Does Jerry Jones' handling of Romo make Colts fans appreciate what Irsay did with Peyton more?

[oldunclemark]

6 hours ago, chad72 said:

 

Peyton hadn't missed a game in his NFL career up to that point in the 2011 season, so Elway could place his bets on the fact that Peyton, when healthy enough to play, would be smart enough with his style of play like he had shown all his career to keep upright as much as possible.

 

Romo, however, does not have the same longevity credibility prior to the 2016 season that Peyton had, prior to that 2011 season. There in lies the difference, IMO. Both would have incentive laden contracts with physicals to pass etc. like Peyton had to pass after year 1 to get $40 mil. guaranteed for the next 2 years. However, Romo's chances of getting hurt, IMO, would be greater based on history and style of play than Peyton, when both start a season upright and healthy.

 

However, like southwest, I felt Irsay made it easier on Peyton, himself and the Colts fans by giving clear direction to the franchise and Peyton by moving on. In the same situation as Jerry Jones, I am confident Irsay would have still moved on from Romo.

 

While Irsay does care about the Colts, his care for the players accompanies it if they don't conflict massively. By designating Romo as a June 1 cut even though he releases him now, Jerry Jones would do right with Romo AND the Cowboys, hence it peeves me that he is grand standing with no obvious benefit to the Cowboys whether he designates Romo as a June 1 cut now or then. A hypothetical draft pick that he is not going to get in a game of "I dare you" with the Texans or Broncos is not reason enough for me. It is almost a case of "if I cannot have the toy, I'd rather you not have it" mentality, which is childish to me.

I see what you're saying.

Point of order: Can Dallas release Romo NOW an designate it as a June 1 release.? I did not know that was possible.

 

I know that QBs who are drafted come in at the end of April and could be starters........but Tom Savage and Trevor Siemian will have been working with the receivers all spring. Its going to be hard to then bring in Romo.

It does seem like Jones is encouraging Houston and Denver to 'move on' .....but as a business man, he's throwing away money to keep Romo as a backup.

...but Dak is playing for the minimum...he could keep Tony

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, oldunclemark said:

I see what you're saying.

Point of order: Can Dallas release Romo NOW an designate it as a June 1 release.? I did not know that was possible.

 

I know that QBs who are drafted come in at the end of April and could be starters........but Tom Savage and Trevor Siemian will have been working with the receivers all spring. Its going to be hard to then bring in Romo.

It does seem like Jones is encouraging Houston and Denver to 'move on' .....but as a business man, he's throwing away money to keep Romo as a backup.

...but Dak is playing for the minimum...he could keep Tony

Romo will not be the cowboys backup.

[Jules]

15 hours ago, Synthetic said:

 

 

Romo's body is breaking down. He will be 37 years old within this month. He's had several injuries in the past few years and injuries have put him on the sidelines the last two years. 

 

The only way he could make a SB push for any team needing a QB, is if he some how stays 100% healthy, but that is almost asking for too much with a player who has a history of injury problems. 

 

 

[Superman]

On 4/1/2017 at 7:11 PM, oldunclemark said:

I see what you're saying.

Point of order: Can Dallas release Romo NOW an designate it as a June 1 release.? I did not know that was possible.

 

 

Yes, but they don't get credit for that cap space until June 1.

[RollerColt]

On 4/1/2017 at 9:20 PM, Superman said:

The part where you said Romo is worthless and has no trade value. 

Agreed. Heck, since Osweiler had value in his trade, that alone should be precedent for Romo to have at least something there for teams to want. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

On 3/31/2017 at 3:58 PM, chad72 said:

Irsay was going to incur the dead cap money, but yet he let Peyton go and latch on to a new team as a starter.\

{snipped}

 

So, Colts fans, does this make your appreciate Mr.Irsay more that he gave Peyton a gracious exit and released him earlier to help him with his newer team search than playing games like JJ is with Romo?

 

 

 

not really, see below.

 

 

On 3/31/2017 at 6:27 PM, Superman said:

I'd like to say yes, but I can't answer definitively. The circumstances were too different.

 

Agreed.

 

On 3/31/2017 at 6:27 PM, Superman said:

In Manning's case, his contract forced Irsay's hand. He was due a huge option bonus that could not be renegotiated, and it was due prior to the new league year, so they couldn't trade him before it would be paid. Also, his recovery was still up in the air, so no team would have traded for him when he was due a $28m payout (his contract with the Broncos had no signing bonus, and the guarantees triggered only as he passed physicals every offseason). The Colts either had to commit to paying Manning that bonus, or release him.

 

^^^   Ye folkss, this ^^^^

 

Manning received approximately 26 million while missing the 2011 season, and was due a Team Roster Bonus of 28 million cash, as you point out, on March 8, 2012.  He was released just before that and they had their press conference (Manning / Irsay) on March 7th, 2012 I believe. Manning would not push back the roster bonus due date, and the new league wouldn't begin until the following week, so no go on Colts giving him 28 mil, then trading him.

 

On 3/31/2017 at 6:27 PM, Superman said:

With Romo, he has no big bonus due, just a base salary that isn't paid out until Week 1. Unlike Irsay, Jones' hand is not being forced. And even if they were to trade him during the season, they'd only be paying a prorated portion of his salary. Romo also took the field last season and showed that he's physically capable of playing. Unlike Manning, he actually has trade value. 

 

I do think it's kind of low for Jones to hold Romo in limbo, when he's obviously already told him that they're moving on. They were apparently ready to release him, then they realized that a couple teams really wanted him, so now they're trying to squeeze something out of them. At least, that's my read on it. I don't think Irsay would have handled the situation the same way, if the circumstances were exactly the same, but that's conjecture on my part.

 

I tend to agree, but I've not heard a peep out of Romo, or his agent.  I wonder what the player is thinking?  Just how many teams would he consider joining, given the opportunity? There's always two sides, and I've nothing form one side.

[Superman]

6 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

Manning received approximately 26 million while missing the 2011 season, and was due a Team Roster Bonus of 28 million cash, as you point out, on March 8, 2012.  He was released just before that and they had their press conference (Manning / Irsay) on March 7th, 2012 I believe. Manning would not push back the roster bonus due date, and the new league wouldn't begin until the following week, so no go on Colts giving him 28 mil, then trading him.

 

 

I tend to agree, but I've not heard a peep out of Romo, or his agent.  I wonder what the player is thinking?  Just how many teams would he consider joining, given the opportunity? There's always two sides, and I've nothing form one side.

 

To the first bolded, Manning could not push back the due date, based on my understanding of the CBA. 

 

Article 13, Section 8 (a) (iii) and (b): https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf 

(a)(iii) No contract renegotiations may be done for a current season after the last regular season game of that season

(b) No Player Contract, and no contract renegotiation or extension, may be agreed to between a Player and a Club for any term that expires prior to the last day of a League Year. All rights by a player to terminate a Player Contract must be exercised prior to the first day of any League Year to be terminated.

 

To me, that means that Manning's option bonus, which was due prior to the end of the 2011 league year, could not be renegotiated, restructured, moved, etc., once the final regular season game was played. 

 

To the second bolded, it's speculation on my part, based on the reports, but I think the Texans traded Osweiler in anticipation of signing Romo. I also think the Broncos would have been interested, at the time. And I can imagine the Niners being interested, also. It seems to me that Romo still wants to play. It does his side no good to call out the Cowboys at this point. 

[Superman]

On queue cue, the Cowboys give other teams permission to talk to and work out Romo. 

 

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/04/03/report-cowboys-tell-teams-they-can-talk-to-tony-romo/

[ColtsBlueFL]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

To the first bolded, Manning could not push back the due date, based on my understanding of the CBA. 

 

Article 13, Section 8 (a) (iii) and (b): https://nfllabor.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/collective-bargaining-agreement-2011-2020.pdf 

(a)(iii) No contract renegotiations may be done for a current season after the last regular season game of that season

(b) No Player Contract, and no contract renegotiation or extension, may be agreed to between a Player and a Club for any term that expires prior to the last day of a League Year. All rights by a player to terminate a Player Contract must be exercised prior to the first day of any League Year to be terminated.

 

To me, that means that Manning's option bonus, which was due prior to the end of the 2011 league year, could not be renegotiated, restructured, moved, etc., once the final regular season game was played. 

 

To the second bolded, it's speculation on my part, based on the reports, but I think the Texans traded Osweiler in anticipation of signing Romo. I also think the Broncos would have been interested, at the time. And I can imagine the Niners being interested, also. It seems to me that Romo still wants to play. It does his side no good to call out the Cowboys at this point. 

 

That would do it, but I remermber at the time, people weren't dishing out that pudding, it was whether Manning would allow a delay.   I must have missed the CBA being reported as the hindrance back then.  And it led to a straight cut, and no payment.  Now who wanted that in the CBA- Owners?  Or NFLPLA?,

[Superman]

5 minutes ago, ColtsBlueFL said:

 

That would do it, but I remermber at the time, people weren't dishing out that pudding, it was whether Manning would allow a delay.   I must have missed the CBA being reported as the hindrance back then.  And it led to a straight cut, and no payment.  Now who wanted that in the CBA- Owners?  Or NFLPLA?,

 

There were some here having that debate at the time. I came away with the impression that Condon and the Colts agreed on having the bonus due prior to the start of the new league year as a de facto no-trade clause, a way to let him hit the market prior to the free agency madness and choose his team. 

 

It's also possible that the stipulation was overlooked when they did the contract. The CBA was brand new, and I don't think in July 2011 anyone imagined that Manning would be released less than a year later. That was before his final operation which ultimately cost him the season. 

 

Because the option bonus was technically due in the 2011 league year, it would have started to be amortized in 2011. So it would be split evenly over five years, instead of just the remaining four. Other than that, I don't see any reason to have it due prior to the start of the 2012 league year, which is usually the decision point for contracts. 

 

The stipulation in the CBA makes sense so that teams can't backload salary and/or bonuses into the just ended season as a way of creating cap space for the coming season. As it stands, if you want to create cap space, you have to convert salary to bonus, which affects your cap moving forward. Basically, once the final regular season game is played, aside from pending incentives and bonuses, your books are set for that year. I think it serves to limit cap manipulation.

[dgambill]

On ‎3‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 5:39 PM, Superman said:

 

Yeah, or retire. 

At first I didn't know what the hold up was but if he retires instead of gets cut than wouldn't the Cowboys save the money on his salary. So if he doesn't like what the other teams might offer him I could see why they wouldn't just cut him straight away. So situation is very different. I suspect they wait it out to see if he wants to play.

[shasta519]

17 hours ago, Superman said:

 

There were some here having that debate at the time. I came away with the impression that Condon and the Colts agreed on having the bonus due prior to the start of the new league year as a de facto no-trade clause, a way to let him hit the market prior to the free agency madness and choose his team. 

 

It's also possible that the stipulation was overlooked when they did the contract. The CBA was brand new, and I don't think in July 2011 anyone imagined that Manning would be released less than a year later. That was before his final operation which ultimately cost him the season. 

 

Because the option bonus was technically due in the 2011 league year, it would have started to be amortized in 2011. So it would be split evenly over five years, instead of just the remaining four. Other than that, I don't see any reason to have it due prior to the start of the 2012 league year, which is usually the decision point for contracts. 

 

The stipulation in the CBA makes sense so that teams can't backload salary and/or bonuses into the just ended season as a way of creating cap space for the coming season. As it stands, if you want to create cap space, you have to convert salary to bonus, which affects your cap moving forward. Basically, once the final regular season game is played, aside from pending incentives and bonuses, your books are set for that year. I think it serves to limit cap manipulation.

 

The bonus wasn't overlooked. Manning (and Condon) were the ones who insisted on having it in the contract (from what I recall)...and it was specifically designed to be a poison pill...to allow Manning and the Colts to part ways. And to your point, it also served as a no-trade clause...allowing Manning to choose his next team. 

 

Ultimately, Manning's exit from the Colts was a strategic plan...engineered by Irsay, Manning and his agent.

 

Manning wanted to go to a Super Bowl contending team to finish his career and cement his legacy. Manning knew it wasn't going to happen with the Colts...who through years of botched drafts had a poor, aging roster.

 

Irsay also saw the writing on the wall and wanted to rebuild the team for long-term success. Not to mention Manning, who still couldn't even throw a football, was still very much a question mark going forward. Because of this, the Colts nearly drafted Dalton in the 1st round of the 2011 draft a couple months prior to giving Manning the contract.

 

And despite having legit concerns about Manning's neck, Irsay didn't request that Manning pass a physical before giving him that huge contract extension (which would be crazy if it wasn't intentional). But he knew that Manning hadn't recovered from the May surgeries and still couldn't throw...and wouldn't pass it, which would be bad for everyone involved.

 

And then after week one of the 2011 season, you have Irsay tweeting about huge changes coming to the Colts in the next 18 months. And Irsay was also quoted a couple years ago that everything had worked out as he had hoped.

 

I just think Manning and Irsay engineered his departure the year before it happened. When I look at the all the details surrounding it, I just can't see it any other way.

[Superman]

1 hour ago, shastamasta said:

 

The bonus wasn't overlooked. Manning (and Condon) were the ones who insisted on having it in the contract (from what I recall)...and it was specifically designed to be a poison pill...to allow Manning and the Colts to part ways. And to your point, it also served as a no-trade clause...allowing Manning to choose his next team. 

 

Ultimately, Manning's exit from the Colts was a strategic plan...engineered by Irsay, Manning and his agent.

 

Manning wanted to go to a Super Bowl contending team to finish his career and cement his legacy. Manning knew it wasn't going to happen with the Colts...who through years of botched drafts had a poor, aging roster.

 

Irsay also saw the writing on the wall and wanted to rebuild the team for long-term success. Not to mention Manning, who still couldn't even throw a football, was still very much a question mark going forward. Because of this, the Colts nearly drafted Dalton in the 1st round of the 2011 draft a couple months prior to giving Manning the contract.

 

And despite having legit concerns about Manning's neck, Irsay didn't request that Manning pass a physical before giving him that huge contract extension (which would be crazy if it wasn't intentional). But he knew that Manning hadn't recovered from the May surgeries and still couldn't throw...and wouldn't pass it, which would be bad for everyone involved.

 

And then after week one of the 2011 season, you have Irsay tweeting about huge changes coming to the Colts in the next 18 months. And Irsay was also quoted a couple years ago that everything had worked out as he had hoped.

 

I just think Manning and Irsay engineered his departure the year before it happened. When I look at the all the details surrounding it, I just can't see it any other way.

 

Ehh, I have some points of contention. 

 

The Colts didn't have to do a new contract with Manning at all, and in hindsight, shouldn't have. They had him on the franchise tag for $23.1m. The contract reduced his cap hit to $16m, which allowed them to keep Addai and sign some other inconsequential players that didn't help the team win games in 2011, and weren't on the team in 2012. The new contract paid Manning over $26m in 2011 alone, and resulted in a cap penalty of $10.4m in 2012. If they had kept him on the tag, they would have had no cap penalty, and Manning could have walked as a free agent. OR, they could have negotiated a contract to keep him, not burdened by the option bonus.

 

If the plan was for Manning to leave after 2011, they could have just kept him on the tag. There was no reason to set up a time bomb and force a future release. At the time Manning signed, while he wasn't fully recovered, the plan was still that he would be able to play in 2011. He didn't have the operation that cost him the season until September, right before the season started.

 

Maybe at that point, Irsay made up his mind. Not when they did the contract, though. When Irsay said that everything worked out as he hoped, he was talking about when they released Manning, not when they did the contract.

 

Of course, they considered the possibility that he wouldn't make it back, which is why the guarantees were to trigger in the future. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

20 hours ago, dgambill said:

At first I didn't know what the hold up was but if he retires instead of gets cut than wouldn't the Cowboys save the money on his salary. So if he doesn't like what the other teams might offer him I could see why they wouldn't just cut him straight away. So situation is very different. I suspect they wait it out to see if he wants to play.

 

Moot point now, Cowboys did cut him, releasing him into FA, and releasing future rights to him.  So Romo is 'stepping away' for a time... not retiring.  Cowboys will likely designate him a post June 1 release to address the cap hit.

[shasta519]

1 hour ago, Superman said:

 

Ehh, I have some points of contention. 

 

The Colts didn't have to do a new contract with Manning at all, and in hindsight, shouldn't have. They had him on the franchise tag for $23.1m. The contract reduced his cap hit to $16m, which allowed them to keep Addai and sign some other inconsequential players that didn't help the team win games in 2011, and weren't on the team in 2012. The new contract paid Manning over $26m in 2011 alone, and resulted in a cap penalty of $10.4m in 2012. If they had kept him on the tag, they would have had no cap penalty, and Manning could have walked as a free agent. OR, they could have negotiated a contract to keep him, not burdened by the option bonus.

 

If the plan was for Manning to leave after 2011, they could have just kept him on the tag. There was no reason to set up a time bomb and force a future release. At the time Manning signed, while he wasn't fully recovered, the plan was still that he would be able to play in 2011. He didn't have the operation that cost him the season until September, right before the season started.

 

Maybe at that point, Irsay made up his mind. Not when they did the contract, though. When Irsay said that everything worked out as he hoped, he was talking about when they released Manning, not when they did the contract.

 

Of course, they considered the possibility that he wouldn't make it back, which is why the guarantees were to trigger in the future. 

 

Those are valid points...and unfortunately all I have for an answer is more conjecture.

 

You are correct about the franchise tag being more ideal. But Manning said he didn't want to sign it (in general) because it would have kept other players from getting signed...like Addai (who would be cut one year later)...and which is why he wanted to get a "long-term" deal done. 

 

Not to mention if Manning would have signed and played under the tag, people would have started asking questions or pointing fingers at someone for not getting a deal done. I doubt Irsay or Manning wanted that. And then when he eventually left in FA the following March, it would have been a HUGE deal. Why would a healthy Manning be leaving the Colts?

 

Instead, the bonus forced the issue...and helped most people understand that the Colts and Manning had to part ways...from a financial standpoint. And of course having the rights to Luck also helped...but I prefer to steer clear of discussion of that season.

 

Also, while he might not have had his fusion surgery until September, he was never close to recovering from the May surgeries. He couldn't even throw a football weeks later, including when and after he signed that deal. And considering he was coming off surgery, how does Irsay not ask for a physical before giving him a huge deal? He had to know how hurt Manning was. So while they might have thought he was coming back at some point in the future, I think they had to know it wasn't going to be any time soon. So it's almost as if Irsay was giving Manning a parting gift. 

 

Again, this is all conjecture. I have no inside information...I am just piecing together the details. How it all worked out is too neat.

[Superman]

On 4/3/2017 at 4:18 PM, dgambill said:

At first I didn't know what the hold up was but if he retires instead of gets cut than wouldn't the Cowboys save the money on his salary. So if he doesn't like what the other teams might offer him I could see why they wouldn't just cut him straight away. So situation is very different. I suspect they wait it out to see if he wants to play.

 

Whether he retires or is released doesn't change what the Cowboys have to pay him -- which is nothing. The primary difference is that, if they release him, they can designate him a June 1 release and split up the cap penalty. 

 

If he had retired rather than being released (which he did, but technically, he was released prior to officially retiring), the Cowboys could make a claim for repayment of a portion of his signing bonus, which I believe is $5m. I doubt they'll do that.

 

As it stands, if the Cowboys release him straight, they'll have a cap penalty in 2017 of $19.6m. If they designate him a June 1 release, they'll have a cap penalty in 2017 of $10.7m, and a cap penalty in 2018 of $8.9m. They are close on the cap for 2017, but they don't need the extra cap space prior to June 1, assuming they don't plan on making any significant transactions, so I assume they'll designate him June 1 and split that penalty over two seasons.

[Superman]

22 minutes ago, shastamasta said:

 

Those are valid points...and unfortunately all I have for an answer is more conjecture.

 

You are correct about the franchise tag being more ideal. But Manning said he didn't want to sign it (in general) because it would have kept other players from getting signed...like Addai (who would be cut one year later)...and which is why he wanted to get a "long-term" deal done. 

 

Not to mention if Manning would have signed and played under the tag, people would have started asking questions or pointing fingers at someone for not getting a deal done. I doubt Irsay or Manning wanted that. And then when he eventually left in FA the following March, it would have been a HUGE deal. Why would a healthy Manning be leaving the Colts?

 

Instead, the bonus forced the issue...and helped most people understand that the Colts and Manning had to part ways...from a financial standpoint. And of course having the rights to Luck also helped...but I prefer to steer clear of discussion of that season.

 

Also, while he might not have had his fusion surgery until September, he was never close to recovering from the May surgeries. He couldn't even throw a football weeks later, including when and after he signed that deal. And considering he was coming off surgery, how does Irsay not ask for a physical before giving him a huge deal? He had to know how hurt Manning was. So while they might have thought he was coming back at some point in the future, I think they had to know it wasn't going to be any time soon. So it's almost as if Irsay was giving Manning a parting gift. 

 

Again, this is all conjecture. I have no inside information...I am just piecing together the details. How it all worked out is too neat.

 

It's all conjecture on our parts, so no worries.

 

But I don't think Irsay would give Manning a $26m "parting gift" when he still had the option to keep him on the tag for $23m, which would be a nice parting gift on its own, and would have set up a cleaner transition. The only benefit that came from doing the contract with the lower cap hit was to keep a bunch of players that didn't wind up helping. And in hindsight, the only way they would have helped would have been if Manning was on the field making things happen. That's why I don't think they were anticipating Manning not playing. They wouldn't have worked so hard to keep his core together otherwise. 

 

As for his timeline to come back, according to WaPo, he had another herniation of the disc in September that ultimately pushed him to spinal fusion surgery. For him to wait until September to have the fusion makes it pretty evident that he anticipated recovering in time to play. He said when he signed the contract that he was happy it would allow him to finish his career in Indy. I don't think they did that contract with the anticipation that he would miss the season and leave right after. 

 

I think if the Colts had won 6 games, didn't have the #1 pick, and didn't have to address that option bonus prior to the league year, Manning would have stayed with the Colts. Same for Polian and Caldwell. But having the #1 pick made it an obvious decision to reboot. 

[King Colt]

On ‎3‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 8:33 PM, jvan1973 said:

But you call jerry Jones an butt head.  Whatever that means.  

"an" butt head? Don't you mean "a" butt head?

[King Colt]

On ‎3‎/‎31‎/‎2017 at 8:10 PM, jvan1973 said:

You have no idea what's going on.   Has his agent came out and complained?  

Switch "came" to "come" and teacher will give you an apple.

[dgambill]

22 hours ago, Superman said:

 

Whether he retires or is released doesn't change what the Cowboys have to pay him -- which is nothing. The primary difference is that, if they release him, they can designate him a June 1 release and split up the cap penalty. 

 

If he had retired rather than being released (which he did, but technically, he was released prior to officially retiring), the Cowboys could make a claim for repayment of a portion of his signing bonus, which I believe is $5m. I doubt they'll do that.

 

As it stands, if the Cowboys release him straight, they'll have a cap penalty in 2017 of $19.6m. If they designate him a June 1 release, they'll have a cap penalty in 2017 of $10.7m, and a cap penalty in 2018 of $8.9m. They are close on the cap for 2017, but they don't need the extra cap space prior to June 1, assuming they don't plan on making any significant transactions, so I assume they'll designate him June 1 and split that penalty over two seasons.

Gotcha. That makes sense. I thought if he retired they wouldn't owe him anything for the next two years as he would give up his salary but I don't know what I was thinking..must have been tired. I guess either way they should have just cut him from the jump...instead of waiting for his answer on his retirement. Either way mute point now.

[Superman]

9 minutes ago, dgambill said:

Gotcha. That makes sense. I thought if he retired they wouldn't owe him anything for the next two years as he would give up his salary but I don't know what I was thinking..must have been tired. I guess either way they should have just cut him from the jump...instead of waiting for his answer on his retirement. Either way mute point now.

 

No, you're right about that. The dead money / cap penalty is an accounting for bonus money they've already paid him, but hasn't hit the cap. They don't owe him anymore money.

 

I guess that got lost in my long-windedness, sorry.

[dgambill]

1 minute ago, Superman said:

 

No, you're right about that. The dead money / cap penalty is an accounting for bonus money they've already paid him, but hasn't hit the cap. They don't owe him anymore money.

I guess I was thinking there would be bonus money etc left to pay him if he was on the roster this year and the next that they would save if he retired but still had to pay if he was cut. If there was no difference whether he retired or was cut then this should have been done months ago....he clearly had no trade value with that current contract he was under.

[Superman]

3 minutes ago, dgambill said:

I guess I was thinking there would be bonus money etc left to pay him if he was on the roster this year and the next that they would save if he retired but still had to pay if he was cut. If there was no difference whether he retired or was cut then this should have been done months ago....he clearly had no trade value with that current contract he was under.

 

You almost have it. The bonus money has already been paid. Bonus money hits the cap over multiple years, even if it's paid upfront. So the dead money / cap penalty is an accounting for that bonus money they've already paid him, but hasn't yet hit the cap.

 

Retired or cut, they wouldn't have to pay him anything this year. But cutting him, they can split up the accounting of the already paid bonus money, as I mentioned a few posts earlier. So they cut him, and whether he files for retirement or not is no longer any of their business. 

 

[southwest1]

On April 1, 2017 at 8:20 PM, Superman said:

 

The part where you said Romo is worthless and has no trade value. 

 

Also the part where you suggest that it's a deficiency in Romo that has magically blocked the Cowboys from going further in the playoffs.

I realize that now that Romo has taken the CBS Sports job that this Tony discussion is irrelevant now. However, Romo's failure to stay healthy over the course of 16 weeks for I think only 2 seasons in his 14 yr career makes a move for #9's services a fool hearty decision Superman & you know this. 

 

In a thread about Tony Romo playing possibly for another franchise, his health is the only thing that matters. Let's be real here. 

[southwest1]

On April 1, 2017 at 5:53 PM, jvan1973 said:

Romo has been a far better qb than most that have gone to NFCCGs.  The team around him and coaching staffs he has had have cost them in the past.   

I've never been a Jason Garret fan. So sure, I will grant you that the quality of the coaching staff matters as well as the caliber of your offense line that is true. 

 

I don't really care about the fate of other QBs who have never played in a Championship Game just whether or not Tony Romo was worth the risk in Houston. Answer: No, he wasn't because of his lack of availability in the playoffs when the Texans would have needed him the most. 

[ColtsBlueFL]

10 hours ago, southwest1 said:

I realize that now that Romo has taken the CBS Sports job that this Tony discussion is irrelevant now. However, Romo's failure to stay healthy over the course of 16 weeks for I think only 2 seasons in his 14 yr career makes a move for #9's services a fool hearty decision Superman & you know this. 

 

In a thread about Tony Romo playing possibly for another franchise, his health is the only thing that matters. Let's be real here. 

 

The last two years and 2010 make his injury history scary, but not the many other years-

 

 

I'd also like to point out that none, any of them, were a repeated injury.  (Even the back was a transverse process, and then a vertebra, not nearly the same thing) They were also caused by violent hits to different areas. That happens in football.  players miss a game or two here and there.  He could prevent those by not trying to extend the play and hit a homerun.  Luck has a similar trait there.

 

 

And while Romo has accepted the CBS position, he has not officially retired.  He has just has 'stepped away' as Schefter reported some time back.  Also repeated by Archer-

 

"Todd Archer reports that QB Tony Romo has yet to file his retirement papers with the NFL and doesn’t have any plans to do so anytime soon. "

 

I'll guarantee Romo's phone has been ringing off the hook too. It's not foolhardy to many clubs that need a good QB to make noise (like the Texans for instance) in the NFL and playoffs. But Romo is in the drivers seat of what and where he wants do from here. Even play golf-

 

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/cowboys-corner-blog/article141636804.html

 

[CF4L]

Well it was slightly less silly in comparison but Irsay didn't cut Peyton  based on a nonexistent "do right" rule he did it because he already wanted Andrew Luck from jump and nobody was going to trade for Manning. 

 

I highly doubt Irsay would've outright cut Manning had he known then that Manning would not only have a few more productive years but manage to get 2 SB appearances and win another on his way out. 

 

I think that crossed Jerry's mind at least get something out of it.

[jvan1973]

46 minutes ago, CF4L said:

Well it was slightly less silly in comparison but Irsay didn't cut Peyton  based on a nonexistent "do right" rule he did it because he already wanted Andrew Luck from jump and nobody was going to trade for Manning. 

 

I highly doubt Irsay would've outright cut Manning had he known then that Manning would not only have a few more productive years but manage to get 2 SB appearances and win another on his way out. 

 

I think that crossed Jerry's mind at least get something out of it.

I think.Jerry was giving Tony time to figure out what he  wanted to do.  Vastly different circumstances

[2006Coltsbestever]

1 hour ago, CF4L said:

Well it was slightly less silly in comparison but Irsay didn't cut Peyton  based on a nonexistent "do right" rule he did it because he already wanted Andrew Luck from jump and nobody was going to trade for Manning. 

 

I highly doubt Irsay would've outright cut Manning had he known then that Manning would not only have a few more productive years but manage to get 2 SB appearances and win another on his way out. 

 

I think that crossed Jerry's mind at least get something out of it.

I love Peyton Manning more than most and he wasn't making another SB with the team we had not with his salary. Irsay paid him 25 Mill in 2011 and he didn't even play a game. The team and O.Line we had in 2012 would've gotten Peyton killed. We had to rebuild and move on. It was the right choice and not even debatable regarding our Salary Cap and older players we had to go with Andrew. Yeah he won a SB and went 2 with Denver but they had a Very Good O.Line and the best Defense in the league.

[CF4L]

15 hours ago, 2006Coltsbestever said:

I love Peyton Manning more than most and he wasn't making another SB with the team we had not with his salary. Irsay paid him 25 Mill in 2011 and he didn't even play a game. The team and O.Line we had in 2012 would've gotten Peyton killed. We had to rebuild and move on. It was the right choice and not even debatable regarding our Salary Cap and older players we had to go with Andrew. Yeah he won a SB and went 2 with Denver but they had a Very Good O.Line and the best Defense in the league.

 

Yeah now you say that back then many thought Manning was gutless to not go to SF which had a great defense and was an SB contender. Nobody thought Denver would turn out so well and back then they didn't have Talib, Ware, Emmanuel Sanders guys who wanted to come there when Manning was there.

 

I never thought he would make another SB here but people act as if Irsay did this out of the kindness of his heart more than him doing this out of his own self interest. He figured he would get more SBs out of Andrew Luck(and with more years out of him than the limited time Manning had left)than he would've out of Manning. Its not a bash 31 other teams would've done the same. 

All owners care about their own bottom line not "doing right" by a player(or fanbase). Jerry leaves a lot to be desired but people bashing him for wanting to get something out of Romo if he thought he could while Irsay was so selfless with Manning is just laughable to me.

 

I doubt if Irsay thought Manning had an SB left in him he would've let him go for nothing was my point not that it was the right decision or not.

[gacoop1]

Who cares! Romo was mediocre at best, never won anything, why the red carpet?

[jvan1973]

1 hour ago, gacoop1 said:

Who cares! Romo was mediocre at best, never won anything, why the red carpet?

He was far better than mediocre