PCS Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Gentlemen, I would suggest that maybe leaving well enough alone is a good idea. This is quickly turning into the pissing contest that has become the hallmark of AKaD's threads or those he participates in. This is a good thread, let's not ruin it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eboyer Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Originally posted by AkaD Yes. The '85 '86 Bears. Very good. I suppose you think they won the 85 Superbowl??? No. That was Jerry Rice and the niners. Some moron earlier stated "The 92' boys??? What exactly did they do in 92'? " Then the same moron pretends the argument centered around the year of the superbowl. Fans of his own team politely try to point out his mistake as he continues to lash out at everybody. It's Columbus day. School is out............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoDak Cowboy Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Originally posted by AkaD No. I said "What did you do in 92'?" I also said "The Redskins won the Superbowl in 92'" Are you disagreeing with me? Jesus. All you had to do was say you were talking about the 13 and 3 season idiot. But you didn't. You went on and on about the difference between seasons and Superbowls. So I thought you meant Dallas won the Superbowl in '92. Yay!! This conversation is just ridiculous. How nit-picky can a**holes be? GET OVER IT ALREADY!!!! Hahahahaha!!! :dallasuck Well, you've proven that they can be very nit-picky. :laugh: Whatever man. Talking to you is like arguing with my four year old daughter. Wait. forget that. Her comprehension skills are much more developed than yours. For the rest of you Skins fans, cheer up. Still lots of football to be played. The season is young. Good night......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Sigh. Ok..so everybody get's the last word. Would it help if I said please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AkaD Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Whatever man. Talking to you is like arguing with my four year old daughter. Wait. forget that. Her comprehension skills are much more developed than yours. Say no more. I'm sure it's clear who's acting like a four year old after that comment. By the way, it was Troy Aikman who was the MVP. I hate Dallas and even I knew that one. I agree. This was a pretty good thread until the typical site A-holes and the sh*t talking Dallas fan piped up. Oh well, no one seemed interested in talking football except a few of us. The rest simply wanted the last word with me on simple nit-picky disagreements. That is impossible. Hahaha!! I notice that weird dude aBOYer keeps posting. I sure hope he's talking to you all, because if he's talking to me he's even a bigger idiot than I initially thought. I told him some time ago that he was on ignore. I surely hope he has the intellect to know that I won't be clicking on the "Click here to take off ignmore" button. Hahahahahahahahaha!!!!!! I'm off to sleep. See ya'll next week. Lates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Yes AKaD. it is clear. To everybody but you. Suggestion. Let it go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Originally posted by NoDak Cowboy Is this guy always this dense? Yes. Honestly, the Cowboys are scary. I would never have thought that they'd be 4-1 by now, and I certainly wouldn't have expected them to beat the Eagles last weekend. I disagree with your assessment of our teams' talent levels, RBRivalry, but I think you're right on in saying that a lot of us Skins fans were a little heady with our talent evaluations. The truth is, we haven't defeated anyone convincingly yet, and we're not playing as a team. And it's more than a third of the way through the season. Here's to hoping that the Skins will finally wake up and win some division games. I predicted before the season that if we go 4-2 in the division, we win it. Looks like a tall order to carry out now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woofer Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Originally posted by Die Hard Here they come... on cue.. as predicted. Amazing what a 4-1 does to a fan's psyche. The difference is.. when we were 3-1... a lot of fans acknowledged it was a hollow record. But Cowboys fans are a completely different animal. They're eating the cheese. And you know what happens when you eat too much cheese. :fart: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Ok. I am going to try and skip over the chest-thumping garbage and get back to the point here. In both division games Dallas took a lead and kept it for most of the game. Anybody that was watching those games felt like Dallas was playing as the better team for the majority of the contest and was in control for pretty much the entire game. Can you honestly say the same thing about the skins when they played those two teams? eboyer, you claim your 3 point win over the Giants was so much more impressive than our 3 point loss? Well in one respect you are right, because you won and we lost. However, as I recall your team needed a bad squib kick, a 51yard field goal as regulation time expired and the coin toss to beat the Giants. Against the Eagles, your Cowboys were losing with two minutes to go, and even after re-gaining the lead, they gave the Eagles the ball at mid-field with 1:30 to go. In both games, the Redskins lost on the final play of the game. Those are what's known as close games. And its to Dallas' credit that they pulled them both out, whereas the Redskins did not. But I don't see the need to overly hype Dallas by pretending the Cowboys simply dominated but then by some fluke won by 2 or 3 points or something. A two point win is a two point win and a two point loss is a two point loss. My point, which somehow got lost in this need to prove Dallas is just that much MORE superior to the Redskins, was that there IS obviously something that gets Dallas those wins that the Redskins can't seem to quite get. IMHO that something that gave you the win instead of the loss was coaching. The Cowboys don't lead the league in penalties. They don't self destruct, and win the games they can win. Right now it looks like that is enough to win our division. So I hope my Redskins can stop shooting themselves in the foot before that happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mania Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Actually the Redskins won the Superbowl in January 92. However it was the 91 Season. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eboyer Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 eboyer, you claim your 3 point win over the Giants was so much more impressive than our 3 point loss? Well in one respect you are right, because you won and we lost. However, as I recall your team needed a bad squib kick, a 51yard field goal as regulation time expired and the coin toss to beat the Giants. You seem to be missing the big picture. Dallas jumped to a huge lead against the Giants in New York. Dallas created a game plan that was succesful and we jumped to an early lead. That is more impressive then falling behind quickly and getting back into the game against a prevent defense. You like to point out the squib kick as luck, which it certainly is, but the Giants needs bogus pass interference penalties (yes, plural) in the end-zone to even get back into the game, and that is also luck. The Gants couldn't beat us but the refs made it interesting. Also your coin toss scenario is wrong. The giants got the ball in overtime and our defense stopped them. Clearly more impressive then your overtime showing where the defense layed down and you lost. Same thing with the Eagles. Dallas took a double digit lead late in the game. Has Washington even once had a double digit lead against anybody yet? Dallas has had a double digit lead against 4 of the first 5 opponents. So my argument stands. My point, which somehow got lost in this need to prove Dallas is just that much MORE superior to the Redskins, was that there IS obviously something that gets Dallas those wins that the Redskins can't seem to quite get. IMHO that something that gave you the win instead of the loss was coaching. The Cowboys don't lead the league in penalties. They don't self destruct, and win the games they can win. Well the coaching is clearly better. I'm not going to argue with that. The talent argument is a real slippery slope. You guys have been winning 2-3 more games a year then us for the last several years so people generally feel you had better talent. I was never convinced of that and now that Dallas has gotten rid of their loser coach we should have more wins and the general attitude would be that we have more talented players. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Sheesh. What is it about some fans that they can't accept credit when it is given ... Fine, you have superior coaching and talent and you've overpowered all who've come before you and for all that, you've won one more game than the Redskins. Thank goodness for the Cards. The Redskins led the Patriots 20-3 in the third quarter. But the Pats came back and almost tied it up. You know what the world said about the Redskins for that? That we couldn't hold onto a big lead. That we didn't play a complete game. That the win wasn't that convincing. Guess what? Same thing holds for Dallas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PCS Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Henry you're a moronic vet with no life. Quit being an idiot and acting like a 4 yo. (Looks at his own post total,avatar, and watch). Nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eboyer Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Sheesh. What is it about some fans that they can't accept credit when it is given ... Fine, you have superior coaching and talent and you've overpowered all who've come before you and for all that, you've won one more game than the Redskins. Thank goodness for the Cards. The Redskins led the Patriots 20-3 in the third quarter. But the Pats came back and almost tied it up. You know what the world said about the Redskins for that? That we couldn't hold onto a big lead. That we didn't play a complete game. That the win wasn't that convincing. Guess what? Same thing holds for Dallas. You offered a point, I offered a counterpoint. Now you act all huffy and throw sarcasm in rather then continue a mature dialogue. Hey, if you don't want to debate these points then don't respond. I was not the poster introducing talent level into this discussion BTW. Thanks for the correction on the Pats lead. Actually what the world said about the Patriots game is you faced the most injury depleted team ever encountered. Most of the world thinks you wouldn't of standed a chance if they were healthy. Thank goodness for injuries. ps. It is intellectually dishonest to focus on the one additional win we have and ignore the fact that Dallas has played one less game and has two fewer losses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 eboyer, as henry pointed out in his sarcastic post, it seems like traits that the two teams have in common are being considered a positive for the cowboys and a negative for the redskins. how can being up huge vs. teams and repeatedly needing breaks at the end to win be considered a good thing??? when brady scored two late TDs vs. the skins, the national media had a feild day saying that spurrier was too conservative (i won't even get into the reasons why THAT is unfair). but you somehow consider it a good thing when the giants have the eagles down by double-digits only to lose the lead in the final 5 minutes? anyway, not saying the skins are better...that would be dumb considering the results of their common games. but i do agree with henry that the two teams are very close to one another! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eboyer Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 eboyer, as henry pointed out in his sarcastic post, it seems like traits that the two teams have in common are being considered a positive for the cowboys and a negative for the redskins. I see very little in common though. Washington has been down by large margins in the majority of the games they played. Dallas has never been losing by more then 7 and never by more then 3 since week one. That does means something and no amount of hate you feel for this team changes that. how can being up huge vs. teams and repeatedly needing breaks at the end to win be considered a good thing??? You are seriously asking how leading the majority of the game and Winning is a good thing and playing from behind in the majority of the game and losing is not a good thing? I don't know how to respond to that........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red&BlueRivalry Posted October 14, 2003 Author Share Posted October 14, 2003 Originally posted by speedwagon20 eboyer, as henry pointed out in his sarcastic post, it seems like traits that the two teams have in common are being considered a positive for the cowboys and a negative for the redskins. how can being up huge vs. teams and repeatedly needing breaks at the end to win be considered a good thing??? Repeatedly getting breaks? Okay, yeah, sure. You're obviously not watching the Cowboys games. I'll use the Redskins excuse for losses with the Falcons game because it's true, Dallas played by far it's worse game this year and has yet to even come close that level of play since. The Cowboys though dominated the Giants most of the game and had a very late collapse. Lucky kick return for the Cowboys but one of the biggest contributors in the collapse was the poor nickel defense with Pete Hunter playing the slot because Ross and Mitchell (both higher than him on depth chart) were out. BTW, Ross is back. The Jets score might look a little close on paper but that game was never in reach for the Jets. Complete domination by the Cowboys. Which I might add was not what it looked like when the Skins played them. In the Cardinals game, the Cowboys actually appeared to lose motivation because they were dominating so much but still won the game by a very comfortable margin. The Philly game had nothing to do with luck. The Cowboys were the better team that day. The Eagles are still a damn good team though (you saw how they handled the Skins) and finally gained the lead for the first time very late but like any winner, the Cowboys drove the ball back, scored the winning field goal and then shut out Philly when it was their turn. That's not luck, that's not getting a break, that's a good team. ALL GOOD TEAMS DO THAT MANY TIMES IN A SEASON! There are no dominant teams this year, that's how everyone wins in a parity driven NFL. I can give you several examples every week of the same thing happening, but I guess if you're a diehard Skins fan, it's easier to think it's just luck with the Cowboys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Eric, it's equaully intellectually dishonest to disparage a win against a 4-2 team because they are injury depleted. That injury problem didn't stop them from beating 4 out of other the 5 teams they played, did it? I have agreed with your assessment that the Cowboys are not a top tier team, yet are currently the class of the division. But now you insist on now changing your evaluation to include that leading by this much for this amount of time suddenly make the Cowboys a far superior team. They are a more consistant team. They are a more disciplined team. That is clear. If you insist on seeing more than that after 5 (or 6) games you are going to get sarcasm. They have won one more game against common opponents. They are not head and shoulders ahead of the Redskins by any measurable degree. But they are slightly better. Maybe as the season wears on that will change, but not right now. This has nothing to do with what team I hate or like. As I said before beating a team by two points or losing to a teeam by two points is just that. If you insist on adding further criteria to various wins and losses to make one team look better or worse. That simply shows your own bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 You are seriously asking how leading the majority of the game and Winning is a good thing and playing from behind in the majority of the game and losing is not a good thing? I don't know how to respond to that........ No, that isn't what I asked. What I asked was "is it really a good trait to continually blow leads?" Jim Fassell for the Giants gets sh!t on because he allows teams to hang around. Why don't you think it's something that should be concerning for the Cowboys? Common opponents so far are: Giants Eagles Falcons Jets Giants: Skins got crushed in the first half and fought back. The Cowboys dominated most of that game but allowed the team to stick around and make it close. Edge of course goes to Dallas. Eagles: Same story for the Cowboys. The Redskins however were within 4 points most of the second half and didn't fall behind by 11 until very late. Then they came back and pulled within 2. Edge Dallas. Falcons: Redskins and Cowboys both fell behind early. Skins came back, Boys didn't. Edge Redskins. Jets: You guys beat them much more decisively. Edge Cowboys . Again, read my whole post (I think you did because you picked out parts of the whole thing). I'm conceding that the Cowboys have won more games and been more impressive. My only point is that when you're comparing two teams, sometimes you have to look a little deeper than: Dalls won this game and the Skins lost. They really aren't separated by too much of a margin IMO. I guess you could prove me wrong after the Skins bye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eboyer Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Eric, it's equaully intellectually dishonest to disparage a win against a 4-2 team because they are injury depleted. That injury problem didn't stop them from beating 4 out of other the 5 teams they played, did it? That is a poor example of intellectual dishonesty I am afraid. Not to mention you incorrectly assume they had as many injuries during the four wins. I have agreed with your assessment that the Cowboys are not a top tier team, yet are currently the class of the division. But now you insist on now changing your evaluation to include that leading by this much for this amount of time suddenly make the Cowboys a far superior team. They are a more consistant team. They are a more disciplined team. That is clear. My argument is that Dallas has been more impressive. I already stated arguing about who has the superior talent is a slippery slope. You seem to have me confused with other posters. My entry into this thread was because I read one skin fan claim Dallas hasn't beaten anybody yet. And you, Henry, who once strolled onto the Cowboys forum claiming you were just there to bring some reality to the insanity on that forum did not say one thing to the shmuck who claimed such absurdity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red&BlueRivalry Posted October 14, 2003 Author Share Posted October 14, 2003 Originally posted by speedwagon20 My only point is that when you're comparing two teams, sometimes you have to look a little deeper than: Dalls won this game and the Skins lost. They really aren't separated by too much of a margin IMO. I guess you could prove me wrong after the Skins bye. 100% agree with that. Almost all teams in the NFL this year are pretty similar talent wise. Even the undefeated teams don't look like previous powerhouses. In the end, I think injuries and coaching matter more than anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 In the end, I think injuries and coaching matter more than anything. I agree with that...and that's what has me worried about the Cowboys I guess. The Skins have at least been healthy...knock on wood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Henry Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Eric, I'm done talking to that guy. Trust me, I've said my peice to him in other threads. At this point I'm quite content to skip over his stuff, and suggest you do the same. You responded to one of my posts on page 2 or 3 of this thread, and I was responding to that. The trash talk in the middle I've largely ignored. Perhaps you've assumed my silence implied that I agree with all that. It does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eboyer Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 No, that isn't what I asked. What I asked was "is it really a good trait to continually blow leads?" It certainly isn't ideal but it is to be expected when we are playing without two of our better corner backs and a new coaching staff is in place. The fact that it was only a temporary deficit makes it tolerable. Jim Fassell for the Giants gets sh!t on because he allows teams to hang around. Why don't you think it's something that should be concerning for the Cowboys? Again, it should be a slight concern. Dallas is in the first 5 games of a new coaching staff and these games came against what was considered the class of the division. The point remains though, Dallas was able to play better ball against their base packages. The Redskins could not do anything until the defense moved to a more conervative prevent approach very late in the game. I would be far more concerned if I was a skins fan. The final score was not a good barometer of how Washington played those division games I am afraid. Falcons: Redskins and Cowboys both fell behind early. Skins came back, Boys didn't. Edge Redskins. You get the edge because you won. Cowboys didn't fall behind early however. Dallas took a small lead and kept it into halftime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eboyer Posted October 14, 2003 Share Posted October 14, 2003 Originally posted by Henry Eric, I'm done talking to that guy. Trust me, I've said my peice to him in other threads. At this point I'm quite content to skip over his stuff, and suggest you do the same. No argument there! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.