The Carton Show: Rumors of Dak Prescott being traded to the Raiders are floating around

SultanOfSix

SultanOfSix

Star Power
Messages
12,544
Reaction score
7,462
CowboysFaninHouston said:
leading what? he was 22nd ranked or worse in almost every offensive statistical category? so how is it leading anything?

and Dak and the offense didn't play well enough to win. if Dak was Mahomes, then perhaps. but there is one Mahomes in a generation. with Rush, we wouldn't even be close. if the defense allowed more than 13 points.
and the defense benefited from feasting on weaker offenses and struggled mightily against better offenses.

and Rush threw for 300 yards....so Did Jason Garrett against GB on a thanksgiving game. and I find it funny, @khiladi keeps track of almost interceptions, yet completely ignored the biggest play of the game when the vikings player dropped a ball hitting him in the hand, bouncing up and right into a fallen Cooper's hand. I am sure somebody is going to say Dak has plenty of those type of throws.

and the fact that I keep mentioning, the defense average 13 points a game and even scored a couple of times to help. give me that kind of defense and trent dilfer and we win a championship. the problem is defense is not capable of sustaining that level of play season long. the defense and the offense benefited in playing some weaker teams when rush was playing.
Click to expand...
You're equivocating on what it means to "lead". I didn't say anything about leading a statistical category. I made a comment about him leading the team which is what a QB does (as the so-called field general). The defense does not lead the team. They just play well or don't.

The point is, it's the same defense that Dak had. There was no difference. "Dak-stans" want to give all the credit to those Rush-led victories to the defense, but Rush still had to lead the team to score. Rush still had to make passes, not turn the ball over, manage and control the game, etc. I checked the time of possession state and although the team had less than the opponent, they were pretty close to being even down the middle. If anything, Cooper's play proves that defense was built to win and Dak failed to capitalize on it in the playoffs. They were good enough to hold the game for a backup to help them win against average and sometimes even good opponents, so they were also good enough to do so for a supposed franchise QB to help lead to team to victory over them. Generally excusing Dak every time he plays badly and saying some other member or side of the team plays badly, or they played better for Cooper than Dak, doesn't fly. Who says the defense wouldn't have played just as well if Dak was the QB too? That just further emphasizes the aforementioned point.
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
32,218
Reaction score
18,286
SultanOfSix said:
You're equivocating on what it means to "lead". I didn't say anything about leading a statistical category. I made a comment about him leading the team which is what a QB does (as the so-called field general). The defense does not lead the team. They just play well or don't.

The point is, it's the same defense that Dak had. There was no difference. "Dak-stans" want to give all the credit to those Rush-led victories to the defense, but Rush still had to lead the team to score. Rush still had to make passes, not turn the ball over, manage and control the game, etc. I checked the time of possession state and although the team had less than the opponent, they were pretty close to being even down the middle. If anything, Cooper's play proves that defense was built to win and Dak failed to capitalize on it in the playoffs. They were good enough to hold the game for a backup to help them win against average and sometimes even good opponents, so they were also good enough to do so for a supposed franchise QB to help lead to team to victory over them. Generally excusing Dak every time he plays badly and saying some other member or side of the team plays badly, or they played better for Cooper than Dak, doesn't fly. Who says the defense wouldn't have played just as well if Dak was the QB too? That just further emphasizes the aforementioned point.
Click to expand...
he didn't lead the team. what did he lead? the defense lead the team to wins. why can't the defense lead the team? the defense held opposing teams to less than 2 TDs. they scored a couple of times during that run. against the Rams the defense led the team. they scored a TD and gave the ball to the offense for a field goal. the offense had less than 100 yards passing. so how did Rush lead the team?
ravens defense led them to superbowl win in 2000. they were an all time great defense. the offense just made sure they don't lose the game.

at 13 points a game, they weren't just good enough, they were great. and the very first time the defense gave up more than 20 points, we lost horribly. the offense just couldn't do anything. so yes. it was the defense leading the team in those wins.

and not its not the same defense that Dak had. defense played out of their shoes during a short period, probably knowing, the only chance to win. the average score against the defense was much worse. same personnel.
so this is not defending Dak, but its assinine to say it was the same defensive performance.
 
SultanOfSix

SultanOfSix

Star Power
Messages
12,544
Reaction score
7,462
CowboysFaninHouston said:
he didn't lead the team. what did he lead? the defense lead the team to wins. why can't the defense lead the team? the defense held opposing teams to less than 2 TDs. they scored a couple of times during that run. against the Rams the defense led the team. they scored a TD and gave the ball to the offense for a field goal. the offense had less than 100 yards passing. so how did Rush lead the team?
ravens defense led them to superbowl win in 2000. they were an all time great defense. the offense just made sure they don't lose the game.

at 13 points a game, they weren't just good enough, they were great. and the very first time the defense gave up more than 20 points, we lost horribly. the offense just couldn't do anything. so yes. it was the defense leading the team in those wins.

and not its not the same defense that Dak had. defense played out of their shoes during a short period, probably knowing, the only chance to win. the average score against the defense was much worse. same personnel.
so this is not defending Dak, but its assinine to say it was the same defensive performance.
Click to expand...
Dude, I just explained exactly what I meant about leading the team. And don’t talk about 25 or more years ago. The Ravens and Bears are outliers in almost sixty years of Super Bowls. That’s what you want to compare the Cowboys defense to just to defend Dak and put down Cooper Rush? It’s asinine and once again just emphasizes the point. The Cowboys defense was never comparable to those two, no matter how much you want to manipulate the stats.
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
32,218
Reaction score
18,286
SultanOfSix said:
Dude, I just explained exactly what I meant about leading the team. And don’t talk about 25 or more years ago. The Ravens and Bears are outliers in almost sixty years of Super Bowls. That’s what you want to compare the Cowboys defense to just to defend Dak and put down Cooper Rush? It’s asinine and once again just emphasizes the point. The Cowboys defense was never comparable to those two, no matter how much you want to manipulate the stats.
Click to expand...
so the ravens and Bears defense dismantles your argument, do they don't count. ooookkk then

I didn't defend Dak. I put reality on what Rush is. you spun that into a Dak defense, but you can't think any other way. if I don't trash Dak incessantly then I must be a Dak supporter. your world is so black and white isn't it?

the cowboys defense in those 5 games, averaged an asinine points given up. but you don't want to talk about that.

and I did say, that defense was not sustainable. the defense collapsed and burned out.
 
SultanOfSix

SultanOfSix

Star Power
Messages
12,544
Reaction score
7,462
CowboysFaninHouston said:
so the ravens and Bears defense dismantles your argument, do they don't count. ooookkk then

I didn't defend Dak. I put reality on what Rush is. you spun that into a Dak defense, but you can't think any other way. if I don't trash Dak incessantly then I must be a Dak supporter. your world is so black and white isn't it?

the cowboys defense in those 5 games, averaged an asinine points given up. but you don't want to talk about that.

and I did say, that defense was not sustainable. the defense collapsed and burned out.
Click to expand...
No the Bears and the Ravens are something Dak-Stans bring up to say that the defense was playing “lights out” and that’s why the team won, as if the defense hadn’t held the opponent to three points like the Vikings or shut out the Giants too when Dak was the QB.

But wait a second. The Cowboys defense gave up 26 against the Eagles. They didn’t show up for Rush that day. Yes, Rush threw a bunch of picks but the defense should’ve held and helped him. He also didn’t have much of a running game that day either. So that’s why the team lost. Wow, that argument sounds awfully familiar.
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
32,218
Reaction score
18,286
SultanOfSix said:
No the Bears and the Ravens are something Dak-Stans bring up to say that the defense was playing “lights out” and that’s why the team won, as if the defense hadn’t held the opponent to three points like the Vikings or shut out the Giants too when Dak was the QB.

But wait a second. The Cowboys defense gave up 26 against the Eagles. They didn’t show up for Rush that day. Yes, Rush threw a bunch of picks but the defense should’ve held and helped him. He also didn’t have much of a running game that day either. So that’s why the team lost. Wow, that argument sounds awfully familiar.
Click to expand...
Show me a 5 game stretch of the defense playing at that level giving up 13 average points.

And since you throw out a game here and there, what about Seattle game this past year? I can give a few more if you like.

You are trying too hard to dismiss the defensive performance over the stretch.

And again, first time defense gave up more than 20, got no turnovers the offense just sputtered.
 
Verdict

Verdict

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,110
Reaction score
20,304
KingintheNorth said:
They can't designate him a June 1 trade, like you can with the release.


They would literally have to trade him June 1 or later, which means the Cowboys would miss out on this year's draft picks.
Click to expand...
I am sure that the Raiders would want their incoming QB immediately, but the trade could be structured with an effective date after the new league year starts (June 1). I don’t recall ever seeing like that happen, but in this case it make sense for the Cowboys. But would the acquiring team be willing to do that?
 

CowboysFaninHouston

CowboysFaninDC
Messages
32,218
Reaction score
18,286
nate dizzle said:
You are right, Rush is a bottom tier QB...that was able to go 5-1 as a starter with Dak's roster, but we don't give Dak enough to be successful.
Click to expand...
again, the offensive output in every statistical category was better with Dak than Rush.

the defense played out of their minds giving up 13 in that stretch on average.

do you think this defense is capable of going entire season giving up 13 on average? if yes, then praise the Lord, lets go with Rush and lets win a championship.

so do you think our defense is that good? yes? no?

and what's this love affair with Rush? I don't get it. I don't see what people see in this guy. fact is in the NFL nobody wanted Rush. Literally he was on practice squad and no one signed him to be their back up.... so all of the NFL folks are stupid, but you know more? and Dak will get a large contract from some team next year, but all the NFL GMs and teams are stupid, except you, because why?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top