Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by CouchCoach, Feb 20, 2021.
OK well this is an entirely different discussion..the OPs post is full of misinformation..
A miss on a rookie QB would cost Jerry Jones 100M in marketing and gate.
That's how damaging it is to miss on a QB.
This team has been far from elite for a very long time but they have been very respectable the last 15 years outside of seasons where they lost Romo or Dak as starting QB.
The Cowboys went 2-14 minus Tony Romo in the 5 years before BEFORE Dak Prescott arrived.
They have went 42-27 with Dak and 4-7 without him. And the 4-7 is misleading because they had a bottom 5 strength of schedule over that stretch and played back up QBs almost weekly.
Win 36% of their games the next 3 years and half of Texas will be KC Chiefs fan supporting Texas' own Pat Mahomes.
Well, the risk is we become the Cleveland Browns pre-Mayfield. They tried many-a-QB while having decent defenses. We don't even have the decent defense part.
Yes they can. They need to sign Dak and quit playing games...
Wasn't like the window wasn't wide open during his rookie deal.
They even nailed a one seed.
That was all of course squandered by Jerry's next Tom Landry experiment process.
Theres a way to win when paying 40m to one player
......you'd better nail every draft and have top notch coaching.
I don't think either is all that likely, but I promise you all that Mr. Ego is gonna try.
Mayfield isn’t even that good..
Hunt and Chubb rolling has more to do with their success than Mayfield.
If they pay Mayfield 40 million then they are just as stupid as Dallas will be.
I completely agree with the statement it is not about Dak it's about the team. Dak is going to get old and retire, like Staubach, Aikman and Romo. The team goes on. The team will go on without Dak. If it has to be next year because Dak refused to sign a long term deal, then so be it. The Cowboys will find a replacement and attempt to build a team around him. Or he could sign a deal and get hurt again.
The team has to be balanced. Right now the Cowboys have committed about $113 million in CAP space to the offense (without Dak) and about $65 million to defense. And keep in mind $25 million of the defensive CAP spend is 1 player, Demarcus Lawrence who has not had double digit sacks since he signed his deal. Anyone want to predict how the defense does in 2021 if this stays as is?
Restating the obvious, building a team with the CAP is hard. It is hard to fit your own players under the CAP and then sign Free Agents. But this is why it is so important to get the deals you do right. If you pay someone like Lawrence he has to make an impact on the defense that is equal to his contract because paying him means another position gets a lesser talent. Lawrence is not making that impact. Neither is Zeke - and neither is Cooper. I will keep harping on Cooper's contract until he does something to change my mind. Add to that list Jaylon Smith, Tyrone Crawford, and all those FAs who were cut in 2020. Everyone makes mistakes, but when those mistakes add up it has to impact the teams won-loss record.
Which brings us to Dak. Let's be honest about Dak, if the Cowboys pay him $40 million, is he going to deliver $40 million performance? I say no, because he is not Mahomes, Brady, Rodgers, or even Brees. Dak is a step below those guys - a good step. Even if they pay Dak $35 million, the imbalance between the offense and defense gets worse. The ability to sign a top free agent DT is erased, or seriously hampered. The defense gets marginally better just because it can't get worse.
But back to your point. The question is not if they can win a Super Bowl with Dak. The question is can they win a Super Bowl with the roster they have with Dak on it. The answer is Dak is good enough to win if the team is good enough to win. But no QB is going to win a Super Bowl with the defense we had last year. Not even Brady and Mahomes.
$28,375,000 cap hit per Spotrac
Chubb's been good every year he's been there but they break through in a year when Mayfield improved as a passer in almost every category. He was good this year, there's no way around it. Even without Beckham. Just have to see if he can follow it up but if he does, you pay him and don't gamble the future. But we trust our guys in charge to gamble the QB position they lucked into in the first place? Okay.
Correct. 4th highest in the nfl
Mayfield is ok at best..
A lot of guys like him in the league that just go as their team goes.
The more they ask Mayfield to do the worse that team will be.
He’s not a difference making player and is very similar to Dak.
You pay these types like they are elite and you watch your team become mediocre at best.
In our case we are lucky because our division sucks.. The Browns on the other hand don’t have that luxury. The AFC North is a great division.
Burrow also looked like he was on his way to becoming an elite player.
You are correct.. and Brady is proof that even a 6th round QB like him can have success if the foundation is solid. Notice how as soon as the foundation crumbled in New England he bailed and went to another team with a solid foundation. Even he knows he cannot carry a team bereft of talent.
lol as soon as it crumbled?
He won 6 titles there and he took some rosters to championships that were not that great.
So you want to gamble on finding elite but how often does elite come around? The bigger question is, do we have people who can even gauge what elite is? We were rumored to want Wentz before his draft stock ran higher the year we took Dak.
I want to gamble that we can find a QB for cheaper or in the draft that impacts the outcomes of games that is way below this inflated QB market.
I think we can do that just like we did with Andy Dalton this past season who was winning games at the same rate Dak was.
I think we can do a lot better then Dalton too.
If Teddy Bridgewater was our QB I think he gets us to the same place Dak does.. They have similar impacts on games imo. Dak is a lot hype and he’s living off of being in an offense that was incredibly well built.
Which ones? Which of the Pats teams he played on were without talent? Or perhaps more importantly without the best coach of the modern era? Do tell. Brady had the luxury of a top 10 scoring defense in 16 of his 20 years in New England. Including #1 two times and top 5 9 times. Make no mistake.. Brady has been a truly great player in his career, but rewriting some narrative that he somehow dragged a buncha stumblebums to Super Bowls is pure BS. Those teams were always loaded on defense and always got great o-line play. Not to mention great coaching. And I'm not even going to go into all the cheating techniques they employed.
Doesn't matter what we think of paying a QB or anyone else. Jerry will go with what sells. If he thinks paying Dak $40mil a year, will make $50mil a year in merchandise, and other kickbacks for that
QB being used in a Dallas uniform... he is paying him.
We just have to come to terms with the fact that this franchise is more about winning financially, than rings.
He played on teams that were nothing special.
I think the majority of NFL teams share similar talent.
Coaching and QB play are what separates teams for the most part.
In recent years you’ll get the rare flash in the pan defense that can elevate a team as well but nobody consistently can play great defense with these rules.
Anytime you drop Brady in a convo about Dak, you undermine your point.
That and the fact that Brady could have any time forced his hand, and got another deal with another team that was earth shattering.
But, it wasn't all about the money with Brady. With our guys... it is all about the money.