CFZ Defending the Dak contact, and where do we go from here

RustyBourneHorse

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,756
Reaction score
42,595
The fact that they said they would have drafted Howell in the 5th round tells me that a quarterback is on their mind. If the team goes out early again. Expect the quarterback rumblings to start. Dak only has two years left on his contract.

They've already been there. That's where my thinking comes highly in play. Plus, whoever the apprentice ends up being, he will get playing time given Dak's injury history. That'll be where we can gauge the growth.
 

thunderpimp91

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,191
Reaction score
15,672
However, the oline is starting to show wears and tears, as would be expected, and we were lucky that Peters agreed to sign here. I'm not sure Fields would be much better with us, otherwise, than he's been in Chicago. So, to me, extending Dak was the right decision, and it gives us flexibility for taking a QB at our leisure rather than a required selection. That gives us the ability to potentially find a QB that ends up being better than going 1 overall. Something Mike McCarthy knows.
That point I will disagree with simply because Chicago's offense is so bad. Yes the Cowboys oline has broken down over the last few weeks due to injury, but I would still take this group over the Chicago unit. Not to mention Chicago has one of the worst receiving units in football. I honestly think Justin Fields was thrown into a bottom 5 offense to start the season.

Now I think that Dak is twice as good a thrower of the football as Fields. With his ability to run though I think from a production standpoint we may have similar results, just very different ways of going about it. This offense probably looks more Philly like than what we are seeing out of the Cowboys currently.

I think the better argument was your previous point about basically rather having the Dak/Parsons duo instead of Field and a lot of unknown.
 

phildadon86

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,860
Reaction score
31,183
If you were a GM whose job is based on the success of the product on the field would you trade out of the top 2 picks in 24 if you didnt have a young franchise QB? I highly doubt it if you want to stay employed.
Well here is the thing. Chicago holds the number 1 pick. They arent drafting a QB. So there is a possibility if for example a team like Arizona has a horrible year next season and is stuck with Kyler or many other situations that could happen like that. They would be willing to listen. It may take 3 firsts. But for Drake Maye that is worthit. Also. If Dak goes down and we lose Rush as well to FA. We may actually not win next year lol
 

baltcowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
15,180
Reaction score
16,915
They've already been there. That's where my thinking comes highly in play. Plus, whoever the apprentice ends up being, he will get playing time given Dak's injury history. That'll be where we can gauge the growth.
I will bring it up more in the draft zone during the offseason but I would take a flier on the South Carolina quarterback that used to play for Oklahoma. At one time he was favorite to be the first pick in last year’s draft.
 

shabazz

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,054
Reaction score
31,394
I never get in the Dak debates because it’s just as useless as Jerry the Owner. We’re stuck with both at least for the next two years.

that’s a great point because there really is no debate if we simply look at the results of the last quarter century for the owner and the last 7 years from the QB…..only winning a Championship will get the needle to move. They can both kiss my black asss in the interim……and I say that in the nicest way
 

phildadon86

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,860
Reaction score
31,183
I will bring it up more in the draft zone during the offseason but I would take a flier on the South Carolina quarterback that used to play for Oklahoma. At one time he was favorite to be the first pick in last year’s draft.
Rattler?
 

phildadon86

Well-Known Member
Messages
21,860
Reaction score
31,183
that’s a great point because there really is no debate if we simply look at the results of the last quarter century for the owner and the last 7 years from the QB…..only winning a Championship will get the needle to move. They can both kiss my black asss in the interim……and I say that in the nicest way
It was remarkably polite how you worded it I must say.
 

PAPPYDOG

There are no Dak haters just Cowboy lovers!!!
Messages
19,000
Reaction score
32,746
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I know that there's a lot of angst about the Dak contract, and we still have the playoffs to play. So, there is plenty of things that can happen between now and the Super Bowl. However, let's say, hypothetically, that we get eliminated by the Bucs. I will defend the Dak contract from 2021 in this thread, and explain what I think should happen.

In the case of the Dak contract, it was the best option imo. I know that some will say "Keep Dalton". However, here are the problems with that. Firstly, if you do that, then we would have to also draft a QB to groom because Dalton also had injury issues and it's smart to have a rookie learn from a veteran QB. Sort of like what teams would do with Ryan Fitzpatrick. Additionally, it was a well known fact that the QBs in the 2022 draft were going to be atrocious. So, your only choice is to take a QB in 2021. However, that generates one huge problem. The defence was an absolute nightmare in 2020 leading up to the contract. That had to be fixed. No getting around that. Micah Parsons, though his play has dropped a bit (I suspect due to injury) the last few weeks, has been an impactful player (and had a big impact in the Eagles game, I might add). We needed Parsons. Let's assume instead that we took Fields. Firstly, he was raw his rookie season, so you get no immediate impact. You'd still have a defence that would become likely even worse the following season.

So, the defence needed some impactful player to stop the bleeding and help get it to a level where it was not a complete mess. If the FO went one more season without addressing defence, then I think the defence would've been in a spot where I'm not sure it'd be fixable in any reasonable period of time.

By keeping Dak, it bought us time to try to fix the defence. So far, I'd say it's much better, even factoring in the last few weeks, than it's been in quite some time. Not to mention that they were a huge reason we won our first 5 games under Rush (who played brilliantly as well, given the circumstances). So, I can understand why they'd be exhausted at this point considering how much they were used early in the season.

Secondly, it'd create an issue where we'd potentially have a coaching crisis. Jerry wants to win as soon as possible. Mike McCarthy is on a short leash. However, there are only so many coaches that would want to coach for Jerry. If we had gone with the Andy Dalton idea, chances are, we would have a disastrous season again in 2021. If you look at the schedule, I don't think we win more than 8-9 games without Dak that year. Especially with how well he played early in that season. So, let's say we go 7-10 that season (considering we went 6-10 the previous season). Chances are, Jerry sacks Mike McCarthy after two years. Sure, we have a high draft pick, but now we are looking at a new coach. So, the rookie that we'd have to have drafted to groom under Dalton would have to learn another system. Bad move there because he has completely wasted his rookie season, and we wasted a draft pick. Oh, and the defence would be deteriorating, so you'd be hoping that he is somehow able to keep the team afloat while the defence deteriorates, and you're forced to draft a player on defence that is not the generational talent that is Micah Parsons. Oh, and the Saints, if we are trying to go for Payton, want at least a first. Oops, now you don't have a first round pick because you went for Payton, and your oline is falling apart as is the defence. Oh, and Payton may say screw it after one season with how the team looks and is dealing with Jerry. I think you can all see logically where this goes. Disaster after disaster, and we turn into a worse mess than the Denver Broncos that not even Belichick would be able to pull us out of.

Contrast that with signing Dak, we were able to try to stabilise the defence. We were able to get Tyler Smith to try to patch up the oline. Now we are in a position to where, if we'd like, the QB class is looking better for the 2023 draft. Chances are, even if we don't go QB round 1, the pickings for round 2 should be significantly improved.

So, now we come to where I think that we should go from here. Firstly, Mike should stay. He's done well considering the circumstances of having Rush play as well as he has. He's kept this team together. He's been dealing with Jerry better than most coaches could. Oh, and he's not much different than Payton is. So, we keep building with Mike. Oh, and he's also good with QBs, as is evidenced by Rodgers and Rush. So, you let him play the rest of his contract out, of which he's got a minimum of two years (and I'd argue perhaps give him another year or two extension with what I'm thinking).

Then, in the first three rounds, you draft a QB. This 1. Gives you serious competition for Dak and 2. Gives you a chance to groom a QB for two seasons before you have to make a decision on Dak, whose contract ends in two seasons. Comparatively, Mike had Favre starting ahead of Rodgers when he took over in 2006, and then, by 2008, Rodgers was starting, so it'd also follow that track record. In the meantime, you have a scenario where Dak is starting and a young apprentice waiting in the wings. In the meantime, you can use that to your advantage by building a team that can be ready with a solid oline and a nice defence by the time you have to decide if you're keeping Dak, keeping the apprentice, or are you possibly trading the apprentice to try to get a top pick in the draft if you see an improvement in that scenario. In other words, now you take a QB in the 2023 draft to give you a ton of flexibility.

Oh, and it gives one more area of flexibility. If you decide that you're not keeping Dak, then you can use the fact that you have a successor to Dak in the wings on a rookie contract to start using the FA market knowing that Dak is going to be a FA in 2025. So, you can make the team even better for when the apprentice becomes the starter.

In short (cliff notes version for those wanting those), the Dak contract had to be done to save the team from becoming worse than the Broncos, and it gives us flexibility now to take a QB to follow a path that worked for Mike in Green Bay. It gives us the flexibility to get a QB that can potentially succeed Dak in two years while being able to use the apprentice to your advantage.

This is why I think Dak had to be extended, and why now is the time to take a QB in the draft.
Nothing to defend as it was a robbery with the Dak clan taking the Star and us to the poor house!
I'm just waiting for them to extend Dakko so I can wash my hands of this team as enough is enough with this clown show!!!!
 

RustyBourneHorse

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,756
Reaction score
42,595
That point I will disagree with simply because Chicago's offense is so bad. Yes the Cowboys oline has broken down over the last few weeks due to injury, but I would still take this group over the Chicago unit. Not to mention Chicago has one of the worst receiving units in football. I honestly think Justin Fields was thrown into a bottom 5 offense to start the season.

Now I think that Dak is twice as good a thrower of the football as Fields. With his ability to run though I think from a production standpoint we may have similar results, just very different ways of going about it. This offense probably looks more Philly like than what we are seeing out of the Cowboys currently.

I think the better argument was your previous point about basically rather having the Dak/Parsons duo instead of Field and a lot of unknown.

True, I'm just saying, assuming we took Fields. To your point, my Dak/Parsons argument is the biggest factor that I think is missed in the Dak contract debate.
 

RustyBourneHorse

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,756
Reaction score
42,595
Well here is the thing. Chicago holds the number 1 pick. They arent drafting a QB. So there is a possibility if for example a team like Arizona has a horrible year next season and is stuck with Kyler or many other situations that could happen like that. They would be willing to listen. It may take 3 firsts. But for Drake Maye that is worthit. Also. If Dak goes down and we lose Rush as well to FA. We may actually not win next year lol

There's that possibility, and that was why I made the argument that we could theoretically, depending on how next season shapes out, be able to make a trade perhaps for a top 5 spot for Maye.
 

RustyBourneHorse

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,756
Reaction score
42,595
I will bring it up more in the draft zone during the offseason but I would take a flier on the South Carolina quarterback that used to play for Oklahoma. At one time he was favorite to be the first pick in last year’s draft.

Do you mean Rittler? If so, I think he'd be an interesting project. I could see us drafting him as a possibility.
 

RustyBourneHorse

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,756
Reaction score
42,595
Nothing to defend as it was a robbery with the Dak clan taking the Star and us to the poor house!
I'm just waiting for them to extend Dakko so I can wash my hands of this team as enough is enough with this clown show!!!!

That's because you're solely focused on Dak and Dak alone. You're missing the bigger picture. Take a step back and look at the bigger picture here with what's possible because of the Dak contract. I think Jerry didn't want to make the contract extension, but I think he saw what I saw. A deficient defence, and the fact that a viable replacement at QB while fixing the defence was not legitimately possible. So, the 4 year contract made sense because it gives him a 4 year bridge to fix the defence and potentially get a suitable replacement. You can't just dump and hope for the best. There has to be a plan.

I think it's safe to say that the defence is becoming more stable (I'd like a NT and another CB), but think that we are in a spot now to where taking a mid round QB this year and maybe even next year as well would be both possible and smart. Now we can start getting a QB ready to replace Dak. So, if you think about it logically instead of solely focusing on Dak, I think you'll see that there actually was good logic for the Dak contract.
 

RustyBourneHorse

Well-Known Member
Messages
36,756
Reaction score
42,595
Bear in mind, when Dak was on his rookie contract, he was cheaper (as well as better imo) than the QBs taken ahead of him. So, if we get say a Duggan, Rittler, or others in say rounds 2-4, they'd also be cheaper than their round 1 counterparts, but would have significant upside in their respective ways to the point in which they could be developed into better players than where they are listed. Thus, we could use the savings, especially if we are going to move on from Dak following the expiration of his contract, it means we have a bit more cap space to use on FAs.
 

atlantacowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
18,138
Reaction score
24,870
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I think the problem there is that we'd be giving up a first round pick for practically the same coach, so I think it's a terrible plan to trade for Payton. Plus, when it comes to developing QBs, I think McCarthy is very good at that. Thus, it's why I think the logical answer is to draft a QB this year, and let Mike do what he did with Rodgers.

Everything is negotiable. It is not a given Payton would cost us a first round pick. MM didn't develop Rodgers. Holmgren did. Rodgers does not credit MM with anything.

I would love to draft a QB this year. But Jerry doesn't like drafting QBs. Aikman is the only first round pick he's ever used on one. ... and we all know it wasn't really his call at the time.
 

KJJ

You Have an Axe to Grind
Messages
57,334
Reaction score
35,368
Don’t know why fans continue to harp about Dak’s contract. He’s completed two years of his four year deal. If his INTs and up and down play continues he won’t be seeing another contract with the team. The Cowboys could be looking for a QB to groom for the future as soon as this off-season if Dak suffers a meltdown in the playoffs.
 

big dog cowboy

THE BIG DOG
Staff member
Messages
98,018
Reaction score
101,269
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I will defend the Dak contract from 2021 in this thread
Can't be done. The Cowboys waited 2 years to sign him and it cost them MILLIONS of dollars per year. At least $10M per year.

You can get a good FA or extend someone with that money. You made your team weaker by waiting Mr. Jones!!!
 
Top