National Football League

Cowboys Corner: Legit contenders? Extend Micah Parsons? 5 burning questions

Published Sep. 13, 2024 9:00 a.m. ET

The "all-in" offseason is finally over. Dak Prescott and CeeDee Lamb have signed long-term contracts, too. And the Dallas Cowboys even got off to a rousing start with a blowout win in Cleveland on Sunday afternoon.

But is this really the championship team that Jerry Jones thinks it is? Is this finally the year the Cowboys reach the Super Bowl for the first time in 29 years?

They might have looked like a contender in their 33-17 win over the Browns, but they obviously have a long way to go to prove it. And as always, the Cowboys are still a team with big questions to answer and major issues to address. So, in our first edition of "Cowboys Corner" — a recurring feature that will take the temperature of "America's Team" throughout the season — FOX Sports NFL writers, David Helman and Ralph Vacchiano, break down five of the Cowboys' biggest questions for this week and beyond.

Maybe a few of them will be answered on Sunday when the Cowboys (1-0) take on the New Orleans Saints — fresh off their own blowout opening-day win — in their home opener at AT&T Stadium (1 p.m. ET on FOX):

1. Whose Week 1 blowout win are you most buying — Cowboys or Saints?

Vacchiano: Definitely the Cowboys. Look, I know the Browns are a bit of a mess and we still don't know if Deshaun Watson will ever be good again. But the Cowboys are legit. Despite their stumbles this offseason — and there were many — and the players they lost and the free agents they failed to sign and CeeDee Lamb missing most of camp and … what was I saying again?

Oh, right. The Cowboys are legit. Despite everything they still have an elite quarterback in Dak Prescott, one of the best receivers in the NFL in Lamb, maybe the best defender in Micah Parsons, a solid front line on defense, a strong secondary even without DaRon Bland. And while I'm not 100 percent sold on their new-look offensive line, it worked nicely on Sunday.

So they have all the tools to be a contender, just as they did over the past three seasons when they went 12-5 each year and made the playoffs.

The Saints? They probably won't be terrible, but their opponent last Sunday — the Carolina Panthers — will be. I can't buy into the Saints just because they beat up a team that could barely move the ball and starts Bryce Young at quarterback. They're banking their own offensive hopes on Derek Carr and Alvin Kamara, which would have been more promising five years ago.

The Saints will come back to Earth quickly. The Cowboys are going to have a lot more blowout wins along the way.

Helman: Week 1 is all about known commodities, so I've got to take the Cowboys' win a bit more seriously than the Saints' one.

Even if the Browns' offense is terrible all season, we know their defense returned roughly the same talent that made it one of the best units in football in 2023. And yet, the Cowboys' offense was able to dissect them for 20 first-half points before the defense and special teams took over after halftime. That in itself is impressive enough, but the effectiveness of the Dallas pass rush and the improved linebacker play made that win in Cleveland one of the best performances of opening weekend.

The Saints might still prove themselves as legit — perhaps even as early as this week. But all we know right now is that the Carolina Panthers look atrocious. The Panthers host the Los Angeles Chargers in Week 2 and are currently 6.5-point underdogs in their own stadium. That says it all about how this squad is viewed right now.

None of this is the Saints' fault. You can only play the team that's up next on the schedule. But there's more work to do to convince people that Sunday's big win meant anything in the big picture.

2. Do the Dak Prescott and CeeDee Lamb extensions validate Jerry Jones's "all-in" proclamation?

Helman: That's certainly what Jerry's publicist would want me to say, but the answer is no.

For all the drama and intrigue, the Cowboys didn't have much of a choice in these negotiations. You're not going to let a top-five receiver walk at the age of 26, so of course Lamb re-signed. The Prescott situation was a little stickier, but consider this: If Prescott had left for free agency after the 2024 season, the Cowboys would have had to pay a $40 million cap charge on the restructures to his existing deal. Yes, you read that correctly. Even if Dak was on a new team in 2025, he'd have still cost Jerry Jones $40 million — and that's not to mention the added headache of finding a new quarterback.

In my experience, billionaires don't like paying that type of money for no reason. On top of that, I don't think Jerry Jones would have had fun searching for a new franchise quarterback at the age of 82.

Jerry has probably known things were heading in this direction for a long time, so this should hardly come as a surprise. And while it might be a relief to have both players under contract, it doesn't fix the smaller issues with this team. The Cowboys looked impressive in Week 1, but I still worry about the secondary pass-catchers. Jake Ferguson injured his knee in Cleveland, which further emphasizes how thin things are behind Lamb. I worry about the running backs. The depth along the defensive front will be tested this season, and I'm not convinced the Cowboys will pass that test.

In my mind, going "all-in" means going above and beyond to maximize your chances for the coming season. It's nice that the Cowboys have secured their future, but it doesn't equate to going "all-in."

Vacchiano: Ha! No.

I mean, I suppose it makes it a little less of a joke. At least he finally did something this offseason. It was the very least he could do, and probably the very least anyone expected when he said "all-in". But despite the huge financial commitment, that's not what I'd call "all-in".

When he said that, I think most of us assumed he meant "I'll do everything possible to make sure we get to the Super Bowl this season." I suppose we could've asked him for clarification — though honestly his attempts at clarifying what he meant were just word salads. But the implication was he'd be diving into free agency, adding players that can help now with no concern for the future. He seemed to be indicating that this year is what mattered and nothing would get in his way.

Then he let all of his good free agents walk, refused to sign top players from other teams (in part because the old contracts for Prescott and Lamb were causing some salary cap problems), ignored the best free-agent class of running backs in history and then re-signed 29-year-old Ezekiel Elliott and made it seem like that was fine, let Lamb skip camp even though he eventually paid him exactly what we knew he would …

So unless I really don't understand what "all-in" means — and I'm guessing in Jerry's mind it means something I can't possibly understand — then no, signing Prescott and Lamb is not a validation at all. It's more of a reminder of what "all-in" could have looked like if he had done those deals back in March.

3. How much of a rushing attack do the Cowboys need to be a legit contender, and do they have the personnel to manufacture it?

Vacchiano: That's an interesting question and one that's a little hard to qualify. One reason is that this is increasingly a passing league, and while you need to run the ball, a dynamic passing attack can carry a team far.

But the other reason is what we saw from the Cowboys last season. They had a middling rushing attack. It ranked 15th in the NFL. It was led by Tony Pollard who had 1,005 yards, which is fine, but not great. That was all still good enough to get them to 12-5. But it wasn't good enough to sustain drives late in games. It wasn't good enough to pick up tough yards consistently in short-yardage and goal-line situations.

That cost them because teams knew they struggled in that area. It allowed the better NFL defenses to focus more on coverage or the pass rush, knowing that if they could disrupt the Prescott-Lamb combo the Cowboys were in trouble. In a sense, they were way too one-dimensional to make a deep playoff run.

So how much do they need to be a contender for the Super Bowl? I don't want to put a number on it. Elliott doesn't need 1,000 yards. But he needs to be good and consistent enough to pick up those tough yards, to help Dallas sustain drives in big situations. If teams have to worry about him even a little, it's going to open up a lot more for Prescott and Lamb.

Helman: You don't need to be great, but you need to at least be good.

Going back to 2018, 10 of the past 12 Super Bowl teams have been at least top 11 in rushing efficiency by the end of the season. Some of those have even been truly elite at running the ball, like the 2022 Eagles and 2023 49ers. The only teams that bucked the trend were the 2021 Bengals and 2021 Rams, who got by with middling ground games.

The Cowboys can probably survive with a middling rushing attack, but it's just going to put that much more strain on Prescott to be mistake-free every weekend. Ideally, this trio of Ezekiel Elliott, Rico Dowdle and Dalvin Cook can do enough to pick up the short conversions and keep the Cowboys out of obvious passing downs. If they can do that, this should comfortably be a top-10 offense, maybe better.

My main concern is simply explosiveness. It's nice to have big-play ability from your ground game to take the pressure off Prescott to produce all the explosive moments for this offense. I'm not convinced these Cowboys running backs can provide that, and that could be a problem.

4. Will Mike McCarthy be the Cowboys' coach after this season?

Helman: I'm actually going to say yes.

We have an outdated view of Jones as this impulsive, impatient oil man. In reality, Jones has been reluctant to make change for the sake of it. Jones fired Wade Phillips midway through the 2010 season, when the Cowboys were an abysmal 1-7. Since then, he's made only one coaching change — and that was after giving Jason Garrett nine years at the helm.

McCarthy's got his faults, but he has brought a level of stability the Cowboys have been missing for a long time. Prior to McCarthy's arrival, Dallas hadn't made consecutive postseason appearances since 2006-07, and the Cowboys' current streak of three straight playoff berths is their best since the glory days of the 1990s.

I don't think there's a true barometer for McCarthy this year. He doesn't have to reach the Super Bowl, or even the NFC Championship Game to keep his job. The Cowboys simply need to reach the postseason and look better prepared for the spotlight than they were last year. I think he can clear that bar.

Vacchiano: I completely agree with Dave. Everyone's first impulse when it comes to this question seems to be that Jones is a wild card, that he's losing patience, that if he doesn't get to a Super Bowl he's going to start blowing things up.

The problem with that is it's really not an accurate description. I had to look this up to make sure, but it's true: Jones has only had four different head coaches in the past 22 seasons. This isn't George Steinbrenner firing and hiring managers at will. Jones has proven to be a patient man — painfully patient when you consider Jason Garrett was his head coach for almost a decade.

I know Bill Belichick is looming out there, and everyone who remembers Jones hiring Bill Parcells can fantasize about that scenario. If Parcells could work for a meddling owner like Jones, then surely Belichick could, too.

But in the end, I think this Cowboys team is going to win enough games to keep McCarthy on Jones' good side. And I think Jones is going to realize that McCarthy's offense really suits Prescott well, that maybe bringing in a new leader with a new system and a new philosophy overall isn't the best strategy with a team that is built to win now.

The only real counterargument, honestly, is that Jones hasn't extended McCarthy's contract. But I really think that's just Jerry enjoying keeping the pressure on and enjoying the drama. In general, he just doesn't seem to like change. So yeah, I think as long as the Cowboys make the playoffs — and they should — McCarthy will be back next year.

5. When and/or should they make Micah Parsons the highest-paid defender in the NFL?

Vacchiano: My best answer: before it becomes a problem. But I don't mean a problem like Parsons being upset or a summer holdout or anything like that (even though that's probably what will happen). In general, contract issues are a pretty mild distraction until they reach Haason Reddick-Jets levels.

But the Cowboys should learn from the lessons of the Lamb and Prescott deals and sign Parsons before his current deal becomes any kind of a financial problem. He is currently signed through the end of 2025, and he's due to be paid $21.3 million next year on the fifth-year option of his rookie contract. That will be his salary cap number, too: $21.3 million.

That's not a crazy amount for one player, especially one who is arguably the best defensive player in football. But it's crazy to allocate that amount of cap space when it can so easily be cut in half, or likely less.

As it is, the Cowboys aren't expected to have a ton of cap space next offseason (Over the Cap projects them to have about $30 million, though a lot can change between now and then). It would make sense to sign Parsons to a long-term deal before free agency starts next March because doing that could conceivably open up about $15 million in extra space if the deal is done right.

Imagine this current Cowboys team with an extra $15 million in cap space to use in free agency to, you know, make their team better. If they do that, people might even start to believe that Jerry Jones is really "all-in."

Helman: Haven't we learned by now? If history is any indicator, Parsons will sign a record-breaking contract extension sometime next August, after a lengthy holdout keeps him out of training camp for at least a week or two. That's the way it tends to go with the Cowboys and elite players, because this front office is a bit stubborn about spending at the top of the market.

As far as whether they should with Parsons, I'm conflicted. He is one of the best defenders in the entire NFL, and he has a gravity to him that offenses simply struggle to deal with. We saw it on full display in Week 1, as he terrorized seemingly every member of the Browns' offense.

At the same time, the numbers don't lie. It's hard to build a quality roster when your top players are commanding 30% or more of the salary cap. We know Dak's contract is going to eat up cap space, as will Lamb's. Throwing Parsons into the mix as the highest-paid defender in football is going to make this a top-heavy team, there's no way around it.

I can at least understand the logic of exploring your options. Parsons is good enough to command quite a haul in a trade, and the Cowboys could swap him for a ton of draft picks to make the overall roster better. The Texans turned Deshaun Watson into Will Anderson Jr., Tank Dell, Kenyon Green, Kamari Lassiter and Christian Harris, among others.

Tempting as that might be, it's a hell of a risk. There's no way of knowing how those draft picks would pan out, while we know for a fact Parsons is a top-three edge rusher in football at the age of 25.

The draft nerd in me loves the idea of making 100 big picks, but it's not worth the risk. I'll take Parsons and figure out the financial headache later.

David Helman covers the NFL for FOX Sports and hosts the NFL on FOX podcast. He previously spent nine seasons covering the Cowboys for the team's official website. In 2018, he won a regional Emmy for his role in producing "Dak Prescott: A Family Reunion" about the quarterback's time at Mississippi State. Follow him on Twitter at @davidhelman_.

Ralph Vacchiano is an NFL Reporter for FOX Sports. He spent the previous six years covering the Giants and Jets for SNY TV in New York, and before that, 16 years covering the Giants and the NFL for the New York Daily News. Follow him Twitter at @RalphVacchiano.