Lots of talk about pick 2 of 3 (Diggs, Lamb or Parsons)

[CowboyRoy]

A lot of Cowboys fans would agree with you. But it begs the question. If you are going to overpay for one of the players, wouldn't be safer to overpay for a CB or would you risk overpaying for Parsons? Like I said, I don't want to pay QB money for a player that might be overhyped in terms of being a generational talent..

We have good young corners

 

[eromeopolk]

105.3 The Fan brought up today on their podcast that scenario where if you knew that you could keep only 2 of the 3 between Diggs, Lamb, or Parsons - which would you choose? I've heard this topic come up quite a bit over the offseason. Most of the time, whoever was discussing the topic came to the conclusion that Diggs was the most expendable.

I'm in the minority on this, but I would sign Diggs, Lamb and trade Parsons immediately. Signing all 3 and then re-structuring Dak will keep the team in cap hell for a long time IMO. I think trading Parsons now would give the Cowboys the opportunity to build draft capital for the future and avoid falling into the trap of paying insane money for one player. Sorry I just don't see Parsons as a generational player, more like top 2 or top 3 defensive player. I would not be paying QB money for that but knowing that there are teams that would trade for him as if he is.

What would you do in this scenario?

DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS. Wide Receivers do not win crap. You have to get the ball to a WR. Defense takes the ball and gives it to a QB who has to get it to a WR.

This is football and not rocket science.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Lamb and Parsons….no brainer.

I would also ask around on trade scenarios. If lamb wants 30 million and we can get 2 firsts i trade him in a heartbeat.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I would also ask around on trade scenarios. If lamb wants 30 million and we can get 2 firsts i trade him in a heartbeat.

Sure. If someone is stupid enough to trade two 1sts for him they can have him.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Sure. If someone is stupid enough to trade two 1sts for him they can have him.

Agreed. Miami was stupid enough to do it for Hill and pay him 30 million per year.

Heck, if someone offered us a first and 2nd or first, 3rd, and 4th I might take it. IF Lamb was looking for 30 million. 25 million and no more. IF we can pull that off.

 

[Cowboys93]

Talks of trading quality players to hopefully draft quality players

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Agreed. Miami was stupid enough to do it for Hill and pay him 30 million per year.

Heck, if someone offered us a first and 2nd or first, 3rd, and 4th I might take it. IF Lamb was looking for 30 million. 25 million and no more. IF we can pull that off.

Lamb ain't Tyreke Hill though. Not yet anyway.

I'll only take 2 1sts for Lamb. Because whoever Lamb goes to those 1st round picks will be late rounders anyway.

 

[Whiskey Cowboy]

always a knucklehead reply.. no one asked but since you did Prescott is untradable he has a no trade clause you can't use the franchise tag on him and he's under contract, so it's not even a possibility so why mention it other than being a hater troll that wasn't the question if you can't answer the question directly and you try to go outside the box and be cute but you're not it just shows you're a hater and just use every opportunity put Prescott's name in a thread not about him as if we don't have enough already going on being on the number one page about Prescott

besides exactly what are you doing at quarterback you do realize that it's a bad investment to sign three players like that and not have a quarterback because quarterbacks are harder to find than any of those three positions all around the NFL there's so many examples it would take me too long to discuss why that's a a problem finding a starting quarterback that would make it worth also keeping skill players if you want to cut a guy like Prescott and start over then you trade all of them don't keep any of them you want to start at the bottom get some high draft picks blow it all up then they all have to go get what you can for them now and blow the whole team up

It was a joke....

 

[buybuydandavis]

All people decline physically after ~27. WR particularly good ones can play in to their 30s.

There's what people *can* do, and what they are *likely* to do.
Last time I saw an analysis, the median year to hit the wall was about 28.

 

[blueblood70]

It was a joke....

not really, you said it & got called out on it..

stop muddying up threads with troll posts that have zero to do with the thread the OP asked question.

we have enough 4 threads let it be.

But I was serious,

if you want to get rid of Prescott you're going to have to blow the team up.

I don't think people understand that we're not going to sign all those players without having the quarterback position settled... so if they decide to sign two or all three of those players mentioned, Prescott staying for another two years, it is way too hard to try to find a quarterback and why would you put all that money in other positions without a quarterback.

that was the truth, I'm just trying to make people understand that would be a giant waste of money the better thing to do is if your plan was to get rid of Prescott it's to trade those players and get as much as you can for them right now go after a quarterback find your quarterback which could take up to five years you want to be bad for five years that's fine but once you find your new quarterback then you have to start drafting again to find players that you just traded like Micah Parsons CD lamb and Trayvon Diggs.

it's a vicious circle that's how it works the fact is the Cowboys have been winning too many games to pick anywhere near where they would need to trade up to have a shot at a good quarterback you're going to have to suck for a while. that's how you get in position or if you get lucky,

we got lucky going from Romo to Prescott with no gap but people around here don't see that they undervalue Prescott and they don't realize how bad it is for about 20 other teams trying to find a guy at least on his level I'm not claiming the guy is elite or a top five quarterback but he is a top ten quarterback and he gives you a chance to win games to get in the playoffs and contend you can't have it both ways so you can either keep providing talent the hope the window stays open for a little longer and we can get to that next level this year or next and then you can talk about blowing it up so they're going to have to make a decision on those three players we're discussing

 

[CowboyRoy]

Lamb ain't Tyreke Hill though. Not yet anyway.

I'll only take 2 1sts for Lamb. Because whoever Lamb goes to those 1st round picks will be late rounders anyway.

Agreed

 

[dsturgeon]

They could keep all 3 by not resigning dak. That is an option

 

[Whiskey Cowboy]

not really, you said it & got called out on it..

stop muddying up threads with troll posts that have zero to do with the thread the OP asked question.

we have enough 4 threads let it be.

But I was serious,

if you want to get rid of Prescott you're going to have to blow the team up.

I don't think people understand that we're not going to sign all those players without having the quarterback position settled... so if they decide to sign two or all three of those players mentioned, Prescott staying for another two years, it is way too hard to try to find a quarterback and why would you put all that money in other positions without a quarterback.

that was the truth, I'm just trying to make people understand that would be a giant waste of money the better thing to do is if your plan was to get rid of Prescott it's to trade those players and get as much as you can for them right now go after a quarterback find your quarterback which could take up to five years you want to be bad for five years that's fine but once you find your new quarterback then you have to start drafting again to find players that you just traded like Micah Parsons CD lamb and Trayvon Diggs.

it's a vicious circle that's how it works the fact is the Cowboys have been winning too many games to pick anywhere near where they would need to trade up to have a shot at a good quarterback you're going to have to suck for a while. that's how you get in position or if you get lucky,

we got lucky going from Romo to Prescott with no gap but people around here don't see that they undervalue Prescott and they don't realize how bad it is for about 20 other teams trying to find a guy at least on his level I'm not claiming the guy is elite or a top five quarterback but he is a top ten quarterback and he gives you a chance to win games to get in the playoffs and contend you can't have it both ways so you can either keep providing talent the hope the window stays open for a little longer and we can get to that next level this year or next and then you can talk about blowing it up so they're going to have to make a decision on those three players we're discussing

It was a joke. Tongue in cheek poking fun at the "get rid of Dak" crowd, to include myself early in the season. I wish the team wasn't handcuffed by his contract, but he earned it, and I have no interest in going back into the QB dark ages at this time. If you wish to assume otherwise and continue your tangent, go for it.

That said, we just saw the Niners make a run with Mr Irrelevant at QB. The Eagles won a Super Bowl with Nick Foles, the Buccs with Brad Johnson, and the Ravens with none other than Trent freakin Dilfer, just off the top of my head. The precedent has been set and it's been proven that you don't absolutely need a franchise QB to be competitive.

Maybe having one of those guys is more ideal for sustained success, but letS take a look at the rest of the league. Rodgers has 1 ring. Brady-7, Mahommes-2 Allen-0, Burrow-0, Herbert-0, Wilson-1, Stafford-1, Brees-1, Manning brothers-2 each, etc etc. While we're at it, the only QBs that have won more than 2 are Brady, Bradshaw, Montana, and Aikman. Point being, unless there's a transcendent, generational talent behind center, paying a franchise QB huge money may not be the advantage people seem to think it is.

If the team were to move on from Dak, signing Parsons and Diggs would be the move. Build the trenches and create a monster running game to compliment the elite defense that's in place. Use the extra $40-50m to supplement our strengths and plug holes with players that aren't bargain basement deals. I'm not saying this is the move to make, but I'm not going to pretend that the only way forward is with Dak Prescott behind center.

 

[blueblood70]

It was a joke. Tongue in cheek poking fun at the "get rid of Dak" crowd, to include myself early in the season. I wish the team wasn't handcuffed by his contract, but he earned it, and I have no interest in going back into the QB dark ages at this time. If you wish to assume otherwise and continue your tangent, go for it.

That said, we just saw the Niners make a run with Mr Irrelevant at QB. The Eagles won a Super Bowl with Nick Foles, the Buccs with Brad Johnson, and the Ravens with none other than Trent freakin Dilfer, just off the top of my head. The precedent has been set and it's been proven that you don't absolutely need a franchise QB to be competitive.

Maybe having one of those guys is more ideal for sustained success, but letS take a look at the rest of the league. Rodgers has 1 ring. Brady-7, Mahommes-2 Allen-0, Burrow-0, Herbert-0, Wilson-1, Stafford-1, Brees-1, Manning brothers-2 each, etc etc. While we're at it, the only QBs that have won more than 2 are Brady, Bradshaw, Montana, and Aikman. Point being, unless there's a transcendent, generational talent behind center, paying a franchise QB huge money may not be the advantage people seem to think it is.

If the team were to move on from Dak, signing Parsons and Diggs would be the move. Build the trenches and create a monster running game to compliment the elite defense that's in place. Use the extra $40-50m to supplement our strengths and plug holes with players that aren't bargain basement deals. I'm not saying this is the move to make, but I'm not going to pretend that the only way forward is with Dak Prescott behind center.

OK first you made good points then fell back into how we be better off moving on from Prescott scenario.

you do realize then we become the Washington commandos they literally can't find a quarterback they have one of the best defenses in the league and we've seen it all around you have to have a quarterback, not any quarterback. you have to have a good quarterback they don't grow on trees you even talk about the luck that San Francisco had they literally made a dumb move which I bet most do you think they're smart give up three first round picks for a guy like Trey Lance who looks at best an average backup quarterback but then accidentally stumbles onto a last pick in the draft and brought Purdy which did that's still to be determined.

BTW San Francisco has one of the most dominating run games offensive lines and defenses in the game what happened when Purdy went down why couldn't they just use the run game and the defense to win against the Eagles? Come on show me where any quarterback with a good run game and a great defense can win a game against a better team in the playoffs we're talking about in the playoffs, not a 17 game average where you might luck into nine or ten wins with an average quarterback but we've seen that fail as well,

you have to be able to score points even our defense last year with those same players you're talking about had stretches where they gave up 25 to 35 points you have to have a quarterback that can put those points up AGAINST THE BETTER DEFENSES, THE BEST YOU MEET IN THE PLAYOFFS.

So here's an idea this whole building great defense and a strong run game,

where was that strong run game in the playoffs the last three playoff losses??? We don't have a strong run game and the offensive line cannot handle the 49ers... you get Prescott a better run game and a better offensive line and in any of those last three games ,really the last two against the 49ers, and he wins those games.

I get the money part but right now if you gave that same support the Prescott, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. Heck if he'd had a defense in 2016 that could have made one more stop, I believe we would have went to the NFC championship game, we were had the momentum but the defense failed us.

you give us this defense that year Prescott's in the NFC championship game and again we're not having this conversation, same against the Rams in 2018 -273 yards rushing they just dominated the time of possession and we had no run game.

we didn't play great defense in 2021 ,could have used the run game though, not have 11 penalties along the line..

so last year was probably the first time in the playoffs or the defense dominated and we lost but then you have to go look at the fact that we had no run game the offensive line again got stood up and to me that's the biggest reason we're not winning in the playoffs,

it's the run game in the offensive line but if you go try to rebuild that and then get rid of your quarterback I just don't it seems like we're going in circles.


but again you're not going to win without a quarterback, you have to have at least a good one someone along the line of Garoppolo or better that costs money they just paid Daniel Jones $42 million, Prescott's better than him...

I'm also saying that we don't have to stay with Prescott forever but the next two years, maybe. I don't know what they're going to do with the restructure, the windows open now ,you have to determine before you pay these other three guys what the team's going to look like once they're signed, if Prescott's not here I don't think I'm signing them, I'd rather get the trade value for them use soem for QB and some of that to fill their spots.

 

[Robster8989]

I understand the question, and like others I'll keep Parsond for sure, then CeeDee.
However, I disagree with the entire premise that you can't afford them all.
NFL revenues are exploding. The new TV deals alone will generate over 100 billion dollars over the next 10 years.
That's like the GDP of a small nation, and that's just one league revenue stream.
The cap (almost 225 mil today), is projected to explode and hit 300 mil in just a few years.
Edge, CB and WR are premiere positions in this league, and all 3 of the guys mentioned in this are game changing play makers.
They are all young too.
Micah at 28-30, CeeDee at 24-28, and Diggs at 18-22 will be reasonable contracts for top tier players at their respective positions as the cap increases.
If we signed all of them to 5+ year deals at the numbers I mention above, remember, the first year of that deal is low.

Let's say you give Micah 5/150.
His APY is 30 mil per year, but that is not his cap number.
If you gave him say 40 in bonus, and kept his 1st year salary low, his cap hit that first year could be as low as 10 mil.
Of course the lower his hit that first year the more you have to make up in ensuing years.
In his 2nd season under the new contract, his high salary could be exchanged for another bonus, again, lowering that cap hit in year 2.
As long as the player is still good, you can keep doing that.

The danger comes when you have a player who is no longer playing at a high level making a high level salary, but later years in the contract are not usually guaranteed. Cap experts can manipulate the NFL salary cap.
Look at DLaw. Huge contract, but still an effective player (though not a top of his position talent any longer), but his contract is still something we can work with, and since he's still really good on the field, it all works.
If I were GM, I'd sign all 3 of these guys as soon as I could. The sooner the better (no pun on CeeDee intended, lol).

The position that concerns me more is QB. If Dak demands 50-60, that could disrupt the cap in a big way.
I'm not a Dak hater, but the proof is in the pudding so to speak. I do NOT like this "next man up sets the market" philosophy among NFL QBs. IMO, there is a major difference between Mahomes and Burrow on the one hand, and Dak on the other.
Now if Dak leads us to a SB this season, then yes, he could demand that, but short of that, I hope Dak understands his limitations and the limitations of the cap, and stays in the 40-45 range on an extension.
That, and contiued good drafts, would allow us to keep all of our premiere young players.
The trick them becomes knowing when to move on from them.

 

[phildadon86]

105.3 The Fan brought up today on their podcast that scenario where if you knew that you could keep only 2 of the 3 between Diggs, Lamb, or Parsons - which would you choose? I've heard this topic come up quite a bit over the offseason. Most of the time, whoever was discussing the topic came to the conclusion that Diggs was the most expendable.

I'm in the minority on this, but I would sign Diggs, Lamb and trade Parsons immediately. Signing all 3 and then re-structuring Dak will keep the team in cap hell for a long time IMO. I think trading Parsons now would give the Cowboys the opportunity to build draft capital for the future and avoid falling into the trap of paying insane money for one player. Sorry I just don't see Parsons as a generational player, more like top 2 or top 3 defensive player. I would not be paying QB money for that but knowing that there are teams that would trade for him as if he is.

What would you do in this scenario?

Lol. Parsons not a generational player.

Right.

 

[stilltheguru]

Diggs let down alot of Cowboy fans. He lost his hunger. Something is missing mentally with him

 

[EST_1986]

So the question is pick 1 between Diggs and Lamb. The DB that don't tackle can go

Really hindered Deion on his way to his gold jacket

 

[charron]

Talent wise CD and Diggs are pretty equal. I think we is easier to replace than DB for this front office. I've gotta learn to keeping Diggs.

 

[visionary]

Diggs is a good (not great CB) who will not tackle

Should have traded Diggs for a rd 1 pick before the draft and takes a CB with that pick like I was saying