OmerV
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 25,901
- Reaction score
- 22,430
If he is a bigger part of the wins, why wouldn't he also be a bigger part of the losses? Either he is the leading and dominant element of the team or he's not - you can't rationally justify saying Rodgers is the leading and dominant force when they win, but suddenly it's a team thing when they lose.That is the exact opposite of what I said. Rodgers is a bigger part of their wins than Dak is to ours. Rodgers doesn't have the offensive weapons Dak has had but they've had fairly comparable defenses, last year theirs was certainly better than ours. We've seen what happens when Dak doesn't have a stud receiver and we've seen Rodgers find ways to make his guys into studs. Don't compare them, it's not even fair for your little boy.
Face it, you are using a blatant double standard.
But let's try your double standard out on Dak …. In 2016 the 13 wins were "all on Dak mostly" … how does that sit with you? Or are only losses on Dak and wins on the team - opposite your double standard with Rodgers.
As for Rodgers making his receivers into studs … why is it not possible they receivers were studs that Rodgers took advantage of?
And how does an undrafted free agent having his best year as a Cowboy with Dak (Beasley) and a 3rd round pick becoming a stud with Dak, not also qualify as making his receivers a stud? What about Cobb, who had a better year last year with Dak than he has had with Rodgers since 2015?
Again, you are full of double standards.