If a Lamborghini outruns a Pinto. How much credit do we give the driver of the Lamborghini?

[MoistMayonnaise]

I was skimming, then just started laughing when he began naming some of the worst posters on this board with reverence.

there may be several from that list set to ignore, not naming names though. Already enough butthurt in this thread.

 

[BAT]

Spreading the ball like a champ!

 

[Rockport]

Until Dak shows he can play well without all star support at every position I am not convinced of anything.

The facts are that Dak has NEVER played well when either Zeke misses time OR Amari misses time OR Tyron Smith misses time. Now imagine if Dallas was without all 3 of them. How do you think Dak would play?

If Dallas was without all 3 of them Dallas would still be loaded on Offense you would still have Zach Martin & Collins. You would still have Pollard, Jarwin, & Schultz... Your 2nd string TE could have made the Pro Bowl last year based on numbers alone.... but no name recognition. You would still have Lamb & Gallup.

Right now Dallas has more offensive support for its QB than any team in the league including The Bucs & Chiefs. But my question to Jerry & Stephen is if your QB is such a stud than why?

Right now Dallas has not just studs but future Hall Of Famers at every position surrounding Dak. Bottom line is when a QB has all day to throw & has receivers running wide open it is very hard to fail.

Does that mean that Dak sucks? No! It means Dak is doing what he is supposed to be doing. There is probably around 100 QB's in this league maybe a few more when you factor in practice squad. Could every QB do what Dak is doing? No. But probably 25 of them could put up the same numbers.

In todays NFL which is basically what Arena football used to be, pretty stats for QB's are everywhere. It means very very little. Are there any good Defenses in the NFL right now? I am not seeing any. I certainly do not see the 1985 Bears or 2000 Ravens.

Other members of this site such as....

Risen Star
US Army Vet
Mike??? The member with a picture of Romo & a Packer
Khiladi
Swagger
Mountaineer Cowboy

I apologize if I left someone out or butchered the name.

These members are some of the smartest, articulate, & most mature people on this site.... and yet they are what I would call somewhat Dak doubters.

Couchcoach I would classify as highly intelligent & mature and I would put him in the Dak believer camp. But for others who are obsessed with Dak.... you know who you are. You do not come off well.

Everyone is happy that Dallas has a 3 game win streak. But in the land of What If game if the Chargers had beaten Dallas & the refs and Dallas was 2-2 everyone's perception would be different.

Has Dak improved? Maybe? I will believe it when I see it. Since Dak started his career 13-2 he finished that season 0-2. And than 9-7. 10-6 with a 1-1 playoff record. 8-8 & than 2-3. In 2021 he has gone 3-1. So basically slightly above .500.

Was Aikman a great QB? Probably not. Aikman proved that in the majority of his career that without studs everywhere he kind of sucked.

I think Jerry has built a team to win now & next year. And than the bill will come due. He has built an average Defense with a loaded Offense. The division is a total joke. So when will Dak be without all his amazing help? It might not be this year or even next year.... but at some point we will get answers to these questions.

You make one negative post and then run. If that's not trolling then I don't know what is.

 

[CWR]

There is NO evidence Romo would crush it. NONE!!

Besides, Dak played well in the playoff game. The Romo guys just missed the main reason you go with Dak. The Cowboys were NOT a legitimate SB contender that year. The Romo era was over. So you stick with the young buck that has won 11 in a row and get him the experience of leading the team. Dak is where he is today because he didnt have to ride the bench for 2 years.

Like I said I supported the decision to keep Dak in. I also know Romo was a better qb at the time. That doesn't mean he would've performed better, nor the team. We could have lost Dak and the team that rallied around him. It was the correct move going forward.

 

[zerofill]

Look... I ripped on Dak relentlessly. Because he wasn't that good. He wasn't anywhere
near what Dak fans thought he was.

A long time ago, I said he could possibly become good. Russell Wilson was not
good in my opinion for years. Dak reminded me of him. Wilson became good,
around the same time I said Dak, may become that... but I didn't want to wait
6 seasons for it to happen.

My problem was, the most valuable franchise in sports, should have already found their Tom Brady,
Rodgers, Peyton, Brees, etc... Steal a hair from Brady, and cloned him in a lab with that much money.

Well... it is his 6th season.

So far from what I have seen, Dak is no longer a reason why we would lose.
So far he has been extremely good this season.

I have actually seen him go through as many as 4 reads.

The funny thing is, I said they needed to do like they did with Brady and Peyton, these quick timed passes, etc...
They did that, and it is working amazing.

I am also not joking when I say I feel like that broken leg, actually fixed him.

Very possible that it did.

I broke my fibula and tibia, and ankle. I walk and move entirely different than before the screws and plates.
So it literally could have helped him lol.

 

[DFWJC]

You are under-rating Dak.

The analogy of Lamborghini and Pinto is not crazy otherwise. Very obviously, the offense around you makes a massive difference. There are so-called trust fund QBs who are in crazy good situations.

But regardless, Dak is playing at a high level right now. Lamborghini or not.

 

[Cowpolk]

Crap.

I thought for SURE this thread would hit ten pages in two hours or less.

Oh well. Off to Overtime Zone-ville!

I had to go to the store sorry.

 

[CowboysDrew]

You make one negative post and then run. If that's not trolling then I don't know what is.

Do I have to be friends with you too?

 

[CarolinaFathead]

Like I said I supported the decision to keep Dak in. I also know Romo was a better qb at the time. That doesn't mean he would've performed better, nor the team. We could have lost Dak and the team that rallied around him. It was the correct move going forward.

It was a tough call no matter what. I felt real bad for Tony but I had similar feelings to what you described. Tony deserved another shot at a ring. Just a tough call…

 

[stiletto]

It was a tough call no matter what. I felt real bad for Tony but I had similar feelings to what you described. Tony deserved another shot at a ring. Just a tough call…

Problem with Romo was he was at a point where every hit was a possible season ender. He was just too beat up and his body was done. Happens to a lot of guys.

 

[TheDude]

Fantastic.

That's not a post. That's scripture.

Lol.

You were called "somewhat" doubter....so you may not be coming across clearly enough

 

[CarolinaFathead]

Problem with Romo was he was at a point where every hit was a possible season ender. He was just too beat up and his body was done. Happens to a lot of guys.

I don’t disagree. Mostly my regret is that Romo didn’t have a chance to go out on his own terms. He is an all-time Cowboy great. It just really sucked. I loved Tony. Still do…

 

[RoboQB]

If Terrance Williams is driving the Lamborghini, I'm picking the Pinto for the win.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Until Dak shows he can play well without all star support at every position I am not convinced of anything.

The facts are that Dak has NEVER played well when either Zeke misses time OR Amari misses time OR Tyron Smith misses time. Now imagine if Dallas was without all 3 of them. How do you think Dak would play?

If Dallas was without all 3 of them Dallas would still be loaded on Offense you would still have Zach Martin & Collins. You would still have Pollard, Jarwin, & Schultz... Your 2nd string TE could have made the Pro Bowl last year based on numbers alone.... but no name recognition. You would still have Lamb & Gallup.

Right now Dallas has more offensive support for its QB than any team in the league including The Bucs & Chiefs. But my question to Jerry & Stephen is if your QB is such a stud than why?

Right now Dallas has not just studs but future Hall Of Famers at every position surrounding Dak. Bottom line is when a QB has all day to throw & has receivers running wide open it is very hard to fail.

Does that mean that Dak sucks? No! It means Dak is doing what he is supposed to be doing. There is probably around 100 QB's in this league maybe a few more when you factor in practice squad. Could every QB do what Dak is doing? No. But probably 25 of them could put up the same numbers.

In todays NFL which is basically what Arena football used to be, pretty stats for QB's are everywhere. It means very very little. Are there any good Defenses in the NFL right now? I am not seeing any. I certainly do not see the 1985 Bears or 2000 Ravens.

Other members of this site such as....

Risen Star
US Army Vet
Mike??? The member with a picture of Romo & a Packer
Khiladi
Swagger
Mountaineer Cowboy

I apologize if I left someone out or butchered the name.

These members are some of the smartest, articulate, & most mature people on this site.... and yet they are what I would call somewhat Dak doubters.

Couchcoach I would classify as highly intelligent & mature and I would put him in the Dak believer camp. But for others who are obsessed with Dak.... you know who you are. You do not come off well.

Everyone is happy that Dallas has a 3 game win streak. But in the land of What If game if the Chargers had beaten Dallas & the refs and Dallas was 2-2 everyone's perception would be different.

Has Dak improved? Maybe? I will believe it when I see it. Since Dak started his career 13-2 he finished that season 0-2. And than 9-7. 10-6 with a 1-1 playoff record. 8-8 & than 2-3. In 2021 he has gone 3-1. So basically slightly above .500.

Was Aikman a great QB? Probably not. Aikman proved that in the majority of his career that without studs everywhere he kind of sucked.

I think Jerry has built a team to win now & next year. And than the bill will come due. He has built an average Defense with a loaded Offense. The division is a total joke. So when will Dak be without all his amazing help? It might not be this year or even next year.... but at some point we will get answers to these questions.

And how good would Mahomes be without Hill, Kelce, etc.? He missed two ots and got blasted out of the SB.

Not saying you are, but you just appear to be another Dak hater.

Enjoy the ride we're on, it don't happen that often the last 26 years...

 

[DallasEast]

There is NO evidence Romo would crush it. NONE!!

Besides, Dak played well in the playoff game. The Romo guys just missed the main reason you go with Dak. The Cowboys were NOT a legitimate SB contender that year. The Romo era was over. So you stick with the young buck that has won 11 in a row and get him the experience of leading the team. Dak is where he is today because he didnt have to ride the bench for 2 years.

Just wanted to follow up on the Like I gave. As I have stated in the past, Prescott was not the reason why the team lost to Green Bay at home in the divisional round. The defense in particular did not step up when it mattered.

I do disagree with the decision-making regarding any team's postseason strategy (and not just Dallas) when their roster has both a healthy established franchise quarterback and a rookie quarterback, who has demonstrated the capability of becoming the next franchise quarterback. The odds of a rookie quarterback leading any team to a Super Bowl appearance or victory is likely far slimmer than a home team playing in one, which Tampa Bay finally overcame last February, after more than half a century of the Super Bowl era.

Every year is another lesson in NFL history of how fleeting championships or attempts to win a championship can be for any franchise. My opinion will always be any team should roll the dice with the veteran franchise quarterback for any playoff run. And if the vet gets hurt again? The rook steps in.

All this said, I wanted to throw props your way. In five years, I have read only one other member ( @Section446 ) who adamantly stated the team had zero chance of reaching and/or winning the Super Bowl that postseason and that they were ready for Prescott to take over because they had more than seen enough of Romo. That is a rare opinion. The main pro-rookie quarterback counter-argument that year had been: Go with the rookie/he will (not maybe but would definitely) get the team to the Super Bowl. I do not fully agree with your assessment that the team had zero chance with Romo during that particular postseason run (and only the 2016 postseason/I think Romo was gone in 2017 anyway) but 100% respect your reasoning for the quarterback change.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Just wanted to follow up on the Like I gave. As I have stated in the past, Prescott was not the reason why the team lost to Green Bay at home in the divisional round. The defense in particular did not step up when it mattered.

I do disagree with the decision-making regarding any team's postseason strategy (and not just Dallas) when their roster has both a healthy established franchise quarterback and a rookie quarterback, who has demonstrated the capability of becoming the next franchise quarterback. The odds of a rookie quarterback leading any team to a Super Bowl appearance or victory is likely far slimmer than a home team playing in one, which Tampa Bay finally overcame last February, after more than half a century of the Super Bowl era.

Every year is another lesson in NFL history of how fleeting championships or attempts to win a championship can be for any franchise. My opinion will always be any team should roll the dice with the veteran franchise quarterback for any playoff run. And if the vet gets hurt again? The rook steps in.

All this said, I wanted to throw props your way. In five years, I have read only one other member ( @Section446 ) who adamantly stated the team had zero chance of reaching and/or winning the Super Bowl that postseason and that they were ready for Prescott to take over because they had more than seen enough of Romo. That is a rare opinion. The main pro-rookie quarterback counter-argument that year had been: Go with the rookie/he will (not maybe but would definitely) get the team to the Super Bowl. I do not fully agree with your assessment that the team had zero chance with Romo during that particular postseason run (and only the 2016 postseason/I think Romo was gone in 2017 anyway) but 100% respect your reasoning for the quarterback change.

Comparing Brady to Romo and Dak to some journeyman is a poor example.

In my mind, that team was not a legitimate contender with the defense and Garrett. I didnt say "zero" chance did I?

 

[DallasEast]

Comparing Brady to Romo and Dak to some journeyman is a poor example.

In my mind, that team was not a legitimate contender with the defense and Garrett. I didnt say "zero" chance did I?

No, you did not. My bad.

 

[Section446]

Just wanted to follow up on the Like I gave. As I have stated in the past, Prescott was not the reason why the team lost to Green Bay at home in the divisional round. The defense in particular did not step up when it mattered.

I do disagree with the decision-making regarding any team's postseason strategy (and not just Dallas) when their roster has both a healthy established franchise quarterback and a rookie quarterback, who has demonstrated the capability of becoming the next franchise quarterback. The odds of a rookie quarterback leading any team to a Super Bowl appearance or victory is likely far slimmer than a home team playing in one, which Tampa Bay finally overcame last February, after more than half a century of the Super Bowl era.

Every year is another lesson in NFL history of how fleeting championships or attempts to win a championship can be for any franchise. My opinion will always be any team should roll the dice with the veteran franchise quarterback for any playoff run. And if the vet gets hurt again? The rook steps in.

All this said, I wanted to throw props your way. In five years, I have read only one other member ( @Section446 ) who adamantly stated the team had zero chance of reaching and/or winning the Super Bowl that postseason and that they were ready for Prescott to take over because they had more than seen enough of Romo. That is a rare opinion. The main pro-rookie quarterback counter-argument that year had been: Go with the rookie/he will (not maybe but would definitely) get the team to the Super Bowl. I do not fully agree with your assessment that the team had zero chance with Romo during that particular postseason run (and only the 2016 postseason/I think Romo was gone in 2017 anyway) but 100% respect your reasoning for the quarterback change.

You have a really good memory.

 

[DallasEast]

You have a really good memory.

Looks like you still hold that singular distinction about the Romo/Prescott quarterback transition.

 

[Section446]

Looks like you still hold that singular distinction about the Romo/Prescott quarterback transition.

I hated being "right" because there was a time when I thought Romo would lead us to multiple rings. I don't get that same feeling with Prescott, but I'd love to be "wrong".