Lawrence 2018

[Stash]

Luck plays a part both ways. I never indicated it didn't. Im just talking about real life. I'm not sure how real life is being "lazy". Luck plays a part in all statistics. Talent is also a factor.

Then I find it works both ways, it's not really much of a reliable factor then is it?

You choose to ignore the prior years in Lawrence's career. I choose not to. What I think you fail to realize is that "luck" (injuries) may have had a significant impact on Lawrence's stats in prior years. So it cuts both ways.

On the contrary, I'm not ignoring prior years at all. But I am giving them the factual qualifiers that they rightfully deserve. You and I both know that prior injuries inhibited the player. That can't be ignored.

I prefer that Lawrence set the world on fire and us keep him but in a salary cap world there are trade offs. It is best for Lawrence if he sets the world on fire and becomes the highest paid DE in football. It is best for the team i Lawrence plays good, doesn't get a ton of sacks, takes a lesser contract and then sets the world on fire and gets 25 sacks per year at the lower rate.

Good luck with that. That ship has sailed. Maybe if injuries and timing had worked out differently the team could have signed him earlier at less money. That time has passed.

Reality is that at SOME point, the cap percentage gets to be so high that he can't be good enough to justify his cap hit. I believe the team is hedging its bets with so many DEs on the roster. They probably prefer to keep Tank. But they are probably not going to be held hostage.

Reality is that this team. Is now free of their past salary cap burdens. And they can afford to pay a proven talent what his production would command. In fact, right now, there are two proven big money players for this team to pay - Zack Martin and Lawrence. And nobody else.

They're not "held hostage" by anything other than not having any alternatives at the position. Maybe they will after this season? But right now? No. There's Lawrence.

 

[Verdict]

Not sold on Lawrence's production to warrant him a big contract offer. 14.5 sacks is pretty damn good but can DLaw duplicate those numbers in 2018 as well. Most times than not, these guys get big $ contracts and the production doesn't match the dollar.

Not saying this is the case with DLaw but if I am in the front office, I'm not rushing to get this contract finished until I see stats and still, can't break the bank where if this situation doesn't pan out, it doesn't cripple this franchise either.

The Cowboys need to approach this new contract very conservatively.

 

[northerncowboynation]

Lawrence is playing under his franchise tag for this year (at least that is what it looks like right now). The Cowboys seem to be concerned that 2017 may be the exception rather than the rule. If you look at past history they may be right.

Up until last year Lawrence was a good but not great player. In 2017he looked unstoppable at times. But which one is the real Lawrence?

I would not be surprised if Lawrence regresses back to his pre 2017 form. I also wouldn't be surprised to see Lawrence pick up where he left off last year.

The important part is this: If the Cowboys were to sign Lawrence now they have to pay him as if the 2017 Lawrence is the real Lawrence. All the risk is on the Cowboys.

If they wait, if Lawrence regresses they have saved themselves a TON of money. If Lawrence does it again the Cowboys can either give him a long term contract or trade him as a proven, established pass rusher.

I won't be shocked either way. The Cowboys have continued to add DEs to the roster for a reason.

This is what I know. Tank would never have franchised after the 2016 season. Too many injuries, not many sacks and a suspension does not add up to a big pay day. The tag was based mostly on his 2017 stats. Good decision with a wait and see approach. I won't be surprised if his 2018 season isn't up to 2017 standards. I will say, if he can stay back and shoulder problem free, he has a good chance to repeat 2017.

So what if he misses 4 games with an injury and still gets 10 sacks? Do we take a chance and sign him to a big contract? I don't think anything is cut and dried just yet. I don't see Tank tanking in 2018 unless the back issues or another injury crops up. He was talented coming out of the draft. He is talented here, just injuries. Still, if he goes through that again, it will cut his pay day no matter where he plays in 2019. The motivation should still be high in 2018

 

[ItzKelz]

Collins was replaced by Irving at 3 once he returned from suspension. Irving > Collins, so I still don't buy this.

Replaced? He played there because he had to because Collins had to change positions. And its factual. Again....if DLaw will not have the same year if Collins is not the one lining up beside him.

 

[Verdict]

Then I find it works both ways, it's not really much of a reliable factor then is it?



On the contrary, I'm not ignoring prior years at all. But I am giving them the factual qualifiers that they rightfully deserve. You and I both know that prior injuries inhibited the player. That can't be ignored.



Good luck with that. That ship has sailed. Maybe if injuries and timing had worked out differently the team could have signed him earlier at less money. That time has passed.



Reality is that this team. Is now free of their past salary cap burdens. And they can afford to pay a proven talent what his production would command. In fact, right now, there are two proven big money players for this team to pay - Zack Martin and Lawrence. And nobody else.

They're not "held hostage" by anything other than not having any alternatives at the position. Maybe they will after this season? But right now? No. There's Lawrence.

You seem to be agitated/annoyed about this discussion and I'm not really sure why. It is obvious that you want to keep Tank and pay him, which is fine to believe. It might be accuarate.

You also seem annoyed at the thought that Tank may not be a Cowboy at some point due to salary cap issues. The cap HAS to be a consideration for every player in the salary cap era. Teams should do this analysis with every player.

I would like to see us keep Tank, have him succeed/excel and acquire pieces to go along with him. Most fans would. But there is more to it than that simplistic reasoning.

Not only must we build a team, but if we can do it judiciously then we can compete every year like the Patriots. That seems to be the direction we are headed. It's a good thing.

 

[Verdict]

This is what I know. Tank would never have franchised after the 2016 season. Too many injuries, not many sacks and a suspension does not add up to a big pay day. The tag was based mostly on his 2017 stats. Good decision with a wait and see approach. I won't be surprised if his 2018 season isn't up to 2017 standards. I will say, if he can stay back and shoulder problem free, he has a good chance to repeat 2017.

So what if he misses 4 games with an injury and still gets 10 sacks? Do we take a chance and sign him to a big contract? I don't think anything is cut and dried just yet. I don't see Tank tanking in 2018 unless the back issues or another injury crops up. He was talented coming out of the draft. He is talented here, just injuries. Still, if he goes through that again, it will cut his pay day no matter where he plays in 2019. The motivation should still be high in 2018

I agree with that. If Tank sets the world on fire again I'm not sure we will pay him. If Tank plays vert good but stats fall off a bit I think he has a better chance of getting another contract here.

 

[conner01]

Health has been the only issue with Dlaw
When healthy he is productive
Structure a contract like we did with Lee
If he’s on the field he makes big money, if he’s injured he doesn’t
Production doesn’t concern me at all, and you can protect yourself against injury
If he plays he cost premium money, probably more than he would in a standard deal but you are somewhat protected from injury

 

[Stash]

You seem to be agitated/annoyed about this discussion and I'm not really sure why. It is obvious that you want to keep Tank and pay him, which is fine to believe. It might be accuarate.

How do I seem "annoyed"?

You also seem annoyed at the thought that Tank may not be a Cowboy at some point due to salary cap issues. The cap HAS to be a consideration for every player in the salary cap era. Teams should do this analysis with every player.

Again, no, just because I'm disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm "annoyed" about anything. Are you annoyed because I'm disagreeing with you?

I would like to see us keep Tank, have him succeed/excel and acquire pieces to go along with him. Most fans would. But there is more to it than that simplistic reasoning.

Not only must we build a team, but if we can do it judiciously then we can compete every year like the Patriots. That seems to be the direction we are headed. It's a good thing.

I'm all for spending wisely, but at some point, you have to do just that - spend. Especially on players who have proven themselves.

Somebody is going to get paid by this team and I feel better about guys who have accomplished something getting it.

I'm not thrilled that the timing worked out this way with Lawrence. I would have loved some productive cheap years too. But they are getting that from other places right now, so I have less of a problem paying going rate for a guy that was among the league leaders at his position.

 

[Verdict]

Health has been the only issue with Dlaw
When healthy he is productive
Structure a contract like we did with Lee
If he’s on the field he makes big money, if he’s injured he doesn’t
Production doesn’t concern me at all, and you can protect yourself against injury
If he plays he cost premium money, probably more than he would in a standard deal but you are somewhat protected from injury

Health hasn't been the only issue. Additional issues are:

1. Suspension
2. Lack of consistency
3. Contract demands
4. Team risk.
I am sure there are more but these are some we can reasonably infer.

 

[Verdict]

How do I seem "annoyed"?



Again, no, just because I'm disagreeing with you doesn't mean I'm "annoyed" about anything. Are you annoyed because I'm disagreeing with you?



I'm all for spending wisely, but at some point, you have to do just that - spend. Especially on players who have proven themselves.

Somebody is going to get paid by this team and I feel better about guys who have accomplished something getting it.

I'm not thrilled that the timing worked out this way with Lawrence. I would have loved some productive cheap years too. But they are getting that from other places right now, so I have less of a problem paying going rate for a guy that was among the league leaders at his position.

You need to re-read my posts. Maybe it will make more sense.

What exactly is it that you think we disagree on?

 

[Stash]

You need to re-read my posts. Maybe it will make more sense.

Only if you promise to reread mine as well.

What exactly is it that you think we disagree on?

Paying the player. You seem to want all kinds of assurances and qualifiers, going so far as hoping he does worse so that you can avoid paying him.

Like I've said, that ship has sailed.

The team hoped for a War Daddy. They got one. And now you have to pay for him.

I'll ask you this since you seem very concerned. Where else do you think all of the cap money needs to go?

 

[conner01]

Health hasn't been the only issue. Additional issues are:

1. Suspension
2. Lack of consistency
3. Contract demands
4. Team risk.
I am sure there are more but these are some we can reasonably infer.

You don’t pay them if they are suspended
When healthy he has been productive at a position that takes time to develope
Contract demands are not a big deal if player is on the field. In my scenario you aren’t paying him big money if he’s not
A structure like this protects the team

 

[northerncowboynation]

I agree with that. If Tank sets the world on fire again I'm not sure we will pay him. If Tank plays vert good but stats fall off a bit I think he has a better chance of getting another contract here.

I'm more certain of Tank staying than Irving? He is doing all the right things to catch Goodell's attention.

 

[Verdict]

Only if you promise to reread mine as well.



Paying the player. You seem to want all kinds of assurances and qualifiers, going so far as hoping he does worse so that you can avoid paying him.

Like I've said, that ship has sailed.

The team hoped for a War Daddy. They got one. And now you have to pay for him.

I'll ask you this since you seem very concerned. Where else do you think all of the cap money needs to go?

I am not against "paying the player." So if that is what you think then you are not accurate in your assumption. I am against "over paying" a player. Moreover the Cowboys team is far more important to me personally than any player.

The team is better off paying less for every player that they can because it allows the team to create more depth, which has been a problem for the Dallas Cowboys for as long as Jerry has been the owner and there has been a salary cap (other than the last few years).

I would like to keep Tank. But there is a point to where the risk reward of paying that player tips too far toward the player to the detriment of the team. I was against the Dez signing because the contract put way too much risk on the Cowboys.

I think we should have kept Leary and Murray but I understand why the team didn't. But contracts like Dez and Witten cost us Leary etc.

It doesn't matter WHO the player is. At some point the percentage of the cap the player takes up makes it untenable to have that player on the roster.

Brady has more rings than Peyton Manning in large part due to the fact that the contracts he has signed hasn't crippled his team. The Patriots don't over pay for past production. That is one of the reasons they compete for the super bowl every year.

 

[Verdict]

I'm more certain of Tank staying than Irving? He is doing all the right things to catch Goodell's attention.

Maybe so. But on the other hand Irving might come at 1/3 of the cost of Tank due to all the noise. It's all about quantifying risk vs reward.

 

[Verdict]

You don’t pay them if they are suspended
When healthy he has been productive at a position that takes time to develope
Contract demands are not a big deal if player is on the field. In my scenario you aren’t paying him big money if he’s not
A structure like this protects the team

Contract demands ALWAYS matter. That's why Tank hasn't already been signed. It's all about the CAP and the risk vs reward vs the cap.

 

[northerncowboynation]

Maybe so. But on the other hand Irving might come at 1/3 of the cost of Tank due to all the noise. It's all about quantifying risk vs reward.

Yes there is that

 

[Stash]

I am not against "paying the player." So if that is what you think then you are not accurate in your assumption. I am against "over paying" a player. Moreover the Cowboys team is far more important to me personally than any player.

The team is better off paying less for every player that they can because it allows the team to create more depth, which has been a problem for the Dallas Cowboys for as long as Jerry has been the owner and there has been a salary cap (other than the last few years).

I would like to keep Tank. But there is a point to where the risk reward of paying that player tips too far toward the player to the detriment of the team. I was against the Dez signing because the contract put way too much risk on the Cowboys.

I think we should have kept Leary and Murray but I understand why the team didn't. But contracts like Dez and Witten cost us Leary etc.

It doesn't matter WHO the player is. At some point the percentage of the cap the player takes up makes it untenable to have that player on the roster.

Brady has more rings than Peyton Manning in large part due to the fact that the contracts he has signed hasn't crippled his team. The Patriots don't over pay for past production. That is one of the reasons they compete for the super bowl every year.

And Brady and the Patriots are the exception to every rule.

If your plan is to try to have the same success they've had, by doing everything the way they have, I wish you well.

 

[Verdict]

Only if you promise to reread mine as well.



Paying the player. You seem to want all kinds of assurances and qualifiers, going so far as hoping he does worse so that you can avoid paying him.

I prefer he be paid less as opposed to more.

Like I've said, that ship has sailed.

That ship has not sailed. Lol. The team can either negotiate a contract that it is willing to pay, trade him or let him walk. None of that is set in stone.

The team hoped for a War Daddy. They got one. And now you have to pay for him.

They do not HAVE to pay him. They can also trade him or let him walk.

I'll ask you this since you seem very concerned. Where else do you think all of the cap money needs to go?

Depth. It is the difference in competing every year or being mired in 20 plus years of mediocrity. The team is finally seeing the light. There's a new sheriff in town.

 

[Verdict]

And Brady and the Patriots are the exception to every rule.

If your plan is to try to have the same success they've had, by doing everything the way they have, I wish you well.

It's not really all that complicated. You don't over pay players. You don't pay for past performance. You don't let sentiment get in the way of doing what needs to be done.