Dak last 3 games- 2 Passing TD 4 INT 82 Rating

[BigTimeBlues]

Dak homers need to make up thrust minds as to who is at fault and who gets the credit..

Well, I am by far a Dak "lover" nor am I a Dak "hater". I don't feel it's always as black and white, in most cases, as to who is to blame.

Even the best QBs have issues when they're being put on their rumps, did you watch New Englands game against Buffalo? One of the most recents that I could think of. Brady was under duress and had an awful game statistically.

This board has a serious issue with extremists, one way or the other. It makes most threads unbearable to read.

I think y'all should just learn to "agree to disagree" being that they're all opinions and basis for conversations..as opposed to throwing out "labels" as a lover or a hater.

Again, as always, just my $.02

P.s., Josh Norman has absolutely no room to talk about being bad, especially about a QB that roasted him.

 

[erod]

lol. 69.7% completions is aweful.

46-9 the last three first halves.

Completion percentage doesn't mean points.

 

[QuincyCarterEra]

Lol only clowns

 

[BigD_95]

Ha ha

You forgot the . between the 2 and the 7

 

[Philmonroe]

I still don't believe Dak is the problem here. However, he's not great enough to be the solution either. There's no one on the team that's wearing a cape at this point.

If you're the QB and aren't great enough to be the solution my guy he is a problem. I also wish people would stop with the disingenuous "is the problem" like most have said he is the only problem in the first place.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Is Dak the QB you hoped he’d turn into. Are his results on the field what you wanted to happen? If you pay Dak 40 million and he keeps bringing you to .500 records, will it never be his fault?

there is a such thing as a QB that can lift a mediocre team, cloak a bad coach.

 

[Philmonroe]

I’ll be honest I’m kind of ready for all of this to be over with. I’m a Dak fan but I’m tired of this charade. Only on Dallas does someone have to “prove” they are worth something when no one else has. Jaylon, Zeke, Lawrence and Collins proved nothing and got paid. Wentz and Goff has proved nothing but got paid. But Dak has to prove he can walk on water in order to get paid. Just over it all.

The life of a Dakaholic y'all. His poor average QB is the only player ever to have to prove anything and everybody else just got paid for showing up. Lol the delusion of some of,you people is super wild

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

The life of a Dakaholic y'all. His poor average QB is the only player ever to have to prove anything and everybody else just got paid for showing up. Lol the delusion of some of,you people is super wild

I keep wondering are you gonna start acting like the 60 year old you are or if you are going to continue to act 12. I keep holding out hope for you but it just doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen any time soon.

 

[Philmonroe]

I keep wondering are you gonna start acting like the 60 year old you are or if you are going to continue to act 12. I keep holding out hope for you but it just doesn’t seem like it’s going to happen any time soon.

60 years old you must be talking about yourself. I guess I'll continue to act 12 in your eyes because I'm not a Dak groupie like yourself. Such is life.

 

[Supercowboy1986]

everyone on this team is garbage right now.

the real question is who is the King of Trashlandia

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

60 years old you must be talking about yourself. I guess I'll continue to act 12 in your eyes because I'm not a Dak groupie like yourself. Such is life.

You just quoted me like a child when I never said anything to you. You played victim just like a child would. You’re too old to be acting like that.

 

[WillieBeamen]

I’ll be honest I’m kind of ready for all of this to be over with. I’m a Dak fan but I’m tired of this charade. Only on Dallas does someone have to “prove” they are worth something when no one else has. Jaylon, Zeke, Lawrence and Collins proved nothing and got paid. Wentz and Goff has proved nothing but got paid. But Dak has to prove he can walk on water in order to get paid. Just over it all.

 

[Doomsay]

Continuing to throw high and a receiver worrying about the legs being knocked out is a problem. Go watch Mayfield and what he did to Njoku.

Enough with these excuses.

He threw so many crappy short passes - mostly high, behind or over-torqued. Dak does seem to be improving in his deep ball accuracy, though.

 

[Scotman]

nonsense.. 9 of the 12 plays on our most successful drive, to start the third, that ate up 7 minutes of the clock and wore out the Saints front decent, was run plays to Zeke. Dak hardly got touched in the whole second half when Dallas started emphasizing the run via Zeke.

you guys and your “Dak was the reason we were in the game” are snake-oil salesmen..

Name calling and argumentum ad hominem ... weak argumentative retorts at best. When you resort to that type of response your arguments appear, to me, to based more in emotion than reality. It is an argumentative fallacy to attack the person instead of and/or in addition to the point you are trying to make. As a result, it becomes easy to dismiss any valid points you might make. It is an absolutely terrible debate tactic.

I watched the game, same as you. We walked away with a different opinion of Dak's performance. It doesn't make me a snake-oil salesman. If I had to lay blame, it would be on a horribly porous defense, an unpredictable kicker and a lack of actual depth on the offensive line. Was Dak enough to overcome all of that? Nope. He wasn't the solution this week, but he wasn't the source of the problem either. Not in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of paying him right now. If we are going to break the bank for him, he needs to be the solution. I think he gave us a shot of winning that game and kept us in the mix. You don't. Fair enough. But your opinion has no more validity than mine does.

 

[khiladi]

Name calling and argumentum ad hominem ... weak argumentative retorts at best. When you resort to that type of response your arguments appear, to me, to based more in emotion than reality. It is an argumentative fallacy to attack the person instead of and/or in addition to the point you are trying to make. As a result, it becomes easy to dismiss any valid points you might make. It is an absolutely terrible debate tactic.

I watched the game, same as you. We walked away with a different opinion of Dak's performance. It doesn't make me a snake-oil salesman. If I had to lay blame, it would be on a horribly porous defense, an unpredictable kicker and a lack of actual depth on the offensive line. Was Dak enough to overcome all of that? Nope. He wasn't the solution this week, but he wasn't the source of the problem either. Not in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of paying him right now. If we are going to break the bank for him, he needs to be the solution. I think he gave us a shot of winning that game and kept us in the mix. You don't. Fair enough. But your opinion has no more validity than mine does.

9 of 12 plays that were rushes in one series that are up seven minutes of the clock is not name calling or arguments ad hominem, but nice try using big words to deflect. Big words about debating, which are used incorrectly by you as well, also don’t make you a good debater. Further, using such phrases as “snake oil salesmen” are often used as a rhetorical function to emphasize points, meaning they are often valid tools in debate.

Me saying the people are trying to sell that the reason the Cowboys were even in the game were because of Dak is snake-oils salesmen is based on a valid argument. You now bringing up the reasons we lost were the defense and kicking as examples has absolutely no bearing on your original contention that “Dak was the only reason we were in the game”. Dak was sailing passes high, like he normally does, which led to Cooper coming down in a way that hurt his hip causing him to leave the game. Zeke wore out the defensive front the whole second half and thus allowed the OL to establish plenty of time for Dak to throw the ball and words like ad hominem don’t change this fact.

“Dak was the only reason we were in the game” is a phrase that snake-oil salesmen use.

 

[ghst187]

Is that worth $40m

Def not and never was.
That said, at least 2-3 of those INTs were the WRs fault, in fact at least one of those Ls would be Ws right now and we’d be 4-2 instead of 3-3.

 

[Scotman]

9 of 12 plays that were rushes in one series that are up seven minutes of the clock is not name calling or arguments ad hominem, but nice try using big words to deflect. Big words about debating, which are used incorrectly by you as well, also don’t make you a good debater. Further, using such phrases as “snake oil salesmen” are often used as a rhetorical function to emphasize points, meaning they are often valid tools in debate.

Me saying the people are trying to sell that the reason the Cowboys were even in the game were because of Dak is snake-oils salesmen is based on a valid argument. You now bringing up the reasons we lost were the defense and kicking as examples has absolutely no bearing on your original contention that “Dak was the only reason we were in the game”. Dak was sailing passes high, like he normally does, which led to Cooper coming down in a way that hurt his hip causing him to leave the game. Zeke wore out the defensive front the whole second half and thus allowed the OL to establish plenty of time for Dak to throw the ball and words like ad hominem don’t change this fact.

“Dak was the only reason we were in the game” is a phrase that snake-oil salesmen use.

I've been to the State debate finals in Texas 6 times with 8 different teams. I coached debate and took two teams to the quarterfinals. I taught debate. I'm a certified judge in the State of Texas for CX Debate. I don't know what your credentials are. But I do have some kind of idea what I'm talking about.

You're too emotionally invested to even look at what I have written about Dak. You are looking for evidence that you're right every time Dak steps on the field. At this point, you're not even capable of making an objective observation.

 

[shabazz]

I do admire Dak's philanthropic endeavors though, and giving back to the community.

 

[Philmonroe]

You just quoted me like a child when I never said anything to you. You played victim just like a child would. You’re too old to be acting like that.

Them victim tactics of yours don't work on me. I quoted you for a reason that's laid out in the post I quoted. Spare me like you've never quoted me when I said nothing to you either. You can't even use the word victim right. How the hell can I be a victim when I didn't even accuse you of doing jack spit to me? I used your post as an example so again how is using your post as an example playing the victim? You gotta get your buzzwords in order my man. You're too old to be acting like that.

 

[khiladi]

I've been to the State debate finals in Texas 6 times with 8 different teams. I coached debate and took two teams to the quarterfinals. I taught debate. I'm a certified judge in the State of Texas for CX Debate. I don't know what your credentials are. But I do have some kind of idea what I'm talking about.

You're too emotionally invested to even look at what I have written about Dak. You are looking for evidence that you're right every time Dak steps on the field. At this point, you're not even capable of making an objective observation.

and Garrett was COY once. You must have taken plenty of Ls and now your using false appeals to authority to defend your baseless claim that “Dak was the only reason we were in this game.”

Basic logic homie. A missed kick or bad defense doesn’t negate Dak was mediocre and a reason why we also sucked. Zeke rushing 9 of 12 times on a time consuming 7 minute drive to open up the third is what opened up the offense to a degree.

It’s clear who is playing ad hominem and who is not.

that’s what Dak snake-oil salesmen do. All credit belongs to Dak...