Dak Prescott is better than Derek Carr and it’s not even close

[WillieBeamen]

This guy isnt that much better than Dak. Im sorry

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

Can't make a statistical argument in favor of Carr. Can't make a supporting cast argument in favor of Carr. Can't make a team success argument in favor of Carr. This guy made a "watch the game" argument in favor of Dak over Carr. I've yet to see anyone contend with any of these beyond "I said so".

You want to argue that Carr is better than Dak have at it. But no one has done so in this thread. Instead the debate seems to be that a Cowboy fan is ineligible to argue in favor of Dak and instead the cooler heads, that are simply parroting conventional wisdom with nothing added or evidence to support, are automatically right. This form of debate is as rampant as it is ridiculous. Heck the primary proponent of this view has literally dismissed any statistical evidence in favor of his supporting details which can best be summarized as follows:

 

[diefree666]

What kind of team were the Cowboys the year before they drafted Dak?

sounds great but is BS. Really do you think anyone takes that seriously? You do know how many LOSING SEASONS in a row the Raiders had right? (13) You do know that some times a team can hit everything just right and have a winning season (Cleveland Browns 2007) and still stink right?

 

[diefree666]

Can't make a statistical argument in favor of Carr. Can't make a supporting cast argument in favor of Carr. Can't make a team success argument in favor of Carr. This guy made a "watch the game" argument in favor of Dak over Carr. I've yet to see anyone contend with any of these beyond "I said so".

You want to argue that Carr is better than Dak have at it. But no one has done so in this thread. Instead the debate seems to be that a Cowboy fan is ineligible to argue in favor of Dak and instead the cooler heads, that are simply parroting conventional wisdom with nothing added or evidence to support, are automatically right. This form of debate is as rampant as it is ridiculous. Heck the primary proponent of this view has literally dismissed any statistical evidence in favor of his supporting details which can best be summarized as follows:

what was Carr's supporting cast like in HIS rookie year? The Raiders have steadily improved these last three years and so has Carr. Dak LUCKED into a virtually dream situation in his rookie year- you trying to claim otherwise?

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

what was Carr's supporting cast like in HIS rookie year? The Raiders have steadily improved these last three years and so has Carr. Dak LUCKED into a virtually dream situation in his rookie year- you trying to claim otherwise?

No. My argument is simple. Dak was better as a rookie than Carr has ever been. What that means for the future is pointless speculation.

 

[WillieBeamen]

sounds great but is BS. Really do you think anyone takes that seriously? You do know how many LOSING SEASONS in a row the Raiders had right? (13) You do know that some times a team can hit everything just right and have a winning season (Cleveland Browns 2007) and still stink right?

Irrelevant.


This team was downright terrible in 2015 without Tony and Dak

 

[Proof]

what was Carr's supporting cast like in HIS rookie year? The Raiders have steadily improved these last three years and so has Carr. Dak LUCKED into a virtually dream situation in his rookie year- you trying to claim otherwise?

Would you mind answering the question? Obviously they didn't have Amari Cooper or Crabtree, but other than that?

his 2014 team finished badly enough to pick 4th, like the cowboys with no Romo, Dez, or Demarco lol (and the same running back as the Raiders in 14)

 

[tyke1doe]

He had a better season as a rookie than Carr has ever had. Supporting cast is moot between the two. Unlike Jday I have no respect for you since you've turned heel while maintaining the same nonsensical stream of gibberish style from your previous iteration, but have leavened it with a good deal of trolling.

How can you say supporting cast is moot?
So which is it Tony Romo can't advance to the Super Bowl because he doesn't have the proper supporting cast or supporting cast means nothing?

 

[tyke1doe]

What kind of team was the Raiders when Carr was a rookie? love how the dak homers try and ignore that FACT. So trying to compare their rookie seasons is BS.
Since Luck has seemed to plateau and Wilson's Seahawks appear to be imploding, the pundits have turned to Carr as the new golden boy of the NFL.

Now as regards the old argument of scrambler vs pocket passer, if you want to win MULTIPLE championships the odds are with the pocket passer. Brady has 5 rings and Aikman has 3, The Mannings between them have 4 and they are all about as immobile as you can get. Young, Favre, Wilson all only have 1 ring each. Elway has 2 but he seems to be the exception. Now Montana was not a scrambler but he was nimble.
Your odds of multiple championships are much greater with a pocket passer vs a scrambler. Especially in todays NFL. Elway and Montana were 20 years ago. as regards the last 20 only Wilson could be viewed as a scrambler with a ring.

You make good points. But Elway and Young evolved from scrambling quarterbacks to pocket passers.
Also, Dak was not really a scrambling quarterback. His scrambles were by design. He was not a one-read, run-first quarterback like RGIII and Johnny Manziel

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

How can you say supporting cast is moot?
So which is it Tony Romo can't advance to the Super Bowl because he doesn't have the proper supporting cast or supporting cast means nothing?

This is a discussion of 2016 Dak vs 2016 Carr. Both had excellent supporting casts.

 

[tyke1doe]

No. My argument is simple. Dak was better as a rookie than Carr has ever been. What that means for the future is pointless speculation.

As anyone denying that Dak had a better rookie season than Carr?

 

[diefree666]

You make good points. But Elway and Young evolved from scrambling quarterbacks to pocket passers.
Also, Dak was not really a scrambling quarterback. His scrambles were by design. He was not a one-read, run-first quarterback like RGIII and Johnny Manziel

or like Steve Young was early on. I cannot remember seeing any QB change his style and manner as much as Young did coming into the league. Not even Elway did as much of a 180 as Young did.

 

[diefree666]

This is a discussion of 2016 Dak vs 2016 Carr. Both had excellent supporting casts.

Changing the goal posts again? When talking ROOKIE YEARS WHICH IS WHAT WAS IN THE CONVERSATION there clearly is no comparison between Raiders 2014 and Cowboys 2016.

 

[tyke1doe]

This is a discussion of 2016 Dak vs 2016 Carr. Both had excellent supporting casts.

Was the Raiders offensive line better than the Cowboys'?
Was the Raiders featured running back better than the Cowboys'?
Was the Raiders tight end better than the Cowboys'?
Were the Raiders receivers better than the Cowboys'?

If the Cowboys had the better unit in three of those categories, then the supporting casts weren't the same.

 

[Plumfool]

Can't make a statistical argument in favor of Carr. Can't make a supporting cast argument in favor of Carr. Can't make a team success argument in favor of Carr. This guy made a "watch the game" argument in favor of Dak over Carr. I've yet to see anyone contend with any of these beyond "I said so".

You want to argue that Carr is better than Dak have at it. But no one has done so in this thread. Instead the debate seems to be that a Cowboy fan is ineligible to argue in favor of Dak and instead the cooler heads, that are simply parroting conventional wisdom with nothing added or evidence to support, are automatically right. This form of debate is as rampant as it is ridiculous. Heck the primary proponent of this view has literally dismissed any statistical evidence in favor of his supporting details which can best be summarized as follows:

This has been my feeling while reading thru this topic.

 

[Fletch]

I love Dak, too. There's only a few two QBs I'd trade him for. Rodgers and Carr. That's it.

I see your point. Dak still has to prove himself not to be a one year wonder.

 

[windjc]

Changing the goal posts again? When talking ROOKIE YEARS WHICH IS WHAT WAS IN THE CONVERSATION there clearly is no comparison between Raiders 2014 and Cowboys 2016.

Stop with this nonsense. Dak was better than Derek was in 2016. Derek was the best he has ever been in 2016.

 

[windjc]

Was the Raiders offensive line better than the Cowboys'? YES in pass protection.
Was the Raiders featured running back better than the Cowboys'? NO
Was the Raiders tight end better than the Cowboys'? NO
Were the Raiders receivers better than the Cowboys'? YES

If the Cowboys had the better unit in three of those categories, then the supporting casts weren't the same.

Pretty much the same. Raiders actually better talent in passing situations.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

ROOKIE YEARS WHICH IS WHAT WAS IN THE CONVERSATION t

I mean, no it wasn't. That might have been your misunderstanding, but I was not having that conversation. From your performance in this thread so far having a conversation with yourself might be a good option though.

 

[tyke1doe]

Pretty much the same. Raiders actually better talent in passing situations.

Nope.
The Raiders had the better receivers, although even that's a push.
The Cowboys clearly had the better run game, tight end and offensive line.