News: Sign QB to bucks, lose top players

[Ranching]

He was fired. Wasn't he?

No....it was mutual.....

 

[Ranching]

Over rated? We cowboys fans tend to over rate our talent. And we were deep in some areas (i.e. WR). But lacked in other areas. It's entirety of the roster and we weren't

12-5? That's not overrated

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

A lot of things are being reported it just depends on which report is accurate. In the beginning the Packers didn’t offer Adams the huge contract he was looking for and franchised him. Apparently this created some bad blood between Adams and the Packers. When they decided to match the Raiders offer he chose the Raiders instead. The Packers were able to manipulate their cap to make Adams contract work. You initially claimed they didn’t need Adams because of their QB. You said they could just put another receiver in. It’s obvious they didn’t feel that way because they offered him 28 million per season to stay which would have made him the highest paid WR in the league. The Dolphins offer for Tyreek Hill was better than what the Chiefs could pay. The Chiefs made every attempt to give him a new deal but they couldn’t and had to trade him. This is all contrary to your claims that they really didn’t need him because of their QB.

oh, so now any report that says something that goes against your agenda, must be a false report!!!? So anyone at anytime can say I don't like this report and therefore its false....so all these NFL insiders and NFL reporters are just making stuff up. It was reported by
Davante Adams turns down massive contract offer from Green Bay Packers (sportsnaut.com)

Davante Adams trade: Packers were set to make contract offer similar to Raiders - Sports Illustrated I guess SI is not reputable and their reporting is just a bunch of fantasy made up stuff. they are not legit

quote: "The Packers were willing to match what the Raiders were offering to keep Adams in Green Bay, but the relationship between the receiver and the franchise were so strained that he preferred to play elsewhere, ESPN’s Rob Demovsky reports." I guess ESPN too makes up stuff to just fill in their pages, reputation be damned.....who cares, just say what ever.

secondly, my original counter to your assumption that once a team signs a high priced QB, they can't sign anybody else, was that its false premise, that both packers and KC offered contracts and rather large contracts to Adams and Hill. in several subsequent responses I clearly said, that each team has a line they won't cross, which it is obvious with KC they didn't want to cross. it wasn't a question of affordability or cap. I said, perhaps some teams may feel, because of their QB, they can play other WRs and get similar results. now you are spinning it into I said, they can just plug any WR and go about their business, which is a total fabrication of what I said, in the CONTEXT of the discussion. you can't just take a single statement and then add your own assumptions to it, to fit your argument and agenda.

lastly, the offer from Dolphins was better. I said as much. I actually broke it down for you, that it was only 20M additional. over 4 years. the chiefs clearly had the cap space to fit it in their current cap, as they have 23M in cap space, so it wasn't an issue of cap space. also that they could have done the contract, with voidable years to spread the bonus and reduce cap hit even further. just like cowboys did with Dak, its a 6 year contract, with last two years voidable.

with that said, what's your point? are you suggesting that KC shouldn't have signed Mahomes? or GB shouldn't have signed Rodgers? is that it. that if a team signs a big time QB, then they can't win the superbowl. so none of these teams should ever resign their QBs, they should just let stafford, wilson, rodgers, mahomes hit the street. and they should go chase the next cheap QB in the draft.

I think at this point, you just want to argue. I have shown you 10s of different ways, that your assumption that QB X gets signed so no more cap room and you lose players is a false, naive and lazy narrative. just like Jerry, your ego doesn't allow you to let it go.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

That's never been verified. It was more of mutual parting according to them unless Booger's drunk in public again.

For Booger to have approached him with that idea for the war room in their last draft has to tell you how desperate Booger was for attention, he's a child in that regard. For Wannstedt to have to talk Johnson into coming into the war room tells me how far that rift was becoming.

Then Booger gets drunk in public, evidently a habit, and wants some credit and to be toasted by Johnson's coaching staff and for them to shun him tells you just how much the coaching staff thought of Booger.

Other GM's do not step up and want to overshadow their HC's and they seldom share anything with the media. They understand the coaching staff is its own animal.

Booger saw Johnson becoming a media star and was so jealous he couldn't handle it. Add to this he caught all of the heat for firing Landry and the death threats for not signing Emmitt and Johnson actually gets the credit for Emmitt getting signed and in by the 3rd game.

Now, the seeds of this were sewn when they were roommates at AR and Booger was an OL and Johnson a DL. That team was all about defense and set the record for scoring and had 5 shutouts, the offense was there so we could go to the bathroom or fix a sammich. It truly was an amazing defense and just judging by Johnson's personality, I don't think he let Booger forget the D was the dog and the O the tail.

According to the SEC doc "Before They Were Cowboys", Booger was inspired by Switzer, just as Johnson, and wanted to go into coaching but the money wasn't a lure and he didn't follow his true dream. Johnson did and lived the dream at the highest possible level, college and NFL rings. I think Booger admired and respected Johnson but I think he was just as jealous of him. Because his accomplishments were public, Booger hit a gusher, no one cared.

When Johnson pulled that radio move before the Niners game, he took on legendary status in Dallas and that was just too much for Booger's childlike ego to handle.

The town was just not big enough for the both of them and Johnson wanted out anyway.

thanks. I remember some of that, but thanks for details.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

No....it was mutual.....

somehow to me that's about saving face. if Jimmy didn't walk away, would Jones let him stay? I think that was also jimmy, not giving him the satisfaction and telling Jerry to go F yourself.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

12-5? That's not overrated

and as much as I hate to say it, but I will. we were not competitive against bettter teams except for that one game against Patriots...for whatever reason and I am not saying that it was the cause, but for whatever reason after Dak's injury and the bye week, Dallas wasn't the same. we got exposed against Denver and as much as I hate to say, as they said they gave the blue print of how to beat the cowboys.

 

[KJJ]

oh, so now any report that says something that goes against your agenda, must be a false report!!!? So anyone at anytime can say I don't like this report and therefore its false....so all these NFL insiders and NFL reporters are just making stuff up. It was reported by
Davante Adams turns down massive contract offer from Green Bay Packers (sportsnaut.com)

Davante Adams trade: Packers were set to make contract offer similar to Raiders - Sports Illustrated I guess SI is not reputable and their reporting is just a bunch of fantasy made up stuff. they are not legit

quote: "The Packers were willing to match what the Raiders were offering to keep Adams in Green Bay, but the relationship between the receiver and the franchise were so strained that he preferred to play elsewhere, ESPN’s Rob Demovsky reports." I guess ESPN too makes up stuff to just fill in their pages, reputation be damned.....who cares, just say what ever.

secondly, my original counter to your assumption that once a team signs a high priced QB, they can't sign anybody else, was that its false premise, that both packers and KC offered contracts and rather large contracts to Adams and Hill. in several subsequent responses I clearly said, that each team has a line they won't cross, which it is obvious with KC they didn't want to cross. it wasn't a question of affordability or cap. I said, perhaps some teams may feel, because of their QB, they can play other WRs and get similar results. now you are spinning it into I said, they can just plug any WR and go about their business, which is a total fabrication of what I said, in the CONTEXT of the discussion. you can't just take a single statement and then add your own assumptions to it, to fit your argument and agenda.

lastly, the offer from Dolphins was better. I said as much. I actually broke it down for you, that it was only 20M additional. over 4 years. the chiefs clearly had the cap space to fit it in their current cap, as they have 23M in cap space, so it wasn't an issue of cap space. also that they could have done the contract, with voidable years to spread the bonus and reduce cap hit even further. just like cowboys did with Dak, its a 6 year contract, with last two years voidable.

with that said, what's your point? are you suggesting that KC shouldn't have signed Mahomes? or GB shouldn't have signed Rodgers? is that it. that if a team signs a big time QB, then they can't win the superbowl. so none of these teams should ever resign their QBs, they should just let stafford, wilson, rodgers, mahomes hit the street. and they should go chase the next cheap QB in the draft.

I think at this point, you just want to argue. I have shown you 10s of different ways, that your assumption that QB X gets signed so no more cap room and you lose players is a false, naive and lazy narrative. just like Jerry, your ego doesn't allow you to let it go.

You wasted a lot of time with that post I only skimmed over it. Nothing that’s been reported goes against what I’ve said but every article I’ve seen doesn’t support what you’ve said. I never claimed any publication or media source was making stuff up but not everything that’s reported is accurate. Care to deny that? There’s a couple of reports that give two different amounts of guaranteed money that Tyreek Hill is receiving from Miami. I never said any of these sources weren’t reputable. You’re the one making stuff up! You claimed the Packers and Chiefs didn’t need those receivers because of their QB. You said they could just put it in another receiver because of their QBs. You insinuated those receivers were traded because they weren’t needed because of their QBs. That’s not true! Where is there an article that claims that? That’s what this debate is about so stop diverting.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

You wasted a lot of time with that post I only skimmed over it. Nothing that’s been reported goes against what I’ve said but every article I’ve seen doesn’t support what you’ve said. I never claimed any publication or media source was making stuff up but not everything that’s reported is accurate. Care to deny that? There’s a couple of reports that give two different amounts of guaranteed money that Tyreek Hill is receiving from Miami. I never said any of these sources weren’t reputable. You’re the one making stuff up! You claimed the Packers and Chiefs didn’t need those receivers because of their QB. You said they could just put it in another receiver because of their QBs. You insinuated those receivers were traded because they weren’t needed because of their QBs. That’s not true! Where is there an article that claims that? That’s what this debate is about so stop diverting.

what!? you said GB let Adams go because they couldn't afford him. the articles clearly show they made him the same offer and he turned it down, now you try to spin your way out by saying it supports what you said!!!! reallly!!! .it says exactly the opposite of what you said. you said they couldn't afford him, the articles showed they could.

I quote your very first statement: "They’re going to have to make an adjustment to the salary cap that allows teams to pay their QBs without having to dismantle their team. Franchise QBs are taking up a big percentage of the cap. The Cowboys, Packers and Kansas City had to sacrifice their best receivers because of the cap hit from their QBs."

again, if they lost the reciever because of the cap, why were the Packers making the same contract offer to Adams?


and you did say publications are not valid and not accurate. I mocked you with the "making up stuff", because if they are not accurate, then why did they reports as a fact, unless they are making it up or in it they would say, they have heard or they are speculting...

your quote: "A lot of things are being reported it just depends on which report is accurate." so tell me if ESPN and SI are not accurate on this report? yes or no. that simple.

now you are back peddaling from a spin you tried and walking back what you said. shameful.

and show me where I said that I think packers and chiefs don't need those recievers? you are making up stuff, because again, you have been proven wrong and your ego just can't take that fact, so you are in quick sand, stuck and sinking.

quite while you are behind, this is way too embarassing for you.

 

[rnr_honeybadger]

Sign QB to bucks, lose top players

Correction, sign average QB to bucks and lose top players. Pay a top tier QB the money and you can weather some of the losses better because guys like Rodgers, Brady and Mahomes elevate the guys around them. Dak Prescott isn’t that guy.

 

[Flamma]

But if they couldn't afford why did they offer the exact contract to Adams? Explain that.... If they couldn't then they wouldn't.

Rumored to have offered him the same contract. We do know they tried to franchise tag him.

A lot of people besides the person you're arguing with are skeptical about that.

 

[KJJ]

what!? you said GB let Adams go because they couldn't afford him. the articles clearly show they made him the same offer and he turned it down, now you try to spin your way out by saying it supports what you said!!!! reallly!!! .it says exactly the opposite of what you said. you said they couldn't afford him, the articles showed they could.

I quote your very first statement: "They’re going to have to make an adjustment to the salary cap that allows teams to pay their QBs without having to dismantle their team. Franchise QBs are taking up a big percentage of the cap. The Cowboys, Packers and Kansas City had to sacrifice their best receivers because of the cap hit from their QBs."

again, if they lost the reciever because of the cap, why were the Packers making the same contract offer to Adams?


and you did say publications are not valid and not accurate. I mocked you with the "making up stuff", because if they are not accurate, then why did they reports as a fact, unless they are making it up or in it they would say, they have heard or they are speculting...

your quote: "A lot of things are being reported it just depends on which report is accurate." so tell me if ESPN and SI are not accurate on this report? yes or no. that simple.

now you are back peddaling from a spin you tried and walking back what you said. shameful.

and show me where I said that I think packers and chiefs don't need those recievers? you are making up stuff, because again, you have been proven wrong and your ego just can't take that fact, so you are in quick sand, stuck and sinking.

quite while you are behind, this is way too embarassing for you.

The Packers couldn’t come to terms with Adams initially why can’t you get that? Click the link! They were unable to come to terms on a long-term deal forcing them to place a franchise tag on him. He didn’t want to play under the tag. The Raiders stepped up and offered him a huge deal and because the Packers didn’t want to lose him they matched it. Adams and the Packers relationship was too far gone and they were forced to trade him. You claimed the Packers didn’t need him because of their great QB. You said they could just put in another receiver. Why would they match the Raiders offer if they didn’t need him? You claimed the Chiefs traded Tyreek Hill because they didn’t need him because they have Patrick Mahomes. Apparently you think he can turn any receiver into Tyreek Hill. By the way I never said publications are not accurate and not valid. That’s a bold face lie! You’re twisting what I said because you love arguing for the sake of arguing.


https://www.sportingnews.com/us/amp...anchise-tag-contract/drdyeaetfokbflls9grnvmit

 

[Flamma]

and as much as I hate to say it, but I will. we were not competitive against bettter teams except for that one game against Patriots...for whatever reason and I am not saying that it was the cause, but for whatever reason after Dak's injury and the bye week, Dallas wasn't the same. we got exposed against Denver and as much as I hate to say, as they said they gave the blue print of how to beat the cowboys.

I'll tell you the reason, and it wasn't Dak's injury. The reason was we weren't playing the Eagles, Panthers, Giants, or Atlanta. Notice Atlanta came after the Denver game.

The Cowboys offense all year had trouble against average to good teams. Yes, had trouble against average teams. They feasted on garbage teams only. The only exception being the Patriots. Our D stepped up in wins against the Vikings and Chargers.

 

[Ranching]

and as much as I hate to say it, but I will. we were not competitive against bettter teams except for that one game against Patriots...for whatever reason and I am not saying that it was the cause, but for whatever reason after Dak's injury and the bye week, Dallas wasn't the same. we got exposed against Denver and as much as I hate to say, as they said they gave the blue print of how to beat the cowboys.

Calf injuries are scary...either Dak played scared, or KM coached scared.

 

[Ranching]

somehow to me that's about saving face. if Jimmy didn't walk away, would Jones let him stay? I think that was also jimmy, not giving him the satisfaction and telling Jerry to go F yourself.

I worked for my dad for 6 years when I was in HS and College......I always respected the boss....I was fortunate to work for good ones, but I would have walked too if I didn't respect him. It it, what it is.

 

[KJJ]

and you did say publications are not valid and not accurate..

That’s BS and you know it. lol You twisted my comment. This is what I said.

A lot of things are being reported it just depends on which report is accurate.

 

[KJJ]

and show me where I said that I think packers and chiefs don't need those recievers? you are making up stuff, because again, you have been proven wrong and your ego just can't take that fact, so you are in quick sand, stuck and sinking.

quite while you are behind, this is way too embarassing for you.

If you didn’t say it then explain this comment. It sounds to me like you’re saying the Packers and Cheifs think with their great QBs they can just put in another WR instead paying big bucks to Adams and Hill. I can assure you their teams don’t think that.

no they weren't. its their teams think with their QBs, they can just put another WR in place and they weren't going to pay them what they wanted.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

So you solution is, what? Don't have a top QB? Unless there is a league-wide adjustment where QB's stop getting paid so much, there isn't anything you can do unless you just want a JAG QB.

And that's also the point of a salary cap - so you can't make super teams.

The solution is to only pay a top QB. Who is more prepared to deal with a loss of talent. Rodgers and Mahomes or Dak?

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Rumored to have offered him the same contract. We do know they tried to franchise tag him.

A lot of people besides the person you're arguing with are skeptical about that.

well, if they franchised him, then they would be on the books for 18.5M. teams often don't like that, because contracts can be manipulated to reduce the amount (see Dak prescott 40M average, but 17 and 19M cap hits).

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

The Packers couldn’t come to terms with Adams initially why can’t you get that? Click the link! They were unable to come to terms on a long-term deal forcing them to place a franchise tag on him. He didn’t want to play under the tag. The Raiders stepped up and offered him a huge deal and because the Packers didn’t want to lose him they matched it. Adams and the Packers relationship was too far gone and they were forced to trade him. You claimed the Packers didn’t need him because of their great QB. You said they could just put in another receiver. Why would they match the Raiders offer if they didn’t need him? You claimed the Chiefs traded Tyreek Hill because they didn’t need him because they have Patrick Mahomes. Apparently you think he can turn any receiver into Tyreek Hill. By the way I never said publications are not accurate and not valid. That’s a bold face lie! You’re twisting what I said because you love arguing for the sake of arguing.


https://www.sportingnews.com/us/amp...anchise-tag-contract/drdyeaetfokbflls9grnvmit

I never said I didn't get that. that has nothing to do with anything. again you are diverting and spinning.

they couldn't come to long term deal. they franchised him. he said he wouldn't play (which essentially is I only will play the last 9 games or so, else I get franchised again just like the first one, with the same amount).

why don't you get it that both SI and ESPN reported Adams had recieved the same offer from GB and he didn't want to stay any longer.

I never claimed Packers didn't need him. show me where I said that. I said, perhaps teams that don't sign some of the players think their QBs can over come it, it doesn't mean they didn't need him... so that's another spin and LIE on your part.

I said, sometime teams think their QB can over come lesser players. sometimes they think its not the WR. not always. sometimes. and some times they are right. sometimes they are wrong. what's so hard to get that. I gave u several examples.

now, all of that stuff you just said is diversion. lets go back to you original comment and Premise that you clearly said, they lost the WRs because of contracts given to their QB because they couldn't afford them.which has been proven 20 times over that it was and still is the wrong premise.

you are diverting. who cares about need/want. etc. its irrelevant to the discussion. its a diversion on your part.

could they have afforded to keep Adams? yes or no? simple question.

but I am sure you will spin

 

[KJJ]

I never said I didn't get that. that has nothing to do with anything. again you are diverting and spinning.

they couldn't come to long term deal. they franchised him. he said he wouldn't play (which essentially is I only will play the last 9 games or so, else I get franchised again just like the first one, with the same amount).

why don't you get it that both SI and ESPN reported Adams had recieved the same offer from GB and he didn't want to stay any longer.

I never claimed Packers didn't need him. show me where I said that. I said, perhaps teams that don't sign some of the players think their QBs can over come it, it doesn't mean they didn't need him... so that's another spin and LIE on your part.

I said, sometime teams think their QB can over come lesser players. sometimes they think its not the WR. not always. sometimes. and some times they are right. sometimes they are wrong. what's so hard to get that. I gave u several examples.

now, all of that stuff you just said is diversion. lets go back to you original comment and Premise that you clearly said, they lost the WRs because of contracts given to their QB because they couldn't afford them.which has been proven 20 times over that it was and still is the wrong premise.

you are diverting. who cares about need/want. etc. its irrelevant to the discussion. its a diversion on your part.

could they have afforded to keep Adams? yes or no? simple question.

but I am sure you will spin

Only read the first sentence and hit reply. You continue to divert. You’re wasting a lot of your time. This is day three and I’m not about to spend the entire weekend on this. Sorry to disappoint you.