dwdj75 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 It's a choking dog franchise that has done less than any other franchise in the last decade. We're not making this up. Actually you are. Dallas for the decade 2000-2009 : 82 wins - 78 losses 6 winning record seasons 5 playoff births 1 playoff win Detroit for the decade 2000-2009 : 42 wins - 118 losses 1 winning record seasons 0 playoff births 0 playoff win Cleveland for the decade 2000-2009 : 57 wins - 103 losses 2 winning record seasons 1 playoff births 0 playoff win Washington for the decade 2000-2009 : 70 wins - 90 losses 2 winning record seasons 2 playoff births 1 playoff win Buffalo for the decade 2000-2009 : 65 wins - 95 losses 1 winning record seasons 0 playoff births 0 playoff win Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dwdj75 Posted August 25, 2010 Share Posted August 25, 2010 Being a "not bad" team is one thing, getting picked consistently for the superbowl or deep playoff runs is another.I know you don't recall the Cowboys predictions, much like my friend who lives next to a pig farm doesn't notice the smell. I remember in the past decade many high predictions for the Cowboys, but as I don't have the evidence in an article posted in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004 I suppose its just my word against yours. From 2005 onward, since I have been reading this forum every single off-season many members of the media have done the same thing, and I'm sure there are people here who could substantiate that claim. At the very least one cannot deny that they have been picked to go to the superbowl for the past 3 seasons as media favorites and they have failed to deliver while much more consistent and valid choices are passed over by analysts in favor of slobbering the Cowboy's balls. Those first three seasons you mentioned the Cowboys were a combined 15-33. How in the world can you say they were favorites for anything ? When Parcells became the head coach is when it was turned around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Blue Joe Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 In the NFC East Clinton Portis is the only proven stellar back. After him the drop off is steep. The article is jacked. Portis was a stellar back. But given how many career carries he has, it might be time to stick a fork in Clinton. He's approaching that point where RB's tend to break down, quickly. We saw the same thing with Tomlinson over the last couple of years. I don't think it's unreasonable to start looking at other guys as the best back in the division. Although, all of them were pretty underwhelming last season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fred Jones Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 Portis was a stellar back. But given how many career carries he has, it might be time to stick a fork in Clinton. He's approaching that point where RB's tend to break down, quickly. We saw the same thing with Tomlinson over the last couple of years. I don't think it's unreasonable to start looking at other guys as the best back in the division. Although, all of them were pretty underwhelming last season. I think Portis has at least one good season left if he stays healthy. He is at the point where you have to evaluate every summer, but he looks good and should have a good year depending on health and line play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted August 26, 2010 Author Share Posted August 26, 2010 Actually you are.Dallas for the decade 2000-2009 : 82 wins - 78 losses 6 winning record seasons 5 playoff births 1 playoff win Detroit for the decade 2000-2009 : 42 wins - 118 losses 1 winning record seasons 0 playoff births 0 playoff win Cleveland for the decade 2000-2009 : 57 wins - 103 losses 2 winning record seasons 1 playoff births 0 playoff win Washington for the decade 2000-2009 : 70 wins - 90 losses 2 winning record seasons 2 playoff births 1 playoff win Buffalo for the decade 2000-2009 : 65 wins - 95 losses 1 winning record seasons 0 playoff births 0 playoff win :ols: Okay, let me correct my statement: Only four other franchises have done less in the last decade... Feel better? :rotflmao: This is just too easy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No_Pressure Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 Those first three seasons you mentioned the Cowboys were a combined 15-33. How in the world can you say they were favorites for anything ?When Parcells became the head coach is when it was turned around. Were they favorites in reality? Of course not, anybody could see that they weren't what they were made out to be, but I remember reading articles when I used to get SI and early on with the internet. I read one once that compared Quincy Carter to Randall Cunningham and said to expect him to take the next step and make the Cowboys a superbowl team. Regardless of if you believe they were picked to do good things or not, even on the down years of your franchise very few articles from the national media ever portrayed your situation as one where your team wasn't making a positive stride in the right direction. While other teams across the entire league are accurately portrayed (such as the Redskins in many past seasons) even when the Dallas Cowboys had Vinny Testaverde taking over at QB or had Troy Hambrick running the ball, if you won't concede that people were picking them to do great things, at least concede that they are almost NEVER picked to do as badly or worse than they did in a previous season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Califan007 The Constipated Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 Actually you are.Dallas for the decade 2000-2009 : 82 wins - 78 losses 6 winning record seasons 5 playoff births 1 playoff win You guys only had 4 playoff births in that timespan: 2003, 2006, 2007, and 2009. And here's another interesting comparison: Dallas for the decade 2000-2009: 4 losing seasons Washington for the decade 2000-2009: 5 losing seasons As the other poster was alluding to: neither the Cowboys or the Redskins have anything to be crowing about this decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slogriff Posted August 26, 2010 Share Posted August 26, 2010 As the other poster was alluding to: neither the Cowboys or the Redskins have anything to be crowing about this decade. I agree neither team has a ton to crow about but if you look hard enough you can always find something to feel good about. A 14-6 record vs the skins made the decade just a little more tolerable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tr1 Posted August 26, 2010 Author Share Posted August 26, 2010 I agree neither team has a ton to crow about but if you look hard enough you can always find something to feel good about. A 14-6 record vs the skins made the decade just a little more tolerable. ...as did the pukes' continuing to share the one-and-done NFL playoff record. Truly a remarkable feat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.