Daks TD's this year

[HungryLion]

Our defense/special teams very rarely give the offense short fields to work with. They also don't score a lot of touchdowns. We've only had 4 defensive/special teams touchdowns from 2016-2019. I looked at Romo's first few years a week ago, so this is fresh off the top of my head. From 2006-2009, the defense and special teams scored 13 touchdowns and people considered defense the weakness on his teams. Just using that as a comparison to how bad our current defense has been in that category.

Agreed. Honestly, and yes I like Dak. I dont think Dak is perfect by any stretch. But the lack of turnovers on defense and poor special teams play is killing the team. It’s the biggest problems by far right now.

 

[OmerV]

We can take every season into account.. I’m fine with that.. He’s proven exactly what he is.

Which is a strong, but not elite, NFL QB.

 

[Philmonroe]

Agreed. Honestly, and yes I like Dak. I dont think Dak is perfect by any stretch. But the lack of turnovers on defense and poor special teams play is killing the team. It’s the biggest problems by far right now.

Turnovers are a cop out esp since they aren't really something you can guarantee. Maybe special teams play but I think that's something folks don't really watch just regurgitate what someone else said about it. The D played pretty good for the most part outside of turnovers esp against better comp for the most part can't say that about that "number 1" ranked offense

 

[817Gill]

I expect him to get a little better but the problem is the contract..

I really like Dak when he is providing value. His contract being elite and how he relies on everyone else to elevate him is a problem.

If we had a Superbowl under our belt i'd pay him whatever but we have minimal playoff success.

It's not good. No matter what Cowboy homer tells you..

I understand the premise, my only issue is that if every team was to follow the parameters we set for QB’s then there would only be 3-4 franchise qb’s at a time. No one else would be paid but the top guys who can do it all themselves and are more valuable as players than cap room.

What I’m saying is to have realistic and healthy discussions about the future of this team, you gotta work within the realities of the league. At the end of the day the QB position is much more important and scarce than every other position. So when paying QB’s, you do it with a different lense than a WR for example. You pay based for projections, rarely do QB’s get paid solely on what they’ve accomplished.

Also, the first few years of Daks deal will not have anywhere near the cap hit that the annual number claims. He’ll most likely be in the 20’s those first few years. We are definitely flexible enough to make sure the roster stays amongst the best. Now it’s the coaches and players job collectively to go win an SB. Locking up Dak gives you a significantly higher chance of success than letting him go does, and that’s from a factual/statical basis.

 

[CATCH17]

I understand the premise, my only issue is that if every team was to follow the parameters we set for QB’s then there would only be 3-4 franchise qb’s at a time. No one else would be paid but the top guys who can do it all themselves and are more valuable as players than cap room.

What I’m saying is to have realistic and healthy discussions about the future of this team, you gotta work within the realities of the league. At the end of the day the QB position is much more important and scarce than every other position. So when paying QB’s, you do it with a different lense than a WR for example. You pay based for projections, rarely do QB’s get paid solely on what they’ve accomplished.

Also, the first few years of Daks deal will not have anywhere near the cap hit that the annual number claims. He’ll most likely be in the 20’s those first few years. We are definitely flexible enough to make sure the roster stays amongst the best. Now it’s the coaches and players job collectively to go win an SB. Locking up Dak gives you a significantly higher chance of success than letting him go does, and that’s from a factual/statical basis.

We're paying everyone.. The QB isn't getting special treatment.. Everyone gets paid like they are a Superbowl champion.

Dak is replaceable. He's in the Kirk Cousins category.

The problem is not his ability. It's what he thinks that ability is worth.

I get it.. Be safe.. Do what all these other teams do that pay their QB and win nothing. Ignore the QB's on rookie contracts winning. Ignore the rock solid foundation Dak has played on and don't act like it's made him a better QB.

Pay him.. Then complain about Jerry.. Thats what we do.

I do not think the QB position is scarce either.. I think a lot of these guys are as good as Dak they just aren't in his situation.

 

[817Gill]

Uh nah that wasn't the question though sir. It was do the stats drop off a cliff between good and bad competition not bs win loss QB rankings. I don't think anybody expects most people to consistently beat good great teams but do your stats fall off a cliff when the talent increases. That's the sign of someone who isn't that good IMO. Normally in my unscientific studies good/great players mainly do their thing regardless not consistently fall off the cliff depending on the comp level. This ain't just for Dak but any player on the alleged top level.

I do not have the specific stats in front of me, but simple logic and reasoning should do the trick. If a qb’s win loss record drops against winning teams, wouldn’t his stats also reflect that change? You think a qb would have a worse win-loss record against winning teams but the same or better stats as when he plays losing teams?

Obviously the stats are going to be worse when playing good teams. The whole “cliff” argument for Dak is extremely nearsighted. While there might have been a larger disparity this year, the narrative that Dak is night and day vs winning teams is false. For his career he’s amongst the rest of the QB’s in the league.

The only thing a further statistical breakdown would attempt to show would be Dak’s culpability in wins and losses, which is such a subjective thing that stats themselves cannot prove. It takes context and taking into account the full scope of circumstances. It’s an extremely tedious argument to make

 

[Aviano90]

Agreed. Honestly, and yes I like Dak. I dont think Dak is perfect by any stretch. But the lack of turnovers on defense and poor special teams play is killing the team. It’s the biggest problems by far right now.

We had 175 starting field positions last year. Only 13 of those drives started in the opponents territory. We scored on 11 of the 13 drives, including 7 touchdowns. All but one of these possessions occurred in games we won pretty easily. (Eagles 1st game, Giants 2nd game, Commanders 2nd game, and Rams). 3 of those possessions began in our opponents red zone.

We had one short field against the Vikings in a losing effort, a 48 yard touchdown drive.

Conversely, we had 19 drives begin at our own 10 yard line or further and we had 50 drives begin inside our own 20 yard line.

The defense and special teams need to get it in gear and create better opportunities for the offense on a regular basis.

 

[817Gill]

We're paying everyone.. The QB isn't getting special treatment.. Everyone gets paid like they are a Superbowl champion.

Dak is replaceable. He's in the Kirk Cousins category.

The problem is not his ability. It's what he thinks that ability is worth.

I get it.. Be safe.. Do what all these other teams do that pay their QB and win nothing. Ignore the QB's on rookie contracts winning. Ignore the rock solid foundation Dak has played on and don't act like it's made him a better QB.

Pay him.. Then complain about Jerry.. Thats what we do.

So a few things that will end this discussion for me depending on your responses.

First of all, your plan to winning a super bowl includes a QB on a rookie deal. Of the last 10 SB winners, 2 had starting QB’s with rookie salaries. TWO. Wilson and Mahomes. Of those two, only Wilson was considered a non-elite QB when playing in his SB and he was a gift in round 3. That’s not enough success to warrant that being the best course of action. For every team who went to the NFC/AFCCG with a rookie deal qb there’s another team who paid theirs and went too.


Second of all, Dak has made great strides and improved a lot this past offseason. To say he hasn’t become a better QB is asinine and no NFL person of substance would agree. In fact all his biggest haters in the media at least concede that point. That was WITH the universal acknowledgment that the prior coaching staff was not good. To think Dak won’t improve with a better staff is extremely pessimistic, and as a top 8-12 qb now, any improvement climbs him closer to the top guys in the league.


Lastly, keeping Dak isn’t playing it safe, it’s playing it smart. The odds of a rookie QB being better than Dak and leading this team further on his rookie deal are so slim that it would be irresponsible to attempt it. Only the Chiefs with Mahomes were able to do it on purpose. It’s a once in a while strategy with no real basis as a real team building strategy. There simply are not enough qb’s in the world better than Dak to justify trading up and drafting one, the chances of success are way too slim.

This isn’t madden. The Joneses have a responsibility to do what gives them the highest chance of success, drafting a rookie QB is NOT the highest move for success. The risk vs reward is so staggeringly high risk that no responsible decision maker is going to do it.

Say you have a very good car that can get you to and from where you need to go. Now someone tells you that they can give you a Ferrari for half the price if you bet your current car as well as your house. You have a 1 in 500 chance of winning, do you take that chance?

It would be irresponsible to your family and those who depend on you to make that bet, as it could set you back for generations. It would be irresponsible for the Joneses to move off Dak for a rookie as it is a significant risk that could set the franchise back years. If you feel he’s good enough to win with a good team around him, then sign him. No matter who your QB is you’re gonna have to have a good team and coaches in place. Hoping to hedge your bet by having a cheap QB replicate his production is way too risky to even try. The postseason success rate on rookie QBs is way too slim.

Every team has a unique set of circumstances and strategies to win. Trying to copy KC or being scared to sign Dak cause of LA is not how teams make decisions. Every situation is different

 

[CATCH17]

So a few things that will end this discussion for me depending on your responses.

First of all, your plan to winning a super bowl includes a QB on a rookie deal. Of the last 10 SB winners, 2 had starting QB’s with rookie salaries. TWO. Wilson and Mahomes. Of those two, only Wilson was considered a non-elite QB when playing in his SB and he was a gift in round 3. That’s not enough success to warrant that being the best course of action. For every team who went to the NFC/AFCCG with a rookie deal qb there’s another team who paid theirs and went too.


Second of all, Dak has made great strides and improved a lot this past offseason. To say he hasn’t become a better QB is asinine and no NFL person of substance would agree. In fact all his biggest haters in the media at least concede that point. That was WITH the universal acknowledgment that the prior coaching staff was not good. To think Dak won’t improve with a better staff is extremely pessimistic, and as a top 8-12 qb now, any improvement climbs him closer to the top guys in the league.


Lastly, keeping Dak isn’t playing it safe, it’s playing it smart. The odds of a rookie QB being better than Dak and leading this team further on his rookie deal are so slim that it would be irresponsible to attempt it. Only the Chiefs with Mahomes were able to do it on purpose. It’s a once in a while strategy with no real basis as a real team building strategy. There simply are not enough qb’s in the world better than Dak to justify trading up and drafting one, the chances of success are way too slim.

This isn’t madden. The Joneses have a responsibility to do what gives them the highest chance of success, drafting a rookie QB is NOT the highest move for success. The risk vs reward is so staggeringly high risk that no responsible decision maker is going to do it.

Say you have a very good car that can get you to and from where you need to go. Now someone tells you that they can give you a Ferrari for half the price if you bet your current car as well as your house. You have a 1 in 500 chance of winning, do you take that chance?

It would be irresponsible to your family and those who depend on you to make that bet, as it could set you back for generations. It would be irresponsible for the Joneses to move off Dak for a rookie as it is a significant risk that could set the franchise back years. If you feel he’s good enough to win with a good team around him, then sign him. No matter who your QB is you’re gonna have to have a good team and coaches in place. Hoping to hedge your bet by having a cheap QB replicate his production is way too risky to even try. The postseason success rate on rookie QBs is way too slim.

Every team has a unique set of circumstances and strategies to win. Trying to copy KC or being scared to sign Dak cause of LA is not how teams make decisions. Every situation is different

A high paid QB basically ends their chances at success and that is proven.

We would be an outlier if we had a QB taking up that large of a percentage of our cap space and still winning a Superbowl.

Vets on Cheap deals and QBs on rookie deals are what is leading to Superbowls right now..

I’ll take a vet on a cheap deal too..

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/af283d/percentage_of_salary_cap_taken_up_by_super_bowl/

 

[John813]

We had 175 starting field positions last year. Only 13 of those drives started in the opponents territory. We scored on 11 of the 13 drives, including 7 touchdowns. All but one of these possessions occurred in games we won pretty easily. (Eagles 1st game, Giants 2nd game, Commanders 2nd game, and Rams). 3 of those possessions began in our opponents red zone.

We had one short field against the Vikings in a losing effort, a 48 yard touchdown drive.

Conversely, we had 19 drives begin at our own 10 yard line or further and we had 50 drives begin inside our own 20 yard line.

The defense and special teams need to get it in gear and create better opportunities for the offense on a regular basis.

Good ole bend and almost break defense. You stopped them, after 5 minutes of possession, and they are punting from the 45-50 yard line and can now down the punt within the 20 yard line. God forbid the offense struggles that next drive and a gassed defense goes right back out there.

 

[CATCH17]

Good ole bend and almost break defense. You stopped them, after 5 minutes of possession, and they are punting from the 45-50 yard line and can now down the punt within the 20 yard line. God forbid the offense struggles that next drive and a gassed defense goes right back out there.

I mean.. We literally had a game where they didn’t allow a TD and we still lost.

 

[John813]

I mean.. We literally had a game where they didn’t allow a TD and we still lost.

The team was bipolar last year. Classic Garrett lead team. Not more for me to say.

The Saints games for the past two years has been a surprising defensive showdown. They matchup well with one another.

That game was lost in the fumbles by Zeke and Witten. 6 points given up hurt in that low scoring game.
Not saying no one deserves blame, but those two turnovers were huge in that game.

Saints in that game had a 9 minute drive.

 

[Aviano90]

I mean.. We literally had a game where they didn’t allow a TD and we still lost.

It's happened before and I'm sure it will happen again.

 

[HungryLion]

Turnovers are a cop out esp since they aren't really something you can guarantee. Maybe special teams play but I think that's something folks don't really watch just regurgitate what someone else said about it. The D played pretty good for the most part outside of turnovers esp against better comp for the most part can't say that about that "number 1" ranked offense

Turnovers are not a cop out. Sure you can’t guarantee turnovers, but theres also a reason some teams consistently force them and others don’t. Turnovers can be high variance though, in that sometimes getting them is certainly out of your control.

Winning the turnover battle has I believe the highest correlation to winning football games, compared with any other stat. If not the highest, it is certainly top 3.

And it’s hard to consistently win the turnover battle when your defense doesn’t force them.

the special teams was awful last year. Dreadful in just about everything. Kick returns, kick coverage, punt returns, punt coverage, field goal kicking.

It was a real problem last year. I am hopeful now that we have a new coordinator though. The last one was clearly over his head.

 

[Playmaker247]

A high paid QB basically ends their chances at success and that is proven.

We would be an outlier if we had a QB taking up that large of a percentage of our cap space and still winning a Superbowl.

Vets on Cheap deals and QBs on rookie deals are what is leading to Superbowls right now..

I’ll take a vet on a cheap deal too..

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/af283d/percentage_of_salary_cap_taken_up_by_super_bowl/

 

[817Gill]

A high paid QB basically ends their chances at success and that is proven.

We would be an outlier if we had a QB taking up that large of a percentage of our cap space and still winning a Superbowl.

Vets on Cheap deals and QBs on rookie deals are what is leading to Superbowls right now..

I’ll take a vet on a cheap deal too..

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/af283d/percentage_of_salary_cap_taken_up_by_super_bowl/

Well thank you to @Playmaker247 lol. There are different ways to win a SB my man. We keep drafting well and start coaching well then we can sign Dak and go where we have to go no problem.

If we do not draft well or coach well then it don’t matter who the QB is, the team won’t win big.

 

[buybuydandavis]

Dak had 4 games this year with no TD passes including our loss to the Jets...

The Jets loss was yet another coaching failure. Cobb was already out, and Cooper and Gallup were on the injury report. We were short on WRs and didn't make Smith active. When Cooper bailed, Austin ended up being the leading WR for the game.

 

[CATCH17]

​

Well thank you to @Playmaker247 lol. There are different ways to win a SB my man. We keep drafting well and start coaching well then we can sign Dak and go where we have to go no problem.

If we do not draft well or coach well then it don’t matter who the QB is, the team won’t win big.

Well.. Quality QB play for cheap, Defense, and quality coaching are the 3 things I see trending for Superbowl winning teams and I don't even know if we have 1 of those things.

 

[buybuydandavis]

If you want to criticize NFL research, do it for not showing the flip side of the data - what did the SB winning QBs cost?

 

[buybuydandavis]

​

Well.. Quality QB play for cheap, Defense, and quality coaching are the 3 things I see trending for Superbowl winning teams and I don't even know if we have 1 of those things.

The more QBs rise in cost, the more I think that churning running QBs is the way to go. I'd still spend on an oline to give the guy a chance, though.