Most likely to fail?

[Ax]

I see fewer Cowboys homers, than I see Redskins homers on these message boards... (all of them not just ES)

This is due to the fact that like most Crackboy fans, you've got your head so far up your a$$ you could wipe your butt and rub your belly with one swipe.

:dallasuck

Of course the Fecals, led by Donovan McGagg should have been included in the poll.

:eaglesuck

[zoony]

Vikings

Raiders

and I actually think the Cowboys will be a good team this year. As much as I'd love to drink the haterade, I just cannot envision Parcells having back-to-back losing seasons.

[bulldog]

It's the Raiders! :laugh:

Yes, they have Randy Moss and he makes games entertaining. But in the end this team is going to give up 25-30 points a game and is going to lose its share of games.

Whoever wrote that this team is set to challenge a well-balanced team like San Diego or even a revamped Kansas City team is dreaming

[HeHateMe]

Well you fall short of the media expectation then. The Cowboys are far and away the predominant choice to finish 2nd in the East and win 9-10 games. I surf the web all day long, read the papers, listen to radio and I would say 85% of the opinions I hear feel your team is going to make some noise.

Since we've basically established on this board that Skins fans basically dont give any credit to most of the media, and they, for the most part, just ignore what they (media) has to say, why must we now accept that Dallas is supposed to finish in 2nd place with 9-10 wins because they (media) said so?

[Dirk Diggler]

Since we've basically established on this board that Skins fans basically dont give any credit to most of the media, and they, for the most part, just ignore what they (media) has to say, why must we now accept that Dallas is supposed to finish in 2nd place with 9-10 wins because they (media) said so?

Look at the original question posed. No one has to accept the media expectations or even agree with them. In fact, the very basis of the question is that you don't agree with the media and that said team will fall short of MEDIA expectation- whatever that is. For a team like the Pathers it's probably the Super Bowl or NFC title game. Same for Minny. For Dallas it's the Division (rare but I've seen it) or Wild Card.

You don't have to accept that Dallas is a hyped up team right now. But it's a fact that they are. Perhaps they even exceed the hype, win 11 games and go on a run (muffled laughter). But the simple fact is that if most of the media is picking you to win 3-4 more games than the prior year - you're hyped.

[ThornWithin]

1.) Indianapolis Colts (They got my vote)

People will be expecting Payton Manning and crew to outdue what they did last year on offense. I don't think that the Colts will live up to all the expectations. Don't expect to see the Colts make it past the first round of the playoffs.

2.) Dallas Cowboys

Alot of people in the league expect the Cowboys to make the playoffs this year, and there has been alot of hype revolving around their offseason. If they don't make the playoffs, their season will be labeled a failure. It would more than likley be the end of Parcells' tenure in Dallas.

No, and no.

If we finish 6-10, that would be a failure. Any improvement is a step in the right direction. I seriously, seriously doubt that Bill Parcells would end his coaching reign at Dallas if we improve any. He wants a ring, why else would he come out of retirement.

[Ax]

No, and no.

If we finish 6-10, that would be a failure. Any improvement is a step in the right direction. I seriously, seriously doubt that Bill Parcells would end his coaching reign at Dallas if we improve any. He wants a ring, why else would he come out of retirement.

Alimony payments.

[ThornWithin]

Gibbs most recent SuperBowl Rings are alot younger than the coach you have. When was the last time he proved anything? :dallasuck

That's stunningly thick headed.

Joe Gibbs last Super Bowl ring:

SuperBowl XXVI: http://www.superbowl.com/history/recaps/game/sbxxvi

Bill Parcells last Super Bowl ring:

SuperBowl...get ready...XXV!!!!: http://www.superbowl.com/history/boxscores/game/sbxxv

One year. Wow. That's a long time. Also, Bill Parcells took both the Patriots and Jets deep into the playoffs in his tenures at each respective city, not to mention he took the Cowboys to the playoffs two seasons ago.

Now...when was the last time your coach proved anything?

[chomerics]

Vikings

Raiders

and I actually think the Cowboys will be a good team this year. As much as I'd love to drink the haterade, I just cannot envision Parcells having back-to-back losing seasons.

Four words for you Zooney. . .

Drew Bledsoe . . . . cement feet

[chomerics]

One year. Wow. That's a long time. Also, Bill Parcells took both the Patriots and Jets deep into the playoffs in his tenures at each respective city, not to mention he took the Cowboys to the playoffs two seasons ago.

Just to add, Parcells has been a horrible coach without Belichick. I'll look up his record and post it, but put it this way. With Belichick, Parcells won two SB, went to a third, and went to an AFCC game. Without him, he has a losing record, and he is 0-2 in the playoffs.

So you can ask yourself, was it Parcells or Bill Belichick. People used to think I was crazy for bringing it up, but as history passes, it looks more and more like I am right, and Belichick was the reason.

In 90, the Giants defensive gameplan is in the HOF. Not the gameplan, the defensive gameplan, that speaks volumes.

Edit:

Parcells record without Belichick: 37-43

Parcells record with Belichick: 117-73 (including the first 2 NYG seasons)

Playoffs: With Belichick 12-6 2 SBwins 1SB loss

Playoffs: Without Belichick 0-2

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

[ThornWithin]

Just to add, Parcells has been a horrible coach without Belichick. I'll look up his record and post it, but put it this way. With Belichick, Parcells won two SB, went to a third, and went to an AFCC game. Without him, he has a losing record, and he is 1-1 in the playoffs.

So you can ask yourself, was it Parcells or Bill Belichick. People used to think I was crazy for bringing it up, but as history passes, it looks more and more like I am right, and Belichick was the reason.

In 90, the Giants defensive gameplan is in the HOF. Not the gameplan, the defensive gameplan, that speaks volumes.

He went 10-6 without Bellichek in 2003. With absolute scrubs for a team. Gee, he must suck.

But Joe Gibbs is the second coming of christ. Let me tell ya. :doh:

[Dirk Diggler]

One year. Wow. That's a long time. Also, Bill Parcells took both the Patriots and Jets deep into the playoffs in his tenures at each respective city, not to mention he took the Cowboys to the playoffs two seasons ago.

Now...when was the last time your coach proved anything?

Hmm - when was the last time he had the chance to?

Parcells has coached for 9 seasons since Gibbs retired following the 92 season. Gibbs has coached 1 season - to Parcells's 9. I should hope that Parcells has enjoyed a little more success over that period of time considering that he's had 8 more chances to.

So perhaps you should be a little better than the media and give that old coot Gibbs a few seasons before you anoint him a drooling failure?

[ThornWithin]

Hmm - when was the last time he had the chance to?

Parcells has coached for 9 seasons since Gibbs retired following the 92 season. Gibbs has coached 1 season - to Parcells's 9. I should hope that Parcells has enjoyed a little more success over that period of time considering that he's had 8 more chances to.

So perhaps you should be a little better than the media and give that old coot Gibbs a few seasons before you anoint him a drooling failure?

I'll give him a few seasons, but ross was trying to say that "Gibbs has proved himself more recently than Parcells". And that's stupid.

Personally, I don't *think* that Joe still has it, but there's a chance he could figure it out. He's not a drooling failure just yet, although the image of Gibbs standing there drooling does make me chuckle.

[chomerics]

He went 10-6 without Bellichek in 2003. With absolute scrubs for a team. Gee, he must suck.

But Joe Gibbs is the second coming of christ. Let me tell ya. :doh:

No, get it right, Joe Gibbs IS JESUS CHRIST!!!!!!

Parcells is an overweight never was who can't win without Belichick, the stats pretty much tell the story there. It is pretty aparent to people without blinders on, and if Parcells wasn't coaching da'boys, you'd say the same thing.

[bulldog]

I think what some of us find surprising is that based on the preseason there is no reason other than a media sniffing love of Parcells to pick the Cowboys over the Redskins.

Both teams were 6-10 last year and both teams are figuring to be somewhere below the Eagles in 2005.

How you can say one of the two looking up and down the rosters is a LOCK to be 10-6 while you place the other at 4-12 is an absolute joke :laugh:

The clear difference in the predictions is the bias of the predictor

We expect fans of the Redskins to favor the Redskins and fans of the Cowboys to favor the Cowboys.

What you don't expect is to see emotional anti-Snyder feeling lead to pot shots being taken at Gibbs and the Redskins players and to disregarding them.

The bottom line is that Gibbs won 3 Super Bowls. Parcells while coaching 10 more years has still 2. Bellichick in much more limited time now has 3 as well.

There is no doubt that Bill Parcells is a good coach, a very good coach. But what he also is, is impatient

After leaving the Giants, Parcells has abruptly terminated his employment in NE and then the Jets, putting both franchises in a state of confusion.

Then after saying he is done coaching for good, comes out of retirement to go to a team that is basically starting over after straight 5-11 seasons.

This will be his third season in Dallas. By his history, one has to wonder how long he will be in Dallas.

With Gibbs, no one questions his commitment to this team because this is the team he has an enduring relationship with.

The same sense of frustration Giants fans felt upon Parcells going to rival Dallas are ones that Redskins fans won't have to feel because Gibbs decided he wasn't going to wear another team's colors on the sidelines.

That translates into a lot more loyalty on the part of fans. That's why Redskins fans don't like the trashing of Gibbs by low lifes like Dr. Z and Len Pasta Belly.

[THEHEREAFTER]

Just to add, Parcells has been a horrible coach without Belichick. I'll look up his record and post it, but put it this way. With Belichick, Parcells won two SB, went to a third, and went to an AFCC game. Without him, he has a losing record, and he is 0-2 in the playoffs.

So you can ask yourself, was it Parcells or Bill Belichick. People used to think I was crazy for bringing it up, but as history passes, it looks more and more like I am right, and Belichick was the reason.

In 90, the Giants defensive gameplan is in the HOF. Not the gameplan, the defensive gameplan, that speaks volumes.

Edit:

Parcells record without Belichick: 37-43

Parcells record with Belichick: 117-73 (including the first 2 NYG seasons)

Playoffs: With Belichick 12-6 2 SBwins 1SB loss

Playoffs: Without Belichick 0-2

Seems pretty clear cut to me.

Yeah, and Jimmy Johnson had a better record with Norv Turner and Dave Wanstedt. This proves nothing! Joe Gibbs record with Daniel Snyder w/o Casserly or Bethard is 6-10. So if Bellicek does not win the SB this year w/o Weiss and Crennel .. is he now a bad coach?

[The extremist]

they left out the Steelers..who could wind-up 3rd in their division..

agreed...i think they will struggle greatly on offense

my second choice would be the Chargers

[AJWatson3]

1- Jets (before sunday too)

they are getting better on defense, still need help at the CB position (sorry an injured Ty Law doesn't count). lost a major cog in the run defense when Ferguson went to play for Dallas. biggest losses were on offense with Lamont Jordan going to OAK (they will sorely miss him within a year) and Santana Moss going to WAS. Coles is a good WR, but has lost a gear with his lingering toe injury... he couldn't go deep last season. now it appears that he's got the dropsies.

edit: oh yeah, another major reason, they are only the 3rd best team in the AFC East. duh!

2- Oakland

Can't win without defense. that was easier than the Jets reason.

[Renegade7]

What no Redskins?

You really see us falling short of 4-12? :laugh: Denver. They really, really suck.

[cunningfool]

You have to say the Panthers here. Too many people have already penned them into the NFC championship game. I don't really care that they are in fact good. I just know that it is not that easy to make it that deep into the playoffs. It is a long season and they already got off on the wrong foot! :dallasuck

[Pencilpusher]

I picked the Panthers simply because I have heard them be a superbowl pick. I don't see that.

I don't know if the Cowboys make the play-offs or not, but their D is certainly improved on paper, we'll just have to see how it plays out on the field. Anthony Henry impressed me and s the season goes, I think their rookies will play like rookies at times so it's hard to say.

I will say I am pleased with the focus on D they showed.

I feel some may overhype them, but the majority are pretty lucid and expect modest improvements.

The Panthers going to the Superbowl is a much more overhyped prediction.

[Bryan_Randall]

The Cowboys have the majority vote... what a surprise! Foolish... but not shocking.

Anyway, I picked the Panthers. They already looked bad starting off.

[jbishop26]

the cowgirls, right after Sean or LaVar ends bledsoe's career. It'll be hard to watch Parcell's resigning right after his veteran QB goes down along with any chance of a winning season.

:dallasuck

[Pencilpusher]

the cowgirls, right after Sean or LaVar ends bledsoe's career. It'll be hard to watch Parcell's resigning right after his veteran QB goes down along with any chance of a winning season.

:dallasuck

Why root for an injury? I like to win games when everyone that is on each team is healthy. While you are rooting for another teams injury, it might sneak up on your own.

[gambit]

Minnesota. How can you get rid of your best receiver and then say you have improved the team?