Steve Billieve

Watched all of Watson's Clemson and Houston games. I wouldn't bet against him. Also, people keep saying Bill O'Brian is a good coach, but . . .

Dak's trade value is precisely zero.

Nobody dances like Tre. Can you infer that someone is a good person when they dance like that? I'm not sure, but I'm leaning towards yes.

No Hughes? Outrageous!

It's the unwritten law of American Media. If you say something nice about the Bills you HAVE to rank the Pats immediately above them. Think it has something to do with the deflategate settlement.

I would say those are two examples of doing it right. I should have been more clear, I meant that if you sign some silly record setting deal for 40/ and over a 100+ guaranteed, it gets pretty tough to walk back. I have no problem with paying a QB what they're worth, but if you overpay because you just can't let your "franchise" guy go things can get dicey fast and you have zero flexibility. QBs aren't too expensive. They're just too expensive to make bad deals with. You can overpay a guy like Spain no big deal.

Yeah, I agree completely, that's how it should be done. If Allen improves we should try to sign him, and if they like where he's headed the sooner the better. I just don't think a fringe "top 10" QB is 40 mil/year (currently). QB contracts are so big now that you can't really make a mistake and recover, you're talking about an entire rebuild. If we actually do sign Allen long term after 4 we won't have to pay record money.

Taking a lot of heat so I guess I'll elaborate/dig a deeper hole. I guess it depends what you mean by franchise QB. IMO middle tier QBs are grossly overpaid, and they are the surest way to set yourself up to be a playoff bubble team at best with no real chance of going all the way. I don't think there's a big difference between the perceived 10th best QB compared to the 20th best QB. Even the contracts seem to bear this out. There are 18 QBs making 20+ mil a year. I bet every team that signed one of those thought they were getting a top 10 guy, but with the emergence of Watson, Mahomes, and Jackson some aren't even in the top 20 (and that's before you count the potential of guys like Allen, Darnold, Tua, Burrow, Mayfield, Jones, etc) In any given year I think there are usually 5 QBs who are just better than the rest, and they are usually the same QBs year in and year out. Paying someone big money who obviously isn't in that tier is a mistake imo. The league is filled with average replaceable QBs on bloated salaries. Seems like the consensus rank for Dak is around 8 (+/- 2), where as Allen is usually mid 20s. That's a huge difference, but imo neither player is really ensuring their teams success or holding them back. Dak = 40 mil vs. Allen, Diggs, Morse, Hughes = 40 mil IMO Dak is not in that top 5, so if he wants to hold out for 40 mil like it appears I would definitely let him walk. I'd rather go with Fitz (4 mil) or Foles (8 mil) or Dalton (3 mil) and try to replace with a rookie. I get we've been in QB purgatory for too long, but it's better than QB hell.

That and worse happens in bankruptcy court all the time. Look into Sears if you want to feel sad/bad/frustrated.

Yeah, that's all I'm saying. Dak isn't good enough and Allen hasn't become good enough. Not trying to predict the future. Seemed like Dak was the blueprint we were looking at.

So you would sign Allen as the highest paid QB without him improving from where he is currently at? You think the Cowboys are winning Champtionships with Dak?

I'd let him walk. Both Dak and where Allen is at now. It's not even a question. Grab a first or second round prospect after Allen's 4th and sign his option. In today's NFL you might even be able to trade him. QB on a rookie deal is a beautiful thing, even a mediocre one.

One things for sure, Brady wouldn't be playing in his 40s.

I almost don't want to say it, but Devin's rookie year was so good . . . regression to the mean . . .

This is such a great take liking it just isn't enough.