Jump to content
WizardHawk

***The Master Dak-bater Thread*** (Beat off for or against him if you please)

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, Matts4313 said:

EB0dr-5XYAE8i7Z.jpg

You beat me to it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Combining Dak’s rushing and passing TDs without doing the same for his INTs and fumbles is disingenuous

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, matt79511 said:

Combining Dak’s rushing and passing TDs without doing the same for his INTs and fumbles is disingenuous

They did include his INTs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, CAPJ said:

I dont understand the argument for most wins in first 3 years by a QB.

There have been games where Dak played poorly and we won and games Dak played well and we lost.

Not taking anything away from Dak but this team was setup in 2016 to win games. He played very well his rookie year but most rookie QBs dont walk into the situation he did.

Wins and losses are obviously a result of many factors. The single biggest factor is QB efficiency. So having a super efficient QB that has averaged over a 100 QB rating in 41 out of 51 games speaks to the reason we win so much. 

97% win rate with a 8+ adjust yards by Dak. 90% when over 6. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, matt79511 said:

Combining Dak’s rushing and passing TDs without doing the same for his INTs and fumbles is disingenuous

For QBs, INTs more often than not are due to a poor pass/choice. 

Fumbles, more often then not, are due to blindside hits in the pocket. Which is closely tied to the OL. 

Its why QB fumbles are not very consistent from year to year, but INTs are (generally). 

Even more to the point is that 100% of INTs are turnovers. Fumbles are 50/50.

Edited by Matts4313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, D82 said:

They did include his INTs.

While excluding his fumbles

2 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

For QBs, INTs more often than not are due to a poor pass/choice. 

Fumbles, more often then not, are due to blindside hits in the pocket. Which is closely tied to the OL. 

Its why QB fumbles are not very consistent from year to year, but INTs are (generally). 

INT rate is actually not that consistent year to year either. Regardless it’s pretty slanted to make the case for Dak based on his total TDs and not his total turnovers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take a look at the QBs who lead the league in fumbles from year to year. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, D82 said:

Take a look at the QBs who lead the league in fumbles from year to year. 

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=combined&year_min=2016&year_max=2018&season_start=1&season_end=-1&pos[]=qb&draft_year_min=1936&draft_year_max=2019&draft_slot_min=1&draft_slot_max=500&draft_pick_in_round=pick_overall&conference=any&draft_pos[]=qb&draft_pos[]=rb&draft_pos[]=wr&draft_pos[]=te&draft_pos[]=e&draft_pos[]=t&draft_pos[]=g&draft_pos[]=c&draft_pos[]=ol&draft_pos[]=dt&draft_pos[]=de&draft_pos[]=dl&draft_pos[]=ilb&draft_pos[]=olb&draft_pos[]=lb&draft_pos[]=cb&draft_pos[]=s&draft_pos[]=db&draft_pos[]=k&draft_pos[]=p&c5val=1.0&order_by=fumbles

Apparently he’s tied for 5th since entering the league

Not saying it’s an irreconcilable flaw, just that those stats are cherry-picked. Could also point out that he was dead last in average 3rd and long target distance (avg. 1 yard short of the marker) per DVOA despite having one of the highest snap-to-throw times. Taking the longest amount of time to make the shortest possible throw on high-leverage down and distances is how this team averages 21 a game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, matt79511 said:

While excluding his fumbles

INT rate is actually not that consistent year to year either. Regardless it’s pretty slanted to make the case for Dak based on his total TDs and not his total turnovers

INT is remarkably more consistent than fumbles. And even more so than fumbles lost (which is your primary concern). And its not slanted to make a case for Dak any more than it is Peyton Manning, Luck, Wilson or any of the other guys. 

I mean, seriously look at it, Ben went from 14 to 16 ints. Manning 13 to 11. Rodgers and Brady always under 10 INTs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, matt79511 said:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/psl_finder.cgi?request=1&match=combined&year_min=2016&year_max=2018&season_start=1&season_end=-1&pos[]=qb&draft_year_min=1936&draft_year_max=2019&draft_slot_min=1&draft_slot_max=500&draft_pick_in_round=pick_overall&conference=any&draft_pos[]=qb&draft_pos[]=rb&draft_pos[]=wr&draft_pos[]=te&draft_pos[]=e&draft_pos[]=t&draft_pos[]=g&draft_pos[]=c&draft_pos[]=ol&draft_pos[]=dt&draft_pos[]=de&draft_pos[]=dl&draft_pos[]=ilb&draft_pos[]=olb&draft_pos[]=lb&draft_pos[]=cb&draft_pos[]=s&draft_pos[]=db&draft_pos[]=k&draft_pos[]=p&c5val=1.0&order_by=fumbles

Apparently he’s tied for 5th since entering the league

Not saying it’s an irreconcilable flaw, just that those stats are cherry-picked. Could also point out that he was dead last in average 3rd and long target distance (avg. 1 yard short of the marker) per DVOA despite having one of the highest snap-to-throw times. Taking the longest amount of time to make the shortest possible throw on high-leverage down and distances is how this team averages 21 a game.

Look at your own Data. The bulk of guys in the 40+ game played area was in the 20 fumble range give or take 5. And like I said, the fumbles lost varied like crazy. Some teams recovered 10+ of them, some guys recovered just a few. 

Dak was 9th and he actually lost 14. 

A Rod was 22nd and he lost 12. 

Then you got Watson at 32nd with 9 lost.... in literally less than half the games played. 

 

So again I dont think the fumbles are really credible option. If you look at Manning (14), Marino(20), Luck (29), Wilson (31) all had their fair share of fumbles also. So again, I dont think its slanted. 

Edited by Matts4313

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

INT is remarkably more consistent than fumbles. And even more so than fumbles lost (which is your primary concern). And its not slanted to make a case for Dak any more than it is Peyton Manning, Luck, Wilson or any of the other guys. 

I mean, seriously look at it, Ben went from 14 to 16 ints. Manning 13 to 11. Rodgers and Brady always under 10 INTs. 

 

12 minutes ago, Matts4313 said:

Look at your own Data. The bulk of guys in the 40+ game played area was in the 20 fumble range give or take 5. And like I said, the fumbles lost varied like crazy. Some teams recovered 10+ of them, some guys recovered just a few. 

Dak was 9th and he actually lost 14. 

A Rod was 22nd and he lost 12. 

 

But then you have guys like Rivers, Romo, even Brees who'll fluctuate from 10 or less to 18+. A bad INT year can happen, same as a bad fumble year. All I'm saying is it's wrong not to include them if you're going to take the liberty of summing his passing and rushing TDs. Anecdotally, I don't feel like most of Dak's fumbles have been from unavoidable blindside hits, they've been on plays he's held the ball too long, run it, or botched a read option handoff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even With Int and Fumbles combined his turnover numbers are still less than past players like Peyton and Moon. Also better than current players like Cam and Wentz 

Edited by eagles suck
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, eagles suck said:

Even With Int and Fumbles combined his turnover numbers are still less than past players like Peyton and Moon. Also better than current players like Cam and Wentz 

I mean he does a good job of protecting the ball for the most part. I’m not disputing that

It’s just that “he has the most ____ in the first three years” stats don’t do much for me, they don’t prove he’s some all-time great, Sturm couldn’t even keep Dalton off one of those lists. It’s easy to be like “Typical Cowboys fans, didn’t appreciate Romo and now they don’t appreciate Dak.” But I don’t believe PFF’s and Football Outsiders’ metrics portrayed early-career Romo as nearly as mediocre of a passer as they do Dak.

edit: the “it’ll be a bargain in a year” case is dumb too unless he emerges as an MVP candidate. QB contracts are inflating faster than the cap. Romo’s last deal would’ve equated to $27.5M/yr in 2019 dollars

Edited by matt79511

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, matt79511 said:

I mean he does a good job of protecting the ball for the most part. I’m not disputing that

It’s just that “he has the most ____ in the first three years” stats don’t do much for me, they don’t prove he’s some all-time great, Sturm couldn’t even keep Dalton off one of those lists. It’s easy to be like “Typical Cowboys fans, didn’t appreciate Romo and now they don’t appreciate Dak.” But I don’t believe PFF’s and Football Outsiders’ metrics portrayed early-career Romo as nearly as mediocre of a passer as they do Dak.

edit: the “it’ll be a bargain in a year” case is dumb too unless he emerges as an MVP candidate. QB contracts are inflating faster than the cap. Romo’s last deal would’ve equated to $27.5M/yr in 2019 dollars

I think the point most are trying to get across is Dak is a good QB. He has some things to work on, but some of you are making it out like he’d be easy to replace. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, D82 said:

I think the point most are trying to get across is Dak is a good QB. He has some things to work on, but some of you are making it out like he’d be easy to replace. 

I never said that, although I think it is easier to play the QB position now than it has been in a long time.

It’s Dak’s intangibles that can’t be replaced. Not every QB can be the Cowboys’ QB, people forget that

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...