Cowboys not much better than Redskins

[BigDFan5]

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 talent pool was there as it is now, just the scouting was nowhere near what it is now

The reason the older championships are disconted was because they were before the NFL AFL merger. Championship is a championship.

The NFL and most fanbases disagree

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.

Lay into the 70s team sis you like you wont have much of an argument since competition back then was fierce, and any argum,ent about keeping a team together applies to every superbowl washington won as well since all of them were before free agency

None of this and your semantic arguing changes the fact that the thread title is unequivocal truth.

Unequvical truth would have to have a bearing of truth. The truth is right now the Cowboys are way ahead of the Skins

[bubba9497]

They do, because to them, it didn't.

a lot of great football was played before the Pokes graced the NFL, without it there was no team in Dallas, to act like it doesn't count because the pokes didn't exsist is an insult to many great players and our collective intelligence.

Since Carolina and the Jags didn't become teams until 1996, does that mean all the Pokes accomplishments from 1995 and before don't count either?

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.

we aren't, that was my point you can't discredit the past of one team because it doesn't suit your argument, as poke fans want to acting like only Super Bowl championships count or matter

[dizzinator53]

My mistake I thought Minny was a noon game that week

So it wasnt meaningless for Washington at the start

When is there ever a Noon game on the East Coast? If it were in a different time zone, it would still be 1:00pm, 4:00pm, or primetime in D.C. Dee dee dee.

The TRUTH is that it wasn't meaningless to either team. Romo sits to pee played terrible, the Pro-Bowl line played terrible, MB III played terrible, etc... The Redskins couldn't have been beat by anyone that day.

[TonyRomoProBowl]

When is there ever a Noon game on the East Coast? If it were in a different time zone, it would still be 1:00pm, 4:00pm, or primetime in D.C. Dee dee dee.

The TRUTH is that it wasn't meaningless to either team. Romo sits to pee played terrible, the Pro-Bowl line played terrible, MB III played terrible, etc... The Redskins couldn't have been beat by anyone that day.

This I agree to, and will take flack from my Dallas fan buddies. Dallas would noit have won that game, even if they wanted it. If they needed it for the playoffs that day, they would have been home. I was at the game, and the Skins (fans and team) were on fire. The team was as fired up as i have ever seen them,. and they played, coached and excuted a great game.... I Give them credit.

[Califan007 The Constipated]

The reason the older championships are disconted was because they were before the NFL AFL merger. Championship is a championship.

The NFL and most fanbases disagree

So...all the records set before the Super Bowl era are counted in the NFL record books, and all the players and careers that started and ended before the Super Bowl era are considered and included in the HOF...

But the championships that took place before the Super Bowl era and were played by those same HOF players hold less value in the NFL's eyes??

And you thought this made perfect sense when you typed it?

And who cares what "most fans" think...as you yourself pointed out, "most fans" teams and franchises didn't even exist all those years prior to the Super Bowl era, so it's not surprising that the fans of those teams don't hold that era, and the accomplishments achieved during it, in as much regard as they should. Actually, a lot of Cowboys fans are evidence of that.

[tr1]

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

Actually, comparatively speaking, talent was much less diluted than it is now...and the competition was better.

Try to think before you type, eh?

[tr1]

The truth is right now the Cowboys are way ahead of the Skins

Do you mean in the regular season or in the playoffs?

See, I'm having trouble with 'way ahead.' That would imply the pukes have won a meaningful game recently. Can you name a meaningful game they've won in, say, the last two years? Did they be NE at home? No. Did they sweep the Eagles? the Skins? and did they beat a division rival in the playoffs?

Simple questions...

[BigRay]

I do not believe they are that much better than the Skins. It is certainly a more competitive rivarly again. It's been pretty one sided until the last few years or so.

[elkabong82]

My mistake I thought Minny was a noon game that week

So it wasnt meaningless for Washington at the start

And it shouldn't have been meaningless for Dallas, given they had a real chance at facing the Skins again in the postseason, and that same team came within 5-10 yards of beating them in their own home. It's that kind of arrogance and "take time off" mentality that caused you all to fold like a deck of cards in the playoffs, in your own home.

[elkabong82]

The talent pool was there as it is now, just the scouting was nowhere near what it is now

The NFL and most fanbases disagree

Lay into the 70s team sis you like you wont have much of an argument since competition back then was fierce, and any argum,ent about keeping a team together applies to every superbowl washington won as well since all of them were before free agency

Unequvical truth would have to have a bearing of truth. The truth is right now the Cowboys are way ahead of the Skins

The NFL and fanbase think Roy Williams is a perrenial probowler. The average fan is a "in the moment" fan who can't even remember the previous season by week 3. Half of them can't even tell you who Sammy Baugh was. Hilarious how you ***** about time parameters, but now you use them to suit your own argument. Hypocrite.

The turth is you're full of it, and are not above crying over semantics, but then using the same tactics you ***** about to suit your own arguments.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

Skins clinched playoff berth before our game started, it was meaningless

Wrong. The Redskins didn't clinch a berth until they won or Minnesota (who was playing Denver at the same time) lost.

I remember keeping up with the Vikings game throughout our game. Denver went up by 14 at one point so I just started enjoying myself. Once the Skins turned it into a laugher (early in the 2nd half) the Vikings actually came back to force OT (only to lose). So, it's a good thing the game wasn't competitive or I would have lost it!

[TD_washingtonredskins]

And it shouldn't have been meaningless for Dallas, given they had a real chance at facing the Skins again in the postseason, and that same team came within 5-10 yards of beating them in their own home. It's that kind of arrogance and "take time off" mentality that caused you all to fold like a deck of cards in the playoffs, in your own home.

Good point.

Basically, the Skins beat down the 'Boys and set the tone for them losing their next game to the Giants.

Had the Skins beat the 'Hawks, that would have been a great playoff game matchup in Big D! I can't say that I'm sure we'd have won, but I think we'd have had the psychological edge and the momentum (along with the fact that we played pretty well in Dallas 2 months earlier).

[CowboysSaintsFan]

Good point.

Basically, the Skins beat down the 'Boys and set the tone for them losing their next game to the Giants.

Had the Skins beat the 'Hawks, that would have been a great playoff game matchup in Big D! I can't say that I'm sure we'd have won, but I think we'd have had the psychological edge and the momentum (along with the fact that we played pretty well in Dallas 2 months earlier).

Pretty much anyone could have beaten us that week-really, it was obvious we weren't physically and mentally prepared for that game.:2cents:

[Califan007 The Constipated]

My mistake I thought Minny was a noon game that week

So it wasnt meaningless for Washington at the start

It wasn't meaningless for the Skins "at the start"??... :doh:

You do realize, don't you, that not only did the Skins and Vikings play their gams at the same time--and thus cause the ENTIRE game to be meaningful to the Skins, not just the "start"--but the Vikings went into OVERTIME against the Broncos. That means that the Skins earned their playoff spot before the Vikings game ended.

It wasn't meaningless to the Redskins "at the start"...Good goobily goop.

[pjfootballer]

Lay into the 70s team sis you like you wont have much of an argument since competition back then was fierce, and any argum,ent about keeping a team together applies to every superbowl washington won as well since all of them were before free agency

Unequvical truth would have to have a bearing of truth. The truth is right now the Cowboys are way ahead of the Skins

During the 70's there was no free agency period. You ended up on other teams by a trade, being cut, or if your contract ran out, but if you were talented, there is no way any of that happened. During the 80's there was a modified Free Agency called Plan B free agency. So, no, we were not always able to hold on to talent like the teams of the 70's and before were.

[paloosa]

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..

You know I am truly sorry you don't get my point. The point you make about talent, coaching, depth, etc is totally overblown by the media. The love-fest that the media has for the Cowboys is too biased. It is like the cowboys can do no wrong and every other team in the league is second rate. Not even the New England Patriots who had a better season with just as good, if not better talent, than the Cowboys don't get that much love. The whole point of my post was to show that the hype year in and year out for the Cowboys to win the Super Bowl isn't exactly showing up in the results year in and year out. Yes, they have all the things you pointed out to be contenders for the Super Bowl but they haven't gotten it done in the playoffs since their last Super Bowl year. All I did was compare what the Cowboys did in the same time period with the Redskins to see if the hype is well deserved or just a media "love-fest." The conclusion I came up with is that it is a media "love-fest" that is out of control.

Based off what you posted "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." I wouldn't pick the Cowboys as a contenders because they aren't that much better than any other team in the NFC East based on that criteria. Let me simplify this even more so even you can understand. If this years predictions are based on, as you say, "THIS YEAR" then I wouldn't pick them to be a contender because it proves my point of the Cowboys aren't any better than the Redskins. The reason I say that is due to the criteria being flawed. You have to throw out chemistry, experience, coaching, whether a team is poised to rise or maintain on top because those things are based on things determined over a period of time. That was my whole point of the post was to show that, over the same period of time that Jerry Jones and Dan Snyder have been owners, that the Cowboys and the Redskins are not that far apart in all those categories. The only problem you seem to have is understanding that. All I was doing was pointing out the facts based on the statistics. Another problem we all have, as fans, is that we don't like to hear someone from a rival team tell us that we aren't any better than the other. So until you can objectively see that you will never understand my point. Please don't take this as a personal shot at you. I am just expressing my view point and distaste for the biased media reporting that is going on based on your criteria.

[bubba9497]

The only problem you seem to have is understanding that

THA understands, he just refuses to admit anything that doesn't have the pokes being great, no matter what the truth may be :laugh: