Pay Dak vs Don't Pay Dak

[Flamma]

You’ve completely taken a turn here. Why are you redirecting ?

Well, regardless of rebuild or not, we still need a QB. If we're not that bad then paying Dak could be an option. But if we're starting a complete rebuild, which is what it looks like is going to happen, I wouldn't start by paying a QB a ton of money. You think we'll sniff a SB in the next 4 years? A waste of money.

 

[Flamma]

If we finish 2-14, it will show that Dak is worth well more than $40M, and your suggestion despite that is to.... not sign him to a contract that makes him a value?

I just don't get it. I try to sympathize, but it just doesn't make any sense.

It does when you consider Dallas could get Lawrence on a 5 year rookie deal. I don't have an emotional connection to any players. I would treat these guys like they were a computer sim. Once there's a better option, you're out.

 

[reddyuta]

I love Dak but he cannot be resigned for the sake of this talent poor team.forgot our D for a minute but our oline is in shambles too.only Zack and Collins are any good next year.none of the new guys are even average.

 

[Diehardblues]

If we finish 2-14, it will show that Dak is worth well more than $40M, and your suggestion despite that is to.... not sign him to a contract that makes him a value?

I just don't get it. I try to sympathize, but it just doesn't make any sense.

I dont think there’s any question we need a QB with at least Daks ability.

But do we need and can we also afford paying a top 5 WR and RB with the investments we’ve made on offense while letting the defense fall thru the cracks?

Some adjustments will ultimately need to be made once we pay Dak in order to build a better team on both sides of the ball. Dak being a top 5 paid QB will need to elevate a little lesser supporting cast offensively.

And will our ownership be willing to make those crucial decisions or we’ll just have a great fantasy offense coming up short in the playoffs.

Ultimately Daks legacy will be measured by the teams results. The same measurement used with Romo and other good Cowboys QB’s who came up short.

 

[leeblair]

Not “the next Emmitt Smith” though.

He was closer than Marion Barber. Choice was wasted, while Barber tore up the defenses with his three yard bursts.
Just another example of the NFL'S supposed superior talent evaluation that more resembled idiots on patrol.

 

[Williamsboys]

Sure, pay Dak, Elliott, Cooper, the offensive line all that money while the defense gets worse and worse. If that's possible.

 

[QuincyCarterEra]

It does when you consider Dallas could get Lawrence on a 5 year rookie deal. I don't have an emotional connection to any players. I would treat these guys like they were a computer sim. Once there's a better option, you're out.

Lawrence would be the only exception because he has a 35% chance of becoming what Dak is already and those odds are worth betting on.

But the odds aren't likely we get the #1 pick either, so it's really a moot point.

If this was a Dak or Lawrence without trading up debate? Sure.

But this was a, should we have signed Dak to a long term contract since he was worth it debate. And that's been undeniably proven.

 

[Sevenup3000]

Okay answer this. Jimmy G goes to the 9ers and amd signs the largest QB contract of all time. The 49ers go to the Super Bowl shortly after that. Why couldn't the Cowboys sign Dak to the largest QB contract and then go to the Super Bowl after? Excited to see your answer.

Or...another thing to consider: Dallas signed Tony Romo to the highest contract of all time. Yet, Dallas had a team sooo loaded with talent that (according to these same people) a "terrible" Dak Prescott could excel in his rookie season in 2016.

How can Dallas sign Tony Romo to the richest contract ever...yet still have the resources to put the "best team ever" around Dak a few short years later?

So why can't Dallas sign Dak Prescott to a franchise QB deal...and still have enough resources to put an elite roster around Dak?

I would love for one of these people to explain that.

 

[Diehardblues]

It does when you consider Dallas could get Lawrence on a 5 year rookie deal. I don't have an emotional connection to any players. I would treat these guys like they were a computer sim. Once there's a better option, you're out.

I can’t see the Jets winning 2 games.

 

[sacase]

None of them were putting up anywhere close to Dak's passing numbers before Dak got injured.

NONE OF THEM. You heard correctly.

Refute those passing numbers.

Dak most definitely is a Top 5 QB. Go sulk on those facts.

When the game mattered Daks numbers were none existustant. After teams went prevent he started to put up big numbers. None of his numbers were there when it was still a game. If it was a tight back and forth game I would agree with you. But these were blowouts. The number 1 offense was a joke and shows how bad stats can screw with reality.

 

[QuincyCarterEra]

Or...another thing to consider: Dallas signed Tony Romo to the highest contract of all time. Yet, Dallas had a team sooo loaded with talent that (according to these same people) a "terrible" Dak Prescott could excel in his rookie season in 2016.

How can Dallas sign Tony Romo to the richest contract ever...yet still have the resources to put the "best team ever" around Dak a few short years later?

So why can't Dallas sign Dak Prescott to a franchise QB deal...and still have enough resources to put an elite roster around Dak?

I would love for one of these people to explain that.

Y'all heard the man. Let's hear it

 

[Flamma]

Lawrence would be the only exception because he has a 35% chance of becoming what Dak is already and those odds are worth betting on.

But the odds aren't likely we get the #1 pick either, so it's really a moot point.

If this was a Dak or Lawrence without trading up debate? Sure.

But this was a, should we have signed Dak to a long term contract since he was worth it debate. And that's been undeniably proven.

The only thing that was proven is that Dak is better than Dalton. Don't know why that had to be proven. But the team was still bad with Dak, and worse with Dalton. Especially after they quit.

 

[Flamma]

I can’t see the Jets winning 2 games.

The Jets are bad, but they're trying. I can see them winning 2-4 games. Then it's just Cinci and the Jags.

 

[Diehardblues]

Lawrence would be the only exception because he has a 35% chance of becoming what Dak is already and those odds are worth betting on.

But the odds aren't likely we get the #1 pick either, so it's really a moot point.

If this was a Dak or Lawrence without trading up debate? Sure.

But this was a, should we have signed Dak to a long term contract since he was worth it debate. And that's been undeniably proven.

What’s been proven is we aren’t crap without a Legit franchise QB at least as good as Dak. The rest is still on the table.

Im not sure if what we were with Dak and an overly invested offense is enough for the ultimate goals we want.

It would only prove that Dak is enough if we had the Cap space and bright enough front office to address our defense with so much invested offensively.

Ultimately Daks legacy will be determined by the teams success. And he might be better suited to reach his full potential on another franchise that knows how to build a defense and better manage the Cap.

 

[Diehardblues]

The Jets are bad, but they're trying. I can see them winning 2-4 games. Then it's just Cinci and the Jags.

I’m not sure how we can present an argument they can win 2 games. And will that be enough? What are the tiebreakers ?

 

[QuincyCarterEra]

The only thing that was proven is that Dak is better than Dalton. Don't know why that had to be proven. But the team was still bad with Dak, and worse with Dalton. Especially after they quit.

No the point that was proven was Dak is 20+ point points over replacement.

It's not that he's better than one of the best backups in the league, it's that he's light-years better than said backup.

And if there is a QB that valuable you sign that player to a long term deal. Anything else is wrong.

 

[Philmonroe]

So you give up your sure fire good QB and risk getting another Mayfield/Manziel/Leaf? That’s such a great decision on so many levels. Bravo.

Funny you only put the situation that would make you correct instead of saying it could also be a Mahommes situation.

 

[QuincyCarterEra]

Funny you only put the situation that would make you correct instead of saying it could also be a Mahommes situation.

You're one of the prime examples of posters that were so incredibly wrong lmao.

 

[Sevenup3000]

No the point that was proven was Dak is 20+ point points over replacement.

It's not that he's better than one of the best backups in the league, it's that he's light-years better than said backup.

And if there is a QB that valuable you sign that player to a long term deal. Anything else is wrong.

Thank you. It is important to point out, like you indicated, Dak Prescott is at least 20+ points better than the BEST backup in the NFL. Those were their words: "Andy Dalton is the best back up QB in the NFL and Dallas is no worse with Dalton than we were with Dak." Of course, many others said that Dalton was as good or even better than Dak, but that is a different story for a different day.

Well, the best back up in the NFL at QB has proven to be about 5 standard deviations downward from Dak. If the BEST backup is so far removed from what you have. You pay what you already have.

If Aaron Donald has the best back up in the NFL, yet his back up produces 1/5 what he does when he is forced into duty because Donald is not there...all the more reason you PAY Aaron Donald.

 

[cowboyec]

I need a sad, reflective Elvis song stat.