Dak - Grown Man

[5x10]

On 10/26/2018 at 3:49 PM, Matts4313 said:

Cherry picked stats to its finest. 

In all fairness, we’rent you the one that was debating how passing yards had no correlation to winning, yet you also threw in turnovers into the equation?

hypocritical?

[Matts4313]

2 hours ago, 5x10 said:

In all fairness, we’rent you the one that was debating how passing yards had no correlation to winning, yet you also threw in turnovers into the equation?

hypocritical?

Not even a little hypocritical. Which part of that do you think is?

1. Passing yards have a very low correlation to winning.

2. Turnovers have a much bigger correlation.

3. Here is a stat that proves that: Low passing yards with no turnovers = lots of wins.

 

Its a pretty simple concept. 

[5x10]

Well, when talking about passing yards and the lack of them, which is a clear indication of a poor passing game,

 

you chime in and cherry pick turnovers , and add them to the equation

when turnovers can stand on their own and have no bearing on an unproductive passing game argument 

then, you go accuse others of cherry picking to win arguements

see the hypocrisy now?

[MikeT14]

21 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

3. Here is a stat that proves that: Low passing yards with no turnovers = lots of wins.

Redskins 3 game win streak Smith 163, 178, 178 with no TOs. I'll bite. 

[DaBoys]

Throwing interceptions hurts your team more than throwing short passes.

 

What a crazy concept.

 

 

 

[Matts4313]

2 hours ago, 5x10 said:

Well, when talking about passing yards and the lack of them, which is a clear indication of a poor passing game,

 

you chime in and cherry pick turnovers , and add them to the equation

when turnovers can stand on their own and have no bearing on an unproductive passing game argument 

then, you go accuse others of cherry picking to win arguements

see the hypocrisy now?

Not at all. Let me try again.

1. Over the last 25 years passing yards have a .16 correlation to winning. 

That point is now over. Now you know passing yards have virtually no correlation to winning. No matter how you feel about the stat, the fact is they dont matter.

Next point:

2. Turn overs have more correlation to winning.

This doesnt need explaining.

Point 3:

Here is a stat that proves 1 and 2.

[Matts4313]

Quote

Wide Receiver: Adam Thielen, MIN (91.2); Julio Jones, ATL (89.7); Odell Beckham Jr., NYG (88.5); Robert Woods, LAR (87.7)

Tackle: David Bakhtiari, GB (89.5); Terron Armstead, NO (89.2); Ryan Ramczyk, NO (86.5)

Guard: Austin Blythe, LAR (80.3); Rodger Saffold, LAR (79.2); Zack Martin, DAL (77.1)

Center: Jason Kelce, PHI (81.0); Corey Linsley, GB (79.0)

Tight End: O.J. Howard, TB (88.3); George Kittle, SF (84.2)

Quarterback: Drew Brees, NO (92.1); Ryan Fitzpatrick, TB (91.8); Aaron Rodgers, GB (91.0)

Running Back: Chris Carson, SEA (80.9); Todd Gurley, LAR (79.3); Kerryon Johnson, DET (77.8)

Fullback: Kyle Juszczyk, SF (78.2)

Wow. Look at that. Cowboys only have 1 top graded player on Offense. That must all be Dak's fault though. 

 

(Stolen from reddit. I just wanted to rub it in Daboys face :evil grin: )

[DaBoys]

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Wow. Look at that. Cowboys only have 1 top graded player on Offense. That must all be Dak's fault though. 

 

(Stolen from reddit. I just wanted to rub it in Daboys face :evil grin: )

Alot of it, yeah. He is the quarterback of said offense.

[Matts4313]

3 minutes ago, DaBoys said:

Alot of it, yeah. He is the quarterback of said offense.

I hear before every play he threats Tryons children against actually blocking. And has photo evidence proving Zeke is a woman beater; only to be shown if he scores TDs.

[DaBoys]

4 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

I hear before every play he threats Tryons children against actually blocking. And has photo evidence proving Zeke is a woman beater; only to be shown if he scores TDs.

Proves that Dak is a real tool. Attacking Tyron after his family went crazy on him. And further damaging Zeke when Dak knows that Zeke has trouble forming articulate sentences.

[5x10]

On 10/30/2018 at 11:43 AM, Matts4313 said:

Not at all. Let me try again.

1. Over the last 25 years passing yards have a .16 correlation to winning. 

That point is now over. Now you know passing yards have virtually no correlation to winning. No matter how you feel about the stat, the fact is they dont matter.

Next point:

2. Turn overs have more correlation to winning.

This doesnt need explaining.

Point 3:

Here is a stat that proves 1 and 2.

Can you show me #1 without turnovers?

Why would you add turnovers if the data stood on its own?

is 25 year old passing data relevant to today’s game? I’ll amswer this for you, no it’s not

 

 

But you keep backing this passing game and qb, ignore reality

[Rtnldave]

May I chime in? The turnover issue, especially INT's is also subjective. I have seen Dak hit players right in the hands or square in the numbers only to have the ball slip thru their hands or bounce off their pads and into the defenders hands. 

Now the stat sheet reads INT and that reflects on the QB. However, we all know that is not actually the case is it?

I'm not saying they all were this way, I'm just saying I have seen it.

Granted, I watched Dak's play at Miss St against Alabama in 2014 or 15 and it is EERILY similar to what we are now seeing every Sunday. Slow in his reads, does not hang in or climb the pocket, passes are sometimes high or behind the receiver, and a LOT of running.

I believe his rookie year he was the beneficiary of a better O lIne, a top WR and TE and especially Romo being in his helmet coaching him up on every play. If you listen to him as a commentator, this should come as no surprise. He can tell you the result of the play before they even snap the ball, barring a penalty and if the play is executed properly.

It was like Romo was doing his thinking for him. Dak simply seems to lack the smarts of playing at this level. He gets it, mind you, but it seems to take him a bit longer to make decisions or when the critical  moment is at hand. Could be a confidence issue or perhaps he is just slow on the draw. Either way, it hurts his game.

 

[Matts4313]

8 hours ago, Rtnldave said:

May I chime in? The turnover issue, especially INT's is also subjective. I have seen Dak hit players right in the hands or square in the numbers only to have the ball slip thru their hands or bounce off their pads and into the defenders hands. 

Now the stat sheet reads INT and that reflects on the QB. However, we all know that is not actually the case is it?

I'm not saying they all were this way, I'm just saying I have seen it.

Granted, I watched Dak's play at Miss St against Alabama in 2014 or 15 and it is EERILY similar to what we are now seeing every Sunday. Slow in his reads, does not hang in or climb the pocket, passes are sometimes high or behind the receiver, and a LOT of running.

I believe his rookie year he was the beneficiary of a better O lIne, a top WR and TE and especially Romo being in his helmet coaching him up on every play. If you listen to him as a commentator, this should come as no surprise. He can tell you the result of the play before they even snap the ball, barring a penalty and if the play is executed properly.

It was like Romo was doing his thinking for him. Dak simply seems to lack the smarts of playing at this level. He gets it, mind you, but it seems to take him a bit longer to make decisions or when the critical  moment is at hand. Could be a confidence issue or perhaps he is just slow on the draw. Either way, it hurts his game.

 

Romo wasnt in his helmet. Romo had no communication while Dak was on the field. Only on the sidelines. 

[D82]

17 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Romo wasnt in his helmet. Romo had no communication while Dak was on the field. Only on the sidelines. 

And Romo wasn't giving Dak any help. If anybody was, it was Sanchez. 

 

[Matts4313]

2 minutes ago, D82 said:

And Romo wasn't giving Dak any help. If anybody was, it was Sanchez. 

 

I dont know where this narrative that Romo coached Dak is rookie year came from, but its all over the internet. Its pure speculative BS, but people are parroting it like gospel.