Should our players take team friendly deals?

[zrinkill]

No

Tyron and Ware did and look what happened.

 

[FanofJerry]

You're bypassing your argument now. Your argument was that players should not give team friendly deals because it was keep them from sending their kid to school. That is simply inaccurate. No one making the NFL minimum is being asked to take a team friendly deal.

When a player maxes out his contract, it costs lesser players money.

Cool. So.

The world sucks. I didn't create it. Bunch of people fighting over money. Stabbing their own in the back over money.

Those players can go elsewhere in free agency when it comes I guess. Teams are willing to pay bus driving QBs top dollar and good/elite players good chunks of cap. Are you saying you wouldn't operate like that? You would trailblaze and take advantage of rookie contracts? Seems kinda slimey in the end.

It's kind of a dirty subject when it's always on the players while a blind eye is given to owners for being greedy. Even if you say you agree about the owners being greedy...the issue is still that the majority of the focus is still on the players being at fault for getting theirs.

Everything is a double standard

 

[Whiskey Cowboy]

Hell no. Low I.Q. crab in the bucket mentality.

Low IQ? No. If you want to win it all, sacrifices need to be made. This is a fact. Brady knew this. Mahommes knows this. Apparently you don't, but that's OK. The irony doesn't escape me. You can rant and rave about the owners restricting pay, but when players are making upwards of $60m/year, after already hauling in more money than you could spend in a lifetime, your argument looks pretty absurd.

If "make that money" is the motto of the Dallas Cowboys, which it appears is the case, we aren't going to win anything. Have we seen players from the Patriots and Chiefs going around and saying this publicly? No, because they know what it takes to be great. Our players do not, and it starts from the top. You can cry for the players all you want, but we have an owner that does everything to keep these guys happy, at the expense of success. We pay our guys more than they're worth in the name of loyalty. If this were a Bengals or Jaguars forum, maybe your though would hold some weight. It is not, therefore it does not.

 

[FanofJerry]

Low IQ? No. If you want to win it all, sacrifices need to be made. This is a fact. Brady knew this. Mahommes knows this. Apparently you don't, but that's OK. The irony doesn't escape me. You can rant and rave about the owners restricting pay, but when players are making upwards of $60m/year, after already hauling in more money than you could spend in a lifetime, your argument looks pretty absurd.

If "make that money" is the motto of the Dallas Cowboys, which it appears is the case, we aren't going to win anything. Have we seen players from the Patriots and Chiefs going around and saying this publicly? No, because they know what it takes to be great. Our players do not, and it starts from the top. You can cry for the players all you want, but we have an owner that does everything to keep these guys happy, at the expense of success. We pay our guys more than they're worth in the name of loyalty. If this were a Bengals or Jaguars forum, maybe your though would hold some weight. It is not, therefore it does not.

A 125,000 dollar bonus and a shared trophy isnt worth being called a champion over significant sums of money for these players.

Not many players are taking a pay decrease for what you propose.

Blame free markets...not the players.

 

[ShiningStar]

Yeah, it doesn't make them multimillionaires w/ generational wealth or anything like that.

most teams do that. some even offer winning

 

[KJJ]

It’s never smart for anyone to take less money, especially for an athlete whose career is short. Fans always rip players for being greedy, when it’s a business and their careers could be over with one hit. If we were in their shoes we would be looking to get paid as much as we can.

 

[diamonddelts]

Low IQ? No. If you want to win it all, sacrifices need to be made. This is a fact. Brady knew this. Mahommes knows this. Apparently you don't, but that's OK. The irony doesn't escape me. You can rant and rave about the owners restricting pay, but when players are making upwards of $60m/year, after already hauling in more money than you could spend in a lifetime, your argument looks pretty absurd.

If "make that money" is the motto of the Dallas Cowboys, which it appears is the case, we aren't going to win anything. Have we seen players from the Patriots and Chiefs going around and saying this publicly? No, because they know what it takes to be great. Our players do not, and it starts from the top. You can cry for the players all you want, but we have an owner that does everything to keep these guys happy, at the expense of success. We pay our guys more than they're worth in the name of loyalty. If this were a Bengals or Jaguars forum, maybe your though would hold some weight. It is not, therefore it does not.

Another delusional fan. There is no "we". Those young men take all the life altering risks on the field. You sit on the couch in safety watching them for entertainment.

The N.F.L. is an entertainment business. It is not for glory or legacy. These young men have an extremely short period of time to earn a high income via their bodies. No one in any business model goes around taking less money.

Owners don't do it. You don't ask Jerry to buy one less yacht for the team. Yet you ask players to take less after a collective bargaining agreement is in place where revenue sharing percentages were already agreed to between owners and the players union.

Low I.Q. crab in the bucket mentality at it's finest. And the fact that you use the term "we" further shows your delusion and your inability to see this as pure entertainment. A business model which is meant to entertain you.

Not fulfill some delusional dream of sharing a championship for which you never played.

 

[Whiskey Cowboy]

A 125,000 dollar bonus and a shared trophy isnt worth being called a champion over significant sums of money for these players.

Not many players are taking a pay decrease for what you propose.

Blame free markets...not the players.

If we don't have guys willing to step up and do something, we'll continue down the same path, and it will reflect directly on their legacy. If they don't care, why should I care if they're on the team? Why should anyone defend such players tooth and nail if all they care about is money? There are other, much better, much more successful players that have done what's needed, and have had exceptional success on the field and in life.

I wouldn't be so hard on Dak and others if their words reflected their actions. The whole "I'm a leader", and "the culture is fine" act has grown stale. The culture is about making money. Postseason success is hardly a priority.Team leaders do what's needed to make the team better. These guys care about their brand and their bank statement above anything, and we see it on the field in crunch time. We can blame ownership all we want, but at the end of the day, the players are the ones doing the thing on the field.

I'm not going to vilify anyone for wanting what they think they're worth, nor am I going to support anyone that has the ability to do something about our talent deficit, and chooses not to. There are other teams that have built around great leaders and have seen consistent success in the post season. It's unfortunate to say we don't have such players in Dallas, and we won't see similar success until we do.

 

[Whiskey Cowboy]

Another delusional fan. There is no "we". Those young men take all the life altering risks on the field. You sit on the couch in safety watching them for entertainment.

The N.F.L. is an entertainment business. It is not for glory or legacy. These young men have an extremely short period of time to earn a high income via their bodies. No one in any business model goes around taking less money.

Owners don't do it. You don't ask Jerry to buy one less yacht for the team. Yet you ask players to take less after a collective bargaining agreement is in place where revenue sharing percentages were already agreed to between owners and the players union.

Low I.Q. crab in the bucket mentality at it's finest. And the fact that you use the term "we" further shows your delusion and your inability to see this as pure entertainment. A business model which is meant to entertain you.

Not fulfill some delusional dream of sharing a championship for which you never played.

Thats twice you've insulted me. Why? Do you feel better now? Get a life, dude. We're both on a football message board dedicated to Cowboys fanatics. If you have a problem with it, go on about your life and leave the insults at the door. Let the players do what they do. I'm not mad that they're making money. I'm stating a fact that there's only so much pie to go around. A great leader knows this and does what they can to bring in the necessary talent to succeed.

We've seen one true dynasty and the beginning of another in the salary cap age. What do they have in common? Great coaching, great QB play, and the financial flexibility to plug holes when necessary. The first two are debatable, and the third can be solved this offseason. The question was asked, and I answered it. Should a player take a discounted rate? If they've made their money and want to win championships, yes. Otherwise they're more than welcome to try to eat up as much of the salary cap as they can for as long as they can. That's fine, but the consequence is the backlash they receive from the dedicated fan base. You're free to defend them if you want, but at the end of the day, we're talking about the top .001 percentile. Financially, they're fine, their families are fine, the next few generations of their families are fine, their friends are fine, and the neighbors dog is fine.

 

[FanofJerry]

If we don't have guys willing to step up and do something, we'll continue down the same path, and it will reflect directly on their legacy. If they don't care, why should I care if they're on the team? Why should anyone defend such players tooth and nail if all they care about is money? There are other, much better, much more successful players that have done what's needed, and have had exceptional success on the field and in life.

I wouldn't be so hard on Dak and others if their words reflected their actions. The whole "I'm a leader", and "the culture is fine" act has grown stale. The culture is about making money. Postseason success is hardly a priority.Team leaders do what's needed to make the team better. These guys care about their brand and their bank statement above anything, and we see it on the field in crunch time. We can blame ownership all we want, but at the end of the day, the players are the ones doing the thing on the field.

I'm not going to vilify anyone for wanting what they think they're worth, nor am I going to support anyone that has the ability to do something about our talent deficit, and chooses not to. There are other teams that have built around great leaders and have seen consistent success in the post season. It's unfortunate to say we don't have such players in Dallas, and we won't see similar success until we do.

Man...dont tell me the Owners should be smart with negotiations and contracts but the Players shouldnt be.

Youre confused or youre pushing propaganda or both.

 

[OmerV]

Like someone mentioned to avoid maybe packing up the family etc, comfortability, maybe!

That only goes so far. It's probably worth some small consideration but they aren't going to take significantly less for that reason. As others have said, NFL careers are too short for players to not get what they can while they can.

 

[Whiskey Cowboy]

Man...dont tell me the Owners should be smart with negotiations and contracts but the Players shouldnt be.

Youre confused or youre pushing propaganda or both.

 

[Whiskey Cowboy]

What I'm saying is if Mahommes and Brady can take team friendly deals to win championships, Dak can too. I'm not saying work for the league minimum. Baker Mayfield has a better playoff record (2-2) than Dak (2-5), and is projected to make $25m/year. If you pay Dak $35m-$40m, you're in a better position to solidify the lines and make a legit run. Dak is a millionaire 100x over. The only reason to sign for $60m/year is vanity and ego. It's good business for him, but everyone around him suffers. If that's what he wants, go for it. If he wants a ring, he can't take that contract. It's pretty simple. This has nothing to do with my personal opinion of these players and their bank rolls. It's simple economics. I can only hope the senile owner also takes this into consideration.

 

[FVSTONE]

Is it smart for these players to take less money, when this team has an issue with spending in free agency? I mean they're saving money to do nothing, can someone please make it make sense??

You'd think as cheap as we can be in our spending, we were saving up to make a big move. The big move for us, is our current players being taken care of with new deals!

Can we get rid of the "insanity" and make some moves with this money. There's talk of creating all this cap space, but what good is it if we don't bring substantial help from the outside. Please discuss!!!

If you're talking about Prescot, then yes, he should pay to play!

 

[Creeper]

Is it smart for these players to take less money, when this team has an issue with spending in free agency? I mean they're saving money to do nothing, can someone please make it make sense??

You'd think as cheap as we can be in our spending, we were saving up to make a big move. The big move for us, is our current players being taken care of with new deals!

Can we get rid of the "insanity" and make some moves with this money. There's talk of creating all this cap space, but what good is it if we don't bring substantial help from the outside. Please discuss!!!

On the one hand, I think players should get as much as they can. On the other, they should be smart about it. Taking a contract from a stupid owner that grossly overpays the play is not smart. Look at Zeke Elliott. Took a contract he was never worth and it wound up being a reason to cut him. If he had taken a smaller deal with Dallas he might have still been here for more money than he made with the Patriots. Knowing one's worth is a quality many young players do not possess.

 

[FanofJerry]

What I'm saying is if Mahommes and Brady can take team friendly deals to win championships, Dak can too. I'm not saying work for the league minimum. Baker Mayfield has a better playoff record (2-2) than Dak (2-5), and is projected to make $25m/year. If you pay Dak $35m-$40m, you're in a better position to solidify the lines and make a legit run. Dak is a millionaire 100x over. The only reason to sign for $60m/year is vanity and ego. It's good business for him, but everyone around him suffers. If that's what he wants, go for it. If he wants a ring, he can't take that contract. It's pretty simple. This has nothing to do with my personal opinion of these players and their bank rolls. It's simple economics. I can only hope the senile owner also takes this into consideration.

I agree that QB market is insane. I dont like it.

BUT..AS YOU SAID YOURSELF...you want to win.

True or false? Do you think WANTING TO WIN is part of why the QB market is what it is?

Hardest position in sports arguably. If you were a GM and had a solid team but were what you and your colleagues thought was one player away in a QB...if Brock Purdy was gettable to the highest bidder...would you not cave? You said you want to win, right? The above example is where people flip on their ideals.

It sucks. If I am in Dak's shoes right now, assuming I dont have a major drug problem, gambling problem, 20 kids...basically I am a reasonable human...I take a team friendly deal. No doubt about it. Even if everyone on the team would do the opposite to me.

 

[FanofJerry]

On the one hand, I think players should get as much as they can. On the other, they should be smart about it. Taking a contract from a stupid owner that grossly overpays the play is not smart. Look at Zeke Elliott. Took a contract he was never worth and it wound up being a reason to cut him. If he had taken a smaller deal with Dallas he might have still been here for more money than he made with the Patriots. Knowing one's worth is a quality many young players do not possess.

There is no being reasonable...thats the problem.

GM's are caught in a fear situation. Pay or let the "potentially really good player" walk. Let them walk...it could be like the years between Aikman and Romo.

Its not about worth...its about what the market will give them.

Its a market problem...not a player problem. The GM's create the market out of fear of things like the years between Aikman and Romo.

 

[Cmac]

Don't think any on their own job would like the Boss saying, "We're cutting YOUR salary so Becky and Larry can come on board or to help the company."

 

[FanofJerry]

Don't think any on their own job would like the Boss saying, "We're cutting YOUR salary so Becky and Larry can come on board or to help the company."

I think if I am Dak I am going to be reasonable to an extent.

Dak worked the rookie deal, got paid that big pay day that second contract...lets see if he is a team player or not with this third contract.

If the Jones' decision making and scouting trees have reservations about Dak...I think you draw the line in the sand at whatever you think his value is and stick to it. If those trees think he is not the problem of the team...you offer him a reasonable deal that isnt wafting of lowball but smells more friendly and fair...and hope he takes it. If those trees think he is top 5 in the league(they have more info than we have access to on whos at fault for what and who has what major flaws in their game)...you offer him the 55-60M and be done with it and start to move forward.

 

[Whiskey Cowboy]

I agree that QB market is insane. I dont like it.

BUT..AS YOU SAID YOURSELF...you want to win.

True or false? Do you think WANTING TO WIN is part of why the QB market is what it is?

Hardest position in sports arguably. If you were a GM and had a solid team but were what you and your colleagues thought was one player away in a QB...if Brock Purdy was gettable to the highest bidder...would you not cave? You said you want to win, right? The above example is where people flip on their ideals.

It sucks. If I am in Dak's shoes right now, assuming I dont have a major drug problem, gambling problem, 20 kids...basically I am a reasonable human...I take a team friendly deal. No doubt about it. Even if everyone on the team would do the opposite to me.

Apologies in advance for the long read. There's alot to unpack. I agree with everything you're saying. Hell, even Daniel Jones got a stupid deal last year. We're looking at a runaway train at the position with media money coming in at record rates. It's almost to the point where building a juggernaut and throwing darts at QB is the most viable option (See SF and Purdy). Does it make more sense to spend 25% of your cap on one guy, or redistribute $60m across the roster and hope you have a good bus driver?

The way I see it, Dak has been disappointing in the post season, but he's done well to get us there consistently. I love regular season Dak, but we need a complete team to really compete if he's going to be the guy. He's the best bus driver in the league, but he's being paid like a CEO. You expect the player to play up to his pay grade, but we just aren't getting it when it matters. How do we remedy this? By bringing in players to fix the deficiencies in the trenches. To establish the run game and force one dimensional offenses on the other side, allowing the pass rush to feast. How do we do that? We can't if we're paying CEO money to a great bus driver.
Catch-22

So what's the plan? We can't win it all without the right pieces, and we can't get the right pieces without the cash to do it. Do we continue down the same road, pay the bus driver even more money, and hope to catch lightning in a bottle, despite needing to address multiple holes at starting positions? Or do we reallocate funds to build a dominate defense and ground game, and find a journeyman?

I can't help but wonder what a guy like Baker Mayfield would look like with a star on his helmet. Good bus driver, relatively affordable, never had the talent we have here, and similar postseason success as Dak with the Browns and a shell of the Bucs. After leaving the Browns, he found success on a bad Rams team, and took the Bucs further in the playoffs than Tom Brady did the year prior.

Michael Penix Jr could easily be there at 24, and there are several good QBs throughout this draft class. If I'm Jerry Jones, I try to be a voice of reason with Dak, not his agent. If there's no reasoning to be found, I tell Dak to shove his $60m contract you know where, draft a guy high, and let Dak ride out the last year of his contract. If he succeeds, pay him what he wants. If not, roll with the young guy and/or Trey Lance if he shows progress.

Is it worse to fail epicly by trying to make a move that gets you closer to a championship, or fail marginally by doing nothing?