Dak's performance vs Lions (2022)

[HMJYay]

The Dak led offense (which ran for over 100 yards) got 24 points off the worst defense in the NFL with our defense getting 5 TO's. Including TO's on a short field. It wasn't bad, but certainly wasn't impressive. And yes, Dak is lucky he didn't come back against the Eagles.

As I've said multiple times Cooper Rush isn't the answer, but he's not far behind Dak (which is really quite something) and Dak isn't the answer either.

 

[RonnieT24]

The Dak led offense (which ran for over 100 yards) got 24 points off the worst defense in the NFL with our defense getting 5 TO's. Including TO's on a short field. It wasn't bad, but certainly wasn't impressive. And yes, Dak is lucky he didn't come back against the Eagles.

As I've said multiple times Cooper Rush isn't the answer, but he's not far behind Dak (which is really quite something) and Dak isn't the answer either.

If I'm not mistaken only one of the turnovers gave the offense a short field and that was the last one. The rest occurred on the other side of the 50. Including one at our own 1 yard line. As for Dak being "lucky" not to have come back against the Eagles.. I disagree for the simple reason that he has generally owned the Eagles. He's had a total of two bad games against them in his career and has had several of his absolute best games against them. Confidence is huge in sports and that kind of ownage breeds it. I think if he had some back and had the same shaky first half against the Eagles that Rush did (and he did against Detroit) the first half might have looked very similar to what we saw with Rush. Except I don't think Dak would have thrown 3 picks and he would have sealed the deal on other opportunities. Not saying the Cowboys would have won.. but I think they would have had a better chance.. and all the rust would have been gone against the Detroit and the offense might have hung 40 on them.

 

[HMJYay]

If I'm not mistaken only one of the turnovers gave the offense a short field and that was the last one. The rest occurred on the other side of the 50. Including one at our own 1 yard line. As for Dak being "lucky" not to have come back against the Eagles.. I disagree for the simple reason that he has generally owned the Eagles. He's had a total of two bad games against them in his career and has had several of his absolute best games against them. Confidence is huge in sports and that kind of ownage breeds it. I think if he had some back and had the same shaky first half against the Eagles that Rush did (and he did against Detroit) the first half might have looked very similar to what we saw with Rush. Except I don't think Dak would have thrown 3 picks and he would have sealed the deal on other opportunities. Not saying the Cowboys would have won.. but I think they would have had a better chance.. and all the rust would have been gone against the Detroit and the offense might have hung 40 on them.

He's owned the NFC East as they have been absolutely terrible. That's not the case anymore. Dak was absolutely lucky to not come back against the Eagles. He was given the easiest on ramp possible to return. And I totally disagree about the rust. Dak has had games like this consistently throughout his whole career. It's who he is.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Psst .. the Cowboys had three TD scoring drives. Might have been 4 if they hadn't tried to let Pollard run it in on the FG drive.
And could have been 5 were it not for Brown's fumble inside the 5. But I do find it interesting that you claim Pollard "was instrumental on TD scoring drives." On the 11 play 54 yard TD drive that started with 8:25 in the 4th quarter he had one carry for 2 yards.. Clearly that two yard run was more significant than I thought..

No I said on the two where he was featured. Try to keep up.

 

[RonnieT24]

No I said on the two where he was featured. Try to keep up.

No what you said was: "Pollard on the contrary gave the offense a big spark and was instrumental on both TD scoring drives. "

Both equals two. If you had said two of the three you might have been onto something except for the fact that on one of the TD drives he had a total of ONE carry for TWO yards. Explain to me how TWO yards made him "instrumental." That's the part I can't keep up with. Help a brother out..

 

[RonnieT24]

He's owned the NFC East as they have been absolutely terrible. That's not the case anymore. Dak was absolutely lucky to not come back against the Eagles. He was given the easiest on ramp possible to return. And I totally disagree about the rust. Dak has had games like this consistently throughout his whole career. It's who he is.

Why are games like this "who he is" and not the wonderful games? Just curious. Every player has bad games but over the course of his career Dak has had more good games than bad by a wide margin. And this game was a quarter and a half of "off-ness." I stand by my statement, once he found his sea legs he was money.

 

[G2]

I went and read the chart of the drives. Dak flat out sucked most of the game. He had 1 good drive, tgen didnt need to do much after that. You could look it up but you wont cause its against your agenda. I gave him props for the good drive.

How many penalties did he have that stopped drives?

 

[RonnieT24]

How many penalties did he have that stopped drives?

Don't let that dude spew his agenda laced falsehoods unchallenged. Dak led a drive of 70 yards that should have ended in a TD if not for Brown's fumble.. He followed that with an 82 yard TD drive after Diggs' INT and then a 54 yard TD drive after Lewis INT. People apparently wanted him to lead the offense on a TD drive every time they got the ball. The following is the list of QBs who have ever done that for any entire game in the NFL:

 

[CowboyRoy]

No what you said was: "Pollard on the contrary gave the offense a big spark and was instrumental on both TD scoring drives. "

Both equals two. If you had said two of the three you might have been onto something except for the fact that on one of the TD drives he had a total of ONE carry for TWO yards. Explain to me how TWO yards made him "instrumental." That's the part I can't keep up with. Help a brother out..

In the drives where he was featured. It was a running dialogue genius. Why would he be instrumental in a drive he where zeke got all or most of the carries? LOL

This is what happens when you jump into a conversation. LOL

Poor guy. Gets all hyped up and doesnt read the converstion.

 

[HMJYay]

Why are games like this "who he is" and not the wonderful games? Just curious. Every player has bad games but over the course of his career Dak has had more good games than bad by a wide margin. And this game was a quarter and a half of "off-ness." I stand by my statement, once he found his sea legs he was money.

Because Dak is wildly inconsistent. Not just quarter to quarter but game to game. And is almost exclusively dependent on the players around him. If you look at any position of the wonderful/elite however you want to say it players, they do not have as many bad games that make you scratch your head as Dak does. If the defense isn't getting multiple TO's or the offense isn't rushing for 100 yards Dak rarely to never gets its done. That's what you call an average QB, which is why Cooper Rush won games without him.

 

[Vtwin]

By the way.. did I hear the Nantz correctly when he stated that the back to back 3 and outs in the game yesterday were the first back to back 3 and outs with Dak at QB since 2019? People come here every day complaining that he is constantly going 3 and out.. How is this possible?

The Cowboys had three consecutive 3 and outs against the Bucs.