Guest Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 1 hour ago, SemperFeist said: Before they pay Dak, Amari, or Jones!? This is just dumb on the Cowboys part. How could any GM see what James Conner did while Bell was holding out, or what the Rams got from CJ Anderson, a street free agent, while Gurley was hurt, and allocate that amount of resources to a running back? Especially a RB who you’ve got roster control of for the next 3 years for approximately $25M. If it sets the Cowboys back, then I'm all for it! After a Vikings Super Bowl win, I'd love nothing more than the Cowboys in the league cellar for a decade or two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 35 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said: I'd rather pay Zeke than the QB or WR. He's the engine to that offense. I actually agree with you. I've never been impressed with Dak and all WRs not named Randy Moss are products of the QB throwing to them. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 (edited) 18 minutes ago, Virginia Viking said: If it sets the Cowboys back, then I'm all for it! After a Vikings Super Bowl win, I'd love nothing more than the Cowboys in the league cellar for a decade or two. Only if the Cowboys rotate that position with the Packers for that same decade or two. Edited September 4, 2019 by swede700 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 3 hours ago, Virginia Viking said: If it sets the Cowboys back, then I'm all for it! After a Vikings Super Bowl win, I'd love nothing more than the Cowboys in the league cellar for a decade or two. I'm not a fan of either Dak or Cooper. At least Elliot is elite at his position. Dak is average at best and Cooper has been largely inconsistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krauser Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 Elliot is elite at a position where average is worth almost as much as elite. Dak is above average at a position where the value over replacement is the biggest in the sport. Cooper and Jones play valuable positions, and both are very good. If they can afford to pay everyone, fine. If not, Zeke should've definitely been the odd one out. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swede700 Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 The one thing I'd argue with your comment @Krauser is the belief that Dak is above average at his position. I don't believe he is. Depends upon who you're going to trust when ranking, but FootballOutsiders ranked Nick "freaking" Mullens as a better QB than Dak last year and PFF labels him as "profoundly" average. Personally, I've never seen anything from him that suggests that he's anywhere near above average. In fact, I personally see no reason for Dallas to even consider extending him for anything much more than Kirk Cousins money. If he wants more than that, I'd let him walk. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krauser Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 1 hour ago, swede700 said: The one thing I'd argue with your comment @Krauser is the belief that Dak is above average at his position. I don't believe he is. Depends upon who you're going to trust when ranking, but FootballOutsiders ranked Nick "freaking" Mullens as a better QB than Dak last year and PFF labels him as "profoundly" average. Personally, I've never seen anything from him that suggests that he's anywhere near above average. In fact, I personally see no reason for Dallas to even consider extending him for anything much more than Kirk Cousins money. If he wants more than that, I'd let him walk. FO's stats are for efficiency of results, not quite the same thing as QB quality. Keenum scored super high in 2017, but that doesn't mean he's an All Pro. I thought PFF were higher on Prescott than that, but I guess not. I haven't watched him often but from what I've seen he's looked pretty good. Paying him a market rate deal (roughly equivalent to Cousins) makes sense to me. But Cousins' contract was last offseason so inflation alone makes a comparable contract more expensive. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 At some point, I'd like to see a team not pay a mediocre QB $30M per year but that seems to be where we're headed. Dallas could do worse than Dak, but I don't think they are going anywhere with him either. I would personally pay Cooper and Elliot and try and use the franchise tag for Dak, or else let him walk. The value of an average QB is completely inflated at the moment and I don't think there's much separating average QBs to below average Qbs in the grand scheme of winning games. At least with Cooper and Elliot, I know I'm getting high end talent, granted consistency has plagued Cooper's career. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krauser Posted September 4, 2019 Share Posted September 4, 2019 1 hour ago, vikingsrule said: At some point, I'd like to see a team not pay a mediocre QB $30M per year but that seems to be where we're headed. You say mediocre, but a Prescott-level QB is good enough to win with. The team that might've made this kind of Moneyball calculation and moved on from a successful starter was the Rams, but they paid Goff. I don't think Goff is much if any better than Prescott (or Cousins). His success comes from the system he's in. But that success is real -- they went to the Super Bowl last year. You might argue that only elite QBs are worth paying. But I think if you've got a guy like Goff (or Dak) who's shown he can run the offense, make some big time throws, stay healthy, be good in the room and the huddle, etc, you keep him, even at current market value. Not because he's worth every single penny but because you're eliminating one of the biggest pools of risk that could undermine an otherwise strongly built team. The Cowboys defense is good, their OL should be back to elite level this year now that Frederick's back, and they have good weapons (Cooper, Gallup, Zeke). About the only thing (aside from injuries or terrible luck) that could keep them from winning 10 games this year is having a QB who isn't good enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcblack34 Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 I was hoping the Rams would buck the trend with Goff. Had they not paid him, traded him, and drafted another young QB, and had it worked out for them, I think it could have gone a long way towards bringing the QB market back to Earth. That is why I think Cousins needs to get the team to the NFC Championship Game or further. If not, the Vikings have to draft a young QB next year and let Cousins walk after the 2020 season. As I've mentioned before, I think teams should draft a QB early every 3-4 years so you always have a QB on a rookie contract ready to go until you find your Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Manning, Favre, etc. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 (edited) 3 hours ago, Krauser said: You say mediocre, but a Prescott-level QB is good enough to win with. The team that might've made this kind of Moneyball calculation and moved on from a successful starter was the Rams, but they paid Goff. I don't think Goff is much if any better than Prescott (or Cousins). His success comes from the system he's in. But that success is real -- they went to the Super Bowl last year. You might argue that only elite QBs are worth paying. But I think if you've got a guy like Goff (or Dak) who's shown he can run the offense, make some big time throws, stay healthy, be good in the room and the huddle, etc, you keep him, even at current market value. Not because he's worth every single penny but because you're eliminating one of the biggest pools of risk that could undermine an otherwise strongly built team. The Cowboys defense is good, their OL should be back to elite level this year now that Frederick's back, and they have good weapons (Cooper, Gallup, Zeke). About the only thing (aside from injuries or terrible luck) that could keep them from winning 10 games this year is having a QB who isn't good enough. Jason Garrett has proven to be a very underwhelming head coach. I don't trust that he has a system that can get the most out of Prescott like the Rans do with Goff. It seems that the recent mediocre QBs that win big games are on teams that really sneak up on the league. Look at Philly with Pederson or the Rams with McVeigh. I just don't see it in Garrett, he's been around that team for years now. Unless Prescott makes significant strides and become a true franchise QB, I don't see Dallas winning any significant games with the current roster and coaching staff. I'm sure the same could be said with Cousins and the Vikes, but MN has a top 5 defense to lean on. Let's just hope they show up when it matters. Edited September 5, 2019 by vikingsrule Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vikingsrule Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 54 minutes ago, wcblack34 said: I was hoping the Rams would buck the trend with Goff. Had they not paid him, traded him, and drafted another young QB, and had it worked out for them, I think it could have gone a long way towards bringing the QB market back to Earth. That is why I think Cousins needs to get the team to the NFC Championship Game or further. If not, the Vikings have to draft a young QB next year and let Cousins walk after the 2020 season. As I've mentioned before, I think teams should draft a QB early every 3-4 years so you always have a QB on a rookie contract ready to go until you find your Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Manning, Favre, etc. Someone else would have made Goff the highest paid player in history if he was ever allowed to hit the open market or seek a trade. I don't think it would have done anything to the QB market. Half the league probably would have lined up to acquire him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteelKing728 Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 12 hours ago, wcblack34 said: I was hoping the Rams would buck the trend with Goff. Had they not paid him, traded him, and drafted another young QB, and had it worked out for them, I think it could have gone a long way towards bringing the QB market back to Earth. That is why I think Cousins needs to get the team to the NFC Championship Game or further. If not, the Vikings have to draft a young QB next year and let Cousins walk after the 2020 season. As I've mentioned before, I think teams should draft a QB early every 3-4 years so you always have a QB on a rookie contract ready to go until you find your Roethlisberger, Rodgers, Manning, Favre, etc. The only problem though is that you consistently avoid adding another starter/roleplayer elsewhere and watch that part of the roster deteriorate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cearbhall Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 26 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said: The only problem though is that you consistently avoid adding another starter/roleplayer elsewhere and watch that part of the roster deteriorate. The counter to that is that it wouldn't be hard to add a starter via free agency each year for the ~$28M being saved. But personally, I would have a tough time going into any year without a QB that is proven at least somewhat. The Jackson and Ponder years were enough for me be leery. There was so much talent on some of those teams that was held back by the QB. The QB couldn't be fairly evaluated owing to trash offensive line and/or horrendous coaching which extended the time it took to move on. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wcblack34 Posted September 5, 2019 Share Posted September 5, 2019 50 minutes ago, SteelKing728 said: The only problem though is that you consistently avoid adding another starter/roleplayer elsewhere and watch that part of the roster deteriorate. You're able to afford to keep players at other positions and can sign free agents when you aren't devoting 15% of your cap to one player. 1 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.