The case for going for Lawrence

[Diehardblues]

Yes it all depends on one's definition of success. The All or Nothing mentality is hard on a fan, since there's only one champ a year. Don't win this year, you have to wait a long time for another shot at it. And the longer you go the worse it gets. The other definitions are easier to take, since there are always teams that are terrible, whether by design or just incompetence. One can always enjoy the wins, and if there's a lot more of them than losses, you're happy most of the time. Then you can point to things like number of winning seasons, number of playoff appearances, etc.

Though the All or Nothing view doesn't have to be a "mentality", just a way to judge a season. After all, why play if you don't aim to win it all?

There is an old saying in car racing "There's two positions in racing, first, and everybody else". I can enjoy a season in which the Cowboys don't win the SB (thank goodness!) but still view the season as unsuccessful. By definition in any competition where you crown one team as the "winner", the others are losers. Doesn't mean you get all depressed or angry about it...

Don’t agree. That’s not how we raise our kids that there’s only one winner. There’s only one champion but the rest aren’t losers.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

your exactly I'd also argue this is a losing team with Mahomes although he may get you a win or 2 more than dak. The issues this team has is large and they are glaring. Dak is down the list. I think its stupid to move on from him and not fix the other things but I understand the $$ part of it.

if folks want to move on from people I'd start with jaylon the entire secondary not named Diggs, Wilson and yes Id move on from Zeke. I also get the contract dilemma with those 2

At least it's the same for other teams, some Eagles fans wanted to dump Wentz for Foles because "Foles won the SB". But if you scrutinize Foles' overall record, he's not that great.
Even Mahomes, in every one of the playoff wins last year he had to bring his team back from behind. Well, if he's so great why didn't he get the Chiefs ahead in every game and not have to come from behind? Joe Flacco played absolutely great in his SB winning season, but what has he done since? Other than the SB winning year he's 6-5 in the playoffs, after the SB win he's 44-50 overall. So did Flacco just magically for one year become a much better quarterback? Then fell back into mediocrity? No, it's more than himself that determines his success, there's coaching, other team players, injuries, luck, etc.

As is often the case, the quarterback gets too much credit for wins and too much blame for losses. So pinning your hopes on Lawrence getting here and taking this team to SB glory has risk, just as keeping Dak has risks. Hopefully everybody here understands that, and I think MOST do anyway...

 

[Diehardblues]

You really cant. There is another poster who commented on the throw from Dak in the cleveland game where he threaded the needle to Amari for the TD saying "he got lucky. He stared him down and the CB missed it" lol. Some of these people hate him for no reason. Well. I know the reason but cant say it.

Do you believe we are the same 2-14 team with Dak ?

 

[Diehardblues]

your exactly I'd also argue this is a losing team with Mahomes although he may get you a win or 2 more than dak. The issues this team has is large and they are glaring. Dak is down the list. I think its stupid to move on from him and not fix the other things but I understand the $$ part of it.

if folks want to move on from people I'd start with jaylon the entire secondary not named Diggs, Wilson and yes Id move on from Zeke. I also get the contract dilemma with those 2

On the flip side we did just take the only undefeated team to the brink with a 4th string QB.

Your QB matters. And this is a basically an 8-8 team with Dak. Not 2-14.

 

[Philmonroe]

Don’t agree. That’s not how we raise our kids that there’s only one winner. There’s only one champion but the rest aren’t losers.

That's not how you raise your kids but other people raise their kids differently. The kids are losers but you're trying some okey dokey by making the losers some personal out of competition stuff. When people say losers they are talking in the context of game/competition not life. I dont know why you're trying that bad faith move.

 

[Diehardblues]

That's not how you raise your kids but other people raise their kids differently. The kids are losers but you're trying some okey dokey by making the losers some personal out of competition stuff. When people say losers they are talking in the context of game/competition not life. I dont know why you're trying that bad faith move.

Because we don’t consider everyone who isn’t a champion to be a loser.

 

[Philmonroe]

You really cant. There is another poster who commented on the throw from Dak in the cleveland game where he threaded the needle to Amari for the TD saying "he got lucky. He stared him down and the CB missed it" lol. Some of these people hate him for no reason. Well. I know the reason but cant say it.

Please stop the lazy inferior mentality bs with no proof. That pass to A Ari was one of Daks best and if he made those more often I'd be on board with him.

 

[Philmonroe]

Because we don’t consider everyone who isn’t a champion to be a loser.

We do in sports sorry. You're trying some online bad faith madness. Being a loser in competition is what it is. You're not always going to be good enough so that day you're a loser. Very few will be undefeated. Being a loser in a game is different than being one in life but you're trying to mix the two for some strange reason.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Don’t agree. That’s not how we raise our kids that there’s only one winner. There’s only one champion but the rest aren’t losers.

I understand, but we're using different semantics. The term "loser" has different connotations. For me, it's simply a matter of who was the best team, runner, racer, etc. that year. If you got across the finish line first or your team scored more points, you're the winner of the event, race, game, whatever. The others were losers, otherwise what were they? Participants? What does that mean? A kid who never bothered to come to the ball field and play but once or twice got the same trophy as my kid. When my kids played baseball, at the end of the season there were "participant" trophies, but the team that won the most games or defeated in a game another team that had the same number of wins was given "winner' trophies. But did my kid think, or did I tell him, that he was a "loser"? Of course not, he wasn't one of the more skilled and higher stat players, but he tried his best. To me, that kind of person is never a "loser" as far as what kind of person he is.

Being a loser because your team won fewer games or lost the championship game is just a fact, it has (to me, and I suspect to you) nothing to do with the person themselves, or the team itself. That's a judgment...

 

[CouchCoach]

There is no escaping the Zone Valuator for players and it's all over Prescott. He's a good QB just not worth what he's asking. Lawrence was better before he started making 21M a year. Elliott's fumblitis kicked in after his new salary. Cooper now disappears with more money to keep him company.

And that's why this thread exists, it's all about the allocation of the cap only we have a real problem. We think if player X isn't extended, player Y, a much better player and one of our favs, will get signed.

If they don't extend Prescott and draft one of these blue chip QB's, they will use the savings to build a better team, spend it all on the defense, like they've ever done that.

Ya see, I am really out to lunch on this because my thread implies that they do what any normal management would do. I mean, isn't that their case? Leave us some money to build the team, Dak.

I am so dumb, when will I learn? Is it money, cap space, that prevents them from building a true contender? Or is it something else that money can't fix?

I should just be happy with Prescott because he is a good QB and plenty good enough on the right team but I keep trying to mentally work around the problem and that is impossible because the problem owns and manages the team.

"Dak, duuuuuuddddde, don't take any of this personal, I do like you. It's just that I am like a monkey trying to solve a Rubik's Cube. I should just be content humping the football.

 

[Diehardblues]

I understand, but we're using different semantics. The term "loser" has different connotations. For me, it's simply a matter of who was the best team, runner, racer, etc. that year. If you got across the finish line first or your team scored more points, you're the winner of the event, race, game, whatever. The others were losers, otherwise what were they? Participants? What does that mean? A kid who never bothered to come to the ball field and play but once or twice got the same trophy as my kid. When my kids played baseball, at the end of the season there were "participant" trophies, but the team that won the most games or defeated in a game another team that had the same number of wins was given "winner' trophies. But did my kid think, or did I tell him, that he was a "loser"? Of course not, he wasn't one of the more skilled and higher stat players, but he tried his best. To me, that kind of person is never a "loser" as far as what kind of person he is.

Being a loser because your team won fewer games or lost the championship game is just a fact, it has (to me, and I suspect to you) nothing to do with the person themselves, or the team itself. That's a judgment...

Words matter and in the context they’re used.

We have words for those who didn’t win. We call them Runner-Ups. Silver or Bronze medalist.

In team sports Division champions. Playoff contenders . Championship game or Super Bowl participants.

And there’s individual recognition in team sports as well.

 

[CouchCoach]

We do in sports sorry. You're trying some online bad faith madness. Being a loser in competition is what it is. You're not always going to be good enough so that day you're a loser. Very few will be undefeated. Being a loser in a game is different than being one in life but you're trying to mix the two for some strange reason.

Winning in sports usually means there is a loser(s). Winning in life does not have to have a loser.

 

[RonnieT24]

I seem to remember the O-line being pushed into Dak's face most the time in those games, but Dak should have worn gloves against the Patriots. If he had, they might have won that game. That was on him and the coaches.

Dak's from Haughton, Louisana.. He had never played in the kind of elements they get in Boston.. It's like Philly and NYC on steroids. It can be 55 degrees out and calm one minute then 20 degrees out and ice storming the next. The ground is frozen, the wind is howling and your body just wants to go lie down in a warm bed after a while. Dak and the coaches blew that by not being properly prepared .. just as the coaches should have benched him in the Philly game once it was clear the shoulder was not going to let him put any zip on the ball. Then again that would have meant turning to Cooper Rush.. which they obviously were scared to death of.. and apparently still are.

 

[Philmonroe]

Winning in sports usually means there is a loser(s). Winning in life does not have to have a loser.

Did you just want to quote me? Nothing you said really has nothing to do with what I did.

 

[RonnieT24]

When a good, NFL QB like Dak wants to be paid elite QB money, his weaknesses will be heavily scrutinized. Like on the zone here.

Nah this Dak-hate didn't start when he asked to be paid.. It's been since he became the QB. Romo lovers said it was unfair to Romo to give Dak the job.. then they crushed him for how poorly he and the team played in the first three games of Zeke's suspension.. but conveniently manage not to mention that they adapted to life without Zeke and won the last three .. Then they spent two years telling us that any success Dak had was owed to Zeke.. then this year with Zeke struggling and Dak setting records now it's the salary.. When his salary drops to like 10th in the league in 2 years it'll be something else. That's just the way they roll. Nothing to be done about it but pity them. Because they're going to be stuck watching a QB they hate pilot the team they allegedly love. For the next 10 years .. Man.. that's gotta suck.

 

[Diehardblues]

We do in sports sorry. You're trying some online bad faith madness. Being a loser in competition is what it is. You're not always going to be good enough so that day you're a loser. Very few will be undefeated. Being a loser in a game is different than being one in life but you're trying to mix the two for some strange reason.

No, you’re just using the word to spin your narrative and why the context of its usage is paramount.

Anytime you’re keeping score there’s going to be a winner and a loser. But I was responding to the post where 31 teams are losers if they don’t win a championship. Again , the context is key.

 

[CouchCoach]

Did you just want to quote me? Nothing you said really has nothing to do with what I did.

?

 

[Philmonroe]

No, you’re just using the word to spin your narrative and why the context of its usage is paramount.

Anytime you’re keeping score there’s going to be a winner and a loser. But I was responding to the post where 31 teams are losers if they don’t win a championship. Again , the context is key.

Whats my narrative? I have no narrative anymore than you do. Well if you said the next to last sentence the first time we could've been had this explained. You pulled one of my friends moves then act like you don't know where I'm coming from when its clear we are talking about two different things. The stuff people will do online just to be right lol. I agree with you but we obviously were talking two different things and I'm not the only one who thought this.

 

[Philmonroe]

?

If you don't understand English I can't help you.

 

[BrassCowboy]

We are not getting Lawrence, that can be written in stone