unionjack8
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 22,039
- Reaction score
- 26,489
There's a hypothetical talk of the cap going down 48m next year and the NFL borrowing from future years to help offset that figure, mmqb
It's really difficult to project these kinds of things, which is why I try to point out how circumstances can often change any given landscape. It's a fundamental question, to me and it kinda gets right to the root of the problem I see on this board, day after day.
You have those who do not like Dak and never will. Reasoning drives thought process and I don't want to get into that discussion because I don't pretend to understand it. There are those who love Dak, no matter what and again, I don't pretend to understand that either. Then you have those who believe in the idea that salaries are going to continue to escalate and so it's better to get out in front of the curve, as opposed to being behind it. They see this as prudent investment, even if it may be paying too much. I understand that thought process but I don't agree with hit. On the other side, you have those who believe that cap matters and you can't simply continue to pay more and more to keep players (in this case Dak) simply because somebody came up with the idea that QB Salaries are supposed to go up year after year, regardless of what performance suggests.
Now, I'm not going to say that all of this boils down to these simple descriptions because, as we all know, there are certainly more in depth nuances to all of this but, I will say that this is how I see all of these discussion breaking down.
There are certainly question marks and I agree, Dak could certainly get better or, he could digress or suffer a career injury. Any of those things are possible.
I honestly don't see this negotiation much different then what CAA did with Tony. Some of the circumstances are different but CAA is trying to do exactly what they did when Tony was here.
A "nigle" is a small piece of something.Urban dictionary term?.......haven't heard that one before.
Don't worry about it.......![]()
At what point was he making peanuts? This is not accurate, not true. He was banking through endorsements and we all know that. He also was not forced to play for a very little amount of money. He could have played for much, much more, had he chose to. The reason he was playing for the money he was is because of the decisions made by he and his representation. The team offered him restructure. So I guess I'd ask, was he really making peanuts the last 4 years and if he was, who's fault was that?
He was making peanuts in regards to his NFL salary.
He was making peanuts in regards to his NFL salary.
Who's fault is that? You know what, at Dak's age, I was making peanuts in comparison to salaries around me. Big deal. What does that have to do with anything?
It doesn't. Now he's about to cash out and get the most money possible. Big deal. And what relevance does you making peanuts at his age have to do with anything?
Perhaps, but if what you said were the case, then reasoning over his first four years wouldn't be in play in context to what he gets paid. As I said before, I made very little money when I was young and nobody cared then. He makes much more and will make much more so there is no point to the idea that because he made less when he was young, it justifies him making to much now.
One. The same amount as Amari Cooper. The same amount as Zeke. The same about as Demarcus Lawrence. What's your point?
So signing three horrible contracts in succession should somehow be good reason as to why Dak should get overpaid? Try again.
One. The same amount as Amari Cooper. The same amount as Zeke. The same about as Demarcus Lawrence. What's your point?
Nobody is "justifying" anything. You guys just for whatever reason refuse to understand how contracts work in the NFL. I'm not sure if its stubbornness or denial. But whatever it is at the end of the day he was extremely underpaid and now he's about to be overpaid. Either the Cowboys can play the overpaid game or they can't. But in the NFL if you want to retain your players you have to overpay. And to my knowledge I've never seen the Cowboys or Jerry Jones not retain players they wanted to keep.
No that's not what's being discussed. HE brought up how many playoff games Dak has won and I told him the same amount as those guys. If yo want to debate those contracts and how bad they are then we can do that. But that's not what's being discussed.
BS. All that's being done here is justifications. Yes, we don't understand contracts. We stupid, you are smart............... We understand.
At the end of the day, he earned his 4th round selection status. At the end of the day, he elected to refuse being extended in exchange for more money in his pocket. At the end of the day, it's all Jerry's fault and because he wasn't the highest paid player at the time, he deserves to be paid whatever it is he's asking for.
Yes, we don't understand contracts. But it's fortunate for us, we have you all.
Of course it is, you brought it into the conversation so yes, that's absolutely what's being discussed. By all means, pick a contract and lets argue over it! That discussion could not be any more ridiculous then this one.
You need to go back and reread what was posted. You jumped into a debate and aren't even sure what was being discussed. Here's your opportunity to go back and look.
Understanding contracts doesn't make you smart. Not understanding is just stubbornness and denial. That's all that is.
Yes, I'm sure your right. Not only are we all stupid, or perhaps you are narrowing it down to just me now, but I also can't read. Of course, how stupid of me.
![]()
Let me help you out there. I figured you would not respond because you see, I looked over the thread and let me tell you what I found.
The first post, that I make in this thread is post #199 I believe and guess what? That post was not to you. It was in response to philadon. So the whole, you stuck your head in it without knowing what was being discussed is a complete fabrication. I never even spoke to you in that post. Here is what I said and what I responded to:
That's what I posted and it was in response to this question asked:
phildadon86 said: ↑
Was he greedy making peanuts the last 4 years?
So as you can plainly see, I addressed the exact point. I was aware of what was being asked and all I did was answer a question being asked by another poster and clearly, that response was not to you.
You respond to my post with this, post #201 I believe.
I was never confused about the subject matter, I just didn't agree with the idea being presented and so I responded with facts. Here is what I resonded with.
In post # 207, you respond to me. I never start or initiate any of this conversation with you. I never "Stick My Head In it" with you. Here is what you post, to me:
At this point, my conversation is with phildaon86. You, in fact, involve yourself in the conversation, not the other way around. It is you who doesn't know what is being discussed here between phil and I, it is not I who is confused. Clearly, you come into the discussion thinking one thing and it's wrong.
I respond to your post, #207 with this in post # 210:
Again, never confused about the subject matter. I just think it's silly and what's more, the framing used was untrue. In fact, it was Dak's decision not to sign an extension and put more money in his pocket. It was not the teams fault.
Post 214, you respond with the following:
I respond to you in post 217 with this:
You see, the idea that he deserves to get paid whatever amount, because he didn't get paid in his first four years is BS. There is nothing that suggests this should be reason as to why you pay a player. Never has been, never will be. Only stupid teams run their franchise in this manor. At no point do I not understand the discussion. Clearly, I am fully aware of the subject matter. Still looking for the part you claim here but since you refuse to point out the posts, I am forced to waste my time on this ridiculous thread basically reminding you of the truth, which you already know. You already know that what you claim is untrue but you won't admit it because why? And yet, it's me who is immature. OK, lets move on here.
In post #215, you post, to Fuzzee with this response:
I then respond to you with this response in post #218:
Now clearly, I understand what you are saying and I respond with an honest question, based on logical premise. Do three bad contracts justify another bad contract with Dak? Fuzzee is responding to you over your "not great with math but that's not a .500 record" comment. Fuzzy goes on to ask, "how many playoff games has Dak won?" You respond by saying this in your post 215:
Now what are you suggesting here? You are suggesting that Jerry paid those guys so why not Dak. The problem is that all those contracts do is make it more difficult to justify a deal with Dak. It only exacerbates the issue of Dak's demands.
Your post #226:
We don't understand or refuse to understand suggesting what? Clearly, I do understand and what's more, we've had several conversations over this and you know, in no uncertain terms, that I do understand. Now, you may not agree with me but you have no doubt, in your mind, what so ever, that I understand everything you are implying. You know this and I know you know. So who is "you guys" and what is it that you think I don't understand?
Your post 228#:
At this point, you try and point out the obvious, as if I don't understand what is being discussed but you see, I did, as I have explained earlier. But you see, I also understand what you were trying to say in your response to Fussee. It was just easier for you to be, well, condescending. I mean, you could have simply addressed my response to the idea that issuing three bad contracts is no reason to make another mistake with Dak but you didn't do that. You simply acted as if I were stupid. As if I couldn't put two and two together and figure out what was being discussed. You do this a lot, BTW. A completely false narrative you put out there, at that point, as anybody can clearly see if they choose to read this utterly useless and completely ridiculous post, you have forced me to make.
My response to you, post #229:
Any semblance of intelligence leaves our conversation after this point. It's true but nothing I say in the post above is a lie or is inaccurate.
My post #230, in response to your post 228 suggesting that what I responded to was inaccurate and that I didn't understand what was being discussed:
In the previous post, you challenge what was being discussed, which I think I clearly point out and you characterize as a lack of understanding. Well, lets just be honest, I understood all of it, as I have shown. You say that if I want to discuss those other contracts, we can do that. I encourage you to do so and rather then standing up to what you say, you say this, your post #234:
So here again, you suggest through your words that I simply don't understand and that I need to go back and reread. Well, I did understand it all but just so that I was clear, I went back and reread all of the posts so that I would be sure. So now I'm sure, you are wrong and it is not I who does not understand. This post confirms that you simply believe we, or I, am too stupid to understand something that isn't the least bit difficult to comprehend. Thanks for that BTW..... At this point, you should have shut up and went back and looked over this thread yourself but you didn't do that.
Your post #235:
You post this for some reason, I can't honestly figure out why here. This basically does nothing to further the discussion, all I can gather is that you are simply trying to suggest that I am intentionally trying to be stubborn and obtuse. I guess that's a convenient conclusion to come to, even though it's completely wrong.
My post #243. This responds to your suggestion that I go back and reread the thread because I don't understand. What you didn't know is that I'd already gone back and reread the thread.
The rest of the posts, well, they aren't really pertinent but you may feel free to post them if you wish. I've reposted what is central to the claims and issues discussed.
You were 100% wrong. You have accused me of everything from stupidity to stubborn to immature to god knows what else. I'm sure there is more here. I asked you to provide the post or posts that you had issue with. Instead, you ignored my request. Even though I knew this was an exercise is stupidity, I went ahead and agreed to discuss it with you. You made no attempt to rationally discuss. So I have gone ahead and reviewed all of them chronologically so that you can see for yourself.
I can't wait to see how you decide to try and put this all back on me....
On second thought, yeah, I can. Truly, one of the dumbest threads I've ever been associated with. Don't call me, I'll call you.......
post #215..you skimmed over it.
One. The same amount as Amari Cooper. The same amount as Zeke. The same about as Demarcus Lawrence. What's your point?
He's a franchise QB.
Get your heads out of your *****.
Some of you must've forgot what it was like to have Clint Stoerner and Anthony Wright starting games.
You think that's it? What if we just remember what it was like to draft Troy Aikman and have him be a young talented QB surrounded by talent?
Dalton isn't Stoerner or Wright and our Franchised isn't anywhere near the place it was in 2000-2002, in cap hell, no draft picks, aging stars and Dave Campo.
I think when you have a franchise QB, you pay him what he is worth.
I can understand that but Gaede, he's not worth what he wants at this point. That's the problem right?
That is the crux of the argument, yeah
Niggle (Tolkien wrote a short story using that term as a name—“Leaf by Niggle”)A "nigle" is a small piece of something.
A little bit, a teaser taste.
I believe it is an old English term. My family was from Ireland so they used terms like that.
Don't shoot me.
![]()
We already know. They went 1-11 in 2015 prior to Dak getting here.
Nice. My spell check coughed a hairball when I typed it.Niggle (Tolkien wrote a short story using that term as a name—“Leaf by Niggle”)
Too rich for my blood.
You are out of touch- smh. What he’s asking for has nothing to do with where he was drafted as a result of His collegiate play. His asking price is based on his nfl performance, the QB market and future positioning as it relates to the cap in 4 years ( inflation).Making “peanuts” was a product of his draft position which was a reflection of his collegiate performance and DUI history. He is not entitled to more now because he fell to the fourth round.
I just hate copy/paste.Let me help you out there. I figured you would not respond because you see, I looked over the thread and let me tell you what I found.
The first post, that I make in this thread is post #199 I believe and guess what? That post was not to you. It was in response to philadon. So the whole, you stuck your head in it without knowing what was being discussed is a complete fabrication. I never even spoke to you in that post. Here is what I said and what I responded to:
That's what I posted and it was in response to this question asked:
phildadon86 said: ↑
Was he greedy making peanuts the last 4 years?
So as you can plainly see, I addressed the exact point. I was aware of what was being asked and all I did was answer a question being asked by another poster and clearly, that response was not to you.
You respond to my post with this, post #201 I believe.
I was never confused about the subject matter, I just didn't agree with the idea being presented and so I responded with facts. Here is what I resonded with.
In post # 207, you respond to me. I never start or initiate any of this conversation with you. I never "Stick My Head In it" with you. Here is what you post, to me:
At this point, my conversation is with phildaon86. You, in fact, involve yourself in the conversation, not the other way around. It is you who doesn't know what is being discussed here between phil and I, it is not I who is confused. Clearly, you come into the discussion thinking one thing and it's wrong.
I respond to your post, #207 with this in post # 210:
Again, never confused about the subject matter. I just think it's silly and what's more, the framing used was untrue. In fact, it was Dak's decision not to sign an extension and put more money in his pocket. It was not the teams fault.
Post 214, you respond with the following:
I respond to you in post 217 with this:
You see, the idea that he deserves to get paid whatever amount, because he didn't get paid in his first four years is BS. There is nothing that suggests this should be reason as to why you pay a player. Never has been, never will be. Only stupid teams run their franchise in this manor. At no point do I not understand the discussion. Clearly, I am fully aware of the subject matter. Still looking for the part you claim here but since you refuse to point out the posts, I am forced to waste my time on this ridiculous thread basically reminding you of the truth, which you already know. You already know that what you claim is untrue but you won't admit it because why? And yet, it's me who is immature. OK, lets move on here.
In post #215, you post, to Fuzzee with this response:
I then respond to you with this response in post #218:
Now clearly, I understand what you are saying and I respond with an honest question, based on logical premise. Do three bad contracts justify another bad contract with Dak? Fuzzee is responding to you over your "not great with math but that's not a .500 record" comment. Fuzzy goes on to ask, "how many playoff games has Dak won?" You respond by saying this in your post 215:
Now what are you suggesting here? You are suggesting that Jerry paid those guys so why not Dak. The problem is that all those contracts do is make it more difficult to justify a deal with Dak. It only exacerbates the issue of Dak's demands.
Your post #226:
We don't understand or refuse to understand suggesting what? Clearly, I do understand and what's more, we've had several conversations over this and you know, in no uncertain terms, that I do understand. Now, you may not agree with me but you have no doubt, in your mind, what so ever, that I understand everything you are implying. You know this and I know you know. So who is "you guys" and what is it that you think I don't understand?
Your post 228#:
At this point, you try and point out the obvious, as if I don't understand what is being discussed but you see, I did, as I have explained earlier. But you see, I also understand what you were trying to say in your response to Fussee. It was just easier for you to be, well, condescending. I mean, you could have simply addressed my response to the idea that issuing three bad contracts is no reason to make another mistake with Dak but you didn't do that. You simply acted as if I were stupid. As if I couldn't put two and two together and figure out what was being discussed. You do this a lot, BTW. A completely false narrative you put out there, at that point, as anybody can clearly see if they choose to read this utterly useless and completely ridiculous post, you have forced me to make.
My response to you, post #229:
Any semblance of intelligence leaves our conversation after this point. It's true but nothing I say in the post above is a lie or is inaccurate.
My post #230, in response to your post 228 suggesting that what I responded to was inaccurate and that I didn't understand what was being discussed:
In the previous post, you challenge what was being discussed, which I think I clearly point out and you characterize as a lack of understanding. Well, lets just be honest, I understood all of it, as I have shown. You say that if I want to discuss those other contracts, we can do that. I encourage you to do so and rather then standing up to what you say, you say this, your post #234:
So here again, you suggest through your words that I simply don't understand and that I need to go back and reread. Well, I did understand it all but just so that I was clear, I went back and reread all of the posts so that I would be sure. So now I'm sure, you are wrong and it is not I who does not understand. This post confirms that you simply believe we, or I, am too stupid to understand something that isn't the least bit difficult to comprehend. Thanks for that BTW..... At this point, you should have shut up and went back and looked over this thread yourself but you didn't do that.
Your post #235:
You post this for some reason, I can't honestly figure out why here. This basically does nothing to further the discussion, all I can gather is that you are simply trying to suggest that I am intentionally trying to be stubborn and obtuse. I guess that's a convenient conclusion to come to, even though it's completely wrong.
My post #243. This responds to your suggestion that I go back and reread the thread because I don't understand. What you didn't know is that I'd already gone back and reread the thread.
The rest of the posts, well, they aren't really pertinent but you may feel free to post them if you wish. I've reposted what is central to the claims and issues discussed.
You were 100% wrong. You have accused me of everything from stupidity to stubborn to immature to god knows what else. I'm sure there is more here. I asked you to provide the post or posts that you had issue with. Instead, you ignored my request. Even though I knew this was an exercise is stupidity, I went ahead and agreed to discuss it with you. You made no attempt to rationally discuss. So I have gone ahead and reviewed all of them chronologically so that you can see for yourself.
I can't wait to see how you decide to try and put this all back on me....
On second thought, yeah, I can. Truly, one of the dumbest threads I've ever been associated with. Don't call me, I'll call you.......
Bull****. Don’t publish such non-sense without a link. Damn all these negative people.There's a hypothetical talk of the cap going down 48m next year and the NFL borrowing from future years to help offset that figure, mmqb
That's besides the point.I don't see Matt Cassel coming out of retirement anytime soon to be our starter so I don't see 1-11 but that's a cool story Bro.
This is all you came up with from all of that? See, this is why I can't take you seriously. You complain about all kinds of stuff, I take considerable time to lay it out there and I get this.
LOL...... serves me right for giving the benefit of the doubt I suppose........
How does that pertain to what I asked or even change the validity of what I said previously? I didn't skip over it, it was not a comment to me and I never referenced it in any of my posts to you. Maybe you should figure out who you want to be when you grow up. You complain about me sticking my head in it and then you turn around and cry over a post that was not to me, for me, about me.
Make up your mind Bro.....