The myth of Dak compared to reality

[TheCount]

All of these opinions are fine, but it doesn’t change the fact that Dak was the 21st rated QB in the league for most of the year and he ended up 18th according to NFL.com. He is just a touch below average for QBs in this league , but please ignore this and bring up some more comparisons to Brady, Elway and Marino. It just makes you feel good .

I swear some of you guys are just intentionally belligerent about this stuff.

So his rookie year doesn't matter, but year number two defines him?

Even if his rookie year was an outlier, logic would still suggest that the truth of what Dak might be is somewhere between a stellar rookie year and a "touch below average" sophomore season.

By NFL standards, if you can't work with that, then you don't deserve to be running/coaching/etc. an NFL team. You shouldn't need generational QB talent to have more success than division championships.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Bias towards stats? He said “Not” the eye test for this manifesto... Just trying to make sure you didn’t overlook that key word...

In any event I see Dak as a conservative passer not because of physical limitations but psychological due to the fact that he said his mother gave him a complex towards not throwing picks..

You just gotta let the ball fly sometimes and he obsessively waits for a perfect window far too often...

We’ve seen him make some really good throws and we’ve seen some really bad throws all of which can be said about any qb..

I rank him somewhere around 12 to 17 as a passer...

I missed nothing. The eye test tells you a lot. By implying that only stats are relevant and that the eye test is not, that is a Bias. Let me ask you a question, how do you think any player is first evaluated? You see a player play and his play captures your attention. You then use other matrix to create a better picture, one of which is a 1st person evaluation of his play. I mean, it's ludicrous to imply that the eye test does not count or is less valid. In truth, it is even more valid then any evaluations based upon stats.

 

[PAPPYDOG]

Dak's problems were 3 fold.

1. Dak was never forced to be a pocket passer in at any point in his young career. College he didn't need to be. First year in the pros the line was sooo good he had little pressure.
2. 2nd year he lost his workhorse in Zeke
3. Oline crumbled before his eyes and the pressure was coming from everywhere.

Having concerns are normal for any young QB. Its not normal however to discount a kid simply because he has young QB things he needs to work on. Plenty more to be very excited about.

Dak's problems are 10 fold.....

Poor Accuracy
Poor Footwork
Poor Pocket presence
Poor reading downfield
Poor mental attributes(Panics like a deer in the headlights when pressured)
Poor leading the WR
Poor handling of the ball 58 sacks 12 fumbles and counting.
Poor GUTS as he will take the check-down on long downs the safe bet.
Poor Leader skills as his hitting Dez in the face mask simply was uncalled for!
Tired of writing the word Poor....if the above isn't enough then your a Dak fan first then a Cowboys fan.


P.S. Pray that Zeke doesn't get injured as our offense will be R.I.P.

 

[HungryLion]

Dak's problems are 10 fold.....

Poor Accuracy
Poor Footwork
Poor Pocket presence
Poor reading downfield
Poor mental attributes(Panics like a deer in the headlights when pressured)
Poor leading the WR
Poor handling of the ball 58 sacks 12 fumbles and counting.
Poor GUTS as he will take the check-down on long downs the safe bet.
Poor Leader skills as his hitting Dez in the face mask simply was uncalled for!
Tired of writing the word Poor....if the above isn't enough then your a Dak fan first then a Cowboys fan.


P.S. Pray that Zeke doesn't get injured as our offense will be R.I.P.

One of the worst player assessments I’ve ever seen.

But if you really think that garbage is true. Then it makes sense why you want him gone.

 

[mattjames2010]

I swear some of you guys are just intentionally belligerent about this stuff.

So his rookie year doesn't matter, but year number two defines him?

Even if his rookie year was an outlier, logic would still suggest that the truth of what Dak might be is somewhere between a stellar rookie year and a "touch below average" sophomore season.

By NFL standards, if you can't work with that, then you don't deserve to be running/coaching/etc. an NFL team. You shouldn't need generational QB talent to have more success than division championships.

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/dak-prescott/10769

How about year 3 where PFF ranked him #20

 

[CalPolyTechnique]

https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/players/dak-prescott/10769

How about year 3 where PFF ranked him #20

He’s #1 in our hearts and that’s all that matters...apparently.

 

[gjkoeppen]

I'm sold. Dak's totally better than Dan Marino and Peyton Manning.

As rookies, yes he was.

 

[gjkoeppen]

By taking this position with the "eye" test, you in fact are exibiting a bias. You understand that yes?

Actually no it isn't exhibiting a bias. Instead of a bias eye, he's having the numbers do the talking.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

RGIII had a rookie breaking year as well and then never played nearly as well again. Could make an argument that is true for Dak as well, so to pull out his rookie year and not look at his following 2 years is biased in itself.

I think people that doubt Dak primarily doubt him because he is an inaccurate passer. 3rd and 10+ is always a give up screen unless it is at the end of the game. Call people haters if you want but most people see inaccurate passing as a concern, and Dak's play since his rookie year hasn't eliminated that a problem.

If you look at his 3rd and long data he has a good completion percentage but a poor 1st down success rate. That has been true since his rookie year. I saw some things towards the end of last year I hadn't seen before, mainly sideline throws in the 10-20 yard range that could keep defenses from clogging the middle. I'm still hopeful but I don't understand the hurry to pay him a ton of money. I'd like to see what year 4 brings unless they think they will have to pay even more then.

I'd say we have a 50/50 shot at being set at QB for a long time versus straddled in cap hell.

Some of what you said is true but using RGIII is a poor example because he injured a knee at the end of his rookie season and then the next season go injured again. So RGIII downfall, injuries had a large part in that. He also had a accuracy problem on deeper throws too and not having good size he also took off running to soon to often and that brought on the injuries.
.

 

[CF74]

I missed nothing. The eye test tells you a lot. By implying that only stats are relevant and that the eye test is not, that is a Bias. Let me ask you a question, how do you think any player is first evaluated? You see a player play and his play captures your attention. You then use other matrix to create a better picture, one of which is a 1st person evaluation of his play. I mean, it's ludicrous to imply that the eye test does not count or is less valid. In truth, it is even more valid then any evaluations based upon stats.

Yeah I’m not defending his position. As fans most of us only have the eye test to evaluate players. Some people don’t watch games at all, they just look at stat lines. You gotta have both to make a better assessment. And then others take it a step further and they get the All-22..

It just seems pointless to present an argument with limited information and obviously I misunderstood your original premise which is why I asked for clarification.

I do recall a time when stats were used to defend a previous qb’s bad play but I don’t want to get off subject here.

 

[gjkoeppen]

That looks like a lot of work went into preaching to the choir about his rookie season. He had a great rookie season.

However, what about when he lost Elliott the following season or started off without Cooper this past season?

The question I have is what kind of QB is he? The kind that lifts the talent around him or needs to be lifted? Nothing wrong with being the latter as most of them are and if Marino had allowed himself to be lifted, he might have a ring. Elway allowed that or he wouldn't have one.

With Prescott as the franchise QB, they are going to have to focus more on the team around him and have some luck with their health. That's OK because there aren't a lot of the other kind of QB's to go around and he is in the top half of the QB ladder.

A large part of what defenses did, clogging the middle, was because of the plays called by Linehan. Defense knew what he was going to call and defensed accordingly. With a new OC defenses won't be able to rely on the same handful of plays being called and have to play a little more honestly, that and as you said having Cooper out side helps a lot too.
.

 

[Vtwin]

Actually no it isn't exhibiting a bias. Instead of a bias eye, he's having the numbers do the talking.
.

Ignoring what you see it most definitely injecting a bias into the analysis.

Where in the stats does it show up when the check down is chosen while there is an opportunity downfield?

Where in the stats does it show when the ball is put in a spot that allows for the catch but takes away any RAC opportunity?

Where in the stats does it show when the ball is held to long leading to a sack when there was a place to throw it?

I'd go as far as to say that if you could use either stats or eye test not not both than its eye test all day every day.

 

[gjkoeppen]

I missed nothing. The eye test tells you a lot. By implying that only stats are relevant and that the eye test is not, that is a Bias. Let me ask you a question, how do you think any player is first evaluated? You see a player play and his play captures your attention. You then use other matrix to create a better picture, one of which is a 1st person evaluation of his play. I mean, it's ludicrous to imply that the eye test does not count or is less valid. In truth, it is even more valid then any evaluations based upon stats.

I've got one statement and one question for you. Question - So you think you me and everyone else here are as qualified to judge talent with the "eye" test like professional scouts and coaches? Statement - Take the draft, a player may as you put it catch the eye of a scout or coach and the very first thing they do is get some stats to see what the big picture looks like. THEN, if they like the numbers they see they ask for some game footage of the player from the college and send a scout to watch this player. But if the numbers don't bare out what they may have seen from a couple of plays then they will move on and write it off as just having the game or quarter of his life because the numbers don't support what caught their eyes.
.

 

[gjkoeppen]

Ignoring what you see it most definitely injecting a bias into the analysis.

Where in the stats does it show up when the check down is chosen while there is an opportunity downfield?

Where in the stats does it show when the ball is put in a spot that allows for the catch but takes away any RAC opportunity?

Where in the stats does it show when the ball is held to long leading to a sack when there was a place to throw it?

I'd go as far as to say that if you could use either stats or eye test not not both than its eye test all day every day.

Here's all the proof you need about your eye test. Bias against the player colors vision. Here's the proof. The Prescott haters constantly and continually whine saying Prescott just dinks and dunks the ball and that is based on your eye test. In reality, last season Prescott was tied for 3rd best as QB with yards per completion. That's how your eye test can be totally wrong and worthless. If your eye test was such a valuable and totally necessary and ultimate means of determining the fate of players, the players and coaches would be questioning extending Prescott, but it's only the fans that are Prescott haters who are doing that. because of their skewed eye test.
.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Here's all the proof you need about your eye test. Bias against the player colors vision. Here's the proof. The Prescott haters constantly and continually whine saying Prescott just dinks and dunks the ball and that is based on your eye test. In reality, last season Prescott was tied for 3rd best as QB with yards per completion. That's how your eye test can be totally wrong and worthless. If your eye test was such a valuable and totally necessary and ultimate means of determining the fate of players, the players and coaches would be questioning extending Prescott, but it's only the fans that are Prescott haters who are doing that. because of their skewed eye test.
.

He was 24th in yards per completion...

 

[gjkoeppen]

He was 24th in yards per completion...

Here's my proof, where's your?

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...gory=PASSING&d-447263-s=PASSING_AVERAGE_YARDS

 

[Super_Kazuya]

Here's my proof, where's your?

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categoryst...gory=PASSING&d-447263-s=PASSING_AVERAGE_YARDS

What is this supposed to be proof of, that you can’t read? I don’t even see yards per completion as a column.
I mean, use your head. Does it make any sense that Dak was THIRD in yards per completion? Dak?!?

 

[WillieBeamen]

One of the worst player assessments I’ve ever seen.

But if you really think that garbage is true. Then it makes sense why you want him gone.

I see no lies in his post

 

[rnr_honeybadger]

Moral of the story - Dak is neither as great as his supporters claim he is, nor is he as terrible as his detractors claim he is.

 

[pansophy]

I swear some of you guys are just intentionally belligerent about this stuff.

So his rookie year doesn't matter, but year number two defines him?

Even if his rookie year was an outlier, logic would still suggest that the truth of what Dak might be is somewhere between a stellar rookie year and a "touch below average" sophomore season.

By NFL standards, if you can't work with that, then you don't deserve to be running/coaching/etc. an NFL team. You shouldn't need generational QB talent to have more success than division championships.

His rookie year shows what he can do if defenses allow him to play to his strengths and year 2 shows how he plays if defenses take his strengths away and make him play through his weaknesses. By the end of year 3 I thought we might be seeing Dak improve those weaknesses enough that defenses were going to have play him more honestly, which should open up the middle of the field.

My only hope in signing him to a big contract now is that the Jones see that he is ready to have a big year and want to sign him before they have no leverage.