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.