On the 2nd drive of the game. None of that matters though. We know, because we saw the rest of the game, how the next 5 drives went for the defense (all TDs).
Dak being bad for most of a half is not a major point of concern because all 12 playoff QBs were bad for at least 1 half (in many cases in games they won). The reason some won is that their defense was not historically bad.
No team in playoff history has won when the defense gave up 6 TDs in the first 7 possessions. That should be the start and end of all analysis for that game because even if the offense was great all game, they still lose unless they do something that has never been done before which is an unreasonable standard to set.
No one said the defense was good. They were terrible. But that doesn't change the fact the QB wasn't all that good either.
To say that no QB could have won that game is missing the freaking point. If Dak went out there and tore it up from the start of that game and lost a 49-43 barn burner, that's one thing and might make your point more palatable. But that didn't happen. Dak was dreadful in the first half and was a major factor in why the Packers built a 27-0 lead in the first half (along with the defense as a cause). You can't change that reality. You can't just say, gee, I am not going to put any blame on Dak despite the fact he played terribly, especially in the first half, because the defense also played bad. It's bizarre that people would give a player, who played poorly, a pass simply because someone(s) also played poorly.
Yes, Dak playing poorly or inconsistently in another big/playoff game is a concern. How is it not?
