Bob Sturm: Still mad that Cowboys didn’t pay DeMarco? A look back at ‘insane’ deals Dallas did hand

[T-RO]

Funny.....

Because of us paying bums in the past and getting burned like jackasses. Real proven guys like Dez have to suffer, hell even Murray, who I think is an average back, deserves to get paid vs some of the past players we paid, mainly due to chemistry issues though.

Huh? Were you even around 5 or 7 years ago?

Marion Barber was a "real proven guy." !
Miles Austin was a "real proven guy" !
Jay Ratliff was a "real proven guy" !

All of them "deserved to get paid" if you want to approach it the that way.

But it was utter foolishness to give them those big contracts. You don't give a contract to "reward" past accomplishment but rather to secure future achievement. And beyond the issues of age/decline you have to ask what the big paycheck did to these guys and their motivation.

You don't pay a good-but-not-great running back a massive contract.
1. He's been perpetually hurt
2. He only had a big year when it was contract time
3. Running backs have already peaked and declined at his age.
4. Cowboys don't have the money

 

[Frozen700]

Huh? Were you even around 5 or 7 years ago?

Marion Barber was a "real proven guy." !
Miles Austin was a "real proven guy" !
Jay Ratliff was a "real proven guy" !

All of them "deserved to get paid" if you want to approach it the that way.

But it was utter foolishness to give them those big contracts. You don't give a contract to "reward" past accomplishment but rather to secure future achievement. And beyond the issues of age/decline you have to ask what the big paycheck did to these guys and their motivation.

You don't pay a good-but-not-great running back a massive contract.
1. He's been perpetually hurt
2. He only had a big year when it was contract time
3. Running backs have already peaked and declined at his age.
4. Cowboys don't have the money

You type all this as if I was for paying the bum named Murray.

I'm just saying he should have gotten a contract vs some of the bums we decided to lock up in the past. Like Ken Hamlin, Carr, Barber(Dude was not all that), Sensy, Free, ect ect

All certified bums.

 

[Cover 2]

Never overpay for a RB unless they're of the Peterson & Lynch variety.

Or if you're the Eagles, Commanders, or Giants

 

[guag]

What's funny is Dez actually deserves that money more than Calvin because he's more reliable, CJ can out jump 3 defenders for a td but then miss the next 3 games.

I've seen a few complain that Dez will be hot for a game but then "disappear" for the next few games. I don't buy that, I think there are only so many balls to go around on offense and you need to spread it around evenly to keep the defense guessing. I think Dez is just as valuable when the ball isn't going his way as he is when the ball does go his way.

 

[DandyDon52]

out...

Question: Are you surprised the Cowboys have taken such a hard line stance on negotiations with Dez and DeMarco? On one hand, I’ve heard people say why now after giving out so many extensions over the years but on the other hand, isn’t it good to see the Cowboys operate this way and being much smarter with their cap?

Bob Sturm: Yes! For sure. Look at the deals they handed out over the years. They gave Marion Barber a 7 year deal for $45m with $16m guaranteed before the 2008 season. That deal was to expire last season! How insane is that contract? DeMarco would have given anything for that offer. In 2009, they gave Roy Williams a 5 yr/$45m deal with almost $20m guaranteed. Insanity! In 2010, it was Miles Austin turn for 7 years, $54m with $17m guaranteed. In 2011, Jay Ratliff was 7/$49m with $17.5m in Guarantees. The Cowboys are realizing that too many of those deals to ok-but-not-elite players causes a top-heavy roster with no depth. Now, they are going in the opposite direction and following the lead of the “smart franchises” and i applaud them.

http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...ack-at-insane-deals-dallas-did-hand-out.html/

Well Barber was never that good, he never led the league in rushing or even came close. He never broke any records like a 58 year old 100+ game in a row record, did not break emmits single game record as a rookie etc etc.
It was a bad move to give Barber a big contract, and roy williams that whole thing was a joke.

So to not sign Murray because of past mistakes on other players, is not good logic.
Murray had played for low wages for 4 years and was big reason for the 12-4 record last year, so he was worth signing to a decent deal, also 4 years
is not a longterm contract.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Well Barber was never that good, he never led the league in rushing or even came close. He never broke any records like a 58 year old 100+ game in a row record, did not break emmits single game record as a rookie etc etc.
It was a bad move to give Barber a big contract, and roy williams that whole thing was a joke.

So to not sign Murray because of past mistakes on other players, is not good logic.
Murray had played for low wages for 4 years and was big reason for the 12-4 record last year, so he was worth signing to a decent deal, also 4 years
is not a longterm contract.

Who says the Cowboys didn't resign Murray due to the Barber fiasco?

Murray wasn't resigned because there's a mountain of supporting past history that shows backs of his age and extreme usage for one season start to have a declining performance.

You're of the opinion that he was worth signing to a "decent deal" (whatever the heck that is) and that a 4 year contract for a 27 yo back isn't a long-term contract. Well obviously the Cowboy braintrust disagrees as do many of your fellow posters.

One final thought... Retaining Murray probably would have killed the opportunity to sign Hardy.

 

[DandyDon52]

Who says the Cowboys didn't resign Murray due to the Barber fiasco?.........Duh the op?

Murray wasn't resigned because there's a mountain of supporting past history that shows backs of his age and extreme usage for one season start to have a declining performance...... then why did they offer him 4 year 24 mil deal?

You're of the opinion that he was worth signing to a "decent deal" (whatever the heck that is) and that a 4 year contract for a 27 yo back isn't a long-term contract. Well obviously the Cowboy braintrust disagrees as do many of your fellow posters. .......I get that and that is ok.

One final thought... Retaining Murray probably would have killed the opportunity to sign Hardy......... That could be, however had they signed murray to say 7 mil a year, and 18 G,, they could have done it so his cap this year was 5 mil. subtract DMC and you have 4 mil to make up somewhere.

I answered in your post.
But you know some wanted to keep murray and felt he would be as good this year as last, not maybe the yards or carries but performance.
Others didnt.
Have to see how he does this year , and how cowboys do running the ball.
At the end of the year we will know whether it was smart to let him go to philly.
Until we see how it all plays out , it is all speculation.

 

[jobberone]

I answered in your post.
But you know some wanted to keep murray and felt he would be as good this year as last, not maybe the yards or carries but performance.
Others didnt.
Have to see how he does this year , and how cowboys do running the ball.
At the end of the year we will know whether it was smart to let him go to philly.
Until we see how it all plays out , it is all speculation.

You can't look at this year but at least thru the guaranteed portion of his contract as well as the dead space should they cut him early.

 

[cowboyvic]

out...

Question: Are you surprised the Cowboys have taken such a hard line stance on negotiations with Dez and DeMarco? On one hand, I’ve heard people say why now after giving out so many extensions over the years but on the other hand, isn’t it good to see the Cowboys operate this way and being much smarter with their cap?

Bob Sturm: Yes! For sure. Look at the deals they handed out over the years. They gave Marion Barber a 7 year deal for $45m with $16m guaranteed before the 2008 season. That deal was to expire last season! How insane is that contract? DeMarco would have given anything for that offer. In 2009, they gave Roy Williams a 5 yr/$45m deal with almost $20m guaranteed. Insanity! In 2010, it was Miles Austin turn for 7 years, $54m with $17m guaranteed. In 2011, Jay Ratliff was 7/$49m with $17.5m in Guarantees. The Cowboys are realizing that too many of those deals to ok-but-not-elite players causes a top-heavy roster with no depth. Now, they are going in the opposite direction and following the lead of the “smart franchises” and i applaud them.

http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...ack-at-insane-deals-dallas-did-hand-out.html/

So let me get this right. because Jerry and his son had some bad past misevaluations on players they overrated. they should be cheap and keep letting their play makers go? that is dumb and stupid. and in the long run it will not work. you don't let your play making keep leaving.once again these reporters in the local DRW media, are serving as Lap Dogs for Jerry Jones and his son. you don't pay Murray and he walks. and now they seem to have a problem with paying Dez. this is not the way to win games.

 

[jobberone]

So let me get this right. because Jerry and his son had some bad past misevaluations on players they overrated. they should be cheap and keep letting their play makers go? that is dumb and stupid. and in the long run it will not work. you don't let your play making keep leaving.once again these reporters in the local DRW media, are serving as Lap Dogs for Jerry Jones and his son. you don't pay Murray and he walks. and now they seem to have a problem with paying Dez. this is not the way to win games.

They will at least pay Dez the franchise tag this year. How does that quality as not paying him? Maybe they want to meet in the middle?

This is a test right? Or are you just tugging on the strings?

 

[Idgit]

What's the first to go?

Oh yeah! The memory.

Welcome to old-age pops!

I never supported that deal. It was a ridiculous contract.

That's nice to say now. Some will believe you. Those that keep score know you have never criticized a Cowboys move as it happens. It's only years later when you can spin it as change for the good that you'll acknowledge a mistake.

For those that keep score, here's what Winicki said at the time in at least one of the threads re: a Barber extension:

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/how-would-you-handle-the-barber-situation.117960/page-2#post-2064270

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/how-would-you-handle-the-barber-situation.117960/page-3#post-2064447

I think both of those positions are fairly reasonable. Thought even the $5M number was high in retrospect. The actual contract he signed was for ~$6.5M AAV and had $16M guaranteed.

The real problem with the Barber and Austin deals was that we got ourselves into positions where we didn't really know exactly what we had with either player because they started relatively late in their rookie contracts. So we had to take bigger risks on them than we otherwise should have. But I don't believe the Barber deal had all that much bearing on the Murray negotiation. We decided to not pay age and mileage at RB because that's a bad move most of the time when teams do it. Marion was one piece of data in that equation, but there's no reason for him to have been the deciding factor.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

For those that keep score, here's what Winicki said at the time in at least one of the threads re: a Barber extension:





I think both of those positions are fairly reasonable. Thought even the $5M number was high in retrospect. The actual contract he signed was for ~$6.5M AAV and had $16M guaranteed.

The real problem with the Barber and Austin deals was that we got ourselves into positions where we didn't really know exactly what we had with either player because they started relatively late in their rookie contracts. So we had to take bigger risks on them than we otherwise should have. But I don't believe the Barber deal had all that much bearing on the Murray negotiation. We decided to not pay age and mileage at RB because that's a bad move most of the time when teams do it. Marion was one piece of data in that equation, but there's no reason for him to have been the deciding factor.

You're right even the $5 mil was high in retrospect.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

So let me get this right. because Jerry and his son had some bad past misevaluations on players they overrated. they should be cheap and keep letting their play makers go? that is dumb and stupid. and in the long run it will not work. you don't let your play making keep leaving.once again these reporters in the local DRW media, are serving as Lap Dogs for Jerry Jones and his son. you don't pay Murray and he walks. and now they seem to have a problem with paying Dez. this is not the way to win games.

One person's "cheap" is another person's "The Cowboys are finally managing the cap smartly".

 

[Section446]

Stunning that Barber's ridiculous deal wouldn't have ended until last season.

Never thought very highly of the guy.

 

[jobberone]

I guess some forget that we were in cap hell for like two decades which severely hampered this team. Thank goodness we have adopted a sound fiscal policy which allows enough breathing room to acquire the occasional FA worth the effort; example Hardy.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

I guess some forget that we were in cap hell for like two decades which severely hampered this team. Thank goodness we have adopted a sound fiscal policy which allows enough breathing room to acquire the occasional FA worth the effort; example Hardy.

That's it exactly.

If Murray had been retained I think the chances of getting Hardy would have dropped a great deal.

But still no way would I have supported signing Murray to the ridiculous contract he signed with the Eagles... not given his current age and the incredibly high work load he had last season... in addition to the likelihood of him missing some time at some point.

 

[AbeBeta]

And that's another reason why all those deals sucked.

It's also why the Cowboys have gone down a different path with contracts the last couple years.

The deals sucked because they were long? That make no sense.

Those end years are non-guaranteed. All you get there is a chance to keep a guy for a rate that will surely seem cheap if he keeps playing at the level that got him the deal. If not, cut and move on.

The last thing you want is to do short deals that necessitate another UFA round with the player.

 

[superonyx]

I love reading how we are this new model of franchise and we are winning because of this fiscal responsibility...

We had 1 good season last year after a long embarrassing string of 8-8 seasons where we were the joke of the NFL. The reason we improved is not because of our fiscal responsibility....it's because we have started to draft extremely well. Our terrible drafting a few years ago are what contributed to us having to overpay good players like they were great players.

Let's put together a string of successful seasons like Seattle, Greenbay and NE first.
But either way it's our drafting success that made the difference. We only have so many draft picks each year and we will still need to pay some of these draft picks when they show they are superstar talents....not many people are upset over Tyron Smith getting huge money yet they want to be cheap with Dez.....based on our offensive linemen drafting success I would think we could replace Tyron Smith easier than Dez Bryant.

 

[AbeBeta]

I guess some forget that we were in cap hell for like two decades which severely hampered this team. Thank goodness we have adopted a sound fiscal policy which allows enough breathing room to acquire the occasional FA worth the effort; example Hardy.

You've been reading too many news reports and not following the actual cap.

We always get these reports about having no cap space because of how we structure deals. A player on a relatively new deal may have a high cap # in year two but that's something we convert to bonus to cleat space if needed. We pretty much plan to do that, so it is already managed space. It looks bad when you read reports about our cap space but it isn't cap hell by any means.

The only year we recently had an issue was when Romo's deal exploded and we were slow to settle on a new one.

 

[jobberone]

The deals sucked because they were long? That make no sense.

Those end years are non-guaranteed. All you get there is a chance to keep a guy for a rate that will surely seem cheap if he keeps playing at the level that got him the deal. If not, cut and move on.

The last thing you want is to do short deals that necessitate another UFA round with the player.

If there is no dead money after the guaranteed years then fine but most of the time that money is amortized over several years and there is dead money.