Twitter: Prescott By The Numbers: Facts Over Fiction

CowboyFrog said:

are they not the same, you better have a good evaluation of your player and who he is going against to have a good game plan..right?

Click to expand...

No, they are not the same. I posed the scenario of Bill B having to choose between stats or game film to evaluate the individual players he considered adding to his team as a GM. Game planning as a coach is much different.

If your job, your reputation and your future as a GM was on the line and you had to choose between stats or film to evaluate your potential acquisitions, which would you choose?

Vtwin said:

No, they are not the same. I posed the scenario of Bill B having to choose between stats or game film to evaluate the individual players he considered adding to his team as a GM. Game planning as a coach is much different.

If your job, your reputation and your future as a GM was on the line and you had to choose between stats or film to evaluate your potential acquisitions, which would you choose?

Click to expand...

Clearly they would chose stats because they clearly have no idea what they are seeing on the field.

That's why all of their opinions are based around a players stats.

Vtwin said:

No, they are not the same. I posed the scenario of Bill B having to choose between stats or game film to evaluate the individual players he considered adding to his team as a GM. Game planning as a coach is much different.

If your job, your reputation and your future as a GM was on the line and you had to choose between stats or film to evaluate your potential acquisitions, which would you choose?

Click to expand...

I dont think anyone said "No Game film" i hear on here all the time "Stats dont matter"....together they tell you what worked and what didnt work....why would anyone not use both?

GINeric said:

I think both matters, but why do he have stat sheets and take notes during games??? They've shown many films where BB is discussing play percentage success based on stats as to how to attack people on first, second, or third downs based on tendencies and STATS. Yes every coach watches film, but at the end of the day he relies on stats as well.

Statistics show what people favor on what plays and situations.

When BB goes to the NFL combine and watch players workout.... he has paperwork in his hands. Can you honestly tell me that you believe none of that paperwork has STATS on the prospected players??? When BB is at the combine, he has writing utensils in his hands and writes things down on paper. Why?? Do you think he's not keeping some sort of stats??

Wait.... why do combine players do certain drills over if they dont feel that their previous drill attempt numbers weren't up to par???

I'll tell you why... because they want the best STATS to put them in the best drafting positions.

Click to expand...

You are missing the point. You watched a clip of Bill saying "stats are for losers" which you lambasted. Of course you would use all the tools you have available. The point is, if he HAD to choose between the two he would recognize that actually watching the player will tell you everything the stats tell you plus a whole lot more.

If you had to choose between the two to manage your roster as a real life GM, which would you choose?

this is NOPT NEW News

all that hetrs are jyst that TROLLS , Haters, and all worng ..Dak is a top 10 QB for his CAREER not this year not next , most of his numbers prove all narratives wrong his, stats show top 7 in every conceivable category and top 5 in most current years not his career , in the NOW!

Teams get win and loss numbers not just one player..

good try these ranking, and stats new links mean nothig ..most who aren't troll hating tools can see that if they were blinded by the personal hate and hang the 26 years of playoff failures on Dak or Romo or one played. Its been team issue, new teams, new coaches, same result. It happens even with Landry and White it happened..

other teams went thought longer droughts come have never been to a SB or won a SB! many who finally got their first or another took 30, 50 years to get back..

those are facts players like Brees and rogers have only one SB, why is that??

teams bro, their teams fell short. we all saw piss poor defense ruin many of our payoff runs. Or Baily missing Fgs, or Murray fumbles, or poor officiation most notable the Dez reversal. Its ridiculous to put this on Dak and or Romo and or White etc etc etc etc etc etc

you win and lose as a team and need some bounces and luck with health etc hope to get some calls go your way to win the big ones.

Dak not the issue and never has been if team cant win with top 5-10 QB who puts up way above average number sin all phases , we look to the team..

dak hater SHUT UP!!

CowboyFrog said:

I dont think anyone said "No Game film" i hear on here all the time "Stats dont matter"....together they tell you what worked and what didnt work....why would anyone not use both?

Click to expand...

It was a hypothetical example intended to highlight the individual importance of each as compared to each other.

In this hypothetical example, which would you choose as a real life GM?

MountaineerCowboy said:

Clearly they would chose stats because they clearly have no idea what they are seeing on the field.

That's why all of their opinions are based around a players stats.

Click to expand...

Not really, Personally I don't care if Dak throws for less than 200 yards as long as we win. Hell Troy Aikman had serval game where is stats were nothing to write home about but they won. Winning always trumps stats.

Vtwin said:

You are missing the point. You watched a clip of Bill saying "stats are for losers" which you lambasted. Of course you would use all the tools you have available. The point is, if he HAD to choose between the two he would recognize that actually watching the player will tell you everything the stats tell you plus a whole lot more.

If you had to choose between the two to manage your roster as a real life GM, which would you choose?

Click to expand...

I have no problem with what you've said about stats, but there is a video someone posted in this thread of what BB said when he mentioned stats. I think you guys "skewed and used all tools available", but unfortunately, BB didn't use his argument for the same reasons you guys have.

GINeric said:

I have no problem with what you've said about stats, but there is a video someone posted in this thread of what BB said when he mentioned stats. I think you guys "skewed and used all tools available", but unfortunately, BB didn't use his argument for the same reasons you guys have.

Click to expand...

I honestly don't believe you understand what my "argument" is.

If as a GM you had to choose between either stats or film, which would you choose?

Bonus question.
If Bill B could choose between Mac Jones, or Dak which one do you believe he would take? He can use both stats and film to decide this one.

Vtwin said:

It was a hypothetical example intended to highlight the individual importance of each as compared to each other.

In this hypothetical example, which would you choose as a real life GM?

Click to expand...

lol..again a real life GM would'nt have to choose and would be foolish to not use both, but lets go down this rabbit hole, assuming only one is avaible and your scouting department has to find you good players through out the country in NCAA games played...tell me how they would start on who to watch this game film on out of over 150 schools if they could not see any stats....your throwing a blind dart into the ocean on what film your gonna whatch and what your looking for....I mean that scouting department is gonna need to be very large. Same thing applies to an individual game just on a smaller scale...btw while your watching this game film someone is going to be recording what happened on each individual play your watching so it can have an outcome..so lets choose gamefilm but then the stats would be there because if your not gonna record what happend on said play whats the point of evaluating it for outcome? Stats just show an outcome from a play, I'm not sure why that is a bad thing or needs to be dismissed.

Qcard said:

So now the Dak Haters @PAPPYDOG and @MountaineerCowboy want to trumpet Bill Belichick "Stats are for Losers"..... Dak Haters are so cheap and without context. Bill was talking about individual game statics in a Losing game....not overall cumulative stats....but we know Dak Haters have brain restrictions...

Well Walk OFF TDs are for Winners...Belichick with a late Cameo.....wait for it.

Click to expand...

They use the word HATE to take the issue off the gridiron and to areas that fuel their shortcomings in how they view the world.
They have my sympathies........

GINeric said:

Great post, but nowhere did I say that rushing TDs were more important than passing TDs for a quarterback. Oh yeah, our original discussion involved Dak having 100+ TD passes AND 20 rushing TDs in his first 4 seasons. He was the only player to do that within a 4 year period. You said many other quarterbacks have done this within that same time frame. Who are they???

And since we're adding in other stats that has nothing to do with the original question....

Dak is tied for the second most game winning drives in the first four seasons.... where are the above quarterbacks you've listed in that category??

Dak is also tied for most 100+ passer rating games in his first four seasons. Pretty decent for a fourth rounder. There's alot of first and second rounders who haven't done that.

Dak also has the 6th highest touchdown to interception ratio in NFL history. There are only 5 other quarterbacks who were better in that category. You've listed many quarterbacks who've done so.e great things in their young careers. I wonder which one of them are the other 5 that were better than he is in that category.

Trent Dilpher won a superbowl, something Dak and many of those quarterbacks you've listed haven't done, or have only done once just like Dilpher. I would sound like a clown to compare Dilpher over any of those quarterbacks you listed though, wouldn't I???

Click to expand...

No no, this is what you asked:

You said there's many more quarterbacks with better stats in their first four years...

To refute what I posted as “better stats” and then come back and reiterate there needs to be rushing TDs implies you believe that it is somehow superior. “Better stats”

There are QBs who don’t play in domes that have more TDs in the snow than Dak. Do you believe TDs in the snow are worth more points than indoor TDs?

Why are rushing TD’s different? It’s just as pointless to separate as snow TDs. They are TD drives that Dak led his team on, no more or less.

Dak leads the NFL in D Prescott touchdowns. No one has as many TDs while being named D Prescott as Dak does. Should we add that to your list of accomplishments?

TDs are TDs.

MountaineerCowboy said:

Clearly they would chose stats because they clearly have no idea what they are seeing on the field.

That's why all of their opinions are based around a players stats.

Click to expand...

It doesnt take stats to know that teams win games. It takes a small measure of intelligence.

Also. Regarding your prior question about everything Dak had on that team in 2016. I brought up Kurt Warner and you decided not to say anything. Why? How many HOF players came off of that Rams team?

My point is simple. Players need other players to compliment them in football. No one does it on their own. No one. Dak had some good to great talent when he came into the league and didn't get it done. His team was stacked. Playing Dak in the playoffs with all of the evidence against rookie QBs in the playoffs going against them was the coaching staffs fault. And since 2016 that team has progressively gotten worse. Especially the OL. It makes me remember just how good Travis Frederick was in his prime and what a damn shame a rare disease took him away from us too soon.

Either way. As I have been saying. Dak needs to get better at a lot of things but none more than being consistent.

Vtwin said:

I honestly don't believe you understand what my "argument" is.

If as a GM you had to choose between either stats or film, which would you choose?

Bonus question.
If Bill B could choose between Mac Jones, or Dak which one do you believe he would take? He can use both stats and film to decide this one.

Click to expand...

As a GM i believe both film and stats are equally important. As far as who he would take between Jones and Prescott.... I'll put it to you this way. If Dak and Jones could re-enter the draft based on their capabilities, and both of them were available in the draft, I believe BB takes Prescott.

Now thats unfair to Jones to say that because Dak has 5 seasons of more professional experience than he does. I'll put it to you like this. If scouts knew what Dak was capable of, do you think he still drops into the 4th round??? I definitely don't think Dak makes it out of the first round.

On another note, who do you think Dak would have flourished better under???? Jason Garrett or BB??? I think we all know the answer to that as well. Let's not act like Dak had a better teacher than Jones coming out of college.

phildadon86 said:

It doesnt take stats to know that teams win games. It takes a small measure of intelligence.

Also. Regarding your prior question about everything Dak had on that team in 2016. I brought up Kurt Warner and you decided not to say anything. Why? How many HOF players came off of that Rams team?

My point is simple. Players need other players to compliment them in football. No one does it on their own. No one. Dak had some good to great talent when he came into the league and didn't get it done. His team was stacked. Playing Dak in the playoffs with all of the evidence against rookie QBs in the playoffs going against them was the coaching staffs fault. And since 2016 that team has progressively gotten worse. Especially the OL. It makes me remember just how good Travis Frederick was in his prime and what a damn shame a rare disease took him away from us too soon.

Either way. As I have been saying. Dak needs to get better at a lot of things but none more than being consistent.

Click to expand...

Kurt Warner is a winner.

Kurt had weapons and he got the most out of them.

What do you want me to say about him? lol

Dak has a lot of things he needs to get better at, but it's been 6 years, and I don't think he has the ability to do it at this point. If you have been a starter for 6 years you should be able to read a defense better than he shows. That's one of the main issues I have with him now and it was exposed big time last season. Maybe he will surprise me, but I highly doubt it.

MountaineerCowboy said:

Kurt Warner is a winner.

Kurt had weapons and he got the most out of them.

What do you want me to say about him? lol

Dak has a lot of things he needs to get better at, but it's been 6 years, and I don't think he has the ability to do it at this point. If you have been a starter for 6 years you should be able to read a defense better than he shows. That's one of the main issues I have with him now and it was exposed big time last season. Maybe he will surprise me, but I highly doubt it.

Click to expand...

Did you watch Brees and Manning their first 6 years? Everyone can continue to get better.

You asked me to show you a QB with a similar situation. Kurt Warner did. I guess he was just a guy whos team propped him up.

CowboyFrog said:

lol..again a real life GM would'nt have to choose and would be foolish to not use both, but lets go down this rabbit hole, assuming only one is avaible and your scouting department has to find you good players through out the country in NCAA games played...tell me how they would start on who to watch this game film on out of over 150 schools if they could not see any stats....your throwing a blind dart into the ocean on what film your gonna whatch and what your looking for....I mean that scouting department is gonna need to be very large. Same thing applies to an individual game just on a smaller scale...btw while your watching this game film someone is going to be recording what happened on each individual play your watching so it can have an outcome..so lets choose gamefilm but then the stats would be there because if your not gonna record what happend on said play whats the point of evaluating it for outcome? Stats just show an outcome from a play, I'm not sure why that is a bad thing or needs to be dismissed.

Click to expand...

I'm not making a case for the abolishment of stats. I never said stats are a bad thing.

There was a time in the NFL, not that long ago, when scouts were the main source of information. Stats weren't even kept at the level they are today. It has never been easier to actually watch prospects play then it is today.

Why won't you answer the simple hypothetical question? It's just a thought experiment. It does not even imply a right or a wrong, nor does it suggest that either option is irrelevant.

If you were betting your career on it, would you choose stats or film to evaluate FA's/Draftees if hypothetically you could only choose one?

Maybe a non-football example will help illustrate the thought process.

I like ketchup and mustard on my burgers. I don't want to give up either and I don't have to give up either. But, If hypothetically I needed to give up one it would be an easy choice for me.

phildadon86 said:

Did you watch Brees and Manning their first 6 years? Everyone can continue to get better.

You asked me to show you a QB with a similar situation. Kurt Warner did. I guess he was just a guy whos team propped him up.

Click to expand...

Manning had already won an MVP and took his team to the conference championship in 6 years,

Brees didn't start his 1st year, but by his 6th year starting he had finished 2nd in MVP voting and won a CPOY

They were already very good by their 6th year. I don't think they are good examples.

MountaineerCowboy said:

Ahh, Week 6.

The apex of the 2021 Dallas Cowboys season.

Too bad there was 12 games left.

Click to expand...

If only I could see your prediction going into Week 6 2021 Dallas Cowboys season......

MountaineerCowboy said:

Manning had already won an MVP and took his team to the conference championship in 6 years,

Brees didn't start his 1st year, but by his 6th year starting he had finished 2nd in MVP voting and won a CPOY

They were already very good by their 6th year. I don't think they are good examples.

Click to expand...

My point is. They got better. That’s all