The "evidence" doesn't lead to the conclusion you're making and you're arrogant enough to think that you can comment on the mental state of a person you don't even know lol. Then, you moan about being insulted, when you are doing the exact same thing.
You're doing a lot of projecting there. I did not call anyone a "dak hater" and I am assuming nothing. I stated that blaming him or any other ONE player for losses (or giving credit for wins) is softheaded. I neither know nor care how they "feel." I try to deal in facts statements.. "Dak lost the game.." is a statement.. A stupid one.. Particularly if it was a game in which the defense gave up 40+ points. That people on this site have made such statements is an irrefutable fact. Have there been games that we could have won had Dak played better? Absolutely.. Have there been games where Dak has balled out and handed the defense leads only to have them give it up? Damn straight. It's all part and parcel of the whole "team game" thing. I mean I'm sure you saw that idiot bring up the pick six against the Jags two years ago as evidence that "Dak sucks in the clutch." Completely ignoring the fact that it came on a perfectly thrown ball that hit Noah Brown in the chest and bounced off into the DB's hand. How would YOU interpret such a statement? Would you give that person the "benefit of the doubt?" I mean he didn't specifically come out and say he hates Dak right?
No sir, I said your stance was ridiculous. You however strongly implied I was stupid. There is a difference. Here's an actual insult for you: Like all Dak slobberers, like a slime you attack the messenger rather than the message in a discussion because you are incapable of addressing just the issue without maintaining any degree of courtesy. It's disingenuous, dishonest because you're claiming something that simply isn't true (*that I insulted you before), and low-brow because you're incapable of a civil discussion without attacking because your idol is being called out for being a choker, which he is. There's plenty of evidence of him panicking in big games and choking. Does he calm down and get better in those games? Sometimes, but it coincides with the opponents taking out their starters or taking their foot off of the proverbial gas.
Bye bye.
He knows the truth about Dak. He just can't let others "win". Sunk-cost fallacy in action.Anyone with ANY knowledge of psychology can see it in his eyes and on his face in those games. I'm sorry you don't have the eyes or mental acuity to see it. See, now that's an insult, sir. Do you now acknowledge the difference or shall we continue this pointless bickering? I don't see further point in it because you are incapable of rational disagreement without snide little barbs.
We are in the weeds now. I commented on one of your general "blanket" threads. Just based on what you said there.
Yes, I did imply that you're stupid, because what you said is stupid.No sir, I said your stance was ridiculous. You however strongly implied I was stupid. There is a difference. Here's an actual insult for you: Like all Dak slobberers, like a slime you attack the messenger rather than the message in a discussion because you are incapable of addressing just the issue without maintaining any degree of courtesy. It's disingenuous, dishonest because you're claiming something that simply isn't true (*that I insulted you before), and low-brow because you're incapable of a civil discussion without attacking because your idol is being called out for being a choker, which he is. There's plenty of evidence of him panicking in big games and choking. Does he calm down and get better in those games? Sometimes, but it coincides with the opponents taking out their starters or taking their foot off of the proverbial gas.
Anyone with ANY knowledge of psychology can see it in his eyes and on his face in those games. I'm sorry you don't have the eyes or mental acuity to see it. See, now that's an insult, sir. Do you now acknowledge the difference or shall we continue this pointless bickering? I don't see further point in it because you are incapable of rational disagreement without snide little barbs.
What??? Speak English?
lol, you never heard that before, brother? It's a poorly translated phrase from a Japanese video game. It's been a meme for years and years.
If you call success going 2-5 when it counts ?
Dak has guided the offense to at least 30 points in 3 of his 7 playoff starts.. and the Cowboys have lost 2 of those games. They have scored at least 22 points in 5 of his 7 playoff starts and lost 4 of the 5. At some point you gotta look over at the other side of the ball and simply ask "lil help here?" Yes the defense kept them in it against the 49ers but as good as our defense was in those games the 49ers defense was better. It happens. I think it's fair to say Dak and the offense owe the defense for those two games.. But in the other 3 losses ..especially this last one to Green Bay.. Nah man.. that aint on Dak or the offense.. Maybe this is the year we get both sides of the ball to show up for a playoff run.. That would be really nice wouldn't it.
Good post, but I disagree that Dak is a great QB waiting (with the right coach) to happen.
Yeah but his stats are awesome.
Even if he's the next coach, which I seriously doubt, Bill will have to nearly totally revamp the Cowboys to his way of doing things, and that takes time. At his age, does he have the desire to do that? As I've noted before, seldom does a head coach win SBs after being in the league for years and years, the Landrys and Nolls and Shulas were young, innovative assistants, Bill is hardly young. History is a cruel storyteller.
And that ties into my previous comment, did Tony play 8 or 9 years then get much better and win a SB?
It's not just belichick. What did Landry do without Staubach? Or Shula without Griese? Jimmy without Troy?
well, brady at least went on to be successful after belichick.
