News: PFT: Should the Cowboys have let Dak Prescott hit the open market?

[ABQCOWBOY]

no.
not with the way they shop in f/a.
let Dak walk and we end up with ???
matt barkley....joe flacco...who knows.
much better to just keep your young QB.
life is better when you have your QB.

How does none exclusive tag translate into letting Dak walk? I don't get that.

BTW, if Dak were to "Walk", we would get no less then two first round picks, a cap relief of 160 million over 4 seasons. For the record, that's almost 90% of a single years cap. There are multiple advantages in not doing the deal we did with Dak.

But I would ask that you provide proof of life being "much better" with Dak, as opposed to without him. What context to you have to prove that statement? There is none, because it's "unthinkable" to not sign Dak. It's crazy really.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is correct, but there is really no scenario where I see team independently & all at the same time deciding that they will begin to limit QB contracts.

Potentially, we could see it if one team makes a public stance, but then other teams would need to follow in turn and I do not see that happening.

It's a copy cat league. If it works with one team, there will be multiple teams trying it the next year. We've seen this play out time and time again.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Had the Cowboys used the nonexclusive tag, the only positive solution would be for a team to pay Dak a contract he wanted. Otherwise, he plays on the nonexclusive tag and the Cowboys would have zero leverage with Dak getting to true free agency the following year.

This is not true. There is also the possibility of signing a deal that is more equitable. In addition, he wouldn't have gotten to Free Agency the next year. He would have still had another year, and really, another two years, of team control.

 

[Denim Chicken]

It's a copy cat league. If it works with one team, there will be multiple teams trying it the next year. We've seen this play out time and time again.

That is a nice thought, but the way more likely scenario is that team that tries this stance will simply lose their QB to another team who is willing to pay.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm not saying that the non-exclusive tag is collusion, I'm saying that is what you want. You were referencing the QB negotiation wars which speaks to the overall picture of teams vs the rising cost of QB contracts. Any effort for teams to collectively combat that is collusion plain and simple.

Now, to your other point, that no one was going to pay DAK the money we did--you have no idea. And if you honestly look at the offer that was on the table for Wilson from Chicago and some of the non-official packages that were being thrown out for Watson, you can see it was likely that a team would have potentially offered both picks and a contract for DAK. We could have ultimately put ourselves in an even poorer leverage situation.

I anticipate that you next argument will be something to do with Dak's relative value vs Wilson and/or Watson, but your biased perception of Dak does not translate to how other owners / GM evaluate him.

This is BS. It's not collusion if it's agreed upon contractually, which it is. It's in the CBA so this entire fairytale about "collusion" is some made up BS from the press that you have bought into. It can not be collusion if it is accepted under the CBA, plain and simple.

I actually have a really good idea. We had those discussion, over and over in 2019. Right down to the teams cap situations going forward in multiple years but no matter. If another team stepped up and wanted to pay Dak this mythical 160 mil over 4 years and give up two 1st round picks, you believe what you want. Nobody was paying that in the off season of 2019 but believe what you wish. Clearly, that's what you wish to do. It's not reality but I'll play. I'm ready to accept the two 1st round picks and the eventual savings of 160 mil over 4 years plus the salary hit of the 2020 season, which gets you to plus 190 mil saved. I'm ready to accept that in exchange for the loss of Dak. It's the smarter play IMO but then again, I'm not married to Dak. I'm OK with making a good business decision, rather then a poor one, which is what I believe we've just done.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

That is a nice thought, but the way more likely scenario is that team that tries this stance will simply lose their QB to another team who is willing to pay.

It's more then just a "nice thought". There is a substantial proof over the years.

But again, I'll play. So what, what happens if you "lose your QB"? Teams don't melt in the rain because they have to find a QB. That's a tall tale that has somehow become reality in the minds of way too many fans.

No thanks, I don't do stupid and the deal we just did with Dak is, IMO, really..... really...... really stupid. We could have and should have tagged him with nonexclusive.

 

[Adreme]

Yes! You non exclusive tag him to see what other teams offer. Not having any bids from opposition was a dumb move by management. You don't let his agent set the price. You let the league set his price. I guarantee you, we could have signed him for less.

You put non exclusive tag on him, you have a half dozen teams telling him they will pay him 43-44m if he just waits 1 year on tag. You don’t get him for less, you make him aware of obvious truth that teams would pay more.

 

[Typhus]

If Dallas didn't tag him they would have lost what little leverage they had remaining.

If they DID tag him non exclusive, they would have to live with matching the short term deal Washington would have offered in the first hour....and they would have had zero cap flexibility along the way.

Anyone who thinks Washington wouldn't have done that figuring they won either way isn't paying much attention.

Maybe the market is soft for other positions, but not for a QB like Prescott, regardless of what anyone around here may think of him.

Some would have been Ok with that.

 

[Denim Chicken]

This is BS. It's not collusion if it's agreed upon contractually, which it is. It's in the CBA so this entire fairytale about "collusion" is some made up BS from the press that you have bought into. It can not be collusion if it is accepted under the CBA, plain and simple.

You are not paying any attention to what I am saying an just going off an a tangent. I aid the non-exclusive tag was not collusion, but team working together to lower the QB contracts would be.

Do you disagree with that statement?

 

[Denim Chicken]

It's more then just a "nice thought". There is a substantial proof over the years.

Nope. No really, as evidenced by the continual rise in QB contracts that you were just complaining about.

 

[fivetwos]

Some would have been Ok with that.

Well right, they would have wanted the two picks.

The team obviously didn't want to lose him, so I can't see how letting him hit the open market would have helped in any type of way.

 

[quickccc]

" Letting Dak hitting free agent market ? .. "

Naah, it’s common sense. You don’t flirt with the idea of letting your franchise QB walk -ala Kirk Cousin.
Legit franchise guys don’t walk. And it’s not like QBs are falling off trees.

You may have an influx of QB prospects such as this year, but you dunno if they are Justin Hebert, Joe Burrow ...or Blaine Gabbart, Christian Ponder, Jake Lockett, Joe Harrison.. or Paxton Lynch
You dunno what you will have in those guys, .. but you have a much better indication in what you already have in Dak Prescott.

That’s your guy that you’re totally convinced to lead you to SBs for years to come, that’s the guy you see as unique in his leadership, work ethic learning curve and contagious passion for the game.
If you think he’s that unique, then you keep him. That's too invaluable.

Salaries roster bonuses and guarantees are going to inflate as the NFL cap goes up.
And you’re gonna overpay in the market for players such as Dak, Zeke, Cooper and Dlaw if you really consider those as core players.

Some can argue that Dak is not elite class ( Brady, Rodgers, Wilson) but you’re gonna have to overpay for
And it might have been a different story and direction if Dak had never improved his passing game skills and been more of a Ryan Tannehill bus driver.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You are not paying any attention to what I am saying an just going off an a tangent. I aid the non-exclusive tag was not collusion, but team working together to lower the QB contracts would be.

Do you disagree with that statement?

100% I do. See, this is the problem in society today, and if we are being honest, probably for a long while now. If you don't go along with what the idiot populace suggests, you are painted unfairly. The truth of the matter is that it's a negotiation. Whats more, it's like negotiations going back for years. This entire NFL thing, it's unlike any other business model in existence. So to say that it's collusion, well, exactly how is that defined in terms of the model the league has existed under in the modern era? I mean, if you want to really get into that discussion, then lets just put it out on the table. If you want to impose strict regulation on all things NFL, then go ahead and do that but understand, that folds the league. If you do that, none of these guys have a place to make a living because the entire league is set up outside of normal business practice. So pick a lane here. Don't complain about how the league is set up and what the players and owners have agreed to, on the one hand, and just ignore the rest because it's convenient to do so.

Sorry, that dog don't hunt.

In short, just because I think your entire point is foolish, it doesn't mean I'm not paying attention. It means I don't accept the ridiculous position you and others are trying to take on this entire situation. Collusion........ prove it.

 

[conner01]

Actually no, what if he was given an offer, but refused it. They would still need to negotiate a deal. Then it would cause animosity. What if Dallas decided to match the offer, and he refused.
They handled it the best way they could have. And did.

My only gripe is that it didn’t get done last year

 

[Established1971]

even after the fact we have to discuss this?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Nope. No really, as evidenced by the continual rise in QB contracts that you were just complaining about.

So you contest that this is not a copy cat league, based on QB salaries? OK, this I gotta hear. Prove your statement.

Hell, start by just connecting the dots on how one even relates to the other. That would be a good start.

 

[Denim Chicken]

100% I do. See, this is the problem in society today, and if we are being honest, probably for a long while now. If you don't go along with what the idiot populace suggests, you are painted unfairly. The truth of the matter is that it's a negotiation. Whats more, it's like negotiations going back for years. This entire NFL thing, it's unlike any other business model in existence. So to say that it's collusion, well, exactly how is that defined in terms of the model the league has existed under in the modern era? I mean, if you want to really get into that discussion, then lets just put it out on the table. If you want to impose strict regulation on all things NFL, then go ahead and do that but understand, that folds the league. If you do that, none of these guys have a place to make a living because the entire league is set up outside of normal business practice. So pick a lane here. Don't complain about how the league is set up and what the players and owners have agreed to, on the one hand, and just ignore the rest because it's convenient to do so.

Sorry, that dog don't hunt.

In short, just because I think your entire point is foolish, it doesn't mean I'm not paying attention. It means I don't accept the ridiculous position you and others are trying to take on this entire situation. Collusion........ prove it.

Again, another tangent that does not follow any claim I have made.

• Wanting to impose strict regulations on the league --I never mentioned this
  
• Complaining about how the league is set up and what the players and owners have agreed--nope, words in my mouth. In fact, this is what you are doing as collusion is already disallowed by the CBA.

All I said was if teams try to collectively limit QB pay that is collusion. Here is the actual language form the CBA:

"No Club, its employees or agents shall enter into any agreement, express or implied, with the NFL or any other Club, its employees or agents to restrict or limit individual Club decision-making ... "

 

[Denim Chicken]

So you contest that this is not a copy cat league, based on QB salaries? OK, this I gotta hear. Prove your statement.

The last QB contract, for franchise Qbs, is used as a base level of comparison--I will give you that.

However, the market is continually rising for these contracts. You cannot argue with this fact. So unless somehow a team and a franchise QB buck the trend and agree on a contract that is significantly less than the last one (fat chance) and then other teams follow suit independently (without internal agreement; and again, fat chance), & no team gives exceptions, you will continue to see the same trend in the rise of QB contracts.

I understand you do not like it, but it is the reality of the situation.

 

[Ranched]

Had Dak hit the market, the Bears, Broncos, Lions, Panthers, Pats, WFT, 49ers & Steelers would be interested. Teams that could have been interested Dolohins/Eagles.

Odds are if they let him hit the market with no tag, he'd be gone. Like him or not. Facts are facts!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is correct, but there is really no scenario where I see team independently & all at the same time deciding that they will begin to limit QB contracts.

Potentially, we could see it if one team makes a public stance, but then other teams would need to follow in turn and I do not see that happening.

The devil is in the details on this post. You frame this disingenuously. Teams make independent decisions to do the same thing every single season. Evidence, how the NFL plays the SAM LB in todays game. The SAM used to be a 3 down position. It's not anymore. Now, the SAM could see just one snap of a four down series, based on down and distance. Why is that? Because one team decided that the SAM is a disadvantage in coverage so they elected to sub him out. In a single season, that caught fire all around the league and by the next season, a third of the teams in the league were doing it. The year after that, half the teams were doing it and now, every team in the league does it. Is that collusion? No, it's not and every one of those teams came to that decision independently. The League used to be a pocket passing league. Now, it's an RPO league. Was that collusion? Nope. The League used to be a running League, it's not anymore. Was that Collusion? Nope. So by your definition of how things work in the NFL, what would you call agents and QBs going from long term contracts to short term contracts all over the league, all at the same time? What would that be called? Is that collusion?

Well, I'm not gonna cry about what is or is not collusion because I've a feeling that the overwhelming percentage of fans wouldn't know collusion if it came up and bit them in the butt. It's a negotiation, stop complaining and go negotiate a deal. Everything is not evil, it's just business. Fans who are complaining about collusion have drank the Kool Aid. That's a talking point that has been floated by one side. If that's what you want to believe, that's fine with me but don't expect me to follow you down that rabbit hole. That's dumb.

It's a negotiation, if you don't want to sign a deal, don't sign. It's really as simple as that.