Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Proof that Jerry is learning from Garrett, others....
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Dallas Cowboys
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
WizardHawk


Joined: 31 Jan 2009
Posts: 10041
Location: Hawkeye State
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 10:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

buddy_z34 wrote:
WizardHawk wrote:
Desperado82 wrote:
I still wonder what would have happened if we would have hired somebody other than Wade once Parcells retired.

His (Phillips) record should have spoken for itself by then. He was nothing more than an average head coach and his drafts were not much better either.


Thought about this too and was trying to remember you else was on the list of candidates, there was like 12-13 interviewed. Turner, Rivera, Sparano, and Bowles are the ones I remember.


Singletary?? Or was that later. Anyways that was a pretty weak group of candidates looking at it now. Rivera is the only one who panned out. A lot of great coordinators on that list though. I wonder what Rivera could had done in San Diego if he was head coach and Turner was coordinator.


That sounds familiar. I think Bob Stoops was one of them too.
_________________

Kiltman on avy n' sig
George Selvie Fan Club
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
The_Slamman


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 13531
Location: Las Vegas, NV
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

buddy_z34 wrote:
Let me try and analyze this.....

First off why do y'all seem to go back to reference since 97?? That's something I don't get. Is it because ESPN and the media have something to do with it?? 17 years seems weird to me to just go back to. But I think since it helps their case they use it. Since 97 Dallas has been mediocre. A .500 football club. Blah blah blah.

I decided to look at this rationally and go back say to 2004. When the Romo, Ware and Witten era took hold. Is that plausible?? It is after all a what have you done for me lately kind of league rite??

Since the 2004 season Dallas is 97-79. That's a 55 win percentage. 2 NFC East Championships. 4 playoff appearances. Yes only 1 playoff win. But what I found out to be remarkable for as awful an organization that many of you think we have, the team never; I repeat NEVER finished last in the division. Something the other NFC teams cannot say.

Let's compare to other NFC teams shall we. The Giants who without a doubt had the most postseason success. And I say postseason success because what I'm about to put down next will shock you, well maybe. The Giants went 94-82 in that span. Yes a worse regular season than our mediocre Cowboys. That equates to a 53 win percentage for the New York football Giants. 3 NFC East titles. Only one more than our mediocre team. Finished last in the division once.

The Eagles went 101-75. A 57 win percentage. Very good and all but they also finished last in the division 3 times. They did win the NFC East 4 times. But no SuperBowl wins to speak of with all this success. Ever, but let's no hinder their current decade of success by going back more into the past. We are in a what have you done for me lately mentality right.

Finally but certainly not last, well yes last seeing as they came up the rear 7 times in the division. A pedestrian 71-105 record, win percentage of 40. 3 playoff appearances and one win in the playoffs. Also 1 NFC East title.

I gave you guys the numbers now your job to comprehend them as you want. Is the team as bad as y'all make it out to be?? Heck no. Only the Eagles had a better win percentage. The team with the most success in terms of what many of you call for, playoff success, had a worse win percentage than our team did. They had things go their way. They had a better defenses than we did. Offense wins you games, defense wins you championships.

Mediocre?? I think not.


Buddy, over the same 10 year period, how many team only have one or less playoff victories? Isn't the the best determinant for being better than mediocre? In the NFL today, mediocre teams make it into the playoff every year. They usually are one and done. To be more than mediocre, don't you have to beat good teams when both teams have everything to play for?
_________________
Northland wrote:
If mediocrity is your SuperBowl then Garrett is your Lombardi.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheStarStillShines


Joined: 12 Oct 2004
Posts: 8774
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

buddy_z34 wrote:
Let me try and analyze this.....

First off why do y'all seem to go back to reference since 97?? That's something I don't get. Is it because ESPN and the media have something to do with it?? 17 years seems weird to me to just go back to. But I think since it helps their case they use it. Since 97 Dallas has been mediocre. A .500 football club. Blah blah blah.

I decided to look at this rationally and go back say to 2004. When the Romo, Ware and Witten era took hold. Is that plausible?? It is after all a what have you done for me lately kind of league rite??

Since the 2004 season Dallas is 97-79. That's a 55 win percentage. 2 NFC East Championships. 4 playoff appearances. Yes only 1 playoff win. But what I found out to be remarkable for as awful an organization that many of you think we have, the team never; I repeat NEVER finished last in the division. Something the other NFC teams cannot say.

Let's compare to other NFC teams shall we. The Giants who without a doubt had the most postseason success. And I say postseason success because what I'm about to put down next will shock you, well maybe. The Giants went 94-82 in that span. Yes a worse regular season than our mediocre Cowboys. That equates to a 53 win percentage for the New York football Giants. 3 NFC East titles. Only one more than our mediocre team. Finished last in the division once.

The Eagles went 101-75. A 57 win percentage. Very good and all but they also finished last in the division 3 times. They did win the NFC East 4 times. But no SuperBowl wins to speak of with all this success. Ever, but let's no hinder their current decade of success by going back more into the past. We are in a what have you done for me lately mentality right.

Finally but certainly not last, well yes last seeing as they came up the rear 7 times in the division. A pedestrian 71-105 record, win percentage of 40. 3 playoff appearances and one win in the playoffs. Also 1 NFC East title.

I gave you guys the numbers now your job to comprehend them as you want. Is the team as bad as y'all make it out to be?? Heck no. Only the Eagles had a better win percentage. The team with the most success in terms of what many of you call for, playoff success, had a worse win percentage than our team did. They had things go their way. They had a better defenses than we did. Offense wins you games, defense wins you championships.

Mediocre?? I think not.


I find this line of argument perplexing. The NFL is a results-oriented business. The whole point is to win championships. People, including myself, go back to 1996 because, as retrolock and Slam have mentioned, was the last time the team experienced any type of success. Since that time, they've managed to win 2 playoff games and only 1 playoff game in the last 15 years. That's mediocre.

Regular-season winning percentages are meaningless in the grand scheme, especially if there are no results tied at the end. Number of times finishing last is also meaningless if it leads to results in the longer term, like it did for the Giants. While the Giants may have a lower winning percentage and have finished last in the division more than once, they still have 2 Super Bowls to show for their inconsistency. What fans wouldn't take a few last-place showings if it meant seeing your team hoist the Lombardi Trophy a couple of times? Or would you rather watch a team constantly float between 5-11 and 9-7 (with the odd 13-3 and 10-6 season), win one playoff game in the process, and never win the Super Bowl?

All your argument showed was that the Boys are the most consistent team in the NFC East at being mediocre. Let's be honest, the NFC East has been a pretty mediocre division for years. Only the Redskins have been worst at being mediocre than the Cowboys. This isn't exactly something to be proud about.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PincheJimmy


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 1384
Location: Flower Mound, TX
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The_Slamman wrote:
buddy_z34 wrote:
Let me try and analyze this.....

First off why do y'all seem to go back to reference since 97?? That's something I don't get. Is it because ESPN and the media have something to do with it?? 17 years seems weird to me to just go back to. But I think since it helps their case they use it. Since 97 Dallas has been mediocre. A .500 football club. Blah blah blah.

I decided to look at this rationally and go back say to 2004. When the Romo, Ware and Witten era took hold. Is that plausible?? It is after all a what have you done for me lately kind of league rite??

Since the 2004 season Dallas is 97-79. That's a 55 win percentage. 2 NFC East Championships. 4 playoff appearances. Yes only 1 playoff win. But what I found out to be remarkable for as awful an organization that many of you think we have, the team never; I repeat NEVER finished last in the division. Something the other NFC teams cannot say.

Let's compare to other NFC teams shall we. The Giants who without a doubt had the most postseason success. And I say postseason success because what I'm about to put down next will shock you, well maybe. The Giants went 94-82 in that span. Yes a worse regular season than our mediocre Cowboys. That equates to a 53 win percentage for the New York football Giants. 3 NFC East titles. Only one more than our mediocre team. Finished last in the division once.

The Eagles went 101-75. A 57 win percentage. Very good and all but they also finished last in the division 3 times. They did win the NFC East 4 times. But no SuperBowl wins to speak of with all this success. Ever, but let's no hinder their current decade of success by going back more into the past. We are in a what have you done for me lately mentality right.

Finally but certainly not last, well yes last seeing as they came up the rear 7 times in the division. A pedestrian 71-105 record, win percentage of 40. 3 playoff appearances and one win in the playoffs. Also 1 NFC East title.

I gave you guys the numbers now your job to comprehend them as you want. Is the team as bad as y'all make it out to be?? Heck no. Only the Eagles had a better win percentage. The team with the most success in terms of what many of you call for, playoff success, had a worse win percentage than our team did. They had things go their way. They had a better defenses than we did. Offense wins you games, defense wins you championships.

Mediocre?? I think not.


Buddy, over the same 10 year period, how many team only have one or less playoff victories? Isn't the the best determinant for being better than mediocre? In the NFL today, mediocre teams make it into the playoff every year. They usually are one and done. To be more than mediocre, don't you have to beat good teams when both teams have everything to play for?


I counted 20 teams with 1 or less playoff win , that's a lot of mediocrity Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
PincheJimmy


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 1384
Location: Flower Mound, TX
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 12:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheStarStillShines wrote:
buddy_z34 wrote:
Let me try and analyze this.....

First off why do y'all seem to go back to reference since 97?? That's something I don't get. Is it because ESPN and the media have something to do with it?? 17 years seems weird to me to just go back to. But I think since it helps their case they use it. Since 97 Dallas has been mediocre. A .500 football club. Blah blah blah.

I decided to look at this rationally and go back say to 2004. When the Romo, Ware and Witten era took hold. Is that plausible?? It is after all a what have you done for me lately kind of league rite??

Since the 2004 season Dallas is 97-79. That's a 55 win percentage. 2 NFC East Championships. 4 playoff appearances. Yes only 1 playoff win. But what I found out to be remarkable for as awful an organization that many of you think we have, the team never; I repeat NEVER finished last in the division. Something the other NFC teams cannot say.

Let's compare to other NFC teams shall we. The Giants who without a doubt had the most postseason success. And I say postseason success because what I'm about to put down next will shock you, well maybe. The Giants went 94-82 in that span. Yes a worse regular season than our mediocre Cowboys. That equates to a 53 win percentage for the New York football Giants. 3 NFC East titles. Only one more than our mediocre team. Finished last in the division once.

The Eagles went 101-75. A 57 win percentage. Very good and all but they also finished last in the division 3 times. They did win the NFC East 4 times. But no SuperBowl wins to speak of with all this success. Ever, but let's no hinder their current decade of success by going back more into the past. We are in a what have you done for me lately mentality right.

Finally but certainly not last, well yes last seeing as they came up the rear 7 times in the division. A pedestrian 71-105 record, win percentage of 40. 3 playoff appearances and one win in the playoffs. Also 1 NFC East title.

I gave you guys the numbers now your job to comprehend them as you want. Is the team as bad as y'all make it out to be?? Heck no. Only the Eagles had a better win percentage. The team with the most success in terms of what many of you call for, playoff success, had a worse win percentage than our team did. They had things go their way. They had a better defenses than we did. Offense wins you games, defense wins you championships.

Mediocre?? I think not.


I find this line of argument perplexing. The NFL is a results-oriented business. The whole point is to win championships. People, including myself, go back to 1996 because, as retrolock and Slam have mentioned, was the last time the team experienced any type of success. Since that time, they've managed to win 2 playoff games and only 1 playoff game in the last 15 years. That's mediocre.

Regular-season winning percentages are meaningless in the grand scheme, especially if there are no results tied at the end. Number of times finishing last is also meaningless if it leads to results in the longer term, like it did for the Giants. While the Giants may have a lower winning percentage and have finished last in the division more than once, they still have 2 Super Bowls to show for their inconsistency. What fans wouldn't take a few last-place showings if it meant seeing your team hoist the Lombardi Trophy a couple of times? Or would you rather watch a team constantly float between 5-11 and 9-7 (with the odd 13-3 and 10-6 season), win one playoff game in the process, and never win the Super Bowl?

All your argument showed was that the Boys are the most consistent team in the NFC East at being mediocre. Let's be honest, the NFC East has been a pretty mediocre division for years. Only the Redskins have been worst at being mediocre than the Cowboys. This isn't exactly something to be proud about.


If the whole point is to win Championships, there are 20 teams who have yet to reach the SB since the Cowboys went. How would you like to be a fan of one of those teams? I guess that makes them mediocre as well if we follow your logic
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Nextyearfordaboyz


Joined: 11 Jan 2005
Posts: 17261
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Aaron Donald is my target, but I wouldn't be one bit opposed to drafting an offensive lineman at #16. A day without Romo is fast approaching. A young, stud offensive line is a luxury very few young QBs receive.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Texas_OutLaw7


Most Valuable Poster (6th Ballot)

FF Fanatic

Joined: 27 Mar 2005
Posts: 24703
Location: Cowboys Forum ROH Class of '12
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nextyearfordaboyz wrote:
Aaron Donald is my target, but I wouldn't be one bit opposed to drafting an offensive lineman at #16. A day without Romo is fast approaching. A young, stud offensive line is a luxury very few young QBs receive.


I agree.
_________________


In Redball I Trust!
The price of progress is trusting the process.
Heart. Leadership. Passion. Will.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TheStarStillShines


Joined: 12 Oct 2004
Posts: 8774
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 1:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PincheJimmy wrote:
I counted 20 teams with 1 or less playoff win , that's a lot of mediocrity Smile


20 teams since when (i.e., what year)?

And yes, lack of playoff success is mediocrity. If since 1999, I find that hard to believe there have only be 20 teams that have 1 playoff win or less.

Since 1996, when the Boys last won the SB, the teams that have not been to the SB are:
- Buffalo
- Cleveland
- Cincinnati
- Dallas
- Detroit
- Jacksonville
- Kansas City
- Miami
- Minnesota
- NY Jets
- San Diego
- Washington

Even Arizona, Oakland, Tennessee made SB appearances.

And since 1996, the following teams made multiple SB appearances (* denotes multiple SB championships):
- New England*
- Baltimore*
- NY Giants*
- Pittsburgh
- Green Bay*
- Denver*
- St. Louis*
- Indianapolis
- Seattle

The organization and its fans should not be aspiring to be better than the bottom third of the league, but to have consistent success year-after-year and to win the SB.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dirk Gently


Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 6173
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheStarStillShines wrote:
PincheJimmy wrote:
I counted 20 teams with 1 or less playoff win , that's a lot of mediocrity Smile


20 teams since when (i.e., what year)?

And yes, lack of playoff success is mediocrity. If since 1999, I find that hard to believe there have only be 20 teams that have 1 playoff win or less.

Since 1996, when the Boys last won the SB, the teams that have not been to the SB are:
- Buffalo
- Cleveland
- Cincinnati
- Dallas
- Detroit
- Jacksonville
- Kansas City
- Miami
- Minnesota
- NY Jets
- San Diego
- Washington

Even Arizona, Oakland, Tennessee made SB appearances.

And since 1996, the following teams made multiple SB appearances (* denotes multiple SB championships):
- New England*
- Baltimore*
- NY Giants*
- Pittsburgh
- Green Bay*
- Denver*
- St. Louis*
- Indianapolis
- Seattle

The organization and its fans should not be aspiring to be better than the bottom third of the league, but to have consistent success year-after-year and to win the SB.
I believe the discussion was the last 10 years as
A) a round number

And

B) Romo's rookie year.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
buddy_z34


Joined: 21 Dec 2007
Posts: 16166
Location: San Antonio, Texas
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 2:24 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The NFL is a mediocre league. It's filled with parity as evident to 11 teams winning the SuperBowl since 96. You guys want me to use 96 then I shall in this rebuttal. 19 teams since 96 have reached the SuperBowl. I'm pretty sure if you check out teams win percentage since 96 it'll be around fifty something percent. Again mediocre. Ill check out those 19 different SuperBowl appearances by teams and I know some of those teams won it all with having a mediocre record. Is the team mediocre?? Perhaps but so is everyone else with exception to the Pats and Colts. Wasn't the NFC East considered the SEC of the NFL in the last decade?? Being the most consistent mediocre team in the hardest division in football sounds pretty darn good to me.

I'm glad this league has parity and mediocrity. I'm glad this isn't the NBA or MLB. In the NBA if your teams haven't been the Heat, Bulls, Rockets, Lakers, Spurs, Pistons or Celtics I feel bad for em. It's been about close to 3 decades since any other team in the league has won a championship.

Again our team hasn't won a SB since the 95 season. There are teams and fans who go their entire lifetime without knowing what that feels like. We should be gracious as fans to have experienced what that feels like. Do I want to experience that joy and jubilation again?? Hell yes I do. But I understand that it may never happen again.

As I've said years ago on this forum. Players and coaches should go into every season thinking SuperBowl or bust. We as fans shouldn't go into every season as having the same mentality as they do. They don't say any given Sunday for no reason. You can be 19-0 and be labelled as one of the greatest teams to ever play the game and lose to a mediocre 9-7 team.

Sorry if this post sounds out of whack and disorganized I'm on my phone and out eating lunch with some friends.

On a side note this just popped into my head. Lol my bad. If not for bad luck or the curse of Jerry if Romo doesn't mishandle that FG attempt or Cryaton catches that pass I don't think we would be having this convo right about now. Luck has a lot to do with winning football games that most don't. Ok I'm posting this cluster fuuuuu of a post. Laughing
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address
The_Slamman


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 13531
Location: Las Vegas, NV
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:33 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Matts4313 wrote:
The_Slamman wrote:
Matts, I disagree with your premise that Jerry is learning from Jason or from anyone else for that matter. The problem with Jerry is and always has been that he, himself is not a football guy... no matter how hard he wants/tries to be.

Do you remember the article from Broadus... http://www.dallascowboys.com/news/article-BryanBroaddusBlog/Broaddus--Jerry-Jones-And-Parcells-Helped-Each-Other/b63eb7fb-8bd4-48b2-9c30-c8a6e532938a

Quote:
If you remember those teams under Dave Campo, we had no plan nor did we have any direction. During his seasons in Dallas, Parcells gave us both. Sure there were times he was stubborn and his ego got in the way, but it was honestly for the betterment of the team.

I have always said that one of Jerry Jonesí greatest traits was his ability to listen, but you can also say that it's one of his greatest faults. Parcells had Jones' ear, but in turn, Parcells was the same with Jones. What Parcells did better than anyone I had ever worked with is that he understood how to play the game. Parcells was a master at getting what he wanted but he also knew that getting what he wanted also came with a price.


Because the GM is NOT the football guy, he is at the mercy of those around him for better or worse. What we really have is a guy who relies on the best sales pitch not on his independent knowledge of how to build a cohesive football unit. He ebbs and flows with the voices around him. We saw it in full force in the draft last year. We saw it last offseason, we saw it again this offseason relating to the coaching staff. Jerry is not the man with the plan and that is the problem.

Regarding whether Jerry drafting OL marks a significant change directly attributable to JG... I have my doubts. I don't think any coach, GM or owner could ignore what happened to Romo from 2010-2012. Broken collar bone, broken ribs, punctured lung, etc. The NYG (in Dallas) and TB games in 2012 are forever scratched into my retinas as pretty much the worst beat down a QB could repeatedly take. They are the equivalent of the prison rape scene in American History X. JG is just as much at fault for those awful OLs as Jerry. I'd say that watching the team hit critical mass with the ever present possibility of losing the franchise QB led to the team drafting OL.

Similarly, I'd be willing to bet that this year Jerry will draft a DT a lot higher than he ever has since the days of Jimmy. I don't think that has anything to do with JG. I think it has more to do with the complete and total meltdown we saw in 2013.



.... Laughing


Slam Argument 1: JJ isnt learning, he has always whimsically followed his coaches lead. (while also emasculating? Just asking how that applies)

-seconds later-

Slam Argument 2: Except for Garrett, he isnt following his lead, he is just protecting his QB.


No, what I said was that Jerry listens to everyone and relies on the best sales pitch. And, when your QB is getting repeatedly destroyed every year... At a certain it's possible to ignore regardless of who the coach is.

But if you really want to get technical about it... Jerry isn't learning from JG, he's actually learning from Tony Romo. How conveniently you forget that JG did NOT want to draft a center in the first round. JG wanted to draft a DT. Jerry didn't listen to JG. Much to the double face palming chagrin and sourpuss face of JG... Jerry blew off JG and traded instead of drafting the #5 guy JG wanted.

More to the point, however, is why did Jerry draft a center? As it turns out, it had everything to do with Tony Romo's contract extension. As you know, it was Romo who made Jerry promise to draft interior OL to give him .5 second more to throw the ball. And, we know Romo texted Jerry right after the pick to thank him for the extra .5 second.

And, we know that Romo is being given even more control over the offense in 2014. So perhaps you should change the title of thread to say Jerry is learning from Romo. I think even you have to admit that all Jerry has done over the past few years is emasculate JG while elevating the stature of Romo.
_________________
Northland wrote:
If mediocrity is your SuperBowl then Garrett is your Lombardi.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dirk Gently


Joined: 04 Jun 2008
Posts: 6173
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 3:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, what was reported was that it was a clash between coaches and scouts, not Garrett and Jerry.

Romo was not said to have been consulted about drafting a center, though he was, of course, recorded as being grateful regarding the pick and saying that it fulfilled Jerry's obligation to get him more pocket time. Oddly, romo was listed as giving the nod to Escobar over Williams, whom we later picked anyhow.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The_Slamman


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 13531
Location: Las Vegas, NV
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PincheJimmy wrote:
The_Slamman wrote:
buddy_z34 wrote:
Let me try and analyze this.....

First off why do y'all seem to go back to reference since 97?? That's something I don't get. Is it because ESPN and the media have something to do with it?? 17 years seems weird to me to just go back to. But I think since it helps their case they use it. Since 97 Dallas has been mediocre. A .500 football club. Blah blah blah.

I decided to look at this rationally and go back say to 2004. When the Romo, Ware and Witten era took hold. Is that plausible?? It is after all a what have you done for me lately kind of league rite??

Since the 2004 season Dallas is 97-79. That's a 55 win percentage. 2 NFC East Championships. 4 playoff appearances. Yes only 1 playoff win. But what I found out to be remarkable for as awful an organization that many of you think we have, the team never; I repeat NEVER finished last in the division. Something the other NFC teams cannot say.

Let's compare to other NFC teams shall we. The Giants who without a doubt had the most postseason success. And I say postseason success because what I'm about to put down next will shock you, well maybe. The Giants went 94-82 in that span. Yes a worse regular season than our mediocre Cowboys. That equates to a 53 win percentage for the New York football Giants. 3 NFC East titles. Only one more than our mediocre team. Finished last in the division once.

The Eagles went 101-75. A 57 win percentage. Very good and all but they also finished last in the division 3 times. They did win the NFC East 4 times. But no SuperBowl wins to speak of with all this success. Ever, but let's no hinder their current decade of success by going back more into the past. We are in a what have you done for me lately mentality right.

Finally but certainly not last, well yes last seeing as they came up the rear 7 times in the division. A pedestrian 71-105 record, win percentage of 40. 3 playoff appearances and one win in the playoffs. Also 1 NFC East title.

I gave you guys the numbers now your job to comprehend them as you want. Is the team as bad as y'all make it out to be?? Heck no. Only the Eagles had a better win percentage. The team with the most success in terms of what many of you call for, playoff success, had a worse win percentage than our team did. They had things go their way. They had a better defenses than we did. Offense wins you games, defense wins you championships.

Mediocre?? I think not.


Buddy, over the same 10 year period, how many team only have one or less playoff victories? Isn't the the best determinant for being better than mediocre? In the NFL today, mediocre teams make it into the playoff every year. They usually are one and done. To be more than mediocre, don't you have to beat good teams when both teams have everything to play for?


I counted 20 teams with 1 or less playoff win , that's a lot of mediocrity Smile


Assuming the number is correct. Yes it is a lot of mediocrity. However, just off the top of my head, I can count more than 12 teams with more than 1 playoff win since 04. Philly, NYG, SF, Sea, Ari, GB, Chi, Minn, NO, NE, Pit, Indy, Balt, SD, Den, NYJ and Hou all have more than 1 playoff victory since 2004. That's over half the NFL. So if the majority of the NFL has more than 1 playoff since 2004, isn't if fair to say the cowboys have less than the NFL average? Actually less than mediocre.
_________________
Northland wrote:
If mediocrity is your SuperBowl then Garrett is your Lombardi.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
PincheJimmy


Joined: 20 Jan 2008
Posts: 1384
Location: Flower Mound, TX
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The_Slamman wrote:
PincheJimmy wrote:
The_Slamman wrote:
buddy_z34 wrote:
Let me try and analyze this.....

First off why do y'all seem to go back to reference since 97?? That's something I don't get. Is it because ESPN and the media have something to do with it?? 17 years seems weird to me to just go back to. But I think since it helps their case they use it. Since 97 Dallas has been mediocre. A .500 football club. Blah blah blah.

I decided to look at this rationally and go back say to 2004. When the Romo, Ware and Witten era took hold. Is that plausible?? It is after all a what have you done for me lately kind of league rite??

Since the 2004 season Dallas is 97-79. That's a 55 win percentage. 2 NFC East Championships. 4 playoff appearances. Yes only 1 playoff win. But what I found out to be remarkable for as awful an organization that many of you think we have, the team never; I repeat NEVER finished last in the division. Something the other NFC teams cannot say.

Let's compare to other NFC teams shall we. The Giants who without a doubt had the most postseason success. And I say postseason success because what I'm about to put down next will shock you, well maybe. The Giants went 94-82 in that span. Yes a worse regular season than our mediocre Cowboys. That equates to a 53 win percentage for the New York football Giants. 3 NFC East titles. Only one more than our mediocre team. Finished last in the division once.

The Eagles went 101-75. A 57 win percentage. Very good and all but they also finished last in the division 3 times. They did win the NFC East 4 times. But no SuperBowl wins to speak of with all this success. Ever, but let's no hinder their current decade of success by going back more into the past. We are in a what have you done for me lately mentality right.

Finally but certainly not last, well yes last seeing as they came up the rear 7 times in the division. A pedestrian 71-105 record, win percentage of 40. 3 playoff appearances and one win in the playoffs. Also 1 NFC East title.

I gave you guys the numbers now your job to comprehend them as you want. Is the team as bad as y'all make it out to be?? Heck no. Only the Eagles had a better win percentage. The team with the most success in terms of what many of you call for, playoff success, had a worse win percentage than our team did. They had things go their way. They had a better defenses than we did. Offense wins you games, defense wins you championships.

Mediocre?? I think not.


Buddy, over the same 10 year period, how many team only have one or less playoff victories? Isn't the the best determinant for being better than mediocre? In the NFL today, mediocre teams make it into the playoff every year. They usually are one and done. To be more than mediocre, don't you have to beat good teams when both teams have everything to play for?


I counted 20 teams with 1 or less playoff win , that's a lot of mediocrity Smile


Assuming the number is correct. Yes it is a lot of mediocrity. However, just off the top of my head, I can count more than 12 teams with more than 1 playoff win since 04. Philly, NYG, SF, Sea, Ari, GB, Chi, Minn, NO, NE, Pit, Indy, Balt, SD, Den, NYJ and Hou all have more than 1 playoff victory since 2004. That's over half the NFL. So if the majority of the NFL has more than 1 playoff since 2004, isn't if fair to say the cowboys have less than the NFL average? Actually less than mediocre.



I looked it up on Wikipedia real quick so i may be off a bitm Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message MSN Messenger
Dallas94Ware


Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 4582
Location: Queens, NY
PostPosted: Wed Mar 05, 2014 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

PincheJimmy wrote:


I counted 20 teams with 1 or less playoff win , that's a lot of mediocrity Smile


This is exactly what I have been telling Slam and Wizard. While your total is a bit off, this team has accomplished more in the last "17 years" (Good point above about folks using 17 as a marker cause it bolsters their argument) than a lot of teams have. There are teams that would be happy to finish 8-8 and compete for a division crown in the final few weeks, let alone doing that 3 years in a row. Do you wanna win it and win some playoff games? 'Course ya do. But that doesn't mean you shouldn't be thankful in some fashion for at least having had a competitive season. Cause a lot of teams don't, for much longer stretches than this team has ever experienced.
_________________
Gavin Escobar will have more catches than Cole Beasley.

Yes just like every coach, I do think I know everything.

Read the Football FAQ!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> Dallas Cowboys All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Page 5 of 9

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group