Are the Cowboys really stupid enough to pay Dak Prescott $30M/year??

[headhunter]

Dak has the stats and health over Mariota

Edited May 13, 2019 by headhunter

[Callidus]

I don't think any player is worth 30mil a year. As good as Brady is he knows making more than 10-15mil a year is a joke. Yes he has his rich ass wife's cash to add to the pot.

 

But difference between making 10-15mil and 30-35mil is 2 or 3 probowlers.

[Number9]

46 minutes ago, headhunter said:

Dak has the stats and health over Mariota

[headhunter]

The past two years

 

Prescott 44 TDs 21 INts

Mariota 24 TDs 23 INTs

 

 

[ap24786]

Dak is no superstar but he went from overrated to underrated. It's hilarious that people think Wentz is some prodigy and Dak is a below average starter.

[Huston]

Kirk Cousins threw for 4,300 and 30 td's with 10 picks and shits the bed in big games. You cant measure everyone by stats alone and I'm not just talking about QB's.

[Number9]

34 minutes ago, Callidus said:

I don't think any player is worth 30mil a year. As good as Brady is he knows making more than 10-15mil a year is a joke.

 

The system is flawed.  The NFL is retarded in its approach to football, unless you agree marketing is the number one goal.  It's rare for any sport to have the top college/young players absent from a position.  Yet, the NFL seems unable to field 32 QBs.  Has college football gotten more exciting to watch?  Yes, it has.  The NFL decided to change its rules to make it more exciting.  And still, they can't get 32 QBs.  

 

WHY?  Marketing.  The NFL believes they can sell a lessor product by creating a different game.  Don't hit the QB.  Don't hit the receivers.  So they can artificially prop up the brand of football they want to market. http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/9521983/refs-force-chip-kelly-philadelphia-eagles-slow-down This is just one obvious example of the NFL's gotta sell beer's approach to the game.  

 

Another is the face of the franchise.  The QB has to look a certain way.  He has to be articulate.  Marcus Mariota is an example of why that's not entirely the case.  What about first round pick Johnny Manziel?  Neither of these two have attracted any national following for their team by being the face of the franchise.  What criteria did they meet?  

 

And it's not all bad for the NFL the way they are going about this.  Having one Mike Vick is survivable, but six?  Recently, a NFL draftee's roommate got shot.  I don't know how many have had brothers, sisters and other relatives make unsavory headlines.  Thank God Kareem Hunt was not the Kansas City Chief's QB.  OMG!!  So the pendulum swings both ways.  You have to be worthy of all that comes with the position.  No grabbing the Uber driver's pussy, we reserve that privilege for presidents.  If the players do not comport themselves to be the face of franchises, what's the NFL supposed to do.  Go broke?  

 

The NFLPA negotiated a dumb deal and the owners greed caused them to take it.  They are stuck paying a QB like Mariota $20,000,000 to play one season, an accomplishment he has failed to do without missing a game.  There are 22 starters on offense and defense, but the players/NFL thinks that makes sense.  They should have really addressed the issue.  Some changes had to be made to keep QB like JaMarcus Russell from eating up/dranking up over $50,000,000 of the Oakland Raiders money.  But the system is still flawed.

 

Some real, nerd type study needs to go into this to help the NFL find a way to deal with now football.  There has to be a some type system to develop the face of NFL franchises into quality NFL starters.

[nine]

We're all familiar with Bill Parcells' so-called "planet theory"....and it applies moreso to quarterbacks than any other position.    At any given point in time, there are maybe than 8-10 people on the entire planet who are capable of quarterbacking at a consistently high level in the NFL.  There are probably 10-12 more who are capable of playing at a reasonably high and somewhat consistent level, albeit it to lesser and varying degrees; after that, you'll have a bunch of guys who are journeyman replacement level players.       Despite the  number of talented and highly-touted QB prospects coming from the college game every year....once they reach the NFL level, the "planet theory" remains quite consistent with very little fluctuation.

 

If you have one of the handful of top-tier guys, you're in pretty good shape.  If you have a guy from that second tier....you can make that work as well, especially if he's trending toward first-tier potential.    But there are still only a couple dozen of them on the planet.....and with huge sums of money being thrown around, it becomes a matter of supply vs. demand.    Even the "decent" quarterbacks will make more in a year than most people will make in a lifetime.

 

Over the years, some teams have tried out of necessity to strike a recipe for success with middling QB talent....but aside from the  occasional flash-in-the-pan success, those efforts have largely come up short.   Until someone develops a successful approach that isn't heavily dependent on QB play, teams will continue paying quarterbacks top dollar... in many cases, far more than their actual worth.

 

I'll guarantee you plenty of teams would love to find a way around a single player eating up 10-15% of their total salary cap.   Many have tried...but nobody's found it yet.

[StephenIsLegend]

1 hour ago, Huston said:

Kirk Cousins threw for 4,300 and 30 td's with 10 picks and shits the bed in big games. You cant measure everyone by stats alone and I'm not just talking about QB's.

Headhunter can’t comprehend that because it’s more than one sentence. 

[headhunter]

Are you all saying Mariota is a better QB than Cousins?

[Number9]

21 minutes ago, Soxcat said:

I still don't get where there is a problem.  None of this means much of anything.  QB is the most important position on a team and yes, they get paid ~15% or so of the teams CAP.  So what?  The league doesn't field 32 great LTs either.  Or 32 great edge rushers.  Now if you want to dummy down the game to 3 yards and a cloud of dust to somehow make a C more valuable and a QB less you end up taking a sport that is super popular and making it boring as hell.  

 

What we have now is NOT a lesser product.  I don't agree with all the rules and such but to say they are going about this the wrong way makes no sense.  These teams have millions of dollars at their disposal and they pay out millions of dollars to QBs if they are good or not.  So it is up to each team to make the best choice they can and live with it (nobody made the Browns take Manziel).  It is already socialist to the point they have CAPs and the worst teams get the earlier picks.  We picked Mariota and chose to honor his 5th season.  Now we have to pay out the $20 mil.  So what?  Team's decision.  But again, you act like this is some grave problem.  No, it is part of the game.  

 

And finally, what the hell is "NOW" football?  And this idea we have to "develop" the face of the franchise.  Again, each team has millions to scout, coach and develop.  If GMs and coaches can't do their job they get fired.  Fired after they make millions.  Sorry each team can't be a cookie cutter of each other.  Go play electric football or something if that is what you want.  

I think already college teams have moved away from the pro system which is often cited as the problem.  It supposedly takes too long to learn.  I liked @nine argument slightly better, just slightly.  I mentioned Chip Kelly.  The NFL nipped that change in the bud.  He was wearing out defenses snapping the ball before they could make changes.  Why?  The NFL has defensive stars and it wouldn't look good to see then get whipped.

 

College teams find ways to win.  If they could win using the NFL system, they would.  It takes too much time to learn it, people say.  But all the QB that are any good in the NFL learn it right away.  Colleges have the advantage of redshirting players.  I think if the NFL's system was the best way, they would just redshirt freshmen QB.  It's a way, not the only way.  

 

The NFL says the only way you can win is be lucky enough to get a pro style QB who can play for 15 years, Phillip Rivers.  Colleges don't hold themselves to that rule and the NCAA doesn't change the rules to make it work.  Peyton Manning's receivers were getting bumped off routes, well within NFL rules.  So, the NFL changed the rules.  

 

Now football is colleges taking the players coming in and finding a way to win with them.  I already said there are pros and cons to keeping the NFL set on one style of QB.  But don't think if a team really went at it they couldn't win playing a different way.  If the league doesn't change the rules.

[Number9]

As far as there being a problem @Soxcat, the present system keeps teams from getting a top QB.  Look at all the number one picks wasted on QB who can't play well enough to last in the league.  Arizona picked one last year in round one, then picks another one this year in round one.  Year after year, QB fly up the draft board and five years later you can't even remember their names.

[wiscotitansfan]

2 hours ago, headhunter said:

Are you all saying Mariota is a better QB than Cousins?

Not even people in Hawaii or Oregon are dumb enough to attempt to justify that argument

[OzTitan]

Cousins is much more skilled and capable as a passer but doesn't he have some all time unbelievably bad record against winning teams? Seems like Cutler.

[nine]

As far as Prescott goes....I'd rank him among the second tier of NFL quarterbacks, somewhere in the #10-20 range.    

 

At this point, he's not a guy who will singlehandedly carry an offense...and maybe never will be.   Like most other less-than-elite QBs, his individual performance is often a reflection of the team's situation.     Give him a good O-line, a good receiving corps, and a strong running game to lean on, and Dak looks very good.  When the offense has issues in other areas....Dak often struggles.   Funny how that works, huh?

 

It's interesting that the past two seasons have been sharply defined before/after scenarios for Dak.  In each season, a mid-season change influenced his production significantly.

 

Last year, the Cowboys made two huge moves during the bye week: trading for Amari Cooper and firing their O-line coach.   Here are Prescott's numbers before and after the bye week:

• Weeks 1-7 (no Amari, poor O-line):  8 TD, 4 INT, 87.4 passer rating
• Weeks 9-17 (with Amari & improved O-line):   14 TD, 4 INT, 103.0 passer rating

That's a pretty signficant jump.   But Prescott's 2017 season was an even more dramatic contrast during Ezekiel Elliot's six-game suspension in weeks 9-14.

• Weeks 1-8 (with Elliott):   16 TD, 4 INT,  97.9 passer rating
• Weeks 9-17 (mostly w/o  Elliott):   6 TD, 9 INT, 74.0 passer rating

Is Prescott a great QB?   Nope.   Not at this point in his career, he's not.    But with quality pieces around him, he's capable of being productive and playing at a high level.