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

[starfan1]

I just want to see how many more pages these 2 are gonna take up arguing over a moot point. Dak signed!

 

[Qcard]

The only reason to let your QB hit the open market is if you don't want him. Since that was never the case in Dallas the entire speculation is a waste of time and classic MMQB. I guarantee you the Joneses made (and received) a few phone calls to/from teams interested in Dak. There are not enough good QBs to go around in the NFL so regardless of whether you think Dak is a top 5 QB or a top 10 QB you could all but guarantee there would be a couple of teams willing to meet his price. If you let him on the market you run the risk of some team making a "poison pill" offer to him just to screw up your cap. Some NFC team could have offered him the moon just to make you match it.

I posit that at least one of those phone calls came from/ went to area code 774/508

Either way Dallas Cowboys were facing a lash back beyond repair from some Cowboy fans and some Professional players if Jerry didn’t extend Prescott’s contract.

The Cowboys front office did their homework and realized even if Prescott wasn’t worthy of their “standards” the loss in team image in not signing Prescott was unquantifiable. Any GM and Owner would rather the alternative story no matter the “cap he’ll”

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If you followed along instead of getting your back up about that one word (which obviously triggers you for some reason) you would see that I am plainly stating that that I do not believe clubs will independently come to the conclusion that QBs contract are out of control and limit the contracts. There will always be another club who will covet the shiny object and open their wallets. I think without an agreement between the clubs they cannot manage to limit the contracts--which is what you want, the contracts limited. However, if they came to such an agreement, it would be collusion (oh my, I said it again *clutches pearls*), thus my theory that that is what you would want: collusion.

And FYI, I work in an industry that has very strict rules against collusion and price-fixing, so I am well versed on what is and is not collusion.

And with that, I'm done. I know you will need the last word, so please proceed.

What you "believe" and what has happened are two completely different things. The question is, can you prove that teams can not come up with these ideas independently? I mean, nobody much cares what you believe. They care about what you can prove. Same with me, people don't much care what I believe but what you can prove, that's different. So, here is the statement I made, that you contest as collusion:

How many teams have come out ahead in the QB negotiations Wars? Perhaps the answer is that teams need to stop doing business the way they have been in recent years. It's clearly not working in terms of managing QB salaries.

Can you honestly read this through and suggest that it's collusion? If you work in an industry that has very strict rules about collusion, how in the world do you still have a job? Good thing you have those pearls, they may come in handy for you. I've a feeling that your current profession may be short lived.

I don't have to have the last word, I am content to listen to reasonable discussion but this is not that. See, you read a post and you basically read into it. In fact, to my knowledge, the only collusion in the NFL recently is NFLPA's DeMaurice Smith, who told agents to 'collude' on offers to ensure teams do not limit salaries. I mean, this is a ridiculous claim. But it's yours to make but that also means it's yours to prove. So, without further ado, show proof, not opinion please and thank you.

 

[JW82]

incredibly dumb idea

 

[RonnieT24]

I posit that at least one of those phone calls came from/ went to area code 774/508

Either way Dallas Cowboys were facing a lash back beyond repair from some Cowboy fans and some Professional players if Jerry didn’t extend Prescott’s contract.

The Cowboys front office did their homework and realized even if Prescott wasn’t worthy of their “standards” the loss in team image in not signing Prescott was unquantifiable. Any GM and Owner would rather the alternative story no matter the “cap he’ll”

It was a classic risk/reward scenario. The risk of letting Dak go to another team would have been he leads that team to deep playoff runs annually while you wander in QB wilderness again because the firsts you get in return for him are high 20's type picks because of it. The reward would be that he stinks it up with his new team, and you get two top 10 picks because of it. The risk of keeping him is that he will prove out to be unworthy of the money you pay. The reward for keeping him is that he continues to develop and ends up being one of the best QBs in the league for the next 10 years. You have to ask yourself which is more likely? Dak going to a team that sucks just for money? He aint that stupid. JAX could have offered him 50 million a year and he probably still would have said no. On the other hand what if the 49ers offered him 39? Anybody here really wanna see Dak paired with Shanahan and that defense? Or heaven forbid the WFTs? Would we enjoy watching Dak own the other NFC East teams for them like he has for us? I'm thinking not.. Who here wouldn't be scarred for life the first time he faces our horrible defense!?!?!

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Sigh, your "smartest guy in the room routine" is not playing very well today. Especially since you are talking in circles and resorting to ad hominem.

And I thought you said you were finished in this thread.

But again, the claim is collusion, made by you. Show proof, it should not be hard. After all, you work in an industry, in some capacity, that deals with it extensively, do you not?

If you don't like the "smartest guy in the room routine", then don't try and use it. How dare you claim that what I am suggesting in my earlier post was collusion. Or worse yet, that I am somehow so stupid as to not understand what that is or means. I mean, really..... This is a self reflection moment for you Denim. See, you got wrapped up in your own right there. Think about what you are saying in that first post where you accuse of collusion. I mean, do you really think I don't understand what it is I am trying to say? If that's the case, then don't complain to me. You deserve everything you get and more. You are basically calling me stupid.

LOL.... so get comfortable with it all.

 

[Denim Chicken]

What you "believe" and what has happened are two completely different things. The question is, can you prove that teams can not come up with these ideas independently? I mean, nobody much cares what you believe. They care about what you can prove. Same with me, people don't much care what I believe but what you can prove, that's different. So, here is the statement I made, that you contest as collusion:

Where do you think you are? This is not a court of law. People typically post their beliefs and opinions on message boards.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Where do you think you are? This is not a court of law. People typically post their beliefs and opinions on message boards.

I think I'm a chat with a poster who should be reasonable enough to speak the truth, defend their position and basically be a decent human being. Is that where I'm at or am I mistaken?

 

[Denim Chicken]

I think I'm a chat with a poster who should be reasonable enough to speak the truth, defend their position and basically be a decent human being. Is that where I'm at or am I mistaken?

That is rich. I have responded to all your valid points and tried to lead you back on the path despite your efforts to veer off topic and your attempts to belittle me

One lone comment that I made has really put on display the fragility of your ego, yet you question my decency?

 

[stinkface]

except understanding the mistakes we make in the past might be educational to learn from past errors so that you do not keep repeating the same mistake.

Since when has Jerry learned from last mistakes. He always repeat always closes the barn door after the horse has run away.

 

[GMO415]

Who's the QB? Gilbert?

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

That is rich. I have responded to all your valid points and tried to lead you back on the path despite your efforts to veer off topic and your attempts to belittle me

One lone comment that I made has really put on display the fragility of your ego, yet you question my decency?

Have you? OK, what was your response to this one, What was it in my original post that you see as proof of collusion? I've only seen a bunch of avoidance and general statements about how I'm trying to be a smart guy. Here's your moment, what is the answer?

You've been all around this thing but won't answer the simple question, where is the proof of collusion? All I get is that it's your opinion. Even above, you qualify your statement by saying, "Valid points". How convenient, I suppose that, once again, is your call right?

Prove your statement. Where is the proof of collusion?

I mean, I know I'm fragile and all but fair is fair. Prove your statement and if not, then shut up and deal with the fact that you don't get treated decent. You aren't displaying that in this thread, right here, yourself. But you know what I do notice, you don't deny any of those observations on my part. You make more accusations but you don't deny any of it. I don't owe you a damn thing but you do owe me. Prove your statement.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Have you? OK, what was your response to this one, What was it in my original post that you see as proof of collusion? I've only seen a bunch of avoidance and general statements about how I'm trying to be a smart guy. Here's your moment, what is the answer?

You've been all around this thing but won't answer the simple question, where is the proof of collusion? All I get is that it's your opinion. Even above, you qualify your statement by saying, "Valid points". How convenient, I suppose that, once again, is your call right?

Prove your statement. Where is the proof of collusion?

Please refer back to post #97 as I have already addressed this numerous times.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Please refer back to post #97 as I have already addressed this numerous times.

Here is your response in post # 97.

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying. If you followed along instead of getting your back up about that one word (which obviously triggers you for some reason) you would see that I am plainly stating that that I do not believe clubs will independently come to the conclusion that QBs contract are out of control and limit the contracts. There will always be another club who will covet the shiny object and open their wallets. I think without an agreement between the clubs they cannot manage to limit the contracts--which is what you want, the contracts limited. However, if they came to such an agreement, it would be collusion (oh my, I said it again *clutches pearls*), thus my theory that that is what you would want: collusion.

And FYI, I work in an industry that has very strict rules against collusion and price-fixing, so I am well versed on what is and is not collusion.

And with that, I'm done. I know you will need the last word, so please proceed.

So what in this post, provides any proof at all? The only thing included here is your opinion, but nothing remotely suggesting proof. So again I ask, where is your proof. I mean, we all know you "believe" it's collusion but you specifically told me that what I said was collusion. So I require more then just your opinion there. Provide the proof.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Here is your response in post # 97.



So what in this post, provides any proof at all? The only thing included here is your opinion, but nothing remotely suggesting proof. So again I ask, where is your proof. I mean, we all know you "believe" it's collusion but you specifically told me that what I said was collusion. So I require more then just your opinion there. Provide the proof.

You think I'm avoiding what you are asking for but I am not.

You want proof, of my belief, that it would take collusion to foment your desire to have NFL teams collectively limit the rise in QB contracts.

I do not know how to give that to you, ABQ. A signed letter, perhaps?

I cannot provide proof on an opinion. I think the disconnect is you believe I somewhere declaratively stated that there was collusion amidst. I did not.

 

[CT Dal Fan]

Why would the Cowboys let Dak hit the open market and let another team with more cap space set his value?

Why would the Cowboys let Dak go and hand the QB reigns over to, well, whoever the anti-Dak crowd thinks the Cowboys should have went and signed??

Like others have said, this is a moot point. Let it go because it's already done.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You think I'm avoiding what you are asking for but I am not.

You want proof, of my belief, that it would take collusion to foment your desire to have NFL teams collectively limit the rise in QB contracts.

I do not know how to give that to you, ABQ. A signed letter, perhaps?

No, see, you didn't establish your statement as "your belief". You said that what I was suggesting is collusion. You went on to say that you are in a business that, apparently deals with this as a core part of your business, is that not correct?

The easy part is to simply say that the collusion was simply your opinion and not to act as if it was some sort of truth because it's not. The fact is, that NFL teams are copy cats. If they see that something works, they will do it the very next year. There are tones of examples of this in Football and it does not support your idea of collusion. In addition, do you understand that you are repeating our earlier behavior in this last post? You say, "it would take collusion to foment your desire to have NFL teams collectively limit the rise in QB contracts."

I never said that it was me desire to have every team do this. I said that it's a copy cat league and that teams copy what works. See, this is the problem. Do you not get that? You read stuff into things and then you open your mouth. Why?

I am not concerned with other teams and what they do. In fact, I hope every single one of them overpay their QBs and do all kinds of stupid stuff with their caps. That's better for us all the way around, but for the Cowboy, yes, I have a different view. So you see, once again, you make assumptions that are simply not accurate. You say you don't know how to give me that. Well, here's how. Don't imply that what you are thinking is actually truth. Just say IMO or In My Opinion. It's really as simple as that. There is plenty of room for discussion in that context. You know, as well as I do, that posters intentionally try to paint other opinions into a corner, so that they can be attacked. It happens every day on this board. It should not come as a surprise to you that poster don't want to be painted into corners.

I do not typically do that to you Denim because I don't generally view you as a bad guy. But in this case, you tired to do exactly that. I'm not going to allow my self to be defined as anything other then what I, myself suggest I am. I state my position clearly. I don't sugar coat things, I don't go back on what I say or belief, most times, I don't do that. If I'm wrong, then it's on me and I accept it. I almost always say IMO because I am not trying to paint a person. I want them to speak for themselves so there is no question. I don't dislike you but I'm not going to be painted Denim. That is why I forced this issue.

But you are welcome to judge this however you see fit, to believe whatever you want.

 

[Denim Chicken]

You say, "it would take collusion to foment your desire to have NFL teams collectively limit the rise in QB contracts."

I never said that it was me desire to have every team do this.

Ok, I must have been thrown off by your use of pluralities when you stated :

"How many teams have come out ahead in the QB negotiations Wars? Perhaps the answer is that teams need to stop doing business the way they have been in recent years. It's clearly not working in terms of managing QB salaries"

Seems contrary to the following:

I am not concerned with other teams and what they do. In fact, I hope every single one of them overpay their QBs and do all kinds of stupid stuff with their caps.

Also, the copy cat comment was well after the initial comment and I addressed that independently by saying "...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."

"I never said that it was me desire to have every team do this. I said that it's a copy cat league and that teams copy what works. See, this is the problem. Do you not get that? You read stuff into things and then you open your mouth. Why?"



Really, though, you seem to have taken a personal affront to my comment that made you defensive. I typically do not engage in this kind of back-and-forth and perhaps should not have. If you are really bent out of shape in your assertion that I have said you support collusion or whatever your grievance, lets call it a misunderstanding to end this particular debate that is really going nowhere. You're right that I do not typically try to attack any posters or try and assume their opinions and I'm not getting really any pleasure out of pointless back-and-forths.

 

[Winonesoon]

You are completely wrong.

100% correct

 

[TequilaCowboy]

Why would the Cowboys let Dak hit the open market and let another team with more cap space set his value?

Why would the Cowboys let Dak go and hand the QB reigns over to, well, whoever the anti-Dak crowd thinks the Cowboys should have went and signed??

Like others have said, this is a moot point. Let it go because it's already done.

I was against Dak or any other Dallas QB getting that big contract due to the team still not in position to be a SB contender yet. But its done, and might as well accept it and move on. i can't understand though, why these posts on what should they have done are still going on. First were the countless topics on whether they should....and now after the fact on should they have. It just never ends. Next once the season starts, i am sure it will be is Dak worth his contract. He will have a big X on his back, that's for sure.