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

[Clove]

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.

Look around this board, you see hundreds of guys/gals giving out there pointless opinions about everything including Dak. Guess who doesn't care? Jerry Jones and Dak Prescott. No matter what you, or anyone on this board says, Jerry is going to do what he wants.

I see so many people giving their dumb opinions about Dak, I just shrug. I hated Garrett, but guess what? All of the pointless opinions I'd given over the years, he was still there. Which made it pointless. I hated Romo, all my opinions and fights I got into with others turned out to be pointless because he was still there. I woke up one day and realized, what I have to say about something that hasn't happened is pointless. I can talk about things that has already happened, obviously, but trying to predict this and that, and trying to turn others (Who will never change their minds by the way) about my own beliefs, is just a waste of my time.

And littering the board with the same tired hate, gets tedious.
I'd just rather a person just say that they don't like the guy so I can just put em on ignore. But seeing thread after thread after thread with creative ways of saying the same **** just makes me tune them out. So sir, if you fall into this boat, then I'm talking about YOU.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

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.

God here we go with people arguing stuff I NEVER said. I never said Cooper would have been better, I said maybe Dak shouldn't have started. You can INFER my intent.....but if you don't understand the difference then we most certainly won;t get along here very well.

So to answer your accusation....my answer is...I don;t know if Cooper would have played better. All I've seen him is with 2-3's and players who never actually made the team. All I know is that Dak's performance was likely hampered by injury (who knows maybe he really just had a bad game). And MAYBE cooper could have made just a couple plays better. I don't know.

I'm not using any "20-20" but you are a clever arguer making such assumptions with such confidence.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Look around this board, you see hundreds of guys/gals giving out there pointless opinions about everything including Dak. Guess who doesn't care? Jerry Jones and Dak Prescott. No matter what you, or anyone on this board says, Jerry is going to do what he wants.

I see so many people giving their dumb opinions about Dak, I just shrug. I hated Garrett, but guess what? All of the pointless opinions I'd given over the years, he was still there. Which made it pointless. I hated Romo, all my opinions and fights I got into with others turned out to be pointless because he was still there. I woke up one day and realized, what I have to say about something that hasn't happened is pointless. I can talk about things that has already happened, obviously, but trying to predict this and that, and trying to turn others (Who will never change their minds by the way) about my own beliefs, is just a waste of my time.

And littering the board with the same tired hate, gets tedious.
I'd just rather a person just say that they don't like the guy so I can just put em on ignore. But seeing thread after thread after thread with creative ways of saying the same **** just makes me tune them out. So sir, if you fall into this boat, then I'm talking about YOU.

That's all fine. In fact I very much agree with most of that! I have learned a few things....here is where I learned about Dalton. But it's mostly just a time waster.

All I did was ask for a few examples....and I got a runaround. That's the part I don;t agree with. I could tell you same names of people that I think are ridiculous and I am HORRIBLE about names and who says what. Joe and Hennesy...King (hmmm coincidence? haha kidding) might be two I'd put on ignore if I did such things.

Anyway...my style is "THESE people are stupid". Who? "Joe and Hennesy" (just as an example not saying they are).

NOT "these people are stupid". Who? "Well whoever if the shoe fits wear it".

See what I mean?

 

[JoeKing]

God here we go with people arguing stuff I NEVER said. I never said Cooper would have been better, I said maybe Dak shouldn't have started. You can INFER my intent.....but if you don't understand the difference then we most certainly won;t get along here very well.

So to answer your accusation....my answer is...I don;t know if Cooper would have played better. All I've seen him is with 2-3's and players who never actually made the team. All I know is that Dak's performance was likely hampered by injury (who knows maybe he really just had a bad game). And MAYBE cooper could have made just a couple plays better. I don't know.

I'm not using any "20-20" but you are a clever arguer making such assumptions with such confidence.

Okay wiseguy, if Dak shouldn't have started as you are suggesting then what is the better alternative? By saying maybe Dak should not have started you are also saying maybe Cooper would have been the better option.

We agree Dak was likely hampered by injury. However, the decision to allow him to start anyway was not mine nor yours to make. The Cowboys pay better minds to make those decisions. At this point, it's just the height of ridiculousness to second guess what might have happened had a different decision been made. We can't prove how things would have been different unless you have a time machine in your pocket. It's spilled milk that you are choosing to cry about. I say move on, man.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Okay wiseguy, if Dak shouldn't have started as you are suggesting then what is the better alternative? By saying maybe Dak should not have started you are also saying maybe Cooper would have been the better option.

We agree Dak was likely hampered by injury. However, the decision to allow him to start anyway was not mine nor yours to make. The Cowboys pay better minds to make those decisions. At this point, it's just the height of ridiculousness to second guess what might have happened had a different decision been made. We can't prove how things would have been different unless you have a time machine in your pocket. It's spilled milk that you are choosing to cry about. I say move on, man.

Pretty much exactly what I said...so I am not sure what your objection is.

I said "I don't know"...what the outcome would have been. The opposite of know it all 20/20 hindsight. I'm trying to be honest here, if they told me Dak is injured we'll start Cooper.....I believe I would have been okay with the logic of it. I mean...that's what you do for an injured player. It's not an illogical step.

Starting a hampered injured player.....MIGHT be.

Again...getting off topic here. Was not my intention to argue THAT decision. We've cleared the air that Dak HAS BEEN and CAN BE.... injured.

 

[JoeKing]

Pretty much exactly what I said...so I am not sure what your objection is.

I said "I don't know"...what the outcome would have been. The opposite of know it all 20/20 hindsight. I'm trying to be honest here, if they told me Dak is injured we'll start Cooper.....I believe I would have been okay with the logic of it. I mean...that's what you do for an injured player. It's not an illogical step.

Starting a hampered injured player.....MIGHT be.

Again...getting off topic here. Was not my intention to argue THAT decision. We've cleared the air that Dak HAS BEEN and CAN BE.... injured.

Being hurt doesn't mean he misses games. Dak was hurt in that game.
Injury is when players miss games... which Dak has never done.

My objective is to get you to stop crying and move on. How many times have I had to say it and yet you reply with more crying. Seriously, go back and look. Move on, for gosh sakes.

 

[Clove]

That's all fine. In fact I very much agree with most of that! I have learned a few things....here is where I learned about Dalton. But it's mostly just a time waster.

All I did was ask for a few examples....and I got a runaround. That's the part I don;t agree with. I could tell you same names of people that I think are ridiculous and I am HORRIBLE about names and who says what. Joe and Hennesy...King (hmmm coincidence? haha kidding) might be two I'd put on ignore if I did such things.

Anyway...my style is "THESE people are stupid". Who? "Joe and Hennesy" (just as an example not saying they are).

NOT "these people are stupid". Who? "Well whoever if the shoe fits wear it".

See what I mean?

Who's the QB for this franchise? So Dalton doesn't matter.

 

[Clove]

Dalton reminds me of Romo. Put up nice numbers during the regular season, and chokes in the playoffs. We don't know enough about Dak yet, let's see after this year. Dalton, is a nice backup, that's IT.

 

[gjkoeppen]

https://sports.yahoo.com/andy-dalto...eting-with-dak-prescott-either-182055337.html

This article sums it up pretty well. I do believe the Cowboys did this 1) to get a quality backup to Dak and 2) to regain some leverage in the negotiations. Unlike the Dak haters, I believe the Cowboys are sold on Dak, and will get a long term contract, but they do want to stick to their contract principles. If you believed your QB was a franchise QB would you want them locked in for 4 years only to have to pay him a mega deal 4 years later after playoff/SB success? Or licked in for 5-7 years with the ability to restructure.

If the Cowboys weren't sold, you take the 3-4 year deal that Dak wants so you can draft and groom someone else and move on year 4-5.

Most players, not just QB's, are not signing those 5-7 year deals anymore. With the way salaries keep going up, players want more chances to cash in of those increases. I think the days of 5-7 year deals are over and have been replaced with 2-4 year deals. Now a player that knows that he's at the end of his career may for some security reasons may sign a longer deal and hopes he sees the end of it, but other than that, most players are going opt for shorter deals so they can get more deals in during their careers ultimately making more money in the ling run. The QB position is the most important position maybe in the entire sporting world so they aren't going to treat QB's the same way many teams treat RB's and just use them for the rookie contract and then get another RB. If they think they have their QB they'll resign him at just about all costs.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Who's the QB for this franchise? So Dalton doesn't matter.

You're right Dalton doesn't matter any more than a 1 year insurance policy against a Prescott injury.
.

 

[Clove]

You're right Dalton doesn't matter any more than a 1 year insurance policy against a Prescott injury.
.

Just so you know, Prescott isn't known for being injured like Wentz is. Like I said, he's a nice backup.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Just so you know, Prescott isn't known for being injured like Wentz is. Like I said, he's a nice backup.

everybody knows that. Prescott hasn't miss a single snap due to injury yet. Maybe because of that it's why Dalton has a 1 year 3 mil contract and the Cowboys just might be hoping that rocket arm Dinucci develops enough this season that he can take over the backup QB position or at the very least Dalton who already had a house in the Metroplex will take another cheap contract next season so he doesn't have to move his family. In any case Dalton is just an insurance policy against injury to Prescott.
.

 

[Clove]

everybody knows that. Prescott hasn't miss a single snap due to injury yet. Maybe because of that it's why Dalton has a 1 year 3 mil contract and the Cowboys just might be hoping that rocket arm Dinucci develops enough this season that he can take over the backup QB position or at the very least Dalton who already had a house in the Metroplex will take another cheap contract next season so he doesn't have to move his family. In any case Dalton is just an insurance policy against injury to Prescott.
.

So then what is the debate between us then?

 

[gjkoeppen]

So then what is the debate between us then?

I don't know. All I've ever said since Dalton was signed is he is ONLY an insurance policy against injury by Prescott. His signing has ZERO to do with negotiations with Prescott for any reason.
.

 

[Clove]

Just to clarify my Dalton case, I like Dalton. I would've wanted him as my QB when I used to play. But the trend I'm seeing with players now a day is that they aren't being pushed over by management anymore, and that includes Dak. Dak made pennies in NFL terms, and played out that entire contract without complaining, without causing problems, and he'd gotten better every year.

Never once did you have to wake up at night to pull him out of Jail, or do pr conference because of something he said, or something he'd done to a fan or anything. He was a model citizen, with good play, and cheap play. He's not bending over taking it in the you know what.

He wants what ALL OF US WOULD WANT. To be paid like one of the best, whether it be top 10 or top 2. If you think you're one of the best, and your resume' shows it, you want to be paid like it. Just like Romo got paid and had never won squat. And Andy Dalton probably won't play for 3 million next season, he's taking a small break to regroup and get into the QB pool again next year, and that's why he only signed for a year.

Players aren't signing for 10 year deals anymore, except for Smith, which wasn't smart IMO. They want less years so that they can get what the owners have always gotten. These owners aren't dealing with a bunch of dummies anymore.