McCarthy QB School

[Starforever]

Stats are for losers. Championships and Super Bowls define great QB's.

Is the number of championships and Super Bowls a stat?

 

[Starforever]

Again, he has inflated stats. Also, these "3 guys" played tougher competition. Wilson, Mahomes, Jackson, (whoever else is on that list). Also, do these stats really matter? It's wins that matter most. And Dak only had 8. Mahomes may have had the better coach, but his defense isn't that great either, and we have a superior line, yet he's able to do more with his talent. Wilson carries his team every damn year. Yeah, maybe his stats aren't as good as Dak's, but look at what he's working with. Same as Wentz. They may not have flashy stats, but they did go to the playoffs with less and they look better than Dak despite having less to work with.

Hey smart guy, Dak was in the playoffs last year. You have the shakiest basis for arguments, I have ever seen.

 

[Starforever]

Maybe, but he hasn't proved it many yet. He seems to fold in big games especially when pressured. Not sold yet, for sure.

I'm sure Dak can't sleep at night, because "little d" doesn't like him.

 

[Starforever]

Subtract the garbage time yards. Remember when you were adding onto his stats with the "Drops"?

Subtract every QB' s garbage time, and what do you have?

 

[Starforever]

Cowards imply something without spitting out what they mean.

Spit it out, coward.

Why don't you and others state the real reason you don't like Dak. That's true cowardice.

 

[keysersoze]

Why don't you and others state the real reason you don't like Dak. That's true cowardice.

They ain’t man enough

 

[Starforever]

It might be different, but then again, if Rodgers were the QB in Dallas with Garrett and his staff, we might be contending for a Conference Championship. I mean, these kinds of games can be played all day, half the night but the only thing you can know for sure is that the Cowboys are sitting home this year and Rodgers is playing on Sunday. That's really about as much as we can honestly say.

So the fact he has a losing record against teams above .500 has nothing to do with why people don’t like Dak? Because that why I don’t like him as QB.

You can count on hand the QB's, that have a plus record versus winning teams. That is why I say you and others have hidden agendas, or are just plain dumb.

 

[Starforever]

Wins are a stat. How many of those did he have this season since we’re talking stats? Yards? C’mon. You really wanna go off that metric? The top 5 QB’s in that metric we’re mediocre-bad this year. Winston, Goff, Ryan, and Rivers were the other QB’s. Yards mean NOTHING. Just like Dak, they accumulated their yards in garbage time. AH, QBR. The metric nobody understands how it’s even calculated. Who cares about Romo’s franchise record? Does that give us an extra win and a shot to the Superbowl? No? Then who CARES!? Even Dak himself said he doesn’t care about being 2nd. He only cares about wins and Superbowls. He admit he didn’t play well enough his season. Maybe you guys should follow suit. Just a suggestion though.

The QB's you named are not on Dak's level.

 

[MysteryIceGuro]

The QB's you named are not on Dak's level.

Apparently they are if they are in the same stat range as Dak. You just don’t want to admit it. It’s fine though. Ignorance is bliss.

Dak isn’t this high and mighty QB you hold him up to be. He barely surpasses the top 10 QB’s in the league right now despite his inflated stats. 8-8 is the only thing people are going to look at and see, and let me tell you 8-8 is not a good thing. AT ALL. Especially if you miss the playoffs.

 

[keysersoze]

You can count on hand the QB's, that have a plus record versus winning teams. That is why I say you and others have hidden agendas, or are just plain dumb.

Both!!!!

 

[fairviewfarmer]

No doubt this will help Dak. However, he has too many intangibles to fix IMO. Inaccuracy, footwork, timing, throwing in stride, etc. basic QB fundamentals. Despite the people around him underperforming from time to time, he had an all star cast. Zeke, a top 5 RB every year he’s been in the NFL. A 4 time pro-bowl WR in Cooper, who may not show up on the road, but is still a good WR. (Also, Cowboys Break made a good point about this. Besides D-Hop and Michael Thomas. Maybe Mike Evans or Julio Jones, what WR puts up 100 yard numbers every game? Not many. Amari is not the elite of the elite, buts he’s still good. Gallup was pretty good this year minus a few drops. Same as Cobb. O-line was great at pass blocking, yet Dak still fell off after the Pats game. Despite all that he had going for him, he failed to score on consecutive drives when we were down 31-3 against the Packers. Blame the Defense all you want, but Dak didn’t score when the Pack score 7-3, 14-3, 21-3, etc. Same as the Bears and Bills game. He failed to score a TD in the 2nd Philly game (he claims his injury didn’t bother him so I don’t want that excuse). Didn’t score one against the Pats. Or the Saints.

Bottom line: Dak isn’t our answer. He could make a great backup, and I’m sure he’s a nice dude, but we’re looking to pay for a franchise QB, not a nice dude with average football skills.

If Dak isn't our answer, I think McCarthy will soon let jerry know. Personally, its my opinion that Dak can win if we field a better defense and our Oline stays healthy.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

You can count on hand the QB's, that have a plus record versus winning teams. That is why I say you and others have hidden agendas, or are just plain dumb.

Tinfoil hats don't look good on anybody. You should stop with that nonsense. Other agenda could mean anything and some of that is not cool. Not by you or anybody. So if you want to know what my hidden agenda is, I'll tell you. I don't care what the NFL says about winning QBs against winning teams. If you are asking me what I want in a QB that I make the highest paid player in the league, I'll tell you straight up. If I'm paying you that kind of money, I want one of the 3 or 4 or even only QB in the league who does have a winning record against winning teams. So you think it's weird that a fan would want that from their QB? Who's questionable now? Of course you want that. You would be a fool not to. But here's the thing and there is no room for doubt on this. I want more then what I've seen from Dak if I'm making him the highest paid player in the NFL. It's simple as that. You don't need to read anything into it because I've told you. Now, where you gonna take the hidden agenda theory now?

 

[Starforever]

Tinfoil hats don't look good on anybody. You should stop with that nonsense. Other agenda could mean anything and some of that is not cool. Not by you or anybody. So if you want to know what my hidden agenda is, I'll tell you. I don't care what the NFL says about winning QBs against winning teams. If you are asking me what I want in a QB that I make the highest paid player in the league, I'll tell you straight up. If I'm paying you that kind of money, I want one of the 3 or 4 or even only QB in the league who does have a winning record against winning teams. So you think it's weird that a fan would want that from their QB? Who's questionable now? Of course you want that. You would be a fool not to. But here's the thing and there is no room for doubt on this. I want more then what I've seen from Dak if I'm making him the highest paid player in the NFL. It's simple as that. You don't need to read anything into it because I've told you. Now, where you gonna take the hidden agenda theory now?

Let me see, you are mad that Dak is not a top three QB. How realistic is your desire? Do you expect the same from your lineman (offensive and defensive), linebackers, kickers, defensive backs, safeties, coaches, special teams, receivers, tight-ends, running backs? If not you are a hypocrite and have a hidden agenda. I have not seen you voice any displeasure with these positions.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Let me see, you are mad that Dak is not a top three QB. How realistic is your desire? Do you expect the same from your lineman (offensive and defensive), linebackers, kickers, defensive backs, safeties, coaches, special teams, receivers, tight-ends, running backs? If not you are a hypocrite and have a hidden agenda. I have not seen you voice any displeasure with these positions.

No, you don't see at all. Mad is a relative term. This is not a subject, in which a ration person get's "Mad", per say. This is a financial evaluation, based on the merits of the player. Just like it was with Zeke, just like it was with Lawrence and if you want to go further back, just like it was with Tony Romo. For your edification, I view this in basically the same manner, regardless of player or position. Is it a financially good decision, is the player's value meritorious to the contract, is it structured well, in terms of the welfare of the team, long term? Those are the things that I look at, when considering a contract. It's not, because that's what everybody else in the NFL is doing. It's not, because he is a good guy. It's not based on any kind of personal bias one way or the other.

You say you have not seen me voice any displeasure with any other positions, well, I say you haven't looked very hard and I suspect it's because you figured out what box to try and put me in before you ever considered the reasons why I might be against any given position on Dak. If you say you haven't seen this, then you haven't looked. I'm not surprised though, says you've been on this board since 2010 and yet you have like 2200 posts. I mean, how much time do you really spend here? Unless of course, you just don't post much and simply decided to come on and comment, out of nowhere about a post of mine. But if that's the case, it still doesn't explain how you can't know that I have had many questions over contracts for players in the past. Perhaps I'm just making an assumption without a lot of knowledge behind my conclusions, that would suck right? That would be very irresponsible of me right? How does that feel to you?

 

[Starforever]

No, you don't see at all. Mad is a relative term. This is not a subject, in which a ration person get's "Mad", per say. This is a financial evaluation, based on the merits of the player. Just like it was with Zeke, just like it was with Lawrence and if you want to go further back, just like it was with Tony Romo. For your edification, I view this in basically the same manner, regardless of player or position. Is it a financially good decision, is the player's value meritorious to the contract, is it structured well, in terms of the welfare of the team, long term? Those are the things that I look at, when considering a contract. It's not, because that's what everybody else in the NFL is doing. It's not, because he is a good guy. It's not based on any kind of personal bias one way or the other.

You say you have not seen me voice any displeasure with any other positions, well, I say you haven't looked very hard and I suspect it's because you figured out what box to try and put me in before you ever considered the reasons why I might be against any given position on Dak. If you say you haven't seen this, then you haven't looked. I'm not surprised though, says you've been on this board since 2010 and yet you have like 2200 posts. I mean, how much time do you really spend here? Unless of course, you just don't post much and simply decided to come on and comment, out of nowhere about a post of mine. But if that's the case, it still doesn't explain how you can't know that I have had many questions over contracts for players in the past. Perhaps I'm just making an assumption without a lot of knowledge behind my conclusions, that would suck right? That would be very irresponsible of me right? How does that feel to you?

Lot of words, my goodness. In the beginning I joined, but did not post. I posted on the Dallas Cowboys website, and the Ranch Forum. I haven't seen you post that much about any other position, since I've been here.

You say, that money is your reason for hating on Dak, but you deliberately compare and denigrate his accomplishments. I guess having a high number of posts, make your comments legit. Thus, I have failed.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Lot of words, my goodness. In the beginning I joined, but did not post. I posted on the Dallas Cowboys website, and the Ranch Forum. I haven't seen you post that much about any other position, since I've been here.

You say, that money is your reason for hating on Dak, but you deliberately compare and denigrate his accomplishments. I guess having a high number of posts, make your comments legit. Thus, I have failed.

It's pretty simple to go back and check it out. Go to my profile and just search my posts in various threads. I'm pretty consistent on this issue. Players or positions don't matter. It all comes down to financials and how it effects the cap, for me. I wasn't a fan of signing Tony Romo to his deal, even though I love the guy, because I thought it was a bad idea. There are multiple situations like this. I'm not in the camp of next man up with regards to contracts, I don't believe in that. I think it's dumb to run a business that way.

I evaluate Dak's play honestly, I don't puff the goods and I don't rag on him over things that I don't believe are his fault. Now you can accept that or not. I don't care, I know that my history here proves what I am saying right now. It's not my fault that you have not been posting on this board for very long and as a result, don't know my opinions on this. I don't hold that against you, which is why I tried to respond with a detailed post. But again, it's not my fault that you haven't been here for the last 20 years to understand my views on this. It is what it is. I've been honest with you. You can accept that or don't. Doesn't really matter at this point. I'm not going to change my opinion on this, based on this thread. This is what I think and you will think what you will think. But I won't accept random posters insinuations or opinions on why I think what I think and try to link them with racial overtones. That's not gonna happen.

I got nothing against you, this is not personal for me but it is a matter of fair. That type of behavior is not fair.

 

[Starforever]

It's pretty simple to go back and check it out. Go to my profile and just search my posts in various threads. I'm pretty consistent on this issue. Players or positions don't matter. It all comes down to financials and how it effects the cap, for me. I wasn't a fan of signing Tony Romo to his deal, even though I love the guy, because I thought it was a bad idea. There are multiple situations like this. I'm not in the camp of next man up with regards to contracts, I don't believe in that. I think it's dumb to run a business that way.

I evaluate Dak's play honestly, I don't puff the goods and I don't rag on him over things that I don't believe are his fault. Now you can accept that or not. I don't care, I know that my history here proves what I am saying right now. It's not my fault that you have not been posting on this board for very long and as a result, don't know my opinions on this. I don't hold that against you, which is why I tried to respond with a detailed post. But again, it's not my fault that you haven't been here for the last 20 years to understand my views on this. It is what it is. I've been honest with you. You can accept that or don't. Doesn't really matter at this point. I'm not going to change my opinion on this, based on this thread. This is what I think and you will think what you will think. But I won't accept random posters insinuations or opinions on why I think what I think and try to link them with racial overtones. That's not gonna happen.

I got nothing against you, this is not personal for me but it is a matter of fair. That type of behavior is not fair.

This is a forum, open to discussions. While many are forthright, there are a few with hidden agendas. When posting negative, and you get a legitimate response; why not answer the question, instead of becoming defensive? Notice, I said some, but you decided to address and defend the honor of the others.

I have no idea of your proclivities, but I don't like weighing on an unjust balance. Meaning, if one shows partiality. It does not sit well with me. None of what I said, is an indictment on you. Post on, and I am sure that there will be many more discussions ahead.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

This is a forum, open to discussions. While many are forthright, there are a few with hidden agendas. When posting negative, and you get a legitimate response; why not answer the question, instead of becoming defensive? Notice, I said some, but you decided to address and defend the honor of the others.

I have no idea of your proclivities, but I don't like weighing on an unjust balance. Meaning, if one shows partiality. It does not sit well with me. None of what I said, is an indictment on you. Post on, and I am sure that there will be many more discussions ahead.

When you say "defend the honor of the others" be more specific. What are you referring to here?

You do realize, of course, that anybody can look at your posts and come to a very similar conclusion, based on this post, with your responses in this thread, correct?

 

[Starforever]

When you say "defend the honor of the others" be more specific. What are you referring to here?

You do realize, of course, that anybody can look at your posts and come to a very similar conclusion, based on this post, with your responses in this thread, correct?

If you are looking for something, you will find what you are looking for. Yes, I can understand that fact, but there is more than one agenda to choose from.

 

[black label]

Mm needs Kellen to teach him rofl