(NFL News) Dak Prescott Turns Down $33 Million Annually

[Raleigh PF]

All these Marty Hurney threads are seriously mislabeled.

Here I was, thinking the discussion was going to be about QBs and/or Dak Prescott. Silly me.

[1of10Charnatives]

2 minutes ago, Raleigh PF said:

All these Marty Hurney threads are seriously mislabeled.

Here I was, thinking the discussion was going to be about QBs and/or Dak Prescott. Silly me.

Honestly I really wish people would stop and take a moment to focus on what's important here.

Me.

[Mr. Scot]

4 minutes ago, Raleigh PF said:

All these Marty Hurney threads are seriously mislabeled.

Here I was, thinking the discussion was going to be about QBs and/or Dak Prescott. Silly me.

TCH likes to take dumb positions just so he can argue with me. Basically, he lets me define him.

Not something I'd be too proud of if I were him, but hey...

[Mr. Scot]

20 minutes ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

Right.  Which makes it an improper comparison.  You are comparing Hue Jackson being hired for a 3rd job the same as evaluating Hurney's second.

I am saying that almost all of the performance flack Hurney gets comes from his first stint.

You are bringing up Hue Jackson, where his *second* stint is actually what hurt him.  He was a promising OC that went 8-8 his first year as a head coach in Oakland.  Before failing miserably his second chance.  So he got worse.

That is the opposite of Hurney.  Hurney isn't perfect, but his decisions have been better this time around.

So.  The comparison doesn't really make sense.

Marty's first stint: 86-90 in the regular season (.489) 5-3 in the few times we made postseason (.625) for an overall record of 91-93 (.495)

Marty's second stint, not counting 2017: 12-20 in the regular season (.375) no postseason appearances

Wanna argue it's not fair to not give him credit for 2017 (despite the fact he had nothing to do with the draft or free agency? Cool. Dumb, but cool.

Marty's second stint, counting 2017: 23-25 in the regular season (.479) 0-1 in the postseason (.000) for an overall record of 23-26 (.469)

You were saying something about Hue Jackson being bad because he got worse his second time around?

Now, if you wanna use a different metric like say, number of winning seasons, well then Marty's first stint gave him a success rate of 3 winning seasons in 11 (.273). His true success rate as far as winning seasons in round two would actually be zero, unless again you take the silliness of crediting him with 2017 which would put him at 1 of 3 (.333) so hey, there's that...

[Sgt Schultz]

If the issue with Dak is guaranteed money vs. salary vs. incentives, I can understand his point.  I still don't think he is worth $33M, and I have been more or less on his side thinking he is a good (but not great) NFL QB.

But incentives are dependent on a lot more than just his play.

The Cowboys are one of two things, maybe both.  Either they are a collection of talent that has never realized its expectations/potential due to a mediocre at best head coach, or, they are a collection of talent that can not mesh to perform as a team and realize its expectations/potential.  I guess the third option is they are not as talented as a lot of people think.

But, if you are Dak and any combination involving #2 or #3 is true, you want guaranteed money and salary, not incentives.

My own personal belief is #1 and #2 are both true.  Garrett was not Bill Walsh or Bill Belichick, and Jerrah Jones confuses assembling a roster with names as a ticket to victory with no regard for how or if those names can gel together.

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

44 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Marty's first stint: 86-90 in the regular season (.489) 5-3 in the few times we made postseason (.625) for an overall record of 91-93 (.495)

Marty's second stint, not counting 2017: 12-20 in the regular season (.375) no postseason appearances

Wanna argue it's not fair to not give him credit for 2017 (despite the fact he had nothing to do with the draft or free agency? Cool. Dumb, but cool.

Marty's second stint, counting 2017: 23-25 in the regular season (.479) 0-1 in the postseason (.000) for an overall record of 23-26 (.469)

You were saying something about Hue Jackson being bad because he got worse his second time around?

Now, if you wanna use a different metric like say, number of winning seasons, well then Marty's first stint gave him a success rate of 3 winning seasons in 11 (.273). His true success rate as far as winning seasons in round two would actually be zero, unless again you take the silliness of crediting him with 2017 which would put him at 1 of 3 (.333) so hey, there's that.

Judging a GM purely by his win/loss record is juvenile at best. 

Its so silly.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

Judging a GM purely by his win/loss record is juvenile at best. 

Case in point...

Judging by arbitrary stuff like draft grades makes much more sense, right?

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Case in point...

Judging by arbitrary stuff like draft grades makes much more sense, right?

I would judge a GM by drafting, by free agent moves, by contracts.  And taken in context of what he had to work with.

Example, a GM with a ton of holes and low cap space would be given more leniency in the over all product.  (assuming he didn't help create the holes/low cap space)

Once again.  I am not saying he has been perfect.  I am not saying if we move on I'd be disappointed.  I wouldn't. 

I am only saying his 2nd stint has been pretty solid given the context of the situation.

Its the coaches job to actually get wins/losses on the field.  We slammed Rivera for years now about playing lesser skilled veterans over higher skilled younger guys.  This would imply that the GM placed higher skilled players on the team the head coach wasn't using.  

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

I would judge a GM by drafting, by free agent moves, by contracts.  And taken in context of what he had to work with.

Example, a GM with a ton of holes and low cap space would be given more leniency in the over all product.  (assuming he didn't help create the wholes/low cap space)

Once again.  I am not saying he has been perfect.  I am not saying if we move on I'd be disappointed.  I wouldn't. 

I am only saying his 2nd stint has been pretty solid given the context of the situation.

Its the coaches job to actually get wins/losses on the field.  We slammed Rivera for years now about playing lesser skilled veterans over higher skilled younger guys.  

It's everybody's fault but Marty's.

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

1 minute ago, Mr. Scot said:

It's everybody's fault but Marty's

That isn't what I said at all.

For someone that lives on the forums I expected a higher degree of reading comprehension with all the practice you get.

I literally said Hurney hasn't been perfect.  I don't get how "he isn't terrible, he's done a solid job" somehow equates to "its everyone's fault but Hurney" unless you are being willfully trolly.

[Mr. Scot]

Just now, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

That isn't what I said at all.

For someone that lives on the forums I expected a higher degree of reading comprehension with all the practice you get.

As mentioned in a previous post, I know how to read your posts specifically pretty well.

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

As mentioned in a previous post, I know how to read your posts specifically pretty well.

Yeah.  I get it.

Instead of reading the words I type you just make up my entire point of view (that conflicts with the words I type) and then argue things I never stated.

I guess its easier when you can fabricate the things you think people are saying so that you can push a personal narrative.

I don't think Hurney is perfect.  I don't think he's done an amazing job.  My entire point is that he isn't nearly as bad as people are saying *this stint*.  

If you want to take anything extra from that, that is on you.  You are putting words in my mouth.  I would prefer you not outright lie about me.

 

 

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, Tepper's Chest Hair said:

Yeah.  I get it.

Instead of reading the words I type you just make up my entire point of view (that conflicts with the words I type) and then argue things I never stated.

I guess its easier when you can fabricate the things you think people are saying so that you can push a personal narrative.

Ironic.

[Tepper's Chest Hair]

Just now, Mr. Scot said:

Ironic

Do you feel I made up any thing about you?