Next Time we Discuss Dak's Stats

[Little Jr]

Go look at the starting qbs in the league. Tell me where the preponderance of them were drafted.

I'll wait.

Again, I agreed that the top picks tend to work out better than the late rounds, that is a fact. "I agree that higher round players tend to be the better players". My quote in my last comment. Lol

When we still had Romo and I wanted us to draft a future QB, I had arguments with people all the time about that. I wanted to get one in the first and they said that would be a waste and we could wait until the 3rd or 4th to draft one. They would use Romo, wilson, brady and others as proof you can wait. I would tell them, they are a exceptions to the rule, not the rule and I'll take the 1st 2 round qbs in the history of the game and give them the 3rd round and after and my list would make theirs look pathetic. And that's giving them Montana and Brady lol. Hell, when we drafted Dak I hated the pick because I didn't like the player and I don't believe you try to find your future qb in the 4th round. Thought it was a wasted pick at the time.

My point was, using where they were drafted and what scouts thought about them coming out as a argument when saying one is better than the other is just silly . Like I said, your other points were valid and debatable, I didnt agree with but they are still valid and debatable. But using draft selection and what scouts said isn't valid. Lol to many times they were wrong and too many times players have been over and under drafted to use draft selection an argument. Once the draft is over, draft placement and what scouts said means nothing, it's what they do from them on. Which is why your other points are valid because it's what he has done on the field.

At no point should someone say, player X is better than player Y because player X was drafted higher, no matter what other valid points are brought up in the conversation. It takes away from all the good and valid points and just makes the person look silly and questionable in their football knowledge. Lol JMO.

 

[Future]

So you think he wouldnt be as good under Fisher but you think he would be in the ball park?

I'm not making any argument lol I was asking a question. I'll answer your question though. Lol

No I don't think Dak would put up numbers like brees in NO system. But not many would. He's one of the best to ever play but I think he would be a much better player in that system.

Every QB needs the right OC, like you said. Dak hasn't got his yet. Goff looked like **** and then got mcvay and had one of the biggest turn arounds ever. I don't think it's a coincidence and he wouldn't be close to what he is if Fisher was still there. Not taking anything away from him but just shows what a great OC can do for a QB. Look at brees, he wasnt this in SD and wasnt close.

Just so I'm understanding right...

You think Dak could be as good a passer as Goff with McVay?

 

[CWR]

Are we on a 3 game winning streak or losing streak. I cant tell by all the BS posted here. Smh

 

[Little Jr]

Just so I'm understanding right...

You think Dak could be as good a passer as Goff with McVay?

I think he could put up better number that he will/has in this system. If you give him the same weapons I think he could rival Goff in numbers but wouldn't put up better numbers than Goff . As far as a pure passer, no. As far as overall QB play, taking everything into account, yes he could be as good as a QB as Goff.

I don't think mcvay would run the exact same offense with dak as he does with Goff. I would trust he would run a offense to Daks strengths unlike what we do trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. But even with the exact same offense he would be better than what he is with this offense.

 

[keysersoze]

Mind ya business fool Lol


I dont pay attention to kenny at all. That changed when he got sensitive over me saying Dak sucks.

LMAO. Ok imma just stay out of that. Lol

 

[Future]

I think he could put up better number that he will/has in this system. If you give him the same weapons I think he could rival Goff in numbers but wouldn't put up better numbers than Goff . As far as a pure passer, no. As far as overall QB play, taking everything into account, yes he could be as good as a QB as Goff.

I don't think mcvay would run the exact same offense with dak as he does with Goff. I would trust he would run a offense to Daks strengths unlike what we do trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. But even with the exact same offense he would be better than what he is with this offense.

Ok, this is all well and good, I don't really disagree with it.

But my point has been that, as a passer, Dak isn't in the same class as Goff. I feel like this is the really roundabout way of saying exactly what I said lol.

 

[keysersoze]

From a surrounding offensive talent I can't remember a qb who has lived more of a charmed life than Dak has. This Dak needs tools whereas everyone else has them but him is a joke. On aggregate he's had the best offensive line and running game of any young qb maybe ever over his first 3 years. A terrible game against Atlanta doesn't change that.

But he’s also had an inferior WR core. An aging TE with no adequate replacement. A rotating offensive line decimated by injuries and inexperience. And to top it all off. Subpar coaching and scheming. Don’t leave out those variables in your evaluation.

 

[InTheZone]

... Remember Mariota and Monday nights game against the Texans.

Mariota went 22-23 with a perfect passer rating. And yet the Titans were not competitive. This tweet does a good job of explaining why his stats did not match the eye test.



This reminds me of Dak against the Commanders. He was awful essentially the entire game. And yet due to two passes his passer rating was stellar. Eye test > Stats in this case.

As a reminder Dak is 23rd in the NFL in QBR. Top 5? Brees, Mahomes, Rivers, Goff and Wilson in that order.

For added Dak context Joe Flacco and Ryan Fitzpatrick have been better. Fitzpatrick has been benched twice and there is talk Joe has been Wally Pipped. Meanwhile we wouldn't trade Dak for 2 first rounders and are backing up the Brinks truck. Future is bright!

I can handle fans overhyping Dak, I'm just concerned that the Cowboys ruin their future by actually paying him as such. 3 years in and he's good for 5 yard passes, not what we need from a guy is he's going to make $25 mil (I get the feeling he's going to get $30+ mil per year)

 

[keysersoze]

Oh, this **** again.


The thing is just like LVE, Jaylon, Romo, etc. etc....

You all are so dug in that even when he proves you wrong you still won’t be able to face it. Not just here among anonymous board members, but you yourself won’t face it.

Throwing out two passes to get “a better picture” of how he performed is dumb.

The AGENDA is real Bro. There’s no other way to explain this stupidity.

 

[OmerV]

You can keep saying it but it won't make it true. I am not disregarding those two completions. I am saying those 2 of 99 passes have an outsized role in Dak's statistics in this 3 game win streak. That more than anything shows that until they become common they are the outliers that prove the rule. 2% of passes should not equate to almost 20% of your TOTAL yards.

Now to my quoted statement... Those td passes were "deep into a close game.". Anyone saying Dak was playing well up to that point is lying.

Anyone who says he played well because of those two passes shouldn't be evaluating qb play for public consumption.

The OP indicated he played horribly in the Commander game, so now it is expanded to all 3 games?

The first of those 3 games Dak had 270 yards on 72% passing, with 1 passing TD and 1 rushing TD. How does yardage after the catch 2 games later change that?

And, again and again, and again, every QB has occasional short to intermediate passes that go for long gains, so why is that a negative for Dak, but not for other QB's?

And, again and again and again, how does it make sense to judge as if those plays didn't exist, and as if those drives would have ended without the yardage after the catch? That's a bogus premise - the drives wouldn't have ended even had Cooper been tackled immediately, and Dak would have still had passing and yardage opportunities in those very same possessions that you aren't considering.

And lets also consider that after those plays and a sizeable lead was built, the Cowboys offense went conservative, using up clock and forcing the Skins to use timeouts. Again, they ran the ball 11 out of 13 plays in the 4th quarter because of the lead. Had those other TD's not occurred they would have still been throwing the ball, so it's unreasonable to assume Dak wouldn't have thrown for additional yards had those TDs not occurred.

Of course, your take is he was throwing horrible passes in a close game going down to the wire, when the reality is in the 4th quarter they ran the ball 84.6% of the time and they had a 2 score lead.

 

[keysersoze]

The OP indicated he played horribly in the Commander game, so now it is expanded to all 3 games?

The first of those 3 games Dak had 270 yards on 72% passing, with 1passing TD and one rushing TD. How does yardage after the catch 2 games later change that?

Between passing and running he has scored 6 TDs in those 3 games. How does yardage after the catch in just one of those games change that?

And, again and again, and again, every QB has occasional short passes that go for long gains, so why is that a negative for Dak, but not for other QB's?

And, again and again and again, how does it make sense to judge as if those plays didn't exist, and as if those drives would have ended without the yardage after the catch? That's a bogus premise.

And lets also consider that after those plays and a sizeable lead was built, the Cowboys offense went conservative, using up clock and forcing the Skins to use timeouts. Again, they ran the ball 11 out of 13 plays in the 4th quarter because of the lead. Had those other TD's not occurred they would have still been throwing the ball, so it's unreasonable to assume Dak wouldn't have thrown for additional yards had those TDs not occurred.

Of course, your take is he was throwing horrible passes in a close game going down to the wire, when the reality is in the 4th quarter they ran the ball 84.6% of the time and they had a 2 score lead.

It’s THE AGENDA!!! Great post

 

[Future]

Right now Dak is just as much a regular season winner as Romo. Did you have issues with Romo’s contract?

No. What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

The OP indicated he played horribly in the Commander game, so now it is expanded to all 3 games?

The first of those 3 games Dak had 270 yards on 72% passing, with 1 passing TD and 1 rushing TD. How does yardage after the catch 2 games later change that?

And, again and again, and again, every QB has occasional short passes that go for long gains, so why is that a negative for Dak, but not for other QB's?

And, again and again and again, how does it make sense to judge as if those plays didn't exist, and as if those drives would have ended without the yardage after the catch? That's a bogus premise - the drives wouldn't have ended even had Cooper been tackled immediately, and Dak would have still had passing and yardage opportunities in those very same possessions that you aren't considering.

And lets also consider that after those plays and a sizeable lead was built, the Cowboys offense went conservative, using up clock and forcing the Skins to use timeouts. Again, they ran the ball 11 out of 13 plays in the 4th quarter because of the lead. Had those other TD's not occurred they would have still been throwing the ball, so it's unreasonable to assume Dak wouldn't have thrown for additional yards had those TDs not occurred.

Of course, your take is he was throwing horrible passes in a close game going down to the wire, when the reality is in the 4th quarter they ran the ball 84.6% of the time and they had a 2 score lead.

I am the OP poster. Yes I referenced the Commanders game because it was the most recent. The thread naturally has evolved over the past 18 pages but when I reference Dak's Stats and eye test it should be obvious that I'm talking about the totality of Dak's play otherwise we'd be talking about just one bad game. Clearly there have been more than one bad game.

 

[keysersoze]

I can handle fans overhyping Dak, I'm just concerned that the Cowboys ruin their future by actually paying him as such. 3 years in and he's good for 5 yard passes, not what we need from a guy is he's going to make $25 mil (I get the feeling he's going to get $30+ mil per year)

Right now Dak is just as much a regular season winner as Romo was. Did you have an issue with Romo’s contract?

 

[Toruk_Makto]

But he’s also had an inferior WR core. An aging TE with no adequate replacement. A rotating offensive line decimated by injuries and inexperience. And to top it all off. Subpar coaching and scheming. Don’t leave out those variables in your evaluation.

Every single variable I am using in my evaluation. Dak has been from a tools perspective in a top situation for any new qb in recent memory. It's really not debatable.

Compare Dak's to that of most rookie qbs like Goff, Rosen, Darnold, Allen and Mayfield which is the norm.

Then tell me Dak has been in a worse situation.

 

[keysersoze]

No. What does that have to do with anything?

Then why cry about Dak getting a big contract? So far he’s done just as much as Romo. If you were ok with Romo’s extension you should be ok with Dak’s.

 

[keysersoze]

Every single variable I am using in my evaluation. Dak has been from a tools perspective in a top situation for any new qb in recent memory. It's really not debatable.

Compare Dak's to that of most rookie qbs like Goff, Rosen, Darnold, Allen and Mayfield which is the norm.

Then tell me Dak has been in a worse situation.

Your evaluation is flawed, biased and wreaks of an agenda.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Right now Dak is just as much a regular season winner as Romo was. Did you have an issue with Romo’s contract?

No issue with Romo's contract.

Stop using wins as a qb Stat please.

Doing that is the thing that got Bortles paid.

 

[OmerV]

I am the OP poster. Yes I referenced the Commanders game because it was the most recent. The thread naturally has evolved over the past 18 pages but when I reference Dak's Stats and eye test it should be obvious that I'm talking about the totality of Dak's play otherwise we'd be talking about just one bad game. Clearly there have been more than one bad game.

I noticed you skipped over the fact that the first of those 3 game Dak had an outstanding day, and ultimately all you are trying to do is expand an already false argument over 3 games instead of 1.

2 pass plays in the 3rd of those games doesn't somehow change the fact Dak ad 270 yards on 72% passing, with 1 passing TD and 1 rushing TD in the 1st of those games. To suggested that it ridiculously illogical.

Even when looking at just the Commanders game, your entire argument is predicated on the game playing out exactly as it did except without those 2 plays ever happening - as if those entire possessions ended at that point without those plays, and as if without those plays Washington and Dallas wouldn't have been playing any differently despite entirely different circumstances without those scores. As if with the game close, or with Dallas maybe being behind they still would have run the ball 11 out of 13 times in the 4th quarter, and would still have been playing to run time off the clock and force Washington to use timeouts. That's so nonsensical it's hard to fathom anyone would think it.

I also noticed you are hiding from the fact that while you claimed Dak was throwing poor passes deep into a close game, the truth is Dak only threw 2 out of 13 plays in the 4th quarter of a game in which the Cowboys had a 2 score lead.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Your evaluation is flawed, biased and wreaks of an agenda.

What a detailed takedown.