In retrospect, the Romo extension was a long term mistake

[JDM]

You pay off the prorated cap hit of the signing bonus, plus any other guaranteed money not yet accounted for. This is why you can't cut him.

 

[tw1st3d]

You pay off the prorated cap hit of the signing bonus, plus any other guaranteed money not yet accounted for. This is why you can't cut him.

Even the Pats fan has you fastforward



I'm telling you Nate's brain is boiling trying to figure out how to post something dumber

 

[bigdeal701]

I am so glad to have posters like you pop in once in awhile ........ You make the dumbasses on our board look like solid posters

I don't care who you are that there was funny ^^^^^.

 

[UK Cowboy]

yeah I know who signs 1 year extensions .....

Players on the 40 year old mark ..... Like Peyton Manning ....

But it's not extensions .... It's a series of 1 year contracts.....

You're not too football bright man ......

for some reason you think you pay off contracts .... into the future if you cut a player early ..... wrong

And wrong on how contracts are structured.

Wanna move Romo money? You move it to the back end of his contract..... Last 3 years are base salary


Sit back and read rather than talk ... Ya might learn something

All correct, not to mention if the Cowboys tried to let Romo go early, while they wouldn't have to pay his base salary, the remainder of his signing bonus hit would accelerate, and instead of being spread over 6 years, it would all come due at once. Considering we have to restructure Romo now and convert base salary into signing bonus to create room this year, the accelerated number in the future is only going to go up. The thought that the Cowboys could just part ways with Romo anytime in the next 3-4 years is absurd considering they are over the cap. They signed the 6 year deal for the expressed reason of redoing it every two years to create cap space and keep Romo

 

[Earl Stevens]

After watching ANOTHER.....8-8 season, with Romo going in for back surgery, and turning 34 as his extension BEGINS, there's no question now that the move was not a good one for the teams future. Sure the team had injuries again, but after 3 years, 8-8 is who we are. I realize if Orton had been the QB this year, we would have only won 3-4 games, and it would have sucked. But Romo would be on the books for $0.00 instead of $20 million next year. If we had traded Romo, we would have had 1 or maybe 2 more draft picks contributing now. And while this season would have sucked, picking 3rd or 4th and landing either Bridgewater, Johnny Football or Bortles wouldn't. And we could still go S and DL at the top of the 2nd and 3rd. And with the team going in with a rookie QB, there would be NO thoughts of keeping Austin, Ware, Hatcher or Spencer. The club would be in great shape with the cap in a couple of years, even after resigning TSmith, Dez and Murray to extensions. With a younger roster, and the ability to sign FA's, this club would have been in much better shape for the next 10 years. Now, I have no doubt that Romo will play great again next year, but with what we are losing, 8-8 seems pretty realistic even with him back there. And we are in cap Hell for a while.

1. We would have won more than three or four games without Romo. If we can win five with Kitna, I'm sure we can win five-to-eight with Orton. Let's not overrate Romo here. Romo gives us the best chance to win 11 games or more a year, but he hasn't gotten us past eight wins since 2009 and you could say he's arguably cost us three or four games a year. So simply taking him away from our team for a year does not mean we would only win half as many games as we do with him.

2. I'll never advocate tanking as long as I'm here and breathing. Absolutely never. You never throw away a season. You always try to win NOW in this league when you have a capable quarterback. Now this doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with the fact that we shouldn't have extended him. I only disagree with you wanting the team to sacrifice seasons when you said "And while this season would have sucked." I'll never agree to something like this. There is nothing better than being in the big dance. The Cowboys not being in now absolutely disgusts me, sickens me. I hate seeing all these teams in the playoffs have a chance to win a SB while my team is out and I'm sitting here talking about our offseason.

3. Guys like Johnny Football, Bortles, Bridgewater do not guarantee things will turn it around. Jerry Jones is still here. Jason Garrett is still here.

4. Smith has earned a contract extension. Can't say the same about Dez or Murray, but I would like to keep both on team-friendly deals.

5. Ware still has years left in the tank. He just needs another great DE to take the pressure off of him. Think Strahan when Osi emerged.

 

[fastforward]

The purpose of extending Romo's contract, (with years he will never see), would be that when his 2014 salary is converted to a bonus 1/7th or 1/8th of it would stay in 2014 rather than 1/6th. It would give the Cowboys $500K more room. Simple concept.

 

[UK Cowboy]

1. We would have won more than three or four games without Romo. If we can win five with Kitna, I'm sure we can win five-to-eight with Orton. Let's not overrate Romo here. Romo gives us the best chance to win 11 games or more a year, but he hasn't gotten us past eight wins since 2009 and you could say he's arguably cost us three or four games a year. So simply taking him away from our team for a year does not mean we would only win half as many games as we do with him.

2. I'll never advocate tanking as long as I'm here and breathing. Absolutely never. You never throw away a season. You always try to win NOW in this league when you have a capable quarterback. Now this doesn't mean I necessarily disagree with the fact that we shouldn't have extended him. I only disagree with you wanting the team to sacrifice seasons when you said "And while this season would have sucked." I'll never agree to something like this. There is nothing better than being in the big dance. The Cowboys not being in now absolutely disgusts me, sickens me. I hate seeing all these teams in the playoffs have a chance to win a SB while my team is out and I'm sitting here talking about our offseason.

3. Guys like Johnny Football, Bortles, Bridgewater do not guarantee things will turn it around. Jerry Jones is still here. Jason Garrett is still here.

4. Smith has earned a contract extension. Can't say the same about Dez or Murray, but I would like to keep both on team-friendly deals.

5. Ware still has years left in the tank. He just needs another great DE to take the pressure off of him. Think Strahan when Osi emerged.

If you really think that this team could have won 5-8 games with Orton at QB, if that's what you really think, then from that point of view, extending Romo would have to be the single worst move in the history of the league. That's basically $100 million down the toilet, since you could have just as easily been right where you are without spending the money. Personally, I think without Romo, and with our defense where it is, we would have been lucky to win 4 without him. He's a great player. But not resigning him wouldn't have been tanking. If the team is a perpetual 8-8, and their stated goal as the Dallas Cowboys is to win Super Bowls, then signing a QB to a contract that will pay him 8 figures till he is 40 isn't the way to go IMO

 

[UK Cowboy]

The purpose of extending Romo's contract, (with years he will never see), would be that when his 2014 salary is converted to a bonus 1/7th or 1/8th of it would stay in 2014 rather than 1/6th. It would give the Cowboys $500K more room. Simple concept.

Uh, No. The Cowboys will take his base salary, let's say it were $14 million with a cap hit of $18 million. Then, depending on the amount of room they need to generate, and how much they want to add to the back end, they would convert base to signing bonus. If in that scenario they converted, say, $12 million to signing bonus, his base salary for this year would be $2 million, there'd be another cap hit of $2 million for spreading the $12 million over 6 years, and with his previous bonus hit of $4 million added in, his cap hit this year would be $8 million instead of $18

 

[blue jersey jinx]

I'd rather pay the going rate for a Qb that keeps the Cowboys in the hunt ...... Than pull what the Patriots pulled an fuck over the only Superstar Qb they ever had.

See Tom took a contract of about half of what he was worth...... For the Pats to keep a team around him.
Instead for example ... They sent Welker packing.

Where this matters is ... when you go out trying to get people to play for your team.... Free agents look at this.
How many Free agents do you ever see wanting to go to New England? To work with ol Tom and win a ring?

Why do you think the Redskins have to so seriously overpay any free agent they bring in? No loyalty to their players or coaches

Yet this 8-8 Cowboys team is on every players top 5 list.
If you say that's bullshit ... they dont wanna play for Jerry ... or thisexcuse or that .... You're full of shit.
Any superstar in Dallas makes more than his contract in endorsements More than EVEN Brady makes

And when Brady finally hangs it up ....... They really wont attract free agents.... and will return to all they were before him........ Nothing

No. The Patriots build through the draft like we used to. They stay away from most free agents. Instead they come to Dallas for a nice contract and stink up the place. Wow, clueless.

 

[fastforward]

Uh, No. The Cowboys will take his base salary, let's say it were $14 million with a cap hit of $18 million. Then, depending on the amount of room they need to generate, and how much they want to add to the back end, they would convert base to signing bonus. If in that scenario they converted, say, $12 million to signing bonus, his base salary for this year would be $2 million, there'd be another cap hit of $2 million for spreading the $12 million over 6 years, and with his previous bonus hit of $4 million added in, his cap hit this year would be $8 million instead of $18

Completely agree...but if you can spread the $12M over 8 years rather than 6 there would be a $1.5M cap hit in 2014 rather than $2M. You'd still have to deal with the rest of the cap hit, eventually, but it would be $500K less this year.

 

[tw1st3d]

Completely agree...but if you can spread the $12M over 8 years rather than 6 there would be a $1.5M cap hit in 2014 rather than $2M. You'd still have to deal with the rest of the cap hit, eventually, but it would be $500K less this year.

Thats why you move the entire amount to 2016-2017

2016 he only has a 5 million bonus and in 2017 he has none

Makes him cuttable in 2016 2 years

 

[Earl Stevens]

If you really think that this team could have won 5-8 games with Orton at QB, if that's what you really think, then from that point of view, extending Romo would have to be the single worst move in the history of the league. That's basically $100 million down the toilet, since you could have just as easily been right where you are without spending the money. Personally, I think without Romo, and with our defense where it is, we would have been lucky to win 4 without him. He's a great player. But not resigning him wouldn't have been tanking. If the team is a perpetual 8-8, and their stated goal as the Dallas Cowboys is to win Super Bowls, then signing a QB to a contract that will pay him 8 figures till he is 40 isn't the way to go IMO

With Orton, we are a 5-8 win team, but not easily where we would be with Romo now. With Romo, we are at least 8 wins with the possibility of winning double digit games. My point was that we are not a three or four-win team without Romo. That was already proven in 2010, albeit a small sample size. Players around the quarterback tend to rise to the occasion when there is average quarterback play, like you saw in the season finale.

If you are gonna throw 100 million down the toilet, at least it be for a capable quarterback. The Austin, Ratliff, Roy Williams, Doug Free, Marion Barber moves were far worse for this franchise because those contracts led to the mess we are in today. The mess that gave Romo all the leverage to sign for 100 million dollars at the age of 33.

Whether we like it or not, the Cowboys were forced to give Romo that contract if they wanted to compete for playoffs. They gave him all the leverage because they made other bad financial investments that limited their ability to make any other moves. So paying him 8 figures was the only way to go if the goal is to compete for championships whether we like it or not.

However, I do agree in a sense that giving him the extension might not have been the most prudent move. Even at the time I did not like the extension, but given the mess we were already in financially, there weren't many alternatives. But instead of chastising this move along with the rest of the critics in the media, try seeing the move from a logical standpoint and realize that the moves that preceded it were the most detrimental to the franchise's future.

BTW: You can hardly fine a move in the history of the league that was worse than the Herschel Walker trade.

 

[cowboycolors]

BTW: You can hardly find a move in the history of the league that was worse than the Herschel Walker trade.


1 worse with Bad Results -saints trade for ricky williams




Jerry tried 2 times since the Walker Trade to become Mike Lynn with the Galloway trade and the Roy Williams trade Both bad but not as bad as the Walker trade was on Minny's end

 

[Manster7588]

With Orton, we are a 5-8 win team, but not easily where we would be with Romo now. With Romo, we are at least 8 wins with the possibility of winning double digit games. My point was that we are not a three or four-win team without Romo. That was already proven in 2010, albeit a small sample size. Players around the quarterback tend to rise to the occasion when there is average quarterback play, like you saw in the season finale.

If you are gonna throw 100 million down the toilet, at least it be for a capable quarterback. The Austin, Ratliff, Roy Williams, Doug Free, Marion Barber moves were far worse for this franchise because those contracts led to the mess we are in today. The mess that gave Romo all the leverage to sign for 100 million dollars at the age of 33.

Whether we like it or not, the Cowboys were forced to give Romo that contract if they wanted to compete for playoffs. They gave him all the leverage because they made other bad financial investments that limited their ability to make any other moves. So paying him 8 figures was the only way to go if the goal is to compete for championships whether we like it or not.

However, I do agree in a sense that giving him the extension might not have been the most prudent move. Even at the time I did not like the extension, but given the mess we were already in financially, there weren't many alternatives. But instead of chastising this move along with the rest of the critics in the media, try seeing the move from a logical standpoint and realize that the moves that preceded it were the most detrimental to the franchise's future.

BTW: You can hardly fine a move in the history of the league that was worse than the Herschel Walker trade.

I can agree the Cowboys were forced to give Romo that deal but they made their own bed. While the past contracts you mention did put us where we are today the mass restructuring of other contracts last season is the bigger culprit. I was on board letting all the 30+ year Olds play out their contracts. When Jerry redid a lot of other contracts he made it so he had to resign Romo. I just wish people will stop crying about yesterday and bring an intelligent conversation about tomorrow.

 

[UK Cowboy]

Thats why you move the entire amount to 2016-2017

2016 he only has a 5 million bonus and in 2017 he has none

Makes him cuttable in 2016 2 years

Thats exactly right, and what I think the plan is....if, they have a good young QB on the roster

 

[ArlingtonCowboys100]

I knew it was a mistake before it ever happened. How is it possible that a guy like me understands we were not a player or two away? What is IN this special sauce that steven is talking abo tut? I can't help but notice that Jerrah and stevie look like they are drunk as they sit in the war room

 

[ArlingtonCowboys100]

To me the goal should be building for a superbowl, not just make an appearance in the playoffs. This team was obviously not close and it failed miserably in the 2010-2012 seasons. Romo and company peaked in 2009. There was no good reason to extend Romo IMO.

 

[ArlingtonCowboys100]

It snould be obvious to most that Jerrah has no plan. He never has. You build teams by routinely grooming young qbs and drafting lineman. So instead of finding the next aikman we will be looking at getting clint stoerner,quincy carter or drew henson types.

 

[jarntt]

The purpose of extending Romo's contract, (with years he will never see), would be that when his 2014 salary is converted to a bonus 1/7th or 1/8th of it would stay in 2014 rather than 1/6th. It would give the Cowboys $500K more room. Simple concept.

You can't push out the bonus that far though. 5 years is the most you can go out.

To add on to one of Earls points from a page back or so: why is it that every scenario of replacing Romo with a number 1 draft pick always acts as if it is a guarantee the guy will be great? Luck and Manning have been the only definites over the last 20 years...I'm a lot higher than most on here on Manziel (I've seen most of you call him a 3rd or 4th rounder or say he won't ever be any good), but there is no way you can put a scenario out there and act as if he definitely will be as good as Romo, let alone better.

 

[UK Cowboy]

You can't push out the bonus that far though. 5 years is the most you can go out.

To add on to one of Earls points from a page back or so: why is it that every scenario of replacing Romo with a number 1 draft pick always acts as if it is a guarantee the guy will be great? Luck and Manning have been the only definites over the last 20 years...I'm a lot higher than most on here on Manziel (I've seen most of you call him a 3rd or 4th rounder or say he won't ever be any good), but there is no way you can put a scenario out there and act as if he definitely will be as good as Romo, let alone better.

No one knows for sure on these guys, even the Pro's. If they did, Ryan Leaf wouldn't have gone 2nd overall, JaMarcus Russell #1, Tom Brady wouldn't have gone in the 6th round and Romo undrafted. The Cowboys would be best served to stick to their big board, and if it's wrong, find someone else to put it together.
You said you were pretty high on Manziel. If you were running the Cowboys, evaluated all the players, and had Manziel as your best overall player in the draft, and he fell to you at 16, would you take him, or would you take a need like DL or S? To me, it's a gamble either way