Dak Hater is a hateful Label

[cowboyblue22]

i don't hate dak I just don't think he is the answer at qb but we will soon see because if his play don't improve and the team don't win then somebody will get the chance to be the qb also the coaching has to improve a bunch ihope the new coaches help we will see

 

[Mountaineerfan]

This is what happens when society gets participation trophies.

 

[Hennessy_King]

True then again you can play what if all day fact is Dak did not cost Dallas the game and there was no assurance had Romo played that Dallas would have won. No doubt it is great playing what if because the outcome is also pre determined by those playing what if. Fact is Dak played a great game vs the packers in the playoffs. What did Dallas in was a 3rd and 20 where Rogers hits his man for 30 yards, that should never have happened and nothing any QB could have done about it.

Thank you. That is the point I'm trying to make. Dak did not cost them the game.

 

[foofighters]

It’s Social Media bullying. That’s what we do beginning with the highest office in the land.

Oh please, this has been going on longer than before that. I could see it if someone is truly calling someone names but a "Dak Hater" isn't something that I would see as derogatory. My view of the term, "hater" applies to someone who blindly hates a player and will not listen to anything else or entertain any ideas or comments with an open mind. We have had plenty of Romo Haters throughout the years. I've been called a hater...it didn't hurt my feelings.

 

[Swagger]

True then again you can play what if all day fact is Dak did not cost Dallas the game and there was no assurance had Romo played that Dallas would have won. No doubt it is great playing what if because the outcome is also pre determined by those playing what if. Fact is Dak played a great game vs the packers in the playoffs. What did Dallas in was a 3rd and 20 where Rogers hits his man for 30 yards, that should never have happened and nothing any QB could have done about it.

Objectively speaking I watched the playoff game against the Packers when Prescott was under centre. I honestly thought during the game that the only plays Romo would not have been able to do were the 2 point conversion Prescott rushed in and he also made an excellent rush for a first down. Aside from that in my opinion Romo would have made all of the throws Prescott did and some plus crucially in my opinion would have drained the clock on the last drive (assuming it panned out to that point) and either won the game or taken it into overtime as obviously he wouldn't have spiked the ball given his level of experience.

Prescott didn't get going until late in the Second Quarter - would it have taken Romo that long to get going against an awful defense knowing that he was up against a great QB in Rodgers?

Prescott did also throw an interception which was costly as it chewed up the clock at a critical moment during the game. In his last two play off games Romo had 4 TDs with zero interceptions and was 34/50 for 484 yards. On balance, against a terrible Secondary I think Romo would have lit it up and whilst it was only one drive, boy did he look smooth against the Eagles. It would have been a TD on his first throw if Terence Williams wasn't so surprised that someone threw the ball further than 40 yards! haha Cheap but nothing wrong with a harmless crack.

Prescott did have the best offensive line in the league by a country mile in 2016 plus a Top 3 running back in Elliott so he had a lot going for him offensively. I personally never saw Romo have that same quality around him as in my opinion the 2014 Offensive Line was very good but I don't think had the chemistry of 2016.

On the face of it, I thought Prescott had a very good game against the Packers given that he was a rookie, of course he played well. But I think Romo would have been great and effectively won us the game and the way he would have got us going sooner than Prescott did I think would have settled down the defense in the first half rather than it taking them as long as until the Second half before they settled down.

I'm not hating on Prescott, as I said he played well but I don't see why I should be ashamed or embarrassed to state the above which I still strongly believe to this very day.

 

[silvrNblue]

Well garsh, this is easy, romo busted up AGAIN, laying on the field, fans holding their breath. In came Dak P, and all he does is .....WIN! how stupid would all of it seem had we played Tony, and he wound up crippled or lost out on the season? Come on man, Dak starting was a no brainer. Tony just couldn't take the hits any longer.

 

[Swagger]

Well garsh, this is easy, romo busted up AGAIN, laying on the field, fans holding their breath. In came Dak P, and all he does is .....WIN! how stupid would all of it seem had we played Tony, and he wound up crippled or lost out on the season? Come on man, Dak starting was a no brainer. Tony just couldn't take the hits any longer.

If that happened (how did Peyton Manning get on after breaking his neck?) then ok...just put Prescott back into the game - he had played well during the season so where's the problem!?

I think starting Romo, ideally as soon as he was healthy, if not then in the play offs, would have given us the best chance of winning the Superbowl that season.

For some reason that seems to make me a Prescott hater!

 

[Doomsday101]

Objectively speaking I watched the playoff game against the Packers when Prescott was under centre. I honestly thought during the game that the only plays Romo would not have been able to do were the 2 point conversion Prescott rushed in and he also made an excellent rush for a first down. Aside from that in my opinion Romo would have made all of the throws Prescott did and some plus crucially in my opinion would have drained the clock on the last drive (assuming it panned out to that point) and either won the game or taken it into overtime as obviously he wouldn't have spiked the ball given his level of experience.

Prescott didn't get going until late in the Second Quarter - would it have taken Romo that long to get going against an awful defense knowing that he was up against a great QB in Rodgers?

Prescott did also throw an interception which was costly as it chewed up the clock at a critical moment during the game. In his last two play off games Romo had 4 TDs with zero interceptions and was 34/50 for 484 yards. On balance, against a terrible Secondary I think Romo would have lit it up and whilst it was only one drive, boy did he look smooth against the Eagles. It would have been a TD on his first throw if Terence Williams wasn't so surprised that someone threw the ball further than 40 yards! haha Cheap but nothing wrong with a harmless crack.

Prescott did have the best offensive line in the league by a country mile in 2016 plus a Top 3 running back in Elliott so he had a lot going for him offensively. I personally never saw Romo have that same quality around him as in my opinion the 2014 Offensive Line was very good but I don't think had the chemistry of 2016.

On the face of it, I thought Prescott had a very good game against the Packers given that he was a rookie, of course he played well. But I think Romo would have been great and effectively won us the game and the way he would have got us going sooner than Prescott did I think would have settled down the defense in the first half rather than it taking them as long as until the Second half before they settled down.

I'm not hating on Prescott, as I said he played well but I don't see why I should be ashamed or embarrassed to state the above which I still strongly believe to this very day.

Again you are playing the what if game and of course you will not lose, things will work out perfect in the what if world. Fact is Romo has had how much success in post season? Dak played a dame good game, yes he had an int in the game, has Romo thrown ints in playoff games?

 

[PAPPYDOG]

Comparing Romo to Dak is like comparing a BMW to a Fiat....Dak will never have Tony's QB talents period!!!!

 

[CCBoy]

Objectively speaking I watched the playoff game against the Packers when Prescott was under centre. I honestly thought during the game that the only plays Romo would not have been able to do were the 2 point conversion Prescott rushed in and he also made an excellent rush for a first down. Aside from that in my opinion Romo would have made all of the throws Prescott did and some plus crucially in my opinion would have drained the clock on the last drive (assuming it panned out to that point) and either won the game or taken it into overtime as obviously he wouldn't have spiked the ball given his level of experience.

Prescott didn't get going until late in the Second Quarter - would it have taken Romo that long to get going against an awful defense knowing that he was up against a great QB in Rodgers?

Prescott did also throw an interception which was costly as it chewed up the clock at a critical moment during the game. In his last two play off games Romo had 4 TDs with zero interceptions and was 34/50 for 484 yards. On balance, against a terrible Secondary I think Romo would have lit it up and whilst it was only one drive, boy did he look smooth against the Eagles. It would have been a TD on his first throw if Terence Williams wasn't so surprised that someone threw the ball further than 40 yards! haha Cheap but nothing wrong with a harmless crack.

Prescott did have the best offensive line in the league by a country mile in 2016 plus a Top 3 running back in Elliott so he had a lot going for him offensively. I personally never saw Romo have that same quality around him as in my opinion the 2014 Offensive Line was very good but I don't think had the chemistry of 2016.

On the face of it, I thought Prescott had a very good game against the Packers given that he was a rookie, of course he played well. But I think Romo would have been great and effectively won us the game and the way he would have got us going sooner than Prescott did I think would have settled down the defense in the first half rather than it taking them as long as until the Second half before they settled down.

I'm not hating on Prescott, as I said he played well but I don't see why I should be ashamed or embarrassed to state the above which I still strongly believe to this very day.

The start point for Tony Romo and Dak Prescott were different points after the whistle. That, and Tony had an incredible knack of 4th quarter play.

 

[Brooksey]

That was debated on a lot of pre game shows, even Jimmy weighed in on it saying he would stay with the hot hand in Dak that season. Add to that Dak played an outstanding game vs GB hitting 63% for 302 and 3 TD's. It was not as if Dak play hurt the Cowboys. Not saying others who had a different view point was wrong or right but I don't think in the end the Cowboys were wrong for staying with the hot hand in Dak and his play proved that

Hot hand my ...You play the veteran Romo if healthy. Jimmy can say that from a studio 20 years later but he would have started Aikman.

 

[silvrNblue]

Hum... let me rethink my last post on this...BLEH who really cares, sticks and stones ole boy, sticks and stones

 

[Brooksey]

Raise your hands slowly to the side of your face, and please take off your Romo Blinders.

The numbers don’t lie. Dak is very mature, cool cat but has accuracy problems. Dez is gone can’t blame him when they stack the box against Zeke and Dak is trying to hit A. Hurns... sounds appetizing. We’ll see.

 

[Doomsday101]

Hot hand my ...You play the veteran Romo if healthy. Jimmy can say that from a studio 20 years later but he would have started Aikman.

and that is your view, That is what you would do there are many including SB winning coaches that disagree with you. If Dallas loses with Romo then what you pulled a QB who had been successful all year, who played great in the playoff loss to GB. It is not as if Romo had a strong playoff resume

 

[Brooksey]

How is his qbr when it counted in week 17 or the playoffs I doubt it's 4th highest. Tony constantly put our team in a bad position with turnovers then pad his stats in garbage time he even said so on air last season talking about ways to "pad" your stats.

So U pick and choose games, do u work for ESPN? Lol He actually had one of the highest 4th quarter ratings and comeback record among all actives when retired. Take your Dak blinders off.. you have no idea what your talking about

 

[Brooksey]

I never said they're the same person. I also don't talk in absolutes in regard to a 2nd year player. To suggest Dak will "never" surpass something Romo did is silly. Did your magic 8-ball tell you that?
What we can do is compare the 1st two seasons of each player. That's fair, right? Try it and get back to me.

I’m not suggesting Dak will never pass anything of Romos.. I’m guaranteeing it

 

[Hennessy_King]

So U pick and choose games, do u work for ESPN? Lol He actually had one of the highest 4th quarter ratings and comeback record among all actives when retired. Take your Dak blinders off.. you have no idea what your talking about

He never played better against more talent and the biggest games. It's a fact. I don't know what you are arguing Romo was never good enough to get it done. That's a fact he retired and never got it done.

 

[Brooksey]

and that is your view, That is what you would do there are many including SB winning coaches that disagree with you. If Dallas loses with Romo then what you pulled a QB who had been successful all year, who played great in the playoff loss to GB. It is not as if Romo had a strong playoff resume

You don’t run the team based on what you think the media will say if u fail. More then 50% of SB coaches play the veteran Romo.

 

[Brooksey]

He never played better against more talent and the biggest games. It's a fact. I don't know what you are arguing Romo was never good enough to get it done. That's a fact he retired and never got it done.

He never had a defense ranked under 20th in the league and playoff losses besides 2014 were with patched up o-lines. Team game, your argument is weak as ....u sound like Giants fan.

 

[Doomsday101]

You don’t run the team based on what you think the media will say if u fail. More then 50% of SB coaches play the veteran Romo.

Your % is total BS you don't know nor do I know what each individual coach would do, you know what you would do, when you say media I'm not taking about those who never played or coached the game at the NFL level I’m talking about those who have and have won the biggest games.

It is not as if Dak played poorly in the game, he was 63% 3 TD for 303 in the game and put up 31 points. In the end it was the defense on a 3rd and 20 that did the Cowboys in not Prescott. Playing what if, is a scenario you can't lose because it never happened. Had Romo played and Dallas loses the game then what? You would have just as many critics like you claiming you took at a QB who had lead the team the entire and winning for a QB who frankly never won much in post season.