News: Dalton doesnt really have a $7MM deal and he's not competing with Dak

[SteveTheCowboy]

Listening to your uneducated comments gets extremely tiresome. I'm going to educate you... no charge. I'm not predicting anything. I'm just telling you what's going to happen based on what's been happening and I know human nature. I study trends and pick up on little things that everyone else seems to be oblivious to. Why? IDK, it's like they just don't pay attention to details. So let's take a look at the 3 possibilities that you say would have Dalton playing and not Dak.

1) Dak holds out. Dak isn't holding out now, everything the team is doing now is voluntary. The negotiation period for a new contract ends on 15 July. If there is no deal by that date then his opportunity to get a new contract for this season is over. So what would he have to gain by folding out beyond the deadline date? What would be the point? There are no more negotiations. His only options beyond the deadline date are to sign his tag or not play. This situation is not like Zeke's holdout. Zeke's holdout coincided with the negotiation period. He had new contract stakes involved in his holdout. After 15 July, there are no new contract stakes involved in holding out. This removes any real reason to holdout. So his options are really like this, he will be signing something by the 15th of July. Tag or new deal. This means no hold out into the season that has Dalton see playing time.

2) Dak gets hurt. Dak is the toughest guy on the team. He's played 64 straight games. He doesn't get hurt. It's unlikely he gets hurt to the point he can't play. It's not impossible, just extremely unlikely. So I play the odds on this one. I like my odds. Even if he does come out of a game it's still Dak's job, Dalton will just be filling in for a short period. It's not like Dalton is going to be satisfying any of his contractual incentives in this short period of time.

3) Dak gets benched. That's just disrespectful. Dak has never played so badly that he got benched. It's just your wishful thinking that has you included this as a possibility. It's not going to happen. 0% chance.


So what does all this mean? It means Andy Dalton is the $3M man. Simple to see. Clipboard holder, benchwarmer, cheerleader, no playing time.

It's been said that Dak had the poor game because he was hurt. Might have even effected the outcome of the game...some said. So your big tough theory has a small hole in it...maybe?

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Dak isn't bothered by fans moaning and groaning, it's his life he's worried about, not your life. I don't think he gives a crap about what Jerry's doing other than signing him for what he wants. If they don't want him, send him packing, but if you want him, it's pretty simple, just sign him.

Not sure who thinks we're making Dak's life miserable. It's just a simple forum where we give our..... opinions. Unless someone is hiding out here as Dak?

 

[JoeKing]

uneducated ? lMAO

how about take the dak goggles off and put down the koolaid to say hes never played so bad he should be beached is laughable.. that philly game allegedly he was hurt and played horrible! The NE game he was chucking an hucking like rookie , blame the weather right, Buffalo game made many poor decsions and throws, he was rattled a lot last year and just threw the ball where ever it would land other games we go 4 qtrs. no Tds , guys are open etc, MN game blame Garett and Zeke all you want the rpo was in Daks hands , who he threw to or handed it off to was in his hands and he made poor decsions.. theres too many too list and yes Daltons a guy who could have came in that philly game and possible won it for us.. tough and stupid's for playing hurt and costing us a game is another thing.. Lastly Dak stopped running when he had many opportunity's , why he was thinking about his deal decided to make a business decsions instead of playing naturally an taking what the defense GAVE HIM, HE ALSO DID THIS BY THROWING MANY MORE TIMES IN SITUATIONs HE SHOULD HAVE RAN OR CHECKED DOWN.. he was out to prove he could throw and was thinking big deal and we saw what happened down the stretch..

Rush wrs a clip board holder Dalton can take the ball in a lot of those situations and provide a spark or momentum settle the game down.. No one saying Daltons better but Dak had many games he wasn't playing well and we could have used a off the bench momentum changer, would it always work, no but leaving plays on the field and a shot to win is not sports and Garetts gone and those days are over..

MM will not allow KM to help Dak get paid and call far too many pass plays in the second half and call more planned runs and make sure if zeke and pollard are hot they keep the ball... we lost 4 games down the stretch because of that..Dak played seffish last year , stat padding and not running and out to get the big play and not the right play was evident..
if hes on the tag again this staff will not allow dak to play like that

now the offseason comes and more selfishness wit no team friendly give in contract negotiations..whether it was conscious or subconscious Dak was doing those things..we dont need that again..

tl/dr

 

[JoeKing]

It's been said that Dak had the poor game because he was hurt. Might have even effected the outcome of the game...some said. So your big tough theory has a small hole in it...maybe?

His shoulder and hand were injured. For a QB, these injures are a big deal. But he played through them. There is no hole in my theory about how tough he is.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

His shoulder and hand were injured. For a QB, these injures are a big deal. But he played through them. There is no hole in my theory about how tough he is.

You said and I quote "never injured". The question remains...SHOULD he have played. People have criticized his performance, and the defense of it is "well he was injured".
If it cost the team a win.....or even contributed it was a very poor decision by all parties.

 

[USArmyVet]

Since so many want to compare Dak to Dalton for some reason, with many screaming Dak is so much better than Dalton by just looking at stats, let's look at each QB's first 4 years in the NFL:


Dak Prescott

64 Games 40 Wins 24 Losses

1,363 completions 2,071 attempts 65.8% comp %

15,778 yards 97 TD's 36 Int's

1 playoff Win 2 playoff Losses



Andy Dalton

64 Games 40 Wins 23 Losses 1 Tie

1,301 completions 2,111 attempts 61.6% comp %

14,758 yards 99 TD's 66 Int's

0 playoff wins 4 playoff losses (in year 5 Dalton led the Bengals to 10-3 record and was having his best statistical year when he broke his thumb and the Bengals lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)



Outside of the Int's, the 2 QB's are very close statistically.

 

[JoeKing]

You said and I quote "never injured". The question remains...SHOULD he have played. People have criticized his performance, and the defense of it is "well he was injured".
If it cost the team a win.....or even contributed it was a very poor decision by all parties.

When I said "never injured" it was in the context of reasons he would miss games and need his backup to start and you know that so stop being difficult. I'm sure his injuries did affect how he played and was an indirect reason why we lost to Philly in week 16. In hindsight, the decision was either to start Cooper or Prescott with injuries. They decided Prescott with his injuries was still better than Cooper. So, to answer your question, yes he should have played. In the end, what they thought was their best option was not good enough with the injuries. It's now spilled milk so why are you harping on it. His injuries have healed and we are about to embark on a new season.

 

[Clove]

Not sure who thinks we're making Dak's life miserable. It's just a simple forum where we give our..... opinions. Unless someone is hiding out here as Dak?

This is for the folks constantly whining. If it isn't you, then you have no problems.

 

[JD_KaPow]

Since so many want to compare Dak to Dalton for some reason, with many screaming Dak is so much better than Dalton by just looking at stats, let's look at each QB's first 4 years in the NFL:

Dak Prescott
64 Games 40 Wins 24 Losses
1,363 completions 2,071 attempts 65.8% comp %
15,778 yards 97 TD's 36 Int's
1 playoff Win 2 playoff Losses

Andy Dalton
64 Games 40 Wins 23 Losses 1 Tie
1,301 completions 2,111 attempts 61.6% comp %
14,758 yards 99 TD's 66 Int's
0 playoff wins 4 playoff losses (in year 5 Dalton led the Bengals to 10-3 record and was having his best statistical year when he broke his thumb and the Bengals lost in the 1st round of the playoffs)

Outside of the Int's, the 2 QB's are very close statistically.

First of all, the difference in INTs is huge: even if the other numbers were identical, a 1.7% vs. 3.1% INT% is enough to make it clear that one of these guys is not like the other. But the other numbers aren't "very close."
A 61.6% comp% is not close to 65.8%.
7.0 yards per attempt is not close to 7.6.
It all shows up in passer rating, where Dalton's 85 is not close to Dak's 97.
If you prefer QBR, Dalton's peaked at 55 those years with the other years in the 40s: Dak's lowest was 56 and his other years were in the 60s and 70s. Not close.
Also, Dalton ran 205 times for 624 yards (3.0 ypa) and 11 TDs. Dak ran 241 times for 1221 yards (5.1 ypa) and 21 TDs. Not close.
The stats indicate that Dak's first four years were MUCH better than Dalton's.

Not sure why we're looking at Dalton's first four years, though: that's not who the Cowboys have. His most recent four years are...well actually they're almost identical to his first four years except he hasn't been as durable.

 

[Redline360]

I would hope Daks stats are better then Daltons as he was placed into a better team then Dalton.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

This is for the folks constantly whining. If it isn't you, then you have no problems.

Okay. Throw any old statement out.....just make up something in your head....and have it so? No questions asked.

I never said it was me...why are you arguing that point and claiming yourself the winner? It was more like ....who ARE you talking about? You don't even know. Just "folks constantly whining" (that means folks disagreeing with you) think they are making Dak's life miserable? Mkay...sure.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

I would hope Daks stats are better then Daltons as he was placed into a better team then Dalton.

Nope...not a better team. Oh "maybe" our offense. "maybe"?> what the frick? Coaching nope owner nope and defense nope.

AT least that's what I've been told by the local experts. So it must be true.

 

[Clove]

Okay. Throw any old statement out.....just make up something in your head....and have it so? No questions asked.

I never said it was me...why are you arguing that point and claiming yourself the winner? It was more like ....who ARE you talking about? You don't even know. Just "folks constantly whining" (that means folks disagreeing with you) think they are making Dak's life miserable? Mkay...sure.

Don’t drink before posting.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

When I said "never injured" it was in the context of reasons he would miss games and need his backup to start and you know that so stop being difficult. I'm sure his injuries did affect how he played and was an indirect reason why we lost to Philly in week 16. In hindsight, the decision was either to start Cooper or Prescott with injuries. They decided Prescott with his injuries was still better than Cooper. So, to answer your question, yes he should have played. In the end, what they thought was their best option was not good enough with the injuries. It's now spilled milk so why are you harping on it. His injuries have healed and we are about to embark on a new season.

But maybe he SHOULD have missed at the very least ONE game form his injuries you claimed he never had. Maybe more than one game. . It may have cost a win (or more) protecting the precious stats and preventing another QB from running the team

"they decided" you mean the coaches you've been beeching about for along time...suddenly makes a great decision because it supports your argument and agenda?

I'm not harping on them for it.......on harping on you for your false narrative. and you can;t admit it. Shallow...but no matter. You're the self-proclaimed expert. You have spoken and thus shall it be.

A "NEW SEASON" indeed. We do agree on that.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Don’t drink before posting.

Sorry you can't follow simple logic. Oh well. What can one do? Let people deflect as they will. When you can't defend your own statement attack and insult. Good work.

You STILL can't name a few people you are talking about. Then accuse me of drinking. LOL Rich.

 

[JoeKing]

But maybe he SHOULD have missed at the very least ONE game form his injuries you claimed he never had. Maybe more than one game. . It may have cost a win (or more) protecting the precious stats and preventing another QB from running the team

"they decided" you mean the coaches you've been beeching about for along time...suddenly makes a great decision because it supports your argument and agenda?

I'm not harping on them for it.......on harping on you for your false narrative. and you can;t admit it. Shallow...but no matter. You're the self-proclaimed expert. You have spoken and thus shall it be.

A "NEW SEASON" indeed. We do agree on that.

I see you are still being difficult. I've already acknowledged he was injured and I explained to you they determined he was still the best option even with his injuries. But now you want to second guess that decision as if Cooper Rush would have been the better option for that one game. Hindsight is always 20/20 except in your case it seems. Better football minds than yours or mine made that decision so now we just have to live with it and move on. As I said, it's spilled milk and you want to cry about it now.

 

[Captain-Crash]

would dak even be in the league if he had been drafted and played in Cinncinati? lol

 

[Sevenup3000]

People keep using this "77th highest paid QB" like poor little Dak got robbed or cheated by those mean old Cowboys...….
The FACT is Dak got paid what he was SUPPOSED to be paid for a 4th round draft pick! He didn't get cheated or mistreated in any way! So please stop inferring that he was mistreated by the Dallas Cowboys.

BTW, On Dak's rookie contract he made $450,000, $540,000, $630,000 and $2.02 million.
Dak became a millionaire on his rookie contract. He's not exactly going hungry.

EXACTLY!!!!! DAK got paid under the terms of his contract. NOW that contract is OVER.

Dak is a business man...he is not looking out for the Cowboys interest. Just like Romo looked out for his OWN interest.

So we AGREE. Dallas and Dallas' fans should STOP looking for Dak to execute a "team friendly" deal. If the market rate says Dak should get 4 years (which it does) and the Cowboys really want 5 or 6 years so they can spread out the cap hit...THAT IS A DALLAS COWBOYS PROBLEM...NOT A DAK PROBLEM.

Just like it wasn't a Dallas problem that Dak was the 77th highest paid player.

EDIT: And nobody is saying feel bad for Dak. But please also STOP acting like making 1/10 of your peers while producing as much as they have is no big deal.

How about I go to your employer and say "yeah yeah give him 90% less than his peers but make sure he produces as much as they do." You would QUIT within a hour. So stop.

 

[HungryLion]

would dak even be in the league if he had been drafted and played in Cinncinati? lol

The cream always rises to the top Crash.

 

[Buzzbait]

EDIT: And nobody is saying feel bad for Dak. But please also STOP acting like making 1/10 of your peers while producing as much as they have is no big deal.
How about I go to your employer and say "yeah yeah give him 90% less than his peers but make sure he produces as much as they do." You would QUIT within a hour. So stop.

No I would NOT quit and neither would you if your employer told you that you would be a millionaire in 4 years and THEN you'd become a multi multi millionaire in the 5th year. You'd quit that?? Only an idiot would quit a deal like that, so YOU stop.
I'd take that deal in a NY minute and the only tears I'd shed would be tears of joy.

You make it sound like you think Dak is the ONLY player who had to start out on a rookie contract based on where they were taken in the draft.
Sorry but they all had to start on rookie contracts and they didn't quit because "somebody else made more than me". I've never had a job where nobody made more than me, and truth be known, you could say the same thing.
So why the crocodile tears?