Twitter: Dak Reality Check

[Diehardblues]

You were considered a Dak hater by many on here. And your criticisms bear that out. Heck, just yesterday you said Dak was a "decent" QB. Doesn't sound like someone that likes his QB.

In some of those losses the offense put up lots of yards and points so your claim that they didn't is incorrect. What happened in some of those losses were that they got behind a lot early. In some others they puttered out down by the goal line.

The Pats game was in NE against the #1 defense on a wet and windy day. NO shame there.

But yah, the offense did struggle at times especially down by the goal line. But everyone knows what the big problem was and he got fired after the season. Garrett is gone.

I still don’t understand this “ hate” definition by your generation. Does than mean anyone who offers criticism ?

 

[Diehardblues]

I quoted you yesterday, don't start lying again. This is where you get into trouble.

You were wrong about Dak like the rest of the haters. Just admit and lets move on. Or do you want to go through yesterday again?

I carefully word things. I said #1 WR wouldn’t want to come here. I didn’t say they wouldn’t.

Wrong about what with Dak? Sounds more like subjective opinions again.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I still don’t understand this “ hate” definition by your generation. Does than mean anyone who offers criticism ?

I hated Garrett. I think he was bad and an embarrassment as a HC. Nothing wrong with the truth.

Dak, you don't like him. NO big deal. But just don't act like you like him. If you are changing your stance and now think he is better than you originally thought, then just say that and be a man about it. Is that so hard for you?

 

[CowboyRoy]

I carefully word things. I said #1 WR wouldn’t want to come here. I didn’t say they wouldn’t.

Wrong about what with Dak? Sounds more like subjective opinions again.

LOL...…….this is you in a nut shell. And somehow you think this makes sense.

I said #1 WR wouldn’t want to come here. I didn’t say they wouldn’t.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I carefully word things. I said #1 WR wouldn’t want to come here. I didn’t say they wouldn’t.

Wrong about what with Dak? Sounds more like subjective opinions again.

How about a simple question?

Has Dak turned out to be better than you originally thought?

 

[Diehardblues]

I hated Garrett. I think he was bad and an embarrassment as a HC. Nothing wrong with the truth.

Dak, you don't like him. NO big deal. But just don't act like you like him. If you are changing your stance and now think he is better than you originally thought, then just say that and be a man about it. Is that so hard for you?

I like Dak. Good kid. He’s a gamer and playmaking ability. Just not as prolific passer as I’d like to have.

Sorry, I’m not a slobbering Dakster but he’s our QB so I’ll root him on.

 

[Diehardblues]

LOL...…….this is you in a nut shell. And somehow you think this makes sense.

I said #1 WR wouldn’t want to come here. I didn’t say they wouldn’t.

Of course it does. I word things so they can’t be called out later. It’s sharp debate techniques.

 

[Diehardblues]

How about a simple question?

Has Dak turned out to be better than you originally thought?

I was most impressed with Dak his Rookie season.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Of course it does. I word things so they can’t be called out later. It’s sharp debate techniques.

Its BS, just like the rest of your game.

You are the text book definition of a true troll.

And honestly, you aren't smart enough to keep up with your own BS obviously.

 

[Diehardblues]

Its BS, just like the rest of your game.

You are the text book definition of a true troll.

And honestly, you aren't smart enough to keep up with your own BS obviously.

I attempt to frame my narrative to support my viewpoint while leaving a window of escape.

I’m not really sure why I’d be described as a Troll. The definition of troll is attempting to discredit someone with personal insults and attacks or bait a response. I really don’t see how I fit any of those.

troll
/trōl/
noun

• 1.a person who makes a deliberately offensive or provocative online post.

verb

• 1.make a deliberately offensive or provocative online post with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them:

 

[CowboyRoy]

Of course it does. I word things so they can’t be called out later. It’s sharp debate techniques.

You mean like when you said "Garrett is my shining light"?

Yah, what great debate techniques you have.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I attempt to frame my narrative to support my viewpoint while leaving a window of escape.

Translation?...……………….……….. So you can lie about it later if you were wrong.

 

[Diehardblues]

Translation?...……………….……….. So you can lie about it later if you were wrong.

This is an opinion based forum. We can all be wrong about our opinions and analysis today come out firing again tomorrow.

You certainly appear consumed with opinions that you don’t hold any weight with. Very interesting.

And all you do is throw out insults and name calling to dispute.

 

[Diehardblues]

You mean like when you said "Garrett is my shining light"?

Yah, what great debate techniques you have.

He was when I stated that. It was a very dark time for me with the Cowboys. And has been for most of the last 25 years.

How long have you been a Cowboy fan?

 

[Pompey-Cowboy]

Right

It’s all part of the Internet. As Barkley said “ it provides every moron with a keyboard a voice”. Lol

It just gets me that there’s so much whining about the whiners. I’ve always found them more annoying instead of just ignoring the extremist.

But they can’t handle the criticism whoever it’s from. Just ridiculous waste of time to me.

Irony?

 

[cowboygo]

1) Cant see why fans are obsessing with Romo and what Romo got.

2) If we accomplished next to nothing with Romo you'd have to say the same for Dak.

3) Cant afford to pay Dak anything near to $45m in 2021 and i'm sure Dak would love the $10m release that Cousins will get in the final year.

Saying all that I like Dak and agreed that he deserved to take over from Romo.

But the bottom line remains that we need Dak to sign a longer contract to allow flexibility and backload the contract....Dak probably wants a shorter contract to benefit from Mahomes mega contract.

Only reason why I'm comparing the contract with what Romo got is to see if we learn from our mistakes. The assumption I believe the FO has is that its been coaching that failed both Romo and Dak so far. We've removed that one constant with Garrett, lets see what MM does, albeit Romo had 3 head coaches. And I agree, we have accomplished next to nothing with both. Lets see how many head coaches Dak goes through before we either say we wasted his career with bad coaching or we got it all wrong with the extension.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

Man, I am so looking forward to when we make the play offs and win a game or two and all this snivelling about Dak goes away.

It won't ever go away. Even if he won 3 straight superbowls and broke all the records you would have the same clan in here talking about it had nothing to do with Dak.

 

[CATCH17]

Dak’s idiot haters from 2016-18 (when Dak had a 32-16 record):

“DURRRR TEAM RECORD IS NOT A QB STAT!!! DAK’S STATS AREN’T GAUDY ENOUGH!!“

Dak’s idiot haters since 2019:

“DURRRR DAK’S RECORD WAS 8-8, HE SUCKS!!! WHO CARES ABOUT HIS GAUDY STATS!?!?”

How about just ignoring his stats and just have some common sense understanding that he isn't a difference maker at the QB position one way or the other.

You guys do mental hoola hoops to defend this guy.

He's not a playmaker. He's a bus driver and will always be a bus driver.

He will need scheme or something to elevate his game because he doesn't have the natural ability to do it on his own.

There is nothing wrong with Dak Prescott as your QB. It's when your bus driver starts asking to be paid like he is Jeff Gordon.

We can't have a non playmaker at QB and watch the team around him dwindle. WE will win nothing with that formula.

 

[cowboygo]

How about just ignoring his stats and just have some common sense understanding that he isn't a difference maker at the QB position one way or the other.

You guys do mental hoola hoops to defend this guy.

He's not a playmaker. He's a bus driver and will always be a bus driver.

He will need scheme or something to elevate his game because he doesn't have the natural ability to do it on his own.

There is nothing wrong with Dak Prescott as your QB. It's when your bus driver starts asking to be paid like he is Jeff Gordon.

We can't have a non playmaker at QB and watch the team around him dwindle. WE will win nothing with that formula.

Would you agree to say the majority of the league is doing it wrong then? Every team that gives an extension to QBs like the 49ers, Vikings, Lions, Eagles, Rams is doing it wrong for not moving on from their respective QBs and instead going the free agent veteran QB route and/or drafting a new QB? Or you consider those QBs playmakers?

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

I wish Dak would play better defense. I can't believe he made Trubusky look this good

What I find ironic...is the very same ....ummmm "dak defenders" are using the very same reasons for which they WON'T use to defend Romo.

Even though some of the situations are quite similar, a few differences like the 4 #1 picks on Dak's offense, and Tony had some better coaching. But all in all...remarkably similar situations.