BR: Minnesota Vikings Crush Dallas Cowboys: Dallas Overrated?

[HeHateMe]

[quote name=tr1;7261246

I'm sure I've missed a few...yet' date=' the pukes were clear favorites to go to the SB...[/quote]

They were actually 3 point underdogs vs. Minnesota. Hence, they were not favorites to do anything except what they did. Beat Philadelphia.

[HeHateMe]

=tr1;7261246

I'm sure I've missed a few...yet, the pukes were clear favorites to go to the SB...

They were actually 3 point underdogs vs. Minnesota. Hence, they were not favorites to do anything except what they did. Beat Philadelphia.

[Jeff in D.C.]

Originally Posted by Mr. Jones

The same team that you predicted would whip Dallas in the regular season, and then again in the playoffs. The Eagles were 11-3 against the rest of the NFL and were the hottest team in the NFC on a 6 game winning streak, until Dallas smacked them around

I've said earlier that my admiration for DeSean had colored my pick...however, the Eagles in week 13 weren't the same team physically in week 16...or 17. They lost their starting center and DJ was injured...oh, and McNabb chokes in big games...what was I thinking?

Tr1 you have to excuse & forgive turd fan for his ignorance, because if Turd fan actually did any research on the matter they would see that the Iggles didn't beat a single playoff team all season and only beat ONE team with a winning record, a Falcons team without BOTH Matt Ryan and Michael Turner. Not to mention that the Iggles have one of the worst big game coach/QB combinations in NFL history.

The Iggles lost to and were held without a TD against the RAIDERS for crying out loud. Yet Turd fan makes them sound like the 85 Bears for purposes of attempting to show that the WC playoff win was impressive.

Then the Turds play a good team the week after, and proceed to roll over.

[Jeff in D.C.]

Dont worry man, everything will get better I promise. Next year I bet the Redskins get 1 WHOLE Touchdown against Dallas.

Thats right, 1 Whole Touchdown buddy! wwwweeeeeeee

no TD in two games vs the Turds (with half our starters on IR) >>>> one playoff win in 14 years.

[robotfire]

I wish people would stop using the word "decimated" incorrectly. It doesn't mean to destroy, beat unbelievably, etc. It means to reduce by one-tenth. Call me nutty but I don't believe the Vikings reduced the Cowboys by one-tenth and I don't believe the Eagle's roster was reduced by one-tenth because of injuries either.

HTTR

dec⋅i⋅mate [des-uh-meyt]–verb (used with object), -mat⋅ed, -mat⋅ing.

1. to destroy a great number or proportion of: The population was decimated by a plague.

2. to select by lot and kill every tenth person of.

3. Obsolete. to take a tenth of or from.

Nice try, word nazi!

[Mr. Jones]

I've said earlier that my admiration for DeSean had colored my pick...however, the Eagles in week 13 weren't the same team physically in week 16...or 17. They lost their starting center and DJ was injured...oh, and McNabb chokes in big games...what was I thinking?

Neither of them were hurt in week 9 when the Cowboys outmuscled Philly at home in a "no pressure" game

You can try and try to make excuses for Romo sits to pee, but the fact is, his scrambling resulted in one of the worst INTs in NFL playoff history. And, when pressured, Favre was able to hold onto the ball. Romo sits to pee's turnovers lost the game. To blame it on anyone else is absurd. He had two opportunities to score early and failed. I knew it was over for the pukes then by the look on his face. I'm sure you could see it, too.the pressure on Favre wasn't nearly as intense as it was on Romo sits to pee after Flozell went down. The Viking D-line is very good, and Romo sits to pee turned the ball over in the face of intense pressure, which is the whole point of a pass rush. Romo sits to pee wasn't given the chance to succeed, and if you don't see that you really know even less about football than I give you credit for.

I guess you missed the part where I said the pukes' d-line improved. That masked the inadequacies of the secondary UNTIL they played a good qb...as they did when they played Rivers and Rodgers...oh, and Favre. Pressure by a d-line hides a lot of secondary deficiencies. How the pukes failed to stop Rice for THREE TD's really shows competency in that secondary. The Cowboys front 7 is good, Spencer turned out to be a big improvement over Ellis (another thing you were wrong about, but I stopped counting so I can't say what number it is), Ware has been the best passrusher in the NFL the past 5 years, and Ratliff is the best NT in the game. That doesn't mean the secondary isn't also good. Some of the throws Favre made that day were amazing, and a great throw beats great coverage. As for the "success" of Rivers and Rodgers...neither of them broke 300 yards, Rodgers didn't even get 200 as he went 25/36, 189 YDS, and 1 TD. Rivers did somewhat better going 21/32, 272 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT. IN fact the Cowboys only allowed 1 300 yard passer all year and currently are the team that's gone the longest without allowing a 300 yard passer or 100 yard rusher, inc. The Cowboys defense is very good, top to bottom regardless of what your opinion of it is.

The o-line didn't cough up the ball three times...Romo sits to pee did. Favre managed to handle the pressure...Romo sits to pee didn't. Since you state this again I'll reiterate the fact of the matter is that after the first possessions Romo sits to pee was not put in a situation where he could succeed. Since you've argued for years now how no QB can succeed without O-line protection I would think you'd agree with th1s.

Just the facts.Opinions are not facts, and yours in particular are often far from them

I will say that Jumbo and others are right in that some members of the media overhyped the Cowboys, just like they did to the Eagles, Broncos, Chargers, Vikings, Packers and really just about every winning team besides the Colts. I'd include the Saints but since Dallas beat them in NO they too must be frauds.

[Big Blue Joe]

I will say that Jumbo and others are right in that some members of the media overhyped the Cowboys, just like they did to the Eagles, Broncos, Chargers, Vikings, Packers and really just about every winning team besides the Colts. I'd include the Saints but since Dallas beat them in NO they too must be frauds.

The Saints clearly blew off the late part of the regular season just like the Cardinals did in 2008. Either that or the 4-12 Redskins and 3-13 Buccaneers were much, much better teams than I gave them credit for this year.

[tr1]

They were actually 3 point underdogs vs. Minnesota. Hence, they were not favorites to do anything except what they did. Beat Philadelphia.

The point of the thread is that though the Vikings were favored by the bookies, the media had them pegged as going to the SB.

Please try to read through the thread. You've missed the point.

[tr1]

Neither of them were hurt in week 9 when the Cowboys outmuscled Philly at home in a "no pressure" game

Whoop-dee-do! You beat the Eagles! The impostors! Congrats!

The Viking D-line is very good, and Romo sits to pee turned the ball over in the face of intense pressure, which is the whole point of a pass rush. Romo sits to pee wasn't given the chance to succeed, and if you don't see that you really know even less about football than I give you credit for.

The pukes offense dominated the first quarter. Had it not been for Romo sits to pee coughing up the ball, there would probably have been no Suisham miss and the pukes would have led. Romo sits to pee lost his poise...again...and the pukes lost...again. See a pattern?

The Cowboys front 7 is good, Spencer turned out to be a big improvement over Ellis (another thing you were wrong about, but I stopped counting so I can't say what number it is), Ware has been the best passrusher in the NFL the past 5 years, and Ratliff is the best NT in the game. That doesn't mean the secondary isn't also good. Some of the throws Favre made that day were amazing, and a great throw beats great coverage. As for the "success" of Rivers and Rodgers...neither of them broke 300 yards, Rodgers didn't even get 200 as he went 25/36, 189 YDS, and 1 TD. Rivers did somewhat better going 21/32, 272 YDS, 1 TD, 1 INT. IN fact the Cowboys only allowed 1 300 yard passer all year and currently are the team that's gone the longest without allowing a 300 yard passer or 100 yard rusher, inc. The Cowboys defense is very good, top to bottom regardless of what your opinion of it is.

Spencer didn't come on until the middle of the season. If anyone deserves any credit on your defense, it was Brooking. Ware benefits from scheme...and you know that. As for Ratliff, he's not the best NT in the game, but you go ahead and keep eating the cheese.

Seems like every year you guys have the best talent, but for some reason you can't win in the playoffs to make the big show.

Hype.

Romo sits to pee was not put in a situation where he could succeed. Since you've argued for years now how no QB can succeed without O-line protection I would think you'd agree with th1s.

Faver had as much pressure and didn't turn the ball over or lose his poise. If Romo sits to pee held onto the ball in each case of the three turnovers, the pukes might have won.

He's a mental case waiting to happen. You'd think by this time in his career, Romo sits to pee would have that aspect of the game down.

[tr1]

Tr1 you have to excuse & forgive turd fan for his ignorance, because if Turd fan actually did any research on the matter they would see that the Iggles didn't beat a single playoff team all season and only beat ONE team with a winning record, a Falcons team without BOTH Matt Ryan and Michael Turner. Not to mention that the Iggles have one of the worst big game coach/QB combinations in NFL history.

The Iggles lost to and were held without a TD against the RAIDERS for crying out loud. Yet Turd fan makes them sound like the 85 Bears for purposes of attempting to show that the WC playoff win was impressive.

Then the Turds play a good team the week after, and proceed to roll over.

I'd like to think it's simply ignorance, but there's a massive 'group think' going on in the puke fans' world...starting with their FO.

The inability to critically analyze their teams' weaknesses and objectively judge Romo sits to pee gives way to this lemming hysteria whenever the pukes obtain just a modicum of success.

It's almost sad to watch.

I'm here to help in their recovery.

Alas, it's January...too bad so many of them are gone...just as I predicted.

[HapHaszard]

I'd like to think it's simply ignorance, but there's a massive 'group think' going on in the puke fans' world...starting with their FO.

It's almost sad to watch.

I'm here to help in their recovery.

your so kind TR1, just an old softy at heart.

[The Full Monty]

Did Mosley or any of those other idiots ever own up to their stupid predictions?

Cowboys suck!

[BeerMuscles]

Did Mosley or any of those other idiots ever own up to their stupid predictions?

Cowboys suck!

**** Dallas!

Now I feel much better!:dallasuck

[HeHateMe]

The point of the thread is that though the Vikings were favored by the bookies, the media had them pegged as going to the SB.

Please try to read through the thread. You've missed the point.

The media can say whatever they want.

But the public had them losing that game.

Those are the facts.

And as usual, the public knows more than the media.

And you continue to hate on the Cowboys because of the the mediots say.

[Riggins77]

I smell jealousy.

Nah, no jealousy here.

[Jeff in D.C.]

I'd like to think it's simply ignorance, but there's a massive 'group think' going on in the puke fans' world...starting with their FO.

The inability to critically analyze their teams' weaknesses and objectively judge Romo sits to pee gives way to this lemming hysteria whenever the pukes obtain just a modicum of success.

It's almost sad to watch.

I'm here to help in their recovery.

Alas, it's January...too bad so many of them are gone...just as I predicted.

I actually meant to say "lack of brain function" as well, but as we all know, that's a given with them.

[Jeff in D.C.]

The media can say whatever they want.

But the public had them losing that game.

Those are the facts.

And as usual, the public knows more than the media.

And you continue to hate on the Cowboys because of the the mediots say.

Public = rabid fans

Media = paid analysts

Again, nice attempt at a spin job. "Yeah, we were expected to lose the Vikings game anyway, so no big deal." Whatever.

:bsflag:

[HeHateMe]

Public = rabid fans

Media = paid analysts

Again, nice attempt at a spin job. "Yeah, we were expected to lose the Vikings game anyway, so no big deal." Whatever.

:bsflag:

Betting is a billion dollar industry and millions of dollars are won and lost on each game. The tremendous majority bet with their heads and not their hearts. Because, well, they want to win money.

And the betting public and Vegas had the Vikings as favorites. Period.

No spin necessary.

But knowing your position now, that because the media are "paid analysts" they know more than everyone else, tells me all I need to know.

[stoney26]

Betting is a billion dollar industry and millions of dollars are won and lost on each game. The tremendous majority bet with their heads and not their hearts. Because, well, they want to win money.

And the betting public and Vegas had the Vikings as favorites. Period.

No spin necessary.

But knowing your position now, that because the media are "paid analysts" they know more than everyone else, tells me all I need to know.

Meh...One could argue it was a pick em game with the three point spread going to the home team.

[HeHateMe]

Meh...One could argue it was a pick em game with the three point spread going to the home team.

Hence them being favored TO WIN. Dallas was supposed to lose that one.

Not sure how it was such a disappointment when they lost. Especially considering how Minnesota went on to dominate New Orleans the next week too.

[Jeff in D.C.]

Hence them being favored TO WIN. Dallas was supposed to lose that one.

Not sure how it was such a disappointment when they lost. Especially considering how Minnesota went on to dominate New Orleans the next week too.

Oh really, 34-3? So I suppose the Turds were supposed to lose to the Giants at home in 07, lose 44-6 to the Iggles last year with a playoff spot on the line?

If you don't understand the point I'm getting at here, it's that your team has been badly underachieving and/or has been badly overrated for three straight years now. Explain to me how that changes in 2010 with Jerrah still there, Stay Puft still there, Garrett still there, Romo sits to pee still there, and what will be virtually the same roster.

[dallasfan]

Oh really, 34-3? So I suppose the Turds were supposed to lose to the Giants at home in 07, lose 44-6 to the Iggles last year with a playoff spot on the line?

If you don't understand the point I'm getting at here, it's that your team has been badly underachieving and/or has been badly overrated for three straight years now.

revisionist theory at it's greatest. did you or anyone pick us prior to the season to win the division and advance to the NFC championship game? If not that you can't say the 2009 team underachieved. The 2008 team did big time. As well as the 07' team, but in 09' we over achieved.

Explain to me how that changes in 2010 with Jerrah still there, Stay Puft still there, Garrett still there, Romo sits to pee still there, and what will be virtually the same roster

It's the NFL and that's all the explanation required really. What changed for the colts between 05' and 06'? What changed for the Giants between 06' and 07'? The Cowboys are one of probably ten or so teams that will have a legitimate shot at a Super Bowl next year and that's all you can hope for going into a season.