Offseason musing. What would you take for Dak?

[Super_Kazuya]

Roethlisberger had all that and a pro bowl WR in Hines Ward plus 4 pro bowlers on defense.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/pit/2004_roster.htm

It was his rookie year too yet you didn't hear anyone making your arguments against him.

Russell Wilson only had two pro bowl OL to go with Lynch but I think all those turnovers and short fields that all world defense gave him helped.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sea/2012_roster.htm

Even the best QBs are dependent on their supporting cast.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/nwe/2007_roster.htm

Brady had Moss ,an awesome OL, and defense and set offensive records which he has not come close to since.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/2015_roster.htm

Rodgers was not very good in 2015 when the cupboard was bare.

I said All-Pro, not Pro Bowl. Pro Bowl is a popularity contest. The All-Pro team is voted on by the AP, and is only one spot per position (well,at least it is now)...

My first thought was, perhaps when Riggins was 1st team All-Pro and he had the Hogs? But alas, only two Hogs made first-team.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Awww man, now my feelings are hurt...I'm good at Madden though! And even in that game I'm not dumb enough to trade the 23 year old rookie that just won me 13 games.

If you wouldn't trade him for three first round picks, then I would call that dumb. But conversely, it would be just as dumb to trade 3 first round picks for him. And that is why he effectively has no trade value... neither side would do any deal for what the other would want.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I said All-Pro, not Pro Bowl. Pro Bowl is a popularity contest. The All-Pro team is voted on by the AP, and is only one spot per position (well,at least it is now)...

My first thought was, perhaps when Riggins was 1st team All-Pro and he had the Hogs? But alas, only two Hogs made first-team.

Your framing of the question does not diminish the point. The fact that is all you have to argue with demonstrates how flimsy your position is.

 

[negativecreep]

If you wouldn't trade him for three first round picks, then I would call that dumb. But conversely, it would be just as dumb to trade 3 first round picks for him. And that is why he effectively has no trade value... neither side would do any deal for what the other would want.

Where is the ignore button? Anyone?

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Your framing of the question does not diminish the point. The fact that is all you have to argue with demonstrates how flimsy your position is.

The only thing flimsy is your ability to read, apparently... as evidenced by your misguided Pro Bowl bumbling. The question is a simple one and it speaks for itself. That it offends Dak slobberers so much seems to speak of its true impact.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Where is the ignore button? Anyone?

Click under "My Account". Then navigate to the section that says "I am weak-minded and everyone must agree with me." Click the check box and then click Save Changes.

 

[negativecreep]

Where is the ignore button? Anyone?

Never mind, found it.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Never mind, found it.

You're welcome.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The only thing flimsy is your ability to read, apparently... as evidenced by your misguided Pro Bowl bumbling. The question is a simple one and it speaks for itself. That it offends Dak slobberers so much seems to speak of its true impact.

Your distinction is without meaning. I clearly showed how even the best QBs play varied dependent on supporting cast. I also showed examples of QBs with similar supporting casts despite your arbitrary bias.

I was critical of Dak in my weekly writeups. I don't fit your description. You should try and move past binary oversimplifications. They are easy but dumbing things down does not represent reality.

All your above post demonstrates is that you resort to ad hominem when you don't have any real argument and that you have a mindless bias against our starting QB.

 

[AsthmaField]

The only thing flimsy is your ability to read, apparently... as evidenced by your misguided Pro Bowl bumbling. The question is a simple one and it speaks for itself. That it offends Dak slobberers so much seems to speak of its true impact.

I haven’t been on this site too much lately, and when I do come here I stay out of the Dak/Romo debates because I do like both and it is a done deal anyway.

So, I don’t really know people’s stances on the QB’s too much… however, when I read your “Dak Slobberers” line, it tells me a lot about your thoughts on the subject.

It is a shame everyone can’t get behind the guy who will be the Dallas starting QB for the next decade or so.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

So did Brady, ARogers, Matt Ryan do this with the same criteria? Or only Dak does this?

Are you making an argument that Dak is as good as those guys? Or will be as good? Or that Brady and Rodgers and Ryan are as dependent on their personnel as Dak was? MAKE AN ARGUMENT. This strawman stuff I hate.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Roethlisberger had all that and a pro bowl WR in Hines Ward plus 4 pro bowlers on defense.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/pit/2004_roster.htm

It was his rookie year too yet you didn't hear anyone making your arguments against him.

Alternative facts.

Just a few weeks ago I posted an article just after his rookie year where it talked about how he was protected and needed to improve.

Stop with the fake news.

 

[CF74]

Two #1's and a third...

 

[RJ_MacReady]

And here we are...comparing Romo, who didn't get his first start until his 4th year and has given us 10 years of abysmal playoff results to a true rookie? Romo is 36 and Dak is 23. The mere fact that there's a legitimate argument between the two should be sobering enough to give Romosexuals pause. Give Dak the 3 years that Romo had the luxury of to get coached up before the comparison on skills. As it is, I don't believe that 2003, 2004, or even 2005 Romo could do what Dak did in 2016..as a true rookie, "Dream Team" or not.

If people want to keep bawling about being denied the 37, 38 and 39 year-old Romo to lead us to the promise land, go right ahead. For me, I can't wait for Romo to officially be in the rear view mirror so we can finally turn the page.

 

[Brooksey]

Your distinction is without meaning. I clearly showed how even the best QBs play varied dependent on supporting cast. I also showed examples of QBs with similar supporting casts despite your arbitrary bias.

I was critical of Dak in my weekly writeups. I don't fit your description. You should try and move past binary oversimplifications. They are easy but dumbing things down does not represent reality.

All your above post demonstrates is that you resort to ad hominem when you don't have any real argument and that you have a mindless bias against our starting QB.

It looks like you are the one engaging in ad hominem after your evidence was contradicted, i.e Pro bowl vs All Pro. You did not clearly show any evidence that can't be contradicted to fit a different narrative. You found support for your own opinion, that's it. Your supporting references don't make your position fact. Did you ever consider how foolish it sounds comparing Dak to Tom Brady? Just as foolish as the glorified blogs who put that garbage out.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Alternative facts.

Just a few weeks ago I posted an article just after his rookie year where it talked about how he was protected and needed to improve.

Stop with the fake news.

Are you just trolling nowadays?

Roethlisberger did not even read both sides of the field his rookie year. Of course a rookie's gameplan is not going to be as expansive as a veterans.

Prescott still had a rookie year above all the others.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It looks like you are the one engaging in ad hominem after your evidence was contradicted, i.e Pro bowl vs All Pro. You did not clearly show any evidence that can't be contradicted to fit a different narrative. You found support for your own opinion, that's it. Your supporting references don't make your position fact. Did you ever consider how foolish it sounds comparing Dak to Tom Brady? Just as foolish as the glorified blogs who put that garbage out.

I know you want pro bowls to be meaningless but those teams had talented OL, RB, WR, and defenses.

I don't think you even know what ad hominem means.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Your distinction is without meaning. I clearly showed how even the best QBs play varied dependent on supporting cast. I also showed examples of QBs with similar supporting casts despite your arbitrary bias.

I was critical of Dak in my weekly writeups. I don't fit your description. You should try and move past binary oversimplifications. They are easy but dumbing things down does not represent reality.

All your above post demonstrates is that you resort to ad hominem when you don't have any real argument and that you have a mindless bias against our starting QB.

Your examples were nonsense, I didn't find any of the supporting casts "similar"... and if your "point" was that players on a team sport are affected by other players on a team sport... then I hope you didn't expend a lot of energy on that one.
The question was posed without comment... and the power of the question shook you and other Dak slobberers to the core.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your examples were nonsense, I didn't find any of the supporting casts "similar"... and if your "point" was that players on a team sport are affected by other players on a team sport... then I hope you didn't expend a lot of energy on that one.
The question was posed without comment... and the power of the question shook you and other Dak slobberers to the core.

So you blanket dismiss without any basis whatsoever. How droll and lazy.

If you want to bias by X number of X award then you have no point.

Those QBs had talented OL, WR, and RB corps plus better defenses.

And let me guess you are a Romo supporter?

 

[haleyrules]

And here we are...comparing Romo, who didn't get his first start until his 4th year and has given us 10 years of abysmal playoff results to a true rookie? Romo is 36 and Dak is 23. The mere fact that there's a legitimate argument between the two should be sobering enough to give Romosexuals pause. Give Dak the 3 years that Romo had the luxury of to get coached up before the comparison on skills. As it is, I don't believe that 2003, 2004, or even 2005 Romo could do what Dak did in 2016..as a true rookie, "Dream Team" or not.

If people want to keep bawling about being denied the 37, 38 and 39 year-old Romo to lead us to the promise land, go right ahead. For me, I can't wait for Romo to officially be in the rear view mirror so we can finally turn the page.

Amen