Your perception of the odds that Dak wins a Super Bowl

[JayFord]

Yall get rowdy in here lol

yall the type of people to drink an ice cold coca cola at 6am aint yall?

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

Look at the thread title ....and tell me HATCHER...is the topic.

Brick I tell ya.

You keep insulting me and I’ve yet to insult back in favor of staying on topic. Now when I say I’m on topic I’m talking when I’m talking to others. For some reason our conversations are about how I’m a brick and all this other stuff.

 

[cowboybish]

How likely do you believe it is that Dak wins a Super Bowl in his career (as stated in a percentage)

Based on Dak’s rookie year, I would have guessed 60/40 in favor of Dak winning a SB.

Currently, I would put Dak’s odds at winning a SB at about 8 percent. In order for that to happen the team has to carry Dak and his heavy contract to a SB win, or Dak has to catch lightning in a bottle for 4 games (like Eli Manning).

Speak your mind, but let’s keep it civil and courteous. Thanks in advance.

5050 that he makes it to the Super Bowl but the AFC is so strong winning. It may be 15%.

 

[5Stars]

Look at the thread title ....and tell me HATCHER...is the topic.

Brick I tell ya.

Jason Hatcher said a dumb thing and a dumb person listened. A defensive end! I wonder what he would say if he played with Dak. How about Parsons, you think he and the defense likes the way Dak loses a close game with his Interceptions? The defense keeps the opposing team low scoring and then along comes the great one to piss it all away with his mental midget play. Yeah, Dak is the bomb I tell you.

 

[Jarv]

What are the odds of the Cowboys winning a SB without Dak? 1%? .5%

Wrong, the Cowboys have been in 8 out of 56 superbowls and won 5. All of those without Dak.

So statistically speaking THE TEAM has been better at getting to superbowls and winning them without Dak than with him.

 

[starfan1]

Wrong, the Cowboys have been in 8 out of 56 superbowls and won 5. All of those without Dak.

So statistically speaking THE TEAM has been better at getting to superbowls and winning them without Dak than with him.

Talk about skewing stats but that was good.

 

[SteveTheCowboy]

You keep insulting me and I’ve yet to insult back in favor of staying on topic. Now when I say I’m on topic I’m talking when I’m talking to others. For some reason our conversations are about how I’m a brick and all this other stuff.

I dont mean to insult you. It's just an observation. Talking to you is like talking to a brick. Like you are some child sitting in your bedroom trying to one up everyone....and worse yet...thinking you actually did.

You dont even know what "lets get back to the thread topic" means. Its not only kinda in the rules but also a truce of sorts.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Wrong, the Cowboys have been in 8 out of 56 superbowls and won 5. All of those without Dak.

So statistically speaking THE TEAM has been better at getting to superbowls and winning them without Dak than with him.

BWAAAAA!!!!!! Your not very good at these type of problems are you?

Cowboys dont currently have Staubach or Aikman sitting on the bench. They have Rush. So you take out Dak and there is almost no chance Cowboys are winning anything.

Nice try though. You should have taken a little more time to think about your answer.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I dont mean to insult you. It's just an observation. Talking to you is like talking to a brick. Like you are some child sitting in your bedroom trying to one up everyone....and worse yet...thinking you actually did.

You dont even know what "lets get back to the thread topic" means. Its not only kinda in the rules but also a truce of sorts.

Are you sure you know what it means? Since you’ve set it you’ve insulted me twice? I seem to trigger you for some reason just ignore my post for the time being maybe the time away is best for you to calm down. Notice though I’ve been the bigger man and have yet to insult you. Growth.

 

[KalEl]

Hurts just made a SB and is nothing but a 1 trick pony and folks on here citing Dak's college tape and 7 years of proof...LOL. Coaching has failed the quest for #6 not the QB.

 

[Cowfan75]

A smart FO would have bet the farm on defense and made it so terrifying that it doesn't matter that Dak isn't great. We don't have a smart FO, so....20%.

 

[JoeKing]

Im on topic. I’m engaging with others.

No, you are just shooting off your mouth. I tried to give you some good advice by telling you to just hush. But you seem to insist on showing everyone your backside. Buddy, it ain't pretty. I'm embarrassed for you because for whatever reason, you don't seem to be capable of being embarrassed for yourself. Go to bed, get some rest and when you wake up in the morning try to repair your reputation with solid posts.

 

[Boysdaboys]

Yes, either with historic defenses or insane playoff runs (Flaaco, Eli). Dakota has shown nothing in the playoffs to think he'll all of a sudden become this amazing under-pressure QB. He's mid and done.

Eli was better than Dak is now imo. Including regular season.

I can't say the chances are zero. Maybe he does go on a crazy run and wins it all. I'd give it a 20% chance.

 

[KB1122]

It's just as likely he will continue to go downhill as it is that he will return to form. Maybe moreso.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

No, you are just shooting off your mouth. I tried to give you some good advice by telling you to just hush. But you seem to insist on showing everyone your backside. Buddy, it ain't pretty. I'm embarrassed for you because for whatever reason, you don't seem to be capable of being embarrassed for yourself. Go to bed, get some rest and when you wake up in the morning try to repair your reputation with solid posts.

Are you a moron? You just replied to a post from days ago….off topic lol…..you did exactly what you accused me of. Your reputation as the dumbest poster on this site is safe I guarantee you.

 

[Boysdaboys]

A smart FO would have bet the farm on defense and made it so terrifying that it doesn't matter that Dak isn't great. We don't have a smart FO, so....20%.

I'm not sure winning with average at best QB performances works anymore. Maybe in the 70's and 80's. Especially true now when facing elite QB's. Said QB/offense would need to score at least three offensive TD's imo. Maybe only two if you dominant time of possession.

League is too geared towards offenses now.

Two Super Bowl examples jump to mind. Super Bowl 49. Seattle was up 10 in the 4th on Patriots. But...the offense continued to go three and out. Not really giving the D a break. Brady would eventually break through and score 14 unanswered points. I think he missed like three passes that entire quarter. Wilson was an average QB at that point. Seattle was the last dominant D imo.

Super Bowl 54. 49ers up 10 on KC. But the offense does nothing. D gets tired. Eventually a great QB makes a few plays. 49ers decent QB (Jimmy G) crumbles. And that is that. 49ers D had kept Mahomes to 10 points until there was like 9 minutes left in the game.

I don't know how it's possible to win a super bowl like the 2000 Ravens or 2002 Bucs anymore.

 

[triplets_93]

Is that SB win with X-BOX or Playstation ? ? ?

 

[JoeKing]

Are you a moron? You just replied to a post from days ago….off topic lol…..you did exactly what you accused me of. Your reputation as the dumbest poster on this site is safe I guarantee you.

You definitely deserve to be ignored. So be it.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

You definitely deserve to be ignored. So be it.

Thank god.

 

[Cowboys5217]

Yall get rowdy in here lol

yall the type of people to drink an ice cold coca cola at 6am aint yall?

Projection.