Did we ever find out what was going on with CeeDee Lamb to start the game?

[Sydla]

Idk I'm not reading this.

You can't/won't quantify anything so you're just repeating the same nonsense.

LOL at getting hung up on this concept of quantify. What do you want "quantified"? You want me to give you an acceptable stat
line for a playoff game? Hahaha.

It's a very simple concept/question. Do you think Dak has played well enough overall in the postseason?

The correct answer is, he has not.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

LOL at getting hung up on this concept of quantify. What do you want "quantified"? You want me to give you an acceptable stat
line for a playoff game? Hahaha.

It's a very simple concept/question. Do you think Dak has played well enough overall in the postseason?

The correct answer is, he has not.

Of course the answer is no.

But in order for it to be relevant as to whether or not they should move on, you have to do that exercise for all of the QBs you think should replace him. So you have to quantify W/L, performance, etc. You also have to weight the mitigating factors - i.e. lack of offensive talent - and how other QBs would perform in the same context.

You're too lazy to do any of that work, so you just dismiss everything as excuses.

 

[Sydla]

Of course the answer is no.

But in order for it to be relevant as to whether or not they should move on, you have to do that exercise for all of the QBs you think should replace him. So you have to quantify W/L, performance, etc. You also have to weight the mitigating factors - i.e. lack of offensive talent - and how other QBs would perform in the same context.

You're too lazy to do any of that work, so you just dismiss everything as excuses.

LOL.

How in the world can you analyze whether another QB would have played better here or not with the exact circumstances Dak had? It's an impossible task because it deals with the unknown.

What we can ascertain, however, is that Dak hasn't been good enough and that a case can be made that maybe its time to move on and try something different. Maybe the next QB is worse. Maybe he's better. That's the nature of sports. That's the kind of decision making front offices make every single offseason. Most likely, the next QB would be a draft pick so he would likely play worse than Dak initially (as most rookies would) with the upside that he'd eventually be more consistent than Dak, especially in big games.

Dak has had different OCs. Different HCs. Different RBs. Different OL combinations. Different WRs. It's kind of hard to then turn around and make the case that ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE failed, and it was Dak who suffered (and too be fair, in some cases, they did fail him - such as the year Jerry/Stephen made that stupid decision to try WR by committee after Bryant). It's like trying to argue that our 27 years of ineptitude in the postseason isn't the primary fault of Jerry Jones but rather the hundreds of different players, coaches, front officer personnel, etc.

Dak has absolutely had some hurdles/challenges in his time here that are outside his control. But he's also played poorly, at times in big spots, that have little to do with some of the circumstances around him.

 

[Sydla]

Of course the answer is no.

But in order for it to be relevant as to whether or not they should move on, you have to do that exercise for all of the QBs you think should replace him. So you have to quantify W/L, performance, etc. You also have to weight the mitigating factors - i.e. lack of offensive talent - and how other QBs would perform in the same context.

You're too lazy to do any of that work, so you just dismiss everything as excuses.

Honest question, do you think McCarthy should have been replaced as OC/HC?

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

LOL.

How in the world can you analyze whether another QB would have played better here or not with the exact circumstances Dak had? It's an impossible task because it deals with the unknown.

What we can ascertain, however, is that Dak hasn't been good enough and that a case can be made that maybe its time to move on and try something different. Maybe the next QB is worse. Maybe he's better. That's the nature of sports. That's the kind of decision making front offices make every single offseason. Most likely, the next QB would be a draft pick so he would likely play worse than Dak initially (as most rookies would) with the upside that he'd eventually be more consistent than Dak, especially in big games.

Dak has had different OCs. Different HCs. Different RBs. Different OL combinations. Different WRs. It's kind of hard to then turn around and make the case that ALL OF THOSE PEOPLE failed, and it was Dak who suffered (and too be fair, in some cases, they did fail him - such as the year Jerry/Stephen made that stupid decision to try WR by committee after Bryant). It's like trying to argue that our 27 years of ineptitude in the postseason isn't the primary fault of Jerry Jones but rather the hundreds of different players, coaches, front officer personnel, etc.

Dak has absolutely had some hurdles/challenges in his time here that are outside his control. But he's also played poorly, at times in big spots, that have little to do with some of the circumstances around him.

tl;dr

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Honest question, do you think McCarthy should have been replaced as OC/HC?

Probably, but it doesn't matter if they aren't going to philosophically change how they try to build an offense.

 

[MikeT22]

You people hold Dak to an impossible standard and then expect to improve with some other guy. It's ridiculous logic.

Yes nobody can be better than Dak. First ballot HOFer.

 

[Sydla]

Probably, but it doesn't matter if they aren't going to philosophically change how they try to build an offense.

Well, then you need to provide an analysis on this.

In order for it to be relevant as to whether or not they should move on or change HC/OC, you have to do that exercise for all of the HC/OCs you think should replace him. So you have to quantify W/L, performance, etc. You also have to weight the mitigating factors - i.e. lack of offensive talent - and how other QBs would perform in the same context.

Further, you ask for a change in how we build an offense. You need to provide a thorough analysis of what our philosophy should be, how it will result in a change of W/Ls. You also need to layout the cost of your change in philosophy, how much should be slotted in cap space for each offensive position, draft priorities, etc.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Yes nobody can be better than Dak. First ballot HOFer.

See, you people say stupid things like this and make yourselves have 0 credibility lol

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

Well, then you need to provide an analysis on this.

In order for it to be relevant as to whether or not they should move on or change HC/OC, you have to do that exercise for all of the HC/OCs you think should replace him. So you have to quantify W/L, performance, etc. You also have to weight the mitigating factors - i.e. lack of offensive talent - and how other QBs would perform in the same context.

Further, you ask for a change in how we build an offense. You need to provide a thorough analysis of what our philosophy should be, how it will result in a change of W/Ls. You also need to layout the cost of your change in philosophy, how much should be slotted in cap space for each offensive position, draft priorities, etc.

I already did it with the top EPA QBs.

There is no cost to a philosophy change and the cost of coaching personnel is irrelevant. As for players, allocate a greater percentage of cap dollars to WR. For instance, the cap dollars going to Kearse, Donovan Wilson, Tony Pollard (~$20m) could have gone to Tyreek Hill ($12m) and Deandre Hopkins ($4m).

The top throwing teams, by EPA, are always contenders. It is every year. It's not about translating directly to W/L, it is about putting your team in a position to win.

That is all besides the point, which is that can't contextualize Dak's performance because you know it would make you look stupid, even though it is very easy.

 

[raven55]

dak has a MENTAL coach that says a lot and maybe he needs it on and off the field

 

[Sydla]

I already did it with the top EPA QBs.

There is no cost to a philosophy change and the cost of coaching personnel is irrelevant. As for players, allocate a greater percentage of cap dollars to WR. For instance, the cap dollars going to Kearse, Donovan Wilson, Tony Pollard (~$20m) could have gone to Tyreek Hill ($12m) and Deandre Hopkins ($4m).

The top throwing teams, by EPA, are always contenders. It is every year. It's not about translating directly to W/L, it is about putting your team in a position to win.

That is all besides the point, which is that can't contextualize Dak's performance because you know it would make you look stupid, even though it is very easy.

But there is a cost. By shifting resources from defense to offense has a cost. We lived through this a few years ago when our defenses were pretty shoddy because there was an imbalance between cap dollars spent on offense vs defense.

You just listed for us the top EPA QBs. But there is no further analysis there other than your subjective opinion that McCarthy and our weapons aren't good as everyone else's. It's comical you demand real data from some but then throw around subjective opinions when you want.

Plus, the QB and team EPAs could tells us an entire different thing. It could tell us that yes, in fact, we don't have bad weapons or bad coaching and that we perform well MOST of the time, but then the rubber meets the road in big games, the QB (and possibly the coach), have a history of just coming up small.

In fact, nothing you provided actually pinpoints the issues. It doesn't give us data that the WRs aren;t good enough. Or the RBs aren't good enough. Or the coach isn't good enough. It's just EPA data that is left up to interpretation as to why they are so good in EPA here, but then scuffle there.

 

[kskboys]

Now let's ask Lamb about extending Dak's contract. Dare ya.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

But there is a cost. By shifting resources from defense to offense has a cost.

What cost? They'll give up 6 touchdowns instead of 7 in the playoffs?

 

[Sydla]

What cost? They'll give up 6 touchdowns instead of 7 in the playoffs?

But you can guarantee us that if we had T Hill and Hopkins, we'd have overcome the massive *** whopping GB laid on us?

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

But you can guarantee us that if we had T Hill and Hopkins, we'd have overcome the massive *** whopping GB laid on us?

Nope. But better WR play gives you a better chance of keeping pace, and it gives you a better chance of putting pressure on the opposing offense.

I mean who would you rather have - DHop and Hill or Kearse, Wilson and TP? lol

 

[Sydla]

Nope. But better WR play gives you a better chance of keeping pace, and it gives you a better chance of putting pressure on the opposing offense.

I mean who would you rather have - DHop and Hill or Kearse, Wilson and TP? lol

So after all this chatter about all the Dak criticizers having to provide data and stats and analysis you've come back to subjective takes.

He didn't play well. There's no guarantee he plays better if you give him Hill. That's just the reality. He's an 8 year QB who has little to no postseason success despite having different play callers, coaches, WRs, etc.

This is an honest question. Is there a point where you might finally acknowledge, "Yeah, you know what, Dak might be part of the problem here and it's time to move on............"

 

[TwentyOne]

How do you know what reads he has?

look at his head and which receiver he stares down. after 3 secs you know what read he has.

 

[Mac_MaloneV1]

So after all this chatter about all the Dak criticizers having to provide data and stats and analysis you've come back to subjective takes.

He didn't play well. There's no guarantee he plays better if you give him Hill. That's just the reality. He's an 8 year QB who has little to no postseason success despite having different play callers, coaches, WRs, etc.

This is an honest question. Is there a point where you might finally acknowledge, "Yeah, you know what, Dak might be part of the problem here and it's time to move on............"

It's not subjective. The teams with the best passing EPA are the best teams. It's true every single year

https://rbsdm.com/stats/stats/

 

[cmoney23]

Probably was drunk/hungover from the partying the night before.

LOL... funny thing about this comment to me is that the way they were playing caused me to have Varsity Blues flash backs of the game they played after going to the strip club all night!!


(edit): Both QBs are number 4!!!!!!! I'm shook!