Jump to content

Dak Thread....still debating, beating a dead horse


Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

I guess the question, especially in this thread, is could we replace his 6 sacks with the $21m/yr?

Im not saying Dlaw is bad. I am just pointing out that if we are having debates about replacement value, he should be a target.

This is fair. It’s just not what you said. 

To answer this question, I still wouldn’t move on. I don’t think the 6.5 sacks stat is representative of what he provides the defense, and I think if he wasn’t surrounded by the worst defense in football, we’d really be able to see it.

If you could get good return on him in a trade, then certainly that could be a consideration. Cutting him seems like a ludicrous notion to me, given the cap implications, and the fact that he’s still a really good player.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Damn. After like 15 years of posting together, I think we are going to lose @The_Slamman.. 

McCarthy commented that his conversations with Dak during his daily rehab have been positive and long term focused. He essentially implied that Dak assured him that he isnt going anywhere. 

Oh, also, Jerry and Todd France are able to start up negotiations again now. 

 

Slam will likely leave us for the Raiders. Or some team with an even cheaper contract. Broncos maybe?

Edited by Matts4313
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/12/2021 at 9:37 AM, Matts4313 said:

Damn. After like 15 years of posting together, I think we are going to lose @The_Slamman.. 

McCarthy commented that his conversations with Dak during his daily rehab have been positive and long term focused. He essentially implied that Dak assured him that he isnt going anywhere. 

Oh, also, Jerry and Todd France are able to start up negotiations again now. 

 

Slam will likely leave us for the Raiders. Or some team with an even cheaper contract. Broncos maybe?

Matts, I’ve never seen another poster so enamored with mediocrity.  It’s like you thrive in it.  You jocked JG so hard.  Now, Dak.  I have no problem signing Dak long term on a team friendly deal.  I do have a big problem signing Dak long term to a bad contract.  Andy Dalton has a far better winning percentage as our qb than Dak over the same amount of games played.  Neither QB can beat good teams.  Both can beat bad teams.  But Dak lost those games while having a decent defense and great OL.  Dalton had to deal with one of the worst defenses in franchise history and the #29 ranked OL in the nfl.  
 

see, if you actually want to win games instead of just jock a player... you gotta look at building an entire team.  You can’t build a team when too much money disproportionately goes to one player who is not good enough to compensate for the loss at other positions.  That’s just a fact proven by Dak this year.  But, hey, mediocrity is your gig.  I get it.  So jock away, my friend.

BTW, ALL 4 TEAMS LEFT IN THE AFC PLAYOFFS HAVE QBS STILL ON THEIR ROOKIE CONTRACTS.  3 OF THE 4 TEAMS IN THE NFC HAVE QBS WHO ARE ALL TIME GREATS.  HOW EXACTLY ARE THOSE TEAMS WITH AVERAGE, HIGH PRICED QBS FAIRING?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Mahomes isn't on a rookie deal. He extended, got an extra $8m over his rookie this year. 

The rest will be extended next year.

Nah Dawg, not according to both spotrac and overthecap.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/patrick-mahomes-21751/

https://overthecap.com/player/patrick-mahomes/5594/

 

next year, sure.  That looks about $9M more than he’d get in his 5th year.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The_Slamman said:

Nah Dawg, not according to both spotrac and overthecap.

https://www.spotrac.com/nfl/kansas-city-chiefs/patrick-mahomes-21751/

https://overthecap.com/player/patrick-mahomes/5594/

 

next year, sure.  That looks about $9M more than he’d get in his 5th year.  

His rookie contract was $16m.

He has made $24m as of now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just accepted reality at this point.

Dak's gonna get his contract and we hope it isn't big enough to take away from the talent of the team around him.

It's a prayer at this point to get out of this situation, we can just cross our fingers and hope it somehow nets us a superbowl.

Edited by canadaluvsdallas
Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it is wise to sign Dak. Their idiotic mistake was not signing him 2 years ago when it would have been super cheap. They did the same with Lawrence. Forcing these players who ball out to "prove themselves" and then they do it and drive the price up even more. Like STOP IT. Anyways they would be fools to let Dak walk away because he will be paid by another team and paid very very well. 

This team has a bit of a cap issue (which is their own fault!) but it is not all doom. Offense is pretty set. Add to the OL on day 2 and bring on another TE, WR, or RB in day 3. That is fine. Focus on defense in FA and draft. DT, DB, and LB. That is the true hole.

If they do that then Dak's contract will be fine. The offense is the heavy anyways. All we need the defense to do is just be decent. Had they done that they would have won most of those early games. Giving up 30+ points a game is not winning football no matter who is at QB.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ACO said:

I think it is wise to sign Dak. Their idiotic mistake was not signing him 2 years ago when it would have been super cheap. They did the same with Lawrence. Forcing these players who ball out to "prove themselves" and then they do it and drive the price up even more. Like STOP IT. Anyways they would be fools to let Dak walk away because he will be paid by another team and paid very very well. 

This team has a bit of a cap issue (which is their own fault!) but it is not all doom. Offense is pretty set. Add to the OL on day 2 and bring on another TE, WR, or RB in day 3. That is fine. Focus on defense in FA and draft. DT, DB, and LB. That is the true hole.

If they do that then Dak's contract will be fine. The offense is the heavy anyways. All we need the defense to do is just be decent. Had they done that they would have won most of those early games. Giving up 30+ points a game is not winning football no matter who is at QB.

This. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

ELJJ7LE.png

9 of the top 10 on second contracts. Allen will make it 10/10 in a month or so.

11 of the 14 playoff teams had QBs on second contracts (Bills, Ravens, Browns the exclusions, all will have contracts this offseason)

The majority of good defenses in the NFL have highly paid QBs. 

 

Someone explain to me how paying your top 10 QB makes your team suck again? 

Edited by Matts4313
Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Clev Bills and Balt are teams that have accomplished something this year on rookie contract QB's.   Though I would say all of those got a little bit of luck this year Bills with Brady leaving NE before it really was "time", Clev with Big Ben team falling apart and Balt with Tennessee's offense falling apart. Still props to them. 

Though I don't see what this has to do with DAK.  We were in the same situation with Dak when Dak lost to GB as Clev Bills and Balt are right now.   

My thought is there is no real blue print any more but to be consistent super bowl contender year in year out you NEED a high quality QB it looks like Bills and KC got a one. 

I would also say what is given over the past 10 years is you have a little bit less then 30% chance that your 1st round QB will turn out like a Allen or Watson. Personally I don't like those odds at all when we have a QB that I feel already is at the same level of those two...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Jakuvious said:

Honestly, I feel like too much is made of QB contracts specifically when this debate comes up. Realistically, the same things you can say of QB contracts can be true of just about any positions 2nd contracts. Like, I've heard so much about how hard it will be for the Chiefs to remain competitive paying Mahomes 20% of the cap. How we're going to lose players and it will be hard to maintain the roster. But this has really already been the case for us for years, when we were paying Tamba Hali 11% of the cap and Eric Berry 9%. Or when we were paying Jamaal Charles 7% and Justin Houston 13%. Like, you've gotta pay the money to someone. The reality is, it's expensive to keep a talented roster. It always has been. The Chiefs have lost almost an entire starting roster worth of players to free agency since Reid showed up, before paying Mahomes. Because that 20% still went to the top guy or two on the roster anyway. Whether you have 80% of your cap to pay 51 players or 52 players doesn't make as big of a difference as people think. The crucial element is always going to be the team's ability to draft, regardless of where the big money on the roster is going. It's easy to point to the Eagles overpaying Wentz, but that's not why they sucked this year. They sucked because the last pro-bowler they drafted not named Wentz was Lane Johnon and Zach Ertz in 2013. You take away Wentz, throw $35M at free agent contracts, that doesn't fix that. Nothing is going to fix drafting poorly. Ever.

I also feel the discussion gets too tied up in what said QB "deserves." Does Goff "deserve" $33M? Or Wentz or Jackson or Mayfield or etc. I guarantee the question from a front office perspective is much simpler. I guarantee it's, are you better off going into the offseason with Goff at QB at $33M, or with no one at QB but $33M in cap space. And I just don't think there are many seasons where you can justify the latter. Like, if you're the Cowboys, and you don't want to pay Dak $35M or $40M or whatever he asks for, what do you spend that money on that matches Dak's impact? Even if he isn't as good as Mahomes or Watson or Allen or Rodgers, what combination of players that they'll lose or on the market make that team better than Dak? Unless you really believe in a QB who is going to be there at 10. But not many GMs/HCs survive a bust at QB. And you're spending draft capital then. And you need to either make it further with that rookie on their rookie deal than you would with Dak, or you're in the same spot in a few years. And that's if they pan out. Moving on from that above average QB is honestly just more likely to make your team worse and get you fired. It's the safe, potentially lower ceiling move, but that's the reality.

Also, smaller note, but the more teams are paying big money to QBs, the less it impacts the teams that are doing so. If you reach a point where like 80% of the league is paying >12% of their cap space to their QB, the impact becomes virtually non-existent, because it's a more or less even playing field. And we're not far from that. I think 20 teams had a QB on a $20M per or greater contract this past season. Could stay flat if any of Jackson/Mayfield/Allen get extensions.

I thought this was a good take.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...