Dak Prescott deserves more respect

Status
Not open for further replies.
America's Cowboy said:
We had the weapons on offense. The problem was the stupid coaches. Guess who was a common denominator then and now when it came to play designs and play calls? Answer: Schotty. The guy choked royally and still does against the better defenses. No half time adjustments. No aggressiveness. No killer instinct. THAT is why this offense only scored 12 points against Green Bay in the 2023 playoffs.
Click to expand...
The offense scored 32 in that game. You're thinking of the 49er game at the end of '22.
 
RonnieT24 said:
Yeah aint no way I'm putting Brady ahead of Montana and Staubach I don't care how many Super Bowls he wins or passing records he holds. If you watched those two play you know they did more to help their teams win than Brady did. Taking nothing away from Brady just callin it like I saw it. Roger the Dodger and Joe Cool had to take WAAAAY more punishment from defenses than Brady ever did. And any time a defense was able to beat his line and overcome the Pats rampant cheating, Brady looked decidedly mortal. Try to imagine him playing 12-13 games against defensive fronts like the '07 and '11 Giants.
Click to expand...
So....Montana and Staubach...NEVER "looked decidedly mortal". Ever.

You sure?
 
DallasEast said:
I would say 998. Tom Brady is universally regarded as the greatest of all-time, but there are a few other quarterbacks I would put ahead of him on my list if they were in their prime--starting with Roger Staubach and Joe Montana.
Click to expand...
That's recency bias talking.

Brady, Montana, Unitas, Starr, Graham. Not a hair of difference between them.
 
kskboys said:
That's recency bias talking.

Brady, Montana, Unitas, Starr, Graham. Not a hair of difference between them.
Click to expand...
Recency bias? In this instance, wouldn't that involve placing more importance on Tom Brady than upon Roger Staubach and Joe Montana? If so, I have not done that. In addition, I have maintained my preferences since early in Brady's career before folks labeled him as the best of all-time.

Opinions vary, as always. I would extend the label of greatness to all those you mention. However, there are more than hairs separating them in my opinion. It is already understood if my thoughts on the matter are not acceptable, of course. :)
 
DallasEast said:
Recency bias? In this instance, wouldn't that involve placing more importance on Tom Brady than upon Roger Staubach and Joe Montana? If so, I have not done that. In addition, I have maintained my preferences since early in Brady's career before folks labeled him as the best of all-time.

Opinions vary, as always. I would extend the label of greatness to all those you mention. However, there are more than hairs separating them in my opinion. It is already understood if my thoughts on the matter are not acceptable, of course. :)
Click to expand...
Sorry, yes, the Brady love is what I was referring to. He's not clearly the best of all time, that's the recency bias I was referring to.
 
RonnieT24 said:
Yeah aint no way I'm putting Brady ahead of Montana and Staubach I don't care how many Super Bowls he wins or passing records he holds. If you watched those two play you know they did more to help their teams win than Brady did. Taking nothing away from Brady just callin it like I saw it. Roger the Dodger and Joe Cool had to take WAAAAY more punishment from defenses than Brady ever did. And any time a defense was able to beat his line and overcome the Pats rampant cheating, Brady looked decidedly mortal. Try to imagine him playing 12-13 games against defensive fronts like the '07 and '11 Giants.
Click to expand...
And that is a completely fair argument and I'd agree. I'd take Montana and Staubach over both, but that wasn't the comparison the op made, so I was sticking to the op's premise.
 
kskboys said:
Sorry, yes, the Brady love is what I was referring to. He's not clearly the best of all time, that's the recency bias I was referring to.
Click to expand...
I’m not really in favor of naming anyone greatest of all time. Greatest of an era is better suited. And in most cases who you grew up with or first made impression is difficult to surpass.

My grandfather swore Sammy Baugh was greatest he ever saw, my dad Johnny Unitas. Did they think the next eras QB’s were great, yes but no one made the lasting impressions of those. Much like I was impressed as a kid in 60’s with Namath before Dandy, Roger and others caught my imagination.

I’d agree that Montana was greatest of his era and one of the all time greatest. And in a Cap era when we haven’t really had dynasties what Brady accomplished with Bill and Pats was truly great. And the fact he did it with Tampa too punctuates his greatness. You just can’t take away those 7 Rings. And Mahomes is on the verge of reaching immortality as well.

Problem with Dak regardless whatever personal stats he puts up will never be placed into those categories. Instead he’ll be in that next group of QB’s without winning Rings which isn’t all bad.

And why drawing these type of comparisons the OP is attempting is more about the frustration from the criticisms. But that’s the nature of the business. Ask Dandy, Morton, Danny and Romo.

That’s just Cowboys . There’s a long list of NFL QB’s that fall into this next group cause weren’t on teams with Rings. It is what it is. Winning leaves no doubt. The rest will always be argued. That’s the nature of the QB position. Fans always have their favs and will go to bat for them.
 
America's Cowboy said:
Dak Prescott's first decade in the league deserves more respect....

FB-IMG-1768379510259.jpg
Click to expand...
Dak has about a .500 record outside the NFC east.

Tom Brady's record against non-division opponents during his first ten seasons (2000-2009) was approximately
68 wins and 23 losses in the regular season. This includes his first year where he played only one game and the 2008 season he missed due to injury, but relies on game logs as general career records against divisions show high win percentages.
Over his entire career with New England, Brady maintained a highly consistent winning percentage across all divisions he faced, demonstrating his success was not solely dependent on his division opponents.
His career regular season winning percentages against other divisions are as follows (including games played beyond his first ten seasons):
  • AFC South: .848 winning percentage (39-7 record)
  • AFC North: .816 winning percentage (31-7 record)
  • NFC South: .810 winning percentage (17-4 record)
  • NFC North: .800 winning percentage (16-4 record)
  • NFC East: .700 winning percentage (14-6 record)
  • AFC West: .643 winning percentage (27-15 record)
  • NFC West: .643 winning percentage (9-5 record)
He had a highly successful record against nearly every team in the NFL, with few teams managing a tied or winning record against him over his entire career
 
Hadenough said:
Dak has about a .500 record outside the NFC east.

Tom Brady's record against non-division opponents during his first ten seasons (2000-2009) was approximately
68 wins and 23 losses in the regular season. This includes his first year where he played only one game and the 2008 season he missed due to injury, but relies on game logs as general career records against divisions show high win percentages.
Over his entire career with New England, Brady maintained a highly consistent winning percentage across all divisions he faced, demonstrating his success was not solely dependent on his division opponents.
His career regular season winning percentages against other divisions are as follows (including games played beyond his first ten seasons):
  • AFC South: .848 winning percentage (39-7 record)
  • AFC North: .816 winning percentage (31-7 record)
  • NFC South: .810 winning percentage (17-4 record)
  • NFC North: .800 winning percentage (16-4 record)
  • NFC East: .700 winning percentage (14-6 record)
  • AFC West: .643 winning percentage (27-15 record)
  • NFC West: .643 winning percentage (9-5 record)
He had a highly successful record against nearly every team in the NFL, with few teams managing a tied or winning record against him over his entire career
Click to expand...
These are team accolades, it's important to understand the difference.
 
Hadenough said:
Dak has about a .500 record outside the NFC east.

Tom Brady's record against non-division opponents during his first ten seasons (2000-2009) was approximately
68 wins and 23 losses in the regular season. This includes his first year where he played only one game and the 2008 season he missed due to injury, but relies on game logs as general career records against divisions show high win percentages.
Over his entire career with New England, Brady maintained a highly consistent winning percentage across all divisions he faced, demonstrating his success was not solely dependent on his division opponents.
His career regular season winning percentages against other divisions are as follows (including games played beyond his first ten seasons):
  • AFC South: .848 winning percentage (39-7 record)
  • AFC North: .816 winning percentage (31-7 record)
  • NFC South: .810 winning percentage (17-4 record)
  • NFC North: .800 winning percentage (16-4 record)
  • NFC East: .700 winning percentage (14-6 record)
  • AFC West: .643 winning percentage (27-15 record)
  • NFC West: .643 winning percentage (9-5 record)
He had a highly successful record against nearly every team in the NFL, with few teams managing a tied or winning record against him over his entire career
Click to expand...
Yeah that completely blow the narrative out of the water that Tom Brady too played in a week Division. Dak wins 80% of the time against the NFC Least and 50% of the time against the rest of the NFL. If we didn't play in the NFCE we wouldn't even have enough playoff runs to reach 2-5.
 
G2 said:
These are team accolades, it's important to understand the difference.
Click to expand...
It is also important to realize that if you play against a weak division you win 80% of the time against, with two bottom feeders in it, that your stats will be higher than if you played against the NFC West or NFC North in that same time period.
 
Gangsta Spanksta said:
It is also important to realize that if you play against a weak division you win 80% of the time against, with two bottom feeders in it, that your stats will be higher than if you played against the NFC West or NFC North in that same time period.
Click to expand...
That's leaguewide. Nothing to see here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Total: 3,232 (members: 38, guests: 3,194)
Robots: 1,304

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
472,151
Messages
14,392,032
Members
24,192
Latest member
Jacksonhill
Back
Top