Aaron Rodgers (last night) vs. Dak (against the Cards)

[Trouty]

Dak is a mobile QB in EXACTLY the way the term is used today. Threat with the legs but doesn't depend on running. He's not RGIII or Tyrod, who would be running quarterbacks. You said it yourself, he's amazing when rolling out. Dak's legs are an absolute threat and whether he runs 1 time a game or 10, defenses have to account for it. That's what makes the RPO and play-action rollouts work, and that's what makes him different than Brady. Feeding on short and intermediate routes and using his legs as a threat makes him more like Jeff Garcia than it does Tom Brady. He's better than Garcia, obviously, but his playing style is absolutely nothing like Brady.

To be honest I don't care what Brady did in 2001 and 2002. That was two generations of football ago, and saying he's a Brady in the making is just a massive reach at this point in his career. The reality is that Dak has never been successful when he didn't have a run game to lean on and until he does that, he has no business being compared to the elite quarterbacks of the last decade.

I'd compare him to McNabb, but not McNair. I'd also compare him to Aaron Rodgers, Alex Smith, Brett Favre and Tony Romo long before I would Brady, Brees, and Peyton or, on the flip side, Mike Vick. But he's most similar in stature and play style to Newton. So kill that lazy comp nonsense.

You'd compare him to McNabb? He (McNabb) was horrible on short routes and had a cannon. Dak is finesse on short routes and doesn't have the arm strength.

Lazy comparison. Lazy.

And yes, mobile QB is every bit of the RG3's, Taylor's, Kaep's, Mariota's, Watson's. Dak's legs being a threat doesn't mean that Dak is a "mobile QB" in the same vein as the aforementioned. He isn't. He's a young Brady that can scramble and get you a first down. The former are players they rely on their legs. Dak doesn't.

I see that cherry picking is convienent when it suits your argument.

You should care about what Brady did in 2001 and 2002 when it's the crux of my argument. Again, you don't get to move this around to suit your lazy take, brosefus.

I'm not talking about a run game and Dak, bruh. This isn't about that. This is only about a similar game between Dak and Arod. How successful was Brady without a top-5 D?

Don't polute my thread with some agenda, son. PM me or make your own.

And Cam Newton, son? A dude with no touch and only an arm and RPO's every down?

Turn in your fan card. Or at least turn in your evaluation card. Just ban yourself.

 

[IheartRomo]

Using a single game as evidence of anything - especially comparing Dak to A-Rod, is really shortsighted.

Not when ragging the Cowboys. Dak sucked against the Broncos. The 13 fantastic games in 2016 and amazing playoff performance dueling with the greatest QB of all time are irrelevant.

Dak blows and has no hope of progressing as any rookie + 3 game QB has/should. Deal with it.

 

[Future]

You'd compare him to McNabb? He (McNabb) was horrible on short routes and had a cannon. Dak is finesse on short routes and doesn't have the arm strength.

Lazy comparison. Lazy.

And yes, mobile QB is every bit of the RG3's, Taylor's, Kaep's, Mariota's, Watson's.

I see that cherry picking is convienent when it suits your argument.

McNabb wasn't horrible on short routes, he made a killing throwing to Westbrook and TO short. He was inconsistent with his accuracy all over the field, which is also true of Dak. He also used his legs to extend plays and ran when the defense gave it to him, just like Dak. There arms are a bit different, sure, but their rushing average was practically the same.

If you think that Tyrod Taylor and RGIII are the same as Marcus Mariota and Dak in terms of mobility, then I don't know what you tell you. The first are running quarterbacks, which are practically extinct, and the second are mobile. There's a massive distinction between the two. What's lazy is not understanding the difference. There are a bunch of QBs that are mobile but not runners - Rodgers, Luck, Mariota, Smith, Dak off the top of my head. If you think Dak is more Tom Brady than these guys, then idk.

 

[Trouty]

McNabb wasn't horrible on short routes, he made a killing throwing to Westbrook and TO short. He was inconsistent with his accuracy all over the field, which is also true of Dak. He also used his legs to extend plays and ran when the defense gave it to him, just like Dak. There arms are a bit different, sure, but their rushing average was practically the same.

If you think that Tyrod Taylor and RGIII are the same as Marcus Mariota and Dak in terms of mobility, then I don't know what you tell you. The first are running quarterbacks, which are practically extinct, and the second are mobile. There's a massive distinction between the two. What's lazy is not understanding the difference. There are a bunch of QBs that are mobile but not runners - Rodgers, Luck, Mariota, Smith, Dak off the top of my head. If you think Dak is more Tom Brady than these guys, then idk.

Dak has one of the highest completion percentages through 20 games of any QB, ever. Yes, McNabb was horrid on short routes. Horrid. Very little touch, too much arm. Just like your boy, Cam.

"Then idk" is probably a term you use a lot in life.

Rushing avg and rushing attempts are vastly different, mon frere.

 

[Future]

Dak has one of the highest completion percentages through 20 games of any QB, ever. Yes, McNabb was horrid on short routes. Horrid. Very little touch, too much arm. Just like your boy, Cam.

"Then idk" is probably a term you use a lot in life.

Rushing avg and rushing attempts are vastly different, mon frere.

All I'm saying is that there are similarities between McNabb and Dak. I don't care if he did or didn't have touch. They were both inaccurate at times. I'm also not saying that he's a direct comparison to Dak, you're the one who brought him up.

I use "Then idk" because I don't know how to have this discussion with someone who doesn't understand the nuance of what a mobile QB is.

Yea they are. Attempts are largely irrelevant. Tom Brady runs the ball 40 times a year, but he's not a mobile guy. Rushing Y/A shows who is mobile and who isn't.

 

[Trouty]

All I'm saying is that there are similarities between McNabb and Dak. I don't care if he did or didn't have touch. They were both inaccurate at times. I'm also not saying that he's a direct comparison to Dak, you're the one who brought him up.

I use "Then idk" because I don't know how to have this discussion with someone who doesn't understand the nuance of what a mobile QB is.

Yea they are. Attempts are largely irrelevant. Tom Brady runs the ball 40 times a year, but he's not a mobile guy. Rushing Y/A shows who is mobile and who isn't.

Dak isn't a "Mobile QB" in the same vein that it is used today. I didn't say Dak wasn't mobile. "Nuance," oh for crying out loud. This isn't a term paper on Keynesian Economics. It doesn't take "nuance" to figure out what kind of QB Dak is. Unfortunately for you, it just takes understanding very simple aspects of the game, which, sadly, you lack. Like, sadly.

Dak is a throw-first, run-second QB. And he only runs when he needs to, when everything is stuffed. Hell, he'll even throw out of play before running, often.

Rushing Y/A shows who's effective at running, broham.

Rushing attempts shows who runs when given the chance.

Again, nuance...

Thanks for hijacking this thread with your bulljive, instead of using it for what it is.

 

[rags747]

A really good game against the Rams would go a long way to easing some of the concern IMO.

Agreed, I need to see a really good game from Dak this Sunday to allay some of my fears. Outside of 4-5 passes vs the Cards he seemed to be off again. Last yr Dak was consistently making throws that amazed the heck out of me, this yr to me he seems to be off with his accuracy. Maybe I'm crazy but both he and Zeke seemed better last year...maybe it's still early.

 

[Trouty]

Agreed, I need to see a really good game from Dak this Sunday to allay some of my fears. Outside of 4-5 passes vs the Cards he seemed to be off again. Last yr Dak was consistently making throws that amazed the heck out of me, this yr to me he seems to be off with his accuracy. Maybe I'm crazy but both he and Zeke seemed better last year...maybe it's still early.

It's still early

Look at who led the league in passing in 2000 through three weeks, Rags.

Look at Rodgers' last game (the one cited in the OP). That was the point of this thread

I do agree with you guys, tho. I also think Dak is on the up and up. His second half of the AZ game was masterful. He showed many of those throws you refer to!

 

[Doomsday101]

I don't look at these games as Dak vs Rodgers of any other QB. It is not as if they are directly playing against each other. Dak will be on the sideline when Rodgers is out on the field and vice versa. I see this as Dak vs GB defense and Rodgers vs Dallas defense.

 

[Fletch]

 

[Future]

Dak isn't a "Mobile QB" in the same vein that it is used today. I didn't say Dak wasn't mobile. "Nuance," oh for crying out loud. This isn't a term paper on Keynesian Economics. It doesn't take "nuance" to figure out what kind of QB Dak is. Unfortunately for you, it just takes understanding very simple aspects of the game, which, sadly, you lack. Like, sadly.

Dak is a throw-first, run-second QB. And he only runs when he needs to, when everything is stuffed. Hell, he'll even throw out of play before running, often.

Rushing Y/A shows who's effective at running, broham.

Rushing attempts shows who runs when given the chance.

Again, nuance...

Thanks for hijacking this thread with your bulljive, instead of using it for what it is.

I never said that you said Dak isn't mobile....

Per bolded: That's what the definition of mobile in today's NFL is. That's what makes him similar to guys like Mariota, in terms of mobility. I've never said anything different than that. But you're ignoring the fact that they also use his legs as a threat to run in RPO and read option plays, and there are times where he is a run-first quarterback. Guys like Tyrod are the opposite of that, because they run first. That's the difference between mobile and running.

Not for QBs, because scrambles count as runs. Would you consider Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck run-first quarterbacks? Because they were 4th and 5th in attempts last year. Tyrod, Kaep, Cam, Gaebbert and RGIII lead in Y/A. Those are your running quarterbacks because they generally can't consistently throw the ball. Then you've got guys like Brees, Brady, Palmer, Roethlisberger who have a variety of rushing attempts, but incredibly low Y/A. That's because they run only when they have to scramble and aren't mobile - purely pocket passers.

Luck, Rodgers, Mariota, etc. = Mobile
Tyrod, Kaep, Cam, Wilson, RGIII, etc. = Running
Brady, Brees, Roeth, etc. = Pocket Passers

Tell me that Dak doesn't fit in that first group. The difference between the first and second is the nuance you're not understanding, and the third group isn't even in the same ballpark of Dak's skillset.

 

[lukin2006]

See you in 9 days to see who wins the head-to-head

Dak is 1-1 as a rookie against the mighty Rodgers...if not for lousy game planning he'd be 2-0.

 

[VACowboy]

- Dak right now does not have the grasp of defenses or consistent accuracy to throw the ball 50 times a game and use it as an extension of the run game for possession, Brady, on the other hand, doesn't have the legs to ever be an RPO threat. They couldn't be more different.


Dak, in terms of style, is far more comparable to Cam Newton. When they're playing well, they're both doing the same things.

I have heard and read multiple people comparing Dak to a young Tom Brady, including Brady’s former trainer, who is currently Dak’s trainer, and former Patriots offensive coordinator Charlie Weis who is of the opinion that the two QBs are strikingly similar. The comparison has a lot more to do with their drive, demeanor and competitive fire then it does physical stuff. Bradys and Prescott’s leadership styles and ability are very similar. Their early affects on their teams is/was very similar. They are certainly very different athletically, but they are both cool headed field generals who navigate the pocket exceptionally well and thrive in play action and against the blitz. I Will never forget the first time I saw Dak in action. It was some training Camp footage on Dallas Cowboys.com, and my first impression was, wow. This guy looks the part. My second impression was, that pure overhand throwing motion – – he sure looks like Tom Brady when he slings the ball. I May be in the minority here, but in my humble opinion, Dak Prescott has a lot more in common with Tom Brady than he does Cam Newton.


Incidentally, Brady didn’t have the savvy of a 17 year veteran when he was in his second year either.

 

[Trouty]

I never said that you said Dak isn't mobile....

Per bolded: That's what the definition of mobile in today's NFL is. That's what makes him similar to guys like Mariota, in terms of mobility. I've never said anything different than that. But you're ignoring the fact that they also use his legs as a threat to run in RPO and read option plays, and there are times where he is a run-first quarterback. Guys like Tyrod are the opposite of that, because they run first. That's the difference between mobile and running.

Not for QBs, because scrambles count as runs. Would you consider Aaron Rodgers and Andrew Luck run-first quarterbacks? Because they were 4th and 5th in attempts last year. Tyrod, Kaep, Cam, Gaebbert and RGIII lead in Y/A. Those are your running quarterbacks because they generally can't consistently throw the ball. Then you've got guys like Brees, Brady, Palmer, Roethlisberger who have a variety of rushing attempts, but incredibly low Y/A. That's because they run only when they have to scramble and aren't mobile - purely pocket passers.

Luck, Rodgers, Mariota, etc. = Mobile
Tyrod, Kaep, Cam, Wilson, RGIII, etc. = Running
Brady, Brees, Roeth, etc. = Pocket Passers

Tell me that Dak doesn't fit in that first group. The difference between the first and second is the nuance you're not understanding, and the third group isn't even in the same ballpark of Dak's skillset.

Ben can be mobile (certainly before he was decimated by injury). Brees can be mobile. Luck is pocket. Rodgers can be pocket. See how fun this game is?

Having the ability to be mobile on a play doesn't make a QB a Mobile QB. Dak is a pocket/bootleg/playaction/scrambling QB who has the legs to make plays when he needs to.

He is still, very much, a behind the line of scrimmage passer.

 

[Future]

I have heard and read multiple people comparing Dak to a young Tom Brady, including Brady’s former trainer, who is currently Dak’s trainer, and former Patriots offensive coordinator Charlie Weis who is of the opinion that the two QBs are strikingly similar. The comparison has a lot more to do with their drive, demeanor and competitive fire then it does physical stuff. Bradys and Prescott’s leadership styles and ability are very similar. Their early affects on their teams is/was very similar. They are certainly very different athletically, but they are both cool headed field generals who navigate the pocket exceptionally well and thrive in play action and against the blitz. I Will never forget the first time I saw Dak in action. It was some training kale footage on Dallas Cowboys.com, and my first impression was, wow. This guy looks the part. My second impression was, that pure overhand throwing motion – – he sure looks like Tom Brady when he slings the ball. I Navy in the minority here, but in my humble opinion, Dak Prescott has a lot more in common with Tom Brady than he does Cam Newton.


Incidentally, Brady didn’t have the savvy of a 17 year veteran when he was in his second year either.

I mean yea, they have similar drive, but a lot of players do.Brady has never really been that cool-headed, and Dak seems to be. They're different in that way.

They're throwing motions are similar, but Brady's is much quicker.

Maybe down the line he'll be similar to Brady, but right now, Dak is successful with his physicality - that's where he's like Cam. He's not dumb, but he doesn't win with a cerebral passing game. Maybe he can, time will tell.

 

[windward]

Aaron -- 18-26, 69.2 Comp %, 179 YDs, 4 TDs., 128.0 QB Rating. 6.9 YPA

Dak -- 13-18, 72.2 Comp %, 183 YDs, 2 TDs, 1 rush TD. 141.7 QB Rating. 10.17 YPA

Dak played against a shutdown corner and a superior D. Aaron played against a lesser D, with admittedly a better D Coordinator in Fangio.

Dak is just getting started. As Cowherd pointed out, look at the QB leaders through three weeks of the 2000 season. It was Griese and Couch.

Dak is arriving.

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/R/RodgAa00.htm

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PresDa01.htm

So Jared Goff is this era's Tim Couch?

I kid, I kid.

Maybe.

 

[Future]

Ben is mobile. Brees can be mobile. Luck is pocket. Rodgers can be pocket. See how fun this game is?

What are you even talking about?

Ben and Brees each averages less than 1 ypc last year. Brees has good feel in the pocket, but they're two of the least mobile QBs in the league.

Of those three groups I listed, which one is Dak in?

 

[Trouty]

What are you even talking about?

Ben and Brees each averages less than 1 ypc last year. Brees has good feel in the pocket, but they're two of the least mobile QBs in the league.

Of those three groups I listed, which one is Dak in?

Last year. Their year 12 and 13 in the league. What were they doing Y/A in their first and second, kimosabe?

Sheesh, and you speak of nuance.

 

[Trouty]

So Jared Goff is this era's Tim Couch?

I kid, I kid.

Maybe.

I hope so!

 

[Trouty]

I mean yea, they have similar drive, but a lot of players do.Brady has never really been that cool-headed, and Dak seems to be. They're different in that way.

They're throwing motions are similar, but Brady's is much quicker.

Maybe down the line he'll be similar to Brady, but right now, Dak is successful with his physicality - that's where he's like Cam. He's not dumb, but he doesn't win with a cerebral passing game. Maybe he can, time will tell.

According to you, they're different in many, if not nearly all ways