Do you want the Cowboys to sign Dak Prescott to another long term deal?

[Chocolate Lab]

He’ll end up resetting the QB market with another team

Good.

and the Cowboys will be stuck looking for another starting QB.

I'm ready to live with that.

It would be like losing your beautiful girlfriend to another man and having to settle for an ugly one.

It's not like that at all.

It's more like losing your above-average-but-still-seriously-flawed girlfriend and being ready to live through a transition period while you find an actually beautiful and more desirable one.

 

[kskboys]

Uh oh, the Yeses down under 21%.

 

[kskboys]

Good.


I'm ready to live with that.


It's not like that at all.

It's more like losing your above-average-but-still-seriously-flawed girlfriend and being ready to live through a transition period while you find an actually beautiful and more desirable one.

Having a happy relationship has nothing to do w/ how fine a chick is!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Losing Dak is more the equivalent of getting out of an emotionally dead/abusive relationship and finding a healthy relationship.

 

[KJJ]

What you say only makes sense if you CARE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS TO DAK IF HE IS NO LONGER A COWBOY.

I don't.

You are personally vested on Dak's situation in totality...I am NOT. Dak's leverage with some other team doesn't matter. If you are a KC fan, Dak has no leverage with your org. If you are a Bills fan, same. If you are a Bears fan, same. GET IT YET? Probably not...you're stuck on Dak winning not the Cowboys.

You've LOST THE PLOT...It's not about Dak, it's about THE TEAM. If the COWBOYS don't want him, he's got no leverage. ARE YOU GETTING THIS YET?

Halle Berry had leverage with a ton of men...not David Justice. not Wesley Snipes. not Eric Benet. They either got better or had enough experience to walk away. GET IT YET?

I could care less what happens to Dak if he’s no longer a member of the Cowboys. Those of you who think I’m some Dak homer couldn’t be more wrong. My number one argument has always been who can we get that’s better? If the Cowboys don’t want him other teams will, which gives him a ton of leverage. The Cowboys do want him, but they have to be able to pay him. If they can’t, he’ll have his choice of teams that will. That’s leverage!

 

[CowboyFrog]

Uh oh, the Yeses down under 21%.

I voted no because its time to see what some of these "Playoff Losers" we have had for 28 years can do with another FO, again its easy to me to see what the problem is...let Jerry rebuild tell me you have high faith in how it goes...the heat needs to get higher on this FO I'm tired of hearing how "The coaches, the players" have let the guy who keeps bringing them here down....

 

[HailstateCowboy]

Dak has all the leverage and the Cowboys have none. There isn’t going to be any standoff. Either the Cowboys will pay Dak or someone else will. If the Cowboys aren’t able to agree to terms with him by March 13, he’s a free agent and will very likely sign with another team. That will leave the Cowboys searching for another starting QB.

And whoever that is - he will be worse than Dak which will lead to more losses and misery for a lot of already miserable folks on this board. Bunch of knuckleheads.

 

[HailstateCowboy]

Dak ONLY HAS LEVERAGE IF THE COWBOYS TRULY WANT HIM. You KEEP REPEATING something YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND.

A wife has leverage with her husband...IF HE WANTS HER. If he doesn't want her...she can threaten to leave, take the kids, the house...etc. So he will lose something...but if he doesn't WANT her...she has a lot less leverage. Dak's only leverage is that he is a division-winning QB every other year or so. Is that what Jerry wants? If not, Dak has NO LEVERAGE AT ALL.

That BS makes absolutely no sense. He "would not" have leverage if the Cowboys were his only option so he had to take what he is offered. He DOES have leverage because if Dallas doesn't want him there will be other teams lining up to pay him MORE than Dallas can / will. Like I have said, there are some folks with more time than sense lurking on this board.

 

[HailstateCowboy]

The fact that he has all the leverage is the reason a deal hasn’t been struck. He can afford to stand is ground. He’s already making $40 million per season and will be getting a lot more than that after this season. You really don’t understand the situation. Dak is in a position where he’s going to get paid HUGE no matter what, unless he suffers a serious career threatening injury. The Cowboys only have his rights for this season. He’ll be as free as a bird come March 13, 2025. He’ll end up resetting the QB market with another team and the Cowboys will be stuck looking for another starting QB. It would be like losing your beautiful girlfriend to another man and having to settle for an ugly one. Lol Jerry will be in the same sinking boat he was in after he released Troy Aikman. He had nothing at QB and it led to 5 very lean years. Go look at the carousel of QBs we went through during those years. Dak has all the chips on his side. You’re acting like we have him locked up and he’s going to have to concede. Lol You might want to rethink your position that he has no leverage.

He'll be making 60 million starting next season - unless he is willing to give Dallas a discount because he enjoys being a Cowboy and knows he can make more than enough in endorsements to make up the difference.

 

[kskboys]

He'll be making 60 million starting next season - unless he is willing to give Dallas a discount because he enjoys being a Cowboy and knows he can make more than enough in endorsements to make up the difference.

Which team has that kinda salary cap available?

 

[TheSport78]

And whoever that is - he will be worse than Dak which will lead to more losses and misery for a lot of already miserable folks on this board. Bunch of knuckleheads.

Was it worth the Colts going 1-15 for one season so they could get Andrew Luck?

 

[CowboyFrog]

Was it worth the Colts going 1-15 for one season so they could get Andrew Luck?

in hindsight no, he didnt win anything...i would use a better example.

 

[kskboys]

Was it worth the Colts going 1-15 for one season so they could get Andrew Luck?

Absolutely. He was a stud, Colts screwed him up majorly by not surrounding him w/ talent.

 

[KJJ]

And whoever that is - he will be worse than Dak which will lead to more losses and misery for a lot of already miserable folks on this board. Bunch of knuckleheads.

Dak has been far from bad. We’ve won a lot of games with him, but the playoffs haven’t gone well. Our next QB won’t likely have the regular season success he did, which means we’re going to struggle to make the playoffs.

 

[Blitzen]

If I don’t understand the concept of leverage then how come everyone who gets paid to talk football is saying Dak has the most leverage of any player in NFL history? The leverage between the Cowboys FO and Dak and his agent is what we’re talking about. The Cowboys are trying to work out a deal with them and according to what’s been reported offers have been made and he’s not accepting them. Stephen said three weeks ago they want to extend Dak but it’s going to be up to him. No wasting anymore time with this.

https://www.on3.com/pro/news/dak-pr...to-become-nfls-highest-ever-paid-quarterback/

https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/57...prescott-contract-negotiation-dallas-cowboys/

https://atozsports.com/nfl/dallas-c...ns-how-powerful-dak-prescott-position-is-nfl/

https://www.si.com/nfl/cowboys/news...ate-dallas-cowboys-quarterback-value-leverage

Bro-I’m just talking about basic negotiation logic. Two parties go to a table and begin negotiations for a deal. They present their respective cases for getting the deal done. After they finish presenting their cases, the parties eventually leave the table to negotiate with another party/table. This is a situation where neither party could elicit a satisfactory deal during the leverage/negotiation process.

Whether either party negotiates a successful deal with another party means nothing with regards to the original negotiation. It means something with regards to leverage with the parties that agreed to the deal only.

 

[kskboys]

in hindsight no, he didnt win anything...i would use a better example.

In hindsight, absolutely. Dude took them from a 2 win team to the AFC champ game. It's not what you win w/ him, it's what sort of player you get. Luck was phenomenal.

 

[HailstateCowboy]

Was it worth the Colts going 1-15 for one season so they could get Andrew Luck?

How in the world are you going to bring in a QB that will guarantee you a one-win season?? And you are going to use Andrew Luck as a "typical" first round draft pick QB?? Go back and take a look at the last 20 or so first round QBs - and see what the percentage of those teams then made the second round of the playoffs with that same QB. I'll hang up and listen. Good grief.....you guys are freaking clueless.

 

[KJJ]

He'll be making 60 million starting next season - unless he is willing to give Dallas a discount because he enjoys being a Cowboy and knows he can make more than enough in endorsements to make up the difference.

I’m not so sure he enjoys being a Cowboy. I think he’s as fed up with this fan base as they are with him.

 

[KJJ]

Bro-I’m just talking about basic negotiation logic. Two parties go to a table and begin negotiations for a deal. They present their respective cases for getting the deal done. After they finish presenting their cases, the parties eventually leave the table to negotiate with another party/table. This is a situation where neither party could elicit a satisfactory deal during the leverage/negotiation process.

Whether either party negotiates a successful deal with another party means nothing with regards to the original negotiation. It means something with regards to leverage with the parties that agreed to the deal only.

You don’t know what you’re talking about in regards to this situation.

 

[CowboyFrog]

In hindsight, absolutely. Dude took them from a 2 win team to the AFC champ game. It's not what you win w/ him, it's what sort of player you get. Luck was phenomenal.

im mean wouldn't the Colts getting Manning be a better example that lasted for years and brought home a trophy...Luck was good but it ended bad and no trophy.

 

[TheSport78]

in hindsight no, he didnt win anything...i would use a better example.

Oh, so your success is SOLELY based on Super Bowl championships. Got it. Ask Marino and other great QBs how easy it is to win a ring.