Does our cap situation force us

[rockj7]

The draft should always be the top focus.

The Cowboys could do anything that they want under the 2014 salary cap; however, they are making a good decision to be conservative because it appears that they finally realize that they are not 1 or 2 big money players away from contenting for a Super Bowl.

But just to be clear, they could free up about 23.5M in cap space if they really wanted to sign some free agents. They can sign a player to a 50M contract with a cap hit of 3.2M for the 1st year. That means that they could sign 7 free agents to 50M contracts and fit it within the 2014 salary cap.

I didnt know that. Xwalker why is it seem or made to seem as if we are up against it financially? Im not disagreeing with what your saying but if you listen to inside men or ESPN its as if we are broke

 

[Risen Star]

The Cowboys can do what they want. They can sign a half dozen 50 million dollar contracts if they wanted and fit it in this year. To heck with what that means in future years. They can do what they want.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We are $8m under the cap as Weeden only took like $200k after the rule of 51. We are $30m under for next year and the only significant dead money will be Austin's because all of Ware, Ratliff, etc will be off the books.

We can act in FA and give market competitive proposals to significant free agents like Melton and Allen or anyone else for that matter.

You have to love a discussion of what our cap situation 'forces' us to do with no mention of what our cap situation is. We didn't even have to restructure Carr for Pete's sake.

 

[jobberone]

You lease players and the draft is the best way to do that and the cheapest. Only hitting on UDFAs is as good. FAs are to be avoided generally.

 

[Nightman]

You lease players and the draft is the best way to do that and the cheapest. Only hitting on UDFAs is as good. FAs are to be avoided generally.

Not really. If you miss in the Draft or a player gets hurt like Spencer or Ratliff, you need to use Free Agency to fill those spots. No one drafts and keeps an entire team.

 

[CyberB0b]

Not really. If you miss in the Draft or a player gets hurt like Spencer or Ratliff, you need to use Free Agency to fill those spots. No one drafts and keeps an entire team.

I think that is why he said "generally". The Seahawks were able to show what a couple of free agents can do for your team last year.

 

[jobberone]

I think that is why he said "generally". The Seahawks were able to show what a couple of free agents can do for your team last year.

Yep.

 

[casmith07]

Our cap situation is not forcing anything. We did the right thing in releasing DeMarcus Ware and Miles Austin.

 

[IrishAnto]

Dallas missed badly on the 2009 Draft, but so did a lot of teams. SEA has 1 player from their 2009 draft, 2nd round pick Max Unger. They wasted the 5th overall pick on Aaron Curry.

In retrospect 2009 was a poor class, however the Seahawks did come away with a pro-bowl centre and we've seen first hand what a difference one of those makes to the OL.

We on the other hand came away with absolutely nothing.

Then we spend a 1st and 2nd on M. Claiborne and a 2nd on G.Escobar is successive years.

Not exactly piling success on top of success.

 

[Nightman]

Yep.

I understood, I just disagree. I think a team needs to use FA as much as the Draft. You don't overspend, but you don't try to avoid it as a rule.

 

[jobberone]

I understood, I just disagree. I think a team needs to use FA as much as the Draft. You don't overspend, but you don't try to avoid it as a rule.

Fair enough. Generally when you don't spend a lot for a FA it's often someone who wasn't wanted elsewhere. So that's a risk although it can often benefit the player and new team. Signing big name FAs can be a problem as well often due to too much money for the bang.

Most people agree to avoid it as much as possible. But if you mean using it to fill the right holes at the right price without creating problems signing your own then I agree. You just need to be very judicious.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Then we spend a 1st and 2nd on M. Claiborne and a 2nd on G.Escobar is successive years.

Not exactly piling success on top of success.

Let' see Mo healthy and playing in a scheme that fits his skills before we deem that a bad pick. As for Escobar, he is Witten's successor.

 

[CyberB0b]

Let' see Mo healthy and playing in a scheme that fits his skills before we deem that a bad pick..

That day might not come.

 

[jobberone]

That day might not come.

Then it might, too.

 

[IrishAnto]

Let' see Mo healthy and playing in a scheme that fits his skills before we deem that a bad pick. As for Escobar, he is Witten's successor.

Will Mo get to play a scheme that fits his skills?

And will those skills be good enough to justify what we spent to get him?

Escobar my be meant to be Witten's successor, but won't see that much action until Witten retires and that could be a while yet.

Could we not have groomed a lower round pick?

Time will tell, but at the moment it's not looking too good and they didn't help much last year and this team can't afford to wait.