The Dak Prescott 16

[Denim Chicken]

So Dak fails, Wentz fails, and eagles backups win 1 Super Bowl in 50 years

That’s fair

FIFY

 

[Diehardblues]

No QB who was traded up for and had a season ending injury has gone on to win anything.

Absolutely, verifiably, every single time without resolve.

Doesn’t Wentz already have a Ring?

He did lead them to 11-2 season with home field advantage setting up Foles after he went down. I’d certainly consider Wentz as part of that championship season as he was playing at a MVP level.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

I think you left out Nick Foles, lol.

I mentioned him. Foles did not win on his St. Louis contract, which was the parallel to Dak. Also, his contract was not too 16, thus not cash strapping the Rams like a top 5 contract would in Dallas. But still, didn’t win until he was cut from that deal and became a journeyman with no cap impact, unless that’s the example Dak is going for.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Doesn’t Wentz already have a Ring?

He did lead then to 11-2 season with home field advantage setting up Foles after he went down. I’d certainly consider Wentz as part of that championship season as he was playing at a MVP level.

You don't play in the game, you don't get the credit. They would have never won that SB if Wentz doesn't get injured.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

FIFY

All it takes is 1 to break the trend.

 

[ThreeandOut]

I think you left out Nick Foles, lol.

Seems like Foles and Brees were both conveniently omitted.

 

[Denim Chicken]

I mentioned him. Foles did not win on his St. Louis contract, which was the parallel to Dak. Also, his contract was not too 16, thus not cash strapping the Rams like a top 5 contract would in Dallas. But still, didn’t win until he was cut from that deal and became a journeyman with no cap impact, unless that’s the example Dak is going for.

I think he was top 16 in 2015 when he signed his extension with the Rams, though. It was like $14M AAV.

 

[Diehardblues]

You don't play in the game, you don't get the credit. They would have never won that SB if Wentz doesn't get injured.

I didn’t say credit but he was a major contributing factor to their success that year.

Foles has never shown he could lead the entire season.

I’d argue Egirls don’t win it without the 11-2 start and home field advantage Wentz provided.

 

[Denim Chicken]

All it takes is 1 to break the trend.

You know what they say about the blind squirrel...

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

You don't play in the game, you don't get the credit. They would have never won that SB if Wentz doesn't get injured.

They likely make the NFCCG though, which is what the thread is about. He had them at 11-2, and they’d played the falcons divisional round who they beat 15-10. Wentz could have mustered that. Then Minnesota lost 38-7 nfccg. Out of the question Carson wins a much closer game there? Probably doesn’t beat NE, but the pins were lined up for some kind of run.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

You know what they say about the blind squirrel...

I would agree if the list wasn’t 0-16.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Seems like Foles and Brees were both conveniently omitted.

Both were mentioned, you didn’t read.

 

[Denim Chicken]

I would agree if the list wasn’t 0-16.

All it takes is 1 to break the trend.

 

[cowboy_ron]

Long, interesting, and irrelevant.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

I think he was top 16 in 2015 when he signed his extension with the Rams, though. It was like $14M AAV.

https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2015/

Because he was cut with little guaranteed money, it puts him out of the top 20. But still, at signing he was around 16th-18th. So unless the thread-breaker is that Dak will bomb out, get cut this time next year, then go win a super bowl with Cincinnati, I think it’s a relevant that Foles is an example of another 0-16 failure for the team that paid him. He defies the ‘potential’ point, true, but Dak probably will too due to what he’s accomplished. But the contract is the key. How did it hurt the team that paid Foles? That paid all these men? You’re already talking about all the guys you need to pay that you can’t keep.

Foles failed the Rams. He succeeded in Philly when the cap hit was negligible. Dak on his rookie deal is your chance.

 

[HungryLion]

Every single individual stat is cherry picked. Every post, every thread that doesn’t include all combined stats is cherry picked. Without absolutely full context for everything, which is technically impossible, it’s all cherry picking. This board would be vacant without cherry picking.

You’re right. That being said, an evaluation that doesn’t actually factor a player’s play on the field, certainly has a large number of faults when it comes to validity.

 

[Diehardblues]

https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2015/

Because he was cut with little guaranteed money, it puts him out of the top 20. But still, at signing he was around 16th-18th. So unless the thread-breaker is that Dak will bomb out, get cut this time next year, then go win a super bowl with Cincinnati, I think it’s a relevant that Foles is an example of another 0-16 failure for the team that paid him. He defies the ‘potential’ point, true, but Dak probably will too due to what he’s accomplished. But the contract is the key. How did it hurt the team that paid Foles? That paid all these men? You’re already talking about all the guys you need to pay that you can’t keep.

Foles failed the Rams. He succeeded in Philly when the cap hit was negligible. Dak on his rookie deal is your chance.

Yep

Our 4 year window is about to end. And then we’ll see what we do next year with Elliott. And that’s assuming we pay Cooper.

Once Dak has to begin carrying this offense without the Elite supporting cast , then we’ll know what we have. We’ve had a sample size of that but thus far we appear to be turning a deaf ear to those examples or believe we can keep this supporting cast in tact?

 

[HungryLion]

Not always an indicator. But if a mid-to-late round pick does not ascend immediately, they don’t improve later. All of them. Every one.

you’re using a team accomplishment for determining what is “ascending” Not the player’s actual play.

In another thread when you mentioned making this thread. I said I was skeptical because I was struggling to remember many mid round picks who played at Dak’s level their first 3 years.

Almost none of the QB’s you listed actually played as well as Dak did his first three years. Conversely, some of the QB’s who won championships their first 3 years, themselves weren’t playing at a level significantly better than Dak has.

So again, the information you posted is interesting. But it’s hard to consider it a real evaluation or potentially accurate indicator when it doesn’t even account for a players performance on the field.

 

[Aerolithe_Lion]

Cant argue with that

 

[DanA]

I give you the Dak Six (insert hyper color text).

QB's since 2000 that have won offensive rookie of the year.

2004 - Ben Roethlisberger
2006 - Vince Young
2008 - Matt Ryan
2010 - Sam Bradford
2011 - Cam Newton
2012 - RG3

On that list, those who have more than one Pro-Bowl (as Dak has)
Vince Young
Big Ben
Matt Ryan
Cam Newton

Wow Dak is in great company. Is this how the analysis works?