Do people really believe there is a better option than Dak this year?

[CowboysFaninHouston]

What year was it the Cowboys had a 4th quarter red zone QB who threw 4 TDs, 9 incomplete, 6 stopped short of the goal line and took one sack?

yeah, I wonder if tom brady would have made those throws given the plays we ran with Linehan...just run in there and scramble and wait for the QB to throw you the ball.

remember all the screaming on this board regarding Linehan, lack of imagination. announcers on TV calling the blah offensive scheme. players finally runny their own plays (like in philly game)…..but hey, its very convenient to forget that, since it doesn't support your current argument

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

FIFY & Thanks for making the point for us again.

Nobody (I don't think) has said Keenum is a better player. We're only talking VALUE.

He may be a better player though. I'd be curious to see him with the 2019 Cowboys offensive talent.

VALUE? define Value? value based on spreadsheet math of what it costs? or value in terms of having the chance to make a run at the superbowl. this is all its about.right? there is a reason Keenum has been on 6 different teams, almost every year of his career. even Minn, with ZImmer had a chance to keep him after going to NFCCG....I mean according to you all supporting Keenum here that was so great, yet Zimmer and company decided Cousins was the better option and paid him $27 mill a year.....

Keenum had some talent in Minn. their WRs were much better than dak had his first three years. Rudolph is/was heck of a lot better TE and they had a great running game and a very good OL..... and they had ZImmer and a better OC...not garrett and linehan…. so lets not try and make this as if Keenum lifted that team to great heights, all because of one lucky throw in over time. and with all of that, they ranked 10th on offense scoring and that included having the #1 defense, #1 scoring defense, #1 3rd down defense (means they were not allowing opposing offenses to have long drives), #2 rushing defense, getting 14 interceptions to give their offense short fields.

a team called SF made it all the way to the superbowl with a dominant defense like that and grapolo as their QB. go figure...keenum laid an egg in the NFCCG...the moment was just way too big for him....

no one in the NFL sees value in Keenum, except as a one year stop gap or back up guy...I don't say that. I don't make that up. the NFL and 6 teams in the NFL say that about Keenum. that's his value to the teams in the market... too bad the NFL is about winning superbowls and having a team that can win a superbowl and not winning the spreadsheet math in the off season for getting the "most" value.....but I am sure you pundits on here are right and the NFL experts are wrong....that's how it usually goes around here...

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Because our offense consistently sucked in all our losses outside of the Vikings game, duh.

Did very little against the Bears until the 4th, multiple turnovers in the GB game, did nothing against the Bills until the fourth, slow start against the Jets, nothing against the Saints, nothing against the Patriots. Our offense couldn't win games when we held teams to 14 points or less either. What the hell makes you think we win the Bears game if our D stepped up?

the defense sucked this past year....they only showed up against these weaker teams.....even against some of them they were awful. the jets were I believe the 30th offense in the league when we played them and they hung 24 on us, big play after big play...GB threated us like their b!tch..aaron jones averaged 5.6 ypc and ran around that defense and we made him look like an all pro that day, Chicago made big play after big play on offense.....

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

What part of the rest of the teams sucking do you not get?

I was talking efficiency overall. Do you think Winston in 2019 was better than Keenum in 2017 as well?

In 2019, Dak had a 5.0 TD% (thanks garbage time for some of that), slightly better than Keenum's 4.6% in 2017. Keenum had a 1.5 INT%, slightly better than Dak's 1.8%.
Dak had a better 8.2 YPA (again, thanks Garbage time). Keenum had a solid 7.4%
Dak had a 99.7 passer rating to Case's 98.3. Keenum had a 74.3 QBR (Dak people seem to love this stat) to Dak's 71.2.

Dak's numbers are better in some areas, and Keenum's in others. And Dak had better talent and garbage time that Keenum did not.

so in your expert opinion, Keenum is a much better player or at least equivalent to Dak, yet, the NFL, not me, not you..THE NFL thinks he sucks, given he has been on 6 teams. his best year his entire career he went to NFCCG and the coach and GM of that team thought so much of him, that they let him go, didn't even keep him as a back up...they let him walk and they went out and got Cousins...so I guess you know more than the NFL. why aren't you working in somebody's front office is beyond me (sarcasm intended).

 

[phildadon86]

Cowboys will rue the day they sign Dak to a long term deal worth more than $25,000,000.00 per year.

Dak isn't worth $30,000,000.00.
He a very likeable guy, but you can't let emotion get in the way.

Lol. Someone else who doesn’t understand the market. Amazing

 

[ondaedg]

The only hate here is what you read into it. Most Dak lovers on this board don't like talking about numbers or at what ask they walk away.........far from a secret society. Just post anything that even sounds like Dak doesn't deserve to get paid what he's asking and you'll see what I mean.

Noone has said he should be paid $40 mil so own it up to it and/or fix your post.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Noone has said he should be paid $40 mil so own it up to it and/or fix your post.

Really? The truth is, "Pay The Man" is basically saying what? They don't say, "Pay The Man XXX". They just say pay him so what you suggest here is not accurate. I mean, I'm fine with saying he should get X, it's only an opinion and after all, everybody is entitled, but I think it's inaccurate to say that none have said he shouldn't be getting paid 40. If a poster says pay him, it suggest that the team should just give in to salary demands. That's just my opinion.

 

[Kevinicus]

VALUE? define Value? value based on spreadsheet math of what it costs? or value in terms of having the chance to make a run at the superbowl. this is all its about.right? there is a reason Keenum has been on 6 different teams, almost every year of his career. even Minn, with ZImmer had a chance to keep him after going to NFCCG....I mean according to you all supporting Keenum here that was so great, yet Zimmer and company decided Cousins was the better option and paid him $27 mill a year.....

Keenum had some talent in Minn. their WRs were much better than dak had his first three years. Rudolph is/was heck of a lot better TE and they had a great running game and a very good OL..... and they had ZImmer and a better OC...not garrett and linehan…. so lets not try and make this as if Keenum lifted that team to great heights, all because of one lucky throw in over time. and with all of that, they ranked 10th on offense scoring and that included having the #1 defense, #1 scoring defense, #1 3rd down defense (means they were not allowing opposing offenses to have long drives), #2 rushing defense, getting 14 interceptions to give their offense short fields.

a team called SF made it all the way to the superbowl with a dominant defense like that and grapolo as their QB. go figure...keenum laid an egg in the NFCCG...the moment was just way too big for him....

no one in the NFL sees value in Keenum, except as a one year stop gap or back up guy...I don't say that. I don't make that up. the NFL and 6 teams in the NFL say that about Keenum. that's his value to the teams in the market... too bad the NFL is about winning superbowls and having a team that can win a superbowl and not winning the spreadsheet math in the off season for getting the "most" value.....but I am sure you pundits on here are right and the NFL experts are wrong....that's how it usually goes around here...

Holy strawman arguments, Batman.

Value = Performance vs. Cost.
I think you get similar performance from Keenum and Dak, all things being equal. Then, with the money you save, you can acquire more talent for the rest of the team, which pushes the team overall to a better position.

This is what you guys sound like:
"Keenum wasn't that good, he had good teammates around him in Minnesota. Dak only struggled at times because everything wasn't perfect now and then."

Yes, Keenum had a good supporting cast in 2017. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING. And with that, he did well.
You guys keep wanting to diminish that, even though Dak has had a good supporting cast every single year.
Instead, you want to focus on Keenum when he was surrounded by garbage. But of course, you'll make excuses for Dak when he doesn't have one of his many all-pro/pro-bowl lineman at less that 100%.

So, all those teams that let Keenum go, they dramatically improved with their new QBs, right?
The only one that did, was the Rams, and that was when they changed coaches and added a TON of new guys as well.
Guess what, Dak on those teams would have put up terrible numbers. Just look at the start of (and some of the rest of the season) of 2018. Look at the last half of 2017.

You get terrible value with a big contract with dak, and you don't win a superbowl.
You have a much better shot with a cheaper Keenum which gives you a much greater value.

 

[Aviano90]

Holy strawman arguments, Batman.

Value = Performance vs. Cost.
I think you get similar performance from Keenum and Dak, all things being equal. Then, with the money you save, you can acquire more talent for the rest of the team, which pushes the team overall to a better position.

This is what you guys sound like:
"Keenum wasn't that good, he had good teammates around him in Minnesota. Dak only struggled at times because everything wasn't perfect now and then."

Yes, Keenum had a good supporting cast in 2017. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING. And with that, he did well.
You guys keep wanting to diminish that, even though Dak has had a good supporting cast every single year.
Instead, you want to focus on Keenum when he was surrounded by garbage. But of course, you'll make excuses for Dak when he doesn't have one of his many all-pro/pro-bowl lineman at less that 100%.

So, all those teams that let Keenum go, they dramatically improved with their new QBs, right?
The only one that did, was the Rams, and that was when they changed coaches and added a TON of new guys as well.
Guess what, Dak on those teams would have put up terrible numbers. Just look at the start of (and some of the rest of the season) of 2018. Look at the last half of 2017.

You get terrible value with a big contract with dak, and you don't win a superbowl.
You have a much better shot with a cheaper Keenum which gives you a much greater value.

Interesting that you're willing to go to bat for a QB like Keenum based upon "value", but "value" wasn't a reason to go to bat for Dak the past 4 years.

 

[Kevinicus]

so in your expert opinion, Keenum is a much better player or at least equivalent to Dak, yet, the NFL, not me, not you..THE NFL thinks he sucks, given he has been on 6 teams. his best year his entire career he went to NFCCG and the coach and GM of that team thought so much of him, that they let him go, didn't even keep him as a back up...they let him walk and they went out and got Cousins...so I guess you know more than the NFL. why aren't you working in somebody's front office is beyond me (sarcasm intended).

You love your logical fallacies don't you?
Because "the NFL" is always right, and random fans are always wrong.
That's not an argument.

 

[atlantacowboy]

Noone has said he should be paid $40 mil so own it up to it and/or fix your post.

Here are some links that are for more credible than you. . Go educate yourself and correct your own uninformed opinions.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/...ion-per-year-offer-wants-40-million-annually/
https://ftw.usatoday.com/2019/08/dallas-cowboys-dak-prescott-40-million-deal-counteroffer
https://thelandryhat.com/2020/02/13/dallas-cowboys-dak-prescott-40-million/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/vincen...t-demanding-40-million-annually/#5e80468a60ee

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Holy strawman arguments, Batman.

Value = Performance vs. Cost.
I think you get similar performance from Keenum and Dak, all things being equal. Then, with the money you save, you can acquire more talent for the rest of the team, which pushes the team overall to a better position.

This is what you guys sound like:
"Keenum wasn't that good, he had good teammates around him in Minnesota. Dak only struggled at times because everything wasn't perfect now and then."

Yes, Keenum had a good supporting cast in 2017. THAT IS WHAT WE ARE SAYING. And with that, he did well.
You guys keep wanting to diminish that, even though Dak has had a good supporting cast every single year.
Instead, you want to focus on Keenum when he was surrounded by garbage. But of course, you'll make excuses for Dak when he doesn't have one of his many all-pro/pro-bowl lineman at less that 100%.

So, all those teams that let Keenum go, they dramatically improved with their new QBs, right?
The only one that did, was the Rams, and that was when they changed coaches and added a TON of new guys as well.
Guess what, Dak on those teams would have put up terrible numbers. Just look at the start of (and some of the rest of the season) of 2018. Look at the last half of 2017.

You get terrible value with a big contract with dak, and you don't win a superbowl.
You have a much better shot with a cheaper Keenum which gives you a much greater value.

is the value worth anything if your don't get the performance necessary to win a championship? !!!

Keenum's value = 0. or perhaps really close. no one is going to win a championship with him....I don't care if he costs $1.50...who cares!

and in your formula Robin....then a very low cost QB, perhaps minimum....and we get 5 wins must represent a good value....the performance for the cost was good...right?

 

[ondaedg]

Really? The truth is, "Pay The Man" is basically saying what? They don't say, "Pay The Man XXX". They just say pay him so what you suggest here is not accurate. I mean, I'm fine with saying he should get X, it's only an opinion and after all, everybody is entitled, but I think it's inaccurate to say that none have said he shouldn't be getting paid 40. If a poster says pay him, it suggest that the team should just give in to salary demands. That's just my opinion.

Ok I see your point. I am in the pay the man camp because he's young, durable, and been successful despite some poor head coaching. And despite awful special teams and a defense that is completely unable to generate extra possessions through takeaways. However there is no way I want to see him paid $40 mil. $33 to $37 mil is where I see him going and I am ok with that.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

You love your logical fallacies don't you?
Because "the NFL" is always right, and random fans are always wrong.
That's not an argument.

random fans are more often wrong than NFL experts specially those that have been to the NFCCG , like Mike Zimmer. so let me think, do I trust Mike Zimmer's decision or Kevinicus? man, that's a tough fallacy to decide on...

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Ok I see your point. I am in the pay the man camp because he's young, durable, and been successful despite some poor head coaching. And despite awful special teams and a defense that is completely unable to generate extra possessions through takeaways. However there is no way I want to see him paid $40 mil. $33 to $37 mil is where I see him going and I am ok with that.

Oh, don't get me wrong. I absolutely see the benefits of keeping Dak. I mean, a person would have to be flat ******** to not want him back if the deal was financially sound. The problem is that people don't agree on what is sound right? I would be OK with 33, I would not be OK with 37 but really, it's the term of the deal. I do not want to sign Dak to a short term deal, only to be back in this position in a couple of years. I mean, lets face it, if a player gets a three year deal these days, that really means he has a two year deal and in the third year, they are back at the table. That's not good. To me, the devil is in the details. We don't really know what has been offered but I think all of us know what we want to see in terms of contract. We may not all agree but we all know what it is we are willing to give up, so to speak. I'm all about a financially sound deal with good terms that favor the team because I definitely don't want this to become a thing where he's back in with his agent every couple years. I don't think we can win that way. If Dak's team is set on doing business in that manor, then I'm just for going out and signing a really good FA QB and drafting a kid. Heck, I think we should do that anyway to be honest but bottom line is we need to get him settled and for a deal that doesn't prevent us from improving the team because Dak is not a one man kinda show. He needs the pieces around him and we have to have the flexibility to be able to make those moves when we see them IMO.

 

[garyo1954]

The point is that both guys can do good things with support... and that Dak has had much, much more support.

yeah, I wonder if tom brady would have made those throws given the plays we ran with Linehan...just run in there and scramble and wait for the QB to throw you the ball.

remember all the screaming on this board regarding Linehan, lack of imagination. announcers on TV calling the blah offensive scheme. players finally runny their own plays (like in philly game)…..but hey, its very convenient to forget that, since it doesn't support your current argument

That was Dak in 2019. Been going through stats to compile for a program. Pretty eye opening when you read some stat posted here and it sounds right, but then you see the actual stat at pro football reference.

For example, people have parroted the idea that we had the #1 offense. In team offense the Cowboys were ranked 6. In passing it was 2. In Rushing it was 5. In conversions 2. In scoring 8th most TDs, 6th most points, and 6th in points per game.

Another one we see here, Dallas had the worst starting field position is not true. On average, Jacksonville started at their 25.9 yard line (25 yards, 32.4"), the Chargers started at the 26.2 (26 yards. 7.2") and the Cowboys and Giants started at the 26.3 (26 yards, 10.8"). So 4 teams started within 14.4".

The only true stat (so far) is the Cowboys had the longest average drive. The average drive for the Cowboys was 39.4 yards. Now take a dollar bill, fold it in half, that's about the difference (3.6") between the Cowboys and the Ravens who were second at 39.4.

I think somewhere during the season some of the stats posted were thrown out during a broadcast, or printed and as the season went along, things changed. So its nobody's fault when stats are misquoted. They went with what they heard on TV. Fair to say, I wouldn't know either if I weren't looking at the stat page.

So everyone can see where the 4th qtr red zone stats come from, here's a link to the page......

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/P/PresDa01/red-zone-passing-plays/2019

 

[mattjames2010]

the defense sucked this past year....they only showed up against these weaker teams.....even against some of them they were awful. the jets were I believe the 30th offense in the league when we played them and they hung 24 on us, big play after big play...GB threated us like their b!tch..aaron jones averaged 5.6 ypc and ran around that defense and we made him look like an all pro that day, Chicago made big play after big play on offense.....

Exaggerating to prove a point won't work here.

Our defense weren't good in SOME areas, they however did not "suck". Our offense was consistently slow from the jump and couldn't stay on the field, they were also not good in the red zone - this is how you lose football games. So stating shorter field would have helped doesn't work here, because when our offense got a shorter field, they actually played WORSE. We have red zone and scoring issues.

 

[ondaedg]

Exaggerating to prove a point won't work here.

Our defense weren't good in SOME areas, they however did not "suck". Our offense was consistently slow from the jump and couldn't stay on the field, they were also not good in the red zone - this is how you lose football games. So stating shorter field would have helped doesn't work here, because when our offense got a shorter field, they actually played WORSE. We have red zone and scoring issues.

Those issues you described are systemic to just about every Garrett offense with any group of players. Hard to put it on the back of the QB shackled by Garrett philosophy.

 

[Kevinicus]

is the value worth anything if your don't get the performance necessary to win a championship? !!!

Keenum's value = 0. or perhaps really close. no one is going to win a championship with him....I don't care if he costs $1.50...who cares!

and in your formula Robin....then a very low cost QB, perhaps minimum....and we get 5 wins must represent a good value....the performance for the cost was good...right?

You are failing to grasp how team football works.

You think Dak is some world beater apparently. You give him a huge contract, you definitely won't get the performance to win a Championship since the rest of the team won't be as good, and he needs a great team around him.
With Keenum, you CAN win with a good team around him, and you have a much better shot of that good team because the contract will be lower.

 

[Kevinicus]

random fans are more often wrong than NFL experts specially those that have been to the NFCCG , like Mike Zimmer. so let me think, do I trust Mike Zimmer's decision or Kevinicus? man, that's a tough fallacy to decide on...

Those that have been to NFC Champ Game...like Keenum, and not Dak? Since we're using silly logic.