Dak a Tier-2 QB per NFL Coaches and Execs

[Corso]

FO said they liked zeke and signed him. Same for zack. Same for cooper. Same for tank. Perhaps certain bozos think they should denigrate players first, then start negotiations. How absurd.

Well that would be the opposite side of the spectrum, now wouldn't it?

 

[Diehardblues]

If you’re going to tout a player then sign him.

Until they sign Dak it’s going to be perceived they’ve over hyped him then got cheap or didn’t actually buy in to their own hype.

Which is fine. But the media and critics like myself won’t let them have it both ways.

 

[cern]

Well that would be the opposite side of the spectrum, now wouldn't it?

Not just opposite side. Stark reality. Because of the media, sports contracts just can't be silent. Not sure why so many don't get that. It's not like the public sector. And the talent pool is very small.

 

[Corso]

Not just opposite side. Stark reality. Because of the media, sports contracts just can't be silent. Not sure why so many don't get that. It's not like the public sector. And the talent pool is very small.

Very true words.

 

[Diehardblues]

Very true words.

The talent pool of journalists in the media is actually very astute. Their investigative reporting often exposes corruption and informs the public.

It’s the reality tv opinion agenda based hacks which paint a poorer picture on the media of today.

Sports is an entertainment business with public interest and the financial disclosures spurs interest whether it’s the arts or athletics.

 

[Redline360]

I think Dak sits in the 7-9 range but we don't know how Brady and big Ben will play. 12 is a little extreme.

 

[Diehardblues]

Once you come to terms that Dak is a top 10 caliber QB then becoming one of the highest paid QB’s in one isolated season isn’t far reaching as come next year and beyond his salary rank will drop drastically as more QB’s sign for more in coming years.

https://heavy.com/sports/dallas-cowboys/2020/07/cowboys-dak-prescott-nfl-exec-qb-rankings/

 

[kskboys]

I think Dak sits in the 7-9 range but we don't know how Brady and big Ben will play. 12 is a little extreme.

I've tried to come up w/ 11 names, including old dudes, but that's a lot.

 

[Diehardblues]

Not counting Mahommes of course but even if Dak was signed for more than Wilson it won’t hold very long. By most accounts Watson and Jackson will surpass easily next year. It will be someone else the following year.

Wilson did it last year. Ryan in 2018, Stafford in 2017. The list goes on. It changes practically every year and being one of the top paid for a particular season doesn’t necessarily represent you’re one of the best.

 

[JoaquinFenix]

Dak was offered Wentz/Goff money last off. 33 mil/season. All you have to do is google this.

Agree w/ using non-exclusive tag on Dak.

I don't think we know this for sure. The reports have been all over the place. However, like I said in the post, if Dak was offered Wentz money after year 3, then shame on him. That would've been a very fair offer at the time.

 

[JoaquinFenix]

So simply reading an opinion piece settles this for you? Doesn't sound like agenda/confirmation bias at all.

Wut

First of all, interviews with NFL coaches and executives is a far cry from some random columnist "opinion piece."

Secondly, you presume that what I wrote is solely based on one article. That would be a mistake.

Lastly, there's a famous quote from the movie "Princess Bride" that applies to your quip about "confirmation bias": I do not think it means what you think it means.

 

[JoaquinFenix]

Well written & everything through item 2 is fair.

Item 3 - That would be a risky proposition. If it works out that his market value isn't what he believed it to be, then yes you have succeeded. He can't blame you for his pay rate & he is humbled & motivated. If you had known Covid was going to happen, this would have been the year to test the strategy.

Item 4 - I would disagree with. You don't pull a tag from a player unless you are done with the player. That would cross the line into dirty dealings. Why does everyone keep bringing up Jacksonville? They are still paying Foles so paying another QB at the rate you would to pay Dak in this scenario would be egregious. Minshew on a rookie deal is much more palatable to them at this time.

Re: Item 3

Risky how? If somebody offered him a fair deal, then match it. If he got wildly overpaid, then don't and take the 2 first-round picks. After Andy Dalton came into the fold, I felt more than comfortable letting Dak see for himself. Perhaps leverage is all about risk-taking.

Re: Item 4

I totally disagree that rescinding the tag is "dirty dealing." The NFLPA negotiated this possibility as part of the CBA. You cannot plausibly claim anything is dirty about adhering to an agreement to which the players consented.

That being said, I do agree that it might've left Dak a little butthurt. So be it. That's a risk I'm willing to take in a $100+ million negotiation.

Why Jacksonville? Perhaps because they were the only team in the NFL with both the cap space and need for a QB. Foles is a sunk cost and totally irrelevant. Minshew isn't the answer, and they had the money to pay Dak. The key point is that Jacksonville was the ONLY team in the league to fit this profile during the rescind window. If I were the Cowboys, I press that advantage and claw back some leverage.

 

[JoaquinFenix]

Why don't people understand that's now how it works. Goff was in tier 3 and Wentz in tier 2 and they were both paid like top 5 QB's. The cap rises and so does the price, idk why people get so bent up about it. Bosa just signed a deal for 27 million a year. All of a sudden Lawrence's contract doesn't look as bad. That's how this works.

I don't understand what you don't understand.

Goff took his team to the Super Bowl, got paid, and then regressed the following year).

Wentz is the comp most closely linked to Dak. They are often neck-and-neck in many analytical categories and in player assessments. In short, their value should be on par with each other.

You brought up top-5 QB money. Stephen Jones said over and over that the Cowboys' offer was top-5 QB money. So, yeah, it sounds like the Cowboys offered exactly what you're saying they should've offered.

But, hey, don't get bent up about it. That's how this works.

 

[JoaquinFenix]

Prior to Covid, I don't think what Dak was asking for was top of the market. Top of the market would have been what guys like Rodgers and Mahomes would get in the same market environment, but Rodgers already had a contract in place, so he wasn't negotiating at the same time and under the same market conditions, and when Mahomes got his deal it was the highest dollar contract in sports history.

It appears you're thinking of Rodgers from 4 years ago when he was still elite. He hasn't been elite for a while now. There's no way a free-agent Rodgers gets top-of-the market money today.

As for Mahomes, that's actually a really bad comp for Dak. Everybody agrees that Mahomes is far superior than Dak, but Mahomes actually took a team-friendly deal. First of all, Mahomes signed a deal with years remaining on his rookie contract, unlike Dak who apparently turned his nose up at Wentz money. Secondly, it's a freaking 10-year extension, unlike Dak who apparently wants a series of short deals to keep maximizing his earning potential. Thirdly, most NFL contracts are analyzed based on how much they pay out over 3 years. After that, the guarantees typically evaporate and the funny money is irrelevant. By all accounts, Dak wanted more over the first three years of his deal than Mahomes got. Lastly, Mahomes' deal is really a 4-year extension. His cap hit skyrockets to $60 million in year 6, which becomes guaranteed after year 5. They will likely renegotiate before incurring that kind of cap hit. In other words, that "highest dollar contract in sports history" is a bunch of headline porn that means nothing.

In sum, not the best comps to support your argument.

 

[JoaquinFenix]

I agree with numbers 2 and 4 completely, not so much with 1 and 3. For the same reason Dak should have signed after year 3 is the same reason Zeke did. He's eligible. It's also better for the team's cap situation.

The non exclusive franchise tag is not openly testing the market. Teams might shy away due to having to give up 2 first rounders. Transition tag is openly testing the market.

I don't understand your first paragraph at all.

As for your second paragraph, that's precisely why the Cowboys should've used it. Teams shy away, Dak doesn't get the offers he's expecting, he and his agent are humbled, and the Cowboys save millions on the cap in the process. Win-win for the Cowboys.

 

[JoaquinFenix]

I really only agree with number 3. I think the team should have applied the None Exclusive Tag as well.

#1 - The team saved themselves a tone of money buy signing Zeke when they did IMO. I was not a fan of this, at the time but after having seen how the contract was structured, it's really a good deal for the team. Always take a good contract when you can get it. It helps down the line so the writer has their head up their own you know what on that one.

#2 - The team tried to get a deal done a year early. They offered a deal that was more then fair and Dak's team declined. Again, pull your head out.

#4 - You want to just cut ties with Dak going into year one of McCarthy's first season? If the answer is yes, then redesignate Dak and give CAA even more control over him. Only one team could have signed him but guess what, That one team has Gardner Minshew as there starter and he can be cut for next to nothing, or better yet, just keep Minshew as your backup and go get Dak. Did I mention that this person has their head up their you know what?


This is click bait. This article is nothing but a bunch of stupidity, put down in writing IMO.

#1 - Totally disagree. The most basic rule of football personnel management is that you don't pay for running backs. Paying a record contract for a player whose rushing performance doesn't correlate with winning is not "a good deal for the team."

#2 - Perhaps you lack basic reading comprehension. I said the reports on this were murky, but that, if the team offered Wentz money and Dak declined, then shame on Dak. Pull your head out.

#4 - "Redesignate Dak and give CAA even more control over him"? This is incomprehensible gibberish. But thank you for making my point that only one team (Jacksonville) would've competed against the Cowboys for Dak. I'm willing to take that risk.

You've got a weird fascination with heads up you know whats.

 

[JoaquinFenix]

So many Cowboys fans have hated him for the entire 4 years and painted him to be a totally inept QB. Here is yet another opinion that shows he is nowhere near as bad as the CowboysZone critics try to paint him to be.

Sadly, they will probably try to use a ranking of 12th as validation their over-the-top criticism was warranted.

And spare me the money BS. He was hated at $4 million over $4 years.

I'm pretty tired of this false dichotomy where every Cowboys fan is either a Dak hater or lover. The reality is that a lot of us think he's a capable quarterback whose contract demands aren't consistent with reality. Those demands have been bolstered by the Cowboys' bungling of the negotiation process, as set forth in my original post.

 

[JoaquinFenix]

argumetnum ad hominem at its best. dak's a good qb. stephen's an excellent negotiator.

Not only did you misspell your Latin, but you didn't even use it correctly in this context. Sad.

 

[JoaquinFenix]

33 million is top 2 tier.

And, by all accounts, that's precisely the kind of offer that Dak rejected. So...

 

[JoaquinFenix]

do you realize your talking about 1or 2 million dollar difference per year?

I'm assuming you're implying that such a negligible cost difference shouldn't make a difference to the Cowboys. If so, why should it make a difference to Dak? Such logic cuts both ways.

P.S. A $2 million difference on a 5-year deal frees up the cap space to buy you Robert Quinn last year. Just saying.