The Dallas Cowboys entered the 2026 offseason with one goal: fix the worst defense in franchise history. Time will tell whether they accomplished that goal, but there is no doubt that they spent a significant number of resources trying to improve the unit.
Their first three picks, including two first-round choices, went to addressing the defense. Dallas traded away a 2027 fourth-round pick to acquire Rashan Gary and spent another Day 3 pick on Dee Winters to improve the starting lineup. It’s also worth noting that Jalen Thompson, their other big-name safety addition, was the biggest free-agent signing by the Cowboys in over a decade.
The Cowboys deserve credit for how they attacked that side of the ball. But not everyone is pleased with how they handled the offense this offseason.
While the defense garnered most of the attention for the Cowboys, they did have a few decisions to make on offense, such as extending Javonte Williams and franchise-tagging George Pickens. But it was the decision to keep Terence Steele on a revised deal that drew some criticism from the national media.
The Dallas Cowboys were criticized for keeping Terence Steele
In a recent article by Bill Barnwell of ESPN, he wrote about every team’s best and worst decision of the 2026 offseason. For the Cowboys, Barnwell loved the move of bringing in Cobie Durant on a one-year deal. He believes Durant will be a “massive upgrade” in the secondary and should be a Day 1 starter.
However, Barnwell did not like the decision to keep Steele, in part because he believes the Cowboys needed to find ways to save money on offense, rather than continuing to spend on that side of the ball. Here is a snippet of why Barnwell disagreed with that decision by the Dallas front office.
“The Cowboys could have cut Steele to avoid triggering his $13.3 million salary this offseason, but instead, they signed the incumbent tackle to a three-year, $33 million deal, paying the 28-year-old $13 million in cash this year in the process. I'm not sure there would have been a market to sign Steele at that price in free agency.”
Barnwell also pointed out that there is no guaranteed money for Steele beyond the 2026 season, which does give the Cowboys a potential out. However, they would be on the hook for $22 million in dead money if they decide to do so.
There is no doubt that Steele is an average, at best, right tackle in the NFL. There have been years better than others, and it is worth noting that his play bounced back in 2024 and 2025 after a rough 2023 campaign.
Steele is also just the 13th-highest paid right tackle in the NFL right now (according to OverTheCap), and he should continue to fall in that category once players like Brian O’Neil get new deals this offseason.
Is Steele slightly overpaid, given his pay? I think we could have a reasonable debate about that. And should the Cowboys be cautious about paying non-elite players on offense after having one of the most expensive offenses in the NFL? Absolutely. But cutting him would have just opened up another hole that Dallas would have had to address in free agency or in the draft.
Given how much help the defense needed this offseason, it probably wouldn't have been a wise move to move on from him unless there was a potential replacement already on the roster. And that’s just not the case.
Instead, the Cowboys opted for continuity on offense and decided that they would rather deal with the devil they know rather than the one they don’t.
Steele is far from perfect on the right side, but he’s not going to be the reason why the Cowboys are successful or unsuccessful in 2026. That all lies at the feet of the defense, and they needed every possible resource available to fix that unit.
Add us as a preferred source on Google