Cowboys and Dak reach deal

[dave mcbride]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Exaclty Cleveland, Chicago and Buffalo are the ultimate examples of it isn't as easy as just find a good quarterback! They don't grow on trees. It sucks for the teams with a 7-15 in the league guy that it costs almost as much as the top 6 guys despite the difference in play being more stark than that but it is what it is. That is the market. You either accept it or you accept lots and lots of losing seasons hoping eventually you hit the jackpot.

Since Cleveland reopened for business in 1999, they have drafted five QBs in the first round. The four before Mayfield were Tim Couch, Brandon Weedon, Brady Quinn, and Johnny Manziel. Every one of those QBs was absolutely terrible. Mayfield is vastly better than any of them. I'm merely echoing your point about how hard it is to find even a "good" (much less great) QB. If you have a good one who you think will be a durable, respectable, winning qb for a long time, you keep him. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by dave mcbride

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Since Cleveland reopened for business in 1999, they have drafted five QBs in the first round. The four before Mayfield were Tim Couch, Brandon Weedon, Brady Quinn, and Johnny Manziel. Every one of those QBs was absolutely terrible. Mayfield is vastly better than any of them. I'm merely echoing your point about how hard it is to find even a "good" (much less great) QB. If you have a good one who you think will be a durable, respectable, winning qb for a long time, you keep him. 

 

Yep. And you have to pay him more than you might think he "deserves" when you compare him to the top guys in the league and their salary. But that is the market. It really is as simple as that. I am yet to see a workable alternative.

[Alphadawg7]

7 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

I thought Mayfield played pretty well this year, actually, and I just have a feeling that he's going to last a long time in the league and always be at least pretty good. Given Cleveland's decades-long QB purgatory, "pretty good" is something they should grab and hold onto for dear life and never let it go. 

I agree with this, but I am also not paying a game manager $42M a year.  
 

So I need to see more from Baker before I hand him top end of the market money like guys such as Kap, Tannehill (Miami) and Cousins sought and got before really earning that pay level.  
 

If I was to extend Baker today I would say lower $30M range is fair.  But you know his team is gonna seek $40M plus if he and the Browns have a similar season next year even though.  
 

Would you really want to pay Baker say for example $42M next year if he’s good, not great again this year?  I just don’t think they can win anything if they did that without Baker taking another big step.  And he very well could take a big step in 2021, not knocking him, I mean I like Baker and agree with you and also think he’s going to have a long career in the NFL.

 

Baker so far is a lot more Alex Smith than he is Deshaun Watson.  Doesn’t mean he can’t be a top 5 guy, just saying he hasn’t reached that higher plateau yet IMHO.  

 

I guess I am just not the guy who hands out cap killing contracts to just anyone because it’s what others do.  

[Doc Brown]

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Smith was short term compared to what Cousins wanted and a guy to place hold while they found a young QB to groom.  And clearly they felt he was a better option than paying what Cousins wanted which was top of the market money.  

No.  It was a significant three year cap hit for Smith that was back loaded.  They expected Alex to be their guy.  He actually counted more against the Skins cap last year then Cousins did with the Vikings.  They expected him to at the very least be a lateral transfer from Cousins.  They weren't looking at a rebuild.  It just turned out that way because of his injury.  It would be like the Cowboys letting Dak go and trading for Matt Ryan.

Edited March 10, 2021 by Doc Brown

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Doc Brown said:

No.  It was a significant three year cap hit for Smith that was back loaded.  They expected Alex to be their guy.  He actually counted more against the Skins cap last year then Cousins did with the Vikings.  They expected him to at the very least be a lateral transfer from Cousins.  They weren't looking at a rebuild.  It just turned out that way because of his injury.  It would be like the Cowboys letting Dak go and trading for Matt Ryan.

 

Cousins did lower his cap hit for 2020 by $10m by extending for two years in fairness before last season kicking some can. Smith was cheaper, but he wasn't a lot cheaper. Cousins was about $28m per at signing and Smith about $24m per at signing. 

[FireChans]

2 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I get what you are saying except what you are proposing has not ever worked.  Show me one Super Bowl champion who had a mid tier QB who was one of the few highest paid QBs in the NFL at the time of the championship.  
 

I mean, maybe I am missing one, but I don’t think it’s ever happened and looking at the list of last super bowl winners the last 30 years I can’t see any that jump out to me.  Yes, plenty of mid tier QBs have won Super Bowls, even bottom third guys like Dilfer.  But  none of them had top paid elite player contracts like what Cousins was seeking, like what guys such as Kap, Tannehill (in Miami), Cousins, etc got at the time they received them.  And those guys won a SB because they have very talented rosters all around them with high priced elite players at many other positions because they did not have a huge QB contract choking their cap.
 

I play to win Super Bowls, that’s is the one and only objective of Football.  I am not remotely interested in fielding a moderately competitive team for 10 years.  
 

So for me, I would rather rebuild which HAS led to several super bowl titles then dump huge amounts of money into a QB that’s not worth that money and will prevent the team from putting a Super Bowl roster together due to the cap issues of paying a player who can’t carry you through the inevitable roster deficiencies it creates.  
 

But again, that’s just my philosophy because I hate losing so much and am super competitive.  And the only thing that counts as winning for me is legitimately competing for championships...not just winning records in the regular season.

I mean, the Chiefs you could argue overpaid for Alex Smith for YEARS, played competitively for all of them, then found their franchise top 6 QB and then won a SB and went to two. 
 

You are arguing that every team without a franchise QB is better off bottoming out for that guy, and the history of the league tells us that’s not true. The Seahawks were competitive pre-Wilson. The Pats were competitive pre-Brady. The Steelers were competitive pre-Big Ben. The BILLS were competitive and a playoff team Pre-Allen 

[GoBills808]

21 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

No.  It was a significant three year cap hit for Smith that was back loaded.  They expected Alex to be their guy.  He actually counted more against the Skins cap last year then Cousins did with the Vikings.  They expected him to at the very least be a lateral transfer from Cousins.  They weren't looking at a rebuild.  It just turned out that way because of his injury.  It would be like the Cowboys letting Dak go and trading for Matt Ryan.

It would be if Matt Ryan was coming off his best year as a pro

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

So I wouldn't argue Eli was Kirk Cousins when he won the Superbowl in 2007 or 2011, but he was a 7-12 QB - ie. closer to Dak - who got hot in the post season, not a 1-6 QB. He counted for 10% of the cap on the 07 Giants and 11.5% of the cap on the 11 Giants. Dak (even on the covid reduced cap) is 12% of the Cowboys cap in 2021 and if it was the actual expected cap for this year he'd be 10%. 

 

On your Baker point - so what would you do if you were Cleveland? Let's say Baker plays out his rookie deal including 5th year option and they go 10-6; 10-6 or 11-5; 9-7 supported by what we both agree is a good roster. You can't tear that roster down to try and get another QB in the draft and then have to go through 3 years of building it back up again and then rinse and repeat. That is a pretty bad plan. 

 

If I am being honest, this is not a fair comparison or example.  Eli had that cap hit because that was before rookie contracts were changed and capped after the JaMarcus Russel disaster in 2007 (The year Eli won his first SB) finally smartened the league up from giving top picked QB's monster contracts right out of college.  And in 2007, he wasn't one of the top few players paid in the league.  

 

He got his biggest contract in 2009 after winning a Super Bowl and SB MVP, something he would do twice as well (second one 2 years later in 2011).  And the year he won the Super Bowl in 2011 for the Giants as among the leagues highest paid, he was the 4th leading passer in the NFL and played to his contract level.  

 

Not to mention in both Super Bowl runs, he put up 15TDs to just 2 INTs in those 8 games with nearly a 100 QB rating.  Kirks postseason production is not close to that.

 

Plus, Eli is a borderline HOF QB...I personally wouldn't vote for him, but hes absolutely going to get consideration for the HOF and could possibly eventually get in.  Kirk is no where near that conversation. 

 

And Eli was either in the top 10 or at least in the top 10 conversations through a lot of his career too.  He finished his career 8th all time in passing yards and ninth all time in Touchdowns.  

 

So while I get why you mention him, and its a good reply overall, it still does not refute what I said earlier about that strategy never working.  Eli was playing to the level of his contract when they won those SB's.  

Edited March 10, 2021 by Alphadawg7

[Doc Brown]

17 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Cousins did lower his cap hit for 2020 by $10m by extending for two years in fairness before last season kicking some can. Smith was cheaper, but he wasn't a lot cheaper. Cousins was about $28m per at signing and Smith about $24m per at signing. 

Correct.  This notion by @Alphadawg7that Washington gave up on Cousins to go full rebuild just and that they viewed Alex Smith as a "stop gap" (which they gave up a 3rd round pick for) just isn't accurate.

[Alphadawg7]

29 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

No.  It was a significant three year cap hit for Smith that was back loaded.  They expected Alex to be their guy.  He actually counted more against the Skins cap last year then Cousins did with the Vikings.  They expected him to at the very least be a lateral transfer from Cousins.  They weren't looking at a rebuild.  It just turned out that way because of his injury.  It would be like the Cowboys letting Dak go and trading for Matt Ryan.

 

Exactly, they felt Alex Smith was better option than Cousins for that roster.  They felt they could keep winning with Smith on a shorter deal and then draft a young guy behind him to eventually take the reigns.  I wasn't saying letting Cousins go was the beginning of the rebuild even though it eventually led to it directly due to injuries and roster decisions.  I used Buffalo as the direct example of a GM coming in and despite a playoff birth, committing to tearing down the roster and rebuilding the cap early on.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

[Alphadawg7]

26 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Cousins did lower his cap hit for 2020 by $10m by extending for two years in fairness before last season kicking some can. Smith was cheaper, but he wasn't a lot cheaper. Cousins was about $28m per at signing and Smith about $24m per at signing. 

 

7 minutes ago, Doc Brown said:

Correct.  This notion by @Alphadawg7that Washington gave up on Cousins to go full rebuild just and that they viewed Alex Smith as a "stop gap" (which they gave up a 3rd round pick for) just isn't accurate.

 

First off, Cousins cap hit on the franchise tag was going to be $34M and he was seeking near that kind of money from the Redskins.  Cousins team wasn't going to budge with them and this went on for 2 seasons.  So Alex Smith contract was quite a bit cheaper than what Cousins was willing to sign for in Washington.  

 

Second, no one believed at any point that Washington saw Alex Smith as a long term answer and the contract wasn't a long term commitment.  They had just made the playoffs and wanted to bring a vet in to keep winning.  They GROSSLY overpaid for Smith when you factor in compensation in the trade at the time to get him and the contract, even though the cap hit was much lower than what Cousins wanted.

 

And once again...grossly over paying for a QB (Smith in this case) again did NOT work out...just like Cousins has not propelled Minnesota anywhere further either and now have had the rest of the roster start to deteriorate with cap issues.  

 

[GunnerBill]

16 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

If I am being honest, this is not a fair comparison or example.  Eli had that cap hit because that was before rookie contracts were changed and capped after the JaMarcus Russel disaster in 2007 (The year Eli won his first SB) finally smartened the league up from giving top picked QB's monster contracts right out of college.  And in 2007, he wasn't one of the top few players paid in the league.  

 

He got his biggest contract in 2009 after winning a Super Bowl and SB MVP, something he would do twice as well (second one 2 years later in 2011).  And the year he won the Super Bowl in 2011 for the Giants as among the leagues highest paid, he was the 4th leading passer in the NFL and played to his contract level.  

 

Not to mention in both Super Bowl runs, he put up 15TDs to just 2 INTs in those 8 games with nearly a 100 QB rating.  Kirk in Washington had 2 playoff games, he averaged 180 yards and threw only one TD total in 2 games.  In 2 playoff games for Minnesota, he averaged 207 yards per game and has 2 total TDs too, so not like hes been much better in the postseason in Minnesota either.  

 

Plus, Eli is a borderline HOF QB...I personally wouldn't vote for him, but hes absolutely going to get consideration for the HOF and could possibly eventually get in.  Kirk is no where near that conversation. 

 

And Eli was either in the top 10 or at least in the top 10 conversations through a lot of his career too.  He finished his career 8th all time in passing yards and ninth all time in Touchdowns.  

 

So while I get why you mention him, and its a good reply overall, it still does not refute what I said earlier about that strategy never working.  Eli was playing to the level of his contract when they won those SB's.  

 

Eli had the 4th highest QB cap hit in the league in 2007. 

 

Yes the rookie scale was different but the point is the same. He was not a top 5 or 6 guy, but he was a top 10 guy and was paid like a top 5 guy.

[dave mcbride]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I agree with this, but I am also not paying a game manager $42M a year.  
 

So I need to see more from Baker before I hand him top end of the market money like guys such as Kap, Tannehill (Miami) and Cousins sought and got before really earning that pay level.  
 

If I was to extend Baker today I would say lower $30M range is fair.  But you know his team is gonna seek $40M plus if he and the Browns have a similar season next year even though.  
 

Would you really want to pay Baker say for example $42M next year if he’s good, not great again this year?  I just don’t think they can win anything if they did that without Baker taking another big step.  And he very well could take a big step in 2021, not knocking him, I mean I like Baker and agree with you and also think he’s going to have a long career in the NFL.

 

Baker so far is a lot more Alex Smith than he is Deshaun Watson.  Doesn’t mean he can’t be a top 5 guy, just saying he hasn’t reached that higher plateau yet IMHO.  

 

I guess I am just not the guy who hands out cap killing contracts to just anyone because it’s what others do.  

I think he's more than a game manager, and I think he's better than Smith (also, he played a lot better than Smith did in his first three seasons). I don't know what his payday will look like, but it's Cleveland. They haven't had a good QB in forever. Letting him go because some other team will pay him more and hoping you'll get lucky in the draft flies in the face of reason given past history. If I'm them, I hope he gives Bernie Kosar-in-his-prime production (good not great) and that the next iteration of Ernest Byner doesn't fumble away a chance at a SB in the AFC championship game. 

[Alphadawg7]

21 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Eli had the 4th highest QB cap hit in the league in 2007. 

 

Yes the rookie scale was different but the point is the same. He was not a top 5 or 6 guy, but he was a top 10 guy and was paid like a top 5 guy.

 

He was a 4th year QB already in the top 10 in the league on his way to a what might end up being a HOF career.  I mean he is the 8th leading passer in NFL history.  

 

I am not even sure why you are trying to argue him here.  I mean, his contract was not out of whack to who he was as a player back then and he was still getting better and finished as a 2 time SB MVP and Winner, 8th all time in passing, and 9th all time in TD's.  And he led the Giants to the playoffs 3 times and a Super Bowl Championship with a SB MVP in his first 4 seasons.  

 

I mean he was 5th in the NFL in passing his second year, which was his first year as a 16 game starter and made the playoffs each of his first 3 seasons as a 16 game starter and one SB win and SB MVP.  

 

Sorry...how again is his contract out of whack, which was a rookie contract to begin with?  I just can't see how this is an example to refute what I said about paying mid tier guys top end money never working.  

 

4th overall pick to SB MVP in 4 seasons while making the playoffs all 3 seasons as the full time starter is a pretty darn good start to a career.  I mean even in his rookie year, Kurt Warner couldn't even keep the kid on the bench who went on to have some more excellent season in AZ after that.  

Edited March 10, 2021 by Alphadawg7

[GunnerBill]

43 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

He was a 4th year QB already in the top 10 in the league on his way to a what might end up being a HOF career.  I mean he is the 8th leading passer in NFL history.  

 

I am not even sure why you are trying to argue him here.  I mean, his contract was not out of whack to who he was as a player back then and he was still getting better and finished as a 2 time SB MVP and Winner, 8th all time in passing, and 9th all time in TD's.  And he led the Giants to the playoffs 3 times and a Super Bowl Championship with a SB MVP in his first 4 seasons.  

 

I mean he was 5th in the NFL in passing his second year, which was his first year as a 16 game starter and made the playoffs each of his first 3 seasons as a 16 game starter and one SB win and SB MVP.  

 

Sorry...how again is his contract out of whack, which was a rookie contract to begin with?  I just can't see how this is an example to refute what I said about paying mid tier guys top end money never working.  

 

4th overall pick to SB MVP in 4 seasons while making the playoffs all 3 seasons as the full time starter is a pretty darn good start to a career.  I mean even in his rookie year, Kurt Warner couldn't even keep the kid on the bench who went on to have some more excellent season in AZ after that.  

 

Yea Eli had more playoff success. He got hot in those playoff runs. I don't dispute that. It will get him into the Hall of Fame. The Giants don't win either of those Superbowls without him. But he was a top 10 QB, paid like a top 5 QB who got hot at the right time and led his team to Championships. The Giants were not an every year contender with him, that takes a top 5 or 6 guy, but they won two Championships. You can win paying a top 10 guy top 5 money. It is harder, you need some luck and your guy to get hot at the right time. But it can be done.

[Alphadawg7]

4 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I get what you are saying except what you are proposing has not ever worked.  Show me one Super Bowl champion who had a mid tier QB who was one of the few highest paid QBs in the NFL at the time of the championship.  

 

11 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yea Eli had more playoff success. He got hot in those playoff runs. I don't dispute that. It will get him into the Hall of Fame. The Giants don't win either of those Superbowls without him. But he was a top 10 QB, paid like a top 5 QB who got hot at the right time and led his team to Championships. The Giants were not an every year contender with him, that takes a top 5 or 6 guy, but they won two Championships. You can win paying a top 10 guy top 5 money. It is harder, you need some luck and your guy to get hot at the right time. But it can be done.

 

But Cousins is not a top 10 QB...so again, I don't see how you are using the comparison.  

 

And the previous comment you are replying about in terms of me saying its never been done, I posted my actual quote above where I said "mid-tier" QB, not a top 10 QB which can be anyone from the 6th best to 10th best guy.  For example, paying say the 7th best QB as top 3 isn't a gross over pay and not what I was referencing.  I am talking about when teams over commit to guys like a Kap, Tannehill (in Miami), or Cousins.  

 

This is why I dont really understand why you are using Eli here in either discussion regarding that comment or Cousins.  

[GunnerBill]

33 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

 

But Cousins is not a top 10 QB...so again, I don't see how you are using the comparison.  

 

And the previous comment you are replying about in terms of me saying its never been done, I posted my actual quote above where I said "mid-tier" QB, not a top 10 QB which can be anyone from the 6th best to 10th best guy.  For example, paying say the 7th best QB as top 3 isn't a gross over pay and not what I was referencing.  I am talking about when teams over commit to guys like a Kap, Tannehill (in Miami), or Cousins.  

 

This is why I dont really understand why you are using Eli here in either discussion regarding that comment or Cousins.  

 

I am using Eli more as a comparator for Dak. I agree committing long term to a mid tier guy like Kirk is not sensible. Minnesota didn't do that though. They committed 3 years which in likelihood means 4 years with the extension at a time when their team was just too talented to tank. I think if the Vikings miss the playoffs this year they move on from Kirk and Zimmer. I think their roster was well worth taking that chance on Cousins. He was an upgrade for them at the time the rest of the roster was ready to "win now". What was their alternative Alpha? Ride with Keenum? I suppose they could have drafted Jackson.... but other than that I really don't know what the better alternative was? 

[Alphadawg7]

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

I am using Eli more as a comparator for Dak. I agree committing long term to a mid tier guy like Kirk is not sensible. Minnesota didn't do that though. They committed 3 years which in likelihood means 4 years with the extension at a time when their team was just too talented to tank. I think if the Vikings miss the playoffs this year they move on from Kirk and Zimmer. I think their roster was well worth taking that chance on Cousins. He was an upgrade for them at the time the rest of the roster was ready to "win now". What was their alternative Alpha? Ride with Keenum? I suppose they could have drafted Jackson.... but other than that I really don't know what the better alternative was? 

And bringing this back to Dak, I am more against the bad contracts of Cooper and Zeke than Dak.  I get why they paid Dak his money and he is a top 10 QB prior to injury. 
 

I still don’t love paying Dak, and missing out on locking him up at $32M was just yet another Cowboys blunder.

 

I do have concerns that Dak can’t carry a team the way other top guys could.  And I think Dallas is going to struggle to seriously contend during his next 4 years.  
 

As far as Minnesota goes, I don’t blame Minnesota for taking a chance on him to try and get to the next level, which at the time meant serious SB run.  Most my talk was about why Washington didn’t pay him and used how Minnesota didn’t get any better with him as evidence as to why they were right not to pay him.

[GunnerBill]

5 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

  Most my talk was about why Washington didn’t pay him and used how Minnesota didn’t get any better with him as evidence as to why they were right not to pay him.

 

But while Minnesota didn't get any better the WFT did get worse....

[HOUSE]

Anyone that follows the Cowboys owner realizes he will be fine spending the money but anything less then a SUPERBOWL win will never fly 

[C.Biscuit97]

6 hours ago, FireChans said:

This is what you and @Alphadawg7 don’t seem to understand. Being overpaid does not mean “we are better off letting you walk.”

 

Half of the players in the NFL are overpaid. 10 years ago, we “overpaid” for Mario Williams. He was our best defensive player and an All-Pro. That’s Free Agency. That’s the NFL.

 

The NFL has a fixed number of wins possible and every year, 31 other teams are trying to steal yours. If you let a talented player walk at the most important position, and you fail to adequately replace him 4 years later, with multiple losing seasons, YOU FAILED.

The Vikings went further with Case Keenum. No Washington fan ever says they miss Cousins.  And Mario Williams was arguably the 1st or 2nd best DE when he was here. Cousins never came close to that level at his position. 
 

part of the reason the Vikings sucked this year is because they had to let talent go because they had to overpay Cousins. He’s solid but hardly a franchise changing qb. And the Vikings will be mediocre as long as they have him at that price.

[FireChans]

13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But while Minnesota didn't get any better the WFT did get worse....

This is the crux. It’s argued that overpaying for a let’s say Alex Smith tier QB to be competitive is somehow bad. KC parlayed a competitive era with Smith into two SB appearances and one win. The Ravens had money tied up with Flacco and won a decent amount of games AND found an MVP QB. 
 

The difference between the “good” franchises and the trash ones is that they don’t have to have a great QB to be good teams. That’s why Washington sucks and has sucked forever. That’s why the Bills pre-Marrone sucked. 
 

The Pats had signed Bledsoe to a 10 year $100M contract and were competitive before Brady ever stepped on the field. If the 49ers walk from Jimmy G and win a Super Bowl in 2 years with one of the rookies or acquire an upgrade at QB, no one is going to say “man what a waste those Jimmy G years were.” 

 

Incredibly, QB’s tend to have more success when they are inserted on a good team with a strong winning culture instead of some bottom feeder with a million draft picks and a horrific culture. It’s why Sam Darnold’s career is in jeopardy.

1 minute ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

The Vikings went further with Case Keenum. No Washington fan ever says they miss Cousins.  And Mario Williams was arguably the 1st or 2nd best DE when he was here. Cousins never came close to that level at his position. 
 

part of the reason the Vikings sucked this year is because they had to let talent go because they had to overpay Cousins. He’s solid but hardly a franchise changing qb. And the Vikings will be mediocre as long as they have him at that price.

The Vikings have been way better than WFT since gaining Cousins. Case Keenum was a mirage, as evidenced by the fact that he eventually went to WFT and went 1-7 as a starter. 
 

A truly hilarious argument.

[C.Biscuit97]

21 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But while Minnesota didn't get any better the WFT did get worse....

They were 9-7 and 8-7-1 with Cousins and went 7-9 the first 2 years after he left. 
 

again, he’s not terrible but he’s not a franchise elevator. He’s dorky Alex Smith with throws the ball down the field a little more. 

[Alphadawg7]

27 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But while Minnesota didn't get any better the WFT did get worse....

I mean no disrespect at all, I enjoy you as a poster and respect you, but this reply here couldn’t be less relevant to what I’ve been saying and what we’ve been discussing.

 

I mean literally my entire point has been that sometimes it’s better to get worse so you can get better versus just committing to mediocrity for the sake of winning a few more regular season games. 

Edited March 10, 2021 by Alphadawg7

[C.Biscuit97]

3 minutes ago, FireChans said:

This is the crux. It’s argued that overpaying for a let’s say Alex Smith tier QB to be competitive is somehow bad. KC parlayed a competitive era with Smith into two SB appearances and one win. The Ravens had money tied up with Flacco and won a decent amount of games AND found an MVP QB. 
 

The difference between the “good” franchises and the trash ones is that they don’t have to have a great QB to be good teams. That’s why Washington sucks and has sucked forever. That’s why the Bills pre-Marrone sucked. 
 

The Pats had signed Bledsoe to a 10 year $100M contract and were competitive before Brady ever stepped on the field. If the 49ers walk from Jimmy G and win a Super Bowl in 2 years with one of the rookies or acquire an upgrade at QB, no one is going to say “man what a waste those Jimmy G years were.” 

 

Incredibly, QB’s tend to have more success when they are inserted on a good team with a strong winning culture instead of some bottom feeder with a million draft picks and a horrific culture. It’s why Sam Darnold’s career is in jeopardy.

The Vikings have been way better than WFT since gaining Cousins. Case Keenum was a mirage, as evidenced by the fact that he eventually went to WFT and went 1-7 as a starter. 
 

A truly hilarious argument.

And keep pounding the table for a guy who signed at the time the richest contract in nfl history who has a .500 record (he is a whooping 4 games over .500 in Minny though!). 
 

washington is run by a stupid person. Doesn’t mean they were wrong about not paying Cousins. 

[FireChans]

2 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

And keep pounding the table for a guy who signed at the time the richest contract in nfl history who has a .500 record (he is a whooping 4 games over .500 in Minny though!). 
 

washington is run by a stupid person. Doesn’t mean they were wrong about not paying Cousins. 

17-31 since letting the man out of the building. Numbers don’t lie

[GunnerBill]

9 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I mean no disrespect at all, I enjoy you as a poster and respect you, but this reply here couldn’t be less relevant to what I’ve been saying and what we’ve been discussing.

 

I mean literally my entire point has been that sometimes it’s better to get worse so you can get better versus just committing to mediocrity for the sake of winning a few more regular season games. 

 

But Washington three years later is not better. Your decisions don't get 5 years to bear fruit in the NFL. It isn't the way it works. Cousins isn't a star. No debate there. But Washington tried to sign him they didn't make a distinct decision to move on and 3 years after screwing that up they are starting 4 different QBs in a single season. That is failure. 

[FireChans]

10 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

I mean no disrespect at all, I enjoy you as a poster and respect you, but this reply here couldn’t be less relevant to what I’ve been saying and what we’ve been discussing.

 

I mean literally my entire point has been that sometimes it’s better to get worse so you can get better versus just committing to mediocrity for the sake of winning a few more regular season games. 

Is it? Isn’t your whole argument, “my goal is to win a Super Bowl?”

 

Out of the last 15 Superbowls, which teams jettisoned a good NFL starting QB and got worse to get good enough to win a Super Bowl? Peyton Manning I guess?

[Alphadawg7]

4 minutes ago, FireChans said:

17-31 since letting the man out of the building. Numbers don’t lie

Who cares though...I mean Washington keeping Cousins and instead going say 25-23 wouldn’t be any better.  No one plays for regular season wins, they play for Championships.  I will take the current WFT roster and cap situation right now over the Cousins led one 100 times over and so would just about anyone else.  

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But Washington three years later is not better. Your decisions don't get 5 years to bear fruit in the NFL. It isn't the way it works. Cousins isn't a star. No debate there. But Washington tried to sign him they didn't make a distinct decision to move on and 3 years after screwing that up they are starting 4 different QBs in a single season. That is failure. 

I didn’t say Washington was good at it.  Just because they didn’t have a good enough front office doesn’t make it wrong.  
 

I do think their staff is better now and that roster is up and coming with some really good young talent.  Outside of QB, it’s a better roster and better cap situation.

 

And let’s not forget the QB carousel also happened due to bad luck of a horrific leg injury to the guy who was supposed to hold the position for a little bit.  And that same guy after almost losing his leg came in this year and made WFT a better team when he was on the field and a tough out despite people saying he would never play again.

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Who cares though...I mean Washington keeping Cousins and instead going say 25-23 wouldn’t be any better.  No one plays for regular season wins, they play for Championships.  I will take the current WFT roster and cap situation right now over the Cousins led one 100 times over and so would just about anyone else.  

I didn’t say Washington was good at it.  Just because they didn’t have a good enough front office doesn’t make it wrong.  
 

I do think their staff is better now and that roster is up and coming with some really good young talent.  Outside of QB, it’s a better roster and better cap situation.

 

And let’s not forget the QB carousel also happened due to bad luck of a horrific leg injury to the guy who was supposed to hold the position for a little bit.  And that same guy after almost losing his leg came in this year and made WFT a better team when he was on the field and a tough out despite people saying he would never play again.

 

But you can't say they made the right decision when all the evidence says they didn't.

[FireChans]

4 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Who cares though...I mean Washington keeping Cousins and instead going say 25-23 wouldn’t be any better.  No one plays for regular season wins, they play for Championships.  I will take the current WFT roster and cap situation right now over the Cousins led one 100 times over and so would just about anyone else.  

I didn’t say Washington was good at it.  Just because they didn’t have a good enough front office doesn’t make it wrong.  
 

I do think their staff is better now and that roster is up and coming with some really good young talent.  Outside of QB, it’s a better roster and better cap situation.

 

And let’s not forget the QB carousel also happened due to bad luck of a horrific leg injury to the guy who was supposed to hold the position for a little bit.  And that same guy after almost losing his leg came in this year and made WFT a better team when he was on the field and a tough out despite people saying he would never play again.

Yeah your argument comes down to “hope” but with really no backing. WFT’s chances of winning a Super Bowl aren’t really any higher than any of the other mediocre teams in the NFL, they just have a few more lotto tickets. That’s not worth much of anything. 
 

It is the way to keep the fans dreams alive as you continue to suck over and over and over again.

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, FireChans said:

Yeah your argument comes down to “hope” but with really no backing. WFT’s chances of winning a Super Bowl aren’t really any higher than any of the other mediocre teams in the NFL, they just have a few more lotto tickets. That’s not worth much of anything. 
 

It is the way to keep the fans dreams alive as you continue to suck over and over and over again.

 

Exactly this.

[Chicken Boo]

6 hours ago, CincyBillsFan said:

 

The Bills were a QB away for over 20 years.  That tall order can be as high as Mount Everest.

 

 

 

No doubt, it's the hardest piece of the puzzle to acquire, but QBs are available via trade.  They just have sack up and make the move.  

[Alphadawg7]

25 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

But you can't say they made the right decision when all the evidence says they didn't.

 

Wrong.  Evidence says that 100% proof Cousins was not worth being paid the most in NFL history, which is what he was wanting from WFT.  

26 minutes ago, FireChans said:

Yeah your argument comes down to “hope” but with really no backing. WFT’s chances of winning a Super Bowl aren’t really any higher than any of the other mediocre teams in the NFL, they just have a few more lotto tickets. That’s not worth much of anything. 
 

It is the way to keep the fans dreams alive as you continue to suck over and over and over again.

 

Not my argument at all...you clearly are missing the point.  Its comical to see you arguing to me that WFT would be a better team right now had they paid Cousins the richest contract in NFL history when they were not a good football team when they had him.  

 

 

[GunnerBill]

4 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Wrong.  Evidence says that 100% proof Cousins was not worth being paid the most in NFL history, which is what he was wanting from WFT.  

 

 

How long would he have been that? Months? It is the market.

[FireChans]

5 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Wrong.  Evidence says that 100% proof Cousins was not worth being paid the most in NFL history, which is what he was wanting from WFT.  

 

Not my argument at all...you clearly are missing the point.  Its comical to see you arguing to me that WFT would be a better team right now had they paid Cousins the richest contract in NFL history when they were not a good football team when they had him.  

 

 

No your point is they were bad to be good later. But they aren’t. They just might be. That’s hope. They have been bad and they are still bad. They are in the bottom half of teams in the NFL without many appreciable differences from the other crappy teams. They just might not be. That’s selling hope.

 

You also haven’t pointed to when this has resulted in a Super Bowl win in the modern NFL, but that is your standard for why paying a guy like Cousins is silly.

 

 

[C.Biscuit97]

40 minutes ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Who cares though...I mean Washington keeping Cousins and instead going say 25-23 wouldn’t be any better.  No one plays for regular season wins, they play for Championships.  I will take the current WFT roster and cap situation right now over the Cousins led one 100 times over and so would just about anyone else.  

I didn’t say Washington was good at it.  Just because they didn’t have a good enough front office doesn’t make it wrong.  
 

I do think their staff is better now and that roster is up and coming with some really good young talent.  Outside of QB, it’s a better roster and better cap situation.

 

And let’s not forget the QB carousel also happened due to bad luck of a horrific leg injury to the guy who was supposed to hold the position for a little bit.  And that same guy after almost losing his leg came in this year and made WFT a better team when he was on the field and a tough out despite people saying he would never play again.

For real. If Alex Smith (Cousins’ less dorky twin) does have his leg explode, there is almost no difference between Washington with or without Cousins. In fact, they were better (they were 6-3 when it happened). 
 

No team lets a legit franchise qb hit free agency unless there’s a major injury or they don’t believe in him. The fact that Cousins hasn’t taken Minnesota any further than Keenum and Washington was perfectly fine until Smith’s leg exploding shows he’s not elevating your franchise.  And Minnesota is going to lose a lot of good talent because they paid cousins that much.

[Alphadawg7]

12 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

For real. If Alex Smith (Cousins’ less dorky twin) does have his leg explode, there is almost no difference between Washington with or without Cousins. In fact, they were better (they were 6-3 when it happened). 
 

No team lets a legit franchise qb hit free agency unless there’s a major injury or they don’t believe in him. The fact that Cousins hasn’t taken Minnesota any further than Keenum and Washington was perfectly fine until Smith’s leg exploding shows he’s not elevating your franchise.  And Minnesota is going to lose a lot of good talent because they paid cousins that much.

 

Couldn't agree more, and honestly, its pretty indisputable really.