Can Dak be as effective as Steve Young

blueblood70

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,218
Reaction score
26,816
you have it in reverse. Broncos team that Manning took to 2 SBs was a good team without him... Manning shows up and they became GREAT. It was because Manning was great, not the other way around. Antonio Brown was the best WR in football for a stretch and then Big Ben got hurt. AB immediately became as avg as avg gets. I couldnt even start that bum in a fantasy game he was so bad. Argument being there are plenty of WRs that would have been great if they played with Steve Young type QBs their entire career.
sorry i dont agree to disagree.
 

RonWashington

Well-Known Member
Messages
7,881
Reaction score
6,381
Really what did they give him?


PFF reports 6 at 280 million . Ridiculous. They have not signed him yet that’s the projection . At the end that won’t be far from actual numbers . They are projecting 155 guaranteed . When your off the rookie deal and your not smelling playoff success why not franchise the guy like Dallas did with # 4. In other words at the end teams might be better off letting the rookie deal plus a franchise tag yr and if not in the hunt for the trophy good bye
 
Last edited:

CowboyRoy

Well-Known Member
Messages
57,924
Reaction score
38,930
PFF reports 6 at 280 million . Ridiculous. They have not signed him yet that’s the projection . At the end that won’t be far from actual numbers . They are projecting 155 guaranteed . When your off the rookie deal and your not smelling playoff success why not franchise the guy like Dallas did with # 4. In other words at the end teams might be better off letting the rookie deal plus a franchise tag yr and if not in the hunt for the trophy good bye

Well.......... you have to evaluate if its because of your QB whether they are making the playoffs or not. Whats the point of throwing a way a good QB because he rest of your team sucks?

Cowboys franchising Dak they probably wind up overpaying.
 

Reid1boys

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,452
Reaction score
9,731
That's fun to speculate BUT FACT REMAINS, Steve Young COULDN'T beat those Cowboys teams


Actually I've been rolling around this Earth for 60 years, I just didn't see Young as anything other than a great QB, NOT better than Staubach, NOT better than Montana, A great QB.
I didnt say he was better than Roger or Montana.. and Ill agree with you though, Young was GREAT.

Dak is not great.
 

GINeric

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,207
Reaction score
3,577
Copied from wikipedia and this says it all.

Young was an extremely efficient passer – leading the league in passer rating a record six times, and completion percentage and yards per attempt five times.[2] At the time of his retirement, he had the highest passer rating among NFL quarterbacks with at least 1,500 passing attempts (96.8).

A RECORD SIX TIMES.......he was not just an ok qb on a great team. It is rare to say QB XXXX is great and yet he was never on great teams. The 2 go hand in hand because a team rarely can be "Great," without the great QB.

The Ravens with Trent Dilpher, 49ers with Kaepernick, the Eagles with Foles, the Bears with McMahon, the Giants with Phil Simms, etc, etc were great teams without great quarterbacks. There are many more teams who were great without great quarterbacks.
 

CowboyFrog

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,843
Reaction score
9,916
I watched him play but clearly you are so deluded that you think stats tell the whole story. Bottom line is that Moon would never have gotten in if it were not for the added stats he got in the CFL which should not have been so highly regarded by the electors. Young would eat Moon's lunch all things considered equal. Dak might be as good as Moon but I would not bet on it.
But then like Dak moon won no rings.


I didnt mention stats at all and Young would have been good in the system also...but if you think those 2 TEAMS were equal...well im not the one who is deluded.
 

Reid1boys

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,452
Reaction score
9,731
The Ravens with Trent Dilpher, 49ers with Kaepernick, the Eagles with Foles, the Bears with McMahon, the Giants with Phil Simms, etc, etc were great teams without great quarterbacks. There are many more teams who were great without great quarterbacks.

bahahahhahhhahah... thats pretty much the respose I always have when people use your examples.... only you added a new one thats actually laughable, laughable and thats Kaeps 49ers as they were so great they didnt even win the SB.
Each team you mentioned, lets see.... Diler had possibly the greatest defense in the history of the NFL, 85 Bears is either 1 or 2 in that Raven argument, Giants had a GREAT defense with a top 3 all time individual defensive player..... see the trend here? The Eagles with Foles were not great and if Foles was the QB the entire season they do not win a SB.


Etc, etc???? keep going with that list now that you only have a few more great defenses to chose from.
 

kskboys

Well-Known Member
Messages
44,054
Reaction score
46,962
bahahahhahhhahah... thats pretty much the respose I always have when people use your examples.... only you added a new one thats actually laughable, laughable and thats Kaeps 49ers as they were so great they didnt even win the SB.
Each team you mentioned, lets see.... Diler had possibly the greatest defense in the history of the NFL, 85 Bears is either 1 or 2 in that Raven argument, Giants had a GREAT defense with a top 3 all time individual defensive player..... see the trend here? The Eagles with Foles were not great and if Foles was the QB the entire season they do not win a SB.


Etc, etc???? keep going with that list now that you only have a few more great defenses to chose from.
Eagles had the 4th ranked D in the NFL in 17. That and running the ball profusely is why they got to and won the super bowl. Yes, Foles had a great super bowl, but the Eagles D hold the Hawks to 10 and completely squushing the Vikes in the playoffs are the reasons they got there.
 

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,860
Reaction score
22,387
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Running, not passing.
No. Not running or passing.

Dak isn't nearly the runner some seem to think he is. That's not to say he can't be or isn't effective running the ball. He can do well running by taking advantage of what the defense gives him. But he is neither fast nor elusive. Just not the pure athlete Young was.
 

GINeric

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,207
Reaction score
3,577
bahahahhahhhahah... thats pretty much the respose I always have when people use your examples.... only you added a new one thats actually laughable, laughable and thats Kaeps 49ers as they were so great they didnt even win the SB.
Each team you mentioned, lets see.... Diler had possibly the greatest defense in the history of the NFL, 85 Bears is either 1 or 2 in that Raven argument, Giants had a GREAT defense with a top 3 all time individual defensive player..... see the trend here? The Eagles with Foles were not great and if Foles was the QB the entire season they do not win a SB.


Etc, etc???? keep going with that list now that you only have a few more great defenses to chose from.

You said teams can rarely be great without great quarterbacks. I showed you why that statement wasn't accurate.

But here's a couple more quarterbacks who weren't great that played on great teams.... Brad Johnson, Mark Rypien, Joe Theismann, Randall Cunningham, Jeff Hostetler, Donovan McNabb, Jim Plunkett, Boomer Esiason..... ETC... ETC....

if you want more quarterbacks, I encourage you to do your own research from here on out. Please feel free to put more spins into it, but the bottom line is, teams can be great without great quarterbacks. There aren't a plethora of GREAT quarterbacks to begin with.
 

Reid1boys

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,452
Reaction score
9,731
You said teams can rarely be great without great quarterbacks. I showed you why that statement wasn't accurate.

But here's a couple more quarterbacks who weren't great that played on great teams.... Brad Johnson, Mark Rypien, Joe Theismann, Randall Cunningham, Jeff Hostetler, Donovan McNabb, Jim Plunkett, Boomer Esiason..... ETC... ETC....

if you want more quarterbacks, I encourage you to do your own research from here on out. Please feel free to put more spins into it, but the bottom line is, teams can be great without great quarterbacks. There aren't a plethora of GREAT quarterbacks to begin with.
If there are that many GREAT teams, they can't be "Great." Every team that wins a SB isn't great. I can name a team better than almost everyone on your list that didn't win a SB.

RANDAL Cunningham never played fir a GREAT team. Subjective is a good word.
 

GINeric

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,207
Reaction score
3,577
If there are that many GREAT teams, they can't be "Great." Every team that wins a SB isn't great. I can name a team better than almost everyone on your list that didn't win a SB.

RANDAL Cunningham never played fir a GREAT team. Subjective is a good word.

Cunningham played on some great Eagles and Vikings teams.

Teams have to play GREAT together to get to and win superbowls. A GREAT quarterback can't get their alone. But a GREAT team can get there and win it without a GREAT quarterback.

Thats why I disagreed with your original statement.
 

G2

Taco Engineer
Messages
24,426
Reaction score
26,192
No. Not running or passing.

Dak isn't nearly the runner some seem to think he is. That's not to say he can't be or isn't effective running the ball. He can do well running by taking advantage of what the defense gives him. But he is neither fast nor elusive. Just not the pure athlete Young was.
The idea is to be a threat and we saw the offense without the threat of him having the ability to get rushing yards. I agree, he's not a running QB like Young. Which still boggles my mind why they didn't scheme in more play action under center.
 

OmerV

Well-Known Member
Messages
25,860
Reaction score
22,387
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
The idea is to be a threat and we saw the offense without the threat of him having the ability to get rushing yards. I agree, he's not a running QB like Young. Which still boggles my mind why they didn't scheme in more play action under center.
Exactly. I think when people hear they are going to have him run more they think of of it as becoming a significant part of the offense, and that will not be the case. It likely will just mean a couple more designed plays per game where Dak keeps the ball on a QB draw or keeper around end, and maybe him being a little quicker to tuck and take off when the pass rush gets too heavy.

I agree on the play action from under center. On the rare occasion the team does that it seems like Dak has performed well. I think sometimes in the shotgun he takes too long to survey they field before deciding where to throw the ball (I think that happened to Romo as well the older he got), but with the play action starting from center he expects it to freeze the defense for a second and makes a decisive throw.
 
  • Like
Reactions: G2

G2

Taco Engineer
Messages
24,426
Reaction score
26,192
Exactly. I think when people hear they are going to have him run more they think of of it as becoming a significant part of the offense, and that will not be the case. It likely will just mean a couple more designed plays per game where Dak keeps the ball on a QB draw or keeper around end, and maybe him being a little quicker to tuck and take off when the pass rush gets too heavy.

I agree on the play action from under center. On the rare occasion the team does that it seems like Dak has performed well. I think sometimes in the shotgun he takes too long to survey they field before deciding where to throw the ball (I think that happened to Romo as well the older he got), but with the play action starting from center he expects it to freeze the defense for a second and makes a decisive throw.
I agree, that's a fact. Also, in shotgun the QB has to take his eyes off from downfield to see the snap coming. It's a split second, but it doesn't help. I'm just not a fan unless you at the very least run an occasional draw out of shotgun. In most game situations of course. There's a time for shotgun and it's usually when there's no other option but to pass.
 

CouchCoach

Staff member
Messages
41,122
Reaction score
74,900
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
PFF reports 6 at 280 million . Ridiculous. They have not signed him yet that’s the projection . At the end that won’t be far from actual numbers . They are projecting 155 guaranteed . When your off the rookie deal and your not smelling playoff success why not franchise the guy like Dallas did with # 4. In other words at the end teams might be better off letting the rookie deal plus a franchise tag yr and if not in the hunt for the trophy good bye
I saw he was going for the Watson deal and I would be surprised if he/agent goes for a 6 at 280 when Watson got 5 at 230M, all guaranteed. What has Watson proven more than Murray?
 
Top