Cowboys sign Prescott to a 4 year contract
- Thread starter Cotton
- Start date
Cujo
Hello me, meet the real me...
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 6,216
27. Seattle Seahawks (20th)
PB: 25th, RB: 23rd, PEN: 30th
Stud: With injuries depleting the ranks, it was left to Michael Bowie (+7.1) to lead the team with their highest grade. He may eventually end up at guard (as he was for their recent playoff victory over the Saints) with his run blocking particularly impressive.
Dud: The team has to hope they never, ever have to start Paul McQuistan (-24.8) at left tackle again. It went very badly and he wasn’t much better at guard.
Analysis: An interesting year. Losing Russell Okung hurt but when they did get him on the field his play was a level or three below it’s usual high standard. At center Max Unger had a down year as a variety of combinations on either side of him failed. Essentially, they did enough at times for Marshawn Lynch to make yardage, but this had the feel of an experimental group with the coaches trying to luck into the right combination.
NoDak
Hotlinking' sonofabitch
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 26,246
Ok, you’ve convinced me. Their line sucked, the RB was mediocre, and the defense made ours look good.
Russell Wilson is the answer to what we need.
Cujo
Hello me, meet the real me...
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 6,216
Jesus, dude. All I'm saying is, Wilson has not had as many weapons as Dak has had most of his career. I've said that at least twice. Any time I make any slight critique of Dak it turns into this shit.
I hope we resign him but I'm not excited about giving him Mahomes money and have to admit it makes me a little resentful the way he's holding the team over the fire.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 138,246
He is not doing shit.
Stephen Jones' botching of this whole thing is why we are where we are. They kept procrastinating.
Cujo
Hello me, meet the real me...
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 6,216
Fine. Wtfever.
Simpleton
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2013
- Messages
- 21,487
Jerry definitely doesn't have it in him but you have to be willing to trade him, assuming we can get two 1's and change, if he never moves off an unreasonable demand.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 60,605
Yeah I agree. Just fucking do it or don't. I'm tired of the whole pissing match holding this team back.
NoDak
Hotlinking' sonofabitch
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 26,246
I didn't say anything about Dak, so don't know what shit it is turning into as you say.
All I said is Wilson had more help than you originally were saying. You made it sound like it was just him and a team full of JAGS.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 125,959
The Cowboys should pay Dak Prescott because paying QBs the going rate is a necessary part of winning
By Bob Sturm 2h ago
It nearly happened this season. The top-paid quarterback in the NFL almost won the Super Bowl. But, maybe it didn’t happen because he made too much money. If only he would have been a poorly paid quarterback like the guy who won it all the year before.
Wait a minute. It says here that both quarterbacks in this study are Patrick Mahomes.
In six days — March 9 — we could be at the unthinkable again. It is highly possible, beyond all reasonable belief, that Dallas will slap the franchise tag on its franchise quarterback, Dak Prescott.
This time, it would be for the ridiculous second-year tag negotiated at $37.7 million, which could still lead to a future long-term deal, a third tag in 2022 of $54.4 million or the likely ultimate exit by Prescott to the open market in March of 2022.
In January, we illuminated the long and winding road in the case of Dak Prescott vs. the Cowboys front office and why I think the Cowboys have really badly botched this one.
But this column isn’t about that. So, please stand down with all of the normal debate points about whether he can win the big one or if he is a top-whatever QB or whether his ankle will ever be the same.
Instead, this is addressed to the far-reaching corners of the internet that still exist in 2021 that believe the payment of a quarterback can prohibit the organization from building a reasonable roster to win around that QB. If you visit Twitter or NFL Reddit or even talk radio, you’ve had someone try to tell you that your choices are either a great roster and a cheap QB or a great QB and a cheap roster.
Talk about losing the plot.
This starts with reverse-engineering the logic part of our sports brains. If the goal is to win a Super Bowl, we must look at those who have won Super Bowls and steal their recipe, right?
We see teams winning with rookie QBs! We see teams winning with animals as their nicknames! We see teams that play outside on natural grass!
Before long, we are running in circles. I remember when people were obsessed with trying to reverse-engineer the early 1990s Cowboys. All you need is a 1-15 season, a Herschel Walker trade and presto: three Super Bowl appearances in four years! Except, there was no salary cap when it started. Throw out that recipe.
This has led people to see the parallels of Aaron Rodgers (2010), Drew Brees (2009) and Ben Roethlisberger (2008) each winning a Super Bowl before the explosion of QB contracts for each of them and the CBA of 2011 and their subsequent inability to win another Lombardi Trophy and concluding that there is a link. If you cannot win another Super Bowl after you got paid, it must be because of that. It can’t be an actual football reason.
Tom Brady and Russell Wilson caused this thinking to spread like wildfire.
While Rodgers, Brees and Roethlisberger were able to win Super Bowls before their money got crazy and the supporting cast apparently diminished, here is Brady winning all the Super Bowls on a lesser contract. To the Twitter analyst, this must mean New England had a few more players every year who made that difference and Brady took less money but had a better supporting cast. That has to be the difference.
But wait — here comes Seattle rising to the top right after the new CBA. The Seahawks threatened to start their own dynasty and rule the world because not only did they have a rookie QB, but he wasn’t on an expensive contract. This must be the new way, too!
With those two players and the occasional someone like Nick Foles (and young Carson Wentz), we convinced ourselves that the way to win a Super Bowl was not with an MVP QB because MVP QBs want too much money. We must get someone like the benevolent Tom Brady who never wants “fair” money (doesn’t hurt that his wife is worth half a billion dollars) or a novice out of college who has no payday leverage.
How did we get here?
In 1994, the NFL instituted a salary-cap system that changed the league forever. In that year, the cap sat at about $34 million. In 2020, we were right at $200 million for the first time. After it pulls back in 2021, it will start cruising toward $300 million and beyond with TV deals. It is linked to league revenues, and aside from a brief pull-back in another labor dispute in 2010-13, the cap has risen by $5 million to $15 million every year over the past two decades until now.
According to historical salary data — which often can be difficult to check for accuracy — the top salary on a roster often has been less than 10 percent of the total cap pool for an entire roster. In fact, according to this very unofficial study, only five times has a Super Bowl winner featured a quarterback’s salary that eclipsed 10 percent of the cap. Only once did it go as high as 13 percent (San Francisco in 1994 with Steve Young).
Media and fans latched on to that 13 percent theory. Because nobody had ever won a Super Bowl and employed a player being paid a higher percentage of the cap than Young in 1994, that must prove it’s impossible, right? Could you go 16-0 and then lose the Super Bowl?
NOTE: NFL accounting can be complex, especially when teams move money around to massage a certain year’s salary cap. The above study and many others do not adjust for this and, therefore, feature many errors. This is why we will use “annual average value or AAV” when discussing these deals so as to not be confused by how the money is specifically paid out. The AAV flattens it all and helps us see apples to apples.
This number has moved plenty since people started noticing that high salaries would seem to weaken a supporting cast and, therefore, make winning more difficult. It is a sound theory that makes intuitive sense. The theory is having more good players makes winning easier.
There is a trade-off to having scarce talent. We see this constantly in the NBA, and it drives salaries above $40 million a year now. Nobody would dispute that having LeBron James and Anthony Davis means the rest of your roster will be worse. But it is a trade-off you happily make. Giannis Antetokounmpo just signed the NBA supermax ($45 million AAV) that pays him more than 40 percent of the cap, which sits at $109 million. Of course, the caps are different by sport. In the NBA, teams can exceed the number in exchange for paying a tax. In the NFL, you cannot.
In the NFL, everyone has to fit under the hard cap. This is done like a massive shell game. In the end, teams must be compliant. Why do these rich quarterbacks try to maximize their personal fortunes at the expense of those around them?
It is seldom a binary decision. The claim that if he leaves money on the table, the team will use it wisely — or use it at all — is a vague and imaginary premise that plays right into the owner’s agenda of telling players to save some pie for the rest of the hungry locker room. That’s hilarious in its transparent self-serving agenda. What makes it crazier is it somehow resonates with the public.
The cap goes up and up and up. COVID-19 may make it stall for a year, but not for long.
On one side of the spectrum, you have a long conversation of where the QB money should be for a player who is “arguably or not” among the top 10 veteran quarterbacks. Where should his money be — 13 percent of the cap? 17 percent? 20 percent? More? The owners try to reel that in with crazy advantages like the franchise tag. At the opposite end of the spectrum: the rising cap. With new TV revenues rolling in and the prospect of gambling money right behind it, the cap may double in the next five to eight years from $200 million to $400 million. There is nothing stopping this NFL money train (not even your buddy’s political boycott).
This shows the percentage of the cap that the No. 1 and the No. 10 QBs have made on an annual basis over the last decade:
But here’s the thing: Contracts are locked-in numbers that are immovable, while the cap isn’t. When you pay QB1 $30 million a year, it starts as 15 percent of the money in 2021, but by 2025 when the contract is expiring and the cap is $300 million, it has dropped to 10 percent. This is the benefit of the long-term deal for teams. They know this, but player agents are not new to this, either. This is why the entire NFL has been handing quarterbacks four-year deals, but the Cowboys’ owners want five. Prescott says he wants the deal that everyone else gets. And consider that he gave the team all the breaks it needed on his four-year rookie deal when he made next to nothing while most first-round QBs make his entire four-year salary in their first season.
The evidence suggests that he has quite a case when asking for the “league norm” and not some outlandish request.
Anything that has happened before the last decade’s explosion of revenues is not relevant. Let the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers rest and focus on the last 10 years. I want to set you at ease on my findings of the “dangers of paying a QB” and assure you that the goal should be to get your sports equivalents of LeBron and Giannis at quarterback. Any absurd and silly logic that disagrees with this should be launched into the sea.
The basic ground rules:
• Start with this latest collective bargaining agreement, which began in 2011.
• We will use AAV and league ranking among QBs. If a QB is among the league’s top 10 at his position, he is also a top-10 player in the NFL. How do I know this? In the last decade, almost every top-10 salary is a QB, with few exceptions. Since 2013, only Khalil Mack and Aaron Donald have cracked the top 10 without throwing the ball, and that was right after they signed their deals.
I also think “he hasn’t won a Super Bowl” is tailored to cook the numbers and win an argument. It’s necessary to account for the thin margins of one play, one call or one bounce deciding these outcomes. Suggesting QB salary was the reason the Saints didn’t win a Super Bowl in 2018 is silly. They were victimized by a bad call. Also, the Chiefs won in 2019 and didn’t win in 2020. Was a newly paid Mahomes the reason they lost this year? Or was it injured offensive linemen who did not take into account their paychecks when the ACL gave in? If you reach the conference championship game, you deserve to take part in this study.
The numbers are salary rankings among quarterbacks. The top-10 salaries are an arbitrary spot, but you will see that the 10th-highest paid QB is right on that threshold of the percentage of “it is tough to build a team around that much” camp.
Let’s take the 10 seasons since 2011 and put everyone into four categories:
RED: The 10 top-paid QBs in their seasons. Most are in the top five. If you “cannot win a title paying a QB this much money” then we should not find many reds.
YELLOW: Veteran QBs not in the top-10 QB salaries. Considered mid-tier players who are, in general, not good enough to win a title.
GREEN: QBs on rookie deals.
ORANGE: Tom Brady on a cheap deal.
How the four groups broke out:
Note: In the case of the 2012 49ers with Alex Smith/Colin Kaepernick and the 2017 Eagles with Wentz/Foles, we went with the intended QB1 the teams attempted to start and his money, not the quarterback they ended up with at the end.
The tally: 14 rookie deals (35 percent), 13 top-10 deals (33 percent), seven Brady bargains (18 percent) and six lower-paid veteran deals (15 percent) make up the 40.
For the 20 Super Bowl spots: six top-10 deals, six rookie deals, five Brady contracts and three lower-paid vet deals.
The theory that there is no way to build a football team by paying a QB big money is nonsense.
The real question is whether you paid the right one. There is a sliding scale where the money given a quarterback below Mahomes should have some relation to that difference, if possible. Paying a garbage QB money like he is the king will make the margins much closer. Even in the case of Jared Goff and Wentz, the contract did not make them impossible to trade, nor did it make them lose all of their value. They both were moved and appear to be starters in their new homes.
There are 32 teams but not 32 starting quarterbacks who are worthy. The search continues for many teams, and even when those teams get their golden boy, they have to decide if they can find his price on a long-term deal. This year, Baker Mayfield, Lamar Jackson and Josh Allen are likely to get their big deals. How big? Mahomes and Deshaun Watson from last year’s contracts provide a glimpse.
Where is the limit for paying someone like Prescott? He is 27. He has proven a lot and with Roethlisberger, Brees and Philip Rivers falling out of contention, he moves up in the top 10 as a precious QB commodity. Even if he gets the next top deal, it will cycle down the list quickly. Rodgers was the top-paid QB not long ago. In a few months, he might not be in the top 10. That is why you don’t want to use a franchise tag any longer than you must.
That we are still having this talk 26 months after it should first have been done tells an important message. It appears this is no longer about the actual issue but rather winning the showdown between two sides that have drawn this out way too long. Jerry Jones once told us he never lets his money get mad, but this one appears to have pushed the limits. My optimism has run low. The absurdity of this going from routine to a detonation of potentially horrid implications is well within sight.
I am out of guesses. I have no idea what happens next. But there is no guesswork when it comes to whether highly compensated QBs can win it all in a hard-capped NFL. Anyone doing fair math can see that the best way to get there is with the best quarterbacks. Winning it all takes some luck, but getting deep in the playoffs doesn’t. It takes a stud QB — who at some point is going to want his fair share.
You should probably give it to him if he has a chance to be that guy for you.
By Bob Sturm 2h ago
It nearly happened this season. The top-paid quarterback in the NFL almost won the Super Bowl. But, maybe it didn’t happen because he made too much money. If only he would have been a poorly paid quarterback like the guy who won it all the year before.
Wait a minute. It says here that both quarterbacks in this study are Patrick Mahomes.
In six days — March 9 — we could be at the unthinkable again. It is highly possible, beyond all reasonable belief, that Dallas will slap the franchise tag on its franchise quarterback, Dak Prescott.
This time, it would be for the ridiculous second-year tag negotiated at $37.7 million, which could still lead to a future long-term deal, a third tag in 2022 of $54.4 million or the likely ultimate exit by Prescott to the open market in March of 2022.
In January, we illuminated the long and winding road in the case of Dak Prescott vs. the Cowboys front office and why I think the Cowboys have really badly botched this one.
But this column isn’t about that. So, please stand down with all of the normal debate points about whether he can win the big one or if he is a top-whatever QB or whether his ankle will ever be the same.
Instead, this is addressed to the far-reaching corners of the internet that still exist in 2021 that believe the payment of a quarterback can prohibit the organization from building a reasonable roster to win around that QB. If you visit Twitter or NFL Reddit or even talk radio, you’ve had someone try to tell you that your choices are either a great roster and a cheap QB or a great QB and a cheap roster.
Talk about losing the plot.
This starts with reverse-engineering the logic part of our sports brains. If the goal is to win a Super Bowl, we must look at those who have won Super Bowls and steal their recipe, right?
We see teams winning with rookie QBs! We see teams winning with animals as their nicknames! We see teams that play outside on natural grass!
Before long, we are running in circles. I remember when people were obsessed with trying to reverse-engineer the early 1990s Cowboys. All you need is a 1-15 season, a Herschel Walker trade and presto: three Super Bowl appearances in four years! Except, there was no salary cap when it started. Throw out that recipe.
This has led people to see the parallels of Aaron Rodgers (2010), Drew Brees (2009) and Ben Roethlisberger (2008) each winning a Super Bowl before the explosion of QB contracts for each of them and the CBA of 2011 and their subsequent inability to win another Lombardi Trophy and concluding that there is a link. If you cannot win another Super Bowl after you got paid, it must be because of that. It can’t be an actual football reason.
Tom Brady and Russell Wilson caused this thinking to spread like wildfire.
While Rodgers, Brees and Roethlisberger were able to win Super Bowls before their money got crazy and the supporting cast apparently diminished, here is Brady winning all the Super Bowls on a lesser contract. To the Twitter analyst, this must mean New England had a few more players every year who made that difference and Brady took less money but had a better supporting cast. That has to be the difference.
But wait — here comes Seattle rising to the top right after the new CBA. The Seahawks threatened to start their own dynasty and rule the world because not only did they have a rookie QB, but he wasn’t on an expensive contract. This must be the new way, too!
With those two players and the occasional someone like Nick Foles (and young Carson Wentz), we convinced ourselves that the way to win a Super Bowl was not with an MVP QB because MVP QBs want too much money. We must get someone like the benevolent Tom Brady who never wants “fair” money (doesn’t hurt that his wife is worth half a billion dollars) or a novice out of college who has no payday leverage.
How did we get here?
In 1994, the NFL instituted a salary-cap system that changed the league forever. In that year, the cap sat at about $34 million. In 2020, we were right at $200 million for the first time. After it pulls back in 2021, it will start cruising toward $300 million and beyond with TV deals. It is linked to league revenues, and aside from a brief pull-back in another labor dispute in 2010-13, the cap has risen by $5 million to $15 million every year over the past two decades until now.
According to historical salary data — which often can be difficult to check for accuracy — the top salary on a roster often has been less than 10 percent of the total cap pool for an entire roster. In fact, according to this very unofficial study, only five times has a Super Bowl winner featured a quarterback’s salary that eclipsed 10 percent of the cap. Only once did it go as high as 13 percent (San Francisco in 1994 with Steve Young).
Media and fans latched on to that 13 percent theory. Because nobody had ever won a Super Bowl and employed a player being paid a higher percentage of the cap than Young in 1994, that must prove it’s impossible, right? Could you go 16-0 and then lose the Super Bowl?
NOTE: NFL accounting can be complex, especially when teams move money around to massage a certain year’s salary cap. The above study and many others do not adjust for this and, therefore, feature many errors. This is why we will use “annual average value or AAV” when discussing these deals so as to not be confused by how the money is specifically paid out. The AAV flattens it all and helps us see apples to apples.
This number has moved plenty since people started noticing that high salaries would seem to weaken a supporting cast and, therefore, make winning more difficult. It is a sound theory that makes intuitive sense. The theory is having more good players makes winning easier.
There is a trade-off to having scarce talent. We see this constantly in the NBA, and it drives salaries above $40 million a year now. Nobody would dispute that having LeBron James and Anthony Davis means the rest of your roster will be worse. But it is a trade-off you happily make. Giannis Antetokounmpo just signed the NBA supermax ($45 million AAV) that pays him more than 40 percent of the cap, which sits at $109 million. Of course, the caps are different by sport. In the NBA, teams can exceed the number in exchange for paying a tax. In the NFL, you cannot.
In the NFL, everyone has to fit under the hard cap. This is done like a massive shell game. In the end, teams must be compliant. Why do these rich quarterbacks try to maximize their personal fortunes at the expense of those around them?
It is seldom a binary decision. The claim that if he leaves money on the table, the team will use it wisely — or use it at all — is a vague and imaginary premise that plays right into the owner’s agenda of telling players to save some pie for the rest of the hungry locker room. That’s hilarious in its transparent self-serving agenda. What makes it crazier is it somehow resonates with the public.
The cap goes up and up and up. COVID-19 may make it stall for a year, but not for long.
On one side of the spectrum, you have a long conversation of where the QB money should be for a player who is “arguably or not” among the top 10 veteran quarterbacks. Where should his money be — 13 percent of the cap? 17 percent? 20 percent? More? The owners try to reel that in with crazy advantages like the franchise tag. At the opposite end of the spectrum: the rising cap. With new TV revenues rolling in and the prospect of gambling money right behind it, the cap may double in the next five to eight years from $200 million to $400 million. There is nothing stopping this NFL money train (not even your buddy’s political boycott).
This shows the percentage of the cap that the No. 1 and the No. 10 QBs have made on an annual basis over the last decade:
But here’s the thing: Contracts are locked-in numbers that are immovable, while the cap isn’t. When you pay QB1 $30 million a year, it starts as 15 percent of the money in 2021, but by 2025 when the contract is expiring and the cap is $300 million, it has dropped to 10 percent. This is the benefit of the long-term deal for teams. They know this, but player agents are not new to this, either. This is why the entire NFL has been handing quarterbacks four-year deals, but the Cowboys’ owners want five. Prescott says he wants the deal that everyone else gets. And consider that he gave the team all the breaks it needed on his four-year rookie deal when he made next to nothing while most first-round QBs make his entire four-year salary in their first season.
The evidence suggests that he has quite a case when asking for the “league norm” and not some outlandish request.
Anything that has happened before the last decade’s explosion of revenues is not relevant. Let the 2002 Tampa Bay Buccaneers rest and focus on the last 10 years. I want to set you at ease on my findings of the “dangers of paying a QB” and assure you that the goal should be to get your sports equivalents of LeBron and Giannis at quarterback. Any absurd and silly logic that disagrees with this should be launched into the sea.
The basic ground rules:
• Start with this latest collective bargaining agreement, which began in 2011.
• We will use AAV and league ranking among QBs. If a QB is among the league’s top 10 at his position, he is also a top-10 player in the NFL. How do I know this? In the last decade, almost every top-10 salary is a QB, with few exceptions. Since 2013, only Khalil Mack and Aaron Donald have cracked the top 10 without throwing the ball, and that was right after they signed their deals.
I also think “he hasn’t won a Super Bowl” is tailored to cook the numbers and win an argument. It’s necessary to account for the thin margins of one play, one call or one bounce deciding these outcomes. Suggesting QB salary was the reason the Saints didn’t win a Super Bowl in 2018 is silly. They were victimized by a bad call. Also, the Chiefs won in 2019 and didn’t win in 2020. Was a newly paid Mahomes the reason they lost this year? Or was it injured offensive linemen who did not take into account their paychecks when the ACL gave in? If you reach the conference championship game, you deserve to take part in this study.
The numbers are salary rankings among quarterbacks. The top-10 salaries are an arbitrary spot, but you will see that the 10th-highest paid QB is right on that threshold of the percentage of “it is tough to build a team around that much” camp.
Let’s take the 10 seasons since 2011 and put everyone into four categories:
RED: The 10 top-paid QBs in their seasons. Most are in the top five. If you “cannot win a title paying a QB this much money” then we should not find many reds.
YELLOW: Veteran QBs not in the top-10 QB salaries. Considered mid-tier players who are, in general, not good enough to win a title.
GREEN: QBs on rookie deals.
ORANGE: Tom Brady on a cheap deal.
How the four groups broke out:
Note: In the case of the 2012 49ers with Alex Smith/Colin Kaepernick and the 2017 Eagles with Wentz/Foles, we went with the intended QB1 the teams attempted to start and his money, not the quarterback they ended up with at the end.
The tally: 14 rookie deals (35 percent), 13 top-10 deals (33 percent), seven Brady bargains (18 percent) and six lower-paid veteran deals (15 percent) make up the 40.
For the 20 Super Bowl spots: six top-10 deals, six rookie deals, five Brady contracts and three lower-paid vet deals.
The theory that there is no way to build a football team by paying a QB big money is nonsense.
The real question is whether you paid the right one. There is a sliding scale where the money given a quarterback below Mahomes should have some relation to that difference, if possible. Paying a garbage QB money like he is the king will make the margins much closer. Even in the case of Jared Goff and Wentz, the contract did not make them impossible to trade, nor did it make them lose all of their value. They both were moved and appear to be starters in their new homes.
There are 32 teams but not 32 starting quarterbacks who are worthy. The search continues for many teams, and even when those teams get their golden boy, they have to decide if they can find his price on a long-term deal. This year, Baker Mayfield, Lamar Jackson and Josh Allen are likely to get their big deals. How big? Mahomes and Deshaun Watson from last year’s contracts provide a glimpse.
Where is the limit for paying someone like Prescott? He is 27. He has proven a lot and with Roethlisberger, Brees and Philip Rivers falling out of contention, he moves up in the top 10 as a precious QB commodity. Even if he gets the next top deal, it will cycle down the list quickly. Rodgers was the top-paid QB not long ago. In a few months, he might not be in the top 10. That is why you don’t want to use a franchise tag any longer than you must.
That we are still having this talk 26 months after it should first have been done tells an important message. It appears this is no longer about the actual issue but rather winning the showdown between two sides that have drawn this out way too long. Jerry Jones once told us he never lets his money get mad, but this one appears to have pushed the limits. My optimism has run low. The absurdity of this going from routine to a detonation of potentially horrid implications is well within sight.
I am out of guesses. I have no idea what happens next. But there is no guesswork when it comes to whether highly compensated QBs can win it all in a hard-capped NFL. Anyone doing fair math can see that the best way to get there is with the best quarterbacks. Winning it all takes some luck, but getting deep in the playoffs doesn’t. It takes a stud QB — who at some point is going to want his fair share.
You should probably give it to him if he has a chance to be that guy for you.
Cujo
Hello me, meet the real me...
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 6,216
My original fucking statement was about Dak. If it hadn't referred to Dak you wouldn't have had shit to say about it. You claimed he had a great offensive line, he didn't. Yeah, he had Marshawn Lynch, he ran for 1200 yards in 2013 . Then he had Baldwin, Kearse, and whashisname who went to Detroit. My original post was, if Dak had the same supporting cast he wouldnt have had as much success. That's a fucking fact. Sorry that upsets you
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 46,505
It's absurd to compare the NBA, where 2 elite players can carry 8 JAGs to a championship, to the NFL where you really need 30 or so good players.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 60,605
To be fair you claimed "If Dak was in Seattle, he'd be a nobody." So no you're not just saying that Dak's supporting cast was better. You're saying much more than that.
Genghis Khan
The worst version of myself
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 46,505
I'll say this, and I don't want to speak for NoDak but for me this isn't about Dak either. Wilson was an afterthought on those teams early in his career. They relied on good running game and an elite defense, plus the QB just not making major mistakes. To achieve that they put Wilson in favorable down/distance as much as possible and gave him easier reads.
Speaking for myself, a lot of QBs could have done that, including Dak who literally played that same role in 2016 (he failed because we lacked the elite defense that seattle had).
I'm happy to agree to disagree but this for me has much more to do with how we're looking at Wilson than anything. His weapons were pretty solid and they didn't ask him to do much in his first few years. Plus you can't discount how important having that defense and running game was.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 60,605
Yeah Dak has sort of followed a very similar trajectory to Wilson without the Superbowl. I've said before I think Wilson is better right now. But Daks still on the upswing part of his career.
ravidubey
DCC 4Life
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 22,478
I would agree (of course sans Superbowl), though they each diverged at the end of the playoffs of their third year.
During the playoff run of his third season, Wilson had a defense consistently buy him extra opportunities, the light turned on and he transformed from being a really good game manager into an impact player.
Similarly Tony Romo was ahead of Eli Manning-- and it wasn't even close-- until the 2007 playoff game in Dallas when the lights turned on for Eli and he went from being a game manager barely tolerated by his own fanbase to a Superbowl champion.
Just like Romo then, Dak's career is now stuck in a holding pattern because his team's "GM" doesn't know how to build a winner.
Dak will never learn how to be that guy, because he lacks the defense to keep him in games. His pass protection will fade away too if the team isn't careful.
NoDak
Hotlinking' sonofabitch
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2013
- Messages
- 26,246
Who’s upset?
But either way, you’re wrong. I was commenting on Russell Wilson. That’s it, that’s all. I have been outspoken against wanting to trade for him. Didn’t say a thing about Dak.