Jump to content
WizardHawk

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

Recommended Posts

Just now, DaBoys said:

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

He delivered a GWD on another one that was given up by the defense, and he was jipped by the refs in the LAR game.

I don't know why I continue to indulge this, since I know you are just trying to "fight fire with fire", and that you know exactly what you are doing.

But if we are trying to make a fair evaluation of Dak Prescott and what should be considered in the decision-making process moving forward, "Only 1 GWD in his last 20 games" is a completely worthless and unnuanced consideration.

And with that, I will again try to avoid taking the next bait on this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, MikeT14 said:

Isn't that what you do also to make him look more valuable? 

(I mean I do it too for my points)

If you are deliberately manipulating stats to serve your agenda, you are not helping to advance a positive or constructive conversation.

Good decision-makers let the data inform their opinion, not let their opinion inform their data.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Nextyearfordaboyz said:

If you are deliberately manipulating stats to serve your agenda, you are not helping to advance a positive or constructive conversation.

Good decision-makers let the data inform their opinion, not let their opinion inform their data.

That's fair and all, I just feel like that's how a lot of data is served.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MikeT14 said:

Isn't that what you do also to make him look more valuable? 

(I mean I do it too for my points)

Not really. I simply present the data I run across. Often I make minimal or no comments. For example:

09frdjf928161.jpg?width=768&auto=webp&s=

(for those of you who care, Dak would be around the Watson/Carr area)

 

What Dboys and Slam are doing is cherry picking very specific examples to discredit Dak. 

"If you only look at these games in this specific timefame with these super selective parameters Dak sucks".

For example, one of the arguments that was literally used is that Dak sucks because he was a loser in the 1st qrt of the Giants game. A game that he was injured in, with the lead and left the field in the redzone about to score double digits. Yet, that game gets credited as a Dalton GWD because he screwed up, fumbled the snap and let the Giants comeback.....

 

Those two are clown trolling. 

Edited by Matts4313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, DaBoys said:

Wins aren’t a QB stat unless we are winning. got it.

GWDs mean that Dak is clutch, unless he isn’t getting them. Then it’s not his fault and the stat is useless anyway. 

And people accuse you of mental gymnastics, yet also subscribe to your point I just quoted.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, plan9misfit said:
6 hours ago, DaBoys said:

Wins aren’t a QB stat unless we are winning. got it.

GWDs mean that Dak is clutch, unless he isn’t getting them. Then it’s not his fault and the stat is useless anyway. 

And people accuse you of mental gymnastics, yet also subscribe to your point I just quoted.

Wins and GWD are never a sole QB stat, they are just ancillary niceties. Has anyone ever stated anything different or is this more strawmanning?  

 

EDIT: its almost like the "100 yard" for rushing or "300 yard" passing cutoffs people use when bringing up achievements. There is no magic difference between passing for 298 and 301... but its something that gets listed anyways. 

Edited by Matts4313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I tried. ...

anyways I’ve never been a fan of using stats as a end all.  With that said early in his career IMO a lot of the complaint about Dak was he was a “game manager” and not a real QB who you could count on to “win” games in the playoffs or be a franchise QB.   In that circumstance I could see using the GW drive stat as a argument that he was more then a game manager and you could trust him in the clutch to do more then just Hanns the ball off to a RB.   But yes IMO even back then the GW drives was as much about the TEAM as it was Dak. 

does only having 1 in his last 20 invalidate what some of us said about Dak. I don’t think so.   
 

IMO getting GW drives require a mixture of a lot of things.  
Your QB is calm and understands the offense and is in synch with the coach calling plays

Your OL is performing at a high level and not over matched by the opponents D

No bad breaks!  Ie bad calls by refs  or dropped balls by your receiver etc

i think your D also is involved but do not know how to qualify that 

in any case a lot of the above has zero to do with the QB    
 

For example when Romo lost to the Giants in the playoffs one year 2014 I think. he failed to achieve a GW drive.  Now we might say that was a sign of Romo being a terrible QB and all his success in the past meant nothing well not me I think it was more the coaches and his OL let him down 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

Wins and GWD are never a sole QB stat, they are just ancillary niceties. Has anyone ever stated anything different or is this more strawmanning?  

 

EDIT: its almost like the "100 yard" for rushing or "300 yard" passing cutoffs people use when bringing up achievements. There is no magic difference between passing for 298 and 301... but its something that gets listed anyways. 

I agree. In general, GWDs are a pretty meaningless stat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, plan9misfit said:

I agree. In general, GWDs are a pretty meaningless stat.

I had honestly never even heard of GWDs, as a stat, before people used it to support Dak. Of course, when he didn’t have TDs or yards to back him up, GWDs were used as a stat to support him. Now that they don’t support him, I think we can all agree it’s time to put it to rest. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, DaBoys said:

I had honestly never even heard of GWDs, as a stat, before people used it to support Dak. Of course, when he didn’t have TDs or yards to back him up, GWDs were used as a stat to support him. Now that they don’t support him, I think we can all agree it’s time to put it to rest. 

Didnt you pull a list of 10ish stats and only talk about the one that makes your point... like always? 

Did you not quote me? The guy who beats the efficiency drum?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...