If Dak was still playing would we be 3-9?

[catiii]

We would have had a winning record for sure. Our D would have still been bad, but the games would have been competitive. We haven't been competitive ever since he went down. It's embarrassing.

We weren't competitive even before he went down.

 

[jnday]

Not having Dak is a big reason the team is 3-9. To even ask the question tells me you are a Dak hater.

Was having Dak a game changer? He did win one game because Atlanta’s special teams made a horrible play. Is a person a Dak-hater for pointing out how the team was losing just as much, if not more, with a Dak playing? Does that make him a Dak-hater or honest?

 

[jnday]

We would have had a winning record for sure. Our D would have still been bad, but the games would have been competitive. We haven't been competitive ever since he went down. It's embarrassing.

Dallas was not competitive in those games where they got behind and did not score until garbage time. The scoresbdid not show that these games was not nearly as close as the score indicated. Those games was blow outs and the defense played prevent to run time off the clock.

 

[DCowboyz]

We weren't competitive even before he went down.

Yes, we were. We had a chance to win in all of them. Unfortunately, the D couldn't hold the other team.

 

[Vandyr]

Yes, we were. We had a chance to win in all of them. Unfortunately, the D couldn't hold the other team.

And yet we were 1 and 3, and a special teams fail from being 0-4

 

[jnday]

Yes, we were. We had a chance to win in all of them. Unfortunately, the D couldn't hold the other team.

You are delusional. The opposing teams let up and you think it was due to the play of the Cowboys that caused it. Those teams took the rest of the game off because they knew Dallas could not beat them. They were running out time.

 

[Jake]

...nope, I honestly think Dak would have us at least 7-5. There were a few games the defense played well to win them. Of course with Dak at the helm. Dalton is just a leg worth all of Dak.

But I suppose whatever was not right with the team, would eventually get exposed.

..thoughts? ..

How could it take 11 pages to say "no" and move on to the next question? Not a chance this team is 3-9. Not sure what they would be, but not 3-9.

 

[eromeopolk]

...nope, I honestly think Dak would have us at least 7-5. There were a few games the defense played well to win them. Of course with Dak at the helm. Dalton is just a leg worth all of Dak.

But I suppose whatever was not right with the team, would eventually get exposed.

..thoughts? ..

Dak Prescott has never had a losing season as a full time QB from Jr. high school, to college, and to the NFL. You are what you are... and he is not a loser.

 

[zrinkill]

no

 

[Vandyr]

Dak Prescott has never had a losing season as a full time QB from Jr. high school, to college, and to the NFL. You are what you are... and he is not a loser.

While technically true, 8-8 is not a winning season

 

[DCowboyz]

You are delusional. The opposing teams let up and you think it was due to the play of the Cowboys that caused it. Those teams took the rest of the game off because they knew Dallas could not beat them. They were running out time.

I'm delusional? Did we not beat the Falcons after they letting up? Thank you.

 

[jterrell]

ROFL. People are goofy.
Dallas started 1-3 with Dak yes, yes.
They lost to the:
9-4 Rams
9-4 Seahawks
9-4 Browns

Only the mentally impaired would argue they would be 4-9 with Dak.
Dak is 7-1 in his career versus WAS
He would have easily beaten the Eagles. --Dalton/Gilbert might as well.

With Dak Dallas wins this division easily at 8-8.

 

[morat1959]

Yes, we were. We had a chance to win in all of them. Unfortunately, the D couldn't hold the other team.

Where have you been the last 25+ years?

 

[Praxit]

I'm delusional? Did we not beat the Falcons after they letting up? Thank you.

...I have to agree on your previous post. When Dak went down we should have been at least 3-1. The defense could not find its shoes. Zeke had same problem.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Was having Dak a game changer? He did win one game because Atlanta’s special teams made a horrible play. Is a person a Dak-hater for pointing out how the team was losing just as much, if not more, with a Dak playing? Does that make him a Dak-hater or honest?

the person is not a hater. but blind. if you think Dak was the cause of losses, then you don't really understand football.....is there any defensive culpability in any of the wins and losses?

that doesn't make you a hater. that makes you not knowledgeable and perhaps agenda driven.

 

[Dorsett33]

I'd say our offense would be better but not sure if our record would be with that defense we have.

 

[DCowboyz]

Where have you been the last 25+ years?

This is true. But why does Romo get the pass while Dak isn't? The same thing is happening with Dak at QB. He can score points and make the games competitive, yet we still lose.

 

[IheartRomo]

And yet we were 1 and 3, and a special teams fail from being 0-4

we were 2-3 with the three losses to the Rams, Seahawks and browns. All playoff teams, all one score games. Try again.

 

[Fizziksman]

You are delusional. The opposing teams let up and you think it was due to the play of the Cowboys that caused it. Those teams took the rest of the game off because they knew Dallas could not beat them. They were running out time.

got to love the narrative of teams playing garbage time mode against us in the second quarter...

 

[bigE79]

the giants game would've been the turning point...in my opinion.
and we should've beat the rams if not for a bad call.
this team...with Dak...would have 7 or 8 wins right now in my opinion.

But we should have lost to the falcons,evens up.