Cowboys not much better than Redskins

[paloosa]

With all the Media craze and the Cowboy "love-fest" lately, the history of the Cowboys and how great Jerry Jones is as an owner is vastly over rated and very misleading. Well I finally figured it out. The Cowboys problems land in the lap Jerry Jones. If you look at the Cowboys history you can see where eveything went wrong. It all started in 1987 when the legendary Head Coach of the Cowboys, Tom Landry had is first losing season in 20 years. The Cowboys were always in the playoffs and had a winning record under Landry except his last 2 or 3 years as Head Coach of the Cowboys. Then in 1989 Jerry Jones purchased the Cowboys, fired Tom Landry, and hired Jimmy Johnson. Jimmy Johnson won two Super Bowls before he left the Cowboys. Then Jerry Jones hires Barry Switzer and he won a Super Bowl, but everyone says it was with Jimmy Johnsons team. The last Super Bowl was in 1996 and 1997 was Switzers last season. Since then they have hired Chan Gailey, Dave Campo, Bill Parcells and Wade Phillips. They have a combined 80-83 record and it could be worse if not for Wade phillips miracle season last year. If you exclude Wade Phillips the Cowboys under Gailey, Campo and Parcells are 67-79. So how does this equal success and a Super Bowl championship pick every year since the hiring of Bill Parcells. Parcels was 34-32 as the Cowboys Head Coach and made the playoffs 2 times.

Since 1996 the Cowboys have only made the playoffs 5 times, won the divisional title 2 times and has lost their first game in the playoffs every year since that time. So how do you, as an analyst and a "so-called" expert, pick the Dallas Cowboys as a Super Bowl champ or even a contender based on those statistics? You pick the Redskins as being in the bottom based on those same type of winning statistics. But if you look at the Redskins since that time Under Snyder and Head Coaches Norv Turner, Marty Schottenheimer, Steve Spurrier, and Joe Gibbs they are a combined 73 -86 with 3 playoff appearances, one divisional title and a 2-3 record in that same time period in the playoffs. So if the Cowboys were that much better than the Redskins every year, then why do they have only 7 more wins, 2 more playoff appearances, 1 more divisional title and a -2 in wins in the playoffs than the Redskins? Cowboys are 0-5 in the playoffs since then.So in reality the Cowboys are not that much better than the Redskins. Sorry, Stats don't lie.

[phatSkins27]

REDSKINS ARE BETTER THAN THE COWBOYS

next question....?

[Rdskn4Lyf21]

REDSKINS ARE BETTER THAN THE COWBOYS

next question....?

Seconded. Close thread

[BurntToast]

Both where one and done in the playoffs

[AKM311]

Not being a hater or a homer, but these kind of stats are stupid.

You give a record and then say take away Phillips miracle year last year. Now take away Dave Campo's record (5-11 in three consecutive years) and then you have a team that competed every year almost.

Can you say that about the Skins? The problem with the Skins under Snyder has been this, while yes we have 3 playoff appearances and 2 playoff wins, all the other seasons we sucked bad.

Marty lead us to and 8-8 season, but if anyone remembers we were 0-5 and had to have one of the best combacks in a season to get to a competitive looking record. Spurrier 7-9, but was 5-9 at on point. Then we go 5-11 the next year. Gibbs first year, we are 6-10 and two seasons later were 5-11.

Either we have done well or we just plain out sucked! Where as the Cowboys, fine they keep losing in the first round, but they put up 10-6 record under Parcells, an 9-7 record, 13-3 under Phillips, and a division win under Chan Gailey.

That allows the fans to enjoy more seasons than us. Look at how you get to the record instead of just looking at the final records.

Now I am a die hard fan, but why don't we focus on building a competitive team for years instead of just trying to convince ourselves we are as good as the Cowboys. Now for the upcoming year, I think were closer to them than people think. But we need to prove it before we start saying it.

[SnyderMustGo]

Wait, Jerry Jones is a problem because he has only won 3 Super Bowls?

I wish we could say the same for Snyder.

[Redskins:Victory_or_Death]

[bill] Parcels was 34-32 as the Cowboys Head Coach and made the playoffs 2 times.

Parcels did for the Cowboys what Gibbs did for the Redskins. They each took a team that was in disastrous free-fall and made them respectable again. They solidified their team and brought pride back to the organization and made their team feel like they could win again. They each laid the foundation for their successors to do really well and take the next step.

And I don't think that either coach gets the credit that they deserve.

[TonyRomoProBowl]

Parcels did for the Cowboys what Gibbs did for the Redskins. They each took a team that was in disastrous free-fall and made them respectable again. They solidified their team and brought pride back to the organization and made their team feel like they could win again. They each laid the foundation for their successors to do really well and take the next step.

And I don't think that either coach gets the credit that they deserve.

this my forend is dead on accurate, and i have said it beofre and sttick by it. Nice post!

Gibbs did the Skins right, and look at where they are at because of him, and the same for Parcells........

:applause:

[elkabong82]

Parcels did for the Cowboys what Gibbs did for the Redskins. They each took a team that was in disastrous free-fall and made them respectable again. They solidified their team and brought pride back to the organization and made their team feel like they could win again. They each laid the foundation for their successors to do really well and take the next step.

And I don't think that either coach gets the credit that they deserve.

Hit the nail on the head. :applause:

[Cowboy8467]

Parcels did for the Cowboys what Gibbs did for the Redskins. They each took a team that was in disastrous free-fall and made them respectable again. They solidified their team and brought pride back to the organization and made their team feel like they could win again. They each laid the foundation for their successors to do really well and take the next step.

And I don't think that either coach gets the credit that they deserve.

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but I also have to agree 100%. They both brought a measure of respectability to a couple of organizations that had fallen on some hard times. I look forward to seeing them both be competitive for years to come. :applause:

[AKM311]

Not trying to beat a dead horse, but I also have to agree 100%. They both brought a measure of respectability to a couple of organizations that had fallen on some hard times. I look forward to seeing them both be competitive for years to come. :applause:

I'll be honest, I just want to see the Skins competitive for years to come, lol! :dallasuck

[CowboysSaintsFan]

Why is everyone upset? Being a long-time Cowboys fan-I can honestly say we're NOT THAT great. Talented and pretty good, yes-but we nonetheless have some holes.

BTW-the STACKED talented team in the league is the SD Chargers.

[coolbeans]

With all the Media craze and the Cowboy "love-fest" lately, the history of the Cowboys and how great Jerry Jones is as an owner is vastly over rated and very misleading. Well I finally figured it out. The Cowboys problems land in the lap Jerry Jones. If you look at the Cowboys history you can see where eveything went wrong. It all started in 1987 when the legendary Head Coach of the Cowboys, Tom Landry had is first losing season in 20 years. The Cowboys were always in the playoffs and had a winning record under Landry except his last 2 or 3 years as Head Coach of the Cowboys. Then in 1989 Jerry Jones purchased the Cowboys, fired Tom Landry, and hired Jimmy Johnson. Jimmy Johnson won two Super Bowls before he left the Cowboys. Then Jerry Jones hires Barry Switzer and he won a Super Bowl, but everyone says it was with Jimmy Johnsons team. The last Super Bowl was in 1996 and 1997 was Switzers last season. Since then they have hired Chan Gailey, Dave Campo, Bill Parcells and Wade Phillips. They have a combined 80-83 record and it could be worse if not for Wade phillips miracle season last year. If you exclude Wade Phillips the Cowboys under Gailey, Campo and Parcells are 67-79. So how does this equal success and a Super Bowl championship pick every year since the hiring of Bill Parcells. Parcels was 34-32 as the Cowboys Head Coach and made the playoffs 2 times.

Since 1996 the Cowboys have only made the playoffs 5 times, won the divisional title 2 times and has lost their first game in the playoffs every year since that time. So how do you, as an analyst and a "so-called" expert, pick the Dallas Cowboys as a Super Bowl champ or even a contender based on those statistics? You pick the Redskins as being in the bottom based on those same type of winning statistics. But if you look at the Redskins since that time Under Snyder and Head Coaches Norv Turner, Marty Schottenheimer, Steve Spurrier, and Joe Gibbs they are a combined 73 -86 with 3 playoff appearances, one divisional title and a 2-3 record in that same time period in the playoffs. So if the Cowboys were that much better than the Redskins every year, then why do they have only 7 more wins, 2 more playoff appearances, 1 more divisional title and a -2 in wins in the playoffs than the Redskins? Cowboys are 0-5 in the playoffs since then.So in reality the Cowboys are not that much better than the Redskins. Sorry, Stats don't lie.

The entire problem with this post is that you choose the date to go back to that simply fits your agenda of wanting to post something negative about Dallas. Why stop at 1996? Why not go back to 1992 and lay out the same stats? How about all the way back to the merger. This post is no different than me coming on here and saying Dallas is way better than the skins because they have 3 superbowls and many more playoff wins since 1992. See, I just picked an arbitrary date that would help prove my agenda in that case.

[pjfootballer]

The date was picked because 1995 was the last time either of us won a championship. He was also using Johnson and Gibbs I as the end of 2 good eras. He never said you guys were worse than us, just not better.

[THEHEREAFTER]

I still don't get the OP. Who's better when? Who projects to be better THIS year? If that's what you're asking that has nothing to do with 1996 and 2001 etc.? Can you narrow your point down because you're all over the place?

[ArmchairRedskin]

I got this.

THA, right now, on this board, in this section, the Redskins are better than the Cowboys.

I hope that clears it up for you.

[skinfan2k]

The entire problem with this post is that you choose the date to go back to that simply fits your agenda of wanting to post something negative about Dallas. Why stop at 1996? Why not go back to 1992 and lay out the same stats? How about all the way back to the merger. This post is no different than me coming on here and saying Dallas is way better than the skins because they have 3 superbowls and many more playoff wins since 1992. See, I just picked an arbitrary date that would help prove my agenda in that case.

So why not go back to 1983 then;)

[coolbeans]

So why not go back to 1983 then;)

Thats my point exactly. You can always tell the agenda of the poster in threads like this by the cut off date they choose to use.

[elkabong82]

Thats my point exactly. You can always tell the agenda of the poster in threads like this by the cut off date they choose to use.

Post 14, pjfootballer's response told you why the OP only went back as far as he did. And in actuality, the original poster started laying the time frame back in 1987.

But I think you missed the real point of the OP. Which was that since the end of the Cowboys glory era in 1995, they haven't been much better than the Skins. Yet they still get constant media love.

While you guys did win 3 Superbowls in the 90's, it was 13 years ago. Since then the Cowboys haven't done a ton more than the Skins to deserve all the accolades, hype, and praise. That is why he said they are overrated.

That is my interpretation of what the OP said. I personally don't need to look at history to tell the Cowboys are overrated. All I have to do is look at their current roster. I'm not saying the Cowboys aren't good. They are unfortunately. But the Skins split the series with them, dominating in one game, and losing on the very last play in the other (if ST is in that game, TO doesn't pull down 4 TDs). And in recent seasons the teams have been toe-to-toe with each other.

Bottom line: the thread title is correct. The Cowboys aren't much better than the Skins.

[CowboysSaintsFan]

Bottom line: the thread title is correct. The Cowboys aren't much better than the Skins.

The Top Talented Teams are(on paper, that is):

1. SD

2. Pats

3. Jags

4. Colts

Teams that can't, and won't do jack:

1. Atlanta

2. Detroit

3. SF

4. Oakland

5. Arizona

Everyone else(the other 24 teams) are on even-playing ground, IMHO. No-none of them are "mediocre". They are all good to very good-but nonetheless-this IS the NEW NFL, where parady runs amock as the talent and playing field are even keel.

[paloosa]

The date was picked because 1995 was the last time either of us won a championship. He was also using Johnson and Gibbs I as the end of 2 good eras. He never said you guys were worse than us, just not better.

That is exactly why I picked that time frame. Eveyone has this big misconception that Dallas will win everything year in and year out based on what? I never said that we were any better than Dallas or that we had better coaching or winning records. All I said was that they are no better than us since that time. Everyone knocks Dan Snyder because he hasn't won a Super Bowl and that he spends too much money with limited results. The same can be said for Jerry Jones. He does the same thing but according to Dallas fans and the media is he is some great owner and businessman. Since 1996 both teams haven't done anything significant to warrant any kind of look at being Super Bowl contenders. Also another reason I picked that date was it was the start of the Dan Snyder era and it is a good comparison to what each owner has done in the same time frame. Of course Jerry Jones has been an owner longer and had early success but in the same time frame as owners they are pretty much equal in having contenders.

Winning games in the regular season isn't being successful if you lose in the playoffs. Just ask Marty Schottenheimer when after going 14-2 in the regular season and losing in the playoffs he was let go. Yes, he had a difference with the management and GM but if he would have won the Super Bowl he would still be there. He had one of the best teams, if not the best in the NFL, and couldn't win a game in the playoffs. That is another reason why he was let go and that just made it easier to let him go. Owners want to see progress and not a divisional winner who loses in the playoffs. So if you want to win regular season games, win the division, have a first round bye and lose your first game in the playoffs every year as a measure of success then you need to look at teams like the Steelers, Colts, and Patriots because they are always improving and contending for a championship and never lose in the first round of the playoffs when they have a talented team and a record like the one the cowboys had. Now this doesn't mean that the Redskins are any different because they should have a better record during that same period but they peaked at the right time in 2005 and 2007 even if they squeeked in each year.

The point is, and was in beginning this post was that both Teams aren't any better than the other over the same period of time so the Cowboy love-fest and praise for everything they do is just plain and simply overblown by the media.

[paloosa]

Post 14, pjfootballer's response told you why the OP only went back as far as he did. And in actuality, the original poster started laying the time frame back in 1987.

But I think you missed the real point of the OP. Which was that since the end of the Cowboys glory era in 1995, they haven't been much better than the Skins. Yet they still get constant media love.

While you guys did win 3 Superbowls in the 90's, it was 13 years ago. Since then the Cowboys haven't done a ton more than the Skins to deserve all the accolades, hype, and praise. That is why he said they are overrated.

That is my interpretation of what the OP said. I personally don't need to look at history to tell the Cowboys are overrated. All I have to do is look at their current roster. I'm not saying the Cowboys aren't good. They are unfortunately. But the Skins split the series with them, dominating in one game, and losing on the very last play in the other (if ST is in that game, TO doesn't pull down 4 TDs). And in recent seasons the teams have been toe-to-toe with each other.

Bottom line: the thread title is correct. The Cowboys aren't much better than the Skins.

I agree with what you said because you caught my exact train of thought. Why can't other ES posters see the same thing. Yes, the Redskins aren't exactly the "cream of the crop" in the NFL but they aren't as bad as any other team out there except for the teams that are constantly in the cellar every year with occassional good year mixed in. Arizona, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Oakland, St. Louis and Cincinnati to name a few.

[VA Cowboy fan]

Well you post this on a Redskin board what type of responces do you think you are going to get.......If this post was posted on another NFL type forum where fans from all 32 teams could add their 2 cent I think overall the cowboys would be favored over the skins........Again it all depends on what dates you want to use.......Looking foward to this year I think most people would expect the boys to be better then the skins ......Not so much for the record they had last year but that does play a part because they pretty much have the same team but Dallas has had a year to gel, no one expected Dallas to go 13-3 last year with a new coach etc...but they did.....I think most people will look at the skins the same way this year......With a new coaching staff and a starting QB that still has not really proved himself to the team especially after he went out injured and his back up came in and lead the team very very well most people would look at this year for the skins as a learning year.... could the skins do a Dallas this year and surprise everyone and go 13-3 ...sure but that would surprise most people

[THEHEREAFTER]

I got this.

THA, right now, on this board, in this section, the Redskins are better than the Cowboys.

I hope that clears it up for you.

You haven't cleared up **** but I'm glad you said "on this board" because that's the only place the redskins are a better team than The Cowboys. You're not even following the OP's attempt dog but nice try.

[THEHEREAFTER]

That is exactly why I picked that time frame. Eveyone has this big misconception that Dallas will win everything year in and year out based on what? I never said that we were any better than Dallas or that we had better coaching or winning records. All I said was that they are no better than us since that time.

You're still all over the damn place dude and you need to pick an argument. Dallas is not predicted to do well this year because of what we've done since 1996 to this point. Is that your point? Is your point why aren't the skins getting as much "hype" in terms of how you project going into '08 since you've been relatively on par with Dallas since 1996? Please tell me I have you all wrong because that's asinine. The problem is only redskins fans believe that Dallas will NEVER win a playoff game again and you'll get to a playoff drought in our faces EVERY offseason. People base predictions off of talent, chemistry , experience, QB, coaching, skill positions, youth, balance, both lines in the trenches depth, whether a team seems poised to rise or maintain on top etc.. Projections this year are based on THIS YEAR..