A bad player comparison, a fake DUI charge, and being an odd fit for the NFL all combine to drop Dak Prescott far lower than he should've been selected.
Just some legal nitpicking in regards to the DUI. But before that, we apply the presumption of innocence in criminal matters in the US. Because he was never convicted, we presume Dak did not commit a DUI.
That said, he may still have committed a DUI even if his actual BAC was below the legal limit. DUI is about the impairment, not the BAC. If you’re driving impaired after having consumed alcohol, you have committed DUI. The BAC limit, then, is just an objective measure we use to assess impairment, and have fixed it that if you are above the defined limit, it’s sufficient evidence of impairment regardless of how else you may be presenting. Driving after drinking isn’t a good idea, even if you end up below the legal limit, but I agree it had a disproportionate effect on where he was drafted.
They chose to drop the charges, which suggests that, in addition to the presumption of innocence, they probably didn’t have good evidence of Dak actually being impaired while he was driving. He probably was just speeding and smelled of alcohol once pulled over. It doesn’t mean it was good judgment on his part, but it also suggests it’s not as serious as it was likely played up to be by the media.
Right on David. I should've said something like this in the actual article. In fact, I may edit it in the morning such that it does say something like this.
I was mostly going with a legal argument, which employs but also hides the underlying presumption that a blood alcohol level near the legal limit would have a hard time significantly impairing a man with a professional athlete's body. Nevertheless, different things affect different people differently. I should've stated it more clearly. I firmly believe that Dak Prescott believed he was doing the right thing that night, which meant he couldn't have felt as if he was impaired, but that's only an opinion of mine.
The only thing I found weird about this story is why the media chose to bury Dak Prescott. I suppose that the deathly mixture of being a QB, plus being a black man in Mississippi, combined to make this far worse than it had to be, but it's not like he was a big name at the time. This really could've not been blown up this much, and nobody would've noticed, but 2016 was a big year for this kind of thing. 2016 is the same draft where Laremy Tunsil fell because of an incident that happened several years beforehand with the gas mask, so teams were up on their toes, looking for reasons not to draft people.
I often wonder if it's all worth it. All this nonsense about incidents like this. I understand not wanting to draft drunk drivers to your team, but it feels like it's caused teams to let good players go a lot more than it's permitted them to avoid bad apples.
Great deep dive and I agree with your conclusions as a lifelong Cowboys fan. One minor quibble - the years between Aikman and Romo were a wasteland. And isn’t it even more amazing that the Cowboys have had almost 20 years of Top 10-15 QB play this century from a UFA and a fourth rounder?
You're right Kent. The years between Troy and Tony were a struggle, as Quincy Carter is the only QB project the Cowboys have ever really failed at, in their entire 60+ year history. However, there was only five of them (2001-2005), and once the team got Vinny Testaverde for 2004, the QB play was passable, and I would be willing to go so far as to call Drew Bledsoe pretty good in 2005, before the Cowboys hit the jackpot again with Tony Romo.
I understand that passable would likely feel like a wasteland as a lifelong fan of the Dallas Cowboys, but I'm a Jaguars guy myself, and I would kill to have QB play as good as 2004 Vinny Testaverde. Other than one (2022) Trevor Lawrence season, we haven't had a QB as good as Vinny Testaverde's Dallas season since David Garrard left, and that was 15 years ago.
I guess you and I represent two extremes, of how good a fan can have it if a team knows how to look for a QB, and how bad a fan can have it if teams just keep throwing first round picks at the problem, without truly knowing how to develop quarterbacks.
With that said then, I actually don't think it's too unique that the Cowboys have basically spent nothing for 20 years of great QB play. If you know what you're doing in developing a QB, you don't need to waste first round picks on it. SF really doesn't use first round picks on QBs either, and they're the only team in NFL history that consistently has better QB play than Dallas. Most of that came in the 25 years where they had third round pick Joe Montana, second round pick traded for Steve Young, and UDFA Jeff Garcia. Then, they decided to use a first round pick on Alex Smith, and got the worst decade in the history of their team out of it, so they went back to dumpster diving for guys like Jimmy Garoppolo and Brock Purdy.
Both of these teams always have great QBs, but they never have to waste first round picks on them. Contrast this with teams like my Jaguars, or the Cleveland Browns, or other teams like that, who are constantly throwing first round picks at the problem, but never actually fixing it, because they don't actually care to learn how to develop their QBs.
It's not impossible to do it using first round picks. It's what Green Bay does, and it works for them, but Dallas hasn't used a first round pick on a QB since Steve Walsh in 1990, and I'd say it works out pretty well for you guys. Generally, I would go so far as to say that not using first round picks on QBs is often the right way to go, as most of the teams that get great QB play tend not to do it. The New Orleans Saints have not spent a first rounder on a QB since 1982, and they've been one of the best quarterbacked teams in the league since then as well.
In sum, I think refusing to spend high draft picks on QBs is the right move, if you can get away with it. The Cowboys are often criticized for being poorly run, for reasons that I've never understood, because I think they're very well run, which all begins with the right choices at QB. Choices that the Cowboys (with the exception of Quincy Carter) have always been able to knock out of the park.
You make some very good points but I will disagree slightly on your philosophy on spending first round picks on QB’s. Historically speaking the QB’s that go first overall have a pretty good hit rate. Where teams go wrong is over valuing the next tier and selecting them on the rest of the first round over better players that play any other position.
It may sound good to take QB’s in later rounds but the hit rate does go down significantly. There is a huge amount of luck that goes into all of this and the Cowboys are a great example of this and the Niners are another. Just because those teams hit on low draft picks doesn’t mean that’s the way to go. However I believe in the old Ron Wolf philosophy of always drafting a QB in mid to late rounds for development
Exactly. In general, if you're going to draft a QB, draft one of the top two. Elsewise, stay out of the first round altogether. If you're a team like Dallas, who is never ever in a position to get one of the best two QBs, this is what makes staying out of the first round the right strategy, in my opinion.
In terms of the hit rate, it depends if you call somebody like Andrew Luck a hit or not. I personally do not, as Indianapolis would've been much better if they would've kept Peyton, and not (in essence) traded him for Andrew. I suppose I don't think reaching for the QB is the right philosophy. Not necessarily reaching as in draft position, but as in going out of your way to draft a QB in the first round, i.e. Atlanta last year or New York this year. That tends not to work out very well.
It can work. That's what Patrick Mahomes was. That's what Jordan Love was, but generally, it's always better to just draft the best player available, and if that player is a QB, take him. This tanking for a QB stuff never works. Just try to be the best you can, and draft the first round QB when he falls into your lap. When the bottom falls out naturally (i.e. Cincinnati before they got Joe Burrow), it always bounces back quicker than when the bottom falls out on purpose, in an effort to get a high draft pick (i.e. my Jaguars before we got Trevor Lawrence).
I suppose I was misspeaking earlier. I am not necessarily against going QB in the first round. I'm against desperation picks, which is why I'm so jealous of teams like Dallas, SF, New Orleans (before this year), who never are in the position to have to waste draft picks in desperation on QBs.
I absolutely agree with this. It's wild how some people (especially the media) throw around serious accusations without understanding how stupid they sound—enough with the baseless hate and projection.
It happens more often than you'd think. For instance, I've been accused of being a bot several times, and I didn't think there was a sports writer in existence more human sounding than me LOL. I haven't lost anything from this, so I'm not comparing myself to Dak Prescott, but this baseless accusation throwing is everywhere. I've even got personal examples these days.
Just some legal nitpicking in regards to the DUI. But before that, we apply the presumption of innocence in criminal matters in the US. Because he was never convicted, we presume Dak did not commit a DUI.
That said, he may still have committed a DUI even if his actual BAC was below the legal limit. DUI is about the impairment, not the BAC. If you’re driving impaired after having consumed alcohol, you have committed DUI. The BAC limit, then, is just an objective measure we use to assess impairment, and have fixed it that if you are above the defined limit, it’s sufficient evidence of impairment regardless of how else you may be presenting. Driving after drinking isn’t a good idea, even if you end up below the legal limit, but I agree it had a disproportionate effect on where he was drafted.
They chose to drop the charges, which suggests that, in addition to the presumption of innocence, they probably didn’t have good evidence of Dak actually being impaired while he was driving. He probably was just speeding and smelled of alcohol once pulled over. It doesn’t mean it was good judgment on his part, but it also suggests it’s not as serious as it was likely played up to be by the media.
Right on David. I should've said something like this in the actual article. In fact, I may edit it in the morning such that it does say something like this.
I was mostly going with a legal argument, which employs but also hides the underlying presumption that a blood alcohol level near the legal limit would have a hard time significantly impairing a man with a professional athlete's body. Nevertheless, different things affect different people differently. I should've stated it more clearly. I firmly believe that Dak Prescott believed he was doing the right thing that night, which meant he couldn't have felt as if he was impaired, but that's only an opinion of mine.
The only thing I found weird about this story is why the media chose to bury Dak Prescott. I suppose that the deathly mixture of being a QB, plus being a black man in Mississippi, combined to make this far worse than it had to be, but it's not like he was a big name at the time. This really could've not been blown up this much, and nobody would've noticed, but 2016 was a big year for this kind of thing. 2016 is the same draft where Laremy Tunsil fell because of an incident that happened several years beforehand with the gas mask, so teams were up on their toes, looking for reasons not to draft people.
I often wonder if it's all worth it. All this nonsense about incidents like this. I understand not wanting to draft drunk drivers to your team, but it feels like it's caused teams to let good players go a lot more than it's permitted them to avoid bad apples.
Great deep dive and I agree with your conclusions as a lifelong Cowboys fan. One minor quibble - the years between Aikman and Romo were a wasteland. And isn’t it even more amazing that the Cowboys have had almost 20 years of Top 10-15 QB play this century from a UFA and a fourth rounder?
You're right Kent. The years between Troy and Tony were a struggle, as Quincy Carter is the only QB project the Cowboys have ever really failed at, in their entire 60+ year history. However, there was only five of them (2001-2005), and once the team got Vinny Testaverde for 2004, the QB play was passable, and I would be willing to go so far as to call Drew Bledsoe pretty good in 2005, before the Cowboys hit the jackpot again with Tony Romo.
I understand that passable would likely feel like a wasteland as a lifelong fan of the Dallas Cowboys, but I'm a Jaguars guy myself, and I would kill to have QB play as good as 2004 Vinny Testaverde. Other than one (2022) Trevor Lawrence season, we haven't had a QB as good as Vinny Testaverde's Dallas season since David Garrard left, and that was 15 years ago.
I guess you and I represent two extremes, of how good a fan can have it if a team knows how to look for a QB, and how bad a fan can have it if teams just keep throwing first round picks at the problem, without truly knowing how to develop quarterbacks.
With that said then, I actually don't think it's too unique that the Cowboys have basically spent nothing for 20 years of great QB play. If you know what you're doing in developing a QB, you don't need to waste first round picks on it. SF really doesn't use first round picks on QBs either, and they're the only team in NFL history that consistently has better QB play than Dallas. Most of that came in the 25 years where they had third round pick Joe Montana, second round pick traded for Steve Young, and UDFA Jeff Garcia. Then, they decided to use a first round pick on Alex Smith, and got the worst decade in the history of their team out of it, so they went back to dumpster diving for guys like Jimmy Garoppolo and Brock Purdy.
Both of these teams always have great QBs, but they never have to waste first round picks on them. Contrast this with teams like my Jaguars, or the Cleveland Browns, or other teams like that, who are constantly throwing first round picks at the problem, but never actually fixing it, because they don't actually care to learn how to develop their QBs.
It's not impossible to do it using first round picks. It's what Green Bay does, and it works for them, but Dallas hasn't used a first round pick on a QB since Steve Walsh in 1990, and I'd say it works out pretty well for you guys. Generally, I would go so far as to say that not using first round picks on QBs is often the right way to go, as most of the teams that get great QB play tend not to do it. The New Orleans Saints have not spent a first rounder on a QB since 1982, and they've been one of the best quarterbacked teams in the league since then as well.
In sum, I think refusing to spend high draft picks on QBs is the right move, if you can get away with it. The Cowboys are often criticized for being poorly run, for reasons that I've never understood, because I think they're very well run, which all begins with the right choices at QB. Choices that the Cowboys (with the exception of Quincy Carter) have always been able to knock out of the park.
You make some very good points but I will disagree slightly on your philosophy on spending first round picks on QB’s. Historically speaking the QB’s that go first overall have a pretty good hit rate. Where teams go wrong is over valuing the next tier and selecting them on the rest of the first round over better players that play any other position.
It may sound good to take QB’s in later rounds but the hit rate does go down significantly. There is a huge amount of luck that goes into all of this and the Cowboys are a great example of this and the Niners are another. Just because those teams hit on low draft picks doesn’t mean that’s the way to go. However I believe in the old Ron Wolf philosophy of always drafting a QB in mid to late rounds for development
Exactly. In general, if you're going to draft a QB, draft one of the top two. Elsewise, stay out of the first round altogether. If you're a team like Dallas, who is never ever in a position to get one of the best two QBs, this is what makes staying out of the first round the right strategy, in my opinion.
In terms of the hit rate, it depends if you call somebody like Andrew Luck a hit or not. I personally do not, as Indianapolis would've been much better if they would've kept Peyton, and not (in essence) traded him for Andrew. I suppose I don't think reaching for the QB is the right philosophy. Not necessarily reaching as in draft position, but as in going out of your way to draft a QB in the first round, i.e. Atlanta last year or New York this year. That tends not to work out very well.
It can work. That's what Patrick Mahomes was. That's what Jordan Love was, but generally, it's always better to just draft the best player available, and if that player is a QB, take him. This tanking for a QB stuff never works. Just try to be the best you can, and draft the first round QB when he falls into your lap. When the bottom falls out naturally (i.e. Cincinnati before they got Joe Burrow), it always bounces back quicker than when the bottom falls out on purpose, in an effort to get a high draft pick (i.e. my Jaguars before we got Trevor Lawrence).
I suppose I was misspeaking earlier. I am not necessarily against going QB in the first round. I'm against desperation picks, which is why I'm so jealous of teams like Dallas, SF, New Orleans (before this year), who never are in the position to have to waste draft picks in desperation on QBs.
I absolutely agree with this. It's wild how some people (especially the media) throw around serious accusations without understanding how stupid they sound—enough with the baseless hate and projection.
It happens more often than you'd think. For instance, I've been accused of being a bot several times, and I didn't think there was a sports writer in existence more human sounding than me LOL. I haven't lost anything from this, so I'm not comparing myself to Dak Prescott, but this baseless accusation throwing is everywhere. I've even got personal examples these days.