The reason I refer to the 64 games being in the first four years is to reflect the advantages that most quarterbacks get and to which Dak was never afforded.
Consider:
Yes, most quarterbacks have the advantage of sitting on the bench, acclimating themselves to the NFL game, observing the veteran starter and picking up the playbook in a structured time period. When they step on the field they have been given far more time to get familiar with their offensive teammates. Essentially, they don't have to learn all of it on the fly. You would expect them to provide better results, obviously. If not, then what use is there at all to teaching and training?
However, when is this not the case?
Typically, its when you make a very large investment in a potential franchise quarterback. That very large investment includes a premium draft pick, and most often in the top 5 picks in the 1st round if not #1 overall. its not unusual for a team to trade up, using numerous, high picks and even players to get him.
These blue chip college quarterbacks were drafted so high because they have demonstrated the ability to physically compete immediately, although elite results are not immediately expected. There is a reason that team drafted them and it usually involves a rebuilding process.
Aikman started games his rookie year and it got ugly, poor guy, especially against the Eagles.
Again, these circumstances are typically reserved for only the quarterback chosen very high in the draft.
But what if the team had no choice? What if they lost, not one, but their best two QB's before the start of the season? No coach in their right mind is going to throw in a rookie 4th round pick in the very first game of the season unless they simply had no other choice.
Tony Romo and Kellen Moore were both injured before the beginning of the season. The plan was to start Dak only until Romo was healthy enough to come back.
And so Dak was forced into a situation that you usually see for only the most highest draft picks. Not only that, but his contributions would not be limited to constantly handing the ball off while throwing 20-25 passes. He was expected to manage a prolific passing game.
Dak was given the same type of responsibilities of a future franchise quarterback. not only did he meet the challenge, he matched and sometimes exceeded their results, supposedly without the physical skills and attributes that made those other guys high draft picks.
Dak was never "groomed", he was never brought along slowly, he was never a project. Try to think of the last time a 4th round pick started a game.
Quarterbacks that are given time before they start their 1st 64 games are given a real advantage that Dak never had. That's why its not fair to compare them together. When you think of it, whch is easier to be compared to, other 3rd and 4th round picks or guys that were drafted in the highest positions, #1 picks and #2 picks in the top 5 positions?
I compare him to the those that were in the same situation and they happen to be franchise quarterbacks. And yet, he compares to them, not those who might be good enough as a future backup. Even most #1 picks are not thrown in day #1.
For example, Tony Romo started his first game in game #6 of his 4th season. If you check that info, you will see only two previous seasons because he did not play a single down in his first season. However, we all know that Tony started the same year as Jason Witten. Romo completed his 64th regular season start in December of 2011.
The point is, is it fair to compare a four year veteran to an eight year veteran?
Is it fair to compare someone who had over three years of coaching, teaching, and training to prepare for his first start to another player who had three months?
Is it fair to compare someone who had over 50 weeks worth of NFL regular season practices alongside his teammates before his first start to someone that has one week?
Of course not......and I'm only using Romo as an example becasue I am more familiar with his stats.
Now, as far as player statistics differing as a result of the time period they were in.....obviously. It is apples and oranges in some cases. Offensively, rule changes favoring more open offense has resulted in more pass oriented offenses and increased ability to score. This is why most of the quarterbacks on the list are either active or recently retired. Only three of them began their career before the 21st century. can't completely get away from it, fair or not.
In the 70's the DB's had no where near the restraints they have today. They were practically mugging the receivers. There was no 5 yard rule, no unprotected receiver, no helmet to helmet. QB's were getting physically assaulted. There was no such thing as in the grasp and every kind of hit was legal prior to the whistle being blown.
Suffice it to say, those passer ratings and catch percentage are radically different to todays. and yet, it is a true statement to say that Aaron Rodgers has the best passer rating in NFL history. Tony Romo has the 4th best passer rating in history. Tom Brady and Dak Prescott are tied for 5th best passer rating in history. Obviously if the player is active, his numbers are going to change so there is alway that possibility
Which NFL receiver is #1 in yardage? Does being #1 in yardage make him the best in NFL history. That is a matter of opinion, I do think Jerry Rice is the best but not for this reason. After all, when QB's were only throwing 12-15 passes is it fair ro compare their WR's to Jerry Rice's numbers? No. All those numbers tell me is that Jerry Rice has more yardage than any other WR in NFL history. Now, you could certainly use this information to build a case for saying he is the best. That is precisely what I was doing. I was using factual data to support my belief that Dak Prescott is indeed a top tier QB. The fact that his name keeps popping up simultaneously with Tom Brady should alert most.
Let me pause for a moment to address the horrific indignation at hearing Dak's name associated with Brady because "Dak doesnt deserve to be in the same sentence as Brady". To those foks I say, actually, yeah! In this case he does! They share a similar achievement. It's a fact and you can't do anything about it. If I was talking about SB rings then you have a right to say that, but I'm not.
You might disagree that Dak is a top tier QB.. You might even believe you have a justifiable reason, Great! Love to hear it. This is why the forum exists. The important part is to explain the reason and provide some type of information to support it.
I'm not saying Dak is the best QB in history. I wanted to make sure this was clear by comparing him only to those that shared the same criteria. Again, I am comparing Dak to all the others who happened to start from day #1 and had started their first 4 seasons while throwing the ball 2000 or more times, an average of 500 times a season.....Guys with equal amount of experience.....guys with an equal amount of data, pass attempts. Is that not fair? It just so happened that these other guys were some of the elite of the NFL.
Sorry about the length. You seemed genuinely interested and i wanted to provide mofre detail. Thank You.
