6.212 - Deuce Vaughn - RB Kansas State

[Rtnldave]

On 5/2/2023 at 12:03 AM, canadaluvsdallas said:

Hot take.

QB position doesn't matter in the modern day nfl and your skill position and O-line depth matters.

If we want to take considerable steps for more playoff success, Prescott delivering the ball to his players is all we need from him.

He doesn't need to be one, a playmaker and he doesn't need to take all the risks, with the volume of turnovers.

I was being ironic. But thanks for the tip. 😉

[Rtnldave]

23 hours ago, elevators_rule said:

nah, dak will always need more. at least according to this fanbase whenever he fails

Look, I get that there is a divide on the site between the Dak "haters" and the Dak "supporters."

Personally, I think he's a good QB. 

I don't really take into account the regular season, sure, you have to win to make it to the post season.

But, post season is the path to a title. Now, if all you're interested in is arguing the point that Prescott has good stats, I'm not going to debate that.

But many of us on here have seen opportunities for him to lead us to a win in the post season and he comes up small.

This past year being the most obvious. He was often late in his reads, missed the wide open guy or just threw horrible passes.

I, personally, don't get how more weapons are going to help him when the weapons he had did their jobs and he failed to get them the ball at the right time or on target.

But if we are going to explore every option before we admit the true issue, I guess we are resolved to another winning season and holding our breath in the post season.

[Texas_OutLaw7]

Some fun videos to watch:

 

 

[Dallas94Ware]

9 hours ago, Rtnldave said:

Look, I get that there is a divide on the site between the Dak "haters" and the Dak "supporters."

Personally, I think he's a good QB. 

I don't really take into account the regular season, sure, you have to win to make it to the post season.

But, post season is the path to a title. Now, if all you're interested in is arguing the point that Prescott has good stats, I'm not going to debate that.

But many of us on here have seen opportunities for him to lead us to a win in the post season and he comes up small.

This past year being the most obvious. He was often late in his reads, missed the wide open guy or just threw horrible passes.

I, personally, don't get how more weapons are going to help him when the weapons he had did their jobs and he failed to get them the ball at the right time or on target.

But if we are going to explore every option before we admit the true issue, I guess we are resolved to another winning season and holding our breath in the post season.

I'm on board with all of this.

I do think Dak is a good QB. His numbers to this point in his career already have him pretty close to holding a majority of Cowboys passing records (not that that, on its own, says very much - Aikman played in an era and on a team where 35 runs and 15 passes was an ideal winning recipe). 

But for all of the hate Dak gets, and on the flip side, all of the blind love he also gets, I think the truth lay somewhere more in the middle. He certainly is not a bad QB and outside of his sophomore season, has shown he definitely does not have an issue with turnovers and interceptions. On his career he has nearly a 3 to 1 TD to INT ratio; has consistently posted a well above average passer rating (NOT QB RATING, that was some weird nonsense stat ESPN came up with and was trying to push as the next big stat for QBs. It did not catch on, and passer rating is still a very good indicator of a QBs success or lack of), and in some seasons, an exceptional passer rating. His worst passer rating season was still well beyond league average.

But on the other side of the coin, this season was one of his most roller coaster performances and arguably his worst season as a whole. The interceptions were murder, and while many were not squarely his fault, there was more to his erratic play than just the INT totals. There were times where escaping the pocket would have allowed for a big play, and he instead tried to play the role of Peyton or Tom and stand tall in the pocket and deliver a dangerous throw under pressure. But that isn't what made him good or got him paid.

His contract is also an issue. His cap hit is much too large for him to play how he did this season. And beyond that, assuming one bad season is just that, one bad season - he was paid with the expectations of becoming an elite level, top 5ish passer. It didn't happen. He didn't fall off, he just didn't grow to expectations. 

He also has issues seeing the route develop before it happens and throwing with anticipation. He throws to the open spot, the open man, as it happens. If he developed that anticipation and threw it knowing what is going to happen instead of what is happening at that moment, well, that is what separates good from elite.

He is a good QB. Not elite. He was paid to become elite. And that is why I was all over this forum begging for Levis, for Hooker...a high ceiling prospect that could come in at the end of Daks contract and, on a rookie deal, possibly be as good or even better than Dak. With a much lower cap hit 

As for the weapons and resources...it is a little weary to keep hearing how he needs more. Yes, his #2 guy has rotated a lot these last two years and none of them have been all that stellar. But it was just a few years ago where he nearly had THREE 1,000 yard receivers in the same season. So he has had weapons before. And now he has the defense, and you locked in a veteran receiver to help as the #2 guy. He has the resources around him to succeed and has before.

But what everyone also needs to realize - besides that Dak is neither elite nor bad, but more middle ground that either extreme - is that the success of a team is not tied entirely into the QB. Marino never won a ring and is still one of the best 2, maybe 3 pure passers to ever do it. Peyton only won two rings and is probably the best pure passer in history.

 While Brady, with all of his sparkly rings, had some of the greatest teams in football history. Think of all the hall of famers or hall of Fame consideration level players he's played with both on offense and defense. His team held the highest scoring offense in football history to a measley, what was it, 14 points? You don't do that with Tom Brady. You do that with Willie McGinest, Richard Seymore, Lawyer Milloy, Ty Law, Vince Wilfork, Rodney Harrison, Tedy Bruschi and Mike Vrabel. 

I get everyone wants to put it all on one guy. But it just isn't. 

 

 

[Dallas94Ware]

They should have let Deuce wear #22 if for no reason other than motivation to work harder, bulk up, study hard, and do all he can to live up to the honor getting to be the first to don that 22 since Emmitt.

I don't think he will be anywhere near that kind of production or greatness - the toughness, vision and balance of Emmitt are hands down some of the best to ever play - but imagine being told by Emmitt he believes in you enough to wear that number, told by Jerry he trusts you enough to wear it. That's got some real motivational energy behind it.

Edited May 5, 2023 by Dallas94Ware

[TVScout]

https://www.dallascowboys.com/news/sproles-to-vaughn-you-re-here-for-a-reason?fbclid=IwAR3O5lPTWQQ_6Gntq-0x32_NX9xYDO3yPGfFzLlEi4FgHvo4DKJ-RtQizYU

[Dallas94Ware]

On 5/15/2023 at 9:41 PM, TVScout said:

https://www.dallascowboys.com/news/sproles-to-vaughn-you-re-here-for-a-reason?fbclid=IwAR3O5lPTWQQ_6Gntq-0x32_NX9xYDO3yPGfFzLlEi4FgHvo4DKJ-RtQizYU

Other than size and college, I don't get the Sproles-Vaughn comparison 

Sproles was a mack truck compressed into a 5 foot-nothing frame with legs the girth of Barry Sanders and was more Maurice Jones Drew before there was a Maurice Jones Drew. 

While Vaughn is not built that same way. He is shiftier, runs all on vision and patience, and shakes contact rather than breaks it. His work out of the backfield is not on par with Sproles either. They are two very different backs. And while.Vaughn could be used in the same way, I see more Warrick Dunn than Sproles when I watch Deuce play 

 

[quiller]

On 5/3/2023 at 8:36 AM, Rtnldave said:

Look, I get that there is a divide on the site between the Dak "haters" and the Dak "supporters."

Personally, I think he's a good QB. 

I don't really take into account the regular season, sure, you have to win to make it to the post season.

But, post season is the path to a title. Now, if all you're interested in is arguing the point that Prescott has good stats, I'm not going to debate that.

But many of us on here have seen opportunities for him to lead us to a win in the post season and he comes up small.

This past year being the most obvious. He was often late in his reads, missed the wide open guy or just threw horrible passes.

I, personally, don't get how more weapons are going to help him when the weapons he had did their jobs and he failed to get them the ball at the right time or on target.

But if we are going to explore every option before we admit the true issue, I guess we are resolved to another winning season and holding our breath in the post season.

I am not going to argue the point that Dak has failed us last two years as QB.  But I will argue your line in sand as it were about playoffs versus regular season leaves only 1 QB in the NFL that meets that standard.   I would also argue the comment the weapons did their job.   The only weapon that really “did their job” IMO against SF was Pollard and he didn’t play second half.  

[Rtnldave]

16 hours ago, quiller said:

I am not going to argue the point that Dak has failed us last two years as QB.  But I will argue your line in sand as it were about playoffs versus regular season leaves only 1 QB in the NFL that meets that standard.   I would also argue the comment the weapons did their job.   The only weapon that really “did their job” IMO against SF was Pollard and he didn’t play second half.  

I can name at least 4 plays that Prescott, had he made a good, not great, but adequate throw, we win that game.

1. Late 2nd half, Dallas is driving, deep in SF territory, Lamb is open for about 2 seconds, Dak is late on delivery, outcome-INT. If he throws that ball as Lamb was breaking, we get a 1st and probably score in a few plays. We take the lead into halftime, come out and even a FG gets us up 2 scores, putting their 3rd string QB in a position where he needs to score twice to tie or win. Our defense was lights out at that point in the game. All the pressure is on them.

2. 50 yard toss to Lamb. Desperation throw by Dak, Lamb does ballet move to catch. PI if he doesn't but had that ball been out in front of Lamb, that's 6.

3. 2 plays later, a force to Lamb in double coverage when Hilton was WIDE OPEN down the seam. Dak didn't recognize the coverage pre snap and made no attempt at an adjustment. Easy 6 lost.

4. Late in the game Gallup gets behind the entire defense, Dak throws a wounded duck so far over Gallup's opposite shoulder that he also had to perform ballet just to have a shot at it, which he didn't in spite of his best and most awkward effort.

Now there's 3, Lamb, Hilton, Gallup all with opportunities to score had the ball been placed where a better QB would have placed it. Imagine if he had connected on all of them? We win that game by double digits.

Anyway, that's my argument.

[Dallas94Ware]

23 hours ago, Rtnldave said:

I can name at least 4 plays that Prescott, had he made a good, not great, but adequate throw, we win that game.

1. Late 2nd half, Dallas is driving, deep in SF territory, Lamb is open for about 2 seconds, Dak is late on delivery, outcome-INT. If he throws that ball as Lamb was breaking, we get a 1st and probably score in a few plays. We take the lead into halftime, come out and even a FG gets us up 2 scores, putting their 3rd string QB in a position where he needs to score twice to tie or win. Our defense was lights out at that point in the game. All the pressure is on them.

2. 50 yard toss to Lamb. Desperation throw by Dak, Lamb does ballet move to catch. PI if he doesn't but had that ball been out in front of Lamb, that's 6.

3. 2 plays later, a force to Lamb in double coverage when Hilton was WIDE OPEN down the seam. Dak didn't recognize the coverage pre snap and made no attempt at an adjustment. Easy 6 lost.

4. Late in the game Gallup gets behind the entire defense, Dak throws a wounded duck so far over Gallup's opposite shoulder that he also had to perform ballet just to have a shot at it, which he didn't in spite of his best and most awkward effort.

Now there's 3, Lamb, Hilton, Gallup all with opportunities to score had the ball been placed where a better QB would have placed it. Imagine if he had connected on all of them? We win that game by double digits.

Anyway, that's my argument.

Ehhh. Yes, and no, to pretty much all of this.

I mean, yes in the regards that, it is Dak throwing the ball. If he's throwing the ball, there is some blame and shame to be had no matter what the other factors involved are. And this is probably why all QBs, not just Dak but all QBs, get too much glory and too much blame when this is the ultimate team based sport probably in the globe. Because when you touch the ball every down on offense, that carries a ton of weight - and regardless of what the outcomes are, they get all the glory and all the finger pointing. No way around it.

But, no, in the regards that, you are mentioning really only part of that equations.

You mention poor timing, specifically on some more vertical-ish throws. It is awfully hard to get the ball out on time when the pressure comes up the middle as it was during this matchup. Hand it to Shannahan and Ryans - they knew exactly how and when to attack that middle and force the timing to be way off on the play. And it was pretty much anytime Dak and the offense was setting up for a vertical play. pressure up the middle eliminates a clear line of sight, forces the drop back timing to change, and even hinders a dump off/check down because the vision on the play is hindered greatly. 

Now, I don't watch nearly as much film as these pro coaches. So I can only assume that Ryans and Shannahan knew when Dallas was going to attempt a deeper route selection on the play call because of some tendencies they saw on film from the team and from Kellen Moores telegraphed and choreographed methods. And it seemed like they never failed to attack this way anytime it was coming from the offense. Hats off to em, really.

That late duck throw to Gallup I'd have to watch again, but I think if I am not mistaken (and please correct me if I am dude) I think Dak was seeing ghosts and over reacted to a bit of pressure from the right side, both the exterior and inside, and while trying to break from the pressure he threw a poor last ditch effort chuck it up and pray off a back foot or no foot.

That typically never goes well, and yes a chunk of this falls on Dak for attempting it. But the other portion of the equation? It's basically time to risk it or start packing to go home. He did over react to the pressure, but I would justify that also as, well, dude was beaten up all game. When you see those guys getting loose again after being smacked in your mouth all day, it's easy to break pocket a little sooner and take a shot in hopes it connects. Romo basically built a career off these last ditch chucks and it had him pegged as a choke artist, when he actually had a jaw dropping amount of 4th Qtr rallies to his credit. But, as with all QBs, you get remembered for the last ditch efforts that fail, not the ones that work...sadly..

Can really apply the interior pressure to most of the other things you mentioned too ... So I'll just add this little tidbit:

Any coach I've been around, let alone myself, but any coach I've spent time around...and I've spent time around a lot of them..all teach and preach that it's a sixty minute game. Four quarters. You can always go back and single out one play, one drive, one turnover, etc as peg it as proof of something. Or you can look at the entire sixty minutes, figure out where the whole picture went wrong instead of a few pixels of the picture, and work to fix or improve that big picture.

Essentially... Bad throws by Dak, sure. Bad routes and LAZY play by Schultz, sure. Defense couldn't stop a no-drop no-yard catch and YAC it play despite seeing at times THREE TIMES IN A ROW. Bad kicks. Bad clock management. By themself each of these things is a problem that the entirety of the game allows you to overcome. But in the grand scheme of that sixty minutes, all of these things amount to a very dramatic loss.

Could the team have won if Dak made those throws mentioned? Maybe. But they also could have won if any number of different things that went poorly, turned out more favorably.

[Rtnldave]

7 hours ago, Dallas94Ware said:

Ehhh. Yes, and no, to pretty much all of this.

I mean, yes in the regards that, it is Dak throwing the ball. If he's throwing the ball, there is some blame and shame to be had no matter what the other factors involved are. And this is probably why all QBs, not just Dak but all QBs, get too much glory and too much blame when this is the ultimate team based sport probably in the globe. Because when you touch the ball every down on offense, that carries a ton of weight - and regardless of what the outcomes are, they get all the glory and all the finger pointing. No way around it.

But, no, in the regards that, you are mentioning really only part of that equations.

You mention poor timing, specifically on some more vertical-ish throws. It is awfully hard to get the ball out on time when the pressure comes up the middle as it was during this matchup. Hand it to Shannahan and Ryans - they knew exactly how and when to attack that middle and force the timing to be way off on the play. And it was pretty much anytime Dak and the offense was setting up for a vertical play. pressure up the middle eliminates a clear line of sight, forces the drop back timing to change, and even hinders a dump off/check down because the vision on the play is hindered greatly. 

Now, I don't watch nearly as much film as these pro coaches. So I can only assume that Ryans and Shannahan knew when Dallas was going to attempt a deeper route selection on the play call because of some tendencies they saw on film from the team and from Kellen Moores telegraphed and choreographed methods. And it seemed like they never failed to attack this way anytime it was coming from the offense. Hats off to em, really.

That late duck throw to Gallup I'd have to watch again, but I think if I am not mistaken (and please correct me if I am dude) I think Dak was seeing ghosts and over reacted to a bit of pressure from the right side, both the exterior and inside, and while trying to break from the pressure he threw a poor last ditch effort chuck it up and pray off a back foot or no foot.

That typically never goes well, and yes a chunk of this falls on Dak for attempting it. But the other portion of the equation? It's basically time to risk it or start packing to go home. He did over react to the pressure, but I would justify that also as, well, dude was beaten up all game. When you see those guys getting loose again after being smacked in your mouth all day, it's easy to break pocket a little sooner and take a shot in hopes it connects. Romo basically built a career off these last ditch chucks and it had him pegged as a choke artist, when he actually had a jaw dropping amount of 4th Qtr rallies to his credit. But, as with all QBs, you get remembered for the last ditch efforts that fail, not the ones that work...sadly..

Can really apply the interior pressure to most of the other things you mentioned too ... So I'll just add this little tidbit:

Any coach I've been around, let alone myself, but any coach I've spent time around...and I've spent time around a lot of them..all teach and preach that it's a sixty minute game. Four quarters. You can always go back and single out one play, one drive, one turnover, etc as peg it as proof of something. Or you can look at the entire sixty minutes, figure out where the whole picture went wrong instead of a few pixels of the picture, and work to fix or improve that big picture.

Essentially... Bad throws by Dak, sure. Bad routes and LAZY play by Schultz, sure. Defense couldn't stop a no-drop no-yard catch and YAC it play despite seeing at times THREE TIMES IN A ROW. Bad kicks. Bad clock management. By themself each of these things is a problem that the entirety of the game allows you to overcome. But in the grand scheme of that sixty minutes, all of these things amount to a very dramatic loss.

Could the team have won if Dak made those throws mentioned? Maybe. But they also could have won if any number of different things that went poorly, turned out more favorably.

I can greatly appreciate how deep you went into your explanations of your opinions. However, there is a phenomenon going on with this multimedia age. We call it paralasys by analysis. It means that simple explanations are often compounded by way too much analysis. 

For example, your explanation as to how SF attacked up the middle to disrupt Daks timing. A better QB would have recognized that and used it to his advantage. He would call plays that attack the vacated area or rolled out and attacked the perimiter. 

No offense to your deep understanding of the game, and you understand it far deeper than I, I simply don't believe Dak's shortcomings are that complicated. I simply feel that he didn't recognize things as they were happening and if he did, he didn't make the right adjustment and was either apprehensive with the ball or just simply lost his composure and threw bad passes.

An NFL QB needs to play better than that if he's going to win a title.

[Dallas94Ware]

On 5/27/2023 at 9:02 PM, Rtnldave said:

I can greatly appreciate how deep you went into your explanations of your opinions. However, there is a phenomenon going on with this multimedia age. We call it paralasys by analysis. It means that simple explanations are often compounded by way too much analysis. 

For example, your explanation as to how SF attacked up the middle to disrupt Daks timing. A better QB would have recognized that and used it to his advantage. He would call plays that attack the vacated area or rolled out and attacked the perimiter. 

No offense to your deep understanding of the game, and you understand it far deeper than I, I simply don't believe Dak's shortcomings are that complicated. I simply feel that he didn't recognize things as they were happening and if he did, he didn't make the right adjustment and was either apprehensive with the ball or just simply lost his composure and threw bad passes.

An NFL QB needs to play better than that if he's going to win a title.

Hey dude sorry for the way late reply. I've been busy moving to the Texas from Brooklyn. I am officially no longer a Brooklynite but a full fledged tax paying citizen of Roanoke, Texas. 

Now, I understand the over analysis aspect of what you said here. But I do think the reverse of this is also true - the under analysis. That is, over simplifying the on field product by in turn, over simplifying something that is very much.. well, not simple. 

A "better QB" feeling the pressure and getting the ball out fast with pressure coming down the middle of the pocket...you mean like Tom Brady in 2007 and 2011? Widely considered the best to ever do it (not by me, as I don't count rings to determine the best), Brady was beat up and shut up in two Super Bowls with a very straightforward attack plan from the Giants D - don't pressure the sides, don't allow him the ability to step up, but attack the inside and force him to escape horizontally and nix his timing, placement and ability to see the field. Would a "better QB" have done better when he is already considered the best ever or quite near to it?

That's my point. Even the best QBs struggle to see the field when you attack the middle. There are a few modern exceptions - Josh Allen, Mahomes - who's ideal course of attack against them is actually from the edges, as hitting their pocket from the middle allows them to be at their very best. That is, moving laterally from the pocket and buying time for a deep shot off the blitz or pressure. 

Football is the most strategic sport in America, and perhaps the world over. Simplifying it so much eliminates far too much of what makes it so entertaining to watch. 

I'm not saying Dak handled that game well. He definitely didn't. But the other team, they were on the field, too. And when you go up against a very talented defense run by an exceptionally talented coordinator, with a team led by an even more exceptional head coach, these are the things that happen: Your teams holes get exposed by a terrific gameplan, the weak points on your roster get overmatched by the better talents, and your team as a whole gets forced to claw, scrape and crawl just to attempt to remain competitive. Fact is, this team...OUR team...was never as close to winning as the score indicated for most of that game.

They were overmatched and out coached from the get go. SF made mistakes all up and down the field that kept Dallas in it, but in reality, Dallas couldn't get out of their own way. At some point the disappearance of the pass rush late in the year became a burden. The inconsistent blocking in both the run and pass became a liability. Dak, for all of his marvels the week prior, was exposed as skittish after he's been knocked around (In my far too many years of loving football, I can name maybe only 5 QBs who didn't become skittish after being beaten up, and two have Manning in the last name). The lack of quality depth behind Lamb became a big problem (Gallup was a shell, Hilton was no answer to the problem, and the rest of them...oh please). The inability of the center to maintain balance on a cooperative block of a nose guard became a weak point for SF to attack. The revolving door at LG became, well, a revolving door for defenders to attack the inside shoulder, expose the centers inability to help that inside shoulder, and then further expose Dak for simply not being a top five player. 

So many cogs to this wheel. Dak will never be what he was paid to become, and that stings, because the tools to be just that were there from year 1. But just because he isn't Allen, Mahomes, Peyton or Brady, doesn't mean he isn't a damn fine QB capable of winning a lot of games and even some trophies. The problem is that expecting a frog to turn into a snake (aka Dak to suddenly be 2007 Tom Brady or 1984 Dan Marino) is not realistic. And everyone expecting Dallas to have an endless supply of Tom Brady clones everytime they replace their starting QB is not realistic. Sometimes you have to wing it with the good ones you do find, even if they aren't top 3 or top 5. And you still very much should expect to win with them, even if it isn't by throwing 40 times and scoring 35 times through the air. Sometimes you have to play good D, run well, and let your QB be that top 10ish player, who will score you some points, but doesn't need to carry the team.

Aside from that...I mean, given the way the defense looked lost on those no drop 1 yard dump offs to Deebo and the line seemed incapable of blocking an inside rush or maintaining a block in the run game, I don't think Joe Montana (one of those other 5 I mentioned earlier) at age 27 could have made enough plays to win that game.

 

[Dallas94Ware]

To put things back on topic a little bit...

Vaughn made two plays at K state that I can't stop watching. The way his legs never stop, the way his balance is never faltered, and the way his vision and patience bailed him out of a tight situation...I think I see more LeVeon Bell in those two plays than the guy I do keep comparing him to (Warrick Dunn).

[Rtnldave]

8 hours ago, Dallas94Ware said:

Hey dude sorry for the way late reply. I've been busy moving to the Texas from Brooklyn. I am officially no longer a Brooklynite but a full fledged tax paying citizen of Roanoke, Texas. 

Now, I understand the over analysis aspect of what you said here. But I do think the reverse of this is also true - the under analysis. That is, over simplifying the on field product by in turn, over simplifying something that is very much.. well, not simple. 

A "better QB" feeling the pressure and getting the ball out fast with pressure coming down the middle of the pocket...you mean like Tom Brady in 2007 and 2011? Widely considered the best to ever do it (not by me, as I don't count rings to determine the best), Brady was beat up and shut up in two Super Bowls with a very straightforward attack plan from the Giants D - don't pressure the sides, don't allow him the ability to step up, but attack the inside and force him to escape horizontally and nix his timing, placement and ability to see the field. Would a "better QB" have done better when he is already considered the best ever or quite near to it?

That's my point. Even the best QBs struggle to see the field when you attack the middle. There are a few modern exceptions - Josh Allen, Mahomes - who's ideal course of attack against them is actually from the edges, as hitting their pocket from the middle allows them to be at their very best. That is, moving laterally from the pocket and buying time for a deep shot off the blitz or pressure. 

Football is the most strategic sport in America, and perhaps the world over. Simplifying it so much eliminates far too much of what makes it so entertaining to watch. 

I'm not saying Dak handled that game well. He definitely didn't. But the other team, they were on the field, too. And when you go up against a very talented defense run by an exceptionally talented coordinator, with a team led by an even more exceptional head coach, these are the things that happen: Your teams holes get exposed by a terrific gameplan, the weak points on your roster get overmatched by the better talents, and your team as a whole gets forced to claw, scrape and crawl just to attempt to remain competitive. Fact is, this team...OUR team...was never as close to winning as the score indicated for most of that game.

They were overmatched and out coached from the get go. SF made mistakes all up and down the field that kept Dallas in it, but in reality, Dallas couldn't get out of their own way. At some point the disappearance of the pass rush late in the year became a burden. The inconsistent blocking in both the run and pass became a liability. Dak, for all of his marvels the week prior, was exposed as skittish after he's been knocked around (In my far too many years of loving football, I can name maybe only 5 QBs who didn't become skittish after being beaten up, and two have Manning in the last name). The lack of quality depth behind Lamb became a big problem (Gallup was a shell, Hilton was no answer to the problem, and the rest of them...oh please). The inability of the center to maintain balance on a cooperative block of a nose guard became a weak point for SF to attack. The revolving door at LG became, well, a revolving door for defenders to attack the inside shoulder, expose the centers inability to help that inside shoulder, and then further expose Dak for simply not being a top five player. 

So many cogs to this wheel. Dak will never be what he was paid to become, and that stings, because the tools to be just that were there from year 1. But just because he isn't Allen, Mahomes, Peyton or Brady, doesn't mean he isn't a damn fine QB capable of winning a lot of games and even some trophies. The problem is that expecting a frog to turn into a snake (aka Dak to suddenly be 2007 Tom Brady or 1984 Dan Marino) is not realistic. And everyone expecting Dallas to have an endless supply of Tom Brady clones everytime they replace their starting QB is not realistic. Sometimes you have to wing it with the good ones you do find, even if they aren't top 3 or top 5. And you still very much should expect to win with them, even if it isn't by throwing 40 times and scoring 35 times through the air. Sometimes you have to play good D, run well, and let your QB be that top 10ish player, who will score you some points, but doesn't need to carry the team.

Aside from that...I mean, given the way the defense looked lost on those no drop 1 yard dump offs to Deebo and the line seemed incapable of blocking an inside rush or maintaining a block in the run game, I don't think Joe Montana (one of those other 5 I mentioned earlier) at age 27 could have made enough plays to win that game.

 

Congrats on the move! A true homer now.

[quiller]

I imagine we will get a better idea in just over 4 weeks.   What comes to my mind though is just how much hype and expectation we seem to be giving a late round pick. I also am hoping he will add some play making ability on the edge.   He will have to show he can also handle between tackles or teams will just see him and say okay it’s a pass or a a wide run