Offseason Thoughts: Cowboys should have sold high on Prescott

[Kevinicus]

There may be some validity to what you're saying about trading Dak, but the problem is you're making this point with hindsight. There is not one team, other than maybe the Patriots, that would've done that. Virtually the whole world was raving about Dak and was the "franchise" QB of the future and you simply don't trade a franchise QB.

The jury is still out on Dak, but frankly, it's still out on Goff and Wentz IMO. Let's see how they all function going forward. Can Goff or Wentz "carry" their team? I seriously doubt it, at least not at this point. It all of their cases, they need a high caliber team around them, especially on defense.

I agree on building the defense (but not on letting D Law and Irving walk). I know there wasn't a lot of defense played last night, but when the Eagles' coaching staff scored and left Brady enough time on the clock to score to win (just as Garrett has been criticized for btw), it was their defense that preserved the win. Keeping D Law and Irving, at least for this year, franchising D Law and a 1st round tender on Irving, is critical making the step forward. You lose those 2 and you've added significantly to the defensive needs at a time when you're finally getting the pieces. That simply would set the defense back at least 1 year and probably 2-3.

I don't know about the OP, but I certainly didn't make this determination through hindsight. It's what I wanted the Cowboys to do last off-season, and I'm pretty sure I posted it somewhere back then.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

At the time of the draft, Wentz and Goff were about as close to a sure thing as you're ever going to get. If the Cowboys felt franchise QB was a priority, they'd have moved up.

They coached Wentz in the senior bowl and seen issues with his game.... Hence the reason they didn't give up the ransom to get him. Plus Dak outplayed him in that same game

 

[MrPeanutbutter]

What?

My mistake.

 

[CPanther95]

They coached Wentz in the senior bowl and seen issues with his game.... Hence the reason they didn't give up the ransom to get him. Plus Dak outplayed him in that same game

Yeah, OK. Jerry's superior talent evaluation skills helped them dodge the Goff/Wentz bullets.

We'll have to wait and see how that works out for him.

 

[JustChip]

I don't know about the OP, but I certainly didn't make this determination through hindsight. It's what I wanted the Cowboys to do last off-season, and I'm pretty sure I posted it somewhere back then.

You may ultimately be proven right. I'm neither a Dak fan or detractor. The only thing I say is that the expectations for Dak by most are totally unrealistic. He was a 4th round project QB that was 3rd on the depth charts. And had they not had the disaster with the veteran QBs the year before, he probably wouldn't have started even when Romo and Moore went down. I figure they simply thought what the heck, we can't do worse than we did in 2015. By then what might have been a worse scenario occurred - the team responded and they went 13-3. The reality is that they had planned on him doing the Romo thing, sit and learn for a couple of years and then see where he was.

 

[Kevinicus]

You may ultimately be proven right. I'm neither a Dak fan or detractor. The only thing I say is that the expectations for Dak by most are totally unrealistic. He was a 4th round project QB that was 3rd on the depth charts. And had they not had the disaster with the veteran QBs the year before, he probably wouldn't have started even when Romo and Moore went down. I figure they simply thought what the heck, we can't do worse than we did in 2015. By then what might have been a worse scenario occurred - the team responded and they went 13-3. The reality is that they had planned on him doing the Romo thing, sit and learn for a couple of years and then see where he was.

I think he's the ideal backup for a good team. He's capable enough when his supporting cast is very strong and adds the running dimension. Unfortunately, people (and the team) mistook that for him being a franchise guy.

 

[Jake]

Romo was 100 times the QB that Dak ever will be.

That remains to be seen. Dak is well ahead of where Romo was in early 2005.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

Hindsight is 20/20. Last year we did not know Prescott would slump some his sophomore year. Romo MAY have been able to play another year -- or he may have gotten hurt again. Either way, we were needing to replace him with the next quality QB we found. Prescott played so well he seemed a no brainer. He could still turn out to be the guy. No one knows for sure. We could have dealt him while he was hot, but that would have seemed insane given the high demand for quality QBs and the short supply. This seems a little bit like with 20/20 hindsight after the dealer busts saying, "You should have stood on 17."

 

[Dylan88Wilson]

When Romo was healthy and able to return last year, he should have been reinserted into the starting position and I believe we would have gone further in the playoffs as a result.

Dak played a better playoff game than Romo ever had, so what makes you think we would have gone further in the playoffs?

 

[Cowboy4ever]

Yes but everyone was on board with Dak in 2016. Everyone kept saying how stupid we would be to put Romo back in.

I don’t necessarily think it was the wrong decision at the time. It was sorta bad luck that Dak looked better than he really was. Anyone with the slightest amount of foresight saw a sophomore slump coming with Dak. He does not have any exceptional skills and needs the offense to be at 100% in order to have success. In other words he’s a decent backup.

It was totally the wrong decision at the time. I like Garrett, I think he has done a good job, not great but better than average for sure, but if that is was his call, he should be fired. There was nothing bad that could have came from inserting the starting QB into the starters role when he was ready to go. Le'ts look at the different options:

1. Insert Romo - He either plays the rest of the year and into the playoffs and stays healthy, in which case, he definitely gives the team the best chance to win. Now at the end of the year, you have a top QB that has very high trade value (he stayed healthy for many games and produced). You move on but you get something for him. Or he stays and you continue on with your plan of developing Dak into his second year.

2. Insert Romo - He get's hurt again. Now you can turn it over to Dak and everyone knows it's his team.

3. Stick with Dak - he was having a great year. But there is a reason that no rookie QB has ever won the SB. And you lose all trade value for Romo. And you are stuck with Dak regardless of how he performs in his second year. It was the worst case scenario.

It was flat out the wrong decision on every level and anyone with any Football sense knew it at the time.

 

[Hardline]

Romo was 100% healthy at least midway though the season and could've resumed his starting role.
Don't give me the injury excuse. Every QB in the league can get injured on one hit.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

That remains to be seen. Dak is well ahead of where Romo was in early 2005.

And way behind where Romo was in 2007 after only 26 starts. Leave it to Dak slobberers to be so down on their guy that they have to compare a QB who played three seasons in the SEC and started 32 NFL games surrounded by All-Pros to a QB who hadn’t taken a single NFL snap and wasn’t even active half of that time.

 

[SlammedZero]

Dak needs improvement..... Yes but he isn't the reason we failed to make the playoffs. Watch the Superbowl then tell me coaching has nothing to do with it

This. If anybody needs traded or replaced it's Garrett.

 

[JustChip]

It was totally the wrong decision at the time. I like Garrett, I think he has done a good job, not great but better than average for sure, but if that is was his call, he should be fired. There was nothing bad that could have came from inserting the starting QB into the starters role when he was ready to go. Le'ts look at the different options:

1. Insert Romo - He either plays the rest of the year and into the playoffs and stays healthy, in which case, he definitely gives the team the best chance to win. Now at the end of the year, you have a top QB that has very high trade value (he stayed healthy for many games and produced). You move on but you get something for him. Or he stays and you continue on with your plan of developing Dak into his second year.

2. Insert Romo - He get's hurt again. Now you can turn it over to Dak and everyone knows it's his team.

3. Stick with Dak - he was having a great year. But there is a reason that no rookie QB has ever won the SB. And you lose all trade value for Romo. And you are stuck with Dak regardless of how he performs in his second year. It was the worst case scenario.

It was flat out the wrong decision on every level and anyone with any Football sense knew it at the time.

I disagree. The worst decision is to not make one, to waffle. Landry did that in 71 or 72 - Staubach was injured and Morton carried the team to the playoffs. But they were down to SF by double-digits with 5 minutes to go. Landry inserted Staubach and the team rallied to win. He stayed with Staubach the next week for the NFCC at Washington and we got smoked. He went into the next rotating QBs, ultimately rotating each play in a loss to Chicago.

The team and Dak were playing outstandingly when Romo was ready to come back. They made a decision and you go forward with it. There ain't no future in the past.

I don't believe not going back to Romo hurt his trade value at all. IMO, the only reason he wasn't in Denver or Houston was because neither were convinced that Romo really wanted to continue playing.

 

[Verdict]

I strongly believe the Cowboys should have sold high on Prescott last year.

When Romo was healthy and able to return last year, he should have been reinserted into the starting position and I believe we would have gone further in the playoffs as a result. More importantly though, this team that was built around Romo should have sold Prescott to the highest bidder while they could. You probably could have gotten two first round draft picks or a first and a second for Prescott last year.

That would have gone a long way towards infusing talent into the defense.

Instead, we ended up getting nothing for Romo except his dead money against the salary cap. Regardless of how you felt about Romo and Prescott, this was the worst possible outcome. The team went all in on Romo (drafting a running back 4th overall is going all in) and then decided to deviate because of some success Prescott had early in his career. Financially, that was a huge gamble, and while this story has yet to be written, I'm convinced it won't pay off.

I don't want to belabor this argument, we've discussed this ad nauseam, but you now have an offensive crisis where we're saying our receivers and offensive line aren't any good. The same units who in 2014 were among the best in the league and improving.

The offense is extremely cap heavy and isn't nearly as productive as it needs to be (14th in the NFL). Many people will blame the suspension and injury to Smith. So, we're now wholly reliant on two players being healthy and available in order for this team to operate (Elliott and Smith).

Elliott is a running back and is not likely to stay healthy for the duration of his time with the Cowboys. Smith and his back will ONLY get worse. Now we're in a position where we're going to have to re-sign Zach Martin and the offense will become even more salary cap heavy...

Is Prescott going to turn into Brees overnight? If your answer is no, you have to realize this front office needs to make some hard decisions and quickly. Even with improvement, if he can't carry an offense minus a few star players, you can't expect to build around him and have a stout defense.

I think this defense has a lot of potential, but the timing hasn't exactly been perfect. Rather than putting all of our eggs in one basket with Lawrence and Irving, I think it would be prudent to instead focus on rebuilding the defensive line through the draft, similar to what we did with the secondary. Money should be spent on highly reliable free agents. The front seven should be the primary focus on this draft.

Depending on what it would cost to trade for and sign Earl Thomas, I would take a serious look at getting him and moving Jones back to corner. Under Richards, our secondary could become a legitimate unit in the NFL.

That would have been tempting, but I wouldn't have let Prescott go at that point. It's easy to say that at this point after a somewhat "off" year. I would have started Romo when he was healthy too and saw why he had left, but that ship has sailed. It was probably a mistake but we can't turn back time. I feel your pain.

We should cut some dead cap weight in Dez and Witten. I wouldn't be opposed to franchising Lawrence and trading him for a first and a third. He was really good for us last year, no doubt about it. But a first and a third could be used to trade way up and get a stud and own the draft.

The draft is a crap shoot but so is resigning guys like Lawrence and Irving. They may stay eligible and they may not. They may get lazy after getting paid. There is risk involved no matter how you slice it.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

Just delete this now. It will save you embarrassment, although you should probably be embarrassed for actually putting this thought out into the world

LLLOOLLL

 

[Galian Beast]

You want to”build the defensive line through the draft”. But want to get rid of Irving and Lawrence?

Lawrence and Irving are part of the building the team has been trying to do for years now. Lawrence was a high draft pick and Irving was a developmental player that the team sunk years into.

They ARE the building of a defensive line.

They're too expensive potentially and have serious red flags. The problem with signing them is that you continue to put all your eggs in one basket. The result is when anything happens to either of them your depth is seriously hindered. Instead of drafting defensive line talent, you now need to focus that attention else where to make up for the money that you can't spend.

if they didn't have red flags it would be one thing, but you're asking for trouble signing even one of them, let alone both of them.

 

[Galian Beast]

No team sells high on what you believe is an ascending young QB, unless you have an established championship winning QB in place, something Romo was not.

Few teams find themselves in that position.

The Patriots actually traded Bledsoe to the Bills (inside their own division) for a 1st round draft pick. He was 30 at the time...

When teams find themselves with two quarterbacks, they need to keep the better player. Romo was better than Prescott hands down. Gave you the best chance to win, especially with the offense you had already invested in.

 

[Galian Beast]

I'd find this post more believable if you weren't just saying it now.

I said it all last year too...

 

[Galian Beast]

I doubt any franchise would have traded away a prospect like Prescott after what he demonstrated in his rookie season. However, you are correct that Romo should have been reinserted into the lineup when healthy.

Addendum: Prescott would have been reinserted automatically into the starting role after Romo was immediately paralyzed after handing off to Elliott on the first play yada yada yada for those always deadset against Romo coming back period--which, ironically, is the exact same sentiment shared with their Satan (Jerry Jones) and Little Nicky (Jason Garrett).

You see this in basketball a lot more often. It's an aggressive move to win now rather than stay mediocre.

Until we diversify and move resources towards defense, we're always going to be an injury away from mediocre.