Romo: I Would Have Been Willing To Take A Pay Cut To Keep DeMarco

[ravidubey]

Why? You sure as hell better have weapons out their for your new QB otherwise whoever you get is going to be a bust.

Because it's worked out so great for the Houston Texans and Arizona Cardinals to have had 25% of their cap sunk into great WR's who couldn't do a damned thing without a decent QB to throw them the ball?

It's gotta be one or more of:

1) a reluctance to commit to Dez (maybe)
2) inability to afford Dez (coughBullshitcough)
3) Connecting Dez to Romo. Without a strong QB, a strong WR is wasted cash. Franchising Dez lets you test Romo's availability on a yearly basis.

Denver has an almost identical decision to make. What good is Thomas without Manning? Maybe they think it's better to draft a great WR after the QB is set.

Keeping Thomas without a QB is alot like flushing cash down the toilet.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Because it's worked out so great for the Houston Texans and Arizona Cardinals to have had 25% of their cap sunk into great WR's who couldn't do a damned thing without a decent QB to throw them the ball?

So what would have made those teams better? Not having the dominant WR and sucking even worse? Hell the only reason Houston has been able to maintain a good offense for a period of time was because of Andre Johnson.

I just don't get the logic of, if we have a young QB, lets not give him any weapons. What are you going to do? Just eliminate the forward pass from your offense?


*Checks recent posts by Ravi about not drafting a QB and taking multiple RBs* Maybe that is your plan.

 

[mcnuttz]

My sources are impeccable!

Genghos, you are the man.

 

[Texas Ace]

The Dallas Cowboys have fully restructured quarterback Tony Romo’s contract to create $12.8 million in salary cap space in 2015, according to a source.

12.8 million in space, huh?

Isn't Peterson set to make 12 million this season?

 

[L.T. Fan]

I'm sure Romo means it, but I believe the team simply didn't want to keep Murray even at the price they offered.

They know his injury history and how after last season's carries that he is probably on the downside of his career. I think they are secretly happy he's crippling the Eagles' cap at the moment.

From Dallas' perspective there is little difference between McCoy and Murray, and Murray takes more punishment and is less of a breakaway threat in space.

Management may not have wanted to keep Murray but I am of the impression his rteam mates wanted him to stay.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Management may not have wanted to keep Murray but I am of the impression his rteam mates wanted him to stay.

I don't think it's that management didn't want to keep Murray. It's that they didn't want to keep him in excess of a certain price. Once he exceeded that price they saw that the value was to put the cap dollars somewhere else.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I don't think it's that management didn't want to keep Murray. It's that they didn't want to keep him in excess of a certain price. Once he exceeded that price they saw that the value was to put the cap dollars somewhere else.

So if management and team mates wanted him to stay who is it that some are saying they wanted him to go?

 

[BipolarFuk]

Cowboys restructure Tony Romo’s deal yet again for cap room

Cowboys restructure Tony Romo’s deal yet again for cap room

Tony Romo didn’t take a pay cut to help keep DeMarco Murray.

But coincidentally, his latest restructuring creates enough cap room to make room for the guy who could be his next running back.

The Cowboys have restructured Romo’s deal yet again, creating $12.8 million in cap space this year. A source with knowledge of the situation tells PFT that it wasn’t a negotiated restructuring, but an automatic conversion of $16 million of Romo’s base salary to a signing bonus. His salary for 2015 becomes $1 million.

Granted, that just pushes (yet again) prorations into the future, and whenever the time comes for Romo to be an ex-Cowboy, he’ll be their biggest cap hit for at least a year beyond.

They’ll tack on another $3.2 million worth of cap charge to each of the remaining years of his extension.

And while they might not turn the short-term savings into an Adrian Peterson deal, it is a happy coincidence that the wantaway Vikings running back has a $12.75 million salary coming his way this year.

I’m sure the two aren’t connected.

Right?

 

[BipolarFuk]

I'd give absolute nothing for Peterson.

If he's cut, great, if not, I'm not giving up even a future 7th for an overpriced 30 year old RB.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

So if management and team mates wanted him to stay who is it that some are saying they wanted him to go?

I don't know but the Cowboys management wouldn't have offered him 5-6 mil per year if they didn't want him back.

I don't think anyone "wanted him to go." It was a matter of money and where it would be best spent.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I'd give absolute nothing for Peterson.

If he's cut, great, if not, I'm not giving up even a future 7th for an overpriced 30 year old RB.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Cotton]

I really hoped they wouldn't do this. Unless they were doing it for the defense. To do it for an aging and oft-hurt RB when we just dropped a younger RB is stupid. No telling what the Peterson contract will cost. Now, if we did the restructure and still give up draft picks to get him, I will be furious.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I'd give absolute nothing for Peterson.

If he's cut, great, if not, I'm not giving up even a future 7th for an overpriced 30 year old RB.

You wouldn't give a future 7th for a high quality starter, knowing the 7th round produces a starting quality football player about every other year? Come on.

 

[Genghis Khan]

I don't see how this restructuring isn't mostly for Hardy.

 

[Genghis Khan]

You wouldn't give a future 7th for a high quality starter, knowing the 7th round produces a starting quality football player about every other year? Come on.

I'd go as high as a 5th but only because Peterson is special.

But to play devil's advocate, not only are you giving up a draft pick, you are probably giving up drafting a RB from a very deep class that could probably leave you set at the position for at least 4 or 5 years at a low salary.

I can understand not wanting to make that trade off.

 

[BipolarFuk]

You wouldn't give a future 7th for a high quality starter, knowing the 7th round produces a starting quality football player about every other year? Come on.

He's 30 years old, hasn't hardly played in a year. We don't even know if he's high quality anymore.

He could be a 4 ypc dub right now that gets paid almost 13 million. You could get that in any round in the draft and maybe UFA.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

You wouldn't give a future 7th for a high quality starter, knowing the 7th round produces a starting quality football player about every other year? Come on.

You're taking on a massive salary. 12 mil for a 30 year old RB coming off some serious off the field issues. That's why it isn't worth the 7th round pick. If his salary was much lower it would be a different story.

 

[Clay_Allison]

I'd go as high as a 5th but only because Peterson is special.

But to play devil's advocate, not only are you giving up a draft pick, you are probably giving up drafting a RB from a very deep class that could probably leave you set at the position for at least 4 or 5 years at a low salary.

I can understand not wanting to make that trade off.

You're taking on a massive salary. 12 mil for a 30 year old RB coming off some serious off the field issues. That's why it isn't worth the 7th round pick. If his salary was much lower it would be a different story.

Who is stopping you from picking a great RB in the draft? Are we that committed to Randle and Dunbar? I wouldn't mind having Peterson plus a rookie for a year, then dumping Peterson and letting the young guy carry the load. I'd burn a 7th to use Peterson for a year as a bridge.

Sure, he's expensive, but once he's cut he's off the books. He'll leave all of his 'dead money' in Minnessota.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Who is stopping you from picking a great RB in the draft? Are we that committed to Randle and Dunbar? I wouldn't mind having Peterson plus a rookie for a year, then dumping Peterson and letting the young guy carry the load. I'd burn a 7th to use Peterson for a year as a bridge.

Sure, he's expensive, but once he's cut he's off the books. He'll leave all of his 'dead money' in Minnessota.

If you get Petersen and use a high round draft pick for another RB you could decimate you ability to shore up the defense.because chances are Petersen would require another draft pick for a trade. It makes no sense to spend those kind of resources for a vet and rookie RB. It's either or but not both.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Who is stopping you from picking a great RB in the draft? Are we that committed to Randle and Dunbar? I wouldn't mind having Peterson plus a rookie for a year, then dumping Peterson and letting the young guy carry the load. I'd burn a 7th to use Peterson for a year as a bridge.

Sure, he's expensive, but once he's cut he's off the books. He'll leave all of his 'dead money' in Minnessota.

I would still draft a RB, but in reality I doubt the team would.