PFF QB rankings: 32 starters 2026

[gtb1943]

Jerry Jones can voluntarily commit (let me make certain I type this exactly) salary cap team spending seppuku at any time, resulting in substantial dead money accumulation, if he believed short-term sacrifices would net him long-term gains in on-the-field accomplishment. That was the meaning of my last sentence.

please, let me hand him the first knife...

 

[GINeric]

I do not fault Dak Prescott or any other professional team sports athlete for their salaries. They do not pay themselves. As I grow older, though, I feel the unilateral, self-sacrificing salary reduction counterpoint as more and more disingenuous.

Financial security is not equal for all earners, regardless of the pro or con argument. Its application diminishes the closer income approaches zero. Apply a hypothetical 50% pay cut to a flat yearly compensation at various income strata:

• Person A: $50 million slashed to $25 million
• Person B: $5 million sliced to $2.5 million
• Person C: $500,000 reduced to $250,000
• Person D: $50,000 cut to $25,000

In the US, approximately 90% of earners earn at or marginally above Person D. Asking them to relate a proposed 50% pay cut to the sacrifices of Persons A, B, and C is not financially conceivable in that sense. The circumstances would be classified as hardships or economically devastating to themselves.

On the other hand, the other 10% can better relate to the hypothetical administered amongst themselves. Even so, wealth is impacted differently as the ball gets kicked higher up that hill. Folks' financial security at the bottom of the hill would shrink far more than those above them.

Frankly, wealth is not a part of the vast majority of people's lives. Those with wealth own various levels of it. The bulk of the people being asked to sympathize equally with the "plight" of a truly wealthy individual is unfair. Most people see it from their financial stability perspective--not from having wealth.

Anyone can go after the person making the money. I prefer going after the person signing the checks. That person does have absolute control and should have the necessary budgetary acumen to comprehend the risk associated with acquiring and retaining players over both the short and long term.

In the end, it is not what Prescott should be willing or unwilling to sacrifice contractually. It all boils down to Jerry Jones doing the actual job as general manager that he gave himself. Excuse makers will say otherwise, but successfully putting a winning, Super Bowl-caliber combination of players and coaches together is his job. If Prescott or Romo or whoever is not the right cog for HIS machine, it's his fault. No one else's. He can get rid of whomever he wants, WHENEVER he wants, as easily as he can keep them.

This is the post of the year right here.

I sit and laugh at all the people blaming a player for capitalizing on the best financial opportunities they can negotiate for themselves, especially in a violent sport where you can lose your motor skills or worst in one play or one bad hit.

Another hilarious thing to watch is people blaming the person who got paid over the person who actually signed the check as if the player actually took out a gun and robbed the owner. Last I checked, the owner of a sports franchise STILL has the power to hire and fire athletes, not the other way around.

IMO, seeing people saying players should take a paycut in a occupation that has a short shelf life and many physical hazards, is just "broke people talk". Most of the people claiming an athlete should take a pay cut wouldn't take one themselves or have never voluntarily taken one.

 

[Coogiguy03]

^ Coog's hair because: 1) the sheer number of Dak Prescott posts and threads and 2) he's a WILD AND CRAZY GUY!

You didn't add the THOUGHTS man they are the root cause for the grey!! Lol