D82 Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 3 minutes ago, DaBoys said: Parsons and Sewell did though. So if we don’t want Lawrence/ Fields, and we want a guy that played last year who are we taking at 3? Hypothetically Patrick Surtain if we can't trade down. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, The_Slamman said: But if Dalton goes on a win streak and proves we can win with a $3M QB, I’m okay with that too. Does it prove that? Or does it prove that the entire team as a whole needs to perform in order to win games? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, D82 said: Does it prove that? Or does it prove that the entire team as a whole needs to perform in order to win games? Winning with a $3m QB 100% proves you can win with a $3m QB. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 1 minute ago, DaBoys said: Winning with a $3m QB 100% proves you can win with a $3m QB. So what's the point of paying a QB then? Why do teams ever re-sign QBs? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Slamman Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 1 minute ago, D82 said: Does it prove that? Or does it prove that the entire team as a whole needs to perform in order to win games? That’s a scary thought for Dak supporters. Because the entire team would most assuredly benefit from not having to pay him nearly $38M next year. If the cowboys go on a win streak with Dalton, can get multiple draft picks for Dak and not have to pay an extra $38M to one player... that would be the most ideal scenario for the entire team (and for every cowboys fan that is smart enough to figure out the total economics of what i just said). It’s good for the present and future of the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 1 minute ago, The_Slamman said: That’s a scary thought for Dak supporters. Because the entire team would most assuredly benefit from not having to pay him nearly $38M next year. If the cowboys go on a win streak with Dalton, can get multiple draft picks for Dak and not have to pay an extra $38M to one player... that would be the most ideal scenario for the entire team (and for every cowboys fan that is smart enough to figure out the total economics of what i just said). It’s good for the present and future of the team. What happens if we get into the playoffs, Dak comes back and wins us a SB? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Slamman Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 1 minute ago, D82 said: So what's the point of paying a QB then? Why do teams ever re-sign QBs? They do it because they think their qb is so good that he can make up for any deficiency caused by the disproportionate cap allocation to the qb. P Manning was a great example of that scenario being the case. Manning didn’t need the best OL cause he read defenses so fast he rarely took sacks. His offenses scored so much they could overcome sketchy defensive play. matthew stafford and Carson Wentz? Not so much. I’m pretty sure the lions and eagles would like a redo. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Slamman Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 6 minutes ago, D82 said: What happens if we get into the playoffs, Dak comes back and wins us a SB? We demand 3 first round picks and 3 second round picks for him... we build a team poised to be very good for the next decade based on draft capital. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, D82 said: So what's the point of paying a QB then? Why do teams ever re-sign QBs? It goes completely against analytics. Some are worth it. Mahomes, ARodgers, Peyton Manning types. You have to at least try to draft a blue chip first round QB to get those types. Something we haven’t done since 1989. Other than that, the other contracts are mostly mistakes. The most harmful thing a franchise can have is an average QB on an elite contract. The most advantageous thing a franchise can have is an average(or better) QB on a rookie contract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, The_Slamman said: They do it because they think their qb is so good that he can make up for any deficiency caused by the disproportionate cap allocation to the qb. P Manning was a great example of that scenario being the case. Manning didn’t need the best OL cause he read defenses so fast he rarely took sacks. His offenses scored so much they could overcome sketchy defensive play. matthew stafford and Carson Wentz? Not so much. I’m pretty sure the lions and eagles would like a redo. Stafford is a perfect example of what I'm talking about though. A terrible front office and organization, bungled draft picks, etc. The guy has always been a top QB but never had the team around him to succeed. That isn't his fault. Wentz...yeah, Philly probably wants a redo. He looked okay at first but fell off. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 9 minutes ago, D82 said: What happens if we get into the playoffs, Dak comes back and wins us a SB? It was a 4 to 6 month injury. I don’t see anyway he makes it back by the SB, nor would I want Dak to come in off a lay-off after we made it that far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 Just now, DaBoys said: It was a 4 to 6 month injury. I don’t see anyway he makes it back by the SB, nor would I want Dak to come in off a lay-off after we made it that far. I mean we're dealing in hypotheticals right now anyway. If the team decides to go on a streak because our defense finally decided not to be on pace for worst in NFL history, we aren't going far with Dalton at QB. Won't happen. The team is going to re-sign the current at-worst top ten QB they already have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 https://www.theringer.com/nfl-preview/2019/8/28/20830363/quarterback-contract-bubble-salary-cap-dak-prescott-jared-goff “Why NFL Teams Find It So Hard to Quit QBs Cheap, young quarterbacks are the holy grail of modern football building blocks. So why do teams keep handing out $30 million extensions to less-than-elite passers? There is nothing more valuable in the modern NFL than a capable quarterback on a rookie contract. That’s become an accepted truth, gospel for franchises that obsess over finding the smartest possible ways to build their roster. This line of thinking began with the emergence of Russell Wilson, the first player under the current CBA to show the advantage of having a cheap QB. When the Seahawks won the Super Bowl in the second year of Wilson’s deal, his salary cap hit was just over $681,000. He was Seattle’s 26th-highest-paid player in 2013. In the years since Wilson’s breakthrough, other teams have followed the Seahawks’ blueprint. Front offices have seized on the opportunity provided by having young quarterbacks on low salaries to stockpile other assets. The Rams and Eagles took advantage of rookie deals for Jared Goff and Carson Wentz, respectively, by swinging aggressive trades for established stars and scooping up useful players like Ndamukong Suh and Malik Jackson. With Mitchell Trubisky making just $6.6 million last year, the Bears didn’t blink when trading for Khalil Mack and handing him $90 million guaranteed. And Chiefs phenom and reigning league MVP Patrick Mahomes will count for just $4.5 million against the cap this season—about 12 percent of what he’ll garner annually when his mega-extension likely goes into effect next offseason. Yet even as the advantages of a quarterback on a rookie deal have become conventional wisdom, few teams have showed financial restraint toward the end of a passer’s initial contract. The Dolphins handed Ryan Tannehill a four-year deal worth $45 million guaranteed in 2015. The Jaguars gave Blake Bortles a three-year extension that included $26.5 million in guarantees after the 2017 season. (He’ll carry a $16.5 million dead money hit for the Jags this year.) Carson Wentz got a four-year, $128 million extension this summer (with about $108 million guaranteed), and it looks like the Rams and Cowboys will likely follow suit with Goff and Dak Prescott, respectively. Prescott reportedly wants upward of $35 million per season, a figure that would challenge Wilson’s new deal for the largest annual QB salary. These contracts don’t just amount to a raise—each one seems to come at the top of the market. “I 100 percent understand that it’s really intriguing when you look at it from a business perspective,” Falcons general manager Thomas Dimitroff says of the notion that teams could just start anew with another rookie QB. “ It’s a striking disconnect in a league that has increasingly embraced analytics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Slamman Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 2 minutes ago, D82 said: Stafford is a perfect example of what I'm talking about though. A terrible front office and organization, bungled draft picks, etc. The guy has always been a top QB but never had the team around him to succeed. That isn't his fault. Wentz...yeah, Philly probably wants a redo. He looked okay at first but fell off. If stafford is your perfect example... you should NEVER want to make your QB the highest paid player. Guaranteeing that much to one player severely handcuffs what a front office can do FA wise. So if you have a bad front office with limited cap space... what do you expect is going to happen? having cap space and a young qb on rookie deal is the perfect scenario for a fast turnaround in football fortunes. We are seeing it in Arizona and Miami this year. We saw it in KC the past 2-3 years. I like the chargers chances in the 3-4 years. Those are not traditionally great franchises with great front offices. They are following Seattle’s model during their SB runs... low paid qb and filling holes with FAs and/trades for veterans that they can afford because low cost of qb. It’s good business model. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted November 24, 2020 Share Posted November 24, 2020 23 minutes ago, The_Slamman said: If stafford is your perfect example... you should NEVER want to make your QB the highest paid player. Guaranteeing that much to one player severely handcuffs what a front office can do FA wise. So if you have a bad front office with limited cap space... what do you expect is going to happen? having cap space and a young qb on rookie deal is the perfect scenario for a fast turnaround in football fortunes. We are seeing it in Arizona and Miami this year. We saw it in KC the past 2-3 years. I like the chargers chances in the 3-4 years. Those are not traditionally great franchises with great front offices. They are following Seattle’s model during their SB runs... low paid qb and filling holes with FAs and/trades for veterans that they can afford because low cost of qb. It’s good business model. So what do they do when it comes time to re-sign those QBs? We saw Kansas City give Mahomes the richest contract ever. But I feel like we're derailing yet another thread. So...move this to the dead horse Dak thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.