Mike McCarthy is making new playbook Dak inclusive and friendly

With Dak being given a big say about the new playbook, is that a good or bad idea?

  • Good

    Votes: 91 79.8%
  • Bad

    Votes: 23 20.2%

  • Total voters
    114

TheCritic

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
2,136
I have no issues with a skeptical view of i'll believe it when I see it. But not fair to say that it'll never work with Dak with McCarthy as playcaller. More run plays, upgraded skill positions. Dak is bound to have a better overall season as long as he stays healthy. Of course if it doesn't work out this season, then all the haters can have full Internet Tough Guy bragging rights.
 

Momanpr100

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,329
Reaction score
1,343
That was friendly for a very different reason that had nothing to do with working closely with the coach on installing an offense.
Really? Must've forgot about all the taking the ball out of Romos hands topics. Both stupid talking points.
 

5Stars

Here comes the Sun...
Messages
35,814
Reaction score
13,347
You're right, the Colts should never have given Peyton Manning year 9. Drew Brees, definitely should have been cut halfway through his contract with the Saints.

It's not a strawman, it is the exact logic you're using. You want to draw hard lines, then fine, but that's why they are ridiculous.

So, do you want to compare Dak to those guys? Not sure where either were drafted or what the team was like when they did get drafted because that is years and years ago. Dak was a 4th rounder and went to a stacked team, not a rebuild like those other guys. The year Dak had his best games was his first year, then after some star players left he cannot compensate because he is a mental midget when big boy light come on.

Are you one of them fans that really don't care about a SB, you just want to watch him stink up the place? Yeah, Dak can beat up the little kids on the block, but once he gets hit in the mouth by the big kids, well, you saw it just like the rest of us and if that is OK with you, well, that is a loser mentality. Are you a loser? You want to be right or you want to be happy?
 

gtb1943

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,608
Reaction score
2,634
You're right, the Colts should never have given Peyton Manning year 9. Drew Brees, definitely should have been cut halfway through his contract with the Saints.

It's not a strawman, it is the exact logic you're using. You want to draw hard lines, then fine, but that's why they are ridiculous.
Show me where Dak has performed like either of them then you have an arguement. Actually with Peyton, Dak is a little closer since he stank in the playoffs as well
 

Stash

Staff member
Messages
78,370
Reaction score
102,302
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
You're right, the Colts should never have given Peyton Manning year 9. Drew Brees, definitely should have been cut halfway through his contract with the Saints.
Cherry pick much?

Peyton Manning made the Championship Game in year 6. Dak’s already overdue.

Brees in just his second year with the Saints. Dak is waaaay overdue then!

Back to the drawing board for you.

It's not a strawman, it is the exact logic you're using. You want to draw hard lines, then fine, but that's why they are ridiculous.
It’s exactly a Strawman, whether you think so or not. You’re unable to deal with what I do say, so you’re forced to resort to making outlandish claims about things I haven’t.
 

Mac_MaloneV1

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,975
Reaction score
4,361
So, do you want to compare Dak to those guys? Not sure where either were drafted or what the team was like when they did get drafted because that is years and years ago. Dak was a 4th rounder and went to a stacked team, not a rebuild like those other guys. The year Dak had his best games was his first year, then after some star players left he cannot compensate because he is a mental midget when big boy light come on.

Are you one of them fans that really don't care about a SB, you just want to watch him stink up the place? Yeah, Dak can beat up the little kids on the block, but once he gets hit in the mouth by the big kids, well, you saw it just like the rest of us and if that is OK with you, well, that is a loser mentality. Are you a loser? You want to be right or you want to be happy?
Show me where Dak has performed like either of them then you have an arguement. Actually with Peyton, Dak is a little closer since he stank in the playoffs as well
The point is that, until they won a Super Bowl, you could say the exact same thing you're saying about Dak - prolific in the regular season, falls short in the playoffs.

And if you're going to take hard lines about having to win to justify being there, the regular season numbers don't matter. You're already undermining your own argument by making exceptions.
 

Big_D

Well-Known Member
Messages
10,934
Reaction score
14,988
Really? Must've forgot about all the taking the ball out of Romos hands topics. Both stupid talking points.

It was after the release of TO that Jerry coined the phrase. Very different from what's happening with Dak today. Plus on top of that way back in 2009 Jerry was making one ridiculous move after another. The team sucked and went on to crash and burn for the next 5 years. Nothing on that team was Romo friendly.
 

Mac_MaloneV1

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,975
Reaction score
4,361
Cherry pick much?

Peyton Manning made the Championship Game in year 6. Dak’s already overdue.

Brees in just his second year with the Saints. Dak is waaaay overdue then!

Back to the drawing board for you.


It’s exactly a Strawman, whether you think so or not. You’re unable to deal with what I do say, so you’re forced to resort to making outlandish claims about things I haven’t.
Going to a NFCCG isn't any sort of reasonable barometer. It's an arbitrary distinction you're using just because he hasn't done it. Dak could have gone to 5 NCCCGs in a row and you'd just say "well he hasn't won a Super Bowl" and just move the goal posts. If the goal is the SB then the NFCCG is a pointless distinction.

It is not a strawman, it is a direct response to your argument. Your argument is that if he does not go to a NFCCG, he does not deserve a new contract. Period. This distinction does not allow room for things like how well the quarterback performs in a loss.

The second you add exceptions is the second you are contradicting yourself.
 

5Stars

Here comes the Sun...
Messages
35,814
Reaction score
13,347
The point is that, until they won a Super Bowl, you could say the exact same thing you're saying about Dak - prolific in the regular season, falls short in the playoffs.

And if you're going to take hard lines about having to win to justify being there, the regular season numbers don't matter. You're already undermining your own argument by making exceptions.

I could say the same thing about them, but don't try that crap, they have won a SB. I now see those paper tigers you like to roam around with. Get real for minute. Just how much longer as a fan of the Cowboys are you willing to give Dak to try and win something meaningful besides leading in Ints missing 5 games or 4 or whatever is was. That is not a quality QB that can win the prize. I'm not happy with that, yet you must be. Sad to be a fan like that.
 

Mac_MaloneV1

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,975
Reaction score
4,361
I could say the same thing about them, but don't try that crap, they have won a SB. I now see those paper tigers you like to roam around with. Get real for minute. Just how much longer as a fan of the Cowboys are you willing to give Dak to try and win something meaningful besides leading in Ints missing 5 games or 4 or whatever is was. That is not a quality QB that can win the prize. I'm not happy with that, yet you must be. Sad to be a fan like that.
This is nonsensical. They won a SB AFTER the point Dak is currently at in his career.

Dak gives you the best chance to win out of anyone you'd get except for him right now, and I invest in him and the talent around him to try to win a Super Bowl. You want to get rid of him and just pray you find a good QB, but I'm the one who doesn't want to win? Illogical and wrong.
 

Stash

Staff member
Messages
78,370
Reaction score
102,302
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Going to a NFCCG isn't any sort of reasonable barometer. It's an arbitrary distinction you're using just because he hasn't done it. Dak could have gone to 5 NCCCGs in a row and you'd just say "well he hasn't won a Super Bowl" and just move the goal posts. If the goal is the SB then the NFCCG is a pointless distinction.
See? Yet another attempt to put words in someone else’s mouth. You may as well be off to see the Wizard!

It is not a strawman, it is a direct response to your argument. Your argument is that if he does not go to a NFCCG, he does not deserve a new contract. Period. This distinction does not allow room for things like how well the quarterback performs in a loss.

The second you add exceptions is the second you are contradicting yourself.
Actually it’s the second I’m clarifying my position. Not that it does any good with you because you just resort to making things up. It’s clearly your M.O.

I’ll stop wasting my time debating someone who’s clearly not up to the task.
 

Hawkeye0202

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,253
Reaction score
42,854

Mike McCarthy is making new playbook Dak inclusive and friendly​



So the offense will be dumbed down and simple for Dak to grasp.....
Nothing new.......happens all the time. Remember a few years before Romo retired Jerry and Garrett announced our offense would be more "Romo friendly" going forward.
 

5Stars

Here comes the Sun...
Messages
35,814
Reaction score
13,347
This is nonsensical. They won a SB AFTER the point Dak is currently at in his career.

Dak gives you the best chance to win out of anyone you'd get except for him right now, and I invest in him and the talent around him to try to win a Super Bowl. You want to get rid of him and just pray you find a good QB, but I'm the one who doesn't want to win? Illogical and wrong.

So, you OK if the extend him for 4 or 5 more years? Is that what I'm getting from your nonsense? Oh, another thing, Dak is nowhere the QB those two guys you brought up are. How about the salary he will get, you fine with that even thought it is a detriment to the overall team?
 

Mac_MaloneV1

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,975
Reaction score
4,361
So, you OK if the extend him for 4 or 5 more years? Is that what I'm getting from your nonsense? Oh, another thing, Dak is nowhere the QB those two guys you brought up are. How about the salary he will get, you fine with that even thought it is a detriment to the overall team?
By your logic, those two quarterbacks weren't near that level UNTIL they won the Super Bowl. That is the point.

Yes give him 5x$260 or whatever and be done with it. It's not detrimental. This is basically the "roll with Andy Dalton and use the QB money on defense" argument all over again. You can't win like that.
 

conner01

Well-Known Member
Messages
27,934
Reaction score
25,835
The definition of a Dak friendly offense is one where the QB isn’t Dak Prescott. There, I said what everyone was thinking. You’re welcome!
Not everyone
Just a vocal group
Dak’s not going anywhere soon so eventually some will catch on to that
 

Mac_MaloneV1

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,975
Reaction score
4,361
See? Yet another attempt to put words in someone else’s mouth. You may as well be off to see the Wizard!


Actually it’s the second I’m clarifying my position. Not that it does any good with you because you just resort to making things up. It’s clearly your M.O.

I’ll stop wasting my time debating someone who’s clearly not up to the task.
You haven't clarified anything. All you've said is that if he gets to the NFCCG he earned it

What is your definition of earning an extension?
 

TheMarathonContinues

Well-Known Member
Messages
74,922
Reaction score
69,459
Going to a NFCCG isn't any sort of reasonable barometer. It's an arbitrary distinction you're using just because he hasn't done it. Dak could have gone to 5 NCCCGs in a row and you'd just say "well he hasn't won a Super Bowl" and just move the goal posts. If the goal is the SB then the NFCCG is a pointless distinction.

It is not a strawman, it is a direct response to your argument. Your argument is that if he does not go to a NFCCG, he does not deserve a new contract. Period. This distinction does not allow room for things like how well the quarterback performs in a loss.

The second you add exceptions is the second you are contradicting yourself.
Perfectly said.
 

5Stars

Here comes the Sun...
Messages
35,814
Reaction score
13,347
By your logic, those two quarterbacks weren't near that level UNTIL they won the Super Bowl. That is the point.

Yes give him 5x$260 or whatever and be done with it. It's not detrimental. This is basically the "roll with Andy Dalton and use the QB money on defense" argument all over again. You can't win like that.

lol...are you punking us? Are you sure you are not a fan of another team in the NFC-E because I guarantee you that the eagles the red things and the giants are glad Dak is here, well, maybe not all of them but I'm sure the whole NFL is glad Dak is the QB of the Cowboys because, well, you know why, just don't want to admit it. Anyway, carry on because I'm tired of arguing with a Dak over Cowboys fan. Have a good day...if you can.
 

Mac_MaloneV1

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,975
Reaction score
4,361
lol...are you punking us? Are you sure you are not a fan of another team in the NFC-E because I guarantee you that the eagles the red things and the giants are glad Dak is here, well, maybe not all of them but I'm sure the whole NFL is glad Dak is the QB of the Cowboys because, well, you know why, just don't want to admit it. Anyway, carry on because I'm tired of arguing with a Dak over Cowboys fan. Have a good day...if you can.
Dak kills the Giants and Eagles every time he plays them.

I literally just explained how I think Dak gives them the best chance to win. If you have a reasonable alternative, I'm open to it.
 
Top