Dink and Dak is dead

[Hadenough]

Playoff Dak has historically been a different animal.

That doesn't count it's not regular season. The playoffs aren't fair because he can't face the Giants and Commanders.

 

[Scotman]

Serious question: when did we "need a play" from Aikman in the postseason? When was it "crucial that he did so?"
Aikman played in 16 postseason games. The Cowboys won 11 of them (I assume we can agree he didn't make the crucial play in the 5 losses).
Of those 11, Dallas won 6 of them by scores of 34-10, 52-17, 38-21, 35-9, 30-11, and 40-15. Can we agree that there were no "crucial" plays in those games? That leaves 5.

• 1992 NFCCG: Aikman played well, no doubt, but the Cowboys took the ball away 4 times and took an 11 point lead early in the 4th quarter. The '9ers did pull within 4 and the Cowboys scored another TD late. Maybe this one qualifies.
• 1993 Divisional Round: Final score was 27-17, but Dallas had leads of 24-3 in the 3rd and 27-10 in the 4th. It was never close.
• SB XXVIII: The Bills had the lead at the half and the ball to start the 3rd. At which point, Washington returned a Thomas fumble for a TD to tie it. On the Cowboys first drive of the second half, they drove for the go-ahead TD...with a drive that consisted of 7 Emmitt Smith runs and one 3-yard pass on second down (was that "crucial?"). The teams traded punts for a while until Washington got an interception and the Cowboys scored on another run-heavy drive to put it away.
• 1995 NFCCG: The Packers took the lead 27-24 late in the 3rd. The Cowboys took it back on a long methodical run-heavy drive that featured one 3rd-down conversion by pass, so there's one play that I would count. Larry Brown intercepted Favre on the next Packers drive, Dallas scored on two plays and that was that.
• SB XXX: Dallas went up 13-0 early and then the offense did nothing the rest of the game. The only Dallas scores after that came on 2-play drives after Larry Brown interceptions put them right up to the end zone.

So I would dispute your claim that the Cowboys' performance in the playoffs with Aikman hinged on "a very few plays that went in [Aikman's] favor." The Cowboys dominated most of those games, and in the ones they didn't, the defense made most of the biggest plays. I can find two spots that sort of fit what you're saying, but that's it. And I would point to the CAR loss and the 1994 NFCCG as games where they needed plays and he didn't make them.

Again: Aikman was great, not arguing that. It just happens that he was not put in the position in the playoffs where he had to heroball for the Cowboys to win.

Romo didn't have the same dominant team around him, so it came down to heroballing a lot more often. And he did! Dez caught that ball! But, better example: the Cowboys were trailing the Lions in the 4th quarter. Tony led the game-winning drive, which featured a 4th-and-6 conversion and the TD pass on 3rd-and-goal from the 8. He made as many "crucial" plays in that drive as I can find in Aikman's postseason career.

I humbly suggest that your memory of events doesn't really reflect reality.

1992 NFCCG absolutely qualifies. The 49ers were the team standing in our way. The game had been close. 4th quarter the 49ers have life and pull within 4. The red zone pass to K-Mart was crucial. If we fail to score on that drive, the entire narrative from that season could have changed. Not only that, Aikman's completion percentage in 92 during the regular season was 63%. During the NFCCG it rose to 70%. It hit 73% for the Superbowl.

When I say that Aikman played better when the games were most important, it isn't just remembering with rose colored glasses. For his career, Aikman had a 61% completion ratio during the regular season. It rose to 63% during the post season. Aikman's career regular season QBR was 81.6. His career playoff QBR was 88.3. His lowest QBR during our three Superbowl runs was 104.1.

And, in the game that allowed us to win the division against the giants in the 93 season (when Emmitt got his shoulder hurt), Aikman completed 80% of his passes. On the final OT drive, Aikman was 4 of 4 and in complete control of the game. If we don't win that game, we would have faced the 49ers in the divisional round and everything could have come out different. I mention this later in my response, but this game is a prime example of the differences between Aikman's teams and Romo's teams.

And I'm not arguing that the Cowboys victories only hinged on a few plays. I'm arguing that most NFL championships can be traced back to just a few plays. If they rule correctly about Dez's catch, I honestly believe Romo's career is remembered vastly different. I think we win the Superbowl that year if the momentum had shifted on that one play. If Romo didn't bobble the ball on that field goal attempt, or took off a half second sooner, I think it ends differently there, too.

Your contention that Aikman really only had two crucial plays that made a difference discounts any plays that made a difference early in games that changed the momentum the rest of the game. But, let's assume those were the only two plays where he made a crucial play (incredibly short-sighted IMO). Those two plays alone could have kept us out of two Superbowls in the 90's.

I don't know where the "heroball" thing came from. I don't think I've ever used that term. But I don't dislike the term...I kind of like it in fact. You'll get no argument from me that Romo had to do 10 times more heroball than Aikman ever did. Romo is never going to get a fair shake in those comparisons because he wasn't surrounded by people that could also make that one crucial play.

I bet that in reality, you and I aren't that far apart in what we think. We are probably only separated by discussion board semantics. It doesn't sound like you liked the word "Crucial" in mine. Perhaps I could have chosen a better word. If you're arguing that Aikman didn't have to play 'heroball" to win the big games like someone like Romo would have had to, I'll give you that. Romo had to will the teams around him to win. Romo had to carry the team. Aikman had to guide it.

 

[kskboys]

Sure hope not. One of the hallmarks of a good O is to adjust what the other team is doing. If we insist on throwing deeper into triple coverage, then we are just dumb. Throw to the open guy, whether he's 40 yds downfield or 5.

 

[JD_KaPow]

1992 NFCCG absolutely qualifies. The 49ers were the team standing in our way. The game had been close. 4th quarter the 49ers have life and pull within 4. The red zone pass to K-Mart was crucial. If we fail to score on that drive, the entire narrative from that season could have changed. Not only that, Aikman's completion percentage in 92 during the regular season was 63%. During the NFCCG it rose to 70%. It hit 73% for the Superbowl.

When I say that Aikman played better when the games were most important, it isn't just remembering with rose colored glasses. For his career, Aikman had a 61% completion ratio during the regular season. It rose to 63% during the post season. Aikman's career regular season QBR was 81.6. His career playoff QBR was 88.3. His lowest QBR during our three Superbowl runs was 104.1.

And, in the game that allowed us to win the division against the giants in the 93 season (when Emmitt got his shoulder hurt), Aikman completed 80% of his passes. On the final OT drive, Aikman was 4 of 4 and in complete control of the game. If we don't win that game, we would have faced the 49ers in the divisional round and everything could have come out different. I mention this later in my response, but this game is a prime example of the differences between Aikman's teams and Romo's teams.

And I'm not arguing that the Cowboys victories only hinged on a few plays. I'm arguing that most NFL championships can be traced back to just a few plays. If they rule correctly about Dez's catch, I honestly believe Romo's career is remembered vastly different. I think we win the Superbowl that year if the momentum had shifted on that one play. If Romo didn't bobble the ball on that field goal attempt, or took off a half second sooner, I think it ends differently there, too.

Your contention that Aikman really only had two crucial plays that made a difference discounts any plays that made a difference early in games that changed the momentum the rest of the game. But, let's assume those were the only two plays where he made a crucial play (incredibly short-sighted IMO). Those two plays alone could have kept us out of two Superbowls in the 90's.

I don't know where the "heroball" thing came from. I don't think I've ever used that term. But I don't dislike the term...I kind of like it in fact. You'll get no argument from me that Romo had to do 10 times more heroball than Aikman ever did. Romo is never going to get a fair shake in those comparisons because he wasn't surrounded by people that could also make that one crucial play.

I bet that in reality, you and I aren't that far apart in what we think. We are probably only separated by discussion board semantics. It doesn't sound like you liked the word "Crucial" in mine. Perhaps I could have chosen a better word. If you're arguing that Aikman didn't have to play 'heroball" to win the big games like someone like Romo would have had to, I'll give you that. Romo had to will the teams around him to win. Romo had to carry the team. Aikman had to guide it.

I agree that we aren't that far apart. But earlier you said that Aikman made the crucial plays and Romo didn't. Now you're agreeing that Romo had less around him, so even if he made more of those kinds of plays, the team could have fallen (and did fall) short anyway.

What I don't get is when you say things like, "if they rule correctly, Romo's career is remembered vastly different." Remembered by whom? The question is, how do YOU remember him: you don't have to do along with others who diminish him. I don't really care what others think about Romo: others are mostly idiots.

The other comment is that I think there's a little bit of trying to have things both ways. If there aren't crucial plays at the end, well, it's because he made crucial plays early that meant the game didn't come down to the end. I actually agree with that generally: way too much importance is given to plays at the end of close games, when it's so much better for the games not to be close to begin with. But, let's take that 1993 Giants game that ended 16-13. They wouldn't have needed that FG in OT if they'd done anything earlier. The Cowboys were up 13-0 and scored zero points in the second half, letting the Giants tie it up and send it to OT. If you praise Aikman for leading a FG drive in OT, then don't you have to ding him for letting it get to that point in the first place? There's also a bit of cherry-picking in pointing to his 80% completion rate in the Giants game, when he threw for only 6 yards per attempt and those completions didn't translate into points. Having Emmitt rush 32 times for 168 yards takes a lot of pressure off the QB too.

 

[Mannix]

try again

 

[ChronicCowboy]

All day today has been dink and dunk

 

[Tenkamenin]

All day today has been dink and dunk

Aaron Rodgers type of game.

 

[morat1959]

I think everyone can agree that Dak’s the best all time Cowboys QB. Is he now entering the discussion of the best all time QB in the NFL? I mean look at all those wins vs playoff teams, playoff wins and SB trophies.

 

[75boyz]

All day today has been dink and dunk

Yep,
the report of the Dink and Dak offense disappearance is officially over.

It came back in full force today.

 

[conner01]

The hilarious narrative about Daks air yards is looking pretty stupid

Especially since it was never true anyway. Just a figment of a few haters imagination

 

[conner01]

The Washington quarterback, Sam Howell, leads the league in passing yards

Yet he’s near the bottom in YPA. If you throw more you get more yards. Purdy leads the league in YPA and Dak is .7 yards behind him

 

[Jake]

All day today has been dink and dunk

It comes down to how the defense plays you. Carolina plays a lot of zone, forcing you to take the underneath stuff and daring you to force it deep. Dak smartly did not.

The Giants play a lot of man and Dak feasts on man coverage with the Cowboys receivers, as we saw last week.

 

[ArmChairGM]

Yet he’s near the bottom in YPA. If you throw more you get more yards. Purdy leads the league in YPA and Dak is .7 yards behind him

My point was that Sam Howell throws for a lot of yards on everyone.

With that said, I didn't know his YPA was near the bottom. Good info. I'll have to see if he has a low completion percentage or low aDot.

 

[glimmerman]

Dak has started using his legs again. That makes a huge difference. He has been able to make the throws. He has to learn to settle down in big games. That’s when he is over or under throwing receivers.

 

[BobbyFlame469]

I wonder if those numbers will change once the competitive part of the schedule starts?

So far...he's done well racking up stats against doormat teams..... but he always wilts against strong teams.

We will see

He will do nothing like the past almost decade.

 

[CowboysLakerBamaFan]

He will do nothing like the past almost decade.

We shall see soon enough!

 

[CowboyFrog]

It comes down to how the defense plays you. Carolina plays a lot of zone, forcing you to take the underneath stuff and daring you to force it deep. Dak smartly did not.

The Giants play a lot of man and Dak feasts on man coverage with the Cowboys receivers, as we saw last week.

This wont win any arguments in the Dak war... pick a side Jake for god sake..logic and facts have no place here!!!!