Tony Romo per game salary 2013-2016 - $1.9M

[ghst187]

I'm really happy for Tony -- surely seems to me he's sitting pretty these days. He's got it made!

Fame, fortune, beautiful wife & family and likely among the best NFL sports announcers on TV.

Happy for him, class act, genuinely good person.
I read he once took a homeless person to a movie with him. really wish he would’ve gotten a ring with us...

 

[buybuydandavis]

In 2013, Tony Romo famously signed a 6-year, $108 million contract extension. Combined with the $11.5 million he was already owed as salary in 2013, that gave him a 7-year, $119.5 million contract at the start of the 2013 season. In the 4 seasons from 2013-2016, Romo played only 34 games, and collected $65.5 million - an average of $1,926,470.58 per game played. That is the equivalent of $30.82 million per 16 games played.

Keep this in mind when you hear news about the contracts QB's are getting today.

Update: The numbers above are documented, and indisputable. Calling them dishonest doesn't change the facts. All inferences derived from this information are the responsibility of those making the inferences.

There are guys who get some guaranteed money and never play another game. I think Purple Drank managed that on his last contract. Infinity dollars per game!

Teams don't intend this kind of outcome. And Tony was ready and willing to play more games to bring that average down.

But it's something to think about when contemplating signing players to massive guaranteed money. At some point some team is going to be crushed for years by massive guaranteed money to a player who has a career ending injury.

Who has been the biggest dead cap hit to a team in recent years? Tony?

 

[Cowboy06]

and yet the boy didn't win one championship....just saying... if he's not to blame...do we go back to blaming Jerry...and if Jerry...why the Dak hate? It's all comical to me... then again, I still laugh at knock knock jokes.

 

[Jumbo075]

There are guys who get some guaranteed money and never play another game. I think Purple Drank managed that on his last contract. Infinity dollars per game!

Teams don't intend this kind of outcome. And Tony was ready and willing to play more games to bring that average down.

But it's something to think about when contemplating signing players to massive guaranteed money. At some point some team is going to be crushed for years by massive guaranteed money to a player who has a career ending injury.

Who has been the biggest dead cap hit to a team in recent years? Tony?

It is always interesting to throw out some random fact like I did in the OP, and see how people react. The immediate strong reactions by some folks revealed much more about their motivations and opinions of both Dak Prescott and Tony Romo than the OP did about my opinion of either player.

But it isn't like my opinion is hidden. In other posts, I've made my opinions very clear.

1. I really liked Romo, and think his talent was wasted. He was a HOF talent who will never make the HOF because his career accomplishments do not warrant it. I think he would have been a Super Bowl QB in 2007 if Parcells had stayed, and not retired.
2. I think Romo's body gave out on him, and the Cowboys were fortunate to pick Dak in 2016.
3. Dak had the best rookie QB season in the 100 year history of the NFL, and has since gotten even better. He had an unsurprising regression for abouy 16 games spanning his 2nd and 3rd seasons year, but bounced back strong.
4. Dak is an ascending player who demands a top contract, but hasn't earned the right to be the top paid player in the NFL.

Anyone who has read any of my posts in other threads already knew this about my opinion.

Other than exposing other people's biases, the larger point of the OP was to provide a different perspective on why the Cowboys would consider it a worthwhile investment to pay Dak more than $30MM per season.

Regardless of the fact that Romo collected the money over 4 seasons, the fact remains that the Jones family paid $65.5MM for 34 games of production from Romo. His lack of availability compared to a younger, more durable Dak Prescott who just completed a season only 1 yard short of the career passing year of Romo, while producing much more on the ground has to weigh on the minds of the Jones.

No matter how you slice it, the Cowboys paid an unreliable Tony Romo a lot of money, and Dak surpassed his production in 2019. Dak has been more reliable than Romo, and when you factor in the running game of Dak along with his age, you can understand why the Cowboys consider him a franchise QB. And that is why they ARE going to pay him. The fact that Romo never won is why they will likely not pay Dak top dollar until AFTER he proves he can take them farther than Romo did.

 

[buybuydandavis]

It is always interesting to throw out some random fact like I did in the OP, and see how people react.
...
Other than exposing other people's biases, the larger point of the OP was to provide a different perspective on why the Cowboys would consider it a worthwhile investment to pay Dak more than $30MM per season.

It was not a "random" fact. It was a fact you put out there with an agenda.

It was likely your kabuki dance of *pretending* it was a "random" fact, without agenda, that provoked much of the negativity you received in response.

And I don't see how signing Romo to *what turned out to be* a bad deal strengthens support of a deal for Dak. In many ways, it strongly detracts from it. Locking in money on a player comes with the risk that they fall apart.

Ironically enough, Dak's part in the Romo story detracts from the argument to sign Dak as well. We got Romo's replacement in the 4th round. No one saw that coming. If Romo *hadn't* fallen apart, and Dak hadn't been thrust "unprepared" into the starting position, he might still be headed for a journeyman backup QB career, instead of a top ten franchise QB.

Romo's career could have easily been nothing too.

How may more Romos are there out there who whose careers will be nothing because they won't get the chance to start that Dak got?

I've been thinking for a while that QBs are likely overpriced. Lots more passing in college. QBs playing extremely well to older and older ages. Supply of quality QBs is up. Demand for starters is fixed at 32. Price should be coming *down*.

Guarantee Dak 110mil+ at ~35mil per year?
vs.
Guarantee Brees 25mil and have his rights for the next 2 years, while you draft and develop QBs on their rookie contracts to replace him?
vs.
Let Dalton and Romo 2 fight it out in camp to see who starts?

Just looking at the next 2 seasons, would you really rather have Dak over Drew Brees? I wouldn't. And I really like not locking in 85mil more in cap.

A 30mil+ advantage for the rest of the team, and w/o guarantees into the future, is a whole lotta cap to build a better team around lesser QBs.

*If* they want to go the franchise QB route, I'm fine with Dak. Setting the bar higher than Dak for a franchise QB is unserious. If they want a HOFer, they should say that's what they want.

But the Romo story makes part of the case for *not* signing Dak. That might have been more apparent to you if you hadn't distracted yourself with your posturing.

 

[Jumbo075]

It was not a "random" fact. It was a fact you put out there with an agenda.

It was likely your kabuki dance of *pretending* it was a "random" fact, without agenda, that provoked much of the negativity you received in response.

And I don't see how signing Romo to *what turned out to be* a bad deal strengthens support of a deal for Dak. In many ways, it strongly detracts from it. Locking in money on a player comes with the risk that they fall apart.

Ironically enough, Dak's part in the Romo story detracts from the argument to sign Dak as well. We got Romo's replacement in the 4th round. No one saw that coming. If Romo *hadn't* fallen apart, and Dak hadn't been thrust "unprepared" into the starting position, he might still be headed for a journeyman backup QB career, instead of a top ten franchise QB.

Romo's career could have easily been nothing too.

How may more Romos are there out there who whose careers will be nothing because they won't get the chance to start that Dak got?

I've been thinking for a while that QBs are likely overpriced. Lots more passing in college. QBs playing extremely well to older and older ages. Supply of quality QBs is up. Demand for starters is fixed at 32. Price should be coming *down*.

Guarantee Dak 110mil+ at ~35mil per year?
vs.
Guarantee Brees 25mil and have his rights for the next 2 years, while you draft and develop QBs on their rookie contracts to replace him?
vs.
Let Dalton and Romo 2 fight it out in camp to see who starts?

Just looking at the next 2 seasons, would you really rather have Dak over Drew Brees? I wouldn't. And I really like not locking in 85mil more in cap.

A 30mil+ advantage for the rest of the team, and w/o guarantees into the future, is a whole lotta cap to build a better team around lesser QBs.

*If* they want to go the franchise QB route, I'm fine with Dak. Setting the bar higher than Dak for a franchise QB is unserious. If they want a HOFer, they should say that's what they want.

But the Romo story makes part of the case for *not* signing Dak. That might have been more apparent to you if you hadn't distracted yourself with your posturing.

I think that Dak should be paid about what Garrapolo makes -$27MM per season, and I would be okay with him holding out and the Cowboys moving forward with Dalron. But I think the Jones think more highly of him, based on the fact they paid a lot of money to Romo for relatively little return. I think my opinion about what Dak SHOULD make has no significance at all.

I think he's better now than when he was drafted, but I'm still not completely sold on him. The Cowboys don't have the luxury of taking a wait and see approach, and as a result they'll pay him - largely because he's been so reliable, and he's improving.

The Giants and Ravens have proven you can get to and win Super Bowls with mediocre QBs. I hope 2 things:

1. Dak proves he can continue to improve to become an elite player, and
2. If he doesn't become elite, he'll be good enough to win a Super Bowl or two anyway - like Eli Manning and Joe Flacco.

I do think my "manufactured" fact plays a role in how the Jones family looks at the situation. The fact they paid Romo $65.5MM for 34 games of starts will factor into them justifying to themselves paying Dak over $30MM per season.

 

[BigD_95]

In 2013, Tony Romo famously signed a 6-year, $108 million contract extension. Combined with the $11.5 million he was already owed as salary in 2013, that gave him a 7-year, $119.5 million contract at the start of the 2013 season. In the 4 seasons from 2013-2016, Romo played only 34 games, and collected $65.5 million - an average of $1,926,470.58 per game played. That is the equivalent of $30.82 million per 16 games played.

Keep this in mind when you hear news about the contracts QB's are getting today.

Update: The numbers above are documented, and indisputable. Calling them dishonest doesn't change the facts. All inferences derived from this information are the responsibility of those making the inferences.

this is complete nonsense

You cant go by how many games he played. Injuries are injuries and cant be separated in a contract.

 

[buybuydandavis]

I think that Dak should be paid about what Garrapolo makes -$27MM per season, and I would be okay with him holding out and the Cowboys moving forward with Dalron. But I think the Jones think more highly of him, based on the fact they paid a lot of money to Romo for relatively little return. I think my opinion about what Dak SHOULD make has no significance at all.

I think he's better now than when he was drafted, but I'm still not completely sold on him. The Cowboys don't have the luxury of taking a wait and see approach, and as a result they'll pay him - largely because he's been so reliable, and he's improving.

The Giants and Ravens have proven you can get to and win Super Bowls with mediocre QBs. I hope 2 things:

1. Dak proves he can continue to improve to become an elite player, and
2. If he doesn't become elite, he'll be good enough to win a Super Bowl or two anyway - like Eli Manning and Joe Flacco.

I do think my "manufactured" fact plays a role in how the Jones family looks at the situation. The fact they paid Romo $65.5MM for 34 games of starts will factor into them justifying to themselves paying Dak over $30MM per season.

If 27mil is your offer for Dak, you're waving him goodbye. He rejected less last year. No one has talked in the 20s since last summer.

I don't think Romo figures into it at all for them. "By the market", I consider him to be 35mil+, and they likely do too. His durability and running push him up toward the top of the 6-10 pack.

But I consider the QB market overpriced, and QBs are to be had cheaper, though we haven't been developing them like we should have.

Dalton is interesting. So cheap, but maybe still a decent QB. *Well* below market. Could be fun for Jerry to ride Dalton, and then sell out on 1 year deals for whatever quality remains in free agency with the cap freed by waving Dak goodbye. Or better than waving him goodbye, *trading* him once Dak signs for the tag.

I'm tired of Jerry getting punked on contracts lately. I'd like to see him go hardball and let it be known that players who don't value what the Cowboy brand brings to the table aren't the right players for long term deals here.

 

[Hennessy_King]

Lol why are people so upset at this post. Romo's deal was an investment and turned out to be a bad one. Let me put it in terms this forum can understand. If you spent good money for a pickup truck that over 4 years only started half the amount of days you had it, it would he a bad investment.

 

[dallasdave]

It’s my planet...of Murray doesn’t fumble against the packers...of the Dez catch is ruled correctly the narrative is very different...have a nice day sir!!

Good one

 

[DandyDon52]

In 2013, Tony Romo famously signed a 6-year, $108 million contract extension. Combined with the $11.5 million he was already owed as salary in 2013, that gave him a 7-year, $119.5 million contract at the start of the 2013 season. In the 4 seasons from 2013-2016, Romo played only 34 games, and collected $65.5 million - an average of $1,926,470.58 per game played. That is the equivalent of $30.82 million per 16 games played.

Keep this in mind when you hear news about the contracts QB's are getting today.

Update: The numbers above are documented, and indisputable. Calling them dishonest doesn't change the facts. All inferences derived from this information are the responsibility of those making the inferences.

That 7 year deal only lasted thru 2016 so that was 4 years.
$119.5 million div by 7 = 17 mil a year for overall avg per year.
they pushed a lot of that back into the years he didnt make it to.
I think tonys highest paid year ever was 25 mil or that was what he was going to make in 2017 not sure.

All that looks like a bargain now.

Dak wants over twice what tony was paid and he isnt even as good as tony, much less twice as good.

 

[DandyDon52]

It’s my planet...of Murray doesn’t fumble against the packers...of the Dez catch is ruled correctly the narrative is very different...have a nice day sir!!

what if dez just catches it like he did and goes down instead of for the td?
then they have the ball on the 4 and can run the clock down some scoring.

See a smart player would know it isnt a good thing to score on that play.