Matts4313 Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 3 minutes ago, DaBoys said: I challenge you to find 1 person who will back you up. Just one person that will take your side. Find me one other person that isn’t you, that thinks we weren’t getting the crap beat out of us in the first half of every game. Describe "getting the crap beat out of use". Because, as I said, every single game was less than a 10 point difference (ATL excluded) in the first half. 2 minutes ago, DaBoys said: The answer is 28-27 We also had the #1 defense in the NFL (or top 5? memory is foggy as I have blacked it out). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, DaBoys said: 14 minutes ago, DaBoys said: The Dark Ages is a term we use for the era between Troy Aikman and Tony Romo. Dak Prescott is 29-26 in his last 55 starts. Tony Romo made his real debut in week 7, 2006 against the Giants. I wonder what the Cowboys record was over the 55 games leading up to the end of the dark ages? Surely it can’t be anywhere near as good as we’ve had it with Dak, right? The answer is 28-27 Also, since you appear hellbent on trying to create a false narrative. Aikman got hurt in 2000. The dark ages started then: 2000 w/o Aikman: 1-5 '01: 5-11 '02: 5-11 '03: 10-6 '04: 6-10 27 - 43 over 4.5 years in the "dark ages" 42 - 27 with Dak over 4.5 years. Bring on your next stupid argument. Edited October 26, 2020 by Matts4313 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: Also, since you appear hellbent on trying to create a false narrative. Aikman got hurt in 2000. The dark ages started then: 2000 w/o Aikman: 1-5 '01: 5-11 '02: 5-11 '03: 10-6 '04: 6-10 27 - 43 over 4.5 years 42 - 27 with Dak over 4.5 years. Bring on your next stupid argument. The argument remains the same. The more recent games are more relevant and you know it. Nobody cares what Dallas did four years ago when Dak had his least impact on the team. His rookie year was a career low drop backs, career low passing attempts, career low passing yards, career low impact on the teams wins and losses. The Cowboys are 29-26 over the last fifty-five games. 6-10 in the last 16 games. The most relevant 16 games. The Cowboys were 28-27 over the last fifty-five games of the dark ages. Edited October 26, 2020 by DaBoys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 This argument is putrid, even by your standards. Which are bordering on non-existent. 1. The Dark Ages were the non-stop carousel of QBs and Coaches. When someone brings it up, the first thing people talk about are the 3x 5-11 seasons, Ryan Leaf, etc. You cant move an era just because you are stubborn and want to make up an argument. 2. Dak that year was extremely impressive in efficiency. He was ROTY and had league MVP votes. He was voted the 9th (?) best player in the NFL. Excuse me if you still dont grasp that bulk stats arent the be all end all. 2b. Its amazing you sat through the 2015 season and you still dont grasp how well Dak played for us in 2016. Absolutely mind blowing. 3. Using the 55 games before Romo is pure and total BS. We hired one of the greatest coaches in NFL history, he put together a very good staff and then drafted multiple HOF players. Can you ever present a solid argument that is based on relevant facts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D82 Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 8 minutes ago, DaBoys said: The argument remains the same. The more recent games are more relevant and you know it. Nobody cares what Dallas did four years ago when Dak had his least impact on the team. His rookie year was a career low drop backs, career low passing attempts, career low passing yards, career low impact on the teams wins and losses. The Cowboys are 29-26 over the last fifty-five games. 6-10 in the last 16 games. The most relevant 16 games. The Cowboys were 28-27 over the last fifty-five games of the dark ages. Coaching, injuries and other factors go into that record. Not absolving Dak of all guilt, as he didn't always play his best...but we've seen what this team is without him, and it ain't pretty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStarStillShines Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 1 hour ago, CAPJ said: I think the offense would have done better with Dak yesterday (really not hard to do) but I dont think we would have been seeing 35+ points like we did earlier with Dak. Agreed on that point. Washington's defence is quite good. That said, the Boys had a lot of success against the Seahawks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheStarStillShines Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 Using win-loss record to argue whether a QB is good or not is as asinine as using W-L to argue a pitcher's effectiveness. It's a terrible stat to use on a player when discussing team sports. It makes sense when assessing a front office's and coaching staff's ability, but it's pretty much a useless stat for evaluating a player's performance since nearly 3/5s of the game is out of his control. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acowboys62 Posted October 26, 2020 Share Posted October 26, 2020 1 hour ago, DaBoys said: I challenge you to find 1 person who will back you up. Just one person that will take your side. Find me one other person that isn’t you, that thinks we weren’t getting the crap beat out of us in the first half of every game. How do you define "getting the crap beat out of us"? The games were ugly for sure, but the Falcons for example, despite being up by 19 at half were not exactly "beating the crap out of us". We played liked dog ****, handed them 3 fumbles (+17 points for ATL) and 1 turnover on downs (+3 for ATL), once settled proceeded to go on a 30-10 run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 1 hour ago, acowboys62 said: How do you define "getting the crap beat out of us"? The games were ugly for sure, but the Falcons for example, despite being up by 19 at half were not exactly "beating the crap out of us". We played liked dog ****, handed them 3 fumbles (+17 points for ATL) and 1 turnover on downs (+3 for ATL), once settled proceeded to go on a 30-10 run. What do you mean how do I define it? We were getting killed. It’s black and white. The scoreboard.... The scoreboard is what defines winning and losing. Getting blown out or losing a tight one is determined by the score of the game. My argument is that the Dak led offense mostly played well after halftime. Matt is working overtime to prove it’s not true. Bringing up first half fumbles, failed drives that went no where, and turnovers on downs is NOT the best counter argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matts4313 Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 3 minutes ago, DaBoys said: What do you mean how do I define it? We were getting killed. It’s black and white. The scoreboard.... The scoreboard is what defines winning and losing. Getting blown out or losing a tight one is determined by the score of the game. My argument is that the Dak led offense mostly played well after halftime. Matt is working overtime to prove it’s not true. Bringing up first half fumbles, failed drives that went no where, and turnovers on downs is NOT the best counter argument. lmao. Way to not answer his question whatsoever. Sad, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 2 hours ago, TheStarStillShines said: Using win-loss record to argue whether a QB is good or not is as asinine as using W-L to argue a pitcher's effectiveness. It's a terrible stat to use on a player when discussing team sports. It makes sense when assessing a front office's and coaching staff's ability, but it's pretty much a useless stat for evaluating a player's performance since nearly 3/5s of the game is out of his control. I agree. It sure gets brought up a lot about Daks rookie year though... The reason it is relevant now is because many people use a fear tactic when discussing paying Dak. They go on and on about the dark ages and how bad it was. How they know what they have in Dak and will pay anything to keep him for fear on missing on a first round QB. What if we go back to the dark ages? It’s relevant because the last 55 games of the dark ages are about as successful as Daks last 55 games. Why such a need to cap strap ourselves to this current team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: lmao. Way to not answer his question whatsoever. Sad, really. Did you lose your reading glasses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 (edited) I don’t want to hear anything else about how bad the dark ages were from the Dak fans. Clearly that amount of success is just fine. Edited October 27, 2020 by DaBoys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 2 hours ago, acowboys62 said: How do you define "getting the crap beat out of us"? 10 minutes ago, DaBoys said: The scoreboard is what defines winning and losing. 6 minutes ago, Matts4313 said: lmao. Way to not answer his question whatsoever. I feel like I’m interviewing people who protest politics in the street. You can’t make this stuff up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaBoys Posted October 27, 2020 Share Posted October 27, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, D82 said: Coaching, injuries and other factors go into that record. Not absolving Dak of all guilt, as he didn't always play his best...but we've seen what this team is without him, and it ain't pretty. 2014 was pretty. Team seen without Dak 2015 was not. Team seen without Dak 2016 was pretty. Team with Dak 2017 was not. Team with Dak 2018 was pretty. Team with Dak 2019 was not. Team with Dak 2020 was not. Team with Dak. Edited October 27, 2020 by DaBoys Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts