McCarthy was the driving force pushing Amari Cooper out

Yet, Jerry Jones was still willing to attempt to re-sign him but couldn't come to terms. This is after denying the Bears permission to interview him.

Sure, Bobby. We believe you.
 
CowboysFaninHouston said:
BS. they already accounted for Cooper contract and could have restructured. trading him for half a peanut impacted the dead money which was 20M at the time. it was personal between Jerry and Amari. MM had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
The dead money was drastically less than that. It was 6m in dead money with 14m in cap savings by trading. The fact that they were not restructuring his deal is why everyone knew he was going to be traded because there was so much room to restructure.
 
CowboysFaninHouston said:
BS. they already accounted for Cooper contract and could have restructured. trading him for half a peanut impacted the dead money which was 20M at the time. it was personal between Jerry and Amari. MM had nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Jerry Jones: “When we traded Amari Cooper, we saved almost $20 million for our cap and in the future. We took a lesser draft pick to get that savings.”

It came down to whether they paid Gallup or they continued to pay Cooper. They chose Gallup.

I'm not saying there was nothing personal about it, but in the end, it was a business decision. They were not going to pay both players and they had to decide whether to give a long-term deal to Gallup. Gallup was the younger player and Amari did not play like a $20 million, No. 1 receiver (for various reasons) in the season before he was cut. Gallup got five years, $57 million, which is second receiver money, and Lamb was ready to be the No. 1.
 
exciter said:
Nonsense!
Coopers contract was written specifically so that they could walk away from it after 2 seasons if needed. There were articles on the DC. Com site saying that it would almost certainly be a 2 year contract if CD showed signs of being able to handle the number 1 receiver role.
The cap savings lead to resigning multiple players who were a big part of going 12-5 instead of paying a 20m base to the #2 receiver. It was the correct decision even if your hearing voices after being told what was going to happen!
Click to expand...
Frankly, I believed then and believe now that they should have restructured instead of cutting him. Gallup was coming off an ACL tear and there was just no telling how he would respond. We know now that it was not well. I understand why they made the move that they made, but have never agreed with it. You don't cut the known for the unknown.
 
gimmesix said:
Frankly, I believed then and believe now that they should have restructured instead of cutting him. Gallup was coming off an ACL tear and there was just no telling how he would respond. We know now that it was not well. I understand why they made the move that they made, but have never agreed with it. You don't cut the known for the unknown.
Click to expand...
Restructuring doesn’t mean paycut. It just pushes the necessary expenditure down the road. Fairly sure he wasn’t willing to take a paycut, nor be relegated to #2 quite yet…
Again, their biggest interest seemed to be clearing the cap space for FA as evidenced by them trading him prior to the draft when he had the least trade value!
 
cowboys5xsbs said:
I can't post the twitter link for some reason but bobby belt is going off on the 1053 the fan this morning. Talking about Dak and Mike's not liking each other and alike being paranoid about Dan Quinn. How Mike pushed amari out and it pissed off the locker room. Wild stuff.



Click to expand...

I think that Zeke was a big issue. I think that Jerry made McCarthy take Zeke and play him. I would think that McCarthy didn't want him and was upset with the problems that he brought into the locker room. The front office putting Zeke on the team and not signing players cost them a chance at the playoffs. It's on Jerry and Stephen.

At the end of the day and just between us girls, at age 82 Jerry is too old for this.
 
exciter said:
Restructuring doesn’t mean paycut. It just pushes the necessary expenditure down the road. Fairly sure he wasn’t willing to take a paycut, nor be relegated to #2 quite yet…
Again, their biggest interest seemed to be clearing the cap space for FA as evidenced by them trading him prior to the draft when he had the least trade value!
Click to expand...
I still think their logic is simpler than that. Essentially, we've got to give Wide Receiver B money to Wide Receiver C, so we don't need to pay Wide Receiver A money to Wide Receiver B.

I doubt Cooper would have taken a pay cut, but I never read that one was offered. Of course, it was likely like the Ezekiel Elliott situation, where the front office said that a paycut would have been an insult but where they also had a player ready to get paid to assume Elliott's role.

Amari being traded was simply business as usual for the Joneses. There may have been multiple factors for the business decision but essentially it was the same as it always is, allocation of cap space. We can even go back to the decision to let Byron Jones go in free agency. The Joneses did that because they thought they had the players to step up into that role so therefore they did not need to spend that much money on him.
 
gimmesix said:
Jerry Jones: “When we traded Amari Cooper, we saved almost $20 million for our cap and in the future. We took a lesser draft pick to get that savings.”

It came down to whether they paid Gallup or they continued to pay Cooper. They chose Gallup.

I'm not saying there was nothing personal about it, but in the end, it was a business decision. They were not going to pay both players and they had to decide whether to give a long-term deal to Gallup. Gallup was the younger player and Amari did not play like a $20 million, No. 1 receiver (for various reasons) in the season before he was cut. Gallup got five years, $57 million, which is second receiver money, and Lamb was ready to be the No. 1.
Click to expand...
Jerry spin. they took a 20M cap hit that year for releasing him after having paid him. ....so he got rid of a #1 WR for a 5th round pick to save 20M in the future? ...in the 2nd year of a 5 year contract!!!
he had already counted 34M agains the cap and 10M signing bonus having been paid out. remaining was around 21M for the following two years!!!! essentially a top 5 WR at 10M a year.. he did that to go and pay a #3 WR 10M a contract!!! that's so stupid.

Jerry also said, Dak is his QB and he is great and a top 5 QB in the league. do you buy into that? or is it selective Jerry spins you choose to believe in.
 
Adreme said:
The dead money was drastically less than that. It was 6m in dead money with 14m in cap savings by trading. The fact that they were not restructuring his deal is why everyone knew he was going to be traded because there was so much room to restructure.
Click to expand...
according to https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/player/_/id/16728/amari-cooper it was 20M.......

the two years after his contract total for his base was about 21M...
 
rambo2 said:
I think that Zeke was a big issue. I think that Jerry made McCarthy take Zeke and play him. I would think that McCarthy didn't want him and was upset with the problems that he brought into the locker room. The front office putting Zeke on the team and not signing players cost them a chance at the playoffs. It's on Jerry and Stephen.

At the end of the day and just between us girls, at age 82 Jerry is too old for this.
Click to expand...
Frankly, I think McCarthy was indifferent about Elliott. If there's one aspect of offense that McCarthy seems to neglect it's the running game. He may have thought Elliott was good enough.
 
What is this guy doing with Buffalo? I thought he was still pretty good. He’s doing absolutely nothing. The last I checked.
 
Not a chance this is legit JJ was the one who voiced his disappointment. I can’t believe we’re gonna try to rewrite what happened and throw MM under the bus. Not surprised JJ is fragile and this is how he does things.
 
Chocolate Lab said:
Okay, I just listened to that entire interview while I was doing some stuff. Some thoughts:

1. I can't stand Bobby Belt. You know how you get a feeling about people... and I don't say this often, but cocky, arrogant, fake "insiders" who make themselves out to be experts is not my thing. No way could I listen to that guy on a regular basis.

2. He hates McCarthy. I mean, hates him. You can hear the seething in his voice. Throughout the interview he hinted at it, but at the end he just said it -- he thinks Mike was not just a bad football coach, but a bad person. They asked if Jerry did Mike dirty by denying the Chicago interview, and Belt said I don't know, but Mike has done plenty of people dirty in his day so if he was done dirty, he deserved it. IMO after listening to MM's PCs almost every day, this is a crock. Belt sounds like a scorned girlfriend. I wouldn't be surprised if Belt believed MM somehow got in the way of his "insider" knowledge or something.

3. Belt basically wants a reunion of all the Garrett guys. Said Kellen was a much better coach than MM, he'd make Dak comfortable, etc. In fact, Dak's comfort seems to be all Belt cares about. He wants Nussmeier back as well. You gotta be kidding me.

4. Almost forgot, he actually claims Jerry was trying to get Mike to quit by having long meetings at the end but not talking about his future, denying the Chicago interview, etc. That doesn't even make sense given what has happened. Belt seems to approve, though. Anything to rubber stamp Jerry's actions, I guess?

5. The overall gist I get from Belt is he feels like he's part of this Jerry's Cowboys infrastructure and Mike was an outsider intruding on their game. Said after five years, Mike still didn't get exactly how things are done around here. Belt doesn't seem to realize that is a positive for Mike, not a negative.

6. This makes me, for one, root for Mike even harder wherever he ends up. This character assassination of a decent man as he goes out the door is just ridiculous.
Click to expand...
It’s all about Dak for these guys because he gives them access. Bobby Belt is a pathetic troll.
 
gimmesix said:
I still think their logic is simpler than that. Essentially, we've got to give Wide Receiver B money to Wide Receiver C, so we don't need to pay Wide Receiver A money to Wide Receiver B.

I doubt Cooper would have taken a pay cut, but I never read that one was offered. Of course, it was likely like the Ezekiel Elliott situation, where the front office said that a paycut would have been an insult but where they also had a player ready to get paid to assume Elliott's role.

Amari being traded was simply business as usual for the Joneses. There may have been multiple factors for the business decision but essentially it was the same as it always is, allocation of cap space. We can even go back to the decision to let Byron Jones go in free agency. The Joneses did that because they thought they had the players to step up into that role so therefore they did not need to spend that much money on him.
Click to expand...
And in both instances they were correct.
Jones played 2 seasons on a 5 year 82m contract.
Lamb has produced 3 consecutive 1000 plus yard seasons.
In McCarthy’s 2 read system with the current showcasing of Lamb , Cooper’s production would have most likely mirrored the same production as Gallup, Cooks, and Tolbert.
 
exciter said:
And in both instances they were correct.
Jones played 2 seasons on a 5 year 82m contract.
Lamb has produced 3 consecutive 1000 plus yard seasons.
In McCarthy’s 2 read system with the current showcasing of Lamb , Cooper’s production would have most likely mirrored the same production as Gallup, Cooks, and Tolbert.
Click to expand...
I don't agree. I think Gallup's production and Cook's production was a product of who they have become as receivers. Gallup never got back to form and Cook has slipped to where he's no more than a No. 3. Part of the reasons our offense wasn't as good this year, even early on when the offense was fairly healthy, is because we had no threat as the No. 3. The best receiving threat we had outside of Lamb was Turpin and McCarthy seemed either afraid of using him more or just didn't trust him enough.

Maybe some of Lamb's production goes down with a better No. 2, but maybe our overall production goes up because we have a decent No. 2 threat. One of our goals this year needs to be finding a better No. 2. Let Turpin be the primary No. 3.
 
Adreme said:
That is because you are reading it wrong. You can actually look on that site at the Cowboys cap in 2022: https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/dallas-cowboys/cap/_/year/2022 and you will see that it is 6m in dead money from the trade. He was slated to earn 20m in salary making it a 14m savings.
Click to expand...
So its about the money and not winning football. we saved 14M. to get rid of Cooper and sign Gallup!!! that was stupid.

which goes back to the original arguments of this team is not about winning, they are about making money.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 115 more.
Total: 8,033 (members: 215, guests: 7,818)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,054
Messages
13,786,169
Members
23,771
Latest member
LandryHat
Back
Top