CFZ Lets talk about the salary cap and why the Cowboys have it wrong

[Verdict]

First off, the salary cap is real. Every team has the same amount of cap room. It is the great equalizer.

Every team's goal should be to use the available cap dollars, most judiciously, to assemble the greatest amount of team talent, and depth, to win a SB. Every team should also maximize every non-cap area (coaching) to get the most out of the talent you have on your team.

Now, on to the meat of my post. The Cowboys allocation of cap dollars, on individual contracts is really off base. Lets say you have a guy who is the top QB in the NFL. You would expect that at the end of his rookie contract, the #1 Qb is going to probably be the highest paid at his position. It doesn't matter if its Tom Brady, or Rodgers, or whoever your team evaluates is the best player at his position. That guy, should arguably set the QB market.

If you have a franchise QB (in this case, its Dak) you may want to keep Dak, because there are no perceived acceptable substitutes but you have to decide (realistically) how does my QB compare to the best QB in the NFL (and his contract). Lets say that Dak is 70 percent of the QB as QB#1. He should, theoretically sign for 70% of QB#1's salary. Anything more than that really hamstrings you because you are poorly allocating cap dollars to a lesser player.

Tank is another example of that. Tank is arguably HALF as good as the top player at his position, and yet his salary is commensurate with the very top players at his position. I can understand wanting to overpay a QB (to some degree) because you can't win without a good one, but you can't overpay so much that you can't put better talent around your QB to elevate his level of play.

You also have to consider WHY a player produces. Witten had a ton of catches, but that was in part due to the fact that opposing teams WANTED Witten to get catches because his ability to hurt them was close to zero, except in very short yardage situations. A player like that shouldn't get rewarded for lots of catches, because in almost every situation, him catching the ball is hurting you more than it is helping you.

Shultz got a lot of catches last year. He seems to have a knack for finding seams and getting open. But is he worth a franchise tag? Probably not.

Would you rather have Bobby Wagner (assuming he is healthy and can still play at a high level) and a draft pick at TE, or Dalton Schultz and a draft pick at linebacker? Who would be more productive? You might say, well Wagner is done. Maybe he is. But really good impactful players hit free agency most every year due to the cap. You want to be able to sign these difference makers. What you don't want is the Tank/Zeke/Schultz contracts prohibiting that.

The salary cap is about opportunity cost. The Cowboys are giving up too much for too little.

The Cowboys also really missed out on another opportunity. We should have offered to extend Wilson last year for peanuts. He would likely have taken a 2 or 3 year deal for security. Little contracts like those make all the difference in the world.

 

[fansince68]

First off, the salary cap is real. Every team has the same amount of cap room. It is the great equalizer.

Every team's goal should be to use the available cap dollars, most judiciously, to assemble the greatest amount of team talent, and depth, to win a SB. Every team should also maximize every non-cap area (coaching) to get the most out of the talent you have on your team.

Now, on to the meat of my post. The Cowboys allocation of cap dollars, on individual contracts is really off base. Lets say you have a guy who is the top QB in the NFL. You would expect that at the end of his rookie contract, the #1 Qb is going to probably be the highest paid at his position. It doesn't matter if its Tom Brady, or Rodgers, or whoever your team evaluates is the best player at his position. That guy, should arguably set the QB market.

If you have a franchise QB (in this case, its Dak) you may want to keep Dak, because there are no perceived acceptable substitutes but you have to decide (realistically) how does my QB compare to the best QB in the NFL (and his contract). Lets say that Dak is 70 percent of the QB as QB#1. He should, theoretically sign for 70% of QB#1's salary. Anything more than that really hamstrings you because you are poorly allocating cap dollars to a lesser player.

Tank is another example of that. Tank is arguably HALF as good as the top player at his position, and yet his salary is commensurate with the very top players at his position. I can understand wanting to overpay a QB (to some degree) because you can't win without a good one, but you can't overpay so much that you can't put better talent around your QB to elevate his level of play.

You also have to consider WHY a player produces. Witten had a ton of catches, but that was in part due to the fact that opposing teams WANTED Witten to get catches because his ability to hurt them was close to zero, except in very short yardage situations. A player like that shouldn't get rewarded for lots of catches, because in almost every situation, him catching the ball is hurting you more than it is helping you.

Shultz got a lot of catches last year. He seems to have a knack for finding seams and getting open. But is he worth a franchise tag? Probably not.

Would you rather have Bobby Wagner (assuming he is healthy and can still play at a high level) and a draft pick at TE, or Dalton Schultz and a draft pick at linebacker? Who would be more productive? You might say, well Wagner is done. Maybe he is. But really good impactful players hit free agency most every year due to the cap. You want to be able to sign these difference makers. What you don't want is the Tank/Zeke/Schultz contracts prohibiting that.

The salary cap is about opportunity cost. The Cowboys are giving up too much for too little.

The Cowboys also really missed out on another opportunity. We should have offered to extend Wilson last year for peanuts. He would likely have taken a 2 or 3 year deal for security. Little contracts like those make all the difference in the world.

Wonderfully said. I agree

 

[conner01]

I think people see the tag wrong
Yes it’s expensive but only for one year
It’s ideal to use to buy ti Mm e to develop the next guy
That alternatives were to sign Schultz long term which is exactly how you end up in a couple years with everyone wanting to cut a guy because he’s too expensive
Or letting him walk and the second leading receiver on your team, in this case both, you lose with no replacement
TE is generally tough to draft and start early
There are guys like Pitts but most TE take time to develop and learn the position in the nfl where it’s not so much running a specific route as adjusting to the D and finding space
A one year extra expense doesn’t hurt near as much as 4-5 years obligation so I think it was a logical move
Now the key is drafting a guy who can be ready next year while developing McKeon

 

[fivetwos]

First off, the salary cap is real. Every team has the same amount of cap room. It is the great equalizer.

Every team's goal should be to use the available cap dollars, most judiciously, to assemble the greatest amount of team talent, and depth, to win a SB. Every team should also maximize every non-cap area (coaching) to get the most out of the talent you have on your team.

Now, on to the meat of my post. The Cowboys allocation of cap dollars, on individual contracts is really off base. Lets say you have a guy who is the top QB in the NFL. You would expect that at the end of his rookie contract, the #1 Qb is going to probably be the highest paid at his position. It doesn't matter if its Tom Brady, or Rodgers, or whoever your team evaluates is the best player at his position. That guy, should arguably set the QB market.

If you have a franchise QB (in this case, its Dak) you may want to keep Dak, because there are no perceived acceptable substitutes but you have to decide (realistically) how does my QB compare to the best QB in the NFL (and his contract). Lets say that Dak is 70 percent of the QB as QB#1. He should, theoretically sign for 70% of QB#1's salary. Anything more than that really hamstrings you because you are poorly allocating cap dollars to a lesser player.

Tank is another example of that. Tank is arguably HALF as good as the top player at his position, and yet his salary is commensurate with the very top players at his position. I can understand wanting to overpay a QB (to some degree) because you can't win without a good one, but you can't overpay so much that you can't put better talent around your QB to elevate his level of play.

You also have to consider WHY a player produces. Witten had a ton of catches, but that was in part due to the fact that opposing teams WANTED Witten to get catches because his ability to hurt them was close to zero, except in very short yardage situations. A player like that shouldn't get rewarded for lots of catches, because in almost every situation, him catching the ball is hurting you more than it is helping you.

Shultz got a lot of catches last year. He seems to have a knack for finding seams and getting open. But is he worth a franchise tag? Probably not.

Would you rather have Bobby Wagner (assuming he is healthy and can still play at a high level) and a draft pick at TE, or Dalton Schultz and a draft pick at linebacker? Who would be more productive? You might say, well Wagner is done. Maybe he is. But really good impactful players hit free agency most every year due to the cap. You want to be able to sign these difference makers. What you don't want is the Tank/Zeke/Schultz contracts prohibiting that.

The salary cap is about opportunity cost. The Cowboys are giving up too much for too little.

The Cowboys also really missed out on another opportunity. We should have offered to extend Wilson last year for peanuts. He would likely have taken a 2 or 3 year deal for security. Little contracts like those make all the difference in the world.

The problem I have isn't that they are staunchly against paying top dollar in free agency to players who aren't quite worth the money......generally speaking, that's a solid plan.

Problem is.....they seem to have the exact opposite reasoning when it comes to their own players.

Why? They don't want to be exposed?

Jerry forms personal relationships and wants to be liked?


All I know is they haven't signed a player from another team to a significant contract in the last decade and that hasn't worked.

Are they sticking with it because they are truly insane or does one situation necessitate the other?

Either way you'd figure change for change sake is necessary.

 

[visionary]

The problem I have isn't that they are staunchly against paying top dollar in free agency to players who aren't quite worth the money......generally speaking, that's a solid plan.

Problem is.....they seem to have the exact opposite reasoning when it comes to their own players.

Why? They don't want to be exposed?

Jerry forms personal relationships and wants to be liked?


All I know is they haven't signed a player from another team to a significant contract in the last decade and that hasn't worked.

Are they sticking with it because they are truly insane or does one situation necessitate the other?

Either way you'd figure change for change sake is necessary.

I’m going with “insane”

 

[Verdict]

I think people see the tag wrong
Yes it’s expensive but only for one year
It’s ideal to use to buy ti Mm e to develop the next guy
That alternatives were to sign Schultz long term which is exactly how you end up in a couple years with everyone wanting to cut a guy because he’s too expensive
Or letting him walk and the second leading receiver on your team, in this case both, you lose with no replacement
TE is generally tough to draft and start early
There are guys like Pitts but most TE take time to develop and learn the position in the nfl where it’s not so much running a specific route as adjusting to the D and finding space
A one year extra expense doesn’t hurt near as much as 4-5 years obligation so I think it was a logical move
Now the key is drafting a guy who can be ready next year while developing McKeon

I see your reasoning, but I think it is flawed, and I will tell you why. Your plan of action accepts the premise that it is ok to overpay for mediocre talent, because it’s “just one year” and it’s not as bad as overpaying for multiple years.

I think it’s almost always a mistake to overpay. (QB being a possible exception if it’s a slight overpay). Does anyone here believe that the franchise tag on Schultz will be the difference between us winning a SB and not winning a SB?

If your answer to that question is “NO” then keep your powder dry, save your cap money, wait for the right player and go get that player. If Shultz will not be the player that gets you to the super bowl, then draft a rookie, develop the rookie and get your comp pick for Schultz leaving. That’s a win/win/win scenario for all involved.

 

[Bobhaze]

First off, the salary cap is real. Every team has the same amount of cap room. It is the great equalizer.

Every team's goal should be to use the available cap dollars, most judiciously, to assemble the greatest amount of team talent, and depth, to win a SB. Every team should also maximize every non-cap area (coaching) to get the most out of the talent you have on your team.

Now, on to the meat of my post. The Cowboys allocation of cap dollars, on individual contracts is really off base. Lets say you have a guy who is the top QB in the NFL. You would expect that at the end of his rookie contract, the #1 Qb is going to probably be the highest paid at his position. It doesn't matter if its Tom Brady, or Rodgers, or whoever your team evaluates is the best player at his position. That guy, should arguably set the QB market.

If you have a franchise QB (in this case, its Dak) you may want to keep Dak, because there are no perceived acceptable substitutes but you have to decide (realistically) how does my QB compare to the best QB in the NFL (and his contract). Lets say that Dak is 70 percent of the QB as QB#1. He should, theoretically sign for 70% of QB#1's salary. Anything more than that really hamstrings you because you are poorly allocating cap dollars to a lesser player.

Tank is another example of that. Tank is arguably HALF as good as the top player at his position, and yet his salary is commensurate with the very top players at his position. I can understand wanting to overpay a QB (to some degree) because you can't win without a good one, but you can't overpay so much that you can't put better talent around your QB to elevate his level of play.

You also have to consider WHY a player produces. Witten had a ton of catches, but that was in part due to the fact that opposing teams WANTED Witten to get catches because his ability to hurt them was close to zero, except in very short yardage situations. A player like that shouldn't get rewarded for lots of catches, because in almost every situation, him catching the ball is hurting you more than it is helping you.

Shultz got a lot of catches last year. He seems to have a knack for finding seams and getting open. But is he worth a franchise tag? Probably not.

Would you rather have Bobby Wagner (assuming he is healthy and can still play at a high level) and a draft pick at TE, or Dalton Schultz and a draft pick at linebacker? Who would be more productive? You might say, well Wagner is done. Maybe he is. But really good impactful players hit free agency most every year due to the cap. You want to be able to sign these difference makers. What you don't want is the Tank/Zeke/Schultz contracts prohibiting that.

The salary cap is about opportunity cost. The Cowboys are giving up too much for too little.

The Cowboys also really missed out on another opportunity. We should have offered to extend Wilson last year for peanuts. He would likely have taken a 2 or 3 year deal for security. Little contracts like those make all the difference in the world.

Well said. I think the problem that dogs this front office is their complete inability to have a big picture, coherent plan for building a complete roster. They run their FO like fantasy football. They want “stars” as opposed to a whole team of complimentary players. The marriage of the owner and GM position is inherently flawed. It’s why the winning owners of the last 26 SBs ALL hired football people to run their football operations.

In short, these guys are over their heads in the modern NFL era of team building. When the owner refuses to change HOW he runs things, his team is cursed to repeat the same mistakes. Jerry’s like a Vegas drunk with an endless supply of cash for the roulette wheel. He just thinks he needs a “lucky roll”. He doesn’t get it.

 

[Loso86]

First off, the salary cap is real. Every team has the same amount of cap room. It is the great equalizer.

Every team's goal should be to use the available cap dollars, most judiciously, to assemble the greatest amount of team talent, and depth, to win a SB. Every team should also maximize every non-cap area (coaching) to get the most out of the talent you have on your team.

Now, on to the meat of my post. The Cowboys allocation of cap dollars, on individual contracts is really off base. Lets say you have a guy who is the top QB in the NFL. You would expect that at the end of his rookie contract, the #1 Qb is going to probably be the highest paid at his position. It doesn't matter if its Tom Brady, or Rodgers, or whoever your team evaluates is the best player at his position. That guy, should arguably set the QB market.

If you have a franchise QB (in this case, its Dak) you may want to keep Dak, because there are no perceived acceptable substitutes but you have to decide (realistically) how does my QB compare to the best QB in the NFL (and his contract). Lets say that Dak is 70 percent of the QB as QB#1. He should, theoretically sign for 70% of QB#1's salary. Anything more than that really hamstrings you because you are poorly allocating cap dollars to a lesser player.

Tank is another example of that. Tank is arguably HALF as good as the top player at his position, and yet his salary is commensurate with the very top players at his position. I can understand wanting to overpay a QB (to some degree) because you can't win without a good one, but you can't overpay so much that you can't put better talent around your QB to elevate his level of play.

You also have to consider WHY a player produces. Witten had a ton of catches, but that was in part due to the fact that opposing teams WANTED Witten to get catches because his ability to hurt them was close to zero, except in very short yardage situations. A player like that shouldn't get rewarded for lots of catches, because in almost every situation, him catching the ball is hurting you more than it is helping you.

Shultz got a lot of catches last year. He seems to have a knack for finding seams and getting open. But is he worth a franchise tag? Probably not.

Would you rather have Bobby Wagner (assuming he is healthy and can still play at a high level) and a draft pick at TE, or Dalton Schultz and a draft pick at linebacker? Who would be more productive? You might say, well Wagner is done. Maybe he is. But really good impactful players hit free agency most every year due to the cap. You want to be able to sign these difference makers. What you don't want is the Tank/Zeke/Schultz contracts prohibiting that.

The salary cap is about opportunity cost. The Cowboys are giving up too much for too little.

The Cowboys also really missed out on another opportunity. We should have offered to extend Wilson last year for peanuts. He would likely have taken a 2 or 3 year deal for security. Little contracts like those make all the difference in the world.

They have actually been pretty good over the last decade or so honestly. Every team has that 1 year or 2 where your old guys are on their way out or at the end of their respective contracts

 

[conner01]

I see your reasoning, but I think it is flawed, and I will tell you why. Your plan of action accepts the premise that it is ok to overpay for mediocre talent, because it’s “just one year” and it’s not as bad as overpaying for multiple years.

I think it’s almost always a mistake to overpay. (QB being a possible exception if it’s a slight overpay). Does anyone here believe that the franchise tag on Schultz will be the difference between us winning a SB and not winning a SB?

If your answer to that question is “NO” then keep your powder dry, save your cap money, wait for the right player and go get that player. If Shultz will not be the player that gets you to the super bowl, then draft a rookie, develop the rookie and get your comp pick for Schultz leaving. That’s a win/win/win scenario for all involved.

I get that
But no one player really makes you a SB team
What he does give you is an effective TE that can keep the chains moving that we don’t have without a TE
The reason lesser TE were tagged for the same money is the position is so important
But I do get your argument

 

[fivetwos]

Well said. I think the problem that dogs this front office is their complete inability to have a big picture, coherent plan for building a complete roster. They run their FO like fantasy football. They want “stars” as opposed to a whole team of complimentary players. The marriage of the owner and GM position is inherently flawed. It’s why the winning owners of the last 26 SBs ALL hired football people to run their football operations.

In short, these guys are over their heads in the modern NFL era of team building. When the owner refuses to change HOW he runs things, his team is cursed to repeat the same mistakes. Jerry’s like a Vegas drunk with an endless supply of cash for the roulette wheel. He just thinks he needs a “lucky roll”. He doesn’t get it.

Ha nice.

Anyone who saw those divisional and CC games this year understands how tough it is....and its not at all about 'luck.'

But yeah....they "just missed." LOL.

Ball bounced the wrong way.

The draft ought to get us over that hump.

 

[Verdict]

They have actually been pretty good over the last decade or so honestly. Every team has that 1 year or 2 where your old guys are on their way out or at the end of their respective contracts

I am not a team apologist. I support our team, but I do not blindly approve of every move that has been made.

The Tank contract was a HORRIBLE contract using the evidence that they had available at the time the contract was signed. That was just a very poor decision from the outset.

I would not have caved to Zeke’s demands, but that contract can be viewed from two separate points of view.

We should have let Amari walk and accepted the third round comp pick for him. We stupidly paid Witten and Sean Lee, when they had no more to give.

We overpaid Dak. But the biggest mistake there was really waiting too long to extend him. One year too late cost us millions.

At some point with players you have to either be willing to let them sit out the year while under contract (Zeke) or let them walk in free agency if the cost is too high.

Paying receivers is becoming like paying a RB. You can find a good one anywhere in the draft if you can evaluate talent.

 

[Bobhaze]

Ha nice.

Anyone who saw those divisional and CC games this year understands how tough it is....and its not at all about 'luck.'

But yeah....they "just missed." LOL.

Ball bounced the wrong way.

The draft ought to get us over that hump.

The Jones boys should at least be more creative with the horse manure they shovel at the fans every year.

 

[Verdict]

I get that
But no one player really makes you a SB team
What he does give you is an effective TE that can keep the chains moving that we don’t have without a TE
The reason lesser TE were tagged for the same money is the position is so important
But I do get your argument

You can find a good one just like him in the 4th or 5th round. Schultz was a 4th rounder.

Draft him, save $10M per year over the life of his contract and maybe he ends up being Schultz or better. You not only get a cheap player but you get a free comp pick for your efforts.

 

[Loso86]

I am not a team apologist. I support our team, but I do not blindly approve of every move that has been made.

The Tank contract was a HORRIBLE contract using the evidence that they had available at the time the contract was signed. That was just a very poor decision from the outset.

I would not have caved to Zeke’s demands, but that contract can be viewed from two separate points of view.

We should have let Amari walk and accepted the third round comp pick for him. We stupidly paid Witten and Sean Lee, when they had no more to give.

We overpaid Dak. But the biggest mistake there was really waiting too long to extend him. One year too late cost us millions.

At some point with players you have to either be willing to let them sit out the year while under contract (Zeke) or let them walk in free agency if the cost is too high.

Paying receivers is becoming like paying a RB. You can find a good one anywhere in the draft if you can evaluate talent.

I don't disagree about all of what you are saying my friend but I dont agree with it all

 

[Vinnie2u]

The main problem is the Dallas pays good players.. Such Tank, Zeke, Cooper, Dak. Elite player salaries. Then there’s not enough pie to compete for Free Agents.

 

[Hadenough]

First off, the salary cap is real. Every team has the same amount of cap room. It is the great equalizer.

Every team's goal should be to use the available cap dollars, most judiciously, to assemble the greatest amount of team talent, and depth, to win a SB. Every team should also maximize every non-cap area (coaching) to get the most out of the talent you have on your team.

Now, on to the meat of my post. The Cowboys allocation of cap dollars, on individual contracts is really off base. Lets say you have a guy who is the top QB in the NFL. You would expect that at the end of his rookie contract, the #1 Qb is going to probably be the highest paid at his position. It doesn't matter if its Tom Brady, or Rodgers, or whoever your team evaluates is the best player at his position. That guy, should arguably set the QB market.

If you have a franchise QB (in this case, its Dak) you may want to keep Dak, because there are no perceived acceptable substitutes but you have to decide (realistically) how does my QB compare to the best QB in the NFL (and his contract). Lets say that Dak is 70 percent of the QB as QB#1. He should, theoretically sign for 70% of QB#1's salary. Anything more than that really hamstrings you because you are poorly allocating cap dollars to a lesser player.

Tank is another example of that. Tank is arguably HALF as good as the top player at his position, and yet his salary is commensurate with the very top players at his position. I can understand wanting to overpay a QB (to some degree) because you can't win without a good one, but you can't overpay so much that you can't put better talent around your QB to elevate his level of play.

You also have to consider WHY a player produces. Witten had a ton of catches, but that was in part due to the fact that opposing teams WANTED Witten to get catches because his ability to hurt them was close to zero, except in very short yardage situations. A player like that shouldn't get rewarded for lots of catches, because in almost every situation, him catching the ball is hurting you more than it is helping you.

Shultz got a lot of catches last year. He seems to have a knack for finding seams and getting open. But is he worth a franchise tag? Probably not.

Would you rather have Bobby Wagner (assuming he is healthy and can still play at a high level) and a draft pick at TE, or Dalton Schultz and a draft pick at linebacker? Who would be more productive? You might say, well Wagner is done. Maybe he is. But really good impactful players hit free agency most every year due to the cap. You want to be able to sign these difference makers. What you don't want is the Tank/Zeke/Schultz contracts prohibiting that.

The salary cap is about opportunity cost. The Cowboys are giving up too much for too little.

The Cowboys also really missed out on another opportunity. We should have offered to extend Wilson last year for peanuts. He would likely have taken a 2 or 3 year deal for security. Little contracts like those make all the difference in the world.

In todays game you either build a great team and pay everyone but the QB and sign a mediocre QB to a reasonable deal. Or you pay an absolute stud QB if you have one to a monster contract and let players come and go and coach them up. But what you don't do is sign a mediocre QB to a monster contract. Until Dak is gone this team will churn through players and we will always hear how it's the teams fault they lost.

 

[Bobhaze]

You can find a good one just like him in the 4th or 5th round. Schultz was a 4th rounder.

Draft him, save $10M per year over the life of his contract and maybe he ends up being Schultz or better. You not only get a cheap player but you get a free comp pick for your efforts.

With the release of Blake Jarwin today it seems very likely the Cowboys will be drafting a TE this year. Probably somewhere in rounds 2-5. Maybe they can find another youngster that can develop. Schultz plus a developmental rookie project is not a bad way to go.

 

[conner01]

You can find a good one just like him in the 4th or 5th round. Schultz was a 4th rounder.

Draft him, save $10M per year over the life of his contract and maybe he ends up being Schultz or better. You not only get a cheap player but you get a free comp pick for your efforts.

Possible but not probable
Very few 4th round TE have much of an impact the first year
Hopefully we pick a TE at some point either way
But I honestly think 4th is too late but you never know
I wouldn’t be shocked if we took one much earlier
I don’t think we take one at 24 but anytime after that wouldn’t shock me
The position is really important to an offense

 

[Nova]

The problem I have isn't that they are staunchly against paying top dollar in free agency to players who aren't quite worth the money......generally speaking, that's a solid plan.

Problem is.....they seem to have the exact opposite reasoning when it comes to their own players.

Why? They don't want to be exposed?

Jerry forms personal relationships and wants to be liked?


All I know is they haven't signed a player from another team to a significant contract in the last decade and that hasn't worked.

Are they sticking with it because they are truly insane or does one situation necessitate the other?

Either way you'd figure change for change sake is necessary.

Change could be a good thing. I think it frustrates us to see existing players get paid, because those players were on the team already when we weren’t “good enough”.

On the flip side, if I’ve learned one thing watching football it’s that environment matters for player success.

There’s a lot less risk in paying a guy you know will succeed in your system.

Of course, ya gotta roll the dice sometimes.

 

[RD21]

The Jones boys should at least be more creative with the horse manure they shovel at the fans every year.

I'm pretty sure the manure they throw at fans, comes from a Bull