The end of Dak is coming

[SteveTheCowboy]

The argument now is Romo looked better in his losses lol…like who does this lol.

So...it is insanity to be able to assess the performances, the contributions and detractions of any single player.

Crayton dropping Romo's passes is most assuredly NOT the same as Dak throwing 2 ints for 14 easy 1st half points. It would be insanity to think otherwise.

"A loss is a loss" ,eh? Not in my book.

 

[SultanOfSix]

The argument now is Romo looked better in his losses lol…like who does this lol.

Yeah, it’s called having the power of discrimination and being aware of logical fallacies like false equivalences.

We all end up dead, I guess we all lived similar or the same lives and end up losers to death in the end.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

So...it is insanity to be able to assess the performances, the contributions and detractions of any single player.

Crayton dropping Romo's passes is most assuredly NOT the same as Dak throwing 2 ints for 14 easy 1st half points. It would be insanity to think otherwise.

"A loss is a loss" ,eh? Not in my book.

I give you the benefit of the doubt if it happens once or maybe twice. Romo was 2-4 in the playoffs. His 4 losses weren’t some “aww shucks things just happen” moments. In every one of Romo’s losses he could’ve played better in those games. Same goes for Dak.

Cowboys did not lose based on one throw. It’s not even possible.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Yeah, it’s called having the power of discrimination and being aware of logical fallacies like false equivalences.

We all end up dead, I guess we all lived similar or the same lives and end up losers to death in the end.

Dead is dead which is my point. It’s like arguing over who’s the worst criminal? A bank robber or someone who robs the rich. Why even argue lol?

 

[DallasEast]

I mean yeah the games were different but the outcomes were the same. They went into the post season and lost their first game to a team that barely even made the playoffs. Neither proved to be a contender.

One team made a few mistakes in both halves, finished their game at the same level as the eventual Super Bowl champions and lost by four points in a game that could easily been won in the final seconds of the game. Based upon the actual game, it could be argued that team could have advanced toward a Super Bowl berth by a single game at minimum. Not win or reach the Super Bowl necessarily but compete for the opportunity.

On the other hand, another team makes a handful of mistakes during the first 15 minutes, well-before accumulating notably more gaffes over the next 45 minutes, and lose against a seventh seed, one quarter into the postseason. Based upon the actual game, it could be argued that team should not have reached the postseason and was dead-on-arrival, just like every other team that did not qualify for the playoffs.

Yet, both teams demonstrated they did not compete a.k.a. were both equally non-contenders. It is like the word 'contender' has been altered to encompass only those athletes (in single player sports) or teams that actually reach a championship round.

Yeah. No. Everyone have fun tumbling further down into this rabbit hole. Alice will say hello when you hit bottom. I'm out.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

One team made a few mistakes in both halves, finished their game at the same level as the eventual Super Bowl champions and lost by four points in a game that could easily been won in the final seconds of the game. Based upon the actual game, it could be argued that team could have advanced toward a Super Bowl berth by a single game at minimum. Not win or reach the Super Bowl necessarily but compete for the opportunity.

On the other hand, another team makes a handful of mistakes during the first 15 minutes, well-before accumulating notably more gaffes over the next 45 minutes, and lose against a seventh seed, one quarter into the postseason. Based upon the actual game, it could be argued that team should not have reached the postseason and was dead-on-arrival, just like every other team that did not qualify for the playoffs.

Yet, both teams demonstrated they did not compete a.k.a. were both equally non-contenders. It is like the word 'contender' has been altered to encompass only those athletes (in single player sports) or teams that actually reach a championship round.

Yeah. No. Everyone have fun tumbling further down into this rabbit hole. Alice will say hello when you hit bottom. I'm out.

I mean that’s fine. Maybe they should add an asterisk to the 2007 that says *lost to the eventual SB champions….maybe even get a banner for it. I just think a loss is a loss. Ugly loss or pretty loss….not sure the difference. It proved to not mean anything because to this day we still haven’t made a conference championship.

 

[SultanOfSix]

Dead is dead which is my point. It’s like arguing over who’s the worst criminal? A bank robber or someone who robs the rich. Why even argue lol?

You’re not really getting it are you? Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, because the poor weren’t getting the basic necessities of life due to the unfairness of the social and economic system in the story. A bank robber steals only to enrich himself. Context always matters and that’s the point. If you think “all things are equal based on some superficial similarity” you should leave it at that and not have any discussions about it anymore. The equivalence is in that superficial similarity and that is it. Romo and Dak have similar playoff records. That will never make them similar or the same QBs.

 

[FanofJerry]

This whole convo is beyond played out

QB market is out of hand, Dak's performances suggest he cant get to 'God-mode' in Playoffs and pull his team...and because of that and the QB market cap hits...it might be best to try something else.

But to constantly say Dak sucks...day in and day out...over and over and over...is childish.

Babe Laughenberg truly sucked. Dak is no where near that skill wise.

 

[GINeric]

You're not making yourself clear.....your premise (below) appears to be saying how come come other QB's that have faced the worst ranked defenses havent been ALL-PRO.....well because every year there's a couple of QB that can achieve ALL-PRO status without having the easier ride of facing bad defenses.


Im not as Anti-Dak as it may appear.....however..... I cant understand the PRO-DAK (OVER Cowboys) fans that feel they've got to defend EVERYTHING relating to Dak?

Yes Dak's excellent vrs poor teams, playing out a lead .....or more accurately, teams in which he's not facing the pressure of orchestrating a comeback (more than 3 pts, where he needs a TD), or when time's ticking. He's great in his bubble, but when asked to take the responsibility he comes up short.

That's why so many of us are uncertain, because most EVERY QB needs to shoulder responsibility to win it all and I dont think Dak's got that.....if it was a pure league table (rather than play-offs) id blow the doors off a deal, but it's not and his 'struggles' are VERY difficult to mask or coach around.

It's not a matter of being pro-Dak.... for me, it's a matter of being Pro-Truth. Dak may not be the answer for the Dallas Cowboys, but there is no need to lie on the man and his capabilities. There is alot of that going on around here.

To make it seem as though he's ONLY beaten bad teams his whole career is a lie. That's all I'm saying.

I dare anyone to look at his and other quarterbacks records vs winning teams. Dak has more losses than wins vs winning teams, but so does other quarterbacks like Aaron Rodgers, etc.

Hell, Matthew Stafford record vs winning teams is 11-72. Dak has beaten good teams before, a few times. Is Dak elite? Not at all. Is Dak going to lead us to a Superbowl???

Highly unlikely. But again, there is no need to lie on a player. There aren't many quarterbacks who've reached All Pro status WITHOUT a running game.... but Dak did.

If it was easy to do, more quarterbacks would have done it, but they haven't.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

You’re not really getting it are you? Robin Hood stole from the rich to give to the poor, because the poor weren’t getting the basic necessities of life due to the unfairness of the social and economic system in the story. A bank robber steals only to enrich himself. Context always matters and that’s the point. If you think “all things are equal based on some superficial similarity” you should leave it at that and not have any discussions about it anymore. The equivalence is in that superficial similarity and that is it. Romo and Dak have similar playoff records. That will never make them similar or the same QBs.

You aren’t getting it. Robbing is robbing. Rich people deserve to be robbed because they aren’t poor lol?

And they are similar QBs. I know it sucks to hear but they both have a history of choking. You win 13 games and lose in your first game? You choked.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

It's not a matter of being pro-Dak.... for me, it's a matter of being Pro-Truth. Dak may not be the answer for the Dallas Cowboys, but there is no need to lie on the man and his capabilities. There is alot of that going on around here.

To make it seem as though he's ONLY beaten bad teams his whole career is a lie. That's all I'm saying.

I dare anyone to look at his and other quarterbacks records vs winning teams. Dak has more losses than wins vs winning teams, but so does other quarterbacks like Aaron Rodgers, etc.

Hell, Matthew Stafford record vs winning teams is 11-72. Dak has beaten good teams before, a few times. Is Dak elite? Not at all. Is Dak going to lead us to a Superbowl???

Highly unlikely. But again, there is no need to lie on a player. There aren't many quarterbacks who've reached All Pro status WITHOUT a running game.... but Dak did.

If it was easy to do, more quarterbacks would have done it, but they haven't.

Great post.

 

[Vtwin]

So...it is insanity to be able to assess the performances, the contributions and detractions of any single player.

Crayton dropping Romo's passes is most assuredly NOT the same as Dak throwing 2 ints for 14 easy 1st half points. It would be insanity to think otherwise.

"A loss is a loss" ,eh? Not in my book.

Crazy, isn't it?

He points to every possible factor he can to deflect from the QB's performance. Shouts "team game" at those who try and compartmentalize the various factors involved and critique the QB's performance as a standalone, then comes out and says it is insane to think that a QB can perform better or worse in a loss, than his peers did in the losses their teams took.

 

[CowboyoWales]

It's not a matter of being pro-Dak.... for me, it's a matter of being Pro-Truth.

The 'Truth' is that Dak's struggles are easily identifiable and aren't necessarily against good teams, they're in situations of extreme pressure when the onus is on him and we need a TD.
The 'Truth' is that Dak isn't a difference maker, though he is a great leader of a good team.
As I've said time and time again, unless he concedes on the number of years (and I'm saying 4+ years) there's very little chance to kick the CAP and build an outstanding Defense to ensure we stay in the game (especially playing the better play-off teams).

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

The 'Truth' is that Dak's struggles are easily identifiable and aren't necessarily against good teams, they're in situations of extreme pressure when the onus is on him and we need a TD.
The 'Truth' is that Dak isn't a difference maker, though he is a great leader of a good team.
As I've said time and time again, unless he concedes on the number of years (and I'm saying 4+ years) there's very little chance to kick the CAP and build an outstanding Defense to ensure we stay in the game (especially playing the better play-off teams).

Remember in the one game he stepped out of bounds at the 6 inch line without even being tagged?

His brain just departs at inexplicable times.

Not too sure about the "great leader" thing. A great leader does the right things at the right times and inspires his team.

I don't think dak HAS to be...and it's also weird to me to say he really struggles and not a difference maker, while in the next breath admiring his great leadership.

 

[Vtwin]

The team literally quit during a playoff game. The apparent strife among certain players on the offense was obvious to the point that it became a subject of discussion by the broadcast team throughout the game.

There is massive deficiency in leadership in that locker room and it couldn't be more obvious.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

I give you the benefit of the doubt if it happens once or maybe twice. Romo was 2-4 in the playoffs. His 4 losses weren’t some “aww shucks things just happen” moments. In every one of Romo’s losses he could’ve played better in those games. Same goes for Dak.

Cowboys did not lose based on one throw. It’s not even possible.

Of course it's possible. Jackie Smith did it. Catch the ONE throw...and it's a totally different outcome.

Can you track that through get whole game? Most certainly. They USUALLY become more critical and obvious as the clock shrinks and less opportunity to change them.

I have never claimed Romo couldn't have played better. There you go again just blaming only him for 2-4 record. Very lazy. Not sure why you even follow football or any sport.

It certainly was not JUST Dak's fault for the GB debacle. My issue with dak...is his immense single-handed contribution to it. He is supposed to be out "great leader", MVP candidate...that shouldn't happen to that degree. Yes...I have higher expectations for Dak than say...the punter. But of course!

But of course..it is a fact...that players contribute to losses and wins in random patterns. That can be easily tracked with various methods. Any other outlook is...insanity.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Of course it's possible. Jackie Smith did it. Catch the ONE throw...and it's a totally different outcome.

Can you track that through get whole game? Most certainly. They USUALLY become more critical and obvious as the clock shrinks and less opportunity to change them.

I have never claimed Romo couldn't have played better. There you go again just blaming only him for 2-4 record. Very lazy. Not sure why you even follow football or any sport.

It certainly was not JUST Dak's fault for the GB debacle. My issue with dak...is his immense single-handed contribution to it. He is supposed to be out "great leader", MVP candidate...that shouldn't happen to that degree. Yes...I have higher expectations for Dak than say...the punter. But of course!

But of course..it is a fact...that players contribute to losses and wins in random patterns. That can be easily tracked with various methods. Any other outlook is...insanity.

Quarterback is the one position on the field that can overcompensate for other positions not playing well. They get the blame for losses. It is what it is.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

Quarterback is the one position on the field that can overcompensate for other positions not playing well. They get the blame for losses. It is what it is.

Yes sir...they get the majority of the glory and the blame...tis true. In a way...partially rightfully. They can almost single-handedly control the game in ways most other positions can't.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Yes sir...they get the majority of the glory and the blame...tis true. In a way...partially rightfully. They can almost single-handedly control the game in ways most other positions can't.

Yep. Sucks for them but they also get paid more than anyone. Comes with the territory.

 

[KJJ]

JG 16/25 172 yards 6.9 0 TDs 1 INT 72 QBR
Dak 23/43 254 yards 5.9 1 TD 1 INT 40 QBR

They both sucked.

That goes to show why Jimmy G had more playoff success than Dak. When you have a running game and a great defense a QB doesn’t have to play perfect. When Jimmy G had to become pass happy and do too much it got ugly. This is why the 49ers moved on from him and he got benched in Vegas. Had our defense been respectable in 2021 against SF we would have easily won that game. It was respectable against SF in 2022 but Dak played horrible. That was by far his worst playoff performance.