Dak - Grown Man

[The_Slamman]

I can see both sides of the coin on Dak.  I was in the “keep starting Dak” when Romo returned from injury.  There were many times I’ve regretted that the cowboys did not go back to Romo.  I’ve seen the good and I’ve seen the bad.  And, there always will be a lot of grey area when it comes to Dak as a qb.  

 

Heres the problem for the pro Dak argument... he’s not a franchise QB.  He’s not a guy you can pay $30M/year and still expect to win because his play elevates others around him.  Dak is a guy who needs a #1 WR, a #1 RB, and above average OL play.  We’ve seen Dak without a #1 WR and it was fugly.  We’ve seen him without Zeke last year and it was bad.  

 

I think I can illustrate this using the eagles as an example.  The eagles have a banged up secondary that is probably the worst in the NFL right now.  Over the past 5 games the eagles are 2-3... losing to the cowboys x 2 and saints while beating Wash (with the sanchize at qb) and the Giants.  This is what a franchise QB did to the eagles at home... 22/30 for 363 yards, 4 TDs, 0 INTs, 0 sacks and 0 fumbles.  The saints beat the eagles 48-7.  By comparison, here’s what Eli Manning did against the same banged up eagles defense on the road... 26/37 for 297, 1 TD, 1 INT, 2 sacks, no fumbles lost.  The giants lost 22 to 25 on a 45 yard GG w/ 25 seconds left.  Both the giants and saints, and cowboys had success running the football.  The Cowboys and Saints both had defenses that stymied the eagles offense... the giants not so much.  The cowboys shutout the eagles at half time and both the cowboys and saints limited philly to only 7 points in through 3 quarters.  Yet, the saints game against the eagles was over at halftime.  The saints were winning 38-7 to start the 4th quarter.  

 

Yesterday, we should have been up 30-0 to start the 4th quarter.  Instead Dallas was up 9-6 and philly’s 6 points came off a Dak turnover.  So, while Dak ended up with 455 passing yards and 3 TDs, Dak also single-handedly kept philly in the game for 3 quarters.  A franchise qb would have had this game out of each in the 3rd quarter.  

 

All that being said, we also have to give Dak a lot of credit for playing big in the 4th quarter and OT.  And, I also fully recognize that SL is NOT doing Dak any favors with play calling.  Did we even run a screen to zeke yesterday?  The 75 yard TD pass would have been a stop route if it was up to SL.  And, genuinely I do think Dak raises his level of play when the game is on the line.

 

my issue with Dak is that I don’t think his play justifies a franchise QB payday.  He’s more of a 37 year old Eli Manning trying to throw the ball than a franchise qb.  The way the nfl is set up is that you can’t pay everyone.  You can’t pay Dak, Zeke, cooper, Smith, Martin, and Frederick.  If we did, that would be about 70% of our salary cap for 6 players... all on offense.  And, hopefully, everybody realizes that we are winning because of our DEFENSE much more so than our offense.  

 

 

[Matts4313]

Slam - How do you define franchise QB? 

[Matts4313]

19 minutes ago, The_Slamman said:

You can’t pay Dak, Zeke, cooper, Smith, Martin, and Frederick.  If we did, that would be about 70% of our salary cap for 6 players... all on offense

Secondly, this is why I would sign all those dudes right now; while so much of our team is on rookie contracts. There are rumors that the next CBA will have an enormous leap in cap. While $30m a year right now is pushing ~15-20% of the cap, it could be under 10% in just a couple years

[cowboysdreamer]

Cowboy's need to see a lot more from Prescott before they give him a big contract, he still needs to clean up the turnovers, pressure sacks hey just throw the ball away, and needs to make these passes with receivers wide open last year every one complained that the receivers weren't able to get separation and now that were seeing separation he doesn't make the connection. With all the domination in procession of the ball on the offensive side we need to see more points on the board , the Cowboy's suck in the red zone you can't keep kicking field goals because as we all seen yesterday in more times it comes back to bite you if you can't turn field goals into touch downs it lets the other team back into the game. Prescott needs to make his reads faster when in the red zone instead of getting sacked. If the Cowboy's can't clean up the blunders on the offensive side of the ball were going to see this team get knocked out of the play offs. 

[resilient part 2]

Dak is improving quite a bit since Cooper. He is only in year 3. He has broken 2 all time records already. He is already winning football games at a good clip since he first started, All this with a below average coaching staff. His is incredibly resilient and becoming very clutch. If Dak was stock, he'd be trending upwards. NO one knows how high it can go, or if it will falter. 

BUT saying Dak "is not" a franchise QB at this stage of his career is just wrong. 

I'm to lazy to look up comparisons but Dak is out playing many "franchise QBs" when they were in year 3. Cut the man some slack already and lets see how this season finishes efore making any absolute judgments. 

[The_Slamman]

1 hour ago, Matts4313 said:

Slam - How do you define franchise QB? 

The concept is simple but there is no "definition." The concept is whether the ends justify the means.  In other words, if the QB is so valuable to the franchise that the QB makes up for where the team falls short in other areas... that QB is a franchise QB.  An easy example is Matthew Stafford.  Stafford is being paid like a franchise QB.  Because Stafford counts $30M against the salary cap, it is expected that his production will make up for deficiencies which will stem from 1 person accounting for 20% of the team's salary cap.  So, would the Lions be better off keeping Stafford at $30M/year or would they be better off using that same $30M for a lesser QB but better [fill in the blank].  Personally, I don't think Stafford is a franchise QB.  I would NOT have have paid him $30M/year.  Here's the test... Could the Lions have the same or better record if instead of extending Stafford, they drafted Lamar Jackson and used the remainder of the $30M they spent on Stafford to upgrade 2-3 other positions on the roster?  Or, does just having Stafford on the roster justify the cost because his unique talent will make up for other deficiencies?

 

[The_Slamman]

20 minutes ago, resilient part 2 said:

Dak is improving quite a bit since Cooper. He is only in year 3. He has broken 2 all time records already. He is already winning football games at a good clip since he first started, All this with a below average coaching staff. His is incredibly resilient and becoming very clutch. If Dak was stock, he'd be trending upwards. NO one knows how high it can go, or if it will falter. 

BUT saying Dak "is not" a franchise QB at this stage of his career is just wrong. 

I'm to lazy to look up comparisons but Dak is out playing many "franchise QBs" when they were in year 3. Cut the man some slack already and lets see how this season finishes efore making any absolute judgments. 

Dak is not a franchise QB at this point in his career.  He's just not.  Right now, the Cowboys have the tremendous benefit of only playing Dak $725,000.  Many NFL QBs double that amount PER GAME.  Because we pay Dak so little, we can afford to give him a better supporting cast.  However, that will change if Dak starts getting paid $30M+ per year which is the going rate for franchise QBs.  Again, I'm not necessarily taking anything away from Dak because he has a role in the Cowboys winning 5 in a row and being 8-5.  But, at the same time, I also recognize that the defense has a lot more to do with the team's overall success than the offense.  And, I also recognize that without Zeke and Cooper, Dak is a below average NFL QB.  

[canadaluvsdallas]

26 minutes ago, The_Slamman said:

The concept is simple but there is no "definition." The concept is whether the ends justify the means.  In other words, if the QB is so valuable to the franchise that the QB makes up for where the team falls short in other areas... that QB is a franchise QB.  An easy example is Matthew Stafford.  Stafford is being paid like a franchise QB.  Because Stafford counts $30M against the salary cap, it is expected that his production will make up for deficiencies which will stem from 1 person accounting for 20% of the team's salary cap.  So, would the Lions be better off keeping Stafford at $30M/year or would they be better off using that same $30M for a lesser QB but better [fill in the blank].  Personally, I don't think Stafford is a franchise QB.  I would NOT have have paid him $30M/year.  Here's the test... Could the Lions have the same or better record if instead of extending Stafford, they drafted Lamar Jackson and used the remainder of the $30M they spent on Stafford to upgrade 2-3 other positions on the roster?  Or, does just having Stafford on the roster justify the cost because his unique talent will make up for other deficiencies?

 

Couldn't have said it better myself

[Matts4313]

Through First Three Seasons:

Dak 30-15 10,122 Yards 79 TOTD 24 INT

Big Ben 25-11 8,519 58 TOTD 43 INT

Brady 34-12 10,227 71 TOTD 38 INT

P. Manning 26-22 12,287 88 TOTD 58 INT 

^^^^ From twitter

[resilient part 2]

44 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Through First Three Seasons:

Dak 30-15 10,122 Yards 79 TOTD 24 INT

Big Ben 25-11 8,519 58 TOTD 43 INT

Brady 34-12 10,227 71 TOTD 38 INT

P. Manning 26-22 12,287 88 TOTD 58 INT 

^^^^ From twitter

you are the Ying to my Yang my brother.  

[resilient part 2]

1 hour ago, The_Slamman said:

Dak is not a franchise QB at this point in his career.  He's just not.  Right now, the Cowboys have the tremendous benefit of only playing Dak $725,000.  Many NFL QBs double that amount PER GAME.  Because we pay Dak so little, we can afford to give him a better supporting cast.  However, that will change if Dak starts getting paid $30M+ per year which is the going rate for franchise QBs.  Again, I'm not necessarily taking anything away from Dak because he has a role in the Cowboys winning 5 in a row and being 8-5.  But, at the same time, I also recognize that the defense has a lot more to do with the team's overall success than the offense.  And, I also recognize that without Zeke and Cooper, Dak is a below average NFL QB.  

I think that if any QB lost their best 2 players on offense, AND had this coaching staff, they would look that way.

[Matts4313]

5 minutes ago, resilient part 2 said:

you are the Ying to my Yang my brother.  

The worst part is, I dont think the collective of the hate group can realize this simple truth:

We understand that Dak has flaws that need to improve. Right now he is not a great QB.

They dont understand you can win a lot of games (including superbowls) with Dak at QB; he is a good QB.

---------------------------------------------------------------

He isnt Aaron Rodgers. But he also isnt Nate Peterman. These dudes claiming Dak sucked for *75%* of the game (70 snaps mind you) are ridiculous. When I see people say stupid arse ish, I call them on it.

[cromagnum]

1 hour ago, Matts4313 said:

Through First Three Seasons:

Dak 30-15 10,122 Yards 79 TOTD 24 INT

Big Ben 25-11 8,519 58 TOTD 43 INT

Brady 34-12 10,227 71 TOTD 38 INT

P. Manning 26-22 12,287 88 TOTD 58 INT 

^^^^ From twitter

Your a numbers guy not me. I had an argument on Twitter with a millennial Dallas fan saying Dak was a more accurate qb then Aikman because his complete percentage is better. Anyone who saw Aikman play will tell you he was way more accurate then Dak. I remember when Norv Turner used to say he would be shocked when Troy threw an incomplete pass in practice. To compare Dak to all time greats based on stats is simply not fair as he’s not on that level and never will be. Calling Dak a better Tebow is not fair at all as he’s a much better passer but comparing him to all time greats is a joke. 

[Matts4313]

1 minute ago, cromagnum said:

Your a numbers guy not me. I had an argument on Twitter with a millennial Dallas fan saying Dak was a more accurate qb then Aikman because his complete percentage is better. Anyone who saw Aikman play will tell you he was way more accurate then Dak. I remember when Norv Turner used to say he would be shocked when Troy threw an incomplete pass in practice. To compare Dak to all time greats based on stats is simply not fair as he’s not on that level and never will be. Calling Dak a better Tebow is not fair at all as he’s a much better passer but comparing him to all time greats is a joke. 

Troy played in a different era. Anyone who doesnt recognize that isnt following the game. 

All these guys have played under the 2002(?) rule changes that broke DBs. 

[resilient part 2]

14 minutes ago, cromagnum said:

Your a numbers guy not me. I had an argument on Twitter with a millennial Dallas fan saying Dak was a more accurate qb then Aikman because his complete percentage is better. Anyone who saw Aikman play will tell you he was way more accurate then Dak. I remember when Norv Turner used to say he would be shocked when Troy threw an incomplete pass in practice. To compare Dak to all time greats based on stats is simply not fair as he’s not on that level and never will be. Calling Dak a better Tebow is not fair at all as he’s a much better passer but comparing him to all time greats is a joke. 

Don't think he is comparing or predicting Dak will ever be on that level. Just pointing out that others claim Dak is so inaccurate yet he has done better than All-time greats thus far. And Matts did use current generation QBs to compare.