Prescott and Romo bottomfeeders

OGSixshooter said:
Lamar Jackson is head and shoulders above Dak. Stop it. It's amazing that you claim to be objective regarding Dak.
Click to expand...


Its amazing that you're whining and crying like a child over something I didn't say. Did you see who I was responding to and why I said what I said before your tears started rolling down your face?

Nowhere did I say that Dak was better than Jackson.

My bad... Lamar led teams have just one more playoff win than Dak. Woopty ****ing doo.....

Lamar has had better coaching and GMs his whole career and all he has is one more playoff win than Dak and Romo? Stop it..... He doesn't qualify to be mentioned with Brady and Mahomes in the same sentence.

Did you reply to the person who put him in the same conversation with Mahomes and Brady???? Did you???
 
Nova said:
A decent idea and fun rabbit hole, but I think this points out team building failures more so than Romo/Dak ceilings.

Dallas just doesn't have much success against quality opponents compared to the stronger teams over both careers.

Since 2006, when we have a winning record and are facing teams that ended the season with 10/11+ wins (depending on 16 v 17 games), we have a win pct of 44% (40 if you take out div games).

Compare that to NE (60%) SEA (50%) BAL (50%) KC (48%) PHI (48%).

I picked this scenario because it provides a bigger sample size than playoffs, but ultimately is similar to playoff level competition (though maybe not intensity).

Dallas beating up on bottom feeders is exactly what the QB could be deemed responsible for. Bad/avg teams lose to other bad/avg teams. A bad team with a good QB? The QB is usually the X-factor. That's useful in making the playoffs, but it's not what gets you through the gauntlet. Might get you out of the wild card, but then the divisional is where team strength is tested. (and yes, QB has to hold up his end).

In stiffer competition, the QB can't save a roster. Only one QB ever kind of has... and it was Tom Brady.
Click to expand...
I completely agree. My overall point is not as much about Dak and Romo but we have been failing at rebuilding since Aikman retired. As far and Dak and Romo I doubt they get the recognition they got if Jerry the marketing genius wasn’t behind them.

So Quincy was a below average starter that won 10 games and took the team to the playoffs and exited early.

Dak and Romo are above average starters who took the team to the playoffs and exited early. The difference is Dak and Romo had the Jerry machine marketing them as franchise saviors. They’re not. They are/were limited.

We are still rebuilding the post Aikman era looking for our guy. That’s my overall point. Not a bash on Dak or Romo but a bash on our dysfunctional organization not being able to rebound after losing their HOFer to retirement. This FO has an issue with hiring coaches and putting a lot of draft capital into QBs. It’s weird. 2 of the most important positions on the team and this FO doesn’t invest into them. They want to outsmart everyone else with a no name coach and QBs that had poor draft status.
 
Most QB's have losing records when playing winning teams otherwise those teams wouldn't have winning records. Also, it's more of a team stat than anything. Stafford is something like 12-72 against winning teams.
 
Statistics say that they're similar players, but watching the games told a completely different story.

With Romo, I always felt like we could win any game... He beat the undefeated Colts, the undefeated Saints, beat the legion of boom in Seattle, etc. It always felt like we had a chance.

Dak doesn't inspire the same level of confidence. He's a good player and the best current option for our team, but he isn't as good as Romo was even if they both have a poor postseason record.
 
HappyOnions said:
Statistics say that they're similar players, but watching the games told a completely different story.

With Romo, I always felt like we could win any game... He beat the undefeated Colts, the undefeated Saints, beat the legion of boom in Seattle, etc. It always felt like we had a chance.

Dak doesn't inspire the same level of confidence. He's a good player and the best current option for our team, but he isn't as good as Romo was even if they both have a poor postseason record.
Click to expand...
Exactly how I feel. Always felt we had a chance with Romo. When Dak gets the thousand yard stare in the second half, I turn the TV off……
 
plymkr said:
I completely agree. My overall point is not as much about Dak and Romo but we have been failing at rebuilding since Aikman retired. As far and Dak and Romo I doubt they get the recognition they got if Jerry the marketing genius wasn’t behind them.

So Quincy was a below average starter that won 10 games and took the team to the playoffs and exited early.

Dak and Romo are above average starters who took the team to the playoffs and exited early. The difference is Dak and Romo had the Jerry machine marketing them as franchise saviors. They’re not. They are/were limited.

We are still rebuilding the post Aikman era looking for our guy. That’s my overall point. Not a bash on Dak or Romo but a bash on our dysfunctional organization not being able to rebound after losing their HOFer to retirement. This FO has an issue with hiring coaches and putting a lot of draft capital into QBs. It’s weird. 2 of the most important positions on the team and this FO doesn’t invest into them. They want to outsmart everyone else with a no name coach and QBs that had poor draft status.
Click to expand...
That's fair and I'll co-sign the criticism.

One thing I want to distinguish, though. Dak and Romo are good enough to average out at about 9.5 wins a season (rounding here, and also considering issues with 16 v 17 games).

That puts us in a precarious position, because we tie up money and also end up drafting later because of these two guys. Getting better with them is genuinely tougher than striking gold with a rookie contract (not ground breaking stuff).

Then you look at Josh Allen who gives you roughly 11 wins per season... a big jump and a truly elite QB of his era.

But Josh Allen has only ever gotten 1 round further than both guys, also.

And I guess the point I want to make is this; I feel for FO's who have a good, franchise QB and feel they need to retain them than looking for the 'real deal'. Obviously because you may just search the desert forever, but also, even if you find the 'real deal' (Allen), it may not mean that much difference anyways in ultimate success.

A bit of rambling, but again, team construction is super important, and this FO just fails at that.
 
Nova said:
That's fair and I'll co-sign the criticism.

One thing I want to distinguish, though. Dak and Romo are good enough to average out at about 9.5 wins a season (rounding here, and also considering issues with 16 v 17 games).

That puts us in a precarious position, because we tie up money and also end up drafting later because of these two guys. Getting better with them is genuinely tougher than striking gold with a rookie contract (not ground breaking stuff).

Then you look at Josh Allen who gives you roughly 11 wins per season... a big jump and a truly elite QB of his era.

But Josh Allen has only ever gotten 1 round further than both guys, also.

And I guess the point I want to make is this; I feel for FO's who have a good, franchise QB and feel they need to retain them than looking for the 'real deal'. Obviously because you may just search the desert forever, but also, even if you find the 'real deal' (Allen), it may not mean that much difference anyways in ultimate success.

A bit of rambling, but again, team construction is super important, and this FO just fails at that.
Click to expand...
Another great post.
 
Nova said:
That's fair and I'll co-sign the criticism.

One thing I want to distinguish, though. Dak and Romo are good enough to average out at about 9.5 wins a season (rounding here, and also considering issues with 16 v 17 games).

That puts us in a precarious position, because we tie up money and also end up drafting later because of these two guys. Getting better with them is genuinely tougher than striking gold with a rookie contract (not ground breaking stuff).

Then you look at Josh Allen who gives you roughly 11 wins per season... a big jump and a truly elite QB of his era.

But Josh Allen has only ever gotten 1 round further than both guys, also.

And I guess the point I want to make is this; I feel for FO's who have a good, franchise QB and feel they need to retain them than looking for the 'real deal'. Obviously because you may just search the desert forever, but also, even if you find the 'real deal' (Allen), it may not mean that much difference anyways in ultimate success.

A bit of rambling, but again, team construction is super important, and this FO just fails at that.
Click to expand...
I agree with your points as well. I think we both agree team construction is our biggest concern and fails
 
diamonddelts said:
Dak Prescott has a career regular-season record of 22-25 (.468) against teams that enter the game with a winning record.

Tony Romo had a regular-season record of 19-32 against teams with a winning record (above .500) and an 8-10 record against teams that finished at .500.

So for all of the guys touting how Romo was a much more capable QB, this stat shows the falsehood in that statement. They are pretty much the same QB. Both are known to put up good numbers yet crack in high pressure moments in big games against above average competition.

Just for the sake of comparison



Tom Brady 74–47
Highest number of wins against winning teams in NFL history.

Patrick Mahomes 22–12 (or ~64.7%)
One of the highest win percentages against winning competition in the modern era.

Lamar Jackson 14–4
Strong track record against winning teams, including standout single-season marks.
Click to expand...
If we're going to use record against winning teams as the standard for quarterbacks, I think Matthew Stafford would be the players to use. I don't know what his record would be, but I would think there would be a stark difference between his record with Detroit and his record with the Rams. And I would think the reason for that is that the Rams have had much better teams overall than Detroit.

Winning is not all about how capable the QB is. It's about how capable the team is.
 
Captain-Crash said:
naw you just need the best coaches, players, and GM, and these guys would be the best in the world.
Click to expand...
Fans say things like this, but how do we do with Aikman without Emmitt, Michael, a great offensive line, the No. 1 defense and Jimmy Johnson? The only thing we didn't have was the best GM.

Of course, we can answer that question by looking at Aikman's numbers/success from about 1996 on.
 
SoupcanSam said:
So you are saying Dak and Romo are Marino, and Kelly?

Whats your way of measuring the great drugs you are taking?
Click to expand...
neither one of them got a Ring
and their stats are fairly comparable to Dak and Romo
but you say they suck but Kelly and Marino do not
its called hypocrisy
 
gtb1943 said:
neither one of them got a Ring
and their stats are fairly comparable to Dak and Romo
but you say they suck but Kelly and Marino do not
its called hypocrisy
Click to expand...
You got a problem with your math, Bub. Marino and Kelly both made it to Super Bowls. Neither Dak nor Romo has even won a single Divisional Round Playoff game.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 44 more.
Total: 7,380 (members: 144, guests: 7,236)
Robots: 1,299

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
476,535
Messages
14,699,023
Members
24,234
Latest member
Justdatruth
Back
Top