BeastMaster

Again...reading comprehension. I said he carries that team now. They were stronger when they had all those studs on defense (Wilson's deal played a part in losing them). They have stayed relevant with Wilson and he gives you a shot. But Dak is no Wilson...make no mistake about that.

My definition is just fine. Reading comprehension would have had you understand that I said that their line was bad for a few years after the deal which had them take a step back. They seem to have figured it out now, but they are not the same team as when they were a true threat to win it all. Wilson carries them for the most part...something Dak can't do even with an all pro supporting cast. You are clearly the type that wants to settle for the safe option and stick with what you know. I'm more of the all or nothing type. It depends on what you're looking for from your franchise. I understand where your coming from...even if I don't subscribe to that philosophy.

Pereira is full of crap and clearly didn't know the rules then.

Actually, I was ok with Wilson getting paid because he proved he could win. I did believe that it would hurt their roster and they wouldn't be as good, and that was true. His line was patchwork for a few years after and it hurt them. Dallas will get weaker after a Dak deal and they weren't even a playoff team last season with a very soft schedule. Dak has an argument to get a paid...I won't dispute that. What I dispute is whether it's a good move for the Cowboys, and I don't believe it will be. Like anything else, time will tell

Completely agree. The nature of the business is that you get paid for what the team thinks you will be worth, not based on over performing your current deal. He looks to be showing signs of decline to me also, so I'd be hesitant to do much for him besides a team friendly deal with maybe more guaranteed money and a slight increase in salary.

Always funny to read a triggered post that ends with condescending remarks to other posters. Your idea of what is best for Dallas is no better than his idea. Fact is neither has been proven to be the formula to success, and I'd argue yours has history firmly against sticking with the guy that hasn't won squat and paid him top dollar, but that's neither here or there. At least tearing it down will give them a shot at building the team and possibly finding a comparable if not better option down the road while the QB is not eating up a huge portion of cap space. It'll be fun to re-visit this one in a year or two. My money is on Dallas being the same disappointment that they've been with most saying paying Dak was a mistake.

Don't see any team dealing for that unless it's a 4th/5th rounder.

I'm all for giving Foster a last shot...the kid has some serious burst, and has shown some connection with Allen. Gonna have to show more though to stay on this roster this upcoming season

??

Spot on, bro!

Now we're getting to the bottom of your agenda...

Awesome against Miami, Washington x2, Giants x2, Lions, and Eagles once. Their signature win was against the Rams who were not very good either. This Dak was awesome crap is complete and utter nonsense.

So you joined up here to tell us about Josh Norman? Consider me skeptical

His game isn't predicated on athleticism...it's about reading the QB and being in the right spots. Josh Norman can still be very good, and Buffalo is the perfect place for that to happen.

Many posters here are exposing their knowledge or lack thereof Josh Norman is an instinctive player that has always succeeded doing just that. When he's put in a position where that is properly utilized, he will thrive. Guess what McDermott and Frazier are going to do?

I'll reserve judgement until I see him back under McDermott and this scheme. There's a good chance he can still be very effective, and clearly this coaching staff believes it with the signing.

There are other factors as I've stated with Dak. If we were a 500 team where he failed to deliver against winning teams and put up lots of garbage time numbers, I'd be wary of paying him. And Allen also doesn't have the benefit of a loaded offensive roster, so that would also need to be taken into account.

I would be disappointed. I want my QB to elevate my teams play and deliver against the best.

When it comes time to decide on paying him or not, we can have the same discussion. Right now he's still progressing

It's cool...you can die on the Dak Prescott hill if you'd like. My team isn't gonna pay him so I'm good with it. It almost seems like you guys would love Dak on the Bills more than the guy we have now. It wasn't on Dak? Since when is the QB obsolved from the teams performance? He was awful against nearly every good team. That surely was on him.

Minnesota was a quality team before Cousins. Teddy Bridgewater ring a bell?

But the point is you should crater instead of toil in mediocrity. You seem to be content with competent QB play with little success. I'd rather tear it down and try again before investing in something that won't deliver a good return

Better, but his point was the Bills sucked because they never had a Dak Prescott during their streak of ineptitude. They had a guy who didn't lose the game in Tyrod but certainly didn't win it for them or beat good teams. In that way, they are similar...hence my reply to him.

And to be clear...I hope Dallas does pull the trigger and pays him. I can see it from Daks perspective, and he has a case. I just don't think it's a move that will get Dallas to where they wanna go. Matter of fact, I think it will make it much more difficult for them to build a roster that he clearly needs to contend.

They need him? For what exactly? Garbage time stats, only shows up against bad teams, and can only get his team to around 500 despite being surrounded by talent. Yup...that's the guy I wanna pay top dollar to lead my team