Dallas made a calculated move to free up space by waiving Milton in favor of Emari Demercado at running back, effectively signaling that Sam Howell would be the primary backup to Dak Prescott. The logic is that having a versatile, run-ready back behind a proven starter can bolster the offense and maintain depth at other positions. Yet this choice leaves Dallas with a higher-stakes gamble at quarterback if Prescott were to miss time.
Milton’s preseason performance offered a compelling case for keeping him. He completed 29 of 43 passes for 378 yards, threw three touchdowns, and had zero interceptions, plus he chipped in a rushing score. Those numbers suggested he was more than a developmental project; he looked like a physically gifted option who could elevate Dallas’s contingency plan. This wasn’t a cut that everyone anticipated, especially after publicly stated confidence in both Howell and Milton as backups.
The decision also raises questions about the value of “backup quarterback insurance.” Some analysts argue that teams should prioritize a backup capable of winning a game if the starter is unavailable, even if that means sacrificing depth elsewhere. Others contend that a more conservative approach—favoring steadier, less risky options—helps stabilize the roster over a full season. In this case, the Cowboys weighed roster flexibility and undefined upside against the risk of losing a quarterback with notable traits.
Milton’s arm strength and athletic upside could force defenses to defend more parts of the field, creating potential mismatches and playmaking opportunities that a steadier but less dynamic backup might not provide. On the other hand, Howell’s steadiness could translate into fewer turnover risks and more predictable game management, which has its own strategic value for a team aiming to maximize performance throughout the year.
If Prescott remains healthy for all 17 games, this debate becomes largely academic. However, the NFL is unpredictable, and even the most durable plans can be upended by an injury or a midseason slump. If Prescott were to miss time, Dallas would face questions about whether the cost of giving up a quarterback with higher upside outweighed the short-term benefits of roster flexibility.
Regardless of where you land on the decision, the Milton move underscores a broader NFL truth: every roster decision carries trade-offs, and the line between prudence and risk can blur quickly when the season arrives. Teams must balance immediate needs with long-term potential, all while accounting for the unpredictable nature of injuries and game-day realities.
As the season unfolds, fans and analysts will revisit this choice to assess whether keeping Milton would have provided the missing spark or if the Cowboys’ approach to roster construction ultimately paid off.
