Twitter: Calvin Watkins: As of Sunday afternoon, Cowboys and Dak are not close to a deal

[buybuydandavis]

If we can trade Prescott before the deadline then that would just be sensational. I can't even let myself to dream of such a luxury.

Can't we trade him after the deadline too?

I would think we could trade him any time we wanted to. The deadline is for negotiating a new contract with him to replace the tag. I don't think it puts any limitation on trading him.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Maybe on the outside looking in. But they know at the very least they got Dak for 2 years on a tag. Three years if they want to be stupid but 2 years for sure.

But would they want him for that second year if they think it's the final year? Having your starting QB as a short timer planning for his next long term contract seems like a bad situation.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Not my fault you have a reading problem and like to make points that have absolutely nothing to do with the post you quote, then when that is pointed out to you (nicely by the way at first) you still continue. Your example had nothing to do with the topic of QB's. We were talking about franchise QB's getting tagged twice and you think saying that Demarcus Lawrence got tagged twice is relevent to the conversation, it was not he is not a QB and was not relevant to the discussion i was having. You have a problem reading or understanding what you are reading, you should work on that. If you did you might not get into so many ridiculous arguments with others around here

Again you seem to think that you are the ultimate decider of what can and can't be added to a conversation. You seem to think that because the conversation started about QB's that only you can decide what and how the conversation can be expanded. Like I said before roll it up in a little silver ball and shove it where the moon don't shine. Don't bother replying because I'm dome with you thinking you control conversations and I'll just ignore it.
.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Can't we trade him after the deadline too?

I would think we could trade him any time we wanted to. The deadline is for negotiating a new contract with him to replace the tag. I don't think it puts any limitation on trading him.

My answer to that is if what the Prescott haters are right about Prescott the other 31 GM's will know that too and are they going to trade for that kind of player? If the Prescott haters are wrong and Prescott is much better than the haters want to paint him are the other 31 GM's going to give up anything for a QB on a tag offer that has shown difficulties signing a long term contract?
.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

But would they want him for that second year if they think it's the final year? Having your starting QB as a short timer planning for his next long term contract seems like a bad situation.

People often point to Cousins with this thing and his issues were different that Prescott's. Even the first tag the skins put on Cousins they said he needed to prove himself and Jones as always said that Prescott is the Cowboys QB for now and the future.

Then there are the people that say that tagging a player a 2nd time means they're really not interested in signing that player long term and they forget that the Cowboys believed they had one of the top 2 DE's and in 2018 they tagged Lawrence and then they tagged him a 2nd time in 2019 but then days later got a long term deal done. Tagging a player a 2nd time is just buying some more time after free agency starts to get a deal done and if a deal isn't done than it was never meant to be, but it doesn't mean that they weren't interested in getting a deal done by tagging him a 2nd time.
.
.

 

[Bullflop]

Unfortunately, this will drag on till 2021.
It's come to the point Dallas should let him walk after the up coming season.

The situation Dallas is in, with their contract woes with Dak and his agent is far from ideal. It really appears there's no love lost between them. Whether things improve in the time yet remaining is still to be seen. Progress looks doubtful as long as this lack of trust continues.

In the FO's present mindset, it's up to Dak to prove he's the winner that the FO would prefer to deal with. In fact, Jerry stated as much recently in a fairly heated interview. Obviously, there's a stalemate, with no promising end in sight. Let's see what occurs, if anything, in the short time left.

 

[OmerV]

it does make sense if you don't believe he's a top generational talent. We could most likely get similar performance from the position and the same or better record with someone much cheaper. And new blood will always bring the possibility of of better potential. We know what we have with Dak.

.
Generational talent is an overused term. If teams aren’t willing to commit to a QB that isn’t a “generational talent” they are likely to never have stability at the position. Mahomes, Brady, Brees, Rodgers kinds of guys are not so common that a team can hold itself hostage insisting on a guy like that. It’s so uncommon, in fact, that only one of those 4 was drafted in the last 15 years.

if the Cowboys feel Dak wants too much, that’s fine, but I don’t think “generational talent” is the standard they are using, nor should it be.

 

[InTheZone]

.
Generational talent is an overused term. If teams aren’t willing to commit to a QB that isn’t a “generational talent” they are likely to never have stability at the position. Mahomes, Brady, Brees, Rodgers kinds of guys are not so common that a team can hold itself hostage insisting on a guy like that. It’s so uncommon, in fact, that only one of those 4 was drafted in the last 15 years.

if the Cowboys feel Dak wants too much, that’s fine, but I don’t think “generational talent” is the standard they are using, nor should it be.

Maybe they feel Dak isn't "great enough". Is paying him better than drafting someone? Can the next guy go 8-8 as well with all this talent?

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

But would they want him for that second year if they think it's the final year? Having your starting QB as a short timer planning for his next long term contract seems like a bad situation.

It can never be bad to have a guy playing for a new contract. That’s usually when you get a players best football.

 

[OmerV]

Maybe they feel Dak isn't "great enough". Is paying him better than drafting someone? Can the next guy go 8-8 as well with all this talent?

Like I said, if they feel Dak wants too much, that’s their choice.

But let’s quit acting as if 1 season defines his career (he has averaged 10 wins per season, not 8-8), or that the QB is solely responsible for success and failure.

Odds are some mid to late 1st round draft choice, would not be as god though. Obviously it’s not impossible, but the odds aren’t good. Even QBs drafted at or near the top of the 1st round arent locks to be better, and the odds go down more the later a team drafts a QB.

 

[Swagger]

Like oil said, if they feel Dak wants too much, that’s their choice.

But let’s quit acting as if 1 season defines his career (he has averaged 10 wins per season, not 8-8), or that the QB is solely responsible for success and failure.

Odds are some mid to late 1st round draft choice, would not be as god though. Obviously it’s not impossible, but the odds aren’t good. Even QBs draftedvatbor near the top of the 1st round arent locks to be better, and the odds goi down the later a team drafts a QB.

The Giants and Commanders have been two of worst teams in the NFL in recent years. The offense has HUGE investment compared with the defense and to the credit of the front office, the franchise has been very efficiently and well run over the past four years. Brian Hoyer will have done very well to have not posted massaged stats and won eight games with this team last season.

How many quarterbacks has the front office drafted in the first round since Troy Aikman...well let's give it a go!

 

[Northern_Cowboy]

Again you seem to think that you are the ultimate decider of what can and can't be added to a conversation. You seem to think that because the conversation started about QB's that only you can decide what and how the conversation can be expanded. Like I said before roll it up in a little silver ball and shove it where the moon don't shine. Don't bother replying because I'm dome with you thinking you control conversations and I'll just ignore it.
.
.

Insert anything you want into a conversation i couldn't care less, but if what you insert has nothing to do with the conversation then expect more responses like the ones you received yesterday. The problem is yours my friend and yours alone

 

[blueblood70]

A major mistake by BOTH sides NOT to get this done by July 15.......I'm blaming everyone involved. Makes no sense at all.......IMO

im shocked..oh wait IM NOT<>,.non story about no closer as its been for 18months now.. no new news is not news..

 

[noletime95]

Dak probably would have signed the deal last year if it wasn't for those 1st 3 games where he played lights out and his agent decided to up the anti.Then Dak went 5-8 after that, not looking as good. Yes, it's a team sport, but why would you spend such a huge % of your cap on a QB who did not lift them up beyond 5-8 for the rest of the season.

The FO then made a mistake giving Dak the exclusive tag vs the transitional, probably as an act of good faith, then Dak's and his team blew it up in their face. That is when the FO and coaches probably started thinking, can we do this without Dak and save a bunch? Maybe Dak's rookie year is even working against him now, where you see low round draft picks coming into the league and showing success, now we have Dalton as insurance.

If both side don't come to a mutual agreement in a couple of days, I can see a couple of possibilities.

1. Don't be shocked if Dak get traded before the season starts.
2. If he plays through the tag and we win the superbowl, or at least get there he gets paid on his terms.
3. If he doesn't get to the NFCCG and have a top 10 year, but not top 3 he will get the transitional tag next year.
4. If he doesn't get to the NFCCG and have a top 10 year, but not top 3 he will sign a more team friendly deal.

100% agree it would have been wise to let Dak test the market with two 1st round picks coming back as insurance in a year with more than enough qbs on the market. Think you are right, was probably a good faith move because it made no sense to me

 

[unionjack8]

If he doesn't sign long term by tomorrow then we have to go grab a first round QB next April.

Quite simply we have to cover our bases.
Cannot go into next year on a second tag with no continuity in the building at the QB spot.

I wish they'd got it done but I'm not gonna lose sleep over it. He's not Mahomes. I blame both sides on this right now, it's kind of embarrassing all round.....

 

[Flamma]

Maybe they feel Dak isn't "great enough". Is paying him better than drafting someone? Can the next guy go 8-8 as well with all this talent?

That's the thing. I don't think anyone expects a generational talent. But do you want to drop the same amount of money on a Camaro that you would a Corvette just because there isn't another sports car available at the moment? Or take your chances elsewhere for the time being at a fraction of the cost? Rookie contracts are 4 years. If you're going to pay someone 10 times that amount you better be sure he's worth it.

 

[OmerV]

The Giants and Commanders have been two of worst teams in the NFL in recent years. The offense has HUGE investment compared with the defense and to the credit of the front office, the franchise has been very efficiently and well run over the past four years. Brian Hoyer will have done very well to have not posted massaged stats and won eight games with this team last season.

How many quarterbacks has the front office drafted in the first round since Troy Aikman...well let's give it a go!

I agree the Cowboys should have drafted a 1st round QB or two since Troy, but having not done it over those 30 years is not an argument for dropping a strong QB and crossing your fingers that a low to middle 1st rounder now would improve our QB situation. The decision first has to be whether the team feels it can win with Dak, and if it does, do they feel the odds are significantly better with Dak than a draft choice such that a significant investment is worthwhile in Dak. I think it's pretty obvious the team feels Dak is worth a big commitment, but I also think the 5th year is important to them to help spread cap hit.

 

[buybuydandavis]

It can never be bad to have a guy playing for a new contract. That’s usually when you get a players best football.

Business decisions. Happens all the time.

 

[MetalMike]

Can't we trade him after the deadline too?

I would think we could trade him any time we wanted to. The deadline is for negotiating a new contract with him to replace the tag. I don't think it puts any limitation on trading him.

Maybe they've already investigated that angle and found no takers.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Maybe they've already investigated that angle and found no takers.

Could be, though that runs counter to everything they've said in public about Dak being "our guy".