2020 Random Cowboys Stuff Thread...

[Texas Ace]

Fact is, you don’t need an all-timer to get to the Super Bowl. Is Dak good enough to get there? Yes.

The question is if the team around Dak good enough to get us to the Super Bowl? Likewise, is Dak good enough to take this team, not as good as 85 Bears or 00 Ravens, to the Super Bowl?

I think our best comparison in terms of QB quality and surrounding team quality is Matt Ryan, Falcons.

No, you don't need an all-timer and yes, Dak is good enough to get there.

I say let him play under the tag and if they get to a SB and win it, then pay the guy whatever the hell he wants.

At that point, he damn sure would have earned it.

 

[data]

Geez, looking back at it, Flacco's postseason was unreal and Trent Dilfer's has to be the worst of the modern era.

I mean, at the very least, we need a defense doesn’t put us in a double-digit deficit if we can’t score a TD on our first possession.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Dilfer was lucky he went against one of the worst Superbowl QBs of all time in Kerry Collins.

Was Dilfer vs. Collins the sparest SB QB matchup of all time?

 

[Cowboysrock55]

No, you don't need an all-timer and yes, Dak is good enough to get there.

I say let him play under the tag and if they get to a SB and win it, then pay the guy whatever the hell he wants.

At that point, he damn sure would have earned it.

I don't see any reason to not do the 4 year deal at this point. Makes Dak happy and keeps him hungry for the next contract probably 3 years from now. Plus probably saves us a little cap in the short term.

 

[Texas Ace]

I don't see any reason to not do the 4 year deal at this point. Makes Dak happy and keeps him hungry for the next contract probably 3 years from now. Plus probably saves us a little cap in the short term.

I wouldn't hate it, but I really don't think he's worth 35 mill per season.

Win a SB? Even if he plays identically to last season? I'd still pay him because then I KNOW we can win it all with him.

But until we know, I just can't get on board with paying him top 2 QB money.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I wouldn't hate it, but I really don't think he's worth 35 mill per season.

Win a SB? Even if he plays identically to last season? I'd still pay him because then I KNOW we can win it all with him.

But until we know, I just can't get on board with paying him top 2 QB money.

Eh, if he doesn't win it in the first 2 years and you really want out I'm sure it wouldn't be that difficult. In the short term it won't mess up the cap as we pretty much have all the other deals done we need. Plus if you draft a guy you're going to need time to develop that QB and you could probably explore trade options for Dak after a couple years in.

 

[NoDak]

I get your point, but I don't think those guys fit the same criteria that Dilfer does.

Rypien was pretty much a one year wonder, but it was a damn good 1 year and the 91 Redskins offense was one of the most potent of the decade.

Brad Johnson was at least a good player for a spell and he actually helped that 2002 Bucs team win the SB that year. He actually made the pro bowl that season and had a very respectable stat line for the year.

Flacco got hot as hell. He had one of the greatest post season runs for a QB ever. So while his career has mostly been average, he definitely did his part in that title run.

Dilfer was just awful and was nothing more than a passenger for that 2000 Ravens title. Unlike the aforementioned QBs, Dilfer did absolutely nothing to help that team win.

Yeah. I agree with that. But another reason I listed those guys is to show that average QBs can do it. And I believe that Dak is a better QB than all of those guys listed. He doesn't need to have a career year like Rypien. Or get lucky and hot like Flacco. He might not be one of the league's elite, but he is a good QB you can win with.

So when people say we should dump him, that he can never get it done...

 

[Texas Ace]

Yeah. I agree with that. But another reason I listed those guys is to show that average QBs can do it. And I believe that Dak is a better QB than all of those guys listed. He doesn't need to have a career year like Rypien. Or get lucky and hot like Flacco. He might not be one of the league's elite, but he is a good QB you can win with.

So when people say we should dump him, that he can never get it done...

I would agree with that too.

But what do you pay a guy like that? Do you pay him top 2 or 3 QB money?

What is fair compensation for the guy?

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I would agree with that too.

But what do you pay a guy like that? Do you pay him top 2 or 3 QB money?

What is fair compensation for the guy?

That's the difficult part. Because what exactly is top 2 or 3 QB money? Is it what the top 2 or 3 highest paid QBs are getting right now? Or is it what a top two or 3 QB would make if they signed a contract today? Top 2 or 3 QB money to me is 40 mil. Because that's what Patrick Mahomes for example would get on a new contract today. But if you say these are the top 3 QBs in terms of average salary those deals will be far less. Because most of them were done a year ago and Russell Wilson is really the only guy in that group that can stake claim to possibly being a top 3 QB.

 

[bbgun]

But what do you pay a guy like that? Do you pay him top 2 or 3 QB money?

1. The higher you draft a QB, the better your chances.
2. The less you pay your QB, the better your chances.

We already ignored Rule #1. We're about to do the same with #2.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

1. The higher you draft a QB, the better your chances.

I don't think you really understand the difference between statistics and causation. Under your theory if we had drafted Dak in the first round instead of the fourth it would make it more likely we win a Superbowl, that's not true at all.

 

[NoDak]

I would agree with that too.

But what do you pay a guy like that? Do you pay him top 2 or 3 QB money?

What is fair compensation for the guy?

I don't know. Salaries are getting so crazy every year it's hard to get a handle on it.

I don't think he deserves to be the highest in the league, no. But even if we pay him that, by the time we get a few years into the contract, he'll probably be around the 10th highest paid. It's ridiculous.

I don't bother getting worked up over salaries. Nothing I can do about it. Do I wish he'd take a team friendly deal? Sure. That'd be great. But I also understand these guys trying to get every last dime they can get, while they can get it. The league wants them to use up their bodies for their entertainment and mostly, their profit. I remember when guys like Aikman got his 50 mil contract, and Kirby Puckett was the MLBs first 3 mil a year player. At the time, I thought those were astronomical numbers that wouldn't last. Pffft. They were bargains five years later. Hell, in regards to Kirby's contract, journymen scrubs at the end of the bench make that now.

 

[NoDak]

I don't think you really understand the difference between statistics and causation. Under your theory if we had drafted Dak in the first round instead of the fourth it would make it more likely we win a Superbowl, that's not true at all.

Just smile and nod. For some reason, he's been hitting this point hard the last couple days.

If Dak has played exactly the same as he has, but was taken in the first round instead, apparently he would now be more worth the contract he wants.

 

[bbgun]

I don't think you really understand the difference between statistics and causation. Under your theory if we had drafted Dak in the first round instead of the fourth it would make it more likely we win a Superbowl, that's not true at all.

I'm allowing for the existence of first and second round busts. The ones who do not bust, however, have a better track record than fourth rounders who don't bust. Does Dak have a better chance of taking us to the SB than first rounder Trubisky? Yes, but in all likelihood, he won't be facing Trubisky (or a facsimile thereof).

 

[Stasheroo]

Dilfer was lucky he went against one of the worst Superbowl QBs of all time in Kerry Collins.

Was Dilfer vs. Collins the sparest SB QB matchup of all time?

 

[Stasheroo]

I don't see any reason to not do the 4 year deal at this point. Makes Dak happy and keeps him hungry for the next contract probably 3 years from now. Plus probably saves us a little cap in the short term.

I completely agree. If he wins a Super Bowl (or two!) in that time, nobody will have any issues in paying him even more. If he doesn't? It's likely a contract that you can get out of in two years - three at the most, which buys you that time to find a potential replacement.

I think Stephen has botched these negotiations from the beginning and this impasse is just more evidence.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I'm allowing for the existence of first and second round busts. The ones who do not bust, however, have a better track record than fourth rounders who don't bust. Does Dak have a better chance of taking us to the SB than first rounder Trubisky? Yes, but in all likelihood, he won't be facing Trubisky (or a facsimile thereof).

Again, if we had taken Dak instead of Zeke in the first round. Would we have a better shot at a Superbowl right now? Of course not, that's silly.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I completely agree. If he wins a Super Bowl (or two!) in that time, nobody will have any issues in paying him even more. If he doesn't? It's likely a contract that you can get out of in two years - three at the most, which buys you that time to find a potential replacement.

I think Stephen has botched these negotiations from the beginning and this impasse is just more evidence.

Honestly at this point it's like the Cowboys are just too proud to concede and do a 4 year deal. It's like they don't want to look like failures. But seriously, who cares about the difference between 33 mil for four years or 35. 33 would make us all feel warm and fuzzy but 2 mil a year extra gets you a backup scrub in the NFL.

 

[bbgun]

Again, if we had taken Dak instead of Zeke in the first round. Would we have a better shot at a Superbowl right now?

Depends on who the other QB's are in the playoffs. If he's squaring off against a QB drafted in the 4th round or later not named Brady, then recent history says "yes." Dak has a ceiling. Undrafted Romo had a ceiling. Like safety, we refuse to spend a high draft pick on the position.

 

[Stasheroo]

Honestly at this point it's like the Cowboys are just too proud to concede and do a 4 year deal. It's like they don't want to look like failures. But seriously, who cares about the difference between 33 mil for four years or 35. 33 would make us all feel warm and fuzzy but 2 mil a year extra gets you a backup scrub in the NFL.

While they continue to sit back and waste $9 million a year on a defensive lineman (I'm too classy to name names) who isn't even a true starter!

Yeah, this thing strikes me as pride and hubris. Stephen and Jerry have bungled this latest contract extension with Dak the same way they've botched the prior two - first with Lawrence, and then with Elliott. And now they feel that they have to 'win' on some part of the contract extension, even of it's costing them more and more. They've lost, and lost' and lost again on the money side of things, so now all that's left that they think they can win on are the years of the contract. And they're not winning there either.

They'll ultimately cave, Dak will get that four year deal, and then the Jones boys will go about selling it to the masses that they actually did well. It's then up to the sheep, lemmings, and suckers as to whether they choose to believe that bullshit or not.