2025 Season | Week 11 | Gameday Chatter Thread | Dallas Cowboys @ Las Vegas Raiders | 11/17/2025

Status
Not open for further replies.
Texas Ace said:
You have to keep Pickens.
Click to expand...

Jerry has basically been saying they're going to sign Pickens since about week 4, I'm not overly worried about it.

They may do their same old stupid song and dance but I think it'll eventually get done.
 
Simpleton said:
Jerry has basically been saying they're going to sign Pickens since about week 4, I'm not overly worried about it.

They may do their same old stupid song and dance but I think it'll eventually get done.
Click to expand...
The good thing is, Jerry has to be motivated to sign him (and keep Clark) to justify his trades for them.

Maybe this is one time Jerry's determination to prove himself right will actually help us?
 
Texas Ace said:
You have to keep Pickens.
Click to expand...

You have to. And if not you can't tell me the Chiefs wouldn't rather have Pickens than a first and third round pick for example. For a team with a QB and shit receivers, how would you not be willing to give up premium picks for a premium weapon.

You have to sign or franchise Pickens.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
You have to. And if not you can't tell me the Chiefs wouldn't rather have Pickens than a first and third round pick for example. For a team with a QB and shit receivers, how would you not be willing to give up premium picks for a premium weapon.

You have to sign or franchise Pickens.
Click to expand...
I still wouldn't mind it if we got a low first for him.
 
Bipo said:
Pickens > Lamb

Someone had to say it.
Click to expand...

I mean, I think Lamb is a great receiver. But damn, Pickens has exceeded even optimistic projections. Even when Lamb was out for a few weeks Pickens was dominating. So you can't just claim he is a product of the attention Lamb is getting. Pickens is just a stud. Now I do think Lamb has been getting more attention. I also think Lamb is still sort of getting back into a groove after the injury. But I can't argue with what you're saying. I'd take either dude over most teams top WR's right now. We have the weapons to dominate anyone with both of those guys on the field. Assuming the protection can give Dak the time he needs.
 
Simpleton said:
Jerry has basically been saying they're going to sign Pickens since about week 4, I'm not overly worried about it.

They may do their same old stupid song and dance but I think it'll eventually get done.
Click to expand...

I hear the argument as to not paying that much money at WR. Or not paying that much money at DT. Sure I get that, you want to spread the wealth. But in the end what is spending that much money at WR going to hurt? You don't have any big name free agents on defense right now that you just have to resign. You don't sign big name free agents, so no loss there on defense. And you have the premium draft picks to build the defense. So while the concept of spreading the wealth makes sense, it only makes sense in the context of you spend money in free agency. If you don't spend money in free agency you can't afford to let a premium talent go for nothing. You just can't. It doesn't make business sense.
 
Chocolate Lab said:
I still wouldn't mind it if we got a low first for him.
Click to expand...

Not with the way we struggle to identify talent right now.

Give me the tried and true young elite playmaker over a late 1st rounder that may not even become anything.

And even if he did, wouldn't you have to eventually pay that guy big money too?

Might as well just do it now for the proven commodity.
 
Texas Ace said:
Not with the way we struggle to identify talent right now.

Give me the tried and true young elite playmaker over a late 1st rounder that may not even become anything.

And even if he did, wouldn't you have to eventually pay that guy big money too?

Might as well just do it now for the proven commodity.
Click to expand...

So you take a first round pick and hope to get a 24 year old stud WR. You have a 24 year old stud WR. The only catch is money.

If you're the Chiefs would you rather have Pickens or Worthy? Because that's potentially what you're doing by trading away a talent like Pickens for a late first. Nothing against Worthy but odds are you aren't finding a guy on the level of Pickens in the late first. And right now you look at Mahomes and the Chiefs and they are desperate for just one elite play maker on offense for Mahomes. All the picks at WR have added up to nothing for them.
 
Texas Ace said:
Not with the way we struggle to identify talent right now.

Give me the tried and true young elite playmaker over a late 1st rounder that may not even become anything.

And even if he did, wouldn't you have to eventually pay that guy big money too?

Might as well just do it now for the proven commodity.
Click to expand...
I'm just trying to be realistic.

I mean, pie and all that, but first round picks do have a value in being less expensive. Otherwise everyone would trade their picks for proven great players and just pay everyone.

If we can keep everyone, that's great. I'm just saying I don't want to keep Pickens if it means going back to having a bargain basement defense that gives up 40 points a game.

And if you got a first and a little change, that's still a great trade for a third.
 
Texas Ace said:
Not with the way we struggle to identify talent right now.

Give me the tried and true young elite playmaker over a late 1st rounder that may not even become anything.

And even if he did, wouldn't you have to eventually pay that guy big money too?

Might as well just do it now for the proven commodity.
Click to expand...


I agree, he's worth way more than a single first. Really all you are doing at that point is sacrificing a sure thing great player for a chance at a great player for less money.

I say salary cap be damned. Keep the sure thing. Push the money in the future and worry about it later.
 
Cowboysrock55 said:
Who are you afraid of losing on defense because you paid Pickens? Honest question.
Click to expand...
Maybe saying we have to release Clark, for instance. Or we can't spend a dime in FA when guys like Hooker slow down. Basically going back to their old model of the offense gets all the money while the defense only gets the draft.

Whatever the particulars are, you know these cheapasses can come up with some reason.
 
Chocolate Lab said:
If we can keep everyone, that's great. I'm just saying I don't want to keep Pickens if it means going back to having a bargain basement defense that gives up 40 points a game.
Click to expand...

That would happen anyway!

The reason why we had a bargain basement defense has nothing to do with our current players having big contracts, it's because we've become cheap as hell when it comes to signing outside talent.

We don't spend money in free agency so what does it matter?

The only reason we traded for Williams is because we had extra picks from the Micah trade and because the defense was an absolute disaster.

But we wouldn't have targeted him in free agency and we won't be targeting anyone in free agency with Pickens' money, so what difference does it make?

Just sign him.
 
Genghis Khan said:
I agree, he's worth way more than a single first. Really all you are doing at that point is sacrificing a sure thing great player for a chance at a great player for less money.

I say salary cap be damned. Keep the sure thing. Push the money in the future and worry about it later.
Click to expand...

Age usually has a lot to do with trading a player away for a first. A team that's not competitive like the Jets deals away a Williams for a first and second because they know that they are more than just a year or two away.

Pickens is 24. To me that changes the whole dynamic. If Pickens was 28 I would have a different opinion on it.
 
Texas Ace said:
Just sign him.
Click to expand...
That's great, yes. We should do what the Lions are doing.

But if we don't, I'm just saying again that it's still a good trade to give a third for a first and change.

But BTW, I do think we would probably spend more in FA if Dak didn't have such a humongous cap number.
 
Chocolate Lab said:
Maybe saying we have to release Clark, for instance. Or we can't spend a dime in FA when guys like Hooker slow down. Basically going back to their old model of the offense gets all the money while the defense only gets the draft.

Whatever the particulars are, you know these cheapasses can come up with some reason.
Click to expand...

We don't spend shit in free agency anyway. And if you cut Clark it's because you want to cut Clark, has nothing to do with money. And we would be idiots to do that as well by the way.

The only guy at risk of being cut is Diggs. And he should be cut. We will save like 12 mil+ after this season by cutting him.
 
Chocolate Lab said:
That's great, yes. We should do what the Lions are doing.

But if we don't, I'm just saying again that it's still a good trade to give a third for a first and change.

But BTW, I do think we would probably spend more in FA if Dak didn't have such a humongous cap number.
Click to expand...

I don't agree.

We haven't spent real money in free agency since what? 2011 with Brandon Carr?

We have not spent real money to sign anyone in over 10 years so I'm not sure why you assume we'd spend more on outside talent if we had it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom