elkabong82 Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 I again re-read the other post and see no post acknowledging you misworded your statement. I wouldn't have brought it up again if there was that acknowledgement.Since the NFL went to its current playoff format in 1990, Dallas is the first #1 seed to lose in the Divisional round. From 1975-1989 there were 4 teams that lost in the divisional round (their 1st playoff game). Your previous post was in regards to #1 seed losing at home. Which of course is different from your new question of losing the first playoff game. Since 1990, 7 NFC teams lost at home in the playoffs. These would obviously have all been in the Championship game. http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/release.jsp?release_id=1942 In the other thread, the one where I stated the Cowboys #1 seed thing is where I said I misworded it. I'm not sure on it though, but I did go on to correct what I misworded. The question isn't different, because a #1 seed always plays their first playoff game at home. I simply reworded it to clarify the point. Like I said though, I misworded it originally, and at this point all we're doing is splitting hairs. Of course I know #1 NFC seeds have lost in the playoffs before, and at home, the Seahawks weren't the #1 seed when they went in '05, for example. What I meant is a #1 seed in the NFC losing their first playoff game in the postseason. That game is going to be at their home. At first it was implied, and then I clarified that. Is Dallas the 5th among NFC teams, or all NFL teams? Either way, that is bad. And they're the first to do it in at least 18 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slogriff Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Is Dallas the 5th among NFC teams, or all NFL teams? Either way, that is bad. And they're the first to do it in at least 18 years. Dallas is the 5th #1 seeded NFC team (since '75) to lose in the divisional round (1st home playoff game). There have been 9 #1 seeded AFC teams to lose in the divisional round during the same time frame. This info is all included in the link I previously provided. Top seeded performance from 1975-2007. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Dallas is the 5th #1 seeded NFC team (since '75) to lose in the divisional round (1st home playoff game).There have been 9 #1 seeded AFC teams to lose in the divisional round during the same time frame. This info is all included in the link I previously provided. Top seeded performance from 1975-2007. Good stuff. (I tried the link, but the page was white and kept trying to load wihout success for some reason). So they are only the 5th NFC team to do so, the 1st to do so in over 18 years in the NFC, and the 1st to do so in the NFC this century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slogriff Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Good stuff. (I tried the link, but the page was white and kept trying to load wihout success for some reason). So they are only the 5th NFC team to do so, the 1st to do so in over 18 years in the NFC, and the 1st to do so in the NFC this century. Being the #1 seed and losing a close game to the ultimate SB champs is a complete disgrace. The only thing I can think of being worse is maybe losing 4 straight SBs like the Bills. Now that is beyond bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motorhead Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 The best thing after a day of grillin', drinkin, and watching football?A nightcap watching the 'boys lose!:dallasuck Love them or HATE THEM I'll drink to that! :40oz: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 We won three prime time games in a row at the end of last season and made the playoffs... I'm talking about scheduled prime time, not the NFL shifting the schedule and I'm sure you've seen in past years just how badly we fail when the spotlight is placed on us. Maybe not last season but I can think of more than a few times. I dont like MNF especially. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 I'm talking about scheduled prime time, not the NFL shifting the schedule and I'm sure you've seen in past years just how badly we fail when the spotlight is placed on us. Maybe not last season but I can think of more than a few times. I dont like MNF especially. Scheduled ahead of time or not, they were prime time games, and last year we did pretty well in the national spotlight. We won at least 4 prime time games in 2007, that's not too shabby. And in 2005 I remember the Skins beating the Cowboys in prime time as well as the Eagles (can't remember which other games that year were in prime time). In 2006 and 2004 we stunk all the way around, prime time or not lol... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 If the pukes lose early, they'll not be in as many prime time games. The league's scheduling will get very flexible as the season progresses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 You sure? I don't think many people outside of NE like them. And those born in NE tend to stay there unlike people born in DC, Dallas, Philly, or NY, who tend to move around. Which is why all those teams have fans all over the USEspecially Dallas who has many bandwagon fake, fairwether fans all over. New England - Indy last year was, I believe, the highest rated game regular season game ever. But I don't think New England is the consistent draw that Dallas is. They were just historical last year. My impression is that the NFL would put the Cowboys, Steelers, and Giants in prime time every week and be very happy with the results. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Being the #1 seed and losing a close game to the ultimate SB champs is a complete disgrace. The only thing I can think of being worse is maybe losing 4 straight SBs like the Bills. Now that is beyond bad. The NFC East made the Bills their ***** then. Well, all of them except the Eagles. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 To put the whole Seattle doctored the balls at the end to rest, Romo sits to pee held for the 2 extra points and 2 other FG's, so really no excuse, but I will say that he, just like other players before him, made a mistake. Costly mistake, but a mistake nontheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pjfootballer Posted April 16, 2008 Share Posted April 16, 2008 Anything that avoids implicating Campbell for his bad play is EXCUSE-MAKING. Bad line or no bad line. Amazing as to how Collins had the exavct same bad Oline and WRs, and ride s 4-game winning streak.Who needs to have excuses made for him? The guy that passed for over 4,000 yards, a 64% pass completion rate, 36 TDs, a QB Rating of 97.4 and led his team to a 13-3 record and to the playoffs... AND A TWO TIME PRO-BOWLER... When you give up 50-something sacks like the Lions and Chiefs, then you complain. Actually, if you want to compare apples to apples, look no further back then the 2005 and 2006 seasons for Dallass. When your offensive line was in shamble, both Bledsoe and Romo sits to pee were sacked quite a bit and were thus ineffective. Last year Romo sits to pee had great protection and as you said, had a great season. To missed parts of 2005 and 2006 with injuries and the passing attack wasn't as good as it was this past season when he was healthy. Just like when Santana was healthy and our line was healthy in 2005 we had one of the best passing attacks in the league, so, yes, OL and WR DO MATTER! And to use the Lions and Cheifs is non comparable as they were 2 of the worst lines in the league. We gave up less sacks with our backups. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.