Dan Bailey

[jarntt]

I understand you exaggerated the prices to make your point clear. but when a team has a good kicker, you sign him to a long term contract so you don't have to worry about that position anymore. Considering the last time the Cowboys had a kicker with a leg worth keeping on the team was Septien, & he wasn't all that great. You lock up your kicker. Another thing with the cap. Working around a kickers contract is much easier to do than say working around a WRs contract, if you over paid for him. This contract wont kill the cowboys. Dez & other player contracts coming up if done wrong can. Reliability in your kicker helps you win 1/3 of the game. (special teams) As we improve our trenches, we wont be blown out in any games, which will make the kicker all that more important. A position (barring injury) we no longer have to worry about. the kickers contract wont be a reason why we struggle to get under the cap.Sure he is a higher paid Kicker, but it wasn't record breaking. Hell Spencers one year contract was half of the kickers entire contract. Who we honestly could have played without. No matter how it is spun. I am happy with this signing.

While I don't disagree what you are saying and while I haven't seen Baileys actual contract to decide if I think it is good or not, I think you are missing my point. You absolutely DO NOT automatically sign a good kicker UNLESS the deal is good for the team. you don't do that with any player. I know people pick portions of what is said on here and harp on it as if that was the point of the comment, so let me be clear with what I am saying so it is not misconstrued. I love Tyron Smith and think he is going to be a stud for years to come for our team, but if he was offered a 10 year $150M contract there is no other option than to say goodbye and wish him luck. Every player has a value and if the contract significantly exceeds that value it is a bad signing because there is always another option. Signing Bailey was a huge priority in my mind, but like all other players the dollars must make sense...The reaction here was clearly we signed a player we wanted to, so it's a good signing; which isn't automatically correct...

I also like your point about kickers contracts being much easier to work around than other positions because obviously the total $'s are lower.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

While I don't disagree what you are saying and while I haven't seen Baileys actual contract to decide if I think it is good or not, I think you are missing my point. You absolutely DO NOT automatically sign a good kicker UNLESS the deal is good for the team. you don't do that with any player. I know people pick portions of what is said on here and harp on it as if that was the point of the comment, so let me be clear with what I am saying so it is not misconstrued. I love Tyron Smith and think he is going to be a stud for years to come for our team, but if he was offered a 10 year $150M contract there is no other option than to say goodbye and wish him luck. Every player has a value and if the contract significantly exceeds that value it is a bad signing because there is always another option. Signing Bailey was a huge priority in my mind, but like all other players the dollars must make sense...The reaction here was clearly we signed a player we wanted to, so it's a good signing; which isn't automatically correct...

I also like your point about kickers contracts being much easier to work around than other positions because obviously the total $'s are lower.

I understood what you were saying. & if we were paying him 10 mil. a year like your example. I would say hell no. My point is even without knowing all the details. His contract is within the realm of kicker contracts. If I was asked, not using any names. you can sign one of the top kickers for a higher price for kickers (not the top price for a kicker) & lock him up long term. Would you? My answer would be easily be yes. That is how I look at this signing. we can easily work around 22.5 mil over 7 years on the cap. Which like you said we haven't even seen the details, which mean some of that 22.5 mil may never been seen So worse case scenario of the contract I am cool with it. After seeing details it could only get better.

 

[jarntt]

If I was asked, not using any names. you can sign one of the top kickers for a higher price for kickers (not the top price for a kicker) & lock him up long term. Would you? My answer would be easily be yes..

I don't answer the question without names because we all value different players differently, but I'll be to the point and specific and say that if you ask the same question with Bailey I likely say Yes. It's the long term part that concerns me. I did not say I don't like the contract. Also, remember that in a cap world the longer the contract is (at the same average value) the worse it normally is for the team when a player gets at or above full value. The problem with our team is we are rubbing nickels together to stay under the cap, so every $ matters to us. We keep paying everyone of our players at top 5 value like we have for years and we will keep having guys like Heath and Webb on the field when we get an injury because we can't sign anyone else...

 

[PDay8810]

"You absolutely DO NOT automatically sign a good kicker UNLESS the deal is good for the team"


you do here when the young kicker is as good as there is out there in the game and 3 or 4 kickers will still make more money. That's good for the team.

"I also like your point about kickers contracts being much easier to work around than other positions because obviously the total $'s are lower"


maybe it's me but that was his whole point


"Also, remember that in a cap world the longer the contract is (at the same average value) the worse it normally is for the team"




not true with most kicker situations.....I think you'll see it different once you get to study the contract. The kicker wanted to be here and with his performance thus far and being 7 years will be a very good thing

 

[jarntt]

"You absolutely DO NOT automatically sign a good kicker UNLESS the deal is good for the team"


you do here when the young kicker is as good as there is out there in the game and 3 or 4 kickers will still make more money. That's good for the team.

"I also like your point about kickers contracts being much easier to work around than other positions because obviously the total $'s are lower"


maybe it's me but that was his whole point

Sure has been a lot of typing if that was the whole point, so I don't know about that. Looks more like everyone said we got our guy so it's good regardless. Top 3 or 4 for this year for average salary or top 3 or 4 total $'s? I don't know kicker contracts, but i'll bet not too many are higher than $22M if that is what Bailey got...

 

[jarntt]

not true with most kicker situations.....I think you'll see it different once you get to study the contract. The kicker wanted to be here and with his performance thus far and being 7 years will be a very good thing[/QUOTE]

Agree which is why I've yet to say whether I like it or not

 

[jarntt]

My point was just let's not lose track of the $'s when judging the signing as good or bad.

 

[Schmoopy1000]

I don't answer the question without names because we all value different players differently, but I'll be to the point and specific and say that if you ask the same question with Bailey I likely say Yes. It's the long term part that concerns me. I did not say I don't like the contract. Also, remember that in a cap world the longer the contract is (at the same average value) the worse it normally is for the team when a player gets at or above full value. The problem with our team is we are rubbing nickels together to stay under the cap, so every $ matters to us. We keep paying everyone of our players at top 5 value like we have for years and we will keep having guys like Heath and Webb on the field when we get an injury because we can't sign anyone else...

I think our cap situation is the only reason the contract is questioned at all. At least with this particular player we are paying a top 5 contract (for the position) a top 5 player. to me the contract meets the reasoning for it.
QBs will always be over paid for any new contracts for any team. (except maybe a top 3 QB)
WR & RB contracts are the scary wild card ones to me. Since it seems you can get serviceable players at that position any given year.
But I agree that JJ does seem to have a spending problem, I just don't think this contract is one of them.

 

[PDay8810]

"The problem with our team is we are rubbing nickels together to stay under the cap, so every $ matters to us. We keep paying everyone of our players at top 5 value like we have for years and we will keep having guys like Heath and Webb on the field when we get an injury because we can't sign anyone else"


the kicker at this point is the only player on this team that should be paid top 5. We put guys like Webb on the field because we draft them as a top 150 draftee. The evaluators is the problem and they continue to pay players that has accomplished a 500 record. This management group continues to see this team as a player away while the league is designed for teams to be 500.
The signing of the kicker is not a good example....it actually makes the most since towards building a playoff team

 

[PDay8810]

Sure has been a lot of typing if that was the whole point, so I don't know about that. Looks more like everyone said we got our guy so it's good regardless. Top 3 or 4 for this year for average salary or top 3 or 4 total $'s? I don't know kicker contracts, but i'll bet not too many are higher than $22M if that is what Bailey got...

didn't see the regardless part but you're right. Everything I've read say's he's not top 3 paid and it's a great signing.

 

[negativeCreep]

I guess I'm the only one that doesn't think this is a crazy signing.

He has won 7 games in the past two season with a game ending field goal

Without that the Cowboys aren't 16-16 the past two years the are 9-23. And instead of even being able to play for it in the final game ..... Cowboys are the laughing stock of the NFC East.


What's going to be real funny are the ones that say this is a dumb signing are going to be the ones all on board with paying Dez Bryant top 5 receiver money. When in reality he is somewhere around top 15
( worth about 5-7 million a year) and is gonna get around 15

but hey if it wins fantasy football leagues ...... who cares if it wins ball games

doesn't win fantasy football leagues either (lol)

 

[R.J. MacReady]

And the funniest part is we never need a field goal to win.

By all means ....wait till you get sick to buy heath insurance.

 

[jarntt]

By all means ....wait till you get sick to buy heath insurance.

LOL...

I don't know about "germanjohn", but I remeber some games we won by a FG and a ton of games we won by 3 points or less which you could say the kicker played a role in us winning, whether his kick was with time running out or not. As far as losing them, he missed so few that i don't think you will find many. Of course we all remmber the Giant game, but that was a weird one at the end...

 

[ArlingtonCowboys100]

Lol. I was the only one at espn that said austins contract was retarded. At lest bailey has had more than ONE good season and has earned an extension!!!!

 

[PDay8810]

Lol. I was the only one at espn that said austins contract was retarded. At lest bailey has had more than ONE good season and has earned an extension!!!!

perhaps if your espn name was known

 

[fordman84]

LOL...

I don't know about "germanjohn", but I remeber some games we won by a FG and a ton of games we won by 3 points or less which you could say the kicker played a role in us winning, whether his kick was with time running out or not. As far as losing them, he missed so few that i don't think you will find many. Of course we all remmber the Giant game, but that was a weird one at the end...

It's not even about being within 3 points. we have had games where we had 3 FG's. You make 1 out of 3, or don't trust your kicker so you go for it on 4th and 8 on the 35 yard line and don't get it...and you could lose by 6 points.

If nothing else, Dallas doesn't need to waste a 6th or 7th rounder (or freakin 4th jerry) on a kicker for at least the next 4 yeas.

 

[snookdad]

We can renew him when we make it past the 2nd round of the playoffs. Otherwise he's worthless IMO. That's not to say he isn't talented- but DAL can't put him in a position to really justify that paycheck. Literally, the past 3 years: barely scrape by in the regular season, maybe win a wild card, then lose. And the funniest part is we never need a field goal to win.

I agree here How many times this season did we when with his leg? Maybe 1 or 2 times. He's a great kicker. I personally think that is awesome but on an 8 -8 team his value is diminished imo. Comparing a kicker who's expected to make 5-7 appearances in a game is not an apple to apple comparison in retain any of our skill players and OL And LB's. I'm glad were keeping Bailey but where this team currently stands I don't understand locking up a kicker for 7 yrs. Just my opinion.

 

[fordman84]

well we were 8-8 and won only 3 games by more than a TD. The GB game he kicked 15 of our 36 points via FG.

He accounted for 131 points this year out of a possible 137, so I'd say I'm ok giving him a contract that doesn't com close to breaking the bank to not have to worry about a 35-50 yard FG. He's almost automatic.

 

[snookdad]

Ford or some of those numbers from extra points which is basically a free bee? What kicker in the NFL who plays 16 games don't give his team 100 points?

 

[snookdad]

Dan made 28 field goals which is very solid,but again what's the league avg maybe 20. Hey I'm not arguing against Dan he's a very good kicker. It's the contract. If we were a 10-6 team with no cap problems I would be very happy with this signing, but we're not. I don't expected everyone to agree with my view point i'm just expressing why I fill the way I fill.