Jump to content

Dak Thread....still debating, beating a dead horse

WizardHawk

By WizardHawk
in Dallas Cowboys

 Share

Recommended Posts

Nextyearfordaboyz

Nextyearfordaboyz

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, DaBoys said:

So Dak doesn’t have a GWD in his last 20 starts because he hasn’t had the opportunity? Is that true? I doubt it. Most NFL games are decided by 1 score

By my count (I went through the game logs), he's had 6 opportunities in the last 20 games:

  • 1 was successful (Atlanta this year)
  • Another was successful, then given up by the defense
  • A third was called back against LAR on that bogus Gallup OPI call

"Only 1 GWD in his last 20 games" is, at best, a statistically insignificant, conveniently sampled, and meaningless data point. 

Edited by Nextyearfordaboyz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaBoys

DaBoys

Posted
Posted (edited)
26 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

By my count (I went through the game logs), he's had 6 opportunities in the last 20 games:

  • 1 was successful (Atlanta this year)
  • Another was successful, then given up by the defense
  • A third was called back against LAR on that bogus Gallup OPI call

"Only 1 GWD in his last 20 games" is, at best, a statistically insignificant, conveniently sampled, and meaningless data point. 

It’s only insignificant if it’s used against Dak. Just like Wins. The number of GWDs Dak had and wins the cowboys had with Dak as a starter, was thrown in our face 2016-2018. Now that we aren’t winning and he isn’t leading GWDs the data is meaningless 

Edited by DaBoys
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nextyearfordaboyz

Nextyearfordaboyz

Posted
Posted
Just now, DaBoys said:

It’s only insignificant if it’s used against Dak. Just like Wins. The number of GWDs Dak had and wins the cowboys had with Dak as a starter, was thrown in our face 2016-2018. Now that we aren’t winning and he isn’t leading GEDs in the data is meaningless 

No, it's statistically insignificant because of the tiny sample size and it's meaningless because you are plucking a specific small sample size to serve an agenda. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaBoys

DaBoys

Posted
Posted (edited)
24 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

No, it's statistically insignificant because of the tiny sample size and it's meaningless because you are plucking a specific small sample size to serve an agenda. 

You have to fight fire with fire. Dak used to pass for 175 yards and 1 TD and we would win. The Dak fans went on a campaign to prove bulk passing yards are meaningless. Now we are losing and Dak is throwing for 500 yards. Dak fans spout off about our # 1 ranked passing offense with Dak(which is based on bulk yards).

People have been harping for years on how good Daks record is as a starter, and how clutch he is with GWDs. Now wins are pointless and so are GWDs because Dak doesn’t get them anymore. 
 

 

Edited by DaBoys
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nextyearfordaboyz

Nextyearfordaboyz

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, DaBoys said:

You have to fight fire with fire. Dak used to pass for 175 yards and 1 TD and we would win. The Dak fans went on a campaign to prove bulk passing yards are meaningless. Now we are losing and Dak is throwing for 500 yards. Dak fans spout off about our # 1 ranked passing offense with Dak(which is based on bulk yards).

People have been harping for years on how good Daks record is as a starter, and how clutch he is with GWDs. Now wins are pointless and so are GWDs because Dak doesn’t get them anymore. 

Well I have no desire to fight "fire" with nuance and logic, so I will leave you to your battles.

Edited by Nextyearfordaboyz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaBoys

DaBoys

Posted
Posted (edited)
On 8/16/2019 at 1:53 AM, Matts4313 said:

Definitive Guide to Defending Dak to the Haters

Step 1 - Show that he is pretty good:

Daks league-wide rankings in 2016-18, 32 games played minimum

  • 8th in passer rating

  • 11th in ANY/A

  • 6th in CMP%

  • 5th in INTs

  • 7th in combined TDs

  • 2nd in wins

  • 1st in GWD

 .

^this was posted over a year ago in this very thread. This post was liked by a couple of other Dak supporters. Just what ever are those last two bullet points? 
 

hmmm.... where were all the insignificant, meaningless, nuanced manipulation claims then? I make one post about GWDs a year later and here come the calvary.

Edited by DaBoys
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nextyearfordaboyz

Nextyearfordaboyz

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, DaBoys said:

^this was posted over a year ago in this very thread. This post was liked by a couple of other Dak supporters. Just what ever are those last two bullet points? 

hmmm.... where were all the insignificant, meaningless, nuanced manipulation claims then? I make one post about GWDs a year later and here come the calvary.

Two entirely different sets of circumstances, arguments, and use of the statistics. If you want to go back and litigate the validity of posts from more then a year ago, then be my guests. But your posts today are bogus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaBoys

DaBoys

Posted
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

Two entirely different sets of circumstances, arguments, and use of the statistics. If you want to go back and litigate the validity of posts from more then a year ago, then be my guests. But your posts today are bogus.

My posts today are the same as yours from a year ago. You have posted in THIS thread multiple times in the first 40 pages alone about Daks winning record, in defense of him AND Jason Garrett. You told people who wanted Garrett fired and Dak traded to “seek help.” Whats bogus is you not recognizing that my posts today are mocking your posts from a year ago. It’s the same argument but the numbers aren’t in your favor this time so you dismiss it.

Edited by DaBoys
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nextyearfordaboyz

Nextyearfordaboyz

Posted
Posted
Just now, DaBoys said:

My posts today are the same as yours from a year ago. You have posted in THIS thread multiple times in the first 40 pages about Daks winning record in defense of him AND Jason Garrett. You told people who wanted Garrett fired and Dak traded to “seek help.” Whats bogus is you not recognizing that my posts today are mocking your posts from a year ago. It’s the same argument but the numbers aren’t in your favor this time so you dismiss it.

Sigh, sure, winning at a pretty high level over the entirety of his career to date and not having any many game winning drives over an extremely small number of opportunities are the exact same thing. How could I not have seen that before? My bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaBoys

DaBoys

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

Sigh, sure, winning at a pretty high level over the entirety of his career to date and not having any many game winning drives over an extremely small number of opportunities are the exact same thing. How could I not have seen that before? My bad.

20 games is an “extremely” small sample size. But the 48 games before that constitute an entire career?

Edited by DaBoys
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nextyearfordaboyz

Nextyearfordaboyz

Posted
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, DaBoys said:

20 games is an “extremely” small sample size. But the 48 games before that constitute an entire career?

We've been through this already, man. He only had 6 GWD opportunities, and delivered on 3 of them. 6 is far too small a sample size, and even his results there are pretty good.

Edited by Nextyearfordaboyz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
DaBoys

DaBoys

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

We've been through this already, man. He only had 6 GWD opportunities, and delivered on 3 of them. 6 is far too small a sample size, and even his results there are pretty good.

The Atlanta game is the only game that was a GWD. So he delivered on 1 of them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing


×
×
  • Create New...