Sturm: Breaking down the “Zeke decision,” which will determine Cowboys’ direction for years to come

[Cowboysrock55]

If Prescott is capable of 274 ypg for a full season, plus if he can inch up his touchdowns per game during that stretch from 1.6 per game to 2 per game, and maybe cut back on his sacks, this team is going to win the division handily.

Don't care about the ypg.

But I agree about the sacks. They are major killers for our offense specifically. The coaches literally give up on drives after a sack. I would expect Dak's stats to continue down the path with Cooper from last year. Especially with better pass protection this season. Which we should have with Frederick back.

 

[Angrymesscan]

I'd rather have Dak and Pederson than Wentz and RHG...
I might even take Dak and Andy Reid over Mahomes and RHG...

 

[Smitty]

Don't care about the ypg.

I know.... you remain just as unpersuasive as ever.

Your claim that there is no correlation between passing yards and winning is misleading. It assumes a baseline achievement of yards. Yes, there's no correlation to winning on your average day at the NFL office, when two average QBs duke it out, and the winner passes for 260 yards while the loser passes for 280 yards.

But show me the correlation between 150 yards passing per game and winning. Show me the correlation between 200 yards per game and winning.

Since those are the stats we had been dealing with all too frequently, that's the stat that is important and unmeasured in your analysis.

I mean, or we could just pretend that it's fantasy that we were losing (3-4) when Dak was averaging 202 ypg, but then winning (7-2) when he started averaging 274 ypg.

But I agree about the sacks. They are major killers for our offense specifically. The coaches literally give up on drives after a sack. I would expect Dak's stats to continue down the path with Cooper from last year. Especially with better pass protection this season. Which we should have with Frederick back.

Maybe I'm being too optimistic, but I feel like I should probably assume that Prescott can average about that number of ypg this season. Why not? Full season with Cooper. Apparently he's improving himself and has had a great offseason (which I've maintained he desperately needed). A freshening up of the coaching staff introducing some more modern ideas. Frederick is back. Witten is back (yes, this is an upgrade). Gallup is a year older. Cobb is no worse than Beasley at least. The LG is no longer a rookie.

I understand that the advanced stats say we won more than our share of close games and we are due to a return to median on that count, but I also think we should be substantially better and not in need of winning as many close games.

F it, let's say 12-4. It's the preseason, I'm allowed to be happy and pump some sunshine.

 

[Smitty]

Who's your Top 5 that is definitively better than Russell Wilson?

I can see Rodgers, Brees, Brady for sure...but I could see arguments for/against Mahomes (has only done it one year), Rivers (too old, playoff performance), Goff (surrounding team talent and only one year), Luck, Roethlisberger, but I wouldn't necessarily disagree with someone saying Russell Wilson is Top 5.

To follow up on this, I'll say I think this list is pretty good:

http://www.dallascowboyscentral.com/...e-nfl-starters

But I'd move Goff and probably Wentz ahead of Wilson, pushing him to 10.

I'd move Prescott up above Cousins, on the basis of Cousins' overall down season and Prescott's strong finish to the season. I might even move Prescott above Newton to 15.

But I also have in the back of my mind that it's possible Garropolo leaps a bunch and pushes him back down, too.

And frankly I do think I take Baker Mayfield over Prescott as the rankings have it. Darnold could make a jump too, think people are sleeping on him cause the Jets are an overall trainwreck. Rosen, Allen, and Trubisky can all leap at any time as well, so Prescott has to keep plugging along and improving.

 

[Smitty]

You forgot Wentz's 31 QB rating week. I wonder why?

I didn't forget anything. I was posting the losses Wentz took where he performed well. I didn't say he never performed poorly in a loss. Obviously, though, that's the outlier.

Just like I also didn't list Prescott's 99 rating with 2 TDs in a loss to Tennessee. Not "hiding" those performances. It's pointing out that there's a substantial body of evidence that Prescott had a lot of clunkers that led to losses, whereas most of Wentz's losses aren't because he sucked personally.

I thought that was obvious.

 

[Rev]

Wentz is fools gold. Wake me up when its any different.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

I didn't forget anything. I was posting the losses Wentz took where he performed well. I didn't say he never performed poorly in a loss. Obviously, though, that's the outlier.

Just like I also didn't list Prescott's 99 rating with 2 TDs in a loss to Tennessee. Not "hiding" those performances. It's pointing out that there's a substantial body of evidence that Prescott had a lot of clunkers that led to losses, whereas most of Wentz's losses aren't because he sucked personally.

I thought that was obvious.

You don't think posting stats and excluding Dak's best game in a loss and Wentz's worst game in a loss would be slightly deceptive?

Anyhow, it doesn't really matter. Wentz is definitely better at racking up garbage time stats which is what you've shown.

 

[Smitty]

You don't think posting stats and excluding Dak's best game in a loss and Wentz's worst game in a loss would be slightly deceptive?

No.

If I said "These are all Dak's losses" and "These are all Wentz's losses," it would be deceptive, but that's not what I said.

I said, quote, But you can look at the individual performances and see that Dak was not very good a lot of weeks, but conversely, see Wentz was pretty good most weeks and his team lost the game elsewhere.

I'm quite clearly listing the "a lot of weeks," and not every week.

And common sense would kinda dictate that since you had just finished saying Wentz went 5-6 and then I listed only 5 losses that there was one that was an outlier that was not listed.

Anyhow, it doesn't really matter. Wentz is definitely better at racking up garbage time stats which is what you've shown.

He's better at just about everything.

I mean, unless we are gonna pretend that his 11-2 record while Prescott toiled away towards 9-7 the previous year didn't happen since it doesn't fit our "Dak's a winner" agenda.

I've already said, I do agree, Dak kinda has "it." Wentz isn't missing "it," though, he just doesn't have "it" as a standout feature compared to his ability to pass proficiently. Dak's moxie stands out because it's in stark contrast to his otherwise ability to pass the ball and run an offense, which would seemingly be very subpar. Wentz is just your average young top 10 QB. Which is to say, better than Prescott across the board at this junction at just about everything related to QBing.

But hey.... passing yards don't matter, yards per game doesn't matter, rating doesn't matter, QBR doesn't matter, TDs don't matter, ypa doesn't matter.... Wentz only went 5-6. And has been hurt twice. Only thing that matters.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

No.

If I said "These are all Dak's losses" and "These are all Wentz's losses," it would be deceptive, but that's not what I said.

I said, quote, But you can look at the individual performances and see that Dak was not very good a lot of weeks, but conversely, see Wentz was pretty good most weeks and his team lost the game elsewhere.

I'm quite clearly listing the "a lot of weeks," and not every week.

And common sense would kinda dictate that since you had just finished saying Wentz went 5-6 and then I listed only 5 losses that there was one that was an outlier that was not listed.



He's better at just about everything.

.

Thats just not true. Beyond winning games and actually staying healthy enough to play in meaningful games Dak boasts a 96 career QB rating while Wentz boasts a 92 QB rating in his career. See how it's easy to pick and chose games and stats as you have? Take the whole picture and Dak has had a better career at this point.

There is someone with an agenda here. It's the one claiming that Wentz is beyond argument better.

The easiest thing to do is point out that both guys have been in the league the same number of years. Dak's career numbers vs Wentz. It's the least biased way to look at stats as opposed to picking and choosing. Dak has more passing yards, higher yards per attempt, higher completion percentage, more TDs and a higher QB rating.

Again, those are the career stats. You'd pick the less productive guy because you think he has more potential. I'll take the guy who wins more games and has been better over his equal length career. Neither answer is right. It's just an opinion.

 

[Smitty]

Thats just not true.

It just is true.

Find me one meaningful stat in the last two years where Prescott is superior.

You want deceptive? Try inflating Prescott's career stats on the basis of his all timer rookie campaign, which is now three years ago, and which he hasn't replicated, while Wentz struggled as a rookie like most rookies do. That's what you are clinging to. I'm sorry, I thought this argument was who is the better QB now, not who the better QB was three years ago.

Since then, it's night and day.

That's the whole, non-deceptive picture. Wentz evolved from rookie QB into top 10 QB in this league while Prescott regressed after a rookie year when he took the league by storm, and since then, he's mostly been sub par.

There is no other honest narrative on the two players, try as you might.

There IS plenty of reason for optimism that Prescott is putting it together now, and is about to have a very good season. But there is no rational argument that he's been better than Wentz these past two years. Which is, you know, the majority of their careers thus far.

 

[Smitty]

If you want to be a homer and argue for Prescott over Wentz, at least do it on the somewhat rational basis that moving forward Prescott is about to put up 270 ypg, 100+ QB rating, 25+ TD, under 10 INT season. There is an argument to be made that since he put up that pace once he had a lead receiver, at least, that he's about to drop a deuce on Wentz by putting those numbers up and leading his team to a division crown.

But there is no argument about the past. It's Wentz. It's Wentz all day, and it has been that way for two calendar years, which is an NFL eternity.

Or at least just be straight and say you prefer the lesser performance but better durability. After all, they say, the best ability is availability.

The argument that Prescott HAS BEEN BETTER is just fucking insanity. He absolutely fucking has not been. There is nothing that bears that out.

Wentz has gotten hurt. That's all. His numbers, or his numerical pace in instances where we are talking about full season numbers like total yards passing, are simply better in almost every respect if not every single respect.

And the concept that he's racking up stats in garbage time? Laughable. Of the 6 losses by Wentz last year, 5 of them were one score games. Four of them were under a TD (meaning a TD wins). No garbage time stat compilation there. These stats are accumulated during the contested portion of the game, which means, they are meaningful stats, not inflated.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

If you want to be a homer and argue for Prescott over Wentz, at least do it on the somewhat rational basis that moving forward Prescott is about to put up 270 ypg, 100+ QB rating, 25+ TD, under 10 INT season. There is an argument to be made that since he put up that pace once he had a lead receiver, at least, that he's about to drop a deuce on Wentz by putting those numbers up and leading his team to a division crown.

But there is no argument about the past. It's Wentz. It's Wentz all day, and it has been that way for two calendar years, which is an NFL eternity.

So two calendar years ago is meaningful, but 3 calendar years aren't? Fine, then just last season Dak scored more TDs and threw for more yards.

Again, I'm not trying to argue Dak is better or worse. Simply pointing out it isn't some slam dunk case that your cherry picked stats ignorantly try to prove.

 

[Smitty]

So two calendar years ago is meaningful, but 3 calendar years aren't?

We are talking about who the better QB is. As in right now. I've argued I would trade Prescott (and more) for Wentz today. I'm not arguing that I'd trade Prescott for Wentz because Prescott was better three years ago.

Also, how about a little intellectual honesty? You don't concede that rookie years should have something of an asterisk? Even if we aren't gonna deduct points from Prescott for a great rookie year, you honestly believe it's fair to evaluate where they are today on the basis that Wentz struggled as a rookie QB, like almost all rookie QBs do?

That take is bordering on flat out dishonesty.

Fine, then just last season Dak scored more TDs and threw for more yards.

Asked and answered, counselor. Come on.

Yeah, I said posts ago, show me a stat where Dak was superior.... "[Wentz's] numbers, or his numerical pace in instances where we are talking about full season numbers like total yards passing, are simply better in almost every respect if not every single respect."

Prescott had more yards and more TDs because he played 16 games. Wentz had a sizeable advantage in per game stats, which is obviously vital when talking about a guy who didn't play as many games due to injury.

You want to make the case that you prefer Prescott because he's remained healthy? Not my preference, but at least an honest argument (still one, like I told Iamtdg, that would be mercilessly ridiculed anywhere but a Cowboys message board).

There isn't a stat that shows Wentz has been better, other than the issue that Wentz has gotten hurt the past two seasons. Wentz has been the better player on the field and it's not close.

And no, a three year compilation where Wentz is penalized due to struggling as a rookie (though that word is subjective; he wasn't bad for a rookie) is not a fair comparison. As rookies, Prescott -- with the help of an all-timer line, a great RB, a still competent receiving core, and coordinator unfamiliarity -- did have the superior year. But as sophomores, Wentz was worlds, WORLDS better. And Wentz was also measurably better last year -- though not as much in the second half of the season once Prescott had his resurgence as he was in the first half of the season when Prescott was struggling. But still, an unarguable chasm between them,

Again, I'm not trying to argue Dak is better or worse. Simply pointing out it isn't some slam dunk case that your cherry picked stats ignorantly try to prove.

But it is a slam dunk case. The stats aren't cherry picked. It is the expected progression of a QB to improve from his rookie year. Since we are measuring where they are right now (that's literally the argument, "who is better right now"), the progression of Wentz and the regression of Prescott (and then subsequent 9 game re-progression of Prescott) are all vitally important, infinitely more important than what happened between them as rookies.

But those stats show Wentz started off like most rookie QBs do, and then blossomed into a near-elite top 10 QB. The stats also show Prescott started off with incredibly efficient numbers (though on low usage, he wasn't asked to carry the team his rookie year, and really never has been), but since then has struggled off and on mightily.

That's the only legitimate interpretation. And it paints the undeniable, case-closed picture that has Wentz ahead.

Though, again, as I have said, Prescott gets "it" points, and there's also at least a reasonable hope/expectation that if Prescott puts together a Russell Wilson-like campaign this year, you could easily move him ahead, if Prescott is on the team that ends up winning the division.

I probably have Wentz about, what, 8th best or so, Prescott more around 14th-16th.

But if Prescott can put up 4200-4400 yards, 28+ TDs, 10 INTs or so, good completion percentage (66%+), 7.5+ YPC, and he wins the division, yeah, I'll have a hard time not moving him into the top 10, ahead of guys like Ryan, Stafford, Cousins, Newton, etc.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

We are talking about who the better QB is. As in right now. I've argued I would trade Prescott (and more) for Wentz today. I'm not arguing that I'd trade Prescott for Wentz because Prescott was better three years ago.

Also, how about a little intellectual honesty? You don't concede that rookie years should have something of an asterisk? Even if we aren't gonna deduct points from Prescott for a great rookie year, you honestly believe it's fair to evaluate where they are today on the basis that Wentz struggled as a rookie QB, like almost all rookie QBs do?

That take is bordering on flat out dishonesty.



Asked and answered, counselor. Come on.

Yeah, I said posts ago, show me a stat where Dak was superior.... "[Wentz's] numbers, or his numerical pace in instances where we are talking about full season numbers like total yards passing, are simply better in almost every respect if not every single respect."

Prescott had more yards and more TDs because he played 16 games. Wentz had a sizeable advantage in per game stats, which is obviously vital when talking about a guy who didn't play as many games due to injury.

You want to make the case that you prefer Prescott because he's remained healthy? Not my preference, but at least an honest argument (still one, like I told Iamtdg, that would be mercilessly ridiculed anywhere but a Cowboys message board).

There isn't a stat that shows Wentz has been better, other than the issue that Wentz has gotten hurt the past two seasons. Wentz has been the better player on the field and it's not close.

And no, a three year compilation where Wentz is penalized due to struggling as a rookie (though that word is subjective; he wasn't bad for a rookie) is not a fair comparison. As rookies, Prescott -- with the help of an all-timer line, a great RB, a still competent receiving core, and coordinator unfamiliarity -- did have the superior year. But as sophomores, Wentz was worlds, WORLDS better. And Wentz was also measurably better last year -- though not as much as in the second half of the season once Prescott had his resurgence as he was in the first half of the season when Prescott was struggling. But still, an unarguable chasm between them,



But it is a slam dunk case. The stats aren't cherry picked. It is the expected progression of a QB to improve from his rookie year. Since we are measuring where they are right now (that's literally the argument, "who is better right now"), the progression of Wentz and the regression of Prescott (and then subsequent 9 game re-progression of Prescott) are all vitally important, infinitely more important than what happened between them as rookies.

But those stats Wentz started off like most rookie QBs do, and then blossomed into a near-elite top 10 QB. The stats also show Prescott started off with incredibly efficient numbers (though on low usage, he wasn't asked to carry the team his rookie year, and really never has been), but since then has struggled off and on mightily.

That's the only legitimate interpretation. And it paints the undeniable, case-closed picture that has Wentz ahead.

Though, again, as I have said, Prescott gets "it" points, and there's also at least a reasonable hope/expectation that if Prescott puts together a Russell Wilson-like campaign this year, you could easily move him ahead, if Prescott is on the team that ends up winning the division.

Jesus, I'm not taking time to respond to all that. If it takes you that much writing to try and defend your position then it clearly isn't as obvious as you want it to be. Anyway, this is silly, I'm not even here trying to say Dak is hands down better. It's just laughable to say that Wentz is hands down better with no argument to be made the other way. Dak's stats are better across the board. But just like you do in every discussion, you pick and choose and cut up the stats to back up your argument. Which is fine, but it's evidence of a weak argument.

Truth is Wentz or Dak could put up worse stats and still be the better QB. Shit Aikman was just that most of his career. So again, it's all opinion at this point. I think Dak and Wentz are both good QBs that probably thrive under different conditions.

Anyway, I have real work to get done.

 

[Smitty]

Anyway, this is silly, I'm not even here trying to say Dak is hands down better.

Wentz is hands down better right now as a QB and passer. There are no stats in the last two years that show otherwise.

The only edge in the past two years Prescott has is durability. Important, but not the one I'd use to make the decision of who I want. And not the one any other writer or publication league-wide would make either.

Simple enough?

Dak's stats are better across the board.

This is flat out false. It's a straight up lie.

Prescott is inferior at nearly every stat. He has an edge in some raw totals, again, because he's been more durable, but his per game stats are decidedly inferior in almost every category if not every category, for the past 2 seasons.

And that's what I'm arguing: That Wentz is better now. Not that Wentz was better as a rookie.

But just like you do in every discussion, you pick and choose and cut up the stats to back up your argument. Which is fine, but it's evidence of a weak argument.

The only person picking and choosing is the person who is trying to say Dak's rookie numbers make him better right now. They don't.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

The only person picking and choosing is the person who is trying to say Dak's rookie numbers make him better right now. They don't.

That's because I'm the only one dumb enough to respond to your bullshit. Everyone else knows that it's a waste of their time. Like banging their head against wall.

 

[Smitty]

Me: Wentz is better now.

C-rock: Wentz isn’t better now because when you include Prescott’s numbers from 3 years ago as rookies, they are better.

Me: I said NOW. Three years ago is irrelevant.

C-rock: Crazy ol’ Smitty and his bullshit! How dare he ask for current stats when debating who is better currently! He just loves to argue!

 

[Angrymesscan]

Schmitty mentions Dak's last 9 games for some reason, why not compare just those 9 games? Or the last eleven they played since that's what Wentz was able to play? Why 2 "seasons"?
I agree Wentz is the better passer, but I'm not sure he's the better QB. Kinda like Marino vs. Montana.
And there is one area where Dak is clearly superior, post-season stats. I was surprised to see Wentz hasn't thrown a single pass in post-season.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Me: Wentz is better now.

C-rock: Wentz isn’t better now because when you include Prescott’s numbers from 3 years ago as rookies, they are better.

Me: I said NOW. Three years ago is irrelevant.

C-rock: Crazy ol’ Smitty and his bullshit! How dare he ask for current stats when debating who is better currently! He just loves to argue!

So why include their second seasons at all?

On that point, why include anything but the second half of last season? If more recently is more relevant in your book afterall. But you include the second seasons because Dak had a sophomore slump and it was Wentz's best.

You're just arbitrarily picking dates that benefit your argument. You always do this.

 

[Smitty]

Picking the entire most recent season isn’t “arbitrary.”



Nor is looking at the last two seasons and calling it a trend.

Not sure you know what that word means.