Twitter: Prescott's rating on passes 20+ yards to Lamb

[garyo1954]

Wish they had a " scratch my head" emoticon. This one would get it. So your point is what?

I agree. This is a "scratch my head" claim for a lot of reasons.
I keep looking and it keeps coming back to someone using a strange definition.


"How do I get a 158.3 passer rating?
Passer rating is calculated using a player's passing attempts, completions, yards, touchdowns, and interceptions. Passer rating in the NFL is on a scale from 0 to 158.3."
The scores for each category are added together. That sum is divided by six and multiplied by 100, which converts it into a rating on a scale from zero to 158.3. A average QB would receive a rating of 66.7 (1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4, and 4/6 * 100 = 66.7).

A perfect passer rating requires at least 77.5 completions percentage, 12.5 yards per attempt, 1 TD per 8.421 attempts, and 0 interceptions.

Looking only at the games in which Dak threw 20+ yard completions to CeeDee.....

CeeDee was 5 of 6 targets vs the Rams for 59 yards, 9.83 per target and 0 TDs.
5 of 7 vs Seattle 65 yards, 9.28 per target, 0 TDs
Vs Atlanta 6 of 9 for 106, 11.78 per target, 0 TDs
8 of 11 vs Giants, 124 yards, 11.27 per target, 0 TDs (complete game totals)

The only game where CeeDee was perfect 2 for 2, 46 yards, and 23 per target was the Bengals, still 0 TDs. (No Dak game)
The only game Dak connected with CeeDee for TDs was Cleveland 5 of 7 for 79 yards, 11.29 per target and 2 TDs. One was 43 yards, the other was 5.

I suppose if you limit the criteria to Dak threw one 20+ yard pass to CeeDee in the Cleveland game that went for a TD, you could make a case. But that would be the same for any QB who completed a 20+ yard pass that went for a TD.

Otherwise I'm through "scratching my head" unless someone comes up with something tangible.

 

[Captain-Crash]

lmao, groupies unit.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

LOL...............If someone posts positive numbers, I dont run around trying to discredit them. Thats what trolls like you do.

It's not discrediting something to look for context in the numbers.

The same way when someone posts something negative it's not wrong to look for context in those numbers as well.

 

[CowboyRoy]

It's not discrediting something to look for context in the numbers.

The same way when someone posts something negative it's not wrong to look for context in those numbers as well.

Your looking for ways to discredit the stat. It bothers you that Dak is much better than you like to think he is. For some weird reason.

Your 4th round QB is hooking up with his new rookie stud receiver and that bothers you.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Are you implying they are lying?

Do those stats make you feel silly? Trying sooo hard to hope its not true.

You really are a quality fan. Cowboys need more fans like you.

Yeah, I’d say stats can lie, because the people using stats use them to imply.

All 4 times Dak attempted to throw deep to CeeDee were completions. There, same exact stat, but proper context and no underlying implications.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Yeah, I’d say stats can lie, because the people using stats use them to imply.

Does it bother you that Dak is hooking up great with his new WR?

Because that would be such a HORRIBLE thing wouldnt it? Better try to find a way to discredit that one. Better yet...............lets hope he is lying!!!

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Does it bother you that Dak is hooking up great with his new WR?

No, I suspect CeeDee will take Cooper’s job in a matter of months

 

[CowboyRoy]

No, I suspect CeeDee will take Cooper’s job in a matter of months

He is already the #1 WR in my mind.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

Your looking for ways to discredit the stat. It bothers you that Dak is much better than you like to think he is. For some weird reason.

Your 4th round QB is hooking up with his new rookie stud receiver and that bothers you.

Go back and read a little, you'll see that I never questioned the numbers at any point. You're making things up again, CowboyRoy.

I never even asked for context. I just simply said that if somebody is looking for context it's perfectly reasonable in any situation. We all know if this was a negative stat you would be the first person to say something about not having a big enough sample size to make any kind of conclusion or this or that. You'd be right, but it works both way.

 

[Captain-Crash]

you guys are always ruining the dak circle jerk, why can't the groupies have one thread. "haters"

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

When are you going to admit you arent a Cowboys fan?

If someone posts positive numbers about the cowboys I dont run around trying to discredit them. Thats what trolls like you do.

Yeah he needs to admit that because he comes across as a Eagles fan.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Go back and read a little, you'll see that I never questioned the numbers at any point. You're making things up again, CowboyRoy.

I never even asked for context. I just simply said that if somebody is looking for context it's perfectly reasonable in any situation. We all know if this was a negative stat you would be the first person to say something about not having a big enough sample size to make any kind of conclusion or this or that. You'd be right, but it works both way.

When have I have ever done that before? Making up more lies as usual. Nice try though.

Lamb has played a total of 4.5 games with Dak. How many times do you really think they could have hooked up for 20 yards or more?

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

We need some qualifiers here. Hard to be excited about it until we know more.
There is only 4 Dak to Lamb completions that covered 20 yards (that I can find).
1 vs the Falcons in the 4th qtr
2 vs Giants (1 in the 2nd another in the third)
1 vs Seattle in the third

Is that all the targets?

The tweet says 9 targets…..

 

[CowboyRoy]

Yeah he needs to admit that because he comes across as a Eagles fan.

Anything positive and he all up in arms unhappy about it.

Anyone cuts up his QB and he is cheering like a pom pom waving school girl.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

When I have ever done that before? Making up more lies as usual. Nice try though.

Well, I guess you're right in the fact that you usually never ask for context, research, or anything like that regarding a stat. If you see a negative stat you just call the person a "troll" and pretend the stat doesn't exist.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Well, I guess you're right in the fact that you usually never ask for context, research, or anything like that regarding a stat. If you see a negative stat you just call the person a "troll" and pretend the stat doesn't exist.

The only reason you get called a troll is because you get upset when something nice is posted about your QB.

What kind of Cowboys fan does that? It would suck if Dak WASNT hooking up with Lamb. Your upset that he IS?

You made your own reputation on here. Now you have to live with it.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

The only reason you get called a troll is because you get upset when something nice is posted about your QB.

What kind of Cowboys fan does that? It would suck if Dak WASNT hooking up with Lamb. Your upset that he IS?

You made your own reputation on here. Now you have to live with it.

Again, I never questioned anything about this number.

You must be getting your "trolls" mixed up.

 

[JoeKing]

Championship!

 

[CowboyRoy]

Again, I never questioned anything about this number.

You must be getting your "trolls" mixed up.

Then why are you still talking about it?


Are you pleased that Dak is hooking up with his new toy?

 

[Irvin88_4life]

Why do we need qualifiers? You mean you feel the need to try and find ways to discredit that facts?

It's a perfect rating, it's not like they had 20 passes and only 4 completed. It doesn't matter the context cause its a perfect rating. You can't expect Dak haters to understand