Dak's record is 30-16. Before the "his first year was good because he was new, had a great o-line, etc." comments come, let's take away 2016.
He still has a 17-11 record. 60% . Now let's look at a couple of other well thought of quarterbacks record:
Matthew Stafford. 65-74, 47%
Cam Newton. 68-53, 59.7%.
Kirk Cousins. 33-36-2, 46%.
Newton got to a SB, but Stafford's been to only 3 playoff games, lost them all.
Yes it's nice to have a Brady or Brees or Rodgers, but just note that the vast majority of teams DON'T have a "super" quarterback. To those who say Dak's not good enough, let's assume they're right. But if you have a guy who has won, who has skills, who has the basis of a good team around him, and possibly a very good defense, you want to dump him for a "maybe" draftee? And how are you going to get the next Brady or Brees without trading away more draft picks/good players? Or trading away the same for a high draft pick, which could easily turn out to be another Leaf, Young, Leinart, Russell, etc. It ain't easy folks.
As someone pointed out, to get Aikman the Cowboys had to go 1-15, and even at that, without the Walker trade, would they have been able to get all the draft picks and players they needed to build a great team around Aikman? Maybe, maybe not.
I just think at this point with the team at the place it is now Jerry/Stephen doesn't want to go for the hot shot rookie or aged vet, which in their minds is a bigger risk than sticking with Dak. And I can get on board with that. It's not up to us anyway.
If you can't stand the thought of Dak as the quarterback for the next few years, better find another team to watch...