The case for going for Lawrence

[Shane612]

Blind Squirrel Theory

Yes. Or the broken clock........
Either way, the odds aren't good.

 

[blueblood70]

First off, let me say that I like Dak Prescott, I think he is a very good, not great, QB, and even the Dakaters have to notice the team with and without him which is exactly my point. The team needs someone better at that position unless you believe this team's management is capable of doing something they haven't done in decades, build a team around a QB.

They haven't done it with Prescott as well as his predecessor and even admitted that, failed to build around Romo. The fact that they lucked into both of these QB's should also be considered.

There are two questions regarding Trevor Lawrence, three if you consider why he doesn't become an English actor with that name. But the main two are is he better than what the Cowboys have now and what will it take to get him away from the two teams, JAX and NYJ, that have him in their sights?

Now, we must also consider the considerable team that Swinney has built around Lawrence, just as he did Watson. That must be taken into account when considering Fields as well.

But for the sake of argument and this thread, Lawrence is a better QB now than Prescott has developed into and he has nothing but upside. He is the first QB since P. Manning to deliver on being the most highly recruited QB in his class. If you don't agree with this, then this thread doesn't make sense to you but I have watched a lot of Lawrence play the position and consider him the real deal.

The second question is a tough one because if the Cowboys do not end up with the 1st pick, trading up for it will be very expensive in draft capital. If that can even be done. JAX ends up with that and they'd have a hard time passing on Lawrence since he's played in the neighborhood and if they're in that position, we'll see the same response as we saw from the CIN fans when the season became all about Burrow.

OK, you can let me have it now but I just don't think Prescott is good enough to lift this team beyond a mid level team. They ranked #1 in offense and we're 8-8 and what did they look like this season with Prescott at the helm? Is it a risk? Absolutely, but isn't giving Prescott a 4 or 5 X 35-40M a year even a bigger risk when you consider who the team builders are?

This is not about Dak Prescott, I think there are teams he could take to the Big Dance. This is about trying to overcome what's been holding this team back for two and half decades, management.

And if you want to consider something else, this HC had one of the best QB's in the history of the NFL and the most accurate one I have ever seen and he could only get one ring and ended up canned and that team doing better without him.

McC has this rep as a QB guru but who wouldn't with those QB's? The better the QB, the better the guru.

All comes down to one simple question. Do you want more of the same or do you want to take a chance? This is about change but what needs to be changed, management, will not so what's the next best thing?

first off we will not get TL , the jest are on the clock..

so back to reality,

you have to consider many options not just dak, we need a lot and that and understatement, elite Defenders to just get this defense back to mediocre..hard to win with a historically bad defense.

so ive said this a few times this week, we do NOT have to take a Fields at 2 just because hes there, saying hes Herbert is also just guessing, you can have busts more then hits in top 10 QBs, so that not an automatic and Mm and the Jones have a lot to ponder this offseason. daniel jones, rosen, winston, or Darnold and that recent Qbs our pick could end up..

My best hypothetical plan is do both if we pick top 3,

trade down grab 2-3 more picks still pick around 10-15 grab Trask/ND QB and still get targeted defenders late first and added 2nd with trades.

Then STILL Non exclusive FT Dak, see if he will actually play under the tag and not hold out, if he chooses to holdout you then trade him for more picks..if he signs a team friendly long term deal, great we develop our QB we just picked and have Dak LT or on the tag either way it could work..


so believe very little of what said in public..doesnt mean MM isnt pushing for the scenario like im describing. Another QB like Trask or kid from ND around 10-12 and still have plenty of high picks for defense..

if its planned accordingly we have many options at our disposal for QB and defense. picking Fields at 2 is Not one of the better options IMO..the opportunity you describe in front of out faces is creating leverage and getting it All by trading down....

 

[CouchCoach]

The probability of success is far higher with Dak.

They get Dak plus a boat load of picks for trading down vs 1 college player.

The Cowboys were on an unprecedented pace of offensive production with Dak at QB despite have 2 udfa OTs. They had over 300 more passing yards than the #2 team for that stat. They were also #1 in total yards and #2 in points scored.

With a top 12 defense they would likely have been undefeated.

You were expecting that to continue? They could only put up 17 against a good D.

If the Cowboys had a top 12 D, I wouldn't even be considering this but this is about overcoming inept team building on the D side of the ball.

 

[CouchCoach]

Even #9 couldn't take this team to the dance with poor management around him.


/runs for the door...

I tend to agree but they'd have a better chance.

 

[sunalsorises]

I would say that the time it takes to develop Lawrence will be about equal to the amount of time it will take to build the defense. Might as well go with the rookie over Dak simply because in the few years needed to reload one QB will be entering his prime while the other will be starting to exit it.

 

[JBS]

Hey guys let's talk about getting things that are unattainable but that make great sense

Maybe we can trade for Patrick mahomes instead

 

[atlantacowboy]

Drafting Lawrence is not in our hands. We all know what would happen anyway going into week 17 with a shot at Lawrence. The staff will find a way to beat the NYG.

 

[kevm3]

I would say that the time it takes to develop Lawrence will be about equal to the amount of time it will take to build the defense. Might as well go with the rookie over Dak simply because in the few years needed to reload one QB will be entering his prime while the other will be starting to exit it.

So how are we going to afford Lawrence since his contract will be coming up and he will possibly be wanting more than Dak if he performs

 

[charron]

Paying Dak and trading down would be seen as a smart move....so would trading Dak and picking fields. We likely do neither. This front office will probably pull some dumb move stay at 2-3 and pick an OT.

 

[CouchCoach]

first off we will not get TL , the jest are on the clock..

so back to reality,

you have to consider many options not just dak, we need a lot and that and understatement, elite Defenders to just get this defense back to mediocre..hard to win with a historically bad defense.

so ive said this a few times this week, we do NOT have to take a Fields at 2 just because hes there, saying hes Herbert is also just guessing, you can have busts more then hits in top 10 QBs, so that not an automatic and Mm and the Jones have a lot to ponder this offseason. daniel jones, rosen, winston, or Darnold and that recent Qbs our pick could end up..

My best hypothetical plan is do both if we pick top 3,

trade down grab 2-3 more picks still pick around 10-15 grab Trask/ND QB and still get targeted defenders late first and added 2nd with trades.

Then STILL Non exclusive FT Dak, see if he will actually play under the tag and not hold out, if he chooses to holdout you then trade him for more picks..if he signs a team friendly long term deal, great we develop our QB we just picked and have Dak LT or on the tag either way it could work..


so believe very little of what said in public..doesnt mean MM isnt pushing for the scenario like im describing. Another QB like Trask or kid from ND around 10-12 and still have plenty of high picks for defense..

if its planned accordingly we have many options at our disposal for QB and defense. picking Fields at 2 is Not one of the better options IMO..the opportunity you describe in front of out faces is creating leverage and getting it All by trading down....

The challenge will be trading down and getting that haul in a thin draft. They would haver to be in that #2 spot.

This is not the draft to have a lot of picks, only high ones. There are two blue chip OT's and DB's and other than that it is not good or deep.

The other question posters should ask themselves, "is this a good drafting team"? I'd say that's been fool's gold and more in the cockeyed optimist's point of view. A thin draft coupled with this brain trust isn't comforting when you consider they're bottom feeders in FA.

 

[Runwildboys]

So how are we going to afford Lawrence since his contract will be coming up and he will possibly be wanting more than Dak if he performs

That was my thought as well, but if Dak is reasonably successful, how much will he want in another 4 years?

 

[CouchCoach]

So how are we going to afford Lawrence since his contract will be coming up and he will possibly be wanting more than Dak if he performs

That would be in 2026 with a new TV deal and new caps. The main reason Prescott's agent wanted a 4 year deal was the prevalent thinking that the cap is climbing rapidly with the next rights to carry deal in place.

The other factor is some of these other contracts would be gone. I was never opposed to paying Prescott in the top 5. It was all those other players getting paid in the top 6 like the RB, WR, RT, C, RG and DE. That's the reason they let B. Jones walk.

 

[Rockport]

First off, let me say that I like Dak Prescott, I think he is a very good, not great, QB, and even the Dakaters have to notice the team with and without him which is exactly my point. The team needs someone better at that position unless you believe this team's management is capable of doing something they haven't done in decades, build a team around a QB.

They haven't done it with Prescott as well as his predecessor and even admitted that, failed to build around Romo. The fact that they lucked into both of these QB's should also be considered.

There are two questions regarding Trevor Lawrence, three if you consider why he doesn't become an English actor with that name. But the main two are is he better than what the Cowboys have now and what will it take to get him away from the two teams, JAX and NYJ, that have him in their sights?

Now, we must also consider the considerable team that Swinney has built around Lawrence, just as he did Watson. That must be taken into account when considering Fields as well.

But for the sake of argument and this thread, Lawrence is a better QB now than Prescott has developed into and he has nothing but upside. He is the first QB since P. Manning to deliver on being the most highly recruited QB in his class. If you don't agree with this, then this thread doesn't make sense to you but I have watched a lot of Lawrence play the position and consider him the real deal.

The second question is a tough one because if the Cowboys do not end up with the 1st pick, trading up for it will be very expensive in draft capital. If that can even be done. JAX ends up with that and they'd have a hard time passing on Lawrence since he's played in the neighborhood and if they're in that position, we'll see the same response as we saw from the CIN fans when the season became all about Burrow.

OK, you can let me have it now but I just don't think Prescott is good enough to lift this team beyond a mid level team. They ranked #1 in offense and we're 8-8 and what did they look like this season with Prescott at the helm? Is it a risk? Absolutely, but isn't giving Prescott a 4 or 5 X 35-40M a year even a bigger risk when you consider who the team builders are?

This is not about Dak Prescott, I think there are teams he could take to the Big Dance. This is about trying to overcome what's been holding this team back for two and half decades, management.

And if you want to consider something else, this HC had one of the best QB's in the history of the NFL and the most accurate one I have ever seen and he could only get one ring and ended up canned and that team doing better without him.

McC has this rep as a QB guru but who wouldn't with those QB's? The better the QB, the better the guru.

All comes down to one simple question. Do you want more of the same or do you want to take a chance? This is about change but what needs to be changed, management, will not so what's the next best thing?

There is no case except for delusional “I want to lose” fans.

 

[CouchCoach]

That was my thought as well, but if Dak is reasonably successful, how much will he want in another 4 years?

I think a lot, that's why they're trying to keep his options open when the new rights to carry deal is in place.

My issue has never been with Prescott, he's earned his money and the right to negotiate for more. I just think the team needs to get into that QB elite area to overcome management.

 

[kevm3]

That would be in 2026 with a new TV deal and new caps. The main reason Prescott's agent wanted a 4 year deal was the prevalent thinking that the cap is climbing rapidly with the next rights to carry deal in place.

The other factor is some of these other contracts would be gone. I was never opposed to paying Prescott in the top 5. It was all those other players getting paid in the top 6 like the RB, WR, RT, C, RG and DE. That's the reason they let B. Jones walk.

I'd set the cap for a Dak contract at 35 million. If he or his agent want some outlandish amount, I'd leverage our ability to draft a qb and the possibility of the cap going down in the future. This is why it is critical we essentially 'tank'. Where we pick also determines what we're able to do about Dak's contract situation.

 

[conner01]

WE

ARE

NOT

DRAFTING

A

QB

IN

THE

TOP

FIVE

I’m a Dak fan but if somehow we got top pick in taking Lawrence
Don’t think that’s gonna be the case
I’m more looking at options at 3

 

[Sarge]

Here is the case..

He’s cheap and he’s a transcendent talent.

We like our guy........like it or not........

 

[DoctorChicken]

I can see the argument for both Lawrence or Dak.

It’s not like the offense was bad with Dak. It was great. The defense was absolutely wretched, which was the real problem. Even an average defense and we would have been undefeated with Dak at the helm. Dak is the proven commodity, and Lawrence isn’t.

But, and I am a big Dak fan, but if Lawrence is there at your pick then you have to take him. It makes sense from a roster management and money management perspective. Dak has been nothing but class for us, but if Lawrence is there you let Dak walk.

If we ended up with the #2 pick I’d even go as far as to offer the #1 pick team (likely NYJ) future picks.

 

[CATCH17]

We like our guy........like it or not........

I like him too.. I like the Cowboys more and paying Dak will prove to be the wrong decision for the TEAM.

 

[sunalsorises]

So how are we going to afford Lawrence since his contract will be coming up and he will possibly be wanting more than Dak if he performs

Cross that bridge later. They are going to have to pay a QB anyway as I suspect any contract Dak signs will also be up in 5 years like Lawrence's.