News: Film study: The Vikings will have their hands full with Dak Prescott, Cowboys

WoodysGirl · Nov 30, 2016

BY: CIAN FAHEY
Follow Cian on Twitter

Dak Prescott is a cog in a highly-effective machine. The rookie quarterback has scored 23 total touchdowns with only eight combined interceptions and fumbles in 11 games so far this season. Prescott gets to play behind the best offensive line in the league with the best running game in the league and one of the best wide receivers in the league. He wouldn’t be having the kind of season he is having if it weren’t for the pieces around him.

All of those things are true but it’s also true that Prescott has been very impressive so far this season. It’s also true that Prescott as an individual player is incredibly difficult to defend. He’s a poised passer with the patience to get the most out of his pass protection and the acumen to diagnose coverages both before and after the snap. He regularly audibles into the right play and offers a rushing threat that indirectly opens up the running game even if he directly doesn’t contribute huge yardage.

Prescott is a safe passer. He won’t force the ball into tight windows unless he needs to force the ball into tight windows. He isn’t going to give Dez Bryant every opportunity to make a play on the ball downfield but he will consistently feed Cole Beasley and Jason Witten underneath before taking a shot to Bryant if you leave him open.

Read the rest: http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2016/11/film-study-vikings-will-hands-full-dak-prescott-cowboys/

eyedoc · Nov 30, 2016

WoodysGirl said:
BY: CIAN FAHEY
Follow Cian on Twitter

Dak Prescott is a cog in a highly-effective machine. The rookie quarterback has scored 23 total touchdowns with only eight combined interceptions and fumbles in 11 games so far this season. Prescott gets to play behind the best offensive line in the league with the best running game in the league and one of the best wide receivers in the league. He wouldn’t be having the kind of season he is having if it weren’t for the pieces around him.

All of those things are true but it’s also true that Prescott has been very impressive so far this season. It’s also true that Prescott as an individual player is incredibly difficult to defend. He’s a poised passer with the patience to get the most out of his pass protection and the acumen to diagnose coverages both before and after the snap. He regularly audibles into the right play and offers a rushing threat that indirectly opens up the running game even if he directly doesn’t contribute huge yardage.

Prescott is a safe passer. He won’t force the ball into tight windows unless he needs to force the ball into tight windows. He isn’t going to give Dez Bryant every opportunity to make a play on the ball downfield but he will consistently feed Cole Beasley and Jason Witten underneath before taking a shot to Bryant if you leave him open.

Read the rest: http://www.1500espn.com/vikings-2/2016/11/film-study-vikings-will-hands-full-dak-prescott-cowboys/

I believe you have the number of turnovers to high. I think he has thrown 2 interceptions and fumbled the ball 3 times for a total of 5 turnovers not 8. Go Cowboys

WoodysGirl · Nov 30, 2016

eyedoc said:
I believe you have the number of turnovers to high. I think he has thrown 2 interceptions and fumbled the ball 3 times for a total of 5 turnovers not 8. Go Cowboys

Not my article, but good tidbit to note.

SDCowboy · Nov 30, 2016

eyedoc said:
I believe you have the number of turnovers to high. I think he has thrown 2 interceptions and fumbled the ball 3 times for a total of 5 turnovers not 8. Go Cowboys

This is the first thing that caught my eye. He has not had 6 lost fumbles, unless they're for some random reason counting non-lost...

Idgit · Nov 30, 2016

eyedoc said:
I believe you have the number of turnovers to high. I think he has thrown 2 interceptions and fumbled the ball 3 times for a total of 5 turnovers not 8. Go Cowboys

It's right. Six fumbles, three lost. Two picks.

Idgit · Nov 30, 2016

SDCowboy85 said:
This is the first thing that caught my eye. He has not had 6 lost fumbles, unless they're for some random reason counting non-lost...

Yeah. It caught mine, too. I was surprised he had six fumbles total, even. Didn't seem like one every other game, did it?

Dale · Nov 30, 2016

Idgit said:
Yeah. It caught mine, too. I was surprised he had six fumbles total, even. Didn't seem like one every other game, did it?

He's had the three that resulted in turnovers, obviously; wasn't there a bobbled snap somewhere in there? I believe there was also a play where he was running and it slipped out of his hand, but he recovered it. Might have also been a bad handoff or something somewhere along the lines.

CATCH17 · Nov 30, 2016

I don't know why I see this game being so difficult for us but I do.

I expect this game to be similar to the Eagles game.

DFWJC · Nov 30, 2016

Yeah, I think fumbles lost is the more valid number.
Otherwise, why not count the 3-4 picks that "should have been". It'd be silly.

Super_Kazuya · Nov 30, 2016

DFWJC said:
Yeah, I think fumbles lost is the more valid number.
Otherwise, why not count the 3-4 picks that "should have been". It'd be silly.

Anytime a runner drops an oblong, unpredictably bouncing football on to the ground it is a bad thing. That they are fortunate to have it bounce in a way that favors them doesn't really change that. It just means it's not a turnover.

bark · Nov 30, 2016

CATCH17 said:
I don't know why I see this game being so difficult for us but I do.

I expect this game to be similar to the Eagles game.

I do as well. Hostile environment and tough defense with a good head coach= dogfight

JD_KaPow · Nov 30, 2016

DFWJC said:
Yeah, I think fumbles lost is the more valid number.
Otherwise, why not count the 3-4 picks that "should have been". It'd be silly.

Fumbles are things that actually happened; you can record them more-or-less objectively. Near-INTs are just incomplete passes.
Fumbles are bad things, and recoveries are pretty much random. I agree that adding total fumbles to INTs isn't very meaningful, but ignoring fumbles that weren't lost is also a mistake.

DFWJC · Nov 30, 2016

jimnabby said:
Fumbles are things that actually happened; you can record them more-or-less objectively. Near-INTs are just incomplete passes.
Fumbles are bad things, and recoveries are pretty much random. I agree that adding total fumbles to INTs isn't very meaningful, but ignoring fumbles that weren't lost is also a mistake.

I'd never say ignore fumbles of any sort.

Just seemed odd how they were packaged in the stats.
I've actually never seen it presented that way...not ever.
It's usually either
1) Passing TD vs Ints or
2) Total TDs vs Total turnovers
Never Total TDs vs Passing ints +Fumbles lost+ Fumbles not lost
No skin off my back though

Plankton · Nov 30, 2016

CATCH17 said:
I don't know why I see this game being so difficult for us but I do.

I expect this game to be similar to the Eagles game.

The Vikings have a terrific defense, with good players at all three levels. Their ends are good pass rushers, their linebackers can all run, they have depth at corner, and Harrison Smith is a stud at safety. They can cause any offense a lot of problems. This will also likely be the loudest crowd that the Cowboys play in front of this season.

JD_KaPow · Nov 30, 2016

DFWJC said:
I'd never say ignore fumbles of any sort.

Just seemed odd how they were packaged in the stats.
I've actually never seen it presented that way...not ever.
It's usually either
1) Passing TD vs Ints or
2) Total TDs vs Total turnovers
Never Total TDs vs Passing ints +Fumbles lost+ Fumbles not lost
No skin off my back though

We're in agreement on that. I like noting total fumbles over just fumbles lost, but adding those things up is silly.

Redball Express · Nov 30, 2016

eyedoc said:
I believe you have the number of turnovers to high. I think he has thrown 2 interceptions and fumbled the ball 3 times for a total of 5 turnovers not 8. Go Cowboys

There really is that ugly Cowboys bias again..

Every body wants us to look beatable.

What is new there.?

ragman · Nov 30, 2016

I'm afraid I'm not as optimistic on a W as most are. Their defensive secondary is pretty good. I don't think they have allowed a WR to get over 100 yards this season.

Hope I'm wrong.

Clove · Nov 30, 2016

ragman said:
I'm afraid I'm not as optimistic on a W as most are. Their defensive secondary is pretty good. I don't think they have allowed a WR to get over 100 yards this season.

Hope I'm wrong.

Not sure we're interested in doing that. They'd better cover up the middle to short routes, and keep Zeke from scratching off 5 and 7 yards.

Philmonroe · Nov 30, 2016

CATCH17 said:
I don't know why I see this game being so difficult for us but I do.

I expect this game to be similar to the Eagles game.

You're nervous because they won so many in a row. The Vikes haven't been good in a minute.

News: Film study: The Vikings will have their hands full with Dak Prescott, Cowboys

WoodysGirl

U.N.I.T.Y

eyedoc

Well-Known Member

WoodysGirl

U.N.I.T.Y

SDCowboy

Well-Known Member

Idgit

Fattening up

Idgit

Fattening up

Dale

Forum Architect

CATCH17

1st Round Pick

DFWJC

Well-Known Member

Super_Kazuya

Well-Known Member

bark

Well-Known Member

JD_KaPow

jimnabby

DFWJC

Well-Known Member

Plankton

Well-Known Member

JD_KaPow

jimnabby

Redball Express

All Aboard!!!

ragman

Active Member

Clove

Shrinkage

Philmonroe

Well-Known Member