Tom [Giants fan] Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 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. I didn't read through all of the posts so if this was asked, I apologize. What team are you a fan of? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcarey032 Posted July 1, 2008 Share Posted July 1, 2008 There was one meaningful game between the skins and Cowboys in '07, and one that amounted to a preseason game. 1-0 in games that mattered. So the we beat you all at home to get into the playoffs. You all should have been trying to knock us out. Instead you all played conservative. We held the so called pro bowl back Marion Barber to under 10 yards. He didn't get his 1000 yards for the year. Portis should have been in the pro bowl over him. But I digress, the Cowboys are overrated this year. Yes they have some improvements in their defensive backfield, but I think that their receiving corps have gotten old. Glenn is unhappy and TO has probably one more good season before he hits the dreaded 35 year old bench mark. Romo sits to pee should be good as well witten and Barber should be decent, but I fear that all you cowboys fans are putting too much faith in the fact that you thought you should have been in the Super Bowl and you didn't make it because the better team did beat you. Basically, the loss to the Skins at the end spelled your downfall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Now that is funny!!!!!!!!!........so many threads on this board end up with "the cowboys suck because they have not won a playoff game"...."or if the boys dont win the superbowl this year it will be a let down season" or "it does not matter if you were 13-3 last year or if you were 6-10 the bottom line is the best team is the team that wins the superbowl" or "there is one winning team and 31 losing teams every year"...................so by going with the redskin theory of winning superbowls are what makes you a great team then we all know Dallas is better than the skins due to the number of superbowls they have won Skins and Cowboys have same number of championship wins. 5. Skins just so happened to win 2 before they were called "Superbowls". You guys won them in a shorter time span. Pretty lame generalization that Skins fans think Superbowl is the only measure of greatness for a team. Haters hold that belief, but they are really only a vocal minority. I could just as easily generalize that Skins fans are smarter than Cowboys fans cuz at least a portion of us aren't up our team's ass every offseason claiming we only smell roses. Neither generalization is entirely correct. It doesn't speak well to the average intelligence of Cowboy fans when at least 2 of you saw Armchair's response and thought he was 100% serious. Maybe I can generalize there too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 There was one meaningful game between the skins and Cowboys in '07, and one that amounted to a preseason game. 1-0 in games that mattered. If you want to get in to games that truly matter, troll, why not dig up the postseason history of Skins vs. Cowboys? You're only discounting the game cuz you all lost. Pretty pathetic that supposedly one of the great teams in the NFL is held to 1 yard rushing. You're starters were in at least half the game, so spare me your trollish nonsense. But while we are dealing in hypotheticals, and not actuality, I can discount the first game because Taylor wasn't playinmg, and had he the Boys never would have scored 4 TDs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 So the we beat you all at home to get into the playoffs. You all should have been trying to knock us out. Instead you all played conservative. Skins clinched playoff berth before our game started, it was meaningless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzinator53 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Prove it and I'll shut up. We're not in the 4th grade so try backing that statement up with more than "because I said so." Also try putting the personal insults aside attempting to get me to retaliate. You're above that and I expect more. The last 3 years we have played against you, we are 4-2. Those games were played by players on the most recent rosters. There's your proof. Now shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Skins and Cowboys have same number of championship wins. 5. Skins just so happened to win 2 before they were called "Superbowls". You guys won them in a shorter time span. There was also only 10 teams and no playoffs. The reason most NFL fans and media and players ignore pre superbowl records is because they are not comparable. Just like stats of players today are not comparable to players of that era Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 The last 3 years we have played against you, we are 4-2. Those games were played by players on the most recent rosters. There's your proof. Now shut up. good job on the time cut off, lucky you didnt go back 4 years or 5 years or 6 years or 7 years or 8 years or 9 years or 10 years....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CowboysSaintsFan Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 The last 3 years we have playedagainst you, we are 4-2. Those games were played by players on the most recent rosters. There's your proof. Now shut up. The '06 game at FedEx was gut-wrenching, I'll admit. Sure-it may have appeared that you guys got lucky at the end. However-WE were lucky to be at striking distance to begin with. The Skins started the game with a long 8 minute drive, only to do next to nothing at 1st and goal at the 1. Then Rogers dropped an INT in his breadbasket-otherwise, he had daylight ahead of him. Ultimately, the game could have gotten ugly early. Really-reports prior to that game said how our practices were so bad that week(at least according to Parcells), that he ended up easing up and cutting them short to give the players a break. Pt being that it was obvious from the opening kickoff that we weren't prepared for that game.:2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsfan07 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 REDSKINS ARE BETTER THAN THE COWBOYSnext question....? +1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzinator53 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 good job on the time cut off, lucky you didnt go back 4 years or 5 years or 6 years or 7 years or 8 years or 9 years or 10 years....... That's why I said most recent rosters, dumb-dumb. Was the font :laugh: not big enough for you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 That's why I said most recent rosters, dumb-dumb. Was the font :laugh: not big enough for you? Was a joke sparky, I am used to arbitrary cutoff dates. 3 years ago we had a very different roster than we do now a better comparison would be 2 years. But that wouldnt fit what you were trying to do would it LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzinator53 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Was a joke sparky, I am used to arbitrary cutoff dates. 3 years ago we had a very different roster than we do now a better comparison would be 2 years. But that wouldnt fit what you were trying to do would it LOL Yeah it would. 2-2 head to head and 1-0 in playoff games. OH SNAP! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Yeah it would.2-2 head to head and 1-0 in playoff games. OH SNAP! we didnt play any playoff games against each other 2-2 doesnt have the same ring now does it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dizzinator53 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 we didnt play any playoff games against each other2-2 doesnt have the same ring now does it Oh for the love of God! Do you read the post or just skim it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Oh for the love of God! Do you read the post or just skim it? BigD is the king of semantics, and changing the topic don't let it bother you it's what he does :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
royallypwned Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Boys = Skins both teams are 0-0 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Skins clinched playoff berth before our game started, it was meaningless BS! I was at that game. Minny didn't finish until like halfway through the game. That's why the boards at Fed Ex were showing the score for every game other than Minny. Gibbs said later he didn't want the players to be worrying about the Minny game, instead focusing 100% on this one. Once Minny lost, while we were destroying you guys, THEN the game became meaningless as both teams had playoffs locked. Minny vs. Denver: 4:15 PM http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=271230007 Skins vs. Pukes: 4:15 PM http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=271230028 Check your facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 There was also only 10 teams and no playoffs. The reason most NFL fans and media and players ignore pre superbowl records is because they are not comparable. Just like stats of players today are not comparable to players of that era The talent pool was also a lot smaller back then. That's why certain teams would be locks for years with nobody to really upset them. The reason the older championships are disconted was because they were before the NFL AFL merger. Championship is a championship. There's a reason we tease Eagle fans with "Still no Lombardi," and not "win a championship." I gave you guys credit in that you all won as many but in a much smaller timeframe. If you really want to go the "comparable" route, I can lay right into your 70's Cowboys, as it was much easier for teams who were good to maintain all their players and level of play back then. None of this and your semantic arguing changes the fact that the thread title is unequivocal truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Championship is a championship. Poke fans act like anything that happened before 1960 doesn't count Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elkabong82 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Poke fans act like anything that happened before 1960 doesn't count You mean football didn't just magically appear out of thin air in 1960? Apparently they don't have a problem with lying either, whether it be about stats or in this thread's case, when teams played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Apparently they don't have a problem with lying either, whether it be about stats or in this thread's case, when teams played. They don't lie exactly, because they actually believe their bull **** :insane: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Little E Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 Poke fans act like anything that happened before 1960 doesn't count They do, because to them, it didn't. They have the all-time head to head and superbowl record against us and have accomplished more in a shorter period of time. So I am willing to give them their due. That doesn't mean that I think that they're better than us, and I certainly hope we kick their @#$ every game, but they have earned their respect from me. Their fans were the coolest by far during the Sean Taylor tragedy. I can't just hate arbitrarily. The Clint Longly game killed me and inspired hate, but we've had our fair share of great wins too. To me, they manned up and came through when something bigger than football happened and consoled their enemy. That went alot farther than longly's bomb in molding my feelings towards them. Saying stuff like one is greater than the other is not only unprovable, but it's just plain dumb. These are two teams with vastly different histories. You simply can't compare them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 BS! I was at that game. Minny didn't finish until like halfway through the game. That's why the boards at Fed Ex were showing the score for every game other than Minny. Gibbs said later he didn't want the players to be worrying about the Minny game, instead focusing 100% on this one. Once Minny lost, while we were destroying you guys, THEN the game became meaningless as both teams had playoffs locked.Minny vs. Denver: 4:15 PM http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=271230007 Skins vs. Pukes: 4:15 PM http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=271230028 Check your facts. My mistake I thought Minny was a noon game that week So it wasnt meaningless for Washington at the start Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDFan5 Posted July 2, 2008 Share Posted July 2, 2008 BigD is the king of semantics, and changing the topicdon't let it bother you it's what he does :laugh: Yes because the Skins playoff win has so much to do with the Skins VS Cowboys :laugh: I swear sometimes I think you just like to see your name on the board so you type the same thing over and over even when it doesnt make sense Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.