thing is, IF he can get better, how long will it take? Will Jerry keep him around and see if he can develop, or will he look at Dak at the end of the year and say "I don't think he'll get better".

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I'm acknowledging that he played well vs Jax but after several bad to awful outings in a row, it's going to take more than just one good game to convince me and a lot of people

Otherwise people of my viewpoint are in a no-win situation because we have to keep saying Dak is awful and are unable to acknowledge his good performances when they happen. I don't want to do that, I want to just be able to accurately assess what I'm seeing on the field

noting that he played well yesterday and at the same time stating that this needs to become the rule rather than the exception is not having it both ways I think it's just an accurate assessment

 

[Sydla]

Yes, consistency is needed. But for so many of the Dak detractors , when Dak does poorly it's "that's what he is". When he does good, it's "well, it's just one game".

Can't have it both ways. Frankly I think the "that's what he is" has more evidence at this point, but the thing is, IF he can get better, how long will it take? Will Jerry keep him around and see if he can develop, or will he look at Dak at the end of the year and say "I don't think he'll get better".

That's really the question at this point. The best way to describe Dak is he is inconsistent and has been for the last two seasons. He can look good one game, he can look off the next. This year, alone, he's been good in 3, really bad in 3. Last year kind of plays out like that as well.

Personally, what would you do with Dak in terms of a contract? Would you sign him to a long term deal given what you've seen?

Certainly he can get better, or more specifically, get more consistent. But will he? And will he in time to warrant handing him a big contract?

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Problem #1: Dak ain't Aaron Rodgers.

No, but he doesn't have to be based on

That's really the question at this point. The best way to describe Dak is he is inconsistent and has been for the last two seasons. He can look good one game, he can look off the next. This year, alone, he's been good in 3, really bad in 3. Last year kind of plays out like that as well.

Personally, what would you do with Dak in terms of a contract? Would you sign him to a long term deal given what you've seen?

Certainly he can get better, or more specifically, get more consistent. But will he? And will he in time to warrant handing him a big contract?

He has skills, personally I think he can improve to the point that if the defense is solid and the running game is solid, he can play well enough to win a SB - sort of like Brad Johnson, e.g. But part of his skill set is running the ball, that will likely shorten his career as well as make him more likely to miss critical games.

I'd offer him a 4 year deal, heavily incentive based, but not top money. How much money? I don't know, maybe around $6 million a year. And put an option in that if he really improves, he can re-negotiate for a higher salary. If he truly believes he's good enough, or can be good enough, that type of contract let's him "bet on himself".

But nothing should be done until the end of this year....

 

[Sydla]

No, but he doesn't have to be based on


He has skills, personally I think he can improve to the point that if the defense is solid and the running game is solid, he can play well enough to win a SB - sort of like Brad Johnson, e.g. But part of his skill set is running the ball, that will likely shorten his career as well as make him more likely to miss critical games.

I'd offer him a 4 year deal, heavily incentive based, but not top money. How much money? I don't know, maybe around $6 million a year. And put an option in that if he really improves, he can re-negotiate for a higher salary. If he truly believes he's good enough, or can be good enough, that type of contract let's him "bet on himself".

But nothing should be done until the end of this year....

$6MM a year? Backups make more than that. Mid-level QBs are making over $15MM a year. Tyrod Taylor is making like $15MM a year, for example. So now that you know you may have to pay Dak $15-20MM a year, how do you feel now?

And you highlighted where our difference is in this debate. I don't want a Brad Johnson type. I want a better QB than that. The Brad Johnson's of the world are few and far between when talking about a team with high level, consistent success.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I'm acknowledging that he played well vs Jax but after several bad to awful outings in a row, it's going to take more than just one good game to convince me and a lot of people

Otherwise people of my viewpoint are in a no-win situation because we have to keep saying Dak is awful and are unable to acknowledge his good performances when they happen. I don't want to do that, I want to just be able to accurately assess what I'm seeing on the field

noting that he played well yesterday and at the same time stating that this needs to become the rule rather than the exception is not having it both ways I think it's just an accurate assessment

lets not forget, he still didn't break the 200 yard barrier, even when he was trying, as he had an awful 3rd quarter....and a lot of his yards, came on broken plays, not designed plays and Jax not containing him.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I'm acknowledging that he played well vs Jax but after several bad to awful outings in a row, it's going to take more than just one good game to convince me and a lot of people

Otherwise people of my viewpoint are in a no-win situation because we have to keep saying Dak is awful and are unable to acknowledge his good performances when they happen. I don't want to do that, I want to just be able to accurately assess what I'm seeing on the field

noting that he played well yesterday and at the same time stating that this needs to become the rule rather than the exception is not having it both ways I think it's just an accurate assessment

Not saying you have to have it both ways, only that in a general sense that isn't a good viewpoint.

But we notice he plays well when Zeke rushes for over 20 carries (I'm leaving out the Giants win, Giants are so terrible, he didn't need to rush over 20 times). I don't see that having a consistent running game and solid defense is an unrealistic expectation for t his team. Yes most SB winning teams have a very highly rated quarterback, but for the Cowboys to get one of those would mean losing a lot of games, and while the rookie learns the game, good players will probably leave for better salaries or due to age, and the new quarterback won't have a good offense and defense around him. I'd just prefer, if Dak gets better by the end of this year, to continue to build the defense and the o-line and get a better receiver, rather than start over new...

 

[LACowboysFan1]

The Brad Johnson's of the world are few and far between when talking about a team with high level, consistent success.

That's true, but this team is already set up to try to win with that type of quarterback, again I don't see trading away top players to draft a quarterback very high, which most people say you HAVE to do to get a top one, would result in a lot better success than we have now.

Again, I'm talking right now, at the end of the year I'll re-evaluate...

 

[LACowboysFan1]

$6MM a year? Backups make more than that. Mid-level QBs are making over $15MM a year. Tyrod Taylor is making like $15MM a year, for example. So now that you know you may have to pay Dak $15-20MM a year, how do you feel now?

And you highlighted where our difference is in this debate. I don't want a Brad Johnson type. I want a better QB than that. The Brad Johnson's of the world are few and far between when talking about a team with high level, consistent success.

Some quarterbacks making around $6 mil a year, from Over the Cap:
Jared Goff Rams $6,984,418
Carson Wentz Eagles $6,669,085
Jameis Winston Buccaneers $6,337,819
Marcus Mariota Titans $6,053,494

Of the quarterbacks $15 mil a year or more, the vast majority of them are long term NFL vets. Dak is in year 3, don't think even he would say he's earned that type of money.
Even going to $8-10 mil a year is doable if the contract is done right.
But to directly answer your question, no, Dak isn't worth $15-20 mil....

 

[Sydla]

Some quarterbacks making around $6 mil a year, from Over the Cap:
Jared Goff Rams $6,984,418
Carson Wentz Eagles $6,669,085
Jameis Winston Buccaneers $6,337,819
Marcus Mariota Titans $6,053,494

Of the quarterbacks $15 mil a year or more, the vast majority of them are long term NFL vets. Dak is in year 3, don't think even he would say he's earned that type of money.
Even going to $8-10 mil a year is doable if the contract is done right.
But to directly answer your question, no, Dak isn't worth $15-20 mil....

Huh?

Those are rookie contracts. They have no bearing here. Dak is on his rookie deal now and will be looking at his first vet contract in a season.

You aren't getting Dak for $8MM a year. Again, look at the average vet QB contract............ that's what Dak will be looking at earning.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Huh?

Those are rookie contracts. They have no bearing here. Dak is on his rookie deal now and will be looking at his first vet contract in a season.

You aren't getting Dak for $8MM a year. Again, look at the average vet QB contract............ that's what Dak will be looking at earning.

Nearly all of the vets making the $15 or more are long term vets, Dak is only in his 3rd year. And as far as "aren't getting Dak for $8 mil", if he's as terrible as most here say, he won't get over $8 mil anywhere else, right? So he plays for the $8 mil or goes to being out of the league...

 

[BoysForLife]

I'd just prefer, if Dak gets better by the end of this year, to continue to build the defense and the o-line and get a better receiver, rather than start over new...

Speaking only for myself, I might be open to that possibility but I'd have to see a lot more consistency out of Dak week to week.
And also the price tag would be a factor.

if he improves a lot and we can lock him up for reasonable type money then yes, I'm open to that.
If we need to pay him Russell Wilson type money for Dak Prescott type production, then we need to draft another QB and start over, no questions asked.

The one silver lining out of this deal is that Dak's inconsistent performances over the past year and a half have lowered his bargaining stock considerably.
if it does turn out that they'd like to keep him around they absolutely should be able to do it at a much better price than people were thinking after 2016.

 

[Sydla]

Nearly all of the vets making the $15 or more are long term vets, Dak is only in his 3rd year. And as far as "aren't getting Dak for $8 mil", if he's as terrible as most here say, he won't get over $8 mil anywhere else, right? So he plays for the $8 mil or goes to being out of the league...

I am not sure you understand how contracts work. Once a QB gets beyond his rookie deal, he gets paid way more than his rookie deal unless he just sucked and never amounted to anything.

Take Andy Dalton. He now makes $16MM on average. His rookie deal paid him around $1.3MM a year for three years. Then he got a new contract that paid him $16MM a year. Derek Carr was paid around $1.3MM a year for his first three years, then got a new deal what pays him almost $25MM a year.

A QB is a "vet" the moment he goes beyond his rookie deal. Guys like Wentz and Goff are going to get deals in the next 2 years that will dwarf what they are paid now and likely will be two of the highest paid QBs in football.

And if the Dallas Cowboys think Dak Prescott is only worth $8MM a year, guess what? Then the Dallas Cowboys don't think Dak Prescott is a very good QB. If Dallas thinks he's a good QB, they are going to have to pay him way more than $8MM.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

I am not sure you understand how contracts work. Once a QB gets beyond his rookie deal, he gets paid way more than his rookie deal unless he just sucked and never amounted to anything.

I do know how contracts work, don't worry about that. Certainly after their rookie contract quarterbacks get lots more money.

But my contract was a hypothetical one, I said I'd offer that, not that it would do it. Gotta start low and go up from there....

 

[Runwildboys]

Why do I keep hearing the phrase, "in his own mind"?

 

[Legend]

Some quarterbacks making around $6 mil a year, from Over the Cap:
Jared Goff Rams $6,984,418
Carson Wentz Eagles $6,669,085
Jameis Winston Buccaneers $6,337,819
Marcus Mariota Titans $6,053,494

Of the quarterbacks $15 mil a year or more, the vast majority of them are long term NFL vets. Dak is in year 3, don't think even he would say he's earned that type of money.
Even going to $8-10 mil a year is doable if the contract is done right.
But to directly answer your question, no, Dak isn't worth $15-20 mil....

I agree Dak is not worth $15M-$20M a season. I think a 5 year $60M (fully guaranteed) contract may be reasonable...