Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

The legendary 2010 Dallas Cowboys, fighting for homefield advantage at 1-2

PF Chang

By PF Chang
in Around the NFL

Recommended Posts

Shining Star

Shining Star

Posted
Posted
Care to explain how a writer can use 'likely' when talking about a 1-2 team that's about to get its butt handed to it in the next three games.

At least that 1-2 record is keeping new puke fan posters away.

One more loss this Sunday, and we should see even fewer puke fans.

I've just got one question. What will be your excuse if Dallas goes 2-1 or 3-0 over the next three games? I'm not saying they will. I'm just wondering what the excuse will be if they do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shining Star

Shining Star

Posted
Posted
A botched chip shot field goal was the difference. But shoulda, coulda, woulda...didn't.

I do like how Colinshaw completely ignores the Saints and Falcons in this discussion, or how much more difficult the schedule is for the Cowboys this year (especially going to Indy, Minnesota and GB on the cusp of acquiring Randy Moss). He praises Roy Williams, but forgets that line is still a huge question mark. Yes, they beat the Texans, but also lost to two very average teams (at best), in September when the Cowboys play their best. Not to mention, they have the Titans who aren't bad, they have the Giants who they never play well against. Neither of those games are a gimmie.

So Colinshaw saying the Cowboys are "likely" to get homefield advantage, despite being 1.5 games behind three very good teams with much easier schedules is a bit premature. Oh and Wade Phillips is still their HC!

Well, if you wanna play that game, we should be 3-0. Any one of several plays in our first game kept us from winning it (turnover that lead to Skin's only TD, penalty that negated game winning TD, etc.). Three turnovers killed us against Chicago. But guess what? That's the way it goes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shining Star

Shining Star

Posted
Posted
Maybe Jerry Jones finally paid the refs off !

As with most any win with the Cowboys, there's always a ref looking "casually" the other way at penalties they make to help them.

Maybe a name change like Dallas Cowrefs would be more fitting, or perhaps Dallas ESPN'ers...

Sinners

And you guys say Dallas fans are delusional? LOL I love the hypocrisy. You moan and groan about how the Cowboys are so overrated by the media and yet you guys act like we're the second coming of the Rams over the past two to three years. You guys go in the total opposite direction when it comes to the Cowboys. Every win is due to luck, bad calls, injured opponents, etc. You might want to look in the mirror when you think about delusional fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beans

Beans

Posted
Posted
Well, if you wanna play that game, we should be 3-0. Any one of several plays in our first game kept us from winning it (turnover that lead to Skin's only TD, penalty that negated game winning TD, etc.). Three turnovers killed us against Chicago. But guess what? That's the way it goes.

The field goal in question was about an extra point. A little different than three turnovers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mooka

Mooka

Posted
Posted
Well, if you wanna play that game, we should be 3-0. Any one of several plays in our first game kept us from winning it (turnover that lead to Skin's only TD, penalty that negated game winning TD, etc.). Three turnovers killed us against Chicago. But guess what? That's the way it goes.
Nah.

If we were playing that game, then the Redskins would be clear favorites in the NFCE right now for beating a Dallas team that should be 3-0.

The author is using the win against the undefeated Texans as a springboard. Which is why the poster claimed the Texans should be 2-2. (as in they're not really that good)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beans

Beans

Posted
Posted
How am I "spamming"? Do you know what the word means? I'm responding to ridiculous posts. A guy posts about Cowboy fans crying in a thread full of Redskins fans crying about the Cowboys. Irony at its best.,

You're spamming incoherent babble. Just :stfu: already. Your posts have no substance. They are just your feelings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
PF Chang

PF Chang

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I've just got one question. What will be your excuse if Dallas goes 2-1 or 3-0 over the next three games? I'm not saying they will. I'm just wondering what the excuse will be if they do.

It's not about excuses, or even about how Dallas will end up. It's that the last place team in the division is supposedly "poised to take control" despite no evidence. Don't you think the article is a little ridiculous?

Cowboy fans, I gotta say, you guys don't give up. You thump your chests no matter how convincing the losses are. People like this horrible writer have convinced you that this is a great team, and you might as well believe it's going to turn around. Maybe they're right and the games are wrong. Honestly, with this division, it's very possible that the Cowboys are the best team. We don't have any objective evidence that suggests that any of these very inconsistent teams are a class above the others. But it's pretty typical to read some bull**** article that says there's one last place team that is a cut above.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beans

Beans

Posted
Posted
And we fumbled away a TD in the last play of the first half that cost us the game. What's the difference? They're both one blown play.

A fumble receovery for TD != a missed extra point like field goal. You are detached from reality. Just like in the other thread in which you claimed people would pick Romo sits to pee over Rodgers in their "heart of hearts". No. They wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shining Star

Shining Star

Posted
Posted
It's not about excuses, or even about how Dallas will end up. It's that the last place team in the division is supposedly "poised to take control" despite no evidence. Don't you think the article is a little ridiculous?

Cowboy fans, I gotta say, you guys don't give up. You thump your chests no matter how convincing the losses are. People like this horrible writer have convinced you that this is a great team, and you might as well believe it's going to turn around. Maybe they're right and the games are wrong. Honestly, with this division, it's very possible that the Cowboys are the best team. We don't have any objective evidence that suggests that any of these very inconsistent teams are a class above the others. But it's pretty typical to read some bull**** article that says there's one last place team that is a cut above.

I don't care about the article. It makes no difference. Why do you guys get your panties in a bunch when it comes to some of these writers, bloggers, etc.? They do not mean anything. Regardless, you talk about the article, yet most of the people responding to this thread throw Cowboy FANS under the bus for something the FANS have nothing to do with. Like I posted in another thread, it's just ridiculous crying. Why waste time posting about articles like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shining Star

Shining Star

Posted
Posted
A fumble receovery for TD != a missed extra point like field goal. You are detached from reality. Just like in the other thread in which you claimed people would pick Romo sits to pee over Rodgers in their "heart of hearts". No. They wouldn't.

You're reading what you want to into things. No where did I say people would take Romo sits to pee over Rodgers. I said you guys would take Romo sits to pee in a heart beat for your own QB. I never said anything about Rodgers in that post. Personally, I think they're about even, but Romo sits to pee has some edges. He has a higher winning percentage, he has a little bit more experience, he is more mobile in the pocket, he can improvise a bit better (sometimes gets him in trouble), and his stats are just as good. Why would you perfer Rodgers? How about something meaningful rather than the fact you don't like Romo sits to pee because he's a Cowboy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beans

Beans

Posted
Posted
You're reading what you want to into things. No where did I say people would take Romo sits to pee over Rodgers. I said you guys would take Romo sits to pee in a heart beat for your own QB. I never said anything about Rodgers in that post. Personally, I think they're about even, but Romo sits to pee has some edges. He has a higher winning percentage, he has a little bit more experience, he is more mobile in the pocket, he can improvise a bit better (sometimes gets him in trouble), and his stats are just as good. Why would you perfer Rodgers? How about something meaningful rather than the fact you don't like Romo sits to pee because he's a Cowboy?

Romo sits to pee has no "edges". More mobile? Considering Rodgers has double the rushing yards and about quadruple the rushing touchdowns in less games, behind that sieve of an o-line he is forced to play behind in Green Bay, I don't think so. Did you know, that back in 2008 (couldn't find a more recent list) Jake Delhomme had a higher winning percentage than Kurt Warner? Football is a team game. Rodger's 2009 season was head and shoulders above Romo sits to pee's. How about something more meaningful than "Romo sits to pee is better because I say so."

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shining Star

Shining Star

Posted
Posted
Romo sits to pee has no "edges". More mobile? Considering Rodgers has double the rushing yards and about quadruple the rushing touchdowns in less games, behind that sieve of an o-line he is forced to play behind in Green Bay, I don't think so. Did you know, that back in 2008 (couldn't find a more recent list) Jake Delhomme had a higher winning percentage than Kurt Warner? Football is a team game. Rodger's 2009 season was head and shoulders above Romo sits to pee's. How about something more meaningful than "Romo sits to pee is better because I say so."

Haha, you're the one playing the "because I said so game". I just told you why Romo sits to pee and Rodgers were pretty much on even par. You hate Romo sits to pee because of the team he plays for, pure and simple. As far as offensive lines, our is no better than the one Rodgers plays behind. Rodgers' receivers are considered the best in the league. Romo sits to pee does not rush very often, but he's extremely mobile in the pocket and eludes the rush better than any QB in the league. He's been sacked ONE time this year, behind an below average Oline. ONE time. Romo sits to pee doesn't run with the ball much because he's a more mature QB than Rodgers. He moves in the pocket in order to get rid of the ball, not run with it. That's what more experienced QBs do. Learn the game and then come back and talk. By the way, have you looked at Romo sits to pee's stats from 2009? I must think not or you wouldn't make the statement you made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beans

Beans

Posted
Posted
He moves in the pocket in order to get rid of the ball, not run with it. That's what more experienced QBs do. Learn the game and then come back and talk. By the way, have you looked at Romo sits to pee's stats from 2009? I must think not or you wouldn't make the statement you made.

Yawn. Let the ownage begin.

Rodgers had 30 tds. Romo sits to pee had 26. Rodgers had 7 ints. Romo sits to pee had 9. Rodgers had 5 rushing tds. Romo sits to pee had 1.

Well, I think that just about covers it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beans

Beans

Posted
Posted
Romo sits to pee does not rush very often, but he's extremely mobile in the pocket and eludes the rush better than any QB in the league. He's been sacked ONE time this year, behind an below average Oline. ONE time.QUOTE]

I think holding, and adjusting your game plan (especially against the Redskins) by dinking and dunking may have had something to do with the amount of sack Romo sits to pee has had to endure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beans

Beans

Posted
Posted
Yea, that's head and shoulders better. You got me. LOL Romo sits to pee won in the playoffs, Rodgers did not.

Rodgers' defense gave up 51 points. It's a team game. Like I said, you suck at this. He only threw for over 400 yards and 4 tds...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shining Star

Shining Star

Posted
Posted

Aaron Rodgers Stats

Recent Career Passing Rushing Sacked Fumbles

Year Team G QBRat Comp Att Pct Yds Y/G Y/A TD Int Rush Yds Y/G Avg TD Sack YdsL Fum FumL

2008 Green Bay 16 93.8 341 536 63.6 4038 252.4 7.5 28 13 56 207 12.9 3.7 4 34 231 9 3

2009 Green Bay 16 103.2 350 541 64.7 4434 277.1 8.2 30 7 58 316 19.8 5.4 5 50 306 10 4

2010 Green Bay 4 96.3 84 122 68.9 940 235.0 7.7 8 5 15 69 17.3 4.6 2 5 33 0 0

Career Totals (Full) 43 97.1 810 1258 64.4 9741 226.5 7.7 67 26 140 639 14.9 4.6 11 98 640 22 10

Tony Romo sits to pee's Stats

Season Team G QBRat Comp Att Pct Yds Y/G Y/A TD Int Rush Yds Y/G Avg TD Sack YdsL Fum FumL

2005-06 Dallas 16 0.0 0 0 N/A 0 0.0 N/A 0 0 2 -2 -0.1 -1.0 0 0 0 0 0

2006-07 Dallas 16 95.1 220 337 65.3 2903 181.4 8.6 19 13 34 102 6.4 3.0 0 21 124 8 3

2007-08 Dallas 16 97.4 335 520 64.4 4211 263.2 8.1 36 19 31 129 8.1 4.2 2 24 176 10 2

2008-09 Dallas 13 91.4 276 450 61.3 3448 265.2 7.7 26 14 28 41 3.2 1.5 0 20 123 12 7

2009-10 Dallas 16 97.6 347 550 63.1 4483 280.2 8.2 26 9 35 105 6.6 3.0 1 34 196 5 4

2010-11 Dallas 3 93.9 88 128 68.8 940 313.3 7.3 4 2 2 -2 -0.7 -1.0 0 1 5 0 0

Career 80 95.5 1266 1985 63.8 15985 199.8 8.1 111 57 132 373 4.7 2.8 3 100 624 35 16

Last year Romo sits to pee threw for more yards, more yards per attempt, and had a lot fewer sacks. Checkmate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shining Star

Shining Star

Posted
Posted
Rodgers' defense gave up 51 points. It's a team game. Like I said, you suck at this. He only threw for over 400 yards and 4 tds...

But, our team sucks. All Dallas players are overrated. We have no offensive line and a terrible defense. Our receivers are overrated. Austin is a flash in the pan. Roy Williams is overpaid (yes, he is). How can you explain all this? Me thinks your line of thinking is what sucks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shining Star

Shining Star

Posted
Posted
Romo sits to pee does not rush very often, but he's extremely mobile in the pocket and eludes the rush better than any QB in the league. He's been sacked ONE time this year, behind an below average Oline. ONE time.QUOTE]

I think holding, and adjusting your game plan (especially against the Redskins) by dinking and dunking may have had something to do with the amount of sack Romo sits to pee has had to endure.

You're a funny little guy. Just full of excuses. You related to TR1?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...