'Blame Jerry': Our Cowboys Dak Deal National Pastime

Sign Dak. Don't sign Dak. Don't win a Super Bowl. Do win a (fourth) Super Bowl. Doesn't matter. 'Blame Jerry' is the game

FRISCO - Dak Prescott "won'' the negotiations. And on the other side of the negotiating table? To critics, Jerry Jones was destined to lose - no matter the results.

Why? Because that's the way the game of "Blaming Jerry'' is played.

On Monday morning, hours before the Dallas Cowboys and agent Todd France would reach an agreement on a record-setting four-year, $160 million deal, the media critics (and social-media critics) were out in force. 

READ MORE: Dak Deal Done! Details

Oh, some were anti-Dak. But overwhelmingly, the sentiment was anti-Jerry - a sentiment that has a so-far 32-year shelf life. ... and a sentiment that seems more about bashing Jerry than it does analyzing results.

On Monday, March 1, respected writer Mike Sando penned a piece in The Athletic that chastised Jones and his organization as he tried to "explain why the Cowboys were not more aggressive in striking a deal with Prescott to this point. Arrogance is another plausible explanation ... Prescott knows better than most what the downside of playing for the Cowboys might be. He might not view the Cowboys’ organization as favorably as Jones views the organization.''

So again, before Monday, March 8, Jones' dealings with Dak were "arrogant,'' were failing because the QB might not view the Cowboys "favorably'' and were botched because Jones "wasn't aggressive enough.''

Then came Monday evening. A deal is done. And Sando in "The Athletic'' offered his take:

"Jones keeps losing important player contract negotiations. Trampled by Tony Romo years ago, crushed by Ezekiel Elliott more recently and steamrolled by Dak Prescott this week ...''

(The title of this piece: "Blame Jerry Jones.'' I mean, we're not even being subtle about it anymore.)

So, which is it? Jerry should be more "aggressive'' or less aggressive? Jerry should be less "arrogant'' or less pliable? Jerry should persuade Dak to "see him favorably,'' or Jerry should avoid being "steamrolled''?

Under what circumstances will a critic (and I'm not picking on Sando, but rather pointing out a common error made by Cowboys-watchers) concede anything to Jerry Jones? 

Did they want him to sign Dak? Yup. Right up until the time he signed Dak.

I should also point out that anyone who thinks Jerry was the point man in these negotiations is a decade behind the times, as it's COO Stephen Jones who plays that role. Surely "The Athletic'' knows this.

But it's no fun bashing Stephen, right?

I have reported that Dak was conceded/earned so much in this deal - the four-year structure, the $40 mil APY, the all-time signing bonus, the no-trade clause, the no-tag clause - that he probably got stuff he wasn't even asking for. 

So "steamrolled,'' I get.

But most critics of Jerry were mad at him for not giving in. And now they are mad at him for doing just that.

Some have even gone beyond that, ESPN's Stephen A. Smith actually stooping to suggest that Jerry paid Troy Aikman and Romo money that he wasn't paying Dak all because of the color of their skin.

Where is Stephen A. Smith's apology today?

READ MORE: Cowboys' Dak Deal: 'Dummy' Years And Did Jerry Win?

I have written that this contract is a landslide win for Prescott. That seems factual. I have also written that the way for the Joneses to "win'' as a result of this deal is all about on-the-field contention. That seemed factual, but now?

I'm continuing to be alerted to the possibility that there is nothing Hall-of-Famer Jerry Jones can accomplish that will quell the endless rip jobs. Sign Dak. Don't sign Dak. Don't win a Super Bowl. Do win a (fourth) Super Bowl. Doesn't matter.

This is "America's Team.'' and one of America's favorite pastimes is "Blaming Jerry.''