News: Sign QB to bucks, lose top players

[CowboysFaninHouston]

No diverting from me I posted your quote that initiated this debate and you refuse to address it. If you don’t want to address your quote then move on.

I addressed your questions all along. you refused to answer one question. I have asked at least 20 times...never got a straight answer...just a bunch of spin and diversion
if GB couldn't afford Adams, why did they offer him the same contract?

spppiiinnn sppin spin spin...sppppiiiinnn spin spin ....spin spin spin

 

[KJJ]

quit while you are behind, which is what you are trying to do...but not doing it gracefully.... can you do anything right?

I have you running around like a chicken with its head cut off. lol Did you not say those teams felt they didn’t need those receivers because of their QBs?

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Yeah, someone else mentioned that Cooper's cap hit on the Browns is lower than his Dead Cap on the Cowboys. That's true. But they'll pay eventually.

true. everyone pays eventually. everyone will at some time, get to the point they have to pay the piper, carry a lot of dead cap, have a few bad years and reload....but if you can win a superbowl in the process, it would be worth it....just like Rams

 

[KJJ]

I addressed your questions all along. you refused to answer one question. I have asked at least 20 times...never got a straight answer...just a bunch of spin and diversion
if GB couldn't afford Adams, why did they offer him the same contract?

spppiiinnn sppin spin spin...sppppiiiinnn spin spin ....spin spin spin

You refuse to answer any questions. You continue to divert! I’ve already discussed the Adams contract in detail. That question was answered long ago. Lol You claimed those teams felt they didn’t need those receivers because of their QBs. They could just put in another receiver. Did you not say that? I’ve posted your quote at least twice and you continue to divert.

 

[Alexander]

Here is a good article explaining what happens when you give the qb big bucks. We all already know this, so why is everyone so surprised? A couple of things are garbage in the article as it applies to Dallas, but the fallout from Rodgers and mahomes deals is evident.

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/how-40...scott-are-losing-the-offseason-001036835.html

So don't sign Prescott, we have a cheap bad QB?

The QB is so vital, teams will literally lose their rational minds trying to get one. It is the hardest position in football to scout, pick or sign.

And there is a built-in cost for one, so I do not understand the continual and stupid whining.

For the record, I did not like it. I think we did the contract too late.

People just need to be honest, and not fans one way or another about this.

Prescott is not upper crust, but he is functional. That is just simple fact.

He is not who I think can win to the level this franchise needs to overcome all of the built-in handicaps. It will take a generational type, ala Aikman, to get that all squared away. But I get why he is getting paid.

Kirk Cousins has gotten paid handsomely while in the league.

This is just what happens. People really need to get over the angst about Prescott's contract.

Unless you have a good one on a rookie deal, this is what you are going to pay. Two years from now, people will laugh at the contract Prescott signed.

It is just the nature of the business.

Honestly, there should be some sort of cap allowance you can use if you designate your QB to take the lion's share.

 

[Captain-Crash]

what's the difference between not winning anything with dak and winning nothing looking for a good QB?

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I have you running around like a chicken with its head cut off. lol Did you not say those teams felt they didn’t need those receivers because of their QBs?

see, this is a spin and taking things out of context, which is what you accused me of doing taking your comments out of context...shame on you, not sticking to your own principles...shows lack of integrity and character

I have answered that question multiple times. I am not going to waste time. running me around!! LOL, more like you lying and I have not allowed you to get away with it, so you are upset.

you still avoiding.... if GB couldn't afford Adams, why did they offer him the same contract as Raiders?

spin spin spin.....spin spin spin...avoid avoid avoid...divert divert divert.

you are sinking again. except its much much faster now...you are picking up speed

 

[KJJ]

see, this is a spin and taking things out of context, which is what you accused me of doing, taking your comments out of context...shame on you, not sticking to your own principles...shows lack of integrity and character

I said, sometimes teams feel they can just replace a player with another and get similar results....I gave you examples. I stand by that. never diverted fromt it. said it several times. yet you keep trying to stick to this one thing, because you think that's all you have left.

you still avoiding.... if GB couldn't afford Adams, why did they offer him the same contract as Raiders?

spin spin spin.....spin spin spin...avoid avoid avoid...divert divert divert.

you are sinking again. except its much much faster now...you are picking up speed

I answered that Davante Adams question more than once but you refuse to answer any of mine. You won’t even respond to the comment you made that started this debate. You continue to divert!

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

You refuse to answer any questions. You continue to divert! I’ve already discussed the Adams contract in detail. That question was answered long ago. Lol You claimed those teams felt they didn’t need those receivers because of their QBs. They could just put in another receiver. Did you not say that? I’ve posted your quote at least twice and you continue to divert.

LOL. I find it hilarious. that you are diverting, by accusing me of diversion. I literally LOL. you haven't answered that question although I have asked at least 20 times...

simple. you said, not me. your original post. GB, Dallas, KC couldn't afford to keep their WRs. ...tell me I am lying.

if GB couldn't afford Adams, why did they offer him the same contract as Raiders?

spin spin spin...lie lie lie, divert divert divert.....sink sink sink

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I answered that Davante Adams question more than once but you refuse to answer any of mine. You won’t even respond to the comment you made that started this debate. You continue to divert!

no you did not...you have spun, or tried to spin, but aren't very good at it.

again, you said GB, Dallas, KC couldn't afford to keep their WRs.
if GB couldn't afford Adams, why did they offer him the same contract as Raiders?

so are you wrong about your initial comment, which started this whole argument. that's a simple yes or no question

 

[KJJ]

LOL. I find it hilarious. that you are diverting, by accusing me of diversion. I literally LOL. you haven't answered that question although I have asked at least 20 times...

simple. you said, not me. your original post. GB, Dallas, KC couldn't afford to keep their WRs. ...tell me I am lying.

if GB couldn't afford Adams, why did they offer him the same contract as Raiders?

spin spin spin...lie lie lie, divert divert divert.....sink sink sink

I’m starting to think you’re delusional. This was your quote and you’re wrong! You’re referring to Davante Adams and Tyreek Hill. The Packers franchised Davante Adams then matched the Raiders offer. Why would they franchise him then match the Raiders offer if they could just put in another receiver with their QB? Answer the question!

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.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

You refuse to answer any questions. You continue to divert! I’ve already discussed the Adams contract in detail. That question was answered long ago. Lol You claimed those teams felt they didn’t need those receivers because of their QBs. They could just put in another receiver. Did you not say that? I’ve posted your quote at least twice and you continue to divert.

given you have tried to misquote, lie about what I said. this is exactly what I said. so that you can't take it out of context and make up stories.

"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. all three teams could have signed those players. they chose not too. now, we were idiots for letting cooper walk for a bag of peanuts and a 5th round pick that won't stick around (98%).

the rams just handed 40M contract to Stafford and signed allen robinson and still have Kupp.

each organization has limits on how much they are willing to spend on a position or on a player."


I don't think they can just replace those WRs with anyone. its their TEAMS thinking they can....and yes, tell me if Jerry didn't think that they can replace cooper with CD and Gallup. I gave you several other examples.

and I stand corrected. I think GB wanted Adams and didn't think they could just replace him. they gave him the same contract as Raiders. so I was wrong about GB thinking that way, but they COULD AFFORD TO KEEP HIM.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I’m starting to think you’re delusional. This was your quote and you’re wrong! The Packers franchised Davante Adams then matched the Raiders offer. Why would they franchise him then match the Raiders offer if they could just put in another receiver with their QB? Answer the question!

I put the entire comment in there, so it can't be taken out of context as you tried. see posts 232

you got caught with your pants down boy...pull them up

btw, is this your spinning way of saying you were wrong. because you said they couldn't afford him, now you are saying they could afford him.

so which is it? could they afford him or not?

way too funny. you are spinning yourself into total confusion

 

[KJJ]

given you have tried to misquote, lie about what I said. this is exactly what I said. so that you can't take it out of context and make up stories.

I’ve never misquoted anyone on this board. I post “quotes!” This is your “quote” it’s the fourth time I’ve posted it.

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.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I’m starting to think you’re delusional. This was your quote and you’re wrong! You’re referring to Davante Adams and Tyreek Hill. The Packers franchised Davante Adams then matched the Raiders offer. Why would they franchise him then match the Raiders offer if they could just put in another receiver with their QB? Answer the question!

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.

so which is it son?

did they lose Adams because they couldn't afford him?
or is it they could afford him?

this is called getting caught with your pants down, bent over picking up the soap in the shower in jail

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I’ve never missed quoted anyone on this board. I post “quotes!” This is your “quote” it’s the fourth time I’ve posted it.

you have 100%, no 100000% taken things out of context and wrapped your spin around it. I posted the entirety of the comment so you couldn't make up stuff and spin any more.

end of story

 

[KJJ]

so which is it. did they lose Adams because they couldn't afford him. or is it they could afford him.

this is called getting caught with your pants down, bent over and in jail LOL

Adams was franchised because they couldn’t come to terms on a long-term contract which fractured their relationship. By the time the Raiders made their offer and the Packers matched it, it was too late. Adams no longer wanted to play for the Packers. This is the third time I’ve explained it to you. Keep on diverting! Lol

 

[KJJ]

you have 100%, no 100000% taken things out of context and wrapped your spin around it. I posted the entirety of the comment so you couldn't make up stuff and spin any more.

end of story

I posted your original quote. I’ve asked you repeatedly to explain it and you refuse. Lol Here it is again explain it or continue to divert.

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.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Adams was franchised because they couldn’t come to terms on a long-term contract which fractured their relationship. By the time the Raiders made their offer and the Packers matched it it was too late. Adams no longer wanted to play for the Packers. This is the third time I’ve explained it to you. Keep on diverting! Lol

that's a spin...right...

so again,

you said, not me. you. clearly. your entirety of your own quote.

KJJ: 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.

KJJ: I’m starting to think you’re delusional. This was your quote and you’re wrong! You’re referring to Davante Adams and Tyreek Hill. The Packers franchised Davante Adams then matched the Raiders offer. Why would they franchise him then match the Raiders offer if they could just put in another receiver with their QB? Answer the question!

come on son. its really simple and you are trying to complicate it to divert....if they couldn't afford him, why did they offer him a contract? all the other stuff is irrelevant.

so which is it, pick A or B. this is really simplified for you, so I am thinking even you can get it.

A: could they not afford him?
B: Could they afford him?

 

[KJJ]

and I stand corrected. I think GB wanted Adams and didn't think they could just replace him. they gave him the same contract as Raiders. so I was wrong about GB thinking that way, but they COULD AFFORD TO KEEP HIM.

You finally admitted you were wrong. It wasn’t that hard was it? lol