How are the Cowboys not a top 10 offense?

[visionary]

per nfl.com the cowboys don’t have a top 10 offense despite having a top rb, top tier wr, top tier oline and top 10 qb...boggles the mind


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...10-offenses-saints-colts-eagles-best-of-bunch

It's a complete mystery I tell you
"Boggles the mind" does not do it justice

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

You said "the stats say he's "the best to ever play the game", nobody else said that. That's your desperation on full display, resorting to completely making things up in a failed argument.

I'm sure "not trying" to get personal like you clearly are.

Go back and quote my whole post. Like I said, I'm not the other posters on this site. I'm not gonna play the cat and mouse game. Go back and read my post and don't just start reading at "the stats say.....".

What is he Top 5 in right now? You said he's one of the best ever based on the stats. OK, in today's statistical measures, where is he Top 5?

No one in his age group is around him at passing yards except Joe Flacco which is another abomination and proof stats don't tell the whole story. He's 26th all time in passing yards.....he's going to be top 5 or 10 there. How do we judge quarterbacks in this league? QB rating or passing yards and touchdowns? When people bring up Joe Montan's greatness its not his pedestrian 92 all time QB rating and I surely don't hear anyone mention Tony Romo as one of the best with his 97 all time QB rating.

Then you are a fool if you actually think eye balls are more accurate than actual, physical evidence.

That's not to say go by stats 100% of the time. But it's far better to look at a bunch of stats and try to draw a real conclusion from that then take the word of a homer who says his eyeballs tell him this when most numerical data suggests otherwise.

So what are you even arguing here then? I said stats don't tell the whole story and you just said don't go by stats 100% of the time so why are you arguing with me about stats telling the story?

This is the crap Skip Bayless does to determine how good or bad someone is and all these so called "experts" like Stephen A. They sit there and read off a bunch of stats and then will say something foolish like Dwayne Haskins is a mobile quarterback and don't have a leg to stand on because his stats lied to him.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

No, we use stats to support our argument.

That's the difference between a worthless, unsupported opinion and an informed opinion.

You're welcome.

Ok who on earth said they didn't use stats to support their argument? You are reaching.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

They nearly made the super bowl as a team. They were noticeably running less times and for less yards per carry, and were held to 35 or less each of their last 6 games. Definitely weren’t same team. Their D shut down San Diego in the divisional round (as bad as it was), and they were held scoreless in the first half against NE. You say almost made the super bowl, I say won 1 playoff game after getting the bye Hulk earned them against a team that probably shouldn’t have gotten that far.

Again, still a top nfl offense. But the reasons for the 5 above them are sound.

Damien Williams looked fine running the football to me when I saw him play. Not saying he's Hunt but we know in this league you can find another running back. Karrem Hunt isn't some generational talent. Solid pick and solid player but he's not Zeke, Barkley or Gurley's class. He's much easier to replace. Hill will be much harder.

 

[Sydla]

No one in his age group is around him at passing yards except Joe Flacco which is another abomination and proof stats don't tell the whole story. He's 26th all time in passing yards.....he's going to be top 5 or 10 there. How do we judge quarterbacks in this league? QB rating or passing yards and touchdowns? When people bring up Joe Montan's greatness its not his pedestrian 92 all time QB rating and I surely don't hear anyone mention Tony Romo as one of the best with his 97 all time QB rating.

So now you are categorizing Stafford based on his age group?

It's very simple. You said if you look at the stats, Stafford is one of the best ever. Top 5. Not his stats relative to his peers or anything like that................ you said one of the best ever. Also, not where one of his stats might end up......... stats right now. So I'll ask the question again........... if I go pull up Football Reference and look at historical QB stats, which ones will have Stafford in the Top 5, indicating he's one of the best QBs ever?

In reality, when a non-dipwad looks at all the stats currently, no one, other than some like yourself trying to justify an odd stance would conclude that Matthew Stafford is one of the best QBs of all time.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

So now you are categorizing Stafford based on his age group?

It's very simple. You said if you look at the stats, Stafford is one of the best ever. Top 5. Not his stats relative to his peers or anything like that................ you said one of the best ever.

When a non-dipwad looks at all the stats currently, no one, other than some like yourself trying to massage some weird message here would conclude that Matthew Stafford is one of the best QBs of all time.

I have enough common sense to factor what he may be doing in 8 to 10 years. Why would I compare the stats of Stafford at 30 to guys who have retired as if Stafford won't go up in this list?Now the the stats aren't convenient for you guys you don't want to use them lol.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Look at our offensive stats last year. How do they justify a top 10 ranking?

In the NFC, the Cowboys only outscored the Commanders, Lions and Cardinals.

 

[baltcowboy]

Dallas has top 5 offensive and defensive talent. We will be ok.

 

[northerncowboynation]

And this is probably a huge reason why pundits and the like won't look at the Cowboys offense as being all that great yet. Moore is a complete unknown.

For sure Syd

 

[ryanbabs]

per nfl.com the cowboys don’t have a top 10 offense despite having a top rb, top tier wr, top tier oline and top 10 qb...boggles the mind


http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap30...10-offenses-saints-colts-eagles-best-of-bunch

I was wondering the same thing when I saw that. Pretty hilarious actually.

 

[northerncowboynation]

I wholeheartedly agree. Points is what ultimately wins and loses games after all.

I think red zone issues are what ultimately put the final nail in Linehan's coffin (and not a moment too soon). It was by far my biggest issue with the 2018 team. But I'm optimistic that Frederick's return and improvement from left guard will be a big help in that area and to the offense overall. As well as a few additions in free agency and the draft. I'm not willing to say top 10 or get miffed that someone else isn't, but I think they can surely improve.

 

[Sydla]

I have enough common sense to factor what he may be doing in 8 to 10 years. Why would I compare the stats of Stafford at 30 to guys who have retired as if Stafford won't go up in this list?Now the the stats aren't convenient for you guys you don't want to use them lol.

Common sense? LOL.

How am I not wanting to use the stats? I am actually looking at the hard stats. Not the interpretation of the stats you want to use or how you want to filter the stats to prove your point. I am simply looking at the hard stats here.

You said the stats say he's one of the best ever (which would include guys that have retired, right?) right now. Not best ever 8 years from now. Best ever right now. I need you to point out to me which stats right now indicate he's one of the best ever. Not 5 years, 8 years, down the road. Right now.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Common sense? LOL.

How am I not wanting to use the stats? I am actually looking at the hard stats. Not the interpretation of the stats you want to use or how you want to filter the stats to prove your point. I am simply looking at the hard stats here.

You said the stats say he's one of the best ever (which would include guys that have retired, right?) right now. Not best ever 8 years from now. Best ever right now. I need you to point out to me which stats right now indicate he's one of the best ever. Not 5 years, 8 years, down the road. Right now.

Ok. So basically you're saying Vinny Testerverde was better than Aaron Rodgers until he passes him up and once he does that I can then say Rodgers is better than him?

 

[Sydla]

Ok. So basically you're saying Vinny Testerverde was better than Aaron Rodgers until he passes him up and once he does that I can then say Rodgers is better than him?

No because when you look at the totality of stats, Rodgers is clearly the better QB. He has a higher career passer rating, more TDs, less interceptions, yards per attempt, completion percentage, etc. If you want to cherry pick a random stat (in this case, passing yards) which you seem to love to do, in order to try to prove your point, that further shows how weak your argument is.

And this highlights a disconnect that you seem to have with those that put more value in stats over the eye ball test. Those stats people don't often just look at one random stat, they look at a variety of stats to look at something. For example, when we had a discussion on this board about the pass defense and safety play, I didn't just look at defensive passing yards to reach a conclusion............ I looked at opposing passer ratings, TDs given up, completion percentage, etc..........

So I will ask again, show me which stats show that, right now, Matthew Stafford is one of the best QBs ever? I am not even looking for many stats that would indicate that. Just looking for one.

 

[CouchCoach]

Start with the OL with a ? with Yosemite's health and % of his old self, unknown about Williams' next step and Big Smitty isn't what he used to be.

Then you have the rating of the QB, which is probably not top 10.

However, all of this is nonsense because there are too many unknowns and these people can't even predict the records of most teams. How can they project the offenses, particularly the ones they haven't really seen yet like DAL, KC and PIT? And the other factor of that are the D's they will all play.

Any of these power rankings or really absurd projecting offense rankings is because they have nothing to talk or write about and are required to do year round coverage.

All of this will eventually fall into place and that's why the guys that play the game play the game and the guys that don't play the game talk about the game.

 

[Hennessy_King]

Who actually listens to nfl.com they have a narrative they want to push. Wentz is great blah blah blah. Dude has never touched the field in january and he can't be that good if foles played better with the same team.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

No because when you look at the totality of stats, Rodgers is clearly the better QB. He has a higher career passer rating, more TDs, less interceptions, yards per attempt, completion percentage, etc. If you want to cherry pick a random stat (in this case, passing yards) which you seem to love to do, in order to try to prove your point, that further shows how weak your argument is.

So I will ask again, show me which stats show that, right now, Matthew Stafford is one of the best QBs ever?

Ok so until Aaron Rodgers passes Eli Manning I can say Eli Manning is better than Aaron Rodgers? Just trying to understand what you're getting at here. I've already told you what Matthew Stafford was going to eventually be top 10 in but you said I'm doing it too early and I need to wait until Matthew Stafford retires before I can say stats wise he's one of the best to ever do it.


This all derived from me saying stats don't tell the whole story and if they did that would mean Stafford was one of the best to ever do it. Let's let that sink in lol.

 

[Sydla]

Ok so until Aaron Rodgers passes Eli Manning I can say Eli Manning is better than Aaron Rodgers? Just trying to understand what you're getting at here. I've already told you what Matthew Stafford was going to eventually be top 10 in but you said I'm doing it too early and I need to wait until Matthew Stafford retires before I can say stats wise he's one of the best to ever do it.


This all derived from me saying stats don't tell the whole story and if they did that would mean Stafford was one of the best to ever do it. Let's let that sink in lol.

Oy.

 

[mattjames2010]

Ok so until Aaron Rodgers passes Eli Manning I can say Eli Manning is better than Aaron Rodgers? Just trying to understand what you're getting at here. I've already told you what Matthew Stafford was going to eventually be top 10 in but you said I'm doing it too early and I need to wait until Matthew Stafford retires before I can say stats wise he's one of the best to ever do it.


This all derived from me saying stats don't tell the whole story and if they did that would mean Stafford was one of the best to ever do it. Let's let that sink in lol.

Stats, as a whole, give you a better overall picture than someone watching a game when their emotions are high and with homer goggles on.

And I will remind everyone here: You specifically said in the past, the moment a players leaves the team, you stop liking them. You used to be Romo's biggest defender on this board, you now criticize Romo to prop up Dak.

You add nothing to discussions, and frankly, your homerism is quite cancerous and should stay in only your home or between your family and friends on normie Facebook.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

And I will remind everyone here: You specifically said in the past, the moment a players leaves the team, you stop liking them. You used to be Romo's biggest defender on this board, you now criticize Romo to prop up Dak.

Ok.....and? Did you think you were saying something prolific by saying I don't care for players once they leave this team? That I'm invested in the team and not the players? What's your point?