Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by VaqueroTD, Feb 13, 2020.
Good. Let some other team pay him that 40 mill. I'll gladly take their picks.
You are wrong. Hell, I'm not even sure you read my post.
"In the salary cap era, I think there have been only two QB's to win a super bowl on full fair market value contracts. Eli and Peyton. Every other team to win, including this year, was a rookie deal, on the Brady discount or kind of a reserve type picked up as filler."
Brady was brady discount.
Baltimore was the reserve type filler (Dilfer)
Rothlisberger was on his rookie deal
You may be able to come up with a few anecdotes but for all the big contracts that have been passed out to QB's, they rarely win superbowls. Its almost always a guy on a value contract to win.
Yes, all of these teams are in a difficult position. Given that only 1 of 32 teams actually wins a super bowl, I am going to bet that a guy like Russell Wilson never gets another ring.
Why do teams have to find a way to "Pay QBs" and build a team at the same time? Why is that the only way to look at this. I reject that in totality. Teams have to find a way to build a team and win. The idea that you have to have a QB who can be a HOF type QB in order to compete in the NFL is a concept that I am no longer sure of. I mean, truth be told, I used to believe this but I am not sure I do anymore. The game used to require a little bit more from the QB IMO. Now, the Offenses that are prevalent in the NFL are simpler IMO. It allows for QBs to play in the NFL that would never have been able to be successful in years past. They fit the Offenses that we see in the League now. This posses an interesting dilemma. In view of how salaries are escalating in the NFL and what it's costing teams, in terms of personnel, is it really the best way to build your team, to sign a QB long term and invest so much of your cap? I'm no longer sure that's the case. Maybe the way to go here is to continuously cycle young QBs in and out. Don't commit as you did in the past and simply develop capable QBs continuously. Maybe you treat the QB position in this fashion and go ahead and just reinvest the savings realized through this method, in other areas of the team. Build the strongest "Team" possible and not just the best offense or the best QB?
What is "much cheaper" in your mind? I mean, if you trade for a guy like Stafford, yeah, he is going to be much, much cheaper IMO. So we are on the same page, it makes no sense to sign a guy like Stafford if that's the entire plan, just go out and get that guy. That has to be done with an eye towards drafting a future guy as well. So lets say you do this, then it becomes a bridge deal and the numbers actually make a lot of sense. This may be the future of the NFL and for Dallas, the fact that this franchise offers a QB to earn a very significant amount of money outside of Football, that definitely gives you a leg up IMO.
What was his winning record in previous seasons?
And again where did it get us? We played a weak division. As I said, I'm not anti Dak. The guy has some great intangibles....getting extra yards, avoiding sacks, etc that you can't teach. I just think it's bizarre how we have one playoff win, just went 8-8, etc and we are talking about throwing the bank at him. I want to keep him but not if it damages future teams. There has to be a normal solution.
Who had more offensive talent than we did last year? By the numbers, nobody.
I'm thinking defense, my man.
you are now spinning it to make it fit your argument. wether you like it or not, brady was not on rookie deal. discount or not.
ravens won twice, with dilfer and with flacco.
didn't Roth renegotiate his contract before his rookie contract ended...in essence its not a rookie contract any longer...
and not sure what the point of your spin is.....what are you suggesting?
its also about reality of it....will Detroit trade Stafford and take the hit? why? who would pay anything for an older injured QB. and again, what has he accomplished...again, the goal is not just to get a cheaper QB, the goal is to win a SB. what has Stafford shown that would make us think he can win it....he has the yards. the TDs, etc...well so does Dak but we are dismissing it because we went 8-8. can't we do the same for Stafford.
I don't think Brady even at 43 comes with any real amount of discount. and again, will he lead you to a superbowl in the next 2 years? are you willing to bet the next 3 years on a 43 year old QB?
I want options that leads to a superbowl….not just savings of 10 mill on the salary cap.
and I don't want to gamble on a QB from draft unless we are a 1-15 team and we don't look like a 1-15 team unless we go the Miami route and just dump everybody....then if that's the case, why hire Mike McCarthy?
When you move on from your franchise QB you pay a steep price and the Cowboys have been there and done it with Troy Aikman. The Cowboys endured a six year struggle of futility trying to replace him. The Dak haters want Dak replaced with either an aging vet, journeyman or high draft pick. The Cowboys tried all the above to replace Aikman. After he was released their top draft pick was Quincy Carter who failed. They tried Chad Hutchinson who showed potential in college and he failed.
The Cowboys gave up a third round pick for Drew Henson who showed great potential in college and he failed. They tried Ryan Leaf who was kicked to the curb by San Diego and he failed. They brought in an aging Vinny and Bledsoe and they failed. Any fan who thinks replacing Dak will be as simple as drafting another QB or bringing in a veteran journeyman is a fool who hasn’t been following football or this team very long.
and all of that is Dak's fault...not coaching....I recall you on here nagging about garrett and Marinelli and our special teams...all of a sudden, that's water under the bridge and its all Dak's fault...and to your point...Brady scored 13 points against cowboys...16 points against bills, 17 against philly, GB had 10 against Chicago, 11 against chargers, 8 against SF
but I am sure they are excused from this for one reason or another, but we hold Dak responsible for those scores.
I'm not spinning anything. I wrote it as plain as day in the first message you quoted.
QB's on big, full market value contracts rarely win super bowls. The vast majority of super bowl winners were on some type of value contract. Either they were forced into it as a rookie or as a vet looking for a team or they intentionally gave their team a discount, like Brady.
Giving Dak a full "fair market" type contract on top of the Zeke, Tank and Jaylon deals will make it near impossible for Dallas to put together enough talent to win a superbowl.
There may be some that want him replaced. But I think there is an in between faction..me.. that knows he's played well in stretches and doesn't want him gone but who also doesn't think overpaying him is prudent. As I said above, you have a guy with one playoff win in 4 seasons. He just got off a statistically strong season but one where we went 8-8 in a bad division and didn't beat above .500 teams. So what is the cost for that? I'm thinking what they already offered...if it was $33 mil..is plenty fair, if not high. I'm just stuck between keeping the guy who has some great traits and intangibles vs maybe hampering the team with a contract.
I didn't disagree with the assertion that they may not win as many....but to spin it to Eli and Peyton only. where facts are that there were others....not many, but others.
and financially speaking its obvious that its best to win with a QB in rookie contract that allows you to sign many other key players, but its not the only way and its challenging. depends on where you are and a bit of luck. do you suck for a couple of years or three and then luck into a great QB. mahomes wasn't the top pick, he fell and KC believed in him enough to make a trade. there has been as many top 10 QB failures as the good ones, perhaps even more.
I think given the current crop of QBs in the league, there is a changing of the guards and teams have to figure out how to manage the cap and have the right COACH, system, players to win it. and to that end, NE won it several times with a QB not on his rookie contract. so about half the time its been with QBs in rookie contract. half the time on QBs on second contract (or there abouts).
one thing is for dang sure...you have to draft well. QB and other positions. SF's bill is coming due. they have a ton of rookie contract defensive and offensive players and if they dont' win it next year, they will start to lose players. even they paid a high premium to sign Grapolo and although they didn't win it, they made it there but due to strength of their defense and coaching.
I think we are in a bit of a trouble, not because of Dak,, but our last 2 drafts have been bad, which leaves a talent gap and has forced us to go and seek FA help. last year was a disaster. the year before we missed on Charlton, else we wouldn't have gone after quinn or bennet and now be forced to pay a premium for a DE. missing out on CBs, now we lose Jones and back in FA market....and its not just having to hit on your top picks. most good team find that diamond in the rough in lower rounds once every couple of draft (or there abouts)…..we haven't really hit on any...and I don't want to hear about Lewis, Woods because neither is that great.
the draft is key to success, I bet if we look at the superbowl winning teams, we see that it wasn't just at QB, but other positions they had key players on rookie contracts
Because they could be ready to move on with a younger QB. Let me be clear here, I'm not suggesting that Detroit will do this. What I'm suggesting is that there could very well be a great many options available at QB this upcoming year. It's really an uncommon situation in the NFL and I suspect that a lot of it is being driven by escalating QB salaries but that's just my opinion.
You want? Read the thread, they have been fully vetted. If you don't have the options clear, then that's more on you.
Dak was 8-8 with probably the best Offensive personnel I've seen in Dallas since the mid 90s. How bout you show me the guarantee that if we pay Dak, we get a championship to show for it. I mean, that door swings both ways right? You ask what Stafford has accomplished but I ask you, what has Dak accomplished? All the things you say about Stafford can be said about Dak. But here is the thing, Stafford is just one of several potential options for the Cowboys. The point is that the Cowboys are only limited if they allow themselves to be.
Of course Dak is the way I would rather go here but not at the cost of a terrible contract, going forward. The team has options. It's a matter of if they elect to take advantage of them and if that's the case, you move forward understanding that you go out and sign a guy who can give you a chance to start for you and you go out and try and draft or sign a capable QB who can be developed and become your starter in 2 or 3 years. You don't want to be married to an expensive FA for a long period of time. The idea is to manage your cap and allow the team to compete and win. It's not to just blow it all up and start from scratch but you don't let the inmates run the asylum. You get control of your own situation and you either sign the guys or you move on with a plan.
That's the idea I'm putting forward.
Dak and Romo put up just over 4900 yards and both ended up 8-8. The two most productive passing seasons in franchise history in 2012 and 2919 resulted in the Cowboys missing the playoffs both years ending up 500. Arguably the best season Romo ever had was in 2014 when he passed for under 4000 yards. Arguably Dak’s best season was his rookie year when he passed for just over 3600 yards. A lot of passing yards doesn’t always equate to good seasons. Putting too much on the QB is usually a recipe for failure. Dak carried us in several games last season but too much was put on him. The Cowboys have no chance with a lesser QB. Dak has all the intangibles and leadership to get it done. We just need a better team around him. The main issue we had last season was not being able to win close games. Had we won a couple of them we would have ended up 10-6.
again, I have seen/heard/read all the options and I question if any of them is better than Dak. again, its not about saving 10 Mill on the salary cap. its about having the opportunity to win a SB and I don't think Stafford is necessarily the best option and as you said, perhaps a pipe dream since it will be tough to trade, given we only have 6 picks this year.
and we were 8-8, yes, but was it all on Dak? is the defense not accountable for this? is the special teams not accountable? is the coaching not accountable? we lost 3 games directly because of poor coaching decisions late in the games. that fact can not be dismissed. would we be 11-8 and in NFCCG if we had bilicheck? or Kyle Shanahan? or Harbaugh? this offensive philosophy, play calling and use of personnel handicapped this offense. and had handicapped this team for years. I could venture and say if not for Dak, perhaps we would have been 6-10. or 5-11. no one ever looks at it that way, which may not be far from the truth.
and I don't disagree that I wouldnt' want to hand Dak a terrible contract. going market rate for high end starting QBs start at $35 mill a year. that's reality of NFL. fact is we don't have another QB that can step in. fact is I don't see any other option that would be much cheaper or better for us to have a run at the superbowl.
and I agree. the goal is to manage the cap and put a winning team on the field. fact is having screwed up the past two drafts and we really screwed it, it puts us behind. however, we have a lot of cap space that should allow us to maneuver around a little bit. without much worry about cap implications. we just need to nail the draft. we have nothing to show for the output from last 2 drafts and that's where we are hurting.
Yes. If one needs any further evidence to validate this point just look at this season's 3 of 4 final four QB's and SB QB's. /sarcasm)
I think right now the starting point for high end QBs is around $35 at least. three years ago Cousins got $27/year. Ryan got it to $30 and Russell to 33. its the way the market is.
unless we unload everyone and restart from scratch like dolphins tried to do. the only QB worth it this year and having the lowest risk is Burrow. the rest have a lot of warts...including Tua.