The Dak contract situation and risk

[csirl]

Firstly, while I put Dak's name in brackets in the title, because it's Dak's contract we're talking about, I don't want this thread to turn into a Dak is good v Dak is bad thread. But the maths apply to any proposed QB signing in the same circumstances. I'm also going to round the figures, so please don't quote me as being wrong with contract proposals.

What's at risk:

If the QB is signed, the team has $100m in guaranteed money on the line.

If the QB plays well under tag, the team risks a price increase of $5m per year - $15 to $25m in total depending on the length of the contract.

So the math says that if you want to sign the QB, you need to be at least 4 times more confident that the QB will be a success at a franchise QB level than not. In simple terms 80% sure versus 20% unsure (risk cost of 100m v 25m).

Points to consider:

A team can manage swallowing $5m per year extra in salary for a sure fire QB. No team can afford to swallow a loss of $100m - if Dak is signed and doesn't work out, then MM will be completely wasted - the team will not recover during his 5 year tenure.

There is a reasonable chance that any QB, regardless of ability, will not work out with a new coaching staff and/or new system. Yes, a QB with all the skills has a better chance of working out, but even QBs like Mahomes or Brady at his peak will not work out every time. Like any workplace, sometimes this can be down to personality clashes or other intangibles. I'd be interested in seeing stats on what % of NFL starting QBs work out when faced with a new system and/or coaching staff. What's the risk Dak (or any vet QB) won't fit with MM or his system? Higher or lower than 20%?

There are risks associated with drafting any 1st round QB. But there is a lot less committed money on the line, so the risk-o-meter favors this approach. This years No. 1 pick is expected to sign for c.$24m guaranteed money. So the quantum of money on the line for a first rounder is similar to that on the line if Dak plays under the tag. Is Dak 4 x times more likely to excel than a first round QB?

Is a 1st round rookie QB who has played in the same system as the drafting NFL team - maybe college coach is from the same coaching tree as NFL coach - a bigger risk than an NFL starting QB who has never played in the system? Any stats on this available?

So looking at the various options risks:

You only sign Dak long term before the season if you think he's 80% or more certain to flourish under MM - taking into account both (i) the risks of Dak himself not working out and (ii) the risk of any QB not working out with a new system/HC - both risks combined would need to be less than 20%.

You only sign Dak long term if you think he's 4 times more likely to succeed than a first round pick.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I don't want this thread to turn into a Dak is good v Dak is bad thread.

It's a nice thought.

 

[John813]

So, sign him.

 

[Kaiser]

So the math says that if you want to sign the QB, you need to be at least 4 times more confident that the QB will be a success at a franchise QB level than not. In simple terms 80% sure versus 20% unsure (risk cost of 100m v 25m).
.

The math says that if guys like Kirk Cousins got 84 Million guaranteed over 3 years, you have to pay Dak the market rate for an above average starter. You don't pay him more than anyone else, which is why the team hasn't agreed the terms from Dak's agent yet.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

The problem a lot of people have with paying Dak is they believe anyone can be quarterback for this team. The literally devalue the quarterback position thinking anyone can be as good as Dak. Because no matter his shortcomings.....it can get worse. And you could get worse at quarterback getting rid of him.

 

[Redball Express]

Firstly, while I put Dak's name in brackets in the title, because it's Dak's contract we're talking about, I don't want this thread to turn into a Dak is good v Dak is bad thread. But the maths apply to any proposed QB signing in the same circumstances. I'm also going to round the figures, so please don't quote me as being wrong with contract proposals.

What's at risk:

If the QB is signed, the team has $100m in guaranteed money on the line.

If the QB plays well under tag, the team risks a price increase of $5m per year - $15 to $25m in total depending on the length of the contract.

So the math says that if you want to sign the QB, you need to be at least 4 times more confident that the QB will be a success at a franchise QB level than not. In simple terms 80% sure versus 20% unsure (risk cost of 100m v 25m).

Points to consider:

A team can manage swallowing $5m per year extra in salary for a sure fire QB. No team can afford to swallow a loss of $100m - if Dak is signed and doesn't work out, then MM will be completely wasted - the team will not recover during his 5 year tenure.

There is a reasonable chance that any QB, regardless of ability, will not work out with a new coaching staff and/or new system. Yes, a QB with all the skills has a better chance of working out, but even QBs like Mahomes or Brady at his peak will not work out every time. Like any workplace, sometimes this can be down to personality clashes or other intangibles. I'd be interested in seeing stats on what % of NFL starting QBs work out when faced with a new system and/or coaching staff. What's the risk Dak (or any vet QB) won't fit with MM or his system? Higher or lower than 20%?

There are risks associated with drafting any 1st round QB. But there is a lot less committed money on the line, so the risk-o-meter favors this approach. This years No. 1 pick is expected to sign for c.$24m guaranteed money. So the quantum of money on the line for a first rounder is similar to that on the line if Dak plays under the tag. Is Dak 4 x times more likely to excel than a first round QB?

Is a 1st round rookie QB who has played in the same system as the drafting NFL team - maybe college coach is from the same coaching tree as NFL coach - a bigger risk than an NFL starting QB who has never played in the system? Any stats on this available?

So looking at the various options risks:

You only sign Dak long term before the season if you think he's 80% or more certain to flourish under MM - taking into account both (i) the risks of Dak himself not working out and (ii) the risk of any QB not working out with a new system/HC - both risks combined would need to be less than 20%.

You only sign Dak long term if you think he's 4 times more likely to succeed than a first round pick.

I think you need some statistics courses when you were in college.

In order to try to make your assumptions applicable..you have to isolate variables and test their repeatability.

Then you add another variation and test again.

You are mashing everything together and wanting a result. Can not work like that.

And you can not just add one probability to another and just numerically get a probability.

No can do in a scientific world.

And these other probabilities you are asking for to tell your story?

I like that.

Let me know how that works. Different but doubt anybody has that sort of time or knowledge. Not here anyway.

Suffice it to say this is a Dak thread and you are trying to say Dak is going to not be worth his deal if its north of $30 mil+.

I agree.

 

[Flamma]

I could be wrong, but I think he's saying you need to be at least 80% sure paying Dak is going to work out better than just drafting a QB in the first round. Since you're basically giving him 4 times the guaranteed money. I'd agree but, who's to say you even have the opportunity to make that choice? There may be no QB worth picking in the first round by the time you get to pick.

 

[conner01]

It's a nice thought.

Not a chance

 

[conner01]

I could be wrong, but I think he's saying you need to be at least 80% sure paying Dak is going to work out better than just drafting a QB in the first round. Since you're basically giving him 4 times the guaranteed money. I'd agree but, who's to say you even have the opportunity to make that choice? There may be no QB worth picking in the first round by the time you get to pick.

You have no clue whether you can get a viable Qb even in the first round
At our pick this year was there a QB you would want to be your starter the next 4 years?
Not likely and those you would have been excited about would have cost much, much more draft capital

 

[Section446]

At this point, I don't even care anymore.

If he's the guy in their minds, they need to just get it done. I honestly don't think that they believe he's the guy at this point.

 

[Flamma]

You have no clue whether you can get a viable Qb even in the first round
At our pick this year was there a QB you would want to be your starter the next 4 years?
Not likely and those you would have been excited about would have cost much, much more draft capital

I can honestly say I would not be 80% sure it would be better to pay Dak 4 times the guaranteed money than have Burrow or Tua on a rookie contract. Without having to give up draft capital, I'd go for it easily. Start adding draft capital and my % would go up. I'd say 3 first rounders and I would probably hit that 80%.

 

[Ranched]

Seeing yet another Dak thread is bad enough. But seeing it's longer than a paragraph is just over the top.

 

[Hoofbite]

The math says that if guys like Kirk Cousins got 84 Million guaranteed over 3 years, you have to pay Dak the market rate for an above average starter. You don't pay him more than anyone else, which is why the team hasn't agreed the terms from Dak's agent yet.

I dunno. I agree to some extent but 1 team's folly shouldn't be the rest of the league's commitment. There has to be a line somewhere where you say, "yes, he was paid that much, but they were stupid". I'm not saying the Vikings are necessarily stupid because Cousins has played well, I'm just not sure he's played that well.

 

[12+88=7]

If the cap goes down like most predict, the tag next year could be less than the tag this year.

It's possible that the math may work in the team's favor to tag Prescott again in 2021. The team would get six years out of Prescott and still have two years to find the replacement if they chose to.

When you look at it, it's the team that has all the leverage.

 

[basel90]

Firstly, while I put Dak's name in brackets in the title, because it's Dak's contract we're talking about, I don't want this thread to turn into a Dak is good v Dak is bad thread. But the maths apply to any proposed QB signing in the same circumstances. I'm also going to round the figures, so please don't quote me as being wrong with contract proposals.

What's at risk:

If the QB is signed, the team has $100m in guaranteed money on the line.

If the QB plays well under tag, the team risks a price increase of $5m per year - $15 to $25m in total depending on the length of the contract.

So the math says that if you want to sign the QB, you need to be at least 4 times more confident that the QB will be a success at a franchise QB level than not. In simple terms 80% sure versus 20% unsure (risk cost of 100m v 25m).

Points to consider:

A team can manage swallowing $5m per year extra in salary for a sure fire QB. No team can afford to swallow a loss of $100m - if Dak is signed and doesn't work out, then MM will be completely wasted - the team will not recover during his 5 year tenure.

There is a reasonable chance that any QB, regardless of ability, will not work out with a new coaching staff and/or new system. Yes, a QB with all the skills has a better chance of working out, but even QBs like Mahomes or Brady at his peak will not work out every time. Like any workplace, sometimes this can be down to personality clashes or other intangibles. I'd be interested in seeing stats on what % of NFL starting QBs work out when faced with a new system and/or coaching staff. What's the risk Dak (or any vet QB) won't fit with MM or his system? Higher or lower than 20%?

There are risks associated with drafting any 1st round QB. But there is a lot less committed money on the line, so the risk-o-meter favors this approach. This years No. 1 pick is expected to sign for c.$24m guaranteed money. So the quantum of money on the line for a first rounder is similar to that on the line if Dak plays under the tag. Is Dak 4 x times more likely to excel than a first round QB?

Is a 1st round rookie QB who has played in the same system as the drafting NFL team - maybe college coach is from the same coaching tree as NFL coach - a bigger risk than an NFL starting QB who has never played in the system? Any stats on this available?

So looking at the various options risks:

You only sign Dak long term before the season if you think he's 80% or more certain to flourish under MM - taking into account both (i) the risks of Dak himself not working out and (ii) the risk of any QB not working out with a new system/HC - both risks combined would need to be less than 20%.

You only sign Dak long term if you think he's 4 times more likely to succeed than a first round pick.

good points,. Obviously he presents a lot of risk with his inaccuracy and lack of wins when it matters against winning teams. He is a serviceable QB but not elite nor a sure thing. Therefore the risk reward is not worth it for a team and fans waiting for 26 years for a superbowl. Dak has not proven he is worth it yet.

 

[Bobhaze]

The Cowboys should have re-signed Dak before last season. They would have saved a ton of money and headaches in the long run. Most other teams have handled big second contracts that way because in the long run you save more by getting a player earlier.

The other thing I believe is none of us know what has been going on in these negotiations between the Cowboys and Dak’s agent. None of us. All we ever hear are occasional statements from either SJ or JJ where they are putting out their versions of what they want out there. Or we occasionally hear something from a reporter who supposedly talked to “someone on the inside”, or a veiled comment from Dak’s agent. All just small veiled and slanted pieces of a puzzle we can’t see.

I know this advice will mostly fall on deaf ears. But don’t believe all the rumors, half truths or projections about “what’s really going on here.”

 

[Northern_Cowboy]

The Cowboys should have re-signed Dak before last season. They would have saved a ton of money and headaches in the long run. Most other teams have handled big second contracts that way because in the long run you save more by getting a player earlier.

The other thing I believe is none of us know what has been going on in these negotiations between the Cowboys and Dak’s agent. None of us. All we ever hear are occasional statements from either SJ or JJ where they are putting out their versions of what they want out there. Or we occasionally hear something from a reporter who supposedly talked to “someone on the inside”, or a veiled comment from Dak’s agent. All just small veiled and slanted pieces of a puzzle we can’t see.

I know this advice will mostly fall on deaf ears. But don’t believe all the rumors, half truths or projections about “what’s really going on here.”

He was offerred a very fair deal before last season that was in line with if not better than what Goff and Wentz received....Dak and his team turned it down

 

[12+88=7]

The Cowboys should have re-signed Dak before last season. They would have saved a ton of money and headaches in the long run. Most other teams have handled big second contracts that way because in the long run you save more by getting a player earlier.

The other thing I believe is none of us know what has been going on in these negotiations between the Cowboys and Dak’s agent. None of us. All we ever hear are occasional statements from either SJ or JJ where they are putting out their versions of what they want out there. Or we occasionally hear something from a reporter who supposedly talked to “someone on the inside”, or a veiled comment from Dak’s agent. All just small veiled and slanted pieces of a puzzle we can’t see.

I know this advice will mostly fall on deaf ears. But don’t believe all the rumors, half truths or projections about “what’s really going on here.”

I don't remember who reported it, but there has been no negotiations between Prescott and the team. It said that probably negotiations would begin the last week to the deadline.

We are all spinning our wheels on these Prescott threads. We should have a moratorium till negotiations actually begin.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I honestly don't think that they believe he's the guy at this point.

Based on what exactly?

 

[conner01]

I can honestly say I would not be 80% sure it would be better to pay Dak 4 times the guaranteed money than have Burrow or Tua on a rookie contract. Without having to give up draft capital, I'd go for it easily. Start adding draft capital and my % would go up. I'd say 3 first rounders and I would probably hit that 80%.

Just in the last draft to get a burrow would have a very expensive cost
And to me Tua a higher cost just because of the injury issues
Every draft is different and a good QB can fall
But the sure fire talent rarely does