Rookie Seasons: Dak vs R Wilson

[Romotil45]

Can we all agree Dak is the future for the QB position?

Because it seems like some posters are ready to move on completely and aren't convinced he'll be a good QB.

Most I've communicated with agree his most likely trajectory is much more along the lines of Russel Wilson than RG3. RG3s mechanics are much worse than Daks that being said Dak needs to continue to work on his foot work and throwing mechanics and reading defences. The intangibles are there the future looks bright for him. That being said we will have to watch n see.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

And Wilson just had an absolute stinker of a game.

Which means he sucks. Seattle should get rid of him. lol

 

[Romotil45]

I am absolutely a huge fan of Dak. What I don't know, however, is if Dak's ceiling is 'Tony Romo prime', more than that, or less than that.

I am going to enjoy finding out.

The best comparison I think of his potential is Russell Wilson who is not really a pure passer but effective with a solid run game and defense. That's his most likely trajectory if he continues to improve. But most likely will not be a pure passer of the likes of Brady, Brees Romo.

 

[Romotil45]

Seattle had Matt Flynn as their alternative.

Bottom line is if Dak bounces back he'll stay in. If he continues to play poorly then he should be yanked.

Not with a healthy Tony Romo on the bench he should sit regardless. We don't have the defense Seattle had that year not even close and that will become more evident in the playoffs than it does right now. But I am glad we got this opportunity to see Dak so much on the field this year and all indications are he hadsa bright future.

 

[Chuck 54]

I don't understand why fans think Dak should play perfectly and have a great rating every game to be our QB of the future or present.

Tony Romo is a franchise QB, but he totally sucks sometimes. That's a fact. He has bad games; he throws stupid interceptions; he fumbles when sacked; he tends to throw high early in games, missing receivers. He's not perfect; he has bad games every year.

That's football; guys get in the zone and play great; guys get out of the zone and play poorly. It happens at every position and moreso at QB.

If Dak has a bad playoff game and we're losing, and he's struggling, I'm pulling him and putting in Tony Romo! But you know what? I'd pull him and play Mark Sanchez if it was bad enough. It's the playoffs; you do whatever you have to do to win because there is no tomorrow. The only guys who shouldn't be considered for pulling in a playoff game are franchise QB's who've proven they can turn it on at any second. However, if Tony was the starter and he was killing us because of the pass rush, I'd pull him and put in a more mobile guy in hopes of having a winning drive.

Either way, I then go back to my starter the next game. All QB's have bad games and even bad months sometimes; that's the nature of the sport.

 

[LandryFan]

No, because I like to think positively.

The dichotomy that statement presents is just too good!

 

[Romotil45]

I don't understand why fans think Dak should play perfectly and have a great rating every game to be our QB of the future or present.

Tony Romo is a franchise QB, but he totally sucks sometimes. That's a fact. He has bad games; he throws stupid interceptions; he fumbles when sacked; he tends to throw high early in games, missing receivers. He's not perfect; he has bad games every year.

That's football; guys get in the zone and play great; guys get out of the zone and play poorly. It happens at every position and moreso at QB.

If Dak has a bad playoff game and we're losing, and he's struggling, I'm pulling him and putting in Tony Romo! But you know what? I'd pull him and play Mark Sanchez if it was bad enough. It's the playoffs; you do whatever you have to do to win because there is no tomorrow. The only guys who shouldn't be considered for pulling in a playoff game are franchise QB's who've proven they can turn it on at any second. However, if Tony was the starter and he was killing us because of the pass rush, I'd pull him and put in a more mobile guy in hopes of having a winning drive.

Either way, I then go back to my starter the next game. All QB's have bad games and even bad months sometimes; that's the nature of the sport.

It's all about experience sure vets have bad games too but overall they have the experience to be successful. Dak is very likely to struggle going forward that is a much greater detriment to his development. He simply does not have the tools in the tool box to read defenses YET. Again I'm OK with him going into the playoffs but Romo should have been moved at the deadline. Because Romo was not moved at the deadline the better QB should play in the playoffs that should be Romo if not means poor to no trade value for him teams will use the fact that we chose Dak over Romo against us in negotiations.

 

[reddyuta]

Wilson has developed an extremely good with average WRs, Dak should take that next step next season hopefully with better speed at WR position.

 

[Oh_Canada]

Except no, he didn't. Goodness. He was winning games late in the 4th, he then played well (No, he wasn't tearing it up) in the playoffs and made the plays needed to win a freakin' Super Bowl. He did not "regress" - Wow. Revisionist history around here.

I am talking from a statistics point of view strictly, why is that so difficult to understand? Yes he won games, so is Dak, eleven in thirteen (Brady 11-3) to be precise, but statistically Brady isn't even in Dak's universe in their first year starting and remember it was Brady's second year in the league.

 

[mattjames2010]

I am talking from a statistics point of view strictly, why is that so difficult to understand? Yes he won games, so is Dak, eleven in thirteen (Brady 11-3) to be precise, but statistically Brady isn't even in Dak's universe in their first year starting and remember it was Brady's second year in the league.

Because we are not just discussing a "statistic point of view" - We are discussing everything from mechanics to decision making, which Dak regressed in. Brady did not. It's not comparable. The guy made plays when he needed to.

You know that final drive Dak threw some ducks into the middle and outside? Brady would have drove down the field for a gaming winning TD or tied it up. That's who he was late in his second year.

 

[Clove]

Good post. I agree. Mostly...lemme explain:

If Dak responds to the adversity and leads us to a win on Sun, everything is hunky-dory. BUT-- if he loses 2 in a row in Dec and we slip to only having a one game lead on the Giants and our offense remains inept-- we HAVE to make a change. HAVE TO.

Not because Dak isn't the future and has all of a sudden become a bad QB. No. It's because this has become about winning the SB this year. How often are you in position to lock up HFA in Dec? Rarely. We need to roll with Romo if Dak continues to struggle. Period. Thank Dak and honor him for his performance this year-- but we need to do everything we can do to win NOW. We may not be back here for a while. Nothing is guaranteed and this is too important to the team to let Dak have a "learning moment."

Either he can prove he can win in Dec, or we roll with Romo. Dak has done enough to show that he can play in this league and he's earned the respect of this team. But it is put-up-or-shut-up time. 2-24 on 3rd down over the past 2 games is HORRID. Has to change or we won't win the NFCE let alone make a deep playoff run.

He won 11 Straight as a rookie. You don't think he can replicate that as a 3 year vet?

 

[Clove]

This is what I was going to say. Matt Flynn is no Tony Romo. Basically Flynn played in one game and cane from Green Bay that has a reputation for good QBs. Romo is a top 5 QB when healthy. Seattle didn't have much of a choice but to stay with Wilson. We have a choice.

Seattle won a Super Bowl with Wilson, Romo didn't.

 

[TheCoolFan]

Hmm, I recall a lot of people here were saying Russell Wilson was just a bus driver. The new Trent Dilfer

 

[Little Jr]

Good post. I agree. Mostly...lemme explain:

If Dak responds to the adversity and leads us to a win on Sun, everything is hunky-dory. BUT-- if he loses 2 in a row in Dec and we slip to only having a one game lead on the Giants and our offense remains inept-- we HAVE to make a change. HAVE TO.

Not because Dak isn't the future and has all of a sudden become a bad QB. No. It's because this has become about winning the SB this year. How often are you in position to lock up HFA in Dec? Rarely. We need to roll with Romo if Dak continues to struggle. Period. Thank Dak and honor him for his performance this year-- but we need to do everything we can do to win NOW. We may not be back here for a while. Nothing is guaranteed and this is too important to the team to let Dak have a "learning moment."

Either he can prove he can win in Dec, or we roll with Romo. Dak has done enough to show that he can play in this league and he's earned the respect of this team. But it is put-up-or-shut-up time. 2-24 on 3rd down over the past 2 games is HORRID. Has to change or we won't win the NFCE let alone make a deep playoff run.

Roll with Romo? Roll with him in Dec? What Romo are we getting? The 2014 Romo who is 2 years older, 2 broke clavicle later and a broke back later. The Romo who hasn't played in a year. The Romo who hasn't had the best December's in his career. As big as a Romo fan I've been and the countless times I've had to defend him, I don't get the argument of bringing him now. The arguments against Dak and the things people say about Dak are a lot of the same things I had to argue with about Romo lol.

 

[THEHEREAFTER]

When you have Romo on the bench and you have Dak looking like turd polish the over last 8 quarters
and if it continues for 2 or 3 more quarters more you have to yank him, Its not rocket science

Then what happens if a cold/rusty Romo does not look like his best games of 2014 (his best season) and struggles? What then? How long of a leash does Romo get since Dak is being asked to the bench at 11-2?

 

[plymkr]

Seattle won a Super Bowl with Wilson, Romo didn't.

Thanks for reminding me that Romo has not won a super bowl with Seattle. As a Cowboy fan I knew that but it's always good to get an independent person to remind me.

Your post makes no sense. We're discussing when Wilson struggled as a rookie if he should have been replaced by the veteran Matt Flynn. I stated that it was an easier decision to stay with Wilson due to the backup being Flynn. Flynn is not as talented as Romo so my point being is Romo could play better than Dak, Flynn could not play better than Wilson so the Seahawks did not have much of a decision when it came to replacing Wilson after a bad couple games.

Also I have no clue what you're even trying to say. I know Wilson won a super bowl in Seattle. What does that have to do with anything. He didn't win his rookie year and the comparsion was made between Wilson's rookie year stats vs Dak's stats.

So on that note
San fran won a super bowl with Young, Montana. Denver won with Manning, elway. Dallas won a super bowl with Staubach and Aikman. Do I need to go through every single team and their super bowl winning quarterbacks just so it can be re-written for the millionth time that Romo didn't win.

I don't understand how any Cowboy fan can be happy that Romo didn't win a super bowl.

 

[dallasdave]

Which means he sucks. Seattle should get rid of him. lol

 

[stilltheguru88]

When you have Romo on the bench and you have Dak looking like turd polish the over last 8 quarters
and if it continues for 2 or 3 more quarters more you have to yank him, Its not rocket science

Not even about that. I can read between the lines on some of the replies in here

 

[Oh_Canada]

Because we are not just discussing a "statistic point of view" - We are discussing everything from mechanics to decision making, which Dak regressed in. Brady did not. It's not comparable. The guy made plays when he needed to.

You know that final drive Dak threw some ducks into the middle and outside? Brady would have drove down the field for a gaming winning TD or tied it up. That's who he was late in his second year.

Oh yeah the game he threw for 108yds against Buffalo, no ducks in that one.

 

[Clove]

Thanks for reminding me that Romo has not won a super bowl with Seattle. As a Cowboy fan I knew that but it's always good to get an independent person to remind me.

Your post makes no sense. We're discussing when Wilson struggled as a rookie if he should have been replaced by the veteran Matt Flynn. I stated that it was an easier decision to stay with Wilson due to the backup being Flynn. Flynn is not as talented as Romo so my point being is Romo could play better than Dak, Flynn could not play better than Wilson so the Seahawks did not have much of a decision when it came to replacing Wilson after a bad couple games.

Also I have no clue what you're even trying to say. I know Wilson won a super bowl in Seattle. What does that have to do with anything. He didn't win his rookie year and the comparsion was made between Wilson's rookie year stats vs Dak's stats.

So on that note
San fran won a super bowl with Young, Montana. Denver won with Manning, elway. Dallas won a super bowl with Staubach and Aikman. Do I need to go through every single team and their super bowl winning quarterbacks just so it can be re-written for the millionth time that Romo didn't win.

I don't understand how any Cowboy fan can be happy that Romo didn't win a super bowl.

And I'm saying, the rookie has brought us 11 wins in a row, and so we stay with him. If the record were 7-5, I'd be all for the change.