Cowboys early 2000's teams defense of not moving on from Dak

[Blitzen]

It’s because they think we can just pluck a qb off the qb tree and be better, they’ll reference mahomes, stroud or whomever but forget the dark years here and organizations like the jets, lions, and countless others who have for years been looking for franchise quarterbacks.

The Jets and Lions went years and years being awful football teams (no matter what they had at QB). The early 2000’s, the Cowboys were an awful football team. They weren’t some untapped goldmine of talent just waiting on a franchise QB.

It’s a team game. Are you overvaluing what a “franchise” QB can impact once the playoffs begin? The Jets currently have a crappy oline and will not succeed with an aging Rodgers behind it. They must improve it first. Detroit is making Goff look much better (though I think he’s just a pretty good QB) with a great rushing attack and playaction passing to great weapons.

 

[CTcowboy203]

The Jets and Lions went years and years being awful football teams (no matter what they had at QB). The early 2000’s, the Cowboys were an awful football team. They weren’t some untapped goldmine of talent just waiting on a franchise QB.

It’s a team game. Are you overvaluing what a “franchise” QB can impact once the playoffs begin? The Jets currently have a crappy oline and will not succeed with an aging Rodgers behind it. They must improve it first. Detroit is making Goff look much better (though I think he’s just a pretty good QB) with a great rushing attack and playaction passing to great weapons.

we have no clue how Rodgers and the jets will be that’s just your opinion, which I respect but it’s pure conjecture. Secondly, Goff is almost on his 2nd super bowl appearance while I’m not a huge fan he deserves some credit and it can’t be washed away because you don’t like the player.

It absolutely is a team game but finding a franchise quarterback is still the hardest thing to do in this business. It is not easy and while dak has failed us in the post season thus far it doesn’t mean it will always be that way. It could be that for sure but just because something happened before doesn’t mean the outcome can’t be different in the future. It’s not that black and white and fans make it that way.

 

[DandyDon52]

There is this prevailing message of what the current Cowboys’ team looks like without a franchise QB. The early 2000’s Cowboys’ teams are used as reference-and defense of what moving on from a franchise QB looks like. Clint Stoerner, Chad Hutchinson, Anthony Wright, Quincy Carter, Drew Henson, etc.

The argument relies on the fallacy that those teams were somehow close to the last three Cowboys’ teams in regards to talent and coaching. It is absurd to think that the past three teams for the Cowboys were somehow comparable outside of QB talent with the teams of the early 2000’s.

to clarify, those teams not only had a lesser qb, but they had really bad teams , and bad oline, and bad coaching real bad.
I remember for a period the oline was so bad due to coaching, the qb or rb would be tackled as the hand off was occurring !
That is bad.

We have a much better team and little better coaching,had a good defense for awhile, so dak benefits from all that.
Some of those 2000 era qb's could probably drive the current bus better than dak.

 

[sunalsorises]

Peyton’s contract gave Denver the ability to have an elite defense.

If we want to draft and money to sign FA’s to get an elite defense somewhere else has to give.

Peyton's surgically repaired neck, his inability to throw more than 20 yards, and Andrew Luck made Peyton Manning's contract.

 

[Blitzen]

we have no clue how Rodgers and the jets will be that’s just your opinion, which I respect but it’s pure conjecture. Secondly, Goff is almost on his 2nd super bowl appearance while I’m not a huge fan he deserves some credit and it can’t be washed away because you don’t like the player.

It absolutely is a team game but finding a franchise quarterback is still the hardest thing to do in this business. It is not easy and while dak has failed us in the post season thus far it doesn’t mean it will always be that way. It could be that for sure but just because something happened before doesn’t mean the outcome can’t be different in the future. It’s not that black and white and fans make it that way.

Are you sure that finding a QB that can win half the games with a team says as much and sometimes more about the surrounding cast than it does the QB? Is it possible that the reason for many of those terrible Lions/Jets (of the past) teams were because of poor drafting and free agent periods along with constant coaching and front office turnover-and less about the fact that they had no franchise QB.

Do you think that a 3 year (if they are lucky) team building window has led to the destruction of many QB’s and players and coaches and front office personnel throughout the years? Does the difficulty in finding a “franchise” QB have to maybe do with the immediate and impatient desire to win lots of games very early in the QB’s career? Do teams force rookie QB’s to play way too early lots of times, without allowing them to develop as a backup first? Can constant turnover within an organization lead to long cycles of losing? Do new hires have to take major risks in most organizations and force picks on QB’s because the clock is ticking?

I actually think finding an elite QB to be the most difficult position to find. There are between 0-3 of these in any particular season. I think it is just as if not more difficult to find an elite free safety-and similar numbers of them exist in any particular season. I think teams can overvalue some of the QB’s because they see how many failed to live up to draft status-they do not account for all the other variables that led to failure though. I also do not think this club is an elite QB away from winning Super Bowls-I have just seen enough of Dak to realize it will not be getting better in future seasons.

 

[CTcowboy203]

Are you sure that finding a QB that can win half the games with a team says as much and sometimes more about the surrounding cast than it does the QB? Is it possible that the reason for many of those terrible Lions/Jets (of the past) teams were because of poor drafting and free agent periods along with constant coaching and front office turnover-and less about the fact that they had no franchise QB.

Do you think that a 3 year (if they are lucky) team building window has led to the destruction of many QB’s and players and coaches and front office personnel throughout the years? Does the difficulty in finding a “franchise” QB have to maybe do with the immediate and impatient desire to win lots of games very early in the QB’s career? Do teams force rookie QB’s to play way too early lots of times, without allowing them to develop as a backup first? Can constant turnover within an organization lead to long cycles of losing? Do new hires have to take major risks in most organizations and force picks on QB’s because the clock is ticking?

I actually think finding an elite QB to be the most difficult position to find. There are between 0-3 of these in any particular season. I think it is just as if not more difficult to find an elite free safety-and similar numbers of them exist in any particular season. I think teams can overvalue some of the QB’s because they see how many failed to live up to draft status-they do not account for all the other variables that led to failure though. I also do not think this club is an elite QB away from winning Super Bowls-I have just seen enough of Dak to realize it will not be getting better in future seasons.

You keep going back to my jets and lions comment ignoring that those were just 2 examples and I’ve said many other teams have had the same difficulties over the years. Yes, the draft is extremely hard regardless of position, it’s not an exact science and it speaks volumes that you can be considered a great team builder by only hitting on like 50% of your picks- it’s that hard.

I’m not sure how agreeing on how hard it is to build a roster and draft players makes my point of giving up on good but not elite quarterbacks like dak any less valid? You bring up examples of organizations rushing players or being impatient as reasons they fail- do you think that this wouldn’t happen to Dallas and the Jones’s? They scream patient to you?

Now, ironically mcclay and the jone’s have done well in the draft but I still don’t have extreme confidence that they move on from dak and they easily replace the qb. I’m fine moving on from Prescott if there’s a realistic Avenue to get a promise young qb or an upgrade and still capitalize on the primes of players like lamb and parsons - who are both getting massive extensions.

 

[Blitzen]

You keep going back to my jets and lions comment ignoring that those were just 2 examples and I’ve said many other teams have had the same difficulties over the years. Yes, the draft is extremely hard regardless of position, it’s not an exact science and it speaks volumes that you can be considered a great team builder by only hitting on like 50% of your picks- it’s that hard.

I’m not sure how agreeing on how hard it is to build a roster and draft players makes my point of giving up on good but not elite quarterbacks like dak any less valid? You bring up examples of organizations rushing players or being impatient as reasons they fail- do you think that this wouldn’t happen to Dallas and the Jones’s? They scream patient to you?

Now, ironically mcclay and the jone’s have done well in the draft but I still don’t have extreme confidence that they move on from dak and they easily replace the qb. I’m fine moving on from Prescott if there’s a realistic Avenue to get a promise young qb or an upgrade and still capitalize on the primes of players like lamb and parsons - who are both getting massive extensions.

Yes-the Jones organization has shown way more patience in the past 15-16 seasons. Garrett getting 10 seasons. Mike is on to his 5th season despite 3 quick playoff exits. There has been little to no front office turnover-I mean besides Jones.

Romo and Dak showed that they were both capable of getting the team into the playoffs (Dak’s teams have been getting there even more routinely with Mike). The team is extremely successful against the worst teams in the league and have been for some time. They are typically 0.500 against tier 2 teams like themselves-and lose just about every time they face a tier 1 team.

Good consistent drafting and keeping the same decision makers in the front office (with regards to drafting) will help a team beat teams in constant cycle on average over time. The more cycling the more difficult it is to even build up minimal talent-schemes and coaches change plus the new staff wants to get their own guys. It’s my theory that the Cowboys have at least succeeded in building a fair amount of very good talent due to their current drafting structure. It is the driving force of their recent success and the main reason 2014, 2016, and these past 3 seasons were as successful as they were. Teams that can build a repeatable system do not need a great QB to get them into the playoffs. They get there by combinations of great play by their units. Dak is not a huge difference maker against lower tier teams (except on the scoreboard). He does not make huge differences in the other games and can be a liability against tier 1 squads. His stats point to a guy that will throttle weaker teams especially one sitting on the run because they are way behind. He can occasionally crank it up against a tier 2 squad, but is extremely inconsistent versus those teams. Dak would never last on a team as impatient as the Jets or Lions or other terrible teams of the past-not because he sucks. Because he and they would suck together. Lots of these franchise QB’s are just good QB’s in good or pretty good situations. They are not the driving force to success against the better teams, but are paid high salary because that has been the market. The Cowboys are likely a 0.500 or just a bit better team with some journeyman QB. The oline is finally getting close to needing major renovations and could stunt the development of the next QB (will see how that goes). If it’s very bad, the team might be terrible with/without Prescott.

 

[CTcowboy203]

Yes-the Jones organization has shown way more patience in the past 15-16 seasons. Garrett getting 10 seasons. Mike is on to his 5th season despite 3 quick playoff exits. There has been little to no front office turnover-I mean besides Jones.

Romo and Dak showed that they were both capable of getting the team into the playoffs (Dak’s teams have been getting there even more routinely with Mike). The team is extremely successful against the worst teams in the league and have been for some time. They are typically 0.500 against tier 2 teams like themselves-and lose just about every time they face a tier 1 team.

Good consistent drafting and keeping the same decision makers in the front office (with regards to drafting) will help a team beat teams in constant cycle on average over time. The more cycling the more difficult it is to even build up minimal talent-schemes and coaches change plus the new staff wants to get their own guys. It’s my theory that the Cowboys have at least succeeded in building a fair amount of very good talent due to their current drafting structure. It is the driving force of their recent success and the main reason 2014, 2016, and these past 3 seasons were as successful as they were. Teams that can build a repeatable system do not need a great QB to get them into the playoffs. They get there by combinations of great play by their units. Dak is not a huge difference maker against lower tier teams (except on the scoreboard). He does not make huge differences in the other games and can be a liability against tier 1 squads. His stats point to a guy that will throttle weaker teams especially one sitting on the run because they are way behind. He can occasionally crank it up against a tier 2 squad, but is extremely inconsistent versus those teams. Dak would never last on a team as impatient as the Jets or Lions or other terrible teams of the past-not because he sucks. Because he and they would suck together. Lots of these franchise QB’s are just good QB’s in good or pretty good situations. They are not the driving force to success against the better teams, but are paid high salary because that has been the market. The Cowboys are likely a 0.500 or just a bit better team with some journeyman QB. The oline is finally getting close to needing major renovations and could stunt the development of the next QB (will see how that goes). If it’s very bad, the team might be terrible with/without Prescott.

Disagree with most of this besides the cowboys being good drafting and do not agree being patient with coaches is the same as being patient with roster decisions. Also the cowboys aren’t really being patient with McCarthy….he’s 36-15 in last 50+ games he’s earned the right to stay and brought some stability to the organization. Jerry was patient with Garrett because he wanted to be correct in his belief in garrett- other than that no other coach he’s ever hired lasted past year 4, with 2 of those coaches not even making it to year 4.

We can agree to disagree. Prescott is a good quarterback and he wouldn’t suck anywhere else because he doesn’t suck.

 

[Blitzen]

Disagree with most of this besides the cowboys being good drafting and do not agree being patient with coaches is the same as being patient with roster decisions. Also the cowboys aren’t really being patient with McCarthy….he’s 36-15 in last 50+ games he’s earned the right to stay and brought some stability to the organization. Jerry was patient with Garrett because he wanted to be correct in his belief in garrett- other than that no other coach he’s ever hired lasted past year 4, with 2 of those coaches not even making it to year 4.

We can agree to disagree. Prescott is a good quarterback and he wouldn’t suck anywhere else because he doesn’t suck.

Dak would have gotten destroyed in Carolina last season. Maybe a 1 game improvement on wins. The team was awful-he would not have been able to prove he was much better than Bryce.

 

[CTcowboy203]

Dak would have gotten destroyed in Carolina last season. Maybe a 1 game improvement on wins. The team was awful-he would not have been able to prove he was much better than Bryce.

Whatever you say drago

 

[Blitzen]

Whatever you say drago

Do you actually believe that Dak would look like a franchise QB on that squad-putting up stats that are anywhere close to what he has done in Dallas?

 

[CTcowboy203]

Do you actually believe that Dak would look like a franchise QB on that squad-putting up stats that are anywhere close to what he has done in Dallas?

I think they’d be much better, certainly not 1 win difference as u suggested and I’m sure frank reich likely agrees with me. You’re being hyperbolic to make a point. Daks not elite but he’s good. The panthers scored less than 20 12 times. Im sure he’d make a difference, yes.

Anyways we’ve beaten this to death

 

[Blitzen]

I think they’d be much better, certainly not 1 win difference as u suggested and I’m sure frank reich likely agrees with me. You’re being hyperbolic to make a point. Daks not elite but he’s good. The panthers scored less than 20 12 times. Im sure he’d make a difference, yes.

Anyways we’ve beaten this to death

You are correct we agree to disagree. Have a good night.

 

[MikeT22]

It's so weird when fans are like, "Dak's not good enough! So the solution is to downgrade at the most important position on the field in order to save money!"

Who is wanting to downgrade?

 

[Captain-Crash]

"but who could we get to win nothing like dak does?" I would be scared to try to get better. Jerry and I like to just stay the same and hope a miracle happens. maybe one day dak will stop choking, but after 8 years will that happen?

 

[ShiningStar]

everyone has a new plan. same old plan, but with different diastarous results.

its like Cowboys fans love the Mediocrity so much now a days.