The goat, where does Prescott really rank

[CowboysFaninHouston]

That’s a bad take but your entitled to it.

just following your lead and agreeing with everything you have said...did I do wrong?

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

A mind is a terrible thing to waste

Why not just say "yeah, you're right and I have no hill to stand on"? lol

Here's some advice, just because you don't like it doesn't make it not true. I have a feeling you looked all 3 guys up, maybe even did a little math to check the averages, and saw that Dak would be the 3rd choice, so you just resort to a weak insult instead.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

Everyone knows it's not true, except you and the other haters who do nothing but Crap on Dak and anything positive with the Cowboys. Every day, every thread, every post. Just look at your post history. Mic drop.

I'll ask again.

What has Dak done to separate himself from guys like Carr and Cousins? You won't answer, but I like to put it out there so people can watch you avoid it.

 

[Captain-Crash]

I'll ask again.

What has Dak done to separate himself from guys like Carr and Cousins? You won't answer, but I like to put it out there so people can watch you avoid it.

David Carr? lol, he made Dak look bad in a throwing contest. You have to put him down below David.

 

[Rockport]

I'll ask again.

What has Dak done to separate himself from guys like Carr and Cousins? You won't answer, but I like to put it out there so people can watch you avoid it.

And I'll tell you again, watch the games.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I'm sorry, but to be considered a winner do you not have to win? It's literally in the word. WINner.

You and your participation trophies lol

To answer your question if I didn't know their careers beforehand I'd take Marino because he's Marino, but being more talented doesn't make you a winner, but if you said "hey you can have Marino who will be one of the most talented QBs ever, or Dilfer and you'll get 1 championship" then I'm taking Dilfer all day. It's about more then pretty numbers with meaningful wins.

yes, you have to be an individual winner aka good..., but doesn't mean you are bad if your team is not winning....there is a lot more that goes into winning as a team, than just one person. so was Archie Manning bad? no, did his team lose a lot? yes. was it all his fault? no he played for one of the worst franchises in NFL history and he was their best player and one of the best in the NFL.....he is a fvcking HOFer.....

he is not "singluarly a loser" as you are trying to pigeon whole the definition into a very narrow narrative to fit your agenda. Archie wasn't a loser. the team was. now, if you want to use the Winner, loser label for individual sport, like swimming, tennis, ping pong...then yes. you can "singularly" be a winner or loser. not in a team sport since there is "contribution" from everyone on the team, at various levels that leads to "team" winning or losing....that concept, that very simple concept is so lost on you, you have no direction and keep spinning your wheels and going in circles. you are like a little sparrow jumping all over the place.

so when you build a team, you want someone who is good. you want to surround them with other good players, coaches so you can build a winning team. you don't build a winning individual...Put Brady on Jets last year, does it make Brady into a loser? no...Brady is the GOAT!!!!...he would not be surrounded by players he could elevate to a championship team.....that's what you don't get. you are trying to build a winning individual and expand that concept into a team success of winning. its utterly stupid.....and a stupid argument to begin with.....that btw, before you get your shorts tied in a knot, doesn't mean the individual doesn't contribute to the winning for the team. its a matter of how much.....

so if I had a choice to build a franchise. I would clearly take Marino...you have to be stupid to think Marino is a loser......eventhough he didn't win a superbowl.....and Dilfer won. Marino helped his team and was a big contributor to his team's success and their ability to even get to the superbowl. Dilfer rode the coat tails of the defense to a championship ring without really contributing to it...they won despite him.....

its like the +/- factors they use in some sports, how well does the offense/defense do with and without that player in the game.....

so your argument's basis is so utterly illogical, I have no idea where to begin. at this point, you are fishing for an idea to bash Dak...then if that's your goal, just do it. don't try to use a totally illogical concept into something it can never be....that was dumb.

I am sure you will read this and respond...
"I don't read your rants any more"...

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

And I'll tell you again, watch the games.

That's what I thought.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Tom Brady, his teams have won against ,Patrick Mahomes and Aaron Rodgers. In the playoffs. Not to mention Drew Brees, Russell Wilson, and others obviously . Are you the best simply because you beat the best. Or you have the best numbers, statistics. I can’t wait for the season opener. Prescott has gone into Pittsburgh and beat Rothlisberger in his own house. We beat Aaron Rodgers in his own house. And we went down to New Orleans and beat them also . It’s time to beat Tom Brady, and Patrick Mahomes , this season. Yeah I know it’s about playoffs and championships. But that’s more about team and coaching. No this is not another Prescott thread. This is what gives you the right to be called the best.

Based on salary, Dak is No. 1 among past Cowboys.
Based on production, Dak is No. 5
Based on playoffs wins, Dak is at the bottom next to Hogeboom
Based on hype, he is No. 1.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

yes, you have to be an individual winner aka good..., but doesn't mean you are bad if your team is not winning....there is a lot more that goes into winning as a team, than just one person. so was Archie Manning bad? no, did his team lose a lot? yes. was it all his fault? no he played for one of the worst franchises in NFL history and he was their best player and one of the best in the NFL.....he is not "singluarly loser" as you are trying to pigeon whole the definition into a very narrow narrative to fit your agenda. Archie wasn't a loser. the team was. now, if you want to use the Winner, loser label for individual sport, like swimming, tennis, ping pong...then yes. you can "singularly" be a winner or loser. not in a team sport since there is "contribution" from everyone on the team, at various levels that leads to "team" winning or losing....that concept, that very simple concept is so lost on you, you have no direction and keep spinning your wheels and going in circles. you are like a little sparrow jumping all over the place.

so when you build a team, you want someone who is good. you want to surround them with other good players, coaches so you can build a winning team. you don't build a winning individual...Put Brady on Jets last year, does it make Brady into a loser? no...Brady is the GOAT!!!!...he was not surronded by players he could elevate to a championship team.....that's what you don't get. you are trying to build a winning individual and expand that into a team success of winning. its utterly stupid.....and a stupid argument to begin with.....that btw, before you get your shorts tied in a knot, doesn't mean the individual doesn't contribute to the winning for the team. its a matter of how much.....

so if I had a choice to build a franchise. I would clearly take Marino...you have to be stupid to think Marino is a loser......eventhough he didn't win a superbowl.....and Dilfer won. Marino helped his team and was a big contributor to his team's success and their ability to even get to the superbowl. Dilfer rode the coat tails of the defense to a championship ring without really contributing to it...they won despite him.....

its like the +/- factors they use in some sports, how well does the offense/defense do with and without that player in the game.....

so your argument's basis is so utterly illogical, I have no idea where to begin. at this point, you are fishing for an idea to bash Dak...then if that's your goal, just do it. don't try to use a totally illogical concept into something it can never be....that was dumb.

I'll ask you.

If you knew how their careers would pan out who would you rather have as the QB for your favorite team? The talent but no championship career of Marino or the forgettable but Super Bowl winner career of Dilfer? As a fan what would you rather have? The pretty stats or the Super Bowl win.

 

[Rockport]

That's what I thought.

Dak 42-27
Cousins 51-51-2
Carr 47-63

 

[Cowpolk]

Why not just say "yeah, you're right and I have no hill to stand on"? lol

Here's some advice, just because you don't like it doesn't make it not true. I have a feeling you looked all 3 guys up, maybe even did a little math to check the averages, and saw that Dak would be the 3rd choice, so you just resort to a weak insult instead.

weak sauce

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

And I'll tell you again, watch the games.

Answer the chap, frilly cheerleader!!!!

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

Dak 42-27
Cousins 51-51-2
Carr 47-63

Really? I feel like you're old enough to remember when the Cowboys were actually good, but yet you act like regular season success=greatness like a lot younger fans in the participation trophy generation.

Also, you and your "Dak is GOAT" buddies need to get together and make up your minds on if wins/loss is a QB stat or a team stat. Because you guys are constantly changing that one to fit your narrative lol

 

[Captain-Crash]

I'll put my trust in what Jimmy and Troy said about Dak. Once you groupies win 3 super bowls, I'll listen to your worship.

 

[Captain-Crash]

Really? I feel like you're old enough to remember when the Cowboys were actually good, but yet you act like regular season success=greatness like a lot younger fans in the participation trophy generation.

Also, you and your "Dak is GOAT" buddies need to get together and make up your minds on if wins/loss is a QB stat or a team stat. Because you guys are constantly changing that one to fit your narrative lol

losses are team numbers, wins are all daks. lmao...... groupie logic.

Carr and Cousins losses are team losses. Remember that groupies.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

weak sauce

"weak sauce"= I have nothing to say because you're right and I can't prove you wrong.

Everyone that looks at this thread is going to see your avoidance of this, ya know?

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

losses are team numbers, wins are all daks. lmao...... groupie logic.

You're right.

8-8 and 1-3 is because of the defense, Zeke, and whatever else, but not Dak, no way, no how.

 

[Cowpolk]

"weak sauce"= I have nothing to say because you're right and I can't prove you wrong.

Everyone that looks at this thread is going to see your avoidance of this, ya know?

There is nothing to avoid Try making some sense for a change

 

[Captain-Crash]

You're right.

8-8 and 1-3 is because of the defense, Zeke, and whatever else, but not Dak, no way, no how.

well, give him one more even though he didn't finish the game, because you know that's victories are daks,.

 

[Rockport]

Answer the chap, frilly cheerleader!!!!

I did you Nigerian night crawler playmate.