NGT: Can the Cowboys be a contender with Dak Prescott as their QB?

[MightyGiants]

Well...they shot themselves in the foot IMO. Dak isn't a 50 million dollar a year QB in this league. At some point, they are going to be in cap hell. And if Dak gets another major injury, they could be in QB hell

The Cowboys are already over next year's cap, so I think they are going to be in "cap hell"

[MightyGiants]

Its a conundrum a lot of teams face at some point. 

Do you say goodbye to a QB like Dak instead of giving him the same money as elite QBs? 

Washington did that with Cousins, how has that worked out?

Not sure what the answer is. When you have these 2nd or 3rd tier QBs they need more around them to win a championship.  Paying them the same as tier 1 guys makes it impossible to put enough around them.  Getting rid of them for a different QB is risky for obvious reasons. 

Damned if you do, damned if you don't

[kartanoman]

Part of the problem in Dallas though is probably McCarthy. I think a better coach gets them at least to the NFC Championship in the last couple of years.

I agree with you, in some respect, that McCarthy is the wrong coach for the Cowboys. But, I'd really be interested in your thoughts on how a "better coach" (I'd would love it if you could expand your thoughts about that) takes out the 49ers yesterday. I don't necessarily believe they lost yesterday because of McCarthy, or even Prescott, for that matter. But are they the long-term solution for the Cowboys? That's where I fell in line with your observation.

Thank you if you're able to reply.

Peace!

[MightyGiants]

The QB before Prescott was Tony Romo. He was pretty good.

To answer the OP's question - they've proven they are clearly contenders with Prescott, but it seems that's all they'll be.

Better to have a rookie or journeyman than an okay QB eating up a huge part of the salary cap. The 49ers are a huge example of that right now with Brock Purdy.

Part of the problem in Dallas though is probably McCarthy. I think a better coach gets them at least to the NFC Championship in the last couple of years.

I think as long as Jerrah owns the team, it will be tough to attract the best head coaches.

[killarich]

We also have to consider McCarthy is the head coach , seeing this season we know how much good coaching means ... I think we can all agree McCarthy is not really a good coach ....

I think it's evident he was lucky to have prime time Rodgers at a point in his coaching career

If Daboll is the coach of the Cowboys they may very well be preparing for the niners right now

[AZGiantFan]

I think as long as Jerrah owns the team, it will be tough to attract the best head coaches.

I wonder if he is psychologically scarred by the fact that Jimmy got the lion's share of the credit for the little dynasty, including the Switzer win, instead of Jerry so Jerry subconsciously doesn't hire a great coach so he will get the credit if they win it all.

[kartanoman]

From my vantage point, the key to success is having a good HC (and staff), and a franchise QB, and then hitting one draft out of the park or be successful with multiple drafts.  I believe the Rams' approach is an aberration and that, in the end, it's about sustaining draft success that allows a team to afford the talent they need to compete.

Hi Rich @MightyGiants - Would it be fair to suggest that it is not necessarily about the player (state the impact player's name here) but the player's "value" (i.e. $ per "state your performance metric here" x player "reliability" ... i.e. consistency of performance)? We all have our bias in who might be more valuable than another, but do we ever consider consistency of performance in that equation?

Using that thought process, Barkley's five-year performance with the Giants includes identical bookend seasons (i.e. 2018 and 2022) while, in between, only a single 1,000 yard season (2019) and all three (2019-2021) seasons incurring injury and missed games, as a result. How should we calculate Barkley's "value?" His bookend seasons were identical, and he was uninjured, making his value "high" (for sake of this discussion). Now, add in the three seasons in between, should we grade them to factor out lost games due to injury impacting his "reliability" factor? Or, perhaps, does reliability depend on variables other than just "consistency?" That has been the crux of many discussions here about whether or not to pay Barkley. Yes, there are heuristics which suggest not offering a second contract to RBs as performance (value?) declines on that second contract. Should we then consider certain "intangibles" which a veteran RB provides a team which may enhance that player's "value?" Look at Ottis Anderson, for example. In 1990, Rodney Hampton, Lewis Tillman, David Meggitt and even Lee Rouson were higher in the depth chart than OJ. Yet, in the end, when Hampton went down, Parcells rode OJ all the way to an unlikely championship. Could he have done that exclusively with Tillman or Rouson? Or does today's financial constraints limit a team's ability to carry the old guy with the "it" factor? Does Barkley have the "it" factor?

I'm not looking for explicit answers, only hoping to exchange dialog on folks' opinions as to what "value" means to them.

Thanks for reading!

Peace!

[MightyGiants]

Hi Rich @MightyGiants - Would it be fair to suggest that it is not necessarily about the player (state the impact player's name here) but the player's "value" (i.e. $ per "state your performance metric here" x player "reliability" ... i.e. consistency of performance)? We all have our bias in who might be more valuable than another, but do we ever consider consistency of performance in that equation?

Using that thought process, Barkley's five-year performance with the Giants includes identical bookend seasons (i.e. 2018 and 2022) while, in between, only a single 1,000 yard season (2019) and all three (2019-2021) seasons incurring injury and missed games, as a result. How should we calculate Barkley's "value?" His bookend seasons were identical, and he was uninjured, making his value "high" (for sake of this discussion). Now, add in the three seasons in between, should we grade them to factor out lost games due to injury impacting his "reliability" factor? Or, perhaps, does reliability depend on variables other than just "consistency?" That has been the crux of many discussions here about whether or not to pay Barkley. Yes, there are heuristics which suggest not offering a second contract to RBs as performance (value?) declines on that second contract. Should we then consider certain "intangibles" which a veteran RB provides a team which may enhance that player's "value?" Look at Ottis Anderson, for example. In 1990, Rodney Hampton, Lewis Tillman, David Meggitt and even Lee Rouson were higher in the depth chart than OJ. Yet, in the end, when Hampton went down, Parcells rode OJ all the way to an unlikely championship. Could he have done that exclusively with Tillman or Rouson? Or does today's financial constraints limit a team's ability to carry the old guy with the "it" factor? Does Barkley have the "it" factor?

I'm not looking for explicit answers, only hoping to exchange dialog on folks' opinions as to what "value" means to them.

Thanks for reading!

Peace!

Chris,

I think there are two types of "value" when you talk NFL team building.  There is the "value" in terms of what a player contributes to the team, and then there is value in terms of the salary cap.  Which one are you referring to?

[kartanoman]

We also have to consider McCarthy is the head coach , seeing this season we know how much good coaching means ... I think we can all agree McCarthy is not really a good coach ....

I think it's evident he was lucky to have prime time Rodgers at a point in his coaching career

If Daboll is the coach of the Cowboys they may very well be preparing for the niners right now

Good observations, but your Daboll coaching the Cowboys is interesting ... very interesting. What do you think Daboll has, that McCarthy hasn't, that would get the Cowboys past the 49ers? Maybe another thought, how well do you think Jerry Jones and Daboll would get along? Would they be in alignment as we suggest that Schoen and Daboll are? Is that the Cowboys' "missing ingredient," per se?

Peace!

[kartanoman]

Chris,

I think there are two types of "value" when you talk NFL team building.  There is the "value" in terms of what a player contributes to the team, and then there is value in terms of the salary cap.  Which one are you referring to?

Hi Rich.

In today's game, it really has to be both which require consideration. But let's quickly explore "contribution" as it pertains to the value statement. Quantitative measures, such as yards, TDs, first downs, YAC, etc. are some. What I am digging at is whether or not it is feasible to pay a player for his "qualitative" (subjective?) contributions (e.g. 1990 Ottis Anderson example).

If Barkley's expecting a pay-day, does his qualitative contributions, apart from an expected decline in quantitative contributions (i.e. over the term of that second contract), justify paying the man. I threw the term "it factor" to add flavor to the conversation. Does Barkley have the "it factor?"

I hope that helps clarify my thought process, a little.

Peace!

[BluesCruz]

I dont think Dak was the issue

the overall team was the issue

The 49rs are more talented and tried harder

Im seeing a 49rs Cinncy Super Bowl

[MightyGiants]

Hi Rich.

In today's game, it really has to be both which require consideration. But let's quickly explore "contribution" as it pertains to the value statement. Quantitative measures, such as yards, TDs, first downs, YAC, etc. are some. What I am digging at is whether or not it is feasible to pay a player for his "qualitative" (subjective?) contributions (e.g. 1990 Ottis Anderson example).

If Barkley's expecting a pay-day, does his qualitative contributions, apart from an expected decline in quantitative contributions (i.e. over the term of that second contract), justify paying the man. I threw the term "it factor" to add flavor to the conversation. Does Barkley have the "it factor?"

I hope that helps clarify my thought process, a little.

Peace!

Yeah, that helps.   It's hard to say how much of that sort of value Barkley brings.  I mean it's not an evaluation that is made in a vacuum.   You have to consider it versus alternatives.   It's not really that hard to find a serviceable RB and not much harder than that to find a good one.

[Painter]

Can they be a contender They already are, for gosh sake. More than most teams in the NFL including you know which. And how much less so than whomever loses the NFC Championship game, next week?

But, of course, it's only about Prescott to the extent that it affords the pennybitchers around here an excuse for abuse as they decide how much is too much to pay Barkley, assuming it's anything at all, before informing Schoen of his limits for DJ.

But then, I suppose that might not be unreasonable as we are only talking about spending Fidgetal money.

Cheers!

[AYM]

I agree with you, in some respect, that McCarthy is the wrong coach for the Cowboys. But, I'd really be interested in your thoughts on how a "better coach" (I'd would love it if you could expand your thoughts about that) takes out the 49ers yesterday. I don't necessarily believe they lost yesterday because of McCarthy, or even Prescott, for that matter. But are they the long-term solution for the Cowboys? That's where I fell in line with your observation.

Thank you if you're able to reply.

Peace!

Simply put, he took some very talented teams in Green Bay and consistently failed to win with them - just like he's doing in Dallas. I don't know if it's because he's lazy (which he was reported to be in Green Bay) and thus fails to adequately prepare and motivate his teams and relies on their talent.

I honestly don't know if he's any better than Garrett. In the Prescott era, Garrett didn't have Dan Quinn coaching his defense or Micah Parsons and Trevon Diggs to throw at offenses. On offense, the Cowboys just simply seem to be less than the sum of their parts and have been for quite some time.

If you swap coaches with SF yesterday Dallas wins.

[kartanoman]

Yeah, that helps.   It's hard to say how much of that sort of value Barkley brings.  I mean it's not an evaluation that is made in a vacuum.   You have to consider it versus alternatives.   It's not really that hard to find a serviceable RB and not much harder than that to find a good one.

I firmly agree analysis of alternatives drives the majority of the decision-making process. Each alternative contains attributes which carry some degree of weight, or importance, to the requirements the decision maker must decide will represent the solution, or plan, going forward.

But, in the spirit of the OJ Anderson point (NOTE: understand it is dated and may not be totally applicable in today's roster/cost management principles due to the salary cap constraint), is there ever a time a GM should agree to a player's pay-day because of a qualitative measure which differentiates them from someone else? To keep the scope more focused, we can limit it to just running backs.

Peace!