ESPN: Dallas Cowboys Twitter mailbag, Part 2

[jobberone]

Dallas Cowboys Twitter mailbag, Part 2
February, 28, 2015 By Todd Archer | ESPNDallas.com

IRVING, Texas -- Part 2 of the Dallas Cowboys' Twitter mailbag is ready. In it we discuss:

• The financials at running back

• The quarterback-wide receiver relationship

• Dorial Beckham-Green

• Brandon Carr

• Incentives

If you want to see Part 1, click here. Away we go:

http://i471.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr75/jobberone/Screen%20Shot%202015-02-28%20at%205.21.04%20PM_zpsxyu5zf4t.png


@toddarcher: Without a doubt it would be drafting a Melvin Gordon or Todd Gurley or whoever than re-signing DeMarco Murray. Last year's No. 27 pick received a four-year deal worth $7.7 million. Murray should earn more than that in 2015 alone on a free-agent deal. But can you guarantee a rookie running back can step right in and be a huge contributor? You can't, and that's another one of the million factors or so that go into keeping Murray. If the Cowboys don't keep Murray and miss on a potential first-rounder in the draft, then they face the real possibility of wasting the final few years of Tony Romo's career. As much as everybody think the Murray decision is an easy one, to me it's not. The Cowboys can only be wrong. Either they pay him and he doesn't produce or they let him walk and can't replace him. We're not going to give them a lot of credit if Murray stays and plays well.

http://i471.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr75/jobberone/Screen%20Shot%202015-02-28%20at%205.22.38%20PM_zpsgc9bbjzx.png
@toddarcher: Not really. I think Dez Bryant would be a great receiver if I played quarterback. Well, maybe not, but you have to be careful to not take away credit from Bryant in his development. We always want to credit this coach or that coach or the quarterback while sometimes failing to give the player credit for improving. Now, I think Tony Romo has made some receivers better and made them a lot of money in other spots. Put Laurent Robinson's name at the top of the list. Romo has shown he can make role-playing receivers look better than they really are, but Bryant would be a star anywhere.


http://i471.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr75/jobberone/Screen%20Shot%202015-02-28%20at%205.33.12%20PM_zpsummkypcc.png

@toddarcher: We hear Jason Garrett talk all the time about the "right kind of guy," and oftentimes it's misinterpreted to mean, "I only want Boy Scouts." That's just not the case. Dorial Green-Beckham might be the best receiver in the draft, but that doesn't mean he will be the first receiver selected. He had issues at Missouri involved with arrests for marijuana and an alleged assault. I'm sure the Cowboys will have a handle on all of that by the time it comes to the draft and will feel comfortable taking him or keeping his name off the board. But there's also a need. I understand the "best player available" theory, but, to me, it's just that: a theory. Need has to be factored in. Dez Bryant isn't going anywhere. Terrance Williams isn't going anywhere. The Cowboys like what they're getting from Cole Beasley. They believe Devin Streetcan develop. If you're drafting Green-Beckham in the first two rounds, he would be expected to contribute right away. Would that happen here? I understand the Cowboys drafted Bryant when they just had Roy Williams and Miles Austin but they knew they would be moving away from Williams quickly and would have the chance to play Bryant right away.

http://i471.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr75/jobberone/Screen%20Shot%202015-02-28%20at%205.23.09%20PM_zpsxlstxvrr.png

@toddarcher: Brandon Carr's agent met with the Cowboys at the combine so there's at least been discussions, but he does have leverage. Well, at least a little because the Cowboys need him. They aren't sure about Morris Claiborne's health. They don't know if Sterling Moore will be back. They aren't sure what awaits in the draft. But I would say that leverage -- as little as it is -- will disappear the longer it goes. The Cowboys can just wait this out and then hold the threat of his release over his head at a point where the money will be dried up for a cornerback that did not have an interception in 2014.

http://i471.***BLOCKED***/albums/rr75/jobberone/Screen%20Shot%202015-02-28%20at%205.23.53%20PM_zpselqit27p.png


@toddarcher: Some of them count against the cap immediately whether a player hits it or not. If they don't, then you get a credit. But I want to take this to incentives in general and avoid some of the cap minutiae when it comes to them. I've gone back and forth on how they might encourage performance and protect the team. There are those at Valley Ranch who believe Henry Melton was looking more for his sixth sack than doing what he was supposed to do in the scheme because he would've earned an extra $250,000 with six sacks on the year. So that's a situation where individual incentives can affect the team.


Todd Archer
ESPN Dallas Cowboys reporter

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/cowboys/post/_/id/4740797/dallas-cowboys-twitter-mailbag-part-2-26

 

[jobberone]

I hope you guys appreciate what @WoodysGirl does here with these damn Twitter feeds. They are a PITA to put up esp multiple ones.

This is a decent read, BTW. I liked his comments on Carr.

 

[DallasEast]

There are those at Valley Ranch who believe Henry Melton was looking more for his sixth sack than doing what he was supposed to do in the scheme because he would've earned an extra $250,000 with six sacks on the year. So that's a situation where individual incentives can affect the team.

The objective of an incentive is to fulfill it. I cannot fault Melton if the contract incentive was worded in such a way that excludes the scheme as a necessity for achieving sacks. If I am Melton and I think I'm limiting my opportunity to put together six sacks playing assignment football, BUT I believe I can do so by being creative, I would probably side with getting six sacks my own way.

Assignment football is the best way to accomplish scheme. I haven't any idea how a contract incentive would be worded guaranteeing a sack through discipline football but someone should construct it as such accordingly. $250,000 means a lot more to the player than it does the team's front office. It follows that the player will try to pocket the incentive by any means necessary, especially if opportunities erode as the season progresses.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

I hope you guys appreciate what @WoodysGirl does here[/B] with these damn Twitter feeds. They are a PITA to put up esp multiple ones.

This is a decent read, BTW. I liked his comments on Carr.

Who?

 

[JohnsKey19]

I think it's only natural for a player to maybe play outside the scheme a bit looking for a sack if it puts an extra $250,000.00 in his pocket. These guys aren't robots.

 

[xwalker]

The objective of an incentive is to fulfill it. I cannot fault Melton if the contract incentive was worded in such a way that excludes the scheme as a necessity for achieving sacks. If I am Melton and I think I'm limiting my opportunity to put together six sacks playing assignment football, BUT I believe I can do so by being creative, I would probably side with getting six sacks my own way.

Assignment football is the best way to accomplish scheme. I haven't any idea how a contract incentive would be worded guaranteeing a sack through discipline football but someone should construct it as such accordingly. $250,000 means a lot more to the player than it does the team's front office. It follows that the player will try to pocket the incentive by any means necessary, especially if opportunities erode as the season progresses.

The incentive should be based on playing time. If he is doing what he should be doing then he will get more playing time.

 

[jobberone]

The incentive should be based on playing time. If he is doing what he should be doing then he will get more playing time.

And players get very upset over not getting playing time ESP if it takes away incentives. You can't always win.

 

[xwalker]

And players get very upset over not getting playing time ESP if it takes away incentives. You can't always win.

Yes, that's the reason that incentive type contracts are not used very often.