Just a reminder to non cowboys fans

[SWFLSkins]

Undermined? BP had the control and the dollars to build a team in his image. Bottom line is that he made several mistakes along the way. Once again, BP is a HOF coach because of what he did with the NY Giants in the 1980's and early 90's.

--------------------------

And Wade Phillips was a better selection because????? :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :dallasuck :dallasuck :dallasuck :dallasuck :dallasuck :dallasuck

[SWFLSkins]

Oh I have to disagree. I can look at my avatar and think its You-know-who's high school prom picture.:laugh: :laugh:

=====================Your date? -btw, your a great straight man, no wait a minute that is not right.

[SWFLSkins]

Popular belief but pure speculation DWinzit and you know it. T.O. just doesn't show up with a name plate in the locker room without BP signing off. BP wanted one last run but it didn't work out.

Exactly and he was at the end of the road with us. He just couldn't do it any more. You could see it on his face. You could see it on the sidelines. If we didn't win @ Carolina after he started Romo sits to pee, the man may have commited suicide. I doubt he coaches again. Yes, look at the personnel and look at the results. Another December down the F'n tubes man! Somebodies gotta be accountable. HC's and QB's are judged by their records and postseason results. It's a tough business.

____________________________

Enough with Wade's resume let's talk about the first paid player ever.

[dfos81]

BP had the control and the dollars to build a team in his image. Bottom line is that he made several mistakes along the way. Once again, BP is a HOF coach because of what he did with the NY Giants in the 1980's and early 90's.

Just like Dallas used to be a great team in the 90's and had a few superbowls w/ Landry as well. Thats the same logic your using on why BP was known for what he did w/ the NY Giants.

[THEHEREAFTER]

so you can acknowledge history you didn't see or experience, but only when it suits you

got it :laugh:

I don't acknowledge the Pre-SB era when discussing championships. That's all. That's just me. I'm not saying that the history doesn't exist. For example, I wouldn't say the redskins have as many championships as Dallas in casual discussion. I'm wouldn't necessarily have a problem with someone who counts championships before the SB. Just expressing what I recognize.

so by your own account at the earliest you can remember Landry years were his last 8 years or from the 82 season... none of Landry success as far as playoffs and Super Bowls, but right at the time Gibbs run began

Nope, you're not counting right. I became a fan at around age 6 so about 1980. I remember watching Dwight Clark crush my spirits at Candlestick. Although I don't remember Dallas beating the Broncos in '79, Landry did make the playoffs in the 1980's repeatedly.

oh stop it :laugh:

it is common sense THA, you were born in 74 and people in their thirties first clear detailed memories are around the age of seven to ten.

but you are trying to tell us that your time line doesn't begin when you actually started being a Poke fan (which you confirmed above) was around 1982

I never said a year. It was around 1980.... and why the hell are you trying to figure me out this hard. Relax Bubba. Are you insane? A control freak? This is a message board. You've gotten so bad that you're arguing when and what age I started following the Cowboys like you argue Tony Romo sits to pee's stats. Good Grief man.

but you acknowledge history that goes BEFORE your memory, even before your birth, but only to the point it suits your agenda... the first years of the Pokes doesn't count, because those years they stunk, only when thy started winning is the beginning of time in your world

Of course not. I just don't count the pre-SB era when casually discussing championships. We were horrible in the sixties and we've been horrible since I've been alive and following the Cowboys. I'm not running from history. My team has been God-awful and great and everything in between which makes winning that much sweeter. The pre AFL NFL merger and especially the pre SB just insn't my reality when discussing football.

and the fact that you want to determine what part of history is relevant, and expect everyone to conform to your time line, but your refuse to accept the real time line..... That my friend is the height of being arrogant

:rotflmao: sure you have sure you have

just like you acknowledge pokes flaws right? the ones you have never ever listed... or when others points out flaws you argue against each and every time... but you have admitted they have flaws :laugh:

keep working it.... somebody might believe your fabrications

Think about it. 99% OF YOUR EXISTENCE ON THIS BOARD IS TO DISCUSS YOUR PERCeiVED FLAWS OF THE DALLAS COWBOYS. There's really no need to discuss my teams flaws. You guys do it all day every day. Some of you even moreso than you discuss your own team. I've discussed my own teams flaws plenty you just don't pay attention.

why?????

are you a certified expert, with years of experience in the NFL?? with inside knowledge of Gibbs and his coaching before and now?

ARE YOU?? Who is on this MESSAGE BOARD? We are fans with opinions. There's something seriously wrong with you man.

if not then guess what? what you "think" means jack squat

So whomever isn't "a certified expert with years of experience in the NFL with inside knowledge of Gibbs and his coaching before and now".... there opinion means jack squat? I guess I'm not allowed to express what I think of Joe Gibbs? By your own statement, yours and everyone else's opinion on this site means jack squat. Brilliant.

unless you have something tangible to base it on, you know.. articles, facts, stats, any logical conclusion?

What about 27 years of watching football and my brain. My opinion. I give you stats and facts but you refute anything that you don't like. Joe Gibbs must really touch a nerve with you. Many skins fans also question whether Gibbs still "has it."

[THEHEREAFTER]

Just like Dallas used to be a great team in the 90's and had a few superbowls w/ Landry as well. Thats the same logic your using on why BP was known for what he did w/ the NY Giants.

Yes. Dallas hasn't been an elite team since the 90's. BP achieved his HOF status BEFORE Dallas. You got it.

[TK]

I don't acknowledge the Pre-SB era when discussing championships. That's all. That's just me. I'm not saying that the history doesn't exist. For example, I wouldn't say the redskins have as many championships as Dallas in casual discussion. I'm wouldn't necessarily have a problem with someone who counts championships before the SB. Just expressing what I recognize.

I just don't count the pre-SB era when casually discussing championships.

and the fact that you want to determine what part of history is relevant, and expect everyone to conform to your time line, but your refuse to accept the real time line..... That my friend is the height of being arrogant

Impressive.

With that rant, you managed to own yourself. :laugh:

[Area51]

What happens when you smoke crack?

You start a pathetic thread about the success of America's second choice team on their hated rival's website.

Seriously though, get off the crack. Looking at your pic in your avatar, its really taking its toll on you.

[ptr77]

Impressive.

With that rant, you managed to own yourself. :laugh:

WOW. Has he managed to put his foot in his mouth everytime he posts? If it wasn't so funny i would actually feel bad for him. THA quit while you are very, very, very far behind and save face. The nfl was founded in 1920, not when you were born and not when the superbowl was played. You can recognize whatever you want, you look rediculously foolish and every post clashes with the next. And the cowboys haven't been "great" in over a decade, brag about the here and now, if you want to trophy polish, then past nfl championships count as do superbowls.

[Dance04]

THA, says here you're 33 years old.... what exactly are you doing accumulating over 4,000 posts on the message board of a team that is the worst enemy of your own? just a question:laugh:

[bubba9497]

I don't acknowledge the Pre-SB era when discussing championships. That's all. That's just me. I'm not saying that the history doesn't exist. For example, I wouldn't say the redskins have as many championships as Dallas in casual discussion. I'm wouldn't necessarily have a problem with someone who counts championships before the SB. Just expressing what I recognize.

Bull ****, you're using your "opinion" in a debate as if it is the definitive period of time that matters.

but why should I be surprised at you back tracking and twisting history to suit your needs :laugh:

I just don't count the pre-SB era when casually discussing championships.

and the fact that you want to determine what part of history is relevant, and expect everyone to conform to your time line, but your refuse to accept the real time line..... That my friend is the height of being arrogant

oh boy, you wanted to mock me, but in the process you really made a boob out of yourself :laugh:

1. You called yourself arrogant, which is true, and funny... I like how you even copied the "but your refuse to accept the real time line" insinuating that yours is the real time line, again as TK said completely owning yourself

2. accusing me of trying to force my belief on others, when the history of the NFL is a documented period of time, a fact... not what "I" recognize to suit my needs... because it doesn't matter if I felt I was so self important, that I actually believe it matters that I must recognize it, because it's a freaking fact

3. you calling anyone arrogant is hypocritical (oh and before you try and post a comeback to call me hypocritical, I would suggest looking it up and understand what the word means, and use it correctly unlike what you usually do)

You can't seem to grasp that your only using "your" opinion or beliefs, what "you" think as proof, in a debate, to confirm your point, or in a rebuttal to someone else's post, is self serving, arrogant, self righteous, and incorrect. You actually belief that what you think is correct, and you are always right, and despite the someone else has actual factual information, confirmed from legitimate sources to back their opinion or response, you actually try to dispute it with your own, backed only by adding, "I", as if it is actual proof :doh:

[Mooka]

The Dallas Cowboys, best team money, sex and drugs can buy.

-Confessions of a Cocaine Cowboy

Heard ol' Hollywood won the Texas State Lottery. Now he can pay his girls with cash instead of crack.

Mr HoF himself.

"I don't even like pot," - Nate Newton

Could've fooled me. :laugh:

Sadly, this is Leon when he's sober.

"This is not America's Team. This is more like America's children, trying to find out who they are, posturing and screaming and making idiots of themselves in front of the TV cameras. Every time I see them on TV, I don't know whether to root for the defense or root for the prosecution. No, this will never be America's Team. If this is, then woe is America."

- Jerry Kramer

[ImRickJamesB]

The only reason why you don't count squat before the SB era is because it ruins your argument.

Seriously , the '37 and '42 "Championships", they're NOT on par with a SuperBowl.....

In '37 and '42, there were only 2 divisions, comprised of 5 teams each (10 teams total)... 11 game season...

In '37 and '42, there was only 1 "playoff" game. Back then, winning the "championship", was like winning the NFC-East, and then winning a wildcard game in today's age.

All of Dallas' 5 SuperBowl Championships, have come in a league comprised of 3 times as many teams (26-30 teams)! Also, 3 times as many playoff games!

Not to mention, a much longer regular season (14 - mostly 16 games)...

Almost EVERY team won a couple of "championships" in the 10 team era.... :jerk:

Heck, even Philadelphia won 2 in a row!!! So what's next, somebody wanna tell me that Eagles team was one of the NFL's greatest dynasties? :laugh:

The Giants also won 3.....

Even Cleveland and the lowly Cardinals, pulled 2 "championships" outta the 10 team era...

Just something funny, the Skins lost to the Bears in the 1940 "Championship" game 73-0..........:doh: ........ :laugh:

Fact is, the Redskins were (at best) the 5th best team, in an era of only 10........

:notworthy

[bubba9497]

Seriously, the '37 and '42 "Championships", they're NOT on par with a SuperBowl.....

In '37 and '42, there were only 2 divisions, comprised of 5 teams each (10 teams total)... 11 game season...

In '37 and '42, there was only 1 "playoff" game. Back then, winning the "championship", was like winning the NFC-East, and then winning a wildcard game in today's age.

All of Dallas' 5 SuperBowl Championships, have come in a league comprised of 3 times as many teams (26-30 teams)! Also, 3 times as many playoff games!

Not to mention, a much longer regular season (14 - mostly 16 games)...

Almost EVERY team won a couple of "championships" in the 10 team era....

Heck, even Philadelphia won 3 in a row!!! So what's next, y'all gonna tell me that Eagles team was one of the NFL's greatest dynasties?

The Giants also won 3.....

Even Cleveland and the lowly Cardinals, pulled 2 "championships" outa the 10 team era...

Fact is, the Redskins were the 5th best team, in an era of only 10........

:notworthy

you do realize that the more teams the more the talent level was watered down

so actually championship won when there were 32 teams, or 30 team or 28 teams league were actually much less difficult to win based on pure talent level ratio of their respective era

[ross3909]

Had you been old enough bubba, you would have said something like this.........."Who's this Tom Landry character the Cowboys have hired? He's gonna suck"..............

You probably said........."Jimmy Johnson is a college coach, his game won't translate to the NFL".................

So now you want me to worry about Wade??

If one thing is as certain as death and taxes, its the Cowboys will keep winning and winning and winning. Just like the Energizer bunny.

Every franchise should BOW AT THE FEET OF THE GREATNESS OF THE BOYS.............

Ummm...3 out of the last 4, and soon to be 5 out of the last 6.

[ptr77]

Seriously , the '37 and '42 "Championships", they're NOT on par with a SuperBowl.....

In '37 and '42, there were only 2 divisions, comprised of 5 teams each (10 teams total)... 11 game season...

In '37 and '42, there was only 1 "playoff" game. Back then, winning the "championship", was like winning the NFC-East, and then winning a wildcard game in today's age.

All of Dallas' 5 SuperBowl Championships, have come in a league comprised of 3 times as many teams (26-30 teams)! Also, 3 times as many playoff games!

Not to mention, a much longer regular season (14 - mostly 16 games)...

Almost EVERY team won a couple of "championships" in the 10 team era.... :jerk:

Heck, even Philadelphia won 2 in a row!!! So what's next, somebody wanna tell me that Eagles team was one of the NFL's greatest dynasties? :laugh:

The Giants also won 3.....

Even Cleveland and the lowly Cardinals, pulled 2 "championships" outta the 10 team era...

Just something funny, the Skins lost to the Bears in the 1940 "Championship" game 73-0..........:doh: ........ :laugh:

Fact is, the Redskins were (at best) the 5th best team, in an era of only 10........

:notworthy

The league gets watered down as more teams are added, watch the nhl if you don't believe it, they need to axe some teams. If you want to polish trophies won in the NFL, then past NFL CHAMPIONSHIPS should count. You can't say the don't count because your precious boys didn't win them. Talk about the number of teams all you want, there were still great players back then, thats what won the games, not "oh there's only ten teams i guess its our turn to win". If you discredit the championships based on the league size, then how about we only count the superbowls with 32 teams, and all the others are discredited, and when the league expands again we discredit the league with 32 teams. What if in the future, years from now there are 60 teams, will the cowboys championships be worthless because they were won with a lot less teams? ( 2X the 26 to 32 teams you stated) The number of games and playoffs games is also meaningless, the best team shows up on sunday and wins the game, so if there were 100 or just 1 game the best team should in all likelihood win the title regardless.

[Birdlives]

As you've been lumped in with Bubba and Tr1. Need I say more.

Really? Do they own you as frequently as I have?

I guess those defeats are still fresh in your mind. :laugh:

Seriously, considering your post history with me that was the exact wrong direction to go.

[ouvan59]

The standard when discussing the NFL is the SB era. My NFL time line doesn't go back before the SB era. The league was so different pre-SB era that most don't use it as an evaluation.

Kind of ironic that JJ's original rant bragged on the Cowboys' entire history and not just the SB era history.

By the way, the modern era of football is not the SB era. It may be for the mouth-breathing, attention-span challenged, ESPN-gulping Gen X but not by the rest of the world. Here are some facts for you. Vince Lombardi is almost universally considered the greatest football coach of all time. He did the majority of his coaching prior to the SB era. Tom Landry was a great coach (D coodinator for Giants) in the 50s before he was a great coach in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Bart Starr won two SB MVPs but said his greatest football moment was winning the NFL Championship in 1961. But I guess he must be senile or something because clearly it should be winning the 1st SB because that's when football began, right?

Just another bunch of cherry picking Cowboy fans. :doh:

[bubba9497]

Kind of ironic that JJ's original rant bragged on the Cowboys' entire history and not just the SB era history.

By the way, the modern era of football is not the SB era. It may be for the mouth-breathing, attention-span challenged, ESPN-gulping Gen X but not by the rest of the world. Here are some facts for you. Vince Lombardi is almost universally considered the greatest football coach of all time. He did the majority of his coaching prior to the SB era. Tom Landry was a great coach (D coodinator for Giants) in the 50s before he was a great coach in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Bart Starr won two SB MVPs but said his greatest football moment was winning the NFL Championship in 1961. But I guess he must be senile or something because clearly it should be winning the 1st SB because that's when football began, right?

Just another bunch of cherry picking Cowboy fans. :doh:

the NFL's greatest game is considered to be the 1958 Championship

Colts vs Giants

Jim Brown stats all before the SB era, retired 1965

the AFL started in 1960

[dfos81]

Impressive.

With that rant, you managed to own yourself. :laugh:

Only a cowboy could do that :laugh: :laugh: :dallasuck

[dfos81]

Kind of ironic that JJ's original rant bragged on the Cowboys' entire history and not just the SB era history.

By the way, the modern era of football is not the SB era. It may be for the mouth-breathing, attention-span challenged, ESPN-gulping Gen X but not by the rest of the world. Here are some facts for you. Vince Lombardi is almost universally considered the greatest football coach of all time. He did the majority of his coaching prior to the SB era. Tom Landry was a great coach (D coodinator for Giants) in the 50s before he was a great coach in the 60s, 70s and 80s. Bart Starr won two SB MVPs but said his greatest football moment was winning the NFL Championship in 1961. But I guess he must be senile or something because clearly it should be winning the 1st SB because that's when football began, right?

Just another bunch of cherry picking Cowboy fans. :doh:

Another good day to see a Skin "owning" a Cowgirl :applause: This was brutal though, I'm starting to think they come here just to be :owned: :laugh: :laugh:

[Birdlives]

and the fact that you want to determine what part of history is relevant, and expect everyone to conform to your time line, but your refuse to accept the real time line..... That my friend is the height of being arrogant

Wow. Just wow. I guess you didn't realize that's exactly what you're doing, huh?

This combined with "the pre-SuperBowl era doesn't count." is the exact definition of hypocrisy.

:laugh:

[Fred Jones]

I wonder why the SB trophy is named after a coach that only won two SB's? I don't know what he did before he won his two Super Bowls because puke fans say that is irrelevant.

There are a lot of coaches that have won a lot more games and Super Bowls than him. Walsh, for example, changed the game with his WCO. Maybe we should petition the league to change it to the Walsh trophy instead of that coach that only won two Super Bowls. I can't remember how many championships he won before the Super Bowl era because they don't count.

[bubba9497]

Wonder why the city of Cleveland wanted to keep all their teams records and championships as the Browns, when they reformed as a team in 99, because all the important stuff was before the SB era, :whoknows:

[pjfootballer]

Sorry, Getting to this thread real late.

Poor statistics on your part. I'll forgive you, cause I'm big like that, but we all know that the cowboys are the epitome of greatness and no other franchise can stack up to them no matter how they try.

I think the 49ers and Steelers and maybe the Packers would have something to say about that.