Corso
Offseason mode... sleepy time
- Messages
- 34,634
- Reaction score
- 62,871
Lol, no worries!Your right. I misread it. I thought it said “ should” . Not shouldn’t . I was just driving by. My bad!!
Lol, no worries!Your right. I misread it. I thought it said “ should” . Not shouldn’t . I was just driving by. My bad!!
Do you think we would have lost those games earlier this season, if we had even an average defense? I don't think so.lol.. I’d hate to move on from Dak and all the success he brings to the franchise.
I’d hate to miss out on a wildcard win every 5 years after we finally put a great team around him.
What's up with calling someone "fake GM" for expressing his opinion, but acting like you're not a "fake GM" when you express yours?what are you as a fake gm willing to pay Dak for being "Good Enough" thats the issue sure you can win with him but we might be talking 37-40mil for good enough
however troys right ONLY if we arent taking Lawrence,,i dont think the gaps big enough between Fields and the next guys like Trask ec..so we trade down stay in top 10 maybe grab trask or similar plus get all the defenders we want, Non exclusive Tag Dak if hes still trying to be non team friendly, if he plays great we develop our draft pick if he holds out we seek trades and start the new era..have a boat load of picks for 2022 and jettison the big contracts for 2022 and really be like a 2016 reboot..
lots of options are great. If Lawerence is there well you should consider him no doubt
I don't think we've had a decent defense. Don't forget, the offense was covering up for a lot of the defense's liabilities, with ToP for probably most of that time. Any time the defense was on the field too long, they got chewed up and spit out.We've had a decent defense every year but this year and we see where he's gotten. The d was top half of the league most of the time he's been here so that's not it.
um you are a fake GM when you are making hypothetical decsions for team from your keyboard you are the very definition of a fake GM..not sure how that offends anyone most in here are all know it all overly opinionated egomaniacal fans who fee they know whats best for their football teams..What's up with calling someone "fake GM" for expressing his opinion, but acting like you're not a "fake GM" when you express yours?
He used to not post like this IIRC. It's kind of weird.What's up with calling someone "fake GM" for expressing his opinion, but acting like you're not a "fake GM" when you express yours?
true but the other side of the coin we nearly beat Philly and PB with our 4th string QBS whats that say for Dak LOL so we dont need him we draft a guy use a vet as bridge draft and get Defensive players and then we dont need to score 35 a gameDo you think we would have lost those games earlier this season, if we had even an average defense? I don't think so.
I'm not pretending to make the decisions. I'm stating what I believe the better option is. There's a big difference, which is very easy to see....and yet still, you're doing the same thing, but you don't seem to think you're a "fake GM". Talk about egomaniacal.um you are a fake GM when you are making hypothetical decsions for team from your keyboard you are the very definition of a fake GM..not sure how that offends anyone most in here are all know it all overly opinionated egomaniacal fans who fee they know whats best for their football teams..
common knowledge if you are playing something you are not, you are fake..
did you dress up up Jerry GM for Halloween.
Agreed, but Dak's injury works in Jerry's and Stephen's favor. Should be a highly but reasonable (with injury protection clauses) contract .He must feel the Cowboys should make Dak an offer he can't refuse.
Using that logic anytime the D held a team down points wise Top 10 and the offense didn't score. We saw many of those games last year for example.I don't think we've had a decent defense. Don't forget, the offense was covering up for a lot of the defense's liabilities, with ToP for probably most of that time. Any time the defense was on the field too long, they got chewed up and spit out.
I'm not pretending to make the decisions. I'm stating what I believe the better option is. There's a big difference, which is very easy to see....and yet still, you're doing the same thing, but you don't seem to think you're a "fake GM". Talk about egomaniacal.
Well... tbf, along with the offense consistently having the worst field position all year long, almost never a plus in tunrovers and some of the worst specials teams work ever seen.Using that logic anytime the D held a team down points wise Top 10 and the offense didn't score. We saw many of those games last year for example.
Greg is playing mind tricks. That's one of his old specialties.He used to not post like this IIRC. It's kind of weird.
His name is Greg too?! I thought that was @Diehardblues this whole time.Greg is playing mind tricks. That's one of his old specialties.
"Nearly beat", which means we probably would have beaten them with Dak. If we take a QB with the first pick, we have at least one less high pick to select defense, and there's far from any guarantee that said QB will work out in the NFL.true but the other side of the coin we nearly beat Philly and PB with our 4th string QBS whats that say for Dak LOL so we dont need him we draft a guy use a vet as bridge draft and get Defensive players and then we dont need to score 35 a game
That changes the second we get the top pickHe must have joined the "Dak Mafia".
Wholeheartedly agree.That changes the second we get the top pick
It would be foolish to focus on a QB at 3
Not so foolish at one though