Dak Prescott thread

[Mr B]

Patrick Mahomes was 13-19 when QB for Texas Tech.

If NFL scouts viewed things like NFL fans, he would have never been drafted.

That’s why Mahomes wasn’t drafted earlier. He had the size, and arm to play in the NFL. He just came from gimmick offense so people weren’t sure he could really play. He would still have been drafted in the 1st round though.

[Micah Prescott]

Patrick Mahomes was 13-19 when QB for Texas Tech.

If NFL scouts viewed things like NFL fans, he would have never been drafted.

That’s why Mahomes wasn’t drafted earlier. He had the size, and arm to play in the NFL. He just came from gimmick offense so people weren’t sure he could really play. He would still have been drafted in the 1st round though.

I don't think scouts ever take wins and losses into account when judging talent and Mahomes was still a top-10 pick. When grading him the Chiefs completely ignored wins and losses. And ideally, fans should do the same. Some fans are capable, some are not.

Placing all the blame or success on the QB a really easy trap to fall into, but it just isn't logically sound in a sport where 53 players and an entire coaching staff all contribute to the outcome.

[QB_Eagles]

I mostly agree with you and 100% with Cam but as far as legacy is concerned? Cowboy QBs have unique situations, as seen by the fact that Dak has a 53 page thread in here and all those QBs listed in that video do not. And as seen by the fact that Cam is having to point out a list where Dak is removed for not winning post season games with QBs that have also not won post season games.

Most of those guys will be remembered kind of like Phillip Rivers, "oh he was good but not great.". But if any of them were in a Cowboys uniform they would have a mob of haters like Romo and Dak.

Cowboys aside though, most fans give the QB WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY too much credit for wins and loses. I think that is biggest flaw that haunts a lot of football debates. And for me, that is the single biggest facet in distinguishing knowledgeable fans that have great input to offer from unrealistic fans who are just flat out incapable of seeing all thigs going on outside of the QB.

Some of it is the media's fault though. They create drama and sensationalize the position. NFL QBs SHOULD NOT EVER BE CREDITED WITH WINS AND LOSSES. That shouldn't even be a thing. Games are decided by FGs and fumbles every week. It's ridiculous to give the QB full credit for a game involving so many athletes. MLB pitchers shouldn't even get full credit but at least in that sport the pitcher doesn't have to rely on 5 athletes blocking for him and star athletes catching his pitches.

Cowboys players in general get far more attention. It's a blessing and a curse. Dak isn't turning down the commercials, so he should also be comfortable receiving more criticism than a QB of comparable skill on another team.

How much blame does a QB deserve for a playoff loss if he played badly? 50%? More? Less? It's rare for a QB to play bad in a playoff game and win.

[Micah Prescott]

I mostly agree with you and 100% with Cam but as far as legacy is concerned? Cowboy QBs have unique situations, as seen by the fact that Dak has a 53 page thread in here and all those QBs listed in that video do not. And as seen by the fact that Cam is having to point out a list where Dak is removed for not winning post season games with QBs that have also not won post season games.

Most of those guys will be remembered kind of like Phillip Rivers, "oh he was good but not great.". But if any of them were in a Cowboys uniform they would have a mob of haters like Romo and Dak.

Cowboys aside though, most fans give the QB WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY WAY too much credit for wins and loses. I think that is biggest flaw that haunts a lot of football debates. And for me, that is the single biggest facet in distinguishing knowledgeable fans that have great input to offer from unrealistic fans who are just flat out incapable of seeing all thigs going on outside of the QB.

Some of it is the media's fault though. They create drama and sensationalize the position. NFL QBs SHOULD NOT EVER BE CREDITED WITH WINS AND LOSSES. That shouldn't even be a thing. Games are decided by FGs and fumbles every week. It's ridiculous to give the QB full credit for a game involving so many athletes. MLB pitchers shouldn't even get full credit but at least in that sport the pitcher doesn't have to rely on 5 athletes blocking for him and star athletes catching his pitches.

Cowboys players in general get far more attention. It's a blessing and a curse. Dak isn't turning down the commercials, so he should also be comfortable receiving more criticism than a QB of comparable skill on another team.

How much blame does a QB deserve for a playoff loss if he played badly? 50%? More? Less? It's rare for a QB to play bad in a playoff game and win.

Not as rare as you think, look at Peyton's stat line when he won a ring with Denver. He was god awful the entire season, arguably the worst QB in the league that year. He threw 0 TDs and 1 INT in the Super Bowl. Maybe that is the extreme case but there are LOTS of examples of QBs throwing multiple INTs and winning a game. Or just just having an "average" game and winning.

Every single play, the QB relies of people blocking for him, and WRs catching for him, and coaches making adjustments and calling the correct plays for him, and a defense stopping the other offense for him. It is NEVER a case of just the QB doing everything.

How much blame does a QB deserve? Completely varies by game. If the rest of the team played A+ while the QB threw 3+ INTs? Then sure that would be majority the QB's fault. If the offense scores 32 and the defense gives up 33? That is likely on the defense IMO, even if the QB has an INT or two. And INTs themselves vary extreme. A long bomb INT can be the same as a punt and not every INT is on the QB either.

It's all extremely circumstantial, but if I had to put a percentage on the QB? Around 20% which is about the percentage of salary cap space they take up. Highest percentage by far, and maybe on the high end someone like Mahomes is 40%, but still not nearly enough to give full credit for wins and losses.


In the NBA, where there are only 5 on the court playing BOTH sides of the ball? It is far more logical to give full credit to the star player who has way more impact on the game than a QB does in the NFL. But even then it shouldn't be done. The ONLY time it should be done is in single person sports. Tennis, Boxing, racing, ect.

[QB_Eagles]

Not as rare as you think, look at Peyton's stat line when he won a ring with Denver. He was god awful the entire season, arguably the worst QB in the league that year. He threw 0 TDs and 1 INT in the Super Bowl. Maybe that is the extreme case but there are LOTS of examples of QBs throwing multiple INTs and winning a game. Or just just having an "average" game and winning.

Every single play, the QB relies of people blocking for him, and WRs catching for him, and coaches making adjustments and calling the correct plays for him, and a defense stopping the other offense for him. It is NEVER a case of just the QB doing everything.

How much blame does a QB deserve? Completely varies by game. If the rest of the team played A+ while the QB threw 3+ INTs? Then sure that would be majority the QB's fault. If the offense scores 32 and the defense gives up 33? That is likely on the defense IMO, even if the QB has an INT or two. And INTs themselves vary extreme. A long bomb INT can be the same as a punt and not every INT is on the QB either.

It's all extremely circumstantial, but if I had to put a percentage on the QB? Around 20% which is about the percentage of salary cap space they take up. Highest percentage by far, and maybe on the high end someone like Mahomes is 40%, but still not nearly enough to give full credit for wins and losses.


In the NBA, where there are only 5 on the court playing BOTH sides of the ball? It is far more logical to give full credit to the star player who has way more impact on the game than a QB does in the NFL. But even then it shouldn't be done. The ONLY time it should be done is in single person sports. Tennis, Boxing, racing, ect.

Denver was carried by their elite defense that year, no doubt, but Peyton still was decent in the playoffs. He was bad in the SB but I said it's rare for a QB to play badly and win in the playoffs, not impossible. How many more examples are there in the last 10 years?

I'm not saying it's a good idea to evaluate QBs by W-L record, but if a QB has a bad performance in the playoffs his team is very likely to lose. (I'm saying playoffs because it's not that uncommon for two teams with badly performing QBs to meet in the regular season, but it is for the playoffs.)

PFF gave Dak a 60.6 grade against the Packers last postseason and Peyton a 45.1 in SB 50. The gave Cam a 61.4 in that same game.

If Dak was actually playing well in his playoff exits he'd get criticized less, but the last three postseason losses he was really bad.

[Micah Prescott]

Not as rare as you think, look at Peyton's stat line when he won a ring with Denver. He was god awful the entire season, arguably the worst QB in the league that year. He threw 0 TDs and 1 INT in the Super Bowl. Maybe that is the extreme case but there are LOTS of examples of QBs throwing multiple INTs and winning a game. Or just just having an "average" game and winning.

Every single play, the QB relies of people blocking for him, and WRs catching for him, and coaches making adjustments and calling the correct plays for him, and a defense stopping the other offense for him. It is NEVER a case of just the QB doing everything.

How much blame does a QB deserve? Completely varies by game. If the rest of the team played A+ while the QB threw 3+ INTs? Then sure that would be majority the QB's fault. If the offense scores 32 and the defense gives up 33? That is likely on the defense IMO, even if the QB has an INT or two. And INTs themselves vary extreme. A long bomb INT can be the same as a punt and not every INT is on the QB either.

It's all extremely circumstantial, but if I had to put a percentage on the QB? Around 20% which is about the percentage of salary cap space they take up. Highest percentage by far, and maybe on the high end someone like Mahomes is 40%, but still not nearly enough to give full credit for wins and losses.


In the NBA, where there are only 5 on the court playing BOTH sides of the ball? It is far more logical to give full credit to the star player who has way more impact on the game than a QB does in the NFL. But even then it shouldn't be done. The ONLY time it should be done is in single person sports. Tennis, Boxing, racing, ect.

Denver was carried by their elite defense that year, no doubt, but Peyton still was decent in the playoffs. He was bad in the SB but I said it's rare for a QB to play badly and win in the playoffs, not impossible. How many more examples are there in the last 10 years?

I'm not saying it's a good idea to evaluate QBs by W-L record, but if a QB has a bad performance in the playoffs his team is very likely to lose. (I'm saying playoffs because it's not that uncommon for two teams with badly performing QBs to meet in the regular season, but it is for the playoffs.)

PFF gave Dak a 60.6 grade against the Packers last postseason and Peyton a 45.1 in SB 50. The gave Cam a 61.4 in that same game.

If Dak was actually playing well in his playoff exits he'd get criticized less, but the last three postseason losses he was really bad.

I'm not even trying to defend Dak here at all. He played poorly vs GB and a lot of that loss is on him. That said, it definitely wasn't ALL on him. The offense still put up 32 points. The defense actually had the worst game they had the entire season. If they hold GB under 32 we still win despite Dak.

I'm not even trying to debate that though, I'm just saying that the entire idea of wins and losses being a QB stat is just beyond flawed. And generally speaking, most fans believe that a team lives and dies by the QB which is also super flawed. Eagle fans like yourself should have a deep grasp of that reality after seeing your first SB ring won with your backup QB.

[wco81]

Sounds like Cowboys are still trying to work out an extension for Dak beyond this upcoming season?

[Mr B]

Sounds like Cowboys are still trying to work out an extension for Dak beyond this upcoming season?

I’ll believe it when I see it. I still think Jerry is ready to move on from Dak and we all know that if it’s up to Stephen they will be spending very little of his inheritance.

[wco81]

But whom do they have lined up after this season?

If they extend Lamb and Micah, they pretty much have to try to contend.

They're not going to try to develop a QB while giving out huge salaries to those players unless it's a very high-draft pick prospect.

So unless they make a move to get in the top 5 or 10 of the 2025 draft ...

[Micah Prescott]

But whom do they have lined up after this season?

If they extend Lamb and Micah, they pretty much have to try to contend.

They're not going to try to develop a QB while giving out huge salaries to those players unless it's a very high-draft pick prospect.

So unless they make a move to get in the top 5 or 10 of the 2025 draft ...

I think it is a really tough spot because starting over at QB does not sound like fun times and replacing Dak with someone better is not going to happen over night, and possibly wouldn't happen over the next decade. Some teams get stuck looking for their QB for years and years.

But also, Dak has been in Dallas a long time now, and it does feel like it's run it's course. I like the guy but I'm okay if we move on from him and there are signs pointing at that. I'm also okay if we resign him.

I think right now they are probably focused in on Lamb and once they get that done they'll see where they are at.

[Mr B]

But whom do they have lined up after this season?

If they extend Lamb and Micah, they pretty much have to try to contend.

They're not going to try to develop a QB while giving out huge salaries to those players unless it's a very high-draft pick prospect.

So unless they make a move to get in the top 5 or 10 of the 2025 draft ...

The Cowboys will never completely tank. The Jones’ won’t allow that, which is part of the problem.

As for who they have lined up to replace Dak, no one. The Jone’s have no idea what they’re doing when it comes to finding a QB. They had the #1 pick in ‘89 and drafted the best QB in the draft in Troy Aikman (clear no brainer pick). Then they lucked into Romo and then lucked in to Dak. As of right now their contingency QB is Trey Lance.

As for Parson and CeeDee, I’m also not convinced they keep Micah. They already picked up his 5th year option so he’s not going anywhere for at least 1 more season. After that I would not be surprised if they franchise him or just straight up trade him. A lot is going to be determined on how he reacts to Zimmer’s coaching style and if he can play in Zimmer’s system. If not I think they’ll look to trade Micah.

CeeDee on the other hand will likely be resigned at some point during camp. If they’re going with Trey they NEED an elite WR so I don’t see Lamb going anywhere.

[Micah Prescott]

The Cowboys will never completely tank. The Jones’ won’t allow that, which is part of the problem.

I don't think any team ever has actually set out to lose, no team allows that. I mean maybe if they are already 12-2 or something I could see a team going soft the last few games.

Players need their stats...for money

Coaches need wins....for money

Owners need to sell tickets....for money

The reality is that that playing well and winning is in their best interest even if the season is lost.

[Mr B]

Here is an interesting debate. Who is the better QB? Dak or Jalen Hurts? Not who has the better team around him but who plays the QB position better? No surprise James Jones is the only one that would pick Dak (and Cam Newton).

https://youtu.be/FdV3T7molw8?si=FM6ERotR-FL-fYH5

[Cactus Jack]

The Cowboys will never completely tank. The Jones’ won’t allow that, which is part of the problem.

I don't think any team ever has actually set out to lose, no team allows that. I mean maybe if they are already 12-2 or something I could see a team going soft the last few games.

Players need their stats...for money

Coaches need wins....for money

Owners need to sell tickets....for money

The reality is that that playing well and winning is in their best interest even if the season is lost.

NFL teams don't purposely tank. It's not at all like the NBA in that regard.

Coaches & execs have too much on the line to try to lose games. It's why we see so much coaching turnover every year. There are at least five or six head coaches that are fired every year. Sometimes more.

Teams who land the #1 pick are just flat out bad for the most part. The Bears got incredibly fortunate this year because the Panthers made a monumental mistake & Chicago is reaping the benefits of it.

The Colts landed Luck because Manning was hurt & couldn't play. Sometimes it just comes down to Luck. No pun intended.

[Micah Prescott]

The Cowboys will never completely tank. The Jones’ won’t allow that, which is part of the problem.

I don't think any team ever has actually set out to lose, no team allows that. I mean maybe if they are already 12-2 or something I could see a team going soft the last few games.

Players need their stats...for money

Coaches need wins....for money

Owners need to sell tickets....for money

The reality is that that playing well and winning is in their best interest even if the season is lost.

NFL teams don't purposely tank. It's not at all like the NBA in that regard.

Coaches & execs have too much on the line to try to lose games. It's why we see so much coaching turnover every year. There are at least five or six head coaches that are fired every year. Sometimes more.

Teams who land the #1 pick are just flat out bad for the most part. The Bears got incredibly fortunate this year because the Panthers made a monumental mistake & Chicago is reaping the benefits of it.

The Colts landed Luck because Manning was hurt & couldn't play. Sometimes it just comes down to Luck. No pun intended.

Exactly if tanking were a thing then the NFL would have a lottery system in place just like the NBA does.

To expand on that, there is no elite NFL prospect that is as sure or as dominate as an elite NBA prospect is. There is never a LeBron James or Kobe Bryant. Andrew Luck was considered the greatest QB prospect of all time and he did not pan out like LeBron. So tanking in the NFL doesn't make any sense anyway for that reason.

[Cactus Jack]

The Cowboys will never completely tank. The Jones’ won’t allow that, which is part of the problem.

The Cowboys won't get the first pick (or tank), because the roster is too good. The only way they could conceivably get a high pick is if they had a bunch of injuries to their best players (Dak, CD, Micah, etc.). If Dak doesn't get hurt in 2020, then they never would've been in the position to draft Micah. Some other team would've taken him.

[Micah Prescott]

Here is an interesting debate. Who is the better QB? Dak or Jalen Hurts? Not who has the better team around him but who plays the QB position better? No surprise James Jones is the only one that would pick Dak (and Cam Newton).

https://youtu.be/FdV3T7molw8?si=FM6ERotR-FL-fYH5

James, Cam, and everyone that voted AllPro. And from what I can see most of the comments in that link agree with Jones too and echo what I've been saying in here. Wins and losses aren't a QB stat, that is for people incapable of dissecting the game.

Also, I mean, would you rather have Hurts in here than Dak? I wouldn't. Hurts is better than Dak on his feet for sure, but Dak is a much more accurate passer.

[Cactus Jack]

But whom do they have lined up after this season?

If they extend Lamb and Micah, they pretty much have to try to contend.

They're not going to try to develop a QB while giving out huge salaries to those players unless it's a very high-draft pick prospect.

So unless they make a move to get in the top 5 or 10 of the 2025 draft ...

I think it is a really tough spot because starting over at QB does not sound like fun times and replacing Dak with someone better is not going to happen over night, and possibly wouldn't happen over the next decade. Some teams get stuck looking for their QB for years and years.

You likely won't find someone better right away. But teams have to evaluate the cost. Is it worth paying Dak close to $60m/yr or finding his replacement for a fraction of the cost? It's why rookie QB contracts are so valuable for teams when it comes to the cap. You may not find someone who's better than him. But can you find someone who can produce at a similar level without having to put a ton of money towards the position? That's the question that they're currently weighing (likely) & it's a valid one. It's ultimately why they decided to move on from Romo when they did. They had his replacement in house at a much lower cap number.

[Micah Prescott]

But whom do they have lined up after this season?

If they extend Lamb and Micah, they pretty much have to try to contend.

They're not going to try to develop a QB while giving out huge salaries to those players unless it's a very high-draft pick prospect.

So unless they make a move to get in the top 5 or 10 of the 2025 draft ...

I think it is a really tough spot because starting over at QB does not sound like fun times and replacing Dak with someone better is not going to happen over night, and possibly wouldn't happen over the next decade. Some teams get stuck looking for their QB for years and years.

You likely won't find someone better right away. But teams have to evaluate the cost. Is it worth paying Dak close to $60m/yr or finding his replacement for a fraction of the cost? It's why rookie QB contracts are so valuable for teams when it comes to the cap. You may not find someone who's better than him. But can you find someone who can produce at a similar level without having to put a ton of money towards the position? That's the question that they're currently weighing (likely) & it's a valid one. It's ultimately why they decided to move on from Romo when they did. They had his replacement in house at a much lower cap number.

I don't really care for the idea the you have to try and win while the QB makes pennies. I mean sure it's easier, but not only is it rare for a QB to win on his rookie deal, but eventually you're going to have to pay the guy anyway.

Purdy is going to land a huge contract, there is no way out of it. Are the 49ers supposed to let him walk because of that?

Meanwhile we see Mahomes and Lamar winning games as top-10 paid QBs.

[Cactus Jack]

I think it is a really tough spot because starting over at QB does not sound like fun times and replacing Dak with someone better is not going to happen over night, and possibly wouldn't happen over the next decade. Some teams get stuck looking for their QB for years and years.

You likely won't find someone better right away. But teams have to evaluate the cost. Is it worth paying Dak close to $60m/yr or finding his replacement for a fraction of the cost? It's why rookie QB contracts are so valuable for teams when it comes to the cap. You may not find someone who's better than him. But can you find someone who can produce at a similar level without having to put a ton of money towards the position? That's the question that they're currently weighing (likely) & it's a valid one. It's ultimately why they decided to move on from Romo when they did. They had his replacement in house at a much lower cap number.

I don't really care for the idea the you have to try and win while the QB makes pennies. I mean sure it's easier, but not only is it rare for a QB to win on his rookie deal, but eventually you're going to have to pay the guy anyway.

Purdy is going to land a huge contract, there is no way out of it. Are the 49ers supposed to let him walk because of that?

Meanwhile we see Mahomes and Lamar winning games as top-10 paid QBs.

I'm confused as to why you wouldn't? There's a huge built-in advantage. Just take a look at some of the Super Bowl contending teams as of late:

SF- Purdy
Philly- Hurts
Cincinnati- Burrow
Rams- Goff
Eagles- Wentz

All of these teams had QB's on rookie contracts.

The argument is for paying guys who are true difference makers. The Elite QB- Mahomes, Burrow, Allen. These are guys worth paying because they make a significant difference for the team they play for. Even a guy like Lamar is part of that conversation.

Paying someone who needs a solid supporting cast around them to succeed, makes it inherently more difficult to pull off. Paying Daniel Jones- big money, isn't a recipe for success.

Yes, the more money a QB makes, the harder it is to surround him with talent ultimately. Mahomes is somewhat of an outlier. Because he's just so freaking good.

The Niners will pay Purdy. But it will impact the rest of the roster. Will he be good enough to offset that? That's the question that every team has to decide when making these decisions.

If you give Dak a larger share, then it will have a trickle down affect. It always does. But, Is it worth it?