Dak Prescott 2 in Total QBR

[blindzebra]

Wentz is 4th in yards and Dak is 19th. So we can talk about QBR all day but there is a much bigger load on Wentz than Dak.

We should have a strong running attack for a long time so it may not matter, but let's not pretend that Dak is an elite passer at this point.

Troy Aikman says hello.

 

[BlindFaith]

If they win more games, they may be better. Not hard to figure out. You get big contracts in this league if you win. You get fired if you lose.

This is one of the more shocking talent evaluations I've read. And Matthew Stafford says hi, and thanks for the big, fat new contract.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is one of the more shocking talent evaluations I've read. And Matthew Stafford says hi, and thanks for the big, fat new contract.

Why would you say this is a "Talent Evaluation", per say?

 

[Dale]

A few things. Total passing yards is a silly comparison. For starters, Wentz has played one more game than Prescott. So if you take Prescott's average and add it to make a comparison, it would be 2262 to 2045, not exactly a huge gap.

Prescott has a better completion percentage. Prescott has a better QBR.

Dak is closer to Wentz than you seem to want to believe.

Totally agree.

Wentz is phenomenal. MVP-level player. No doubt about it.

And Dak -- despite a slow start that featured a few iffy games early in the year -- is right there next to him.

 

[THEHEREAFTER]

Why some hate our QB is mind boggling. He's carried top 3 in QBR since he's been in the league. Amazing young man.

 

[gimmesix]

Troy Aikman says hello.

I often get the feeling on this board, ever since some of the absurdity about Romo, that there are a lot of fans that do not know how to evaluate QB play. However, it really does date back to Troy. The only saving grace he has are the Super Bowl rings that were won both because he's a great, Hall-of-Fame quarterback and because he had a great team around him. Some see that talent around him and think that he was only a bus driver or system QB.

I'm not sure why this logic does not apply to the other greats since none actually win in a vacuum.

 

[pansophy]

A few things. Total passing yards is a silly comparison. For starters, Wentz has played one more game than Prescott. So if you take Prescott's average and add it to make a comparison, it would be 2262 to 2045, not exactly a huge gap.

Prescott has a better completion percentage. Prescott has a better QBR.

Dak is closer to Wentz than you seem to want to believe.

I did forget to consider the bye week. That does make me feel better about it.

When we were 2-3 I had commented that Dak needed to start hitting WR's on 'in' routes if we were going to start being more consistent on offense because defenses were stacking the run and inside WRs. Dak has been hitting a lot of those routes in recent weeks and that's been the difference on offense IMO.

So he's doing everything we need. The question as always will be can the defense do its job.

 

[RomoFor6]

100% true, like it or not. QBs get paid to win. That's how it is, how it always has been, how it will likely always be. Tony Romo was easily a top 5 QB for much of his career but he rarely ever got credit for that. Other QBs, who I felt as if, were not as good got credit because they were with winning teams. It is what it is.

Lol, not true at all. And I could give you tons of examples. Was Trent Dilfer the best quarterback in 2000 over Peyton Manning? Was Brad Johnson better than Favre in 2003? Derek Anderson in 2007? There's examples of how flawed your logic is every year.

 

[BlindFaith]

Why would you say this is a "Talent Evaluation", per say?

QBR, Passer Rating, you know, stats. They don't keep them just for fun. They are used for performance evaluation. Not the key ingredient, but certainly up there. Bonuses are paid for reaching certain statistical levels. This should be fairly basic knowledge.

I'm not sure many GMs evaluate talent based on what the record was for the last team they played on. Or does that just apply to QBs?

 

[reddyuta]

All i know is He doesnt make mistakes and actively tries to avoid it by making risky throws,i will take that for the next 10 years.

 

[wrongway]

Wins and more importantly, wins in the playoffs will determine the greatness of the QB.

My first thought was to agree but then Dan Marino comes to mind. We could only imagine what Marino could have accomplished with an 85 bears type defense.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Big gap between Dak and Carson. Just sayin'.

 

[WillieBeamen]

Why some hate our QB is mind boggling. He's carried top 3 in QBR since he's been in the league. Amazing young man.

You new here?


Its Romo era 2.0 here. Fans will dislike the QB no matter what they do/accomplish. I mean, someone in here said this bluntly...

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Lol, not true at all. And I could give you tons of examples. Was Trent Dilfer the best quarterback in 2000 over Peyton Manning? Was Brad Johnson better than Favre in 2003? Derek Anderson in 2007? There's examples of how flawed your logic is every year.

Was Trent Dilfer a winning QB? No he was not so honestly, he is not proof of anything. But here is what I will say. Dilfer was a .500 QB yet, he played in the league for 14 seasons. What does that tell you?

Was Brad Johnson better then Brett Favre? No, he was not. Did he win more games then Favre? No, he did not.

How is Derek Anderson proof of anything? He was not a winning QB. Are you even kinda reading what you are posting here? Did you read anything I posted?

We're done here.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

QBR, Passer Rating, you know, stats. They don't keep them just for fun. They are used for performance evaluation. Not the key ingredient, but certainly up there. Bonuses are paid for reaching certain statistical levels. This should be fairly basic knowledge.

I'm not sure many GMs evaluate talent based on what the record was for the last team they played on. Or does that just apply to QBs?

Just to QBs. Stats are all well and good but if you don't win, you don't last. That's just how it is and it's not my rule or my way of thinking. It's how the NFL has always been. I don't know why you are arguing with me on the BF. You know this.

 

[EST_1986]

Big gap between Dak and Carson. Just sayin'.

If you are referring the the milage gap between the two players homes, I agree

 

[Western]

He does not turnover the ball.
Passing conversion on 3rd downs is top-notch.
His mobility enhances the offense by extending plays, if necessary.
In the red zone, he helps the team score touchdowns.
Overall, leadership & poise for the QB position on the team is exceptional (getting voted as a team captain by your teammates is noteworthy).

 

[RomoFor6]

Was Trent Dilfer a winning QB? No he was not so honestly, he is not proof of anything. But here is what I will say. Dilfer was a .500 QB yet, he played in the league for 14 seasons. What does that tell you?

Was Brad Johnson better then Brett Favre? No, he was not. Did he win more games then Favre? No, he did not.

How is Derek Anderson proof of anything? He was not a winning QB. Are you even kinda reading what you are posting here? Did you read anything I posted?

We're done here.

Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer both won superbowls and won more games in poor statistical years in which other QB's had much better numbers but less wins. Are you confused? Pay attention.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

If you are referring the the milage gap between the two players homes, I agree

Dak is #2 with 78.5

Wentz is #3 with 71.7

In other words, QBR predicts that, with the same team facing the same competition, Dak's QB play would result in 13 wins in a 16 game season (78.5% win rate) while Carson's QB play would result in 11 wins in a 16 game season (71.7% win rate).

But if you don't want to accept that QBR has any predictive force, just take a look at the gaps between (a) #1 and #2, and (b) #3 and #4. They aren't nearly as wide.

There's a significant drop-off between #2 and #3 on the list.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Brad Johnson and Trent Dilfer both won superbowls and won more games in poor statistical years in which other QB's had much better numbers but less wins. Are you confused? Pay attention.

Yeah, so? My statement was not about winning Super Bowls. My statement was about winning in the NFL. Lasting is about years in the league. Super Bowls are important for sure but, they don't mean that you will be a winning QB. They mean that for a season or what have you, you won. That's not longevity in the league.

I think you are trying to change the argument because you clearly didn't pay attention to what I said, is what's going on here. You can say "Pay Attention" but clearly it is you who did not read what I said. You changed it to suit your purpose after you realized you didn't pay attention to what I said.

I said, the most important stat in the NFL, for a QB, is win loss. Do you agree with this or do you disagree? If you want to have a discussion, at least be honest about what you said. If you don't, cool but don't play people off like you know what's up. You didn't read what I said.