The offense under Dak is definitely something else

HungryLion

HungryLion

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,917
Reaction score
65,244
khiladi said:
They doesn’t mean Dak. My contention was not that the offense didn’t score, my contention was “Dak was on fire”, which you obviously were trying to defend, but since that didn’t work, you said “they still scored a TD”.
Click to expand...


I wasn’t trying to defend anything. I was adding context to your piss poor argument about 0 points being scored in the 3rd quarter.


The cowboys have the #1 scoring offense in the league since Dak returned. I couldn’t be happier. You can go ahead and nitpick it all you want though.
 
Yobwocs

Yobwocs

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,355
Reaction score
4,571
khiladi said:
The only real difference is Moore runs more 3 WR sets and passing plays on early downs with Dak. But in either case, Dallas since Rush started has gone from 27th in the league in motion usage to 9th, along with one of the top teams in 3 TE, heavy-personnel packages.

Moore was basically playing more conservative with Rush.
Click to expand...


What ammo you got now, dude?

20221204-212703.jpg
 
khiladi

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,196
Reaction score
37,937
HungryLion said:
I wasn’t trying to defend anything. I was adding context to your piss poor argument about 0 points being scored in the 3rd quarter.


The cowboys have the #1 scoring offense in the league since Dak returned. I couldn’t be happier. You can go ahead and nitpick it all you want though.
Click to expand...

LOL..

The argument was “Dak was on fire”.

My “piss poor” argument was that we scored 0 points in the third quarter,

Your counter was that one driver was time consuming that started at the end of the third.

Even if that’s the case, Dak was not “on fire” as I clearly established.

So in reality, you were really trying to defend Dak as the reason, when he was the most mediocre pffeksivd player on the field tonight.

as far as “number 1 scoring offense”, they are also that last year. Dak also did what Dak does every year and that is completely sucked when it came down to it, like he’s showing once again for multiple quarters like against the Giants and even these Colts.
 
HungryLion

HungryLion

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,917
Reaction score
65,244
khiladi said:
LOL..

The argument was “Dak was on fire”.

My “piss poor” argument was that we scored 0 points in the third quarter,

Your counter was that one driver was time consuming that started at the end of the third.

Even if that’s the case, Dak was not “on fire” as I clearly established.

So in reality, you were really trying to defend Dak as the reason, when he was the most mediocre pffeksivd player on the field tonight.

as far as “number 1 scoring offense”, they are also that last year.
Click to expand...


Yeah they were. Yet you still nitpick into oblivion. Which is downright comical and delusional.
 
khiladi

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,196
Reaction score
37,937
HungryLion said:
Yeah they were. Yet you still nitpick into oblivion. Which is downright comical and delusional.
Click to expand...

And yet here we are with my “nit picking”, and I was right which was “Dak was not on fire”.
 
HungryLion

HungryLion

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,917
Reaction score
65,244
khiladi said:
And yet here we are with my “nit picking”, and I was right which was “Dak was not on fire”.
Click to expand...


I never said he was on fire. I pointed out your pathetic argument about 0, 3rd quarter points.
 
khiladi

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,196
Reaction score
37,937
Again, let’s go back to last year when Dallas scored more than 30 times last season EIGHT times. 4 of them came in the first 8 weeks. Two of the others were against the scrub Eagles and Commanders.

How are you trying to convince me that Dak is any different than last year, especially with his bone-headed INT to Gillmore?
 
khiladi

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,196
Reaction score
37,937
HungryLion said:
I never said he was on fire. I pointed out your pathetic argument about 0, 3rd quarter points.
Click to expand...

I don’t think you know his communication works. You entered yourself into a conversation, where I was responding to an argument that “Dak was on fire in the second half”. I never said you said he was on fire.

The fact is 0 third quarter points clearly demonstrates he wasn’t on fire.
 
HungryLion

HungryLion

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,917
Reaction score
65,244
khiladi said:
I don’t think you know his communication works. You entered yourself into a conversation, where I was responding to an argument that “Dak was on fire in the second half”. I never said you said he was on fire.

The fact is 0 third quarter points clearly demonstrates he wasn’t on fire.
Click to expand...


No you don’t understand how communication works. Just because I add relevant context to one of your statements, doesn’t mean I’m agreeing with the person you’re arguing with.
 
khiladi

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,196
Reaction score
37,937
HungryLion said:
No you don’t understand how communication works. Just because I add relevant context to one of your statements, doesn’t mean I’m agreeing with the person you’re arguing with.
Click to expand...

It isn’t relevant context, because the argument was “how was Dak on fire”? So you brought this statement up and then I said OK, but how does that prove Dak was on fire?

It’s obvious you were just trying to ride Dak’s jock, which is why you eventually said

Yeah. That was a bad throw. They still scored a TD.

If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would
All have a merry Christmas.
Click to expand...

Which is then why I ultimately said:

They doesn’t mean Dak. My contention was not that the offense didn’t score, my contention was “Dak was on fire”, which you obviously were trying to defend, but since that didn’t work, you said “they still scored a TD”.[/quote{
Click to expand...
 
HungryLion

HungryLion

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,917
Reaction score
65,244
khiladi said:
It isn’t relevant context, because the argument was “how was Dak on fire”? So you brought this statement up and then I said OK, but how does that prove Dak was on fire?
Click to expand...


It is relevant context. You used the “0, 3rd quarter points” as a point in your argument. I clarified why the Cowboys scored 0 points in the 3rd quarter and that they only had one drive that actually ended in the 3rd quarter.

Me stating that, doesn’t mean I think “Dak was on fire”. I’m just adding relevant facts to the commentary.



you’re so gung ho in your desire to argue about how much Dak sucks. That you can’t accept the fact that I merely stated relevant facts about the flow of the game without taking it as me praising Dak and wanting to go on the offensive.
 
khiladi

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,196
Reaction score
37,937
HungryLion said:
It is relevant context. You used the “0, 3rd quarter points” as a point in your argument. I clarified why the Cowboys scored 0 points in the 3rd quarter and that they only had one drive that actually ended in the 3rd quarter.

Me stating that, doesn’t mean I think “Dak was on fire”. I’m just adding relevant facts to the commentary.
Click to expand...

Again, I then added relevant facts to your commentary by saying that even on that long drive, how was “Dak on fire”? So then you couldn’t answer, so then it no longer became relevant, but then you made some comment about “if and but” and “they scored”, which is again another irrelevant fact.
 
HungryLion

HungryLion

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,917
Reaction score
65,244
khiladi said:
Again, I then added relevant facts to your commentary by saying that even on that long drive, how was “Dak on fire”? So then you couldn’t answer, so then it no longer became relevant..
Click to expand...


I didn’t answer because I don’t think nor did I ever state he was on fire. So why would I make an argument that he was on fire if I didn’t think that to be the case? What’s so unclear about that.
 
khiladi

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,196
Reaction score
37,937
HungryLion said:
I didn’t answer because I don’t think nor did I ever state he was on fire. So why would I make an argument that he was on fire if I didn’t think that to be the case? What’s so unclear about that.
Click to expand...

So then why would I care about your “irrelevant comment” as far as my contention is concerned?

You see how that works?
 
HungryLion

HungryLion

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,917
Reaction score
65,244
khiladi said:
So then why would I care about your “irrelevant comment” as far as my contention is concerned?

You see how that works?
Click to expand...


I really don’t give a damn if you care or not. But if you make stupid points during an argument, I’ll add relevant context if I feel so inclined. Since this is a messageboard and I have the right to do so.
 
khiladi

khiladi

Well-Known Member
Messages
37,196
Reaction score
37,937
HungryLion said:
I really don’t give a damn if you care or not. But if you make stupid points during an argument, I’ll add relevant context if I feel so inclined. Since this is a messageboard and I have the right to do so.
Click to expand...

Words like “damn” and “piss poor” seem to indicate you care a lot? Again, why would I care about your irrelevant comment AS FAR AS MY CONTENTION IS CONCERNED?

I was not responding to you, you were responding to me. So your “relevant” context is not relevant, as it does nothing to address my argument.
 
HungryLion

HungryLion

Well-Known Member
Messages
28,917
Reaction score
65,244
khiladi said:
Words like “damn” and “piss poor” seem to indicate you care a lot? Again, why would I care about your irrelevant comment AS FAR AS MY CONTENTION IS CONCERNED? You claiming it was “relevant” doesn’t make it so.
Click to expand...


Lol whatever you say. Have a great night.

enjoy the 35 point win.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top