Does Dallas make Prescott and Parsons the highest-paid at their positions?

[RaidersAreOne]

With CeeDee locked up as the 2nd highest paid non-QB ever, focus now shifts to two other enormous players for the Cowboys, Dak and Micah. Both are due for new deals soon and will likely command to be the highest-paid players at their positions.

What would you do if you were Dallas, and what do you think Dallas will actually do?

[Steelersfan43]

They have no choice to pay them.I mean they have no other options outside of Prescott in their roster for their future,so if it take 60 millions per year to keep Prescott,they have no other choice....

Edited August 27 by Steelersfan43

[StatKing]

5 minutes ago, Steelersfan43 said:

They have no choice to pay them.I mean they have no other options outside of Prescott in their roster for their future,so if it take 60 millions per year to keep Prescott,they have no other choice....

Trey Lance is the future.

[Xmad]

3 minutes ago, StatKing said:

Trey Lance is the future.

He was a healthy scratch last year and not even the backup. Sure as hell isn't the backup after that performance. Homie's NFL future is cooked until he develops somewhere for a year or two and gets a shot to start for a year. 

[Forge]

Micah, yes. 

Dak will be, but im slightly less inclined to think it's coming from Dallas

[RaidersAreOne]

For me personally, no chance in hell I am ever letting Parsons walk out that door. I would gladly give him the biggest Defensive contract in history.

Dak on the other hand, I feel like I would want to let him go before paying him $60M+ per year. However I recall people saying Dak accounts for a huge cap hit next season regardless if he plays in Dallas or not? Not to mention he is obviously good but is he elite? I personally don't think so. 

[raidersedge]

Jerry will pay both. I know many like to drag Dak but its whatever at this point. They drafted a top 10 QB why wouldn't they keep him.

[Soko]

I don’t think they do Micah this year. Lamb was playing on his 5th year option, Micah just finished Year 3. I think they get it done, but they wait.

I’m torn on Dak. Gun to my head, Dallas caves and makes him significantly richer. I think he’s a guy you could win a SB with, but it’d be in a weird outlier type season. Like a Matt Ryan kind of scenario. 

I would probably pay both, assuming I’m in Dallas’ position (no trade clause, no tag, $40M 2025 cap hit). If I had the ability to trade Dak for lots of picks, I’d have probably done that, but not really possible with the NTC.

[Hunter2_1]

1 hour ago, RaidersAreOne said:

For me personally, no chance in hell I am ever letting Parsons walk out that door. I would gladly give him the biggest Defensive contract in history.

Dak on the other hand, I feel like I would want to let him go before paying him $60M+ per year. However I recall people saying Dak accounts for a huge cap hit next season regardless if he plays in Dallas or not? Not to mention he is obviously good but is he elite? I personally don't think so. 

This matches exactly how I feel

[BroncoSojia]

Dallas screwed up the Dak situation by waiting to pay him last time around, as they had to give him a no-trade and a non-franchise tag clause because he had the Cowboys over the barrel, as he does now. If his contract didn't have those stipulations, they could've traded hm by now for a kings ransom and/or retained some leverage with the franchise tag in their back pocket. Now his cap hit is really high this year and next year regardless of whether or not he's on the roster.  That, along with the huge risk of losing him for nothing at the end of the season might force the Cowboys hand on offering Dak a big contract. Big meaning 63+ mil plus per year with nearly most of the contract guaranteed, as Dak has no incentive to accept less than that. 

[DirtyDez]

Parsons yes, Dak no.  They’ll take the same route Minnesota did with Cousins and let him walk.

[nagahide13]

Pay em both. They screwed themselves, especially with Dak. They can't just start over at QB since Dak is such a great fit and almost anyone will be a downgrade. They're in a window and can't afford a soft reset especially while paying Ceedee and Parsons.

Dak is definitely good enough to win a superbowl right now. I love to see him crumble in the playoffs, but it's clearly an organizational issue rather than a Dak-specific (or at least Dak-only) issue.

They have to pay him 60+ per and just eat it. In 3 years when they're completely coming apart at the seams and they want to move on from Dak's noodle armed corpse, they'll have to eat that too.

[Soggust]

I don't understand not paying Dak. 

The guy is coming off arguably an MVP season.

We just paid big money to TL, Goff, Herbert, Tua, Love etc for lesser production. I understand the idea is that they might get better and Dak probably won't (sans maybe Goff), but this just seems like the "Why take the boat when you could take the mystery box? It could be a boat!" scenario, imo. Dak almost wins MVP and can't get paid, but TL needs to be paid because he could be MVP caliber one day.

I'm taking Dak over Parsons. Ideally, I think you want to sign both, but I'm trading my superstar defensive player before I'm letting a highly productive QB walk. I would have honestly probably tried to trade Lamb and resigned Parsons + Prescott, personally, but if you can get all 3, I think you do that. 

[CasperX22]

14 hours ago, DirtyDez said:

Parsons yes, Dak no.  They’ll take the same route Minnesota did with Cousins and let him walk.

In what world does that make sense? Bed is already made.  They have to pay Dak.  Dallas is not going to be in position to draft one of the top rookie QB's and this is not the year to do it either.

[WheatieMan]

You can sign him if he makes a run to the NFCCG. You fire McCarthy and Dak unless they lose a very competitive Divisional round like the Bills last year. Sometimes, the ball just doesn't bounce your way. 

But, realistically, unless they lose to Philli on the road, or GB, or some other powerhouse besides San Fran (you have to move on if the 49ers eliminate us again), both Dak and McCarthy are gone. They are tied at the hip. Doesn't matter how good the regular season numbers are.

So nothing really matters until January. But, since they will probably be one and done or miss the playoffs, you pay Parsons (assuming he stops the off the field podcasting antics and is committed to being a GOAT), and get rid of Dak.

It's a no brainer... unfortunately, we have to roll with Lance next year, or land a guy in the draft. We probably won't be able to move up high enough next year, so '25 will be the tank year, and then '27 will be the all-in year.

Philli is the blue print. You tank with a washed up QB (Wentz)... steal a QB in the draft and do a competitive rebuild (8-9 or 9-8)... (see Jordan Love last year as well), and then '27 is the all-in year, where hopefully the new QB is in place.

This is so obvious to me. So obvious that you give Lance one more shot, assuming he's not tanking in practice, and can fill in for Dak if need be this year, and then go forward with Lance or a rookie in '25.

Dak served the Cowboy organization phenomenally. He's been every bit the guy off the field that Romo was. I'm grateful he is our QB. But this is the end of the road. '24 is his last year, barring a miracle run.

Edited August 28 by WheatieMan