The Third Circle of Parity, or, This is Not Your Cousin's NFL
by Rafael Vela on Oct 14, 2009 12:18 AM CDT
Email
PrintThe blog has offered a fabulous view of fandom the last couple of weeks, as this sector of Cowboys Nation has struggled to come to grips with the team's 2-2 start and stuttering climb to 3-2. Some people want the OC's red head on an even redder platter. Others want the head coach to proceed him out the door, NOW if possible! Others want a two-fer.
The head coaching speculation has begun, with the requisite appeals to authority. "I've seen the Cowboys for 78.89 thousands years," we'll invariably hear, "and there's no way this team is doing anything." (Why does it sound like Bill Cosby on acid when you speak that sentence out loud?)
Maybe they're right. But nobody really knows. Even if you've seen 50 years of pro football, the first 40 or so are meaningless to understanding the quality of today's NFL. We've entered the third phase of parity, on our glide path to a time when every team will finish 8-8 and we will need computers, and maybe pollsters, to sort out the postseason field.
That phase began in 2005. I'm not exactly sure why it began that year but there are three phases to the devolution process unleashed by the salary cap system's adoption in 1994.
Phase I was the rule of the existing powers. Dallas assumed the NFL throne in '92 and duked it out with San Francisco for conference supremacy, which at that time meant league supremacy. They staged a free agency duel over Deion Sanders, who helped each win the first two cap era titles. But the cap chicanery tied their hands, and two organizations just below them in '94 and '95, the Packers and the Broncos, won the next three titles.
Phase II begins around 1999, and comprises what I'll call the Dead Money Era. Lots of teams got themselves deep into debt and saw bad contracts eat up large percentages of their fixed yearly budgets. This brought about a rapid reshuffling of team authority. The Rams came from nowhere to win the '99 season behind Kurt Warner. In the resettlement period we saw the '00 Ravens and the '02 Bucs win with dominant defenses and the pedestrian QBs Trent Dilfer and Brad Johnson.
The period really began to define itself in 2001, when Bill Belichick ran the first of his three Super Bowl campaigns behind Tom Brady. As David Halberstam noted in The Education of a Coach, Belichick and his GM partner Scott Pioli began assembling a roster of interchangeable parts; New England had the rare superstar like Brady, but rather than building around a cluster of stars, as the '90s Cowboys and 'Niners did, the Pats looked for good players who could play multiple roles or former superstars at the ends of their careers -- Junior Seau, Rodney Harrison -- who could play smart football for a short-term, medium-sized contract. Belichick felt this template gave him a better overall talent level for the buck.
The results speak for themselves. While big revenue teams struggled to purge their spread sheets, New England and the Eagles, the NFC team most closely following the Pats model (they rarely offer a big contract to a player over 30) briefly took over the league.
Phase III started just around the time the league as a whole learned to balance a checkbook. Since that time, we're seeing real parity. I've pointed out the churn we see from year to year, with a third of each years playoff field, on average, having been a loser the year before.
With so many Cowboys fans already short selling the '09 season, I went a bit deeper into the standings, to see how crippling a 2-2 or 3-2 start really is, and how important it is to maintain strength across the sixteen games?
I looked at the decade, and focused on the conference championship combatants, the NFL's Final Four, if you will. First, how many NFC and AFC Championship Game contestants had strong starts? I broke down the numbers for the whole decade, then by phases of the Cap Era.:
| 5-Game Record | Overall | Phase II, '00-'04 | Phase III, '05-'08 |
| 5-0 | 9 | 6 | 3 |
| 4-1 | 12 | 7 | 5 |
| 3-2 | 9 | 4 | 5 |
| 2-3 | 5 | 2 | 3 |
| 1-4 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
It's important to get off to a good start, but less important than it used to be. In Phase II, only 35% of the finalists started 3-2, as Dallas has, or worse. In phase III, that percentage has risen to 50%.
If more teams are reaching the finals with pedestrian starts, this suggests that lower seeds are doing better in the playoffs; we see a team start 2-2 or 3-2 and then finish 13-3 or 14-2 on occasion, but we don't see it every year.
| Playoff Seed | Overall | Phase II, '00-'04 | Phase III, '05-'08 |
| 1st | 12 | 9 | 3 |
| 2nd | 11 | 7 | 4 |
| 3rd | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| 4th | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| 5th | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| 6th | 3 | 0 | 3 |
Note how open the playoff field has become in phase III. From 2000 through 2004 the top seeds held sway. Sixteen of the 20 conference finalists were one or two seeds, a whopping 80%. If you went three deep, that number bolted to 95%.
Look now at what has happened since the 6th seed Steelers won three road playoff games and the Super Bowl in '05-'06. Only seven of the sixteen finalists, or 44%, have been one or two seeds.
The game has changed. Before '05, you needed a very high seed to be considered a legit contender. Now, the game is simply to get in the playoff field, and finish healthy. Need a strong December? Nah. Ask the '06 Colts,who finished 2-3 before running the playoff table. Or the '07 Giants, who were 4-4 the second half and 2-2 in December before they hit the postseason afterburners.
Last year's field made hash of the old expectations. In the AFC 6th seed Baltimore gave the 2nd seed Steelers a scare while the nine-win, 4th seed Cardinals hosted the nine-win, 6th seed Eagles.
This year may see a return to the old 1-2 paradigm but I doubt it. High seeds have been nothing more than rabbits for the field lately. The 14-2 Colts went one-and-out in '05; ditto for the 14-2 Chargers the next year. Dallas fans know what happened to their top seed 13-3 Cowboys in '07. They suffered the same painful fate as the 16-0 Patriots. The '08 Giants entered December 11-1 and were done five weeks later.
Just. Get. In.
That's the key these days. Nobody knows this better than Jeff Fisher. His '02 Titans were the 1-4 starter who played in the AFC title game. I'm sure he's told his 0-5 squad about them. If they're smart, they'll heed him. If he needs to, I'm sure Wade Phillips will mention his '98 Bills to his current Cowboys. They started 0-3 but made the postseason at 10-6.
Different cap eras, but the same result, one that is becoming more common by the year. The NFL has become Parityville. Nobody is done. Everybody has a chance -- still.
Well, almost everybody.
170 comments
|
2 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
good write-up
We just need to get in the tournament. Get well, Felix,MB3, and Sensabaugh.
"No matter where you go, you are what you are playa"-Jay Z
Twitter Account
by Wmillion on Oct 14, 2009 12:28 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
excellent work as usual
Coach Winters: Mississippi State's offensive set. 2nd & 2 on our own 24, what defensive set might we call?
Alvin Mack: Eagle Zipper Hero, unless the setback shifts into the I.
Coach Winters: Good..[clicks to next slide], third and seven?
Alvin Mack: Oakie Thunder Lion. {What's your assignment?}
Alvin Mack: Kill the quarterback. {{Coach Winters clicks to next slide}}
Alvin Mack: Hit the tight end so hard his girlfriend dies. {{Coach Winters clicks to next slide}}
Alvin Mack: Kill everybody.
That is undoubtedly one of the best posts I've ever read
You just can’t find this kind of stuff anywhere but BTB. I hope the numbers, stats, facts, and trends listed here squelch the naysayers, but I’m not holding my breath. What this information does is …
1) give me greater reason to hope that the Cowboys can make it into the playoffs and
2) give me greater determination to quickly toss aside the gripes and negative complaints of those who feel that the Cowboys don’t have a living chance and that all the coaches need to be fired.
Every time I hear that the sky is falling, the Cowboys are done, the owner sucks, Romo is finished, Wade needs to be fired, Garrett needs to be shot, Dallas barely beat Kansas City in overtime, the offense can’t score in the red zone, the defense can’t pressure the opposing quarterback, the receivers can’t get open, key play-makers can’t stay healthy, Newman is over-rated, Adams needs to be benched, Spencer is a bust, the Giants-Eagles-Vikings-Saints-Bears-49ers-Falcons are way better than the Cowboys, we need Fisher-Gruden-Shanahan-Holmgren-Schottenheimer-DeCamillis-Cowher or any coach with a pit bull attitude, etc…..etc……etc.
All I have to say to all that crap is, “Did you read Rafael Vela’s post on October 14 on The Third Circle of Parity?”
I’m thinking of printing a copy of his post and fastening it to my mirror, just so I can repeat it to myself over and over each day as a reminder of hope.
Hats off to you Raf
this is a very insightful analysis, made all the better by its startling simplicity. While ‘parity’ is a word that’s been being thrown around the NFL a lot in recent years, I haven’t seen it demonstrated that effectively yet. I wonder when we’ll see the first mainstream media sites and commentators pick this up and run with it (uncredited).
by One.Cool.Customer on Oct 14, 2009 6:33 AM CDT up reply actions
Okay, You Were Talking About Me, BW...
… And you’re right.
Another thing, I agree that Raf just published a MONEY POST, of which I wholeheartedly recommended, btw.
This statistically-supported piece gives me hope.
Is playing smart too much to ask?
by silverblue5 on Oct 14, 2009 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions
I've been saying it before the season started
make the playoffs, then I’ll start watching. Of course, I watch every game already but that’s not the point.
We can limp in, crawl in, or dominate our way in, as long as we make a good playoff run, that’s all Dallas fans care about anymore. This league is about winning Championships not division titles. Would we trade our 13-3 record for the Giants SB title? Of course. Let’s win ourselves a playoff game. Of course, we have to get there…
Their ship is sinking...
I was wondering if we might be able to swoop in on some players that are on absolutely terrible teams. Maybe get someone from the Raiders, Chiefs, or Rams (teams that are rebuilding) on the cheap.
Teams aren’t always gonna look great in every game. And even if they do go 16-0..well, we all know how that ended.
Anyways, thanks Raf, go Cowboys, go Felix Jones (just picked him up for my fantasy football team), and if we can get a good deal on a player (Richard Seymour) from a sorry team (Raiders) then let’s do it!
That's great it starts with an earthquake..
Thanks Raf for providing an objective view untainted by the morose, pitch-black, sky-is-falling, end-of the world view. Now what are we gonna talk about?
Great Post Raf
It backs up what I have been saying in that the modern NFL is less about playing great football all year, and more about getting hit towards the end of the season. This has been increasingly true in the NRL (Australian Rugby League) where in a 16-team league, every year there are multiple teams who with only one week left in the season can finish anywhere from around 4th to 14th. That is very significant when you consider it is a 16 team league with 16 rounds.
The Knights season may have just ended, but the Cowboys year is just begining!
Awesome, Raf
This is exactly why I can afford to be optimistic. No one knows what team will get hot at the end and be the team no one wants to play. Years past we have dominated early, and it seemed like while the rest of the league worked on their problems to get better, we got complacent. This year we are struggling early, so maybe we can take care of our problems before they are exposed in crucial late-season/playoff games.
I have seen the offense rely on the defense this year, and the defense rely on the offense. I think we’ve played the kind of games that make us grow as a team. Don’t forget, the change in character/attitude didn’t immediately come as soon as TO/Tank/Pacman were cut, those moves were just the catalyst. Growing into a team that knows how to win, close out games and be accountable is a gradual process – and to me it looks like they are starting to get it.
very well said wolf
The Cowboys remind me of a cancer patient who had a tumor removed and is on the road to recovery. The patient isn’t going to be 100% completely back to normal right away, the healing from the cancer takes time.
The lingering effects from the removal of the tumor known as T.O. are still there, and it is a gradual process before this team is back to being really cohesive and playing as a team rather than a collection of individuals. I think the best has yet to come.
In Romo we Trust
Just getting things off my chest...
I haven’t posted or even visted the blog since the Giant’s loss 3 weeks ago. That game really bugged me on so many levels, I just needed some time away from any media/fan sources to get my head straight and my perpective true. I haven’t missed a game since that loss, and watched each game with only my thoughts and didn’t pay any attention to anyone else’s opinions other than my own…and you know what? I’m still as big a fan as I ever was. Admittedly, my expectations are a bit tempered, but I’m still very hopeful and positive about this team. Why am I still so hopeful?
1. Dangit! This team is filled with good character hard workers. I don’t think we have any bad apples. They don’t cut corners and are very willing to work very hard to get better. I can respect this sort of team, and know that hard work is still the best path to success. Perhaps they can work smarter (coaching), but I like the fact that a great foundation of work ethic exists.
2. This is a very physically talented team. Evident by all the comments that free agents have made. Recently, Brookings made that very clear. That talent hasn’t been maximized, but it is still important to know it exists. You can work like a dog, but if you have no talent, you still don’t have much…
3. This team has frequent flashes of dominance. We lost that Giants game, but if you rewatch that game (I know it’s hard), we dominated both sides of that ball for most of the game. Our other loss at Denver was similar. We lost because of senseless penalties and not bein to hold defensively at the end of games. Our Offense, for all the negative media comments, moves the ball very well (we’ve racked up the most yards in the NFL…yes, even more than the Saints) but we have penalties/mistakes that prevent scoring. These are “fixable” things. It isn’t insurmountable.
4. We have a very good Quarterback. Romo’s image has been tarnished in recent weeks, but is this fair? Many people have relegated him to “scrub” status, but I absolutely don’t see him as a bad quarterback. He consistently puts us in a position to win. He drove on the Giants when he needed to, and he did the same with the Broncos. Very rarely do we ever get blown out. In fact, since Romo took over, I can only remember one game (Eagles last year) that we got absolutely annihilated. The only problem I ever saw with Romo was his “throttle control”. He always played “all out”, and never demonstrated the ability to pull back a little in select games. I’d like to see the ability to change from gunslinger mode to game manager mode, and maybe I’ve started to see that during the Chiefs game. I can remember a couple of time he eluded defenders and threw the ball away instead of throwing a dangerous ball like he frequently did in the past. It looks like he’s learning to me…and he “quietly” threw for over 350 yards. Was I the only one who was shocked at that number after the game? Alhough many have given up on Romo, my belief in him remains very strong. Granted, he’s not “god-like” to me anymore, but he’s still a very good quarterback in my opinion. I absolutely think he is one of our best players and we can win with him.
5. Keith Brookings was an absolute great addition to this team. Am I the only one that enjoys what he has to say? He’s the guy we were hoping Brady was…He speaks common sense, keeps his teamates minds in the right place, and can still flat out play. I really think as the season goes, Brookings will exert more of his will onto this team, and that would be a good thing. Why did the Falcon’s let this guy go? What’s keeping us from our postseason goals is our defense. Look at the pat 2 1/2 years…how many bad games has our defense had…better yet, how many dominant game have they had? How many times has our offense bailed them out of bad games? Maybe Romo is more secure with the ball if he can actually trust our defense…I’m starting to think that Brookings was a very important acquisition for us this past off season.
6. Most of you will disagree with me on this next point, but I’m encouraged by our GM. I think the team is being managed pretty well. Obviously, it can be better, but I like some of he things Jerry has been doing. He still has a penchant to hyperbole, and I wish he were more selective in his comments…“Romo Frindly”? Why would you ever make this comment? Putting undo “additional” pressure on your quaterback…but he looks to be more calmer than in the past…I actually thought he was going to blow up after the first game at Cowboy’s stadium, but he was very measured in his comments and his approach. Drafting has been good, and I like our free agent pickups. We could have went after Ray Lewis, but instead went after Brookings. More reasonable contract and a personality that seem to better fit out team. Sensabaugh was also another good pickup. And we’re churning the bottom of the roster like any good team should do…Allen Rossum is being paid veteran minimum which makes him an inexpensive way to shakes things up a bit. He could help in an area that we’ve been mediocre at…At the very least, it lights a fire underneath Crayton’s butt. It’s not like we released anybody of signifigance too…and if Rossum sucks we broom him and get someone else.
Finally, we’re only 5 games into the season. Do we really know who are the “power” teams in the NFL? There are only 5 undefeated team left, but does any one of them look “unflawed”? It took a few weeks to gain my perspective. I don’t believe half the team will be future “hall of famers” anymore (I know…rose colored glasses), but conversely, I still have very high hopes for a very good season.
Good Points
I wish I could be as positive. I’ve been watching this particuliar version now for 4-5 years. There is no improvement. Not in talent, not in coaching but maybe in character. We are headed for 8-8 or 9-7. Maybbe we get in the playoffs with that, but not likely.
Pat Kirwan of Sirius radio answered a cowboy fan’s question of what is wrong with the cowboys just after they beat the chiefs…."first lets look at talent. Where would you rank the highest skill position (qb) in your division? OK its 3rd behind Manning and McNabb. Let’s look at LT. Probably 3rd or 4th in division. Just 2 positions compared and he mentioned WR as being probably 4th. So without doing a totally in depth research of the team, Kirwan noted that talent might be overrated on this team. The media and fans simply are too optomistic on the talent on this team. Therefore they have little room for making errors when going up against just as talented teams or very hungry teams.
Just one more thing . Remember when Parcells use to bring in guys to evaluate talent on his roster. He did it every summer. Helped him make decsions on players that were borderline. What does Jerry do? Rely on his own eyes or those of his coaches? Even Parcells admited he needed help. Obviously the talent thing is no gimme.
+1
I couldn’t agree with you more cali, will we make the playoffs? I have no real idea but I truly hope so & in the end that’s why we watch the games!! GO BOYS
Exactly, I can't guaranty we make the playoffs, but I think we have a good chance to make the playoffs...
but that depends on several pending factors. I just think we have a good chance.
Phase II killed the Cowboys...
…most people have forgotten that this is where Jerry got his “rap” as a terrible GM. He absolutely did not manage the salary cap when it started. For several years, a third of the salary cap was “dead money” for players no longer on the team…remember the 5-11 seasons? To make matters worse, he was throwing “hail mary” attempts in the drafts…taking players way ahead of their projected slotting in order to get a quick winner. It’s very nice to see that we approach our drafts now with “value” in mind…
the Hail Mary's (ie Quincy Carter) gave him his bad rap
also, avoiding Moss but trading two #1s for Joey Galloway
by AustonianAggie on Oct 14, 2009 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
Just a couple of days ago I was finished with blogging
So much for that. Thanks Raf, for supplying the abject evidence to support what many of us knew in our hearts. To those who have seemed to surrender after 4 or 5 games, and sight all the reasons this team is doomed, lighten up. You pick out easy targets, and reference certain players and coaches bad games, and treat people who have hope as if they are stupid, and wear rose-colored glasses, yet, you are generally nothing more than warts on the ass of a season that is far from over.
I believe this team can go into Philly or New Jersey and win. I think they can go into Pittsburgh or Indy and win. I can see them beating New Orleans. I’d be willing to bet my paycheck the coaching staff is working with the players on their penalties. We KNOW they’re working on taking care of the ball. They seem more committed than ever to running the ball, even though they know they can light up the scoreboard by passing.
Just because some of us still have hope, and believe we can get it done with the crew we have does not make us idiots. Now 12 or 14 games gone, and we’re still floundering, do you really believe we’ll be sitting here trying to blow sunshine up other people’s butts, and cheering a losing cause? No, we’ll be bummed and probably right there with you. But for now, this team can go on a run any time, and light up this league. They can even “just play good fundamental football” and work their way into the playoffs, where I think we all knew all along that anything can happen.
If you want to be negative, or give up, fine. That’s your right as Cowboys fans. But to sit around talking smack about how bad this team is, and worse yet, attacking those around here that still have hope for this team is, well, out of line. Nobody really knows what’s going to happen, and to pretend you do is just as laughable as the person who comes on here after a bad loss, and professes his belief that the team will come around. In the end, we all want the same thing.
Last night I lay in bed looking up at the stars in the sky and I thought to myself, "where the heck is the ceiling?"
Talking about it in the abstract
ignores the fact that our fist 8 games are pretty easy compared to our last 8. I’m not ready to write the season off yet. But our 2 main division rivals are blowing out the teams we struggle to beat. (Do you remember all the excuses for the Tampa game? “Well, Tampa is a very good team with one of the best O-Lines in the NFL”)
Strange things happen and teams lose games they aren’t supposed to lose. But, thus far, the prognosticators are right. We are the 3rd best team in the NFC East and we will lose more ground when the Giants and Eagles beat Denver.
Ugly or not a win goes in the W collumn.
There are things to be ironed out with this team (ughhh still). But, there is no reason they can’t be contenders, except for themselves. Just win Baby is still the mantra that I follow, even if I stole it from the Raiders (When they were good).
"Help, it's hot and dark in here and someone is laughing." Taco Bell
The Cowboys play 9 of their last 11 against the teams fighting them for playoff berths
2 vs. Philly
2 vs. Washington
1 vs. New York
1 vs. Atlanta
1 vs Green Bay
1 vs. Seattle
1 vs. New Orleans
These are their competitiors. Dallas gets to play them on the field. What’s wrong with the schedule? If they’re up to it they win most of these games. If they’re not, they won’t. But they won’t have to scoreboard watch. It’s in their hands.
What’s wrong with that?
by Rafael Vela on Oct 14, 2009 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions
absolutely nothing
I think it’s great to have as many playoff teams on your schedule as possible because those are the types of teams you have to beat in the playoffs any way.
In Romo we Trust
+1
If you can’t beat those teams you deserve to be in the playoffs.
"No matter where you go, you are what you are playa"-Jay Z
Twitter Account
by Wmillion on Oct 14, 2009 11:40 PM CDT via mobile up reply actions
Nothing wrong with it
But that’s not his point. He simply said the schedule gets tougher, which is a fact. Are you saying it’s better to play this schedule than to plan KC 11 times?
It is possible to quantify the strength of schedule and the schedule definitely gets tougher.
by StillHateTheGiants on Oct 14, 2009 11:01 AM CDT up reply actions
Of the 4 NFC East teams
Dallas has the easiest schedule for the remainder of the season (based on current win/loss records)
The schedule gets tougher for Dallas, but EVEN TOUGHER for our divisional opponents.
So I guess we should talk at the end of the season
I’m probably too negative and I think people who ignore how poorly the Cowboys have played and think magically they’ll play better are delusional.
by StillHateTheGiants on Oct 14, 2009 11:45 AM CDT up reply actions
I recognize how poorly they've played
in terms of penalties and blown assignments, but come on we have the top offense in the league. The poor we’re playing now is way different than the poor of the 3 consecutive 5-11 seasons. There was no chance they could get better then, there is a CHANCE with this team.
I'm not ignoring anything
nor do I believe that something “magical” is going to happen
nor am I delusional
You must have me mixed up with someone else.
I was speaking generally
Didn’t mean anyone in particular, I just happened to reply to your post (because you replied to mine).
I really hope I’m wrong, I’ve been very negative after the past couple of weeks because I see the same type of undisciplined behavior that has been the Cowboys trademark now for too many years. I am a very frustrated, very long time fan. I get called a lot of names because of it. No offense intended.
by StillHateTheGiants on Oct 14, 2009 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions
Those people were a lot more patient than me
10 years of ineptitude has just about done me in. They had enough patience to build really big things out of rocks.
by StillHateTheGiants on Oct 14, 2009 12:52 PM CDT up reply actions
well, it's actually been more than 10 years
but my point is sometimes a team turning the corner takes a while, I know it gets frustrating but you have to have faith and trust, at least thats the approach I take.
In Romo we Trust
why is it delusional??
There have been many teams over the years that get better as the season progresses, it has nothing to do with magic, but just hard work at practice.
In Romo we Trust
Because every pattern of behavior of the Cowboys for the past 10 years is that they fade as the season goes on, they’re playing worse now than the first week of the season and for any small positive sign you will come up with there will be 3 bad ones. That’s why I think it’s delusional.
by StillHateTheGiants on Oct 14, 2009 12:33 PM CDT up reply actions
I wish we had a game to focus on instead of
spinning our wheels during the bye week arguing over the future, when we all (admittedly) have no idea what is going to happen.
Bye week sucks!
Not magically...but they'll play better when they play smarter.
If I read your posts…it seems to me you’ve already given up. Some people, the ones you call “delusional”, actually “step up” when the going gets tough, while others shrivel at the smallest difficulty. I’ll stay in that “delusional” group.
That's just silly.
What are either of you going to do to make the Cowboys play better or worse? Absolutely nothing, that’s what. Why make this personal? I’ve noticed that many of the so called positive posters are the first ones to get personal and start slinging barbs, most likely because they have no sound argument.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 14, 2009 6:06 PM CDT up reply actions
Implying that a person is a quitter for not thinking the team will make the playoffs.
You say that the people that he calls delusional, as in fans that believe the Cowboys will make the playoffs, actually step up. Um, step up and do what, exactly? And those that don’t think the Cowboys will make the playoffs shrivel? What are they shriveling from? Neither type of fan is actually on the team, so any talk of them stepping up or shriveling is just silly and intended to insult.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 15, 2009 4:11 AM CDT up reply actions
I think you need to read the original post I was responding to...then read mine.
I don’t think your comment is warranted. Baked, I like some of your posts, but you have a tendency to debate just to debate.
Apologies if I misunderstood.
It seemed like you were questioning the poster’s courage because of his opinion on how the team will fare. If that’s not the case, I’m sorry.
And as for debating just to debate – No, I don’t. In fact…
Aw, crap, maybe I do.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 15, 2009 10:27 AM CDT up reply actions
Um, I think Raf just laid the foundation of a sound argument
Some guys seem negative and like to vent about anything and everything wrong with the Boys. I’ve been attacked from the pessimists for simply stating my opinion, so I know it goes both ways.
I think calling a group of optimistic bloggers delusional is pretty darn offensive. Also assuming they have no sound argument to back up their opinions is just wrong.
5 games into the season and many are already writing off the possibility of post season. I don’t understand that stance, I really don’t.
3-2 headed for the bye week.
by APerfectStar on Oct 14, 2009 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions
I only make the assumption that someone doesn’t have a sound argument when they choose not to make one. “I’m a better fan than you” is not a sound argument in my opinion, but it’s often used on this board to explain why a person thinks the team will improve.
I’m not challenging Raf’s argument that the team can still make the playoffs. Until they are mathematically eliminated, any team can make the playoffs. Personally, I think the Cowboys season rests on Tony Romo’s shoulders, and if he has a good season, so will the team.
5 games is enough time to evaluate a team and see signs of improvement, decline, stagnation, or whatever you’re looking for. I would guess that those that believe the Cowboys will miss the playoffs are basing it on what they have seen so far. I’m not sure how it’s any different than someone saying that they think the Cowboys WILL make the playoffs after only 5 games.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 15, 2009 4:20 AM CDT up reply actions
I saw some baked potato soup at the deli the other day and it piqued my curiousity.
Didn’t buy it cuz it’s still too hot out for soup.
Just thought I’d share.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
http://twitter.com/BloggingTheBoys
by Aaron Novinger on Oct 15, 2009 10:09 PM CDT up reply actions
Yep, in Texas.
It’s starting to cool off today, though. Maybe I will get some bps…after I finish my crockpot of chili!
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
http://twitter.com/BloggingTheBoys
by Aaron Novinger on Oct 16, 2009 11:33 AM CDT up reply actions
it's not "magical" thinking, bro.
Its a quarter way through the marathon. One can either quit because it’s hard, or one can gut up and finish strong. These players need to gut up and fix their mistakes and eliminate the mental errors and play with some passionate intensity. If they do, we’ve seen them have some good results. If they don’t, they’ve let us down.
But this isn’t the same team that’s faded at the end of the season for the last ten years. Who from that roster is still on this roster? Who from Parcells’ roster is still on this roster? A pretty good core, that’s who. But they weren’t here 10 years ago.
This team here now needs to learn how to win the tough games and that takes some time. Unfortunately, in today’s cap era, rosters often don’t stay together long enough to learn this crucial lesson, that no one can really tell you.
Do you realize how long it took the Cowboys in the 60s and 70s to win a championship game after they started getting into the playoffs? Each step of the way, they had a learning curve.
Sorry, didn’t mean to write a book.
"We'll see." --Bill Parcells
I was thinking something similar.
I scrolled down to see if anyone else did. If you play KC 11 times, you’re not up to the playoff competition when it starts. We should be battle hardened if we make it in.
"We'll see." --Bill Parcells
Nothing wrong with playing the best
They’ll be battle-tested, if they make the playoffs and more confident that they could beat anyone in their path. I still think this season will be much more fun than last season.
That's exactly what I was talking about when I started this thread
To call someone delusional because they don’t share your view is wrong. To say they believe something magical is going to happen is sarcasm. People who have a positive outlook, not just in life, but for their team, are not delusional. Nor are they awaiting magic. To me, that’s the person who has no real argument, he who throws out statements like that. Try to talk about the football, not the football fan. This blog will be a lot nicer place. We positive folks know the ‘show me’ people are going to be on here trashing the Cowboys after a loss. If I can accept that you have to speak poorly of the team, then accept us who choose to believe our team can win in the playoffs. We may be positive people, but if you want to play that game we can be just as insulting as you can.
Last night I lay in bed looking up at the stars in the sky and I thought to myself, "where the heck is the ceiling?"
Not abstract, abject
I was trying to be funny, and it didn’t quite work out.
Last night I lay in bed looking up at the stars in the sky and I thought to myself, "where the heck is the ceiling?"
I am not giving up on this team until there is a sixth loss.
I don’t think 10-6 gets us in this year. That being said, there are issues needing to be addressed before we get near the wins we need. The main isssue is to stop making stupid mistakes. Whether it is a personell or coaching issue, until that is solved this team will never attain their true potential.
"Help, it's hot and dark in here and someone is laughing." Taco Bell
so the question is ........
Which large market sports writer steals this latest gem from Raf and tries to repackage it as their own?
My money is on Timmy – formerly of DMN, now with ESPN dallas.
Though I’ve been thinking that maybe
one of the radio guys steals it – its a great talking point and the hard work is already done!
I’ll take timmy mac at 3 to 1 and I might parlay that with a national radio guy – Cowheard anybody?
by alanTdot. on Oct 14, 2009 7:38 AM CDT via mobile reply actions
It won't be lil' Timmy
because it’s against BSPN’s policy to say anything remotely positive about the ’boys.
by Road Warrior on Oct 14, 2009 1:20 PM CDT up reply actions
excellent post Raf
I stated many times, there simply aren’t any elite or great teams in the league any more. Average teams are certainly capable of making the playoffs and SB and even winning the whole thing. Cards were average and the Steelers were simply good, nothing more.
Thats why Cowboys fans shouldn’t lose hope as they are not far away at all from becoming a good team. I’ll take average right now with the hopes of becoming good later on in the season when good really counts.
In Romo we Trust
You still have a chance
Unless sometime really strange happens you are not likely to overtake the Eagles or Giants to win the division.
By the same logic one of the Giants or Eagles will likely take one of the wild card spots.
That leaves just one wild card for the Cowboys to play for and the other teams battling you for that place will be either the Saints/Falcons or Vikings/Bears.
That makes your games against the Saints, Falcons and even the Packers as must win games. Win 2 out of 3 may be good enough, but lose 2 or 3 and you will have lost too much ground.
by G Fan in England on Oct 14, 2009 7:39 AM CDT reply actions
I don't agree with this:
Unless sometime really strange happens you are not likely to overtake the Eagles or Giants to win the division.
How do we know the Eagles are so great? They destroyed the Panthers in Week 1 (equivalent to us beating the Bucs that week), lost to the Saints by 26 in Week 2 (not as bad as our close Giants lost IMO), beat the Chiefs by 20 in Week 3 (we beat the Panthers by 14), then had a bye week (while we had a tough road game against the 5-0 Broncos) to prepare for the Bucs, who they beat.
Yea their offense looks pretty good right now but I doubt any Eagles fan would admit they are flawless who will no way concede a half game lead to the Cowboys…
Point taken
Are you agreeing you are not likely to catch the Giants?
Do not forget that two of those games was without McNabb.
Yes that is a tough finish – but one thing we should all remember about the Eagles is that they are capable of going on streaks which defies logic – how else do you explain the blowout loss to the Ravens last year for them to turn it around against the Cardinals, Giants and even yourselves in the last week.
by G Fan in England on Oct 14, 2009 8:14 AM CDT up reply actions
Yea, by no means am I saying
that they aren’t capable, just not that it’s a foregone conclusion.
At this point, I think the Giants will probably take the division and probably be the number 1 seed in the conference. The Cowboys look to have an up and down season with batches of easier games mixed in with tough ones. I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibilities for the Cowboys to Win at the meadowlands later this year (a game I hope to attend).
Agreed
I was at the Meadowlands Sunday for the Raiders game – whilst the Raiders looked a poor team without direction or hope it was still a clincal performance by the Giants.
As I said if you win the key games you should make the playoffs and once you are in anything can happen as the article points out very well.
Hope you get to the game.
by G Fan in England on Oct 14, 2009 8:25 AM CDT up reply actions
Plus their schedule at the end is brutal
@ Atlanta
@ New York
San Fran
Denver
@ Dallas
Aside from maybe Denver, who might run away with the division, those are all good teams that will be very hungry for wins
Two years ago
The Giants were floundering while the Cowboys were unbeatable at this point in the season. The Giants were calling for Coughlin’s head, and the Eagles were flirting with mediocrity. It is inappropriate to assume the season will progress in the same manner it started. It is a long season, and many things between now and then will change. I’m not saying this will happen, but it could.
All it takes is one great victory to put a team on a terror, or one demoralizing loss to unravel a season. The Giants, which you have annointed division champion, beat us by two points on the last play of the game after a series of freak plays. Looking at a team’s record, or their last game, and then crowning them is not a reliable method of projecting how a season will go. There is NO reliable method. We have to watch it unfold, and just take it one game at a time. No one has won the division. No one has lost it.
Last night I lay in bed looking up at the stars in the sky and I thought to myself, "where the heck is the ceiling?"
White Wolf and Chandus
I am not being overconfident and totally agree the team that gets hot at the right time has a very good chance of winning it all as the Steelers did in 2006 and the Giants in 2007.
Stats mean little – Eli will be sacked more than 6 times, yes he can be inaccurate at times – but he has a good record of late game winning drives including several against the Cowboys and of course the Superbowl.
I am not crowning the Giants as division winners – I just want them to reach the playoffs and go from there.
The reason I picked the Giants and Eagles is that both teams are consistent and the Cowboys are perhaps a year away from that unity etc. However, maybe Austin’s performance may see you go on a roll.
Yes the Giants faded down the stretch last year – but they addressed the areas – DL depth and WR in the offseason and that is why they are doing well this year and bear in mind Canty has only played in one game.
by G Fan in England on Oct 14, 2009 1:37 PM CDT up reply actions
In the last 3 years
The Cowboys have won three, and the Giants have won three. Most of them have been close games. The Giants won the big one, the playoff game, but it was another close game. Strahan himself said the Cowboys were the toughest team they faced in the playoffs that year. But now is now. The Giants are playing better than the pokes right now. The operative words being ‘right now.’ We both know that can change, and I’m looking forward to it. I’m chomping at the bit for some payback.
The Giants and Cowboys both seemed to struggle by losing their #1 receivers. You don’t lose a receiver like those guys without having a drop off to deal with. But both teams will be better in the long run because team unity is restored. Shockey was more of a disruption than Plax. The way I look at it, the Cowboys can get better, the Giants really can’t. They’re playing great right now. Let’s see if they can sustain it for a whole season.
Steve Smith had a great game against us a few weeks ago, but he doesn’t scare me, not like Plax. He’s a good receiver, and it looks like you guys have a few good young receivers, but I think if the Cowboys play their best game, and the Giants play their best game, the Cowboys can win.
Last night I lay in bed looking up at the stars in the sky and I thought to myself, "where the heck is the ceiling?"
That is the beauty of the game
On any given Sunday two evenly matched teams both have a chance of winning the game.
I agree the week 2 game was a strange game – if the Giants scored TD’s instead of FG’s it would have changed the flow of the game. The Cowboys played to stop the run and were burnt through the air – the Giants played to stop Romo and got gashed on the ground. The rematch will be interesting to see what changes the coaches make.
The only way the Giants can or have improved since they played you is better Red Zone production – they were 0 for 8 in RZ after two games – if they change 2 FG’s to TD’s the extra 8 points will make close games not so close.
As someone else posted on this blog the Cowboys are 14-12 over their last 26 real games including playoffs. The Giants over their last 26 games are 21-5. That suggests that the Giants are playing solid football week in and week out and there is no reason to suggest that this will change overnight.
You could say what about the Titans 13-3 last year but 0-5 this year. Just look at the offseasons both teams had – the Titans lost their best DL, Collins is a year older and they have WR issues – so it is easy to see why they are winless. As for the Giants – well they added 2 DL, a LB and a S in FA, Osi returned from injury and the young WR’s are showing they can play in this league so the Giants improved from last year.
You will be a dangerous team to play if you make the playoffs, but to make the playoffs you need to start firing on full cylinders soon before it is too late.
by G Fan in England on Oct 15, 2009 3:09 AM CDT up reply actions
Overconfidence?
Calm down… Number of sacks for Eli Manning? Try 2, he’s on his way to being sacked 6 times for the whole season… I don’t need to tell you that he hasn’t faced REAL pressure, right?
Eli has struggled while pressured in previous years, the thing is that he hasn’t yet, maybe he won’t and the Giants will continue their cruise, but I wouldn’t bet on it, you just don’t see many one digit sacks in a season. Actually, you just don’t.
Viva México! Go Cowboys!
Yeah, wait till those December swampland winds come rolling into Giant's stadium
and they officially open ’Eli’s Duck Season’. The last thing the Giants want are home games at the end of the season.
by Road Warrior on Oct 14, 2009 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions
I agree
Eli struggles in the wind.
That is why they drafted Beckum as a HB type and Nicks and Barden as physical WR’s so that the Giants can play a short passing game to deal with wind issues.
by G Fan in England on Oct 14, 2009 1:44 PM CDT up reply actions
After 5 games in we have no hope of overtaking the Eagles or Giants?
I just have to shake my head with that statement.
I did not say no hope
I just think it unlikely that both the Giants and Eagles will lose that many games between them to enable you to win the division – but making the playoffs, which I assume is the real goal of the season – is certainly achieveable but you need to beat the Saints, Falcons and Packers.
Coughlin and Reid have proven track records to prevent a big letdown.
I could be wrong and I will come back to BTB to talke my knocks if that is the case.
by G Fan in England on Oct 14, 2009 1:51 PM CDT up reply actions
Are the Giants in better position than us? Yes.
But with 11 more games to go and the fact that we play them again, so much can happen. Can you honestly say that the Giants overwhelmed us in the last game. They won because we kept turning the ball over. With all the turnovers they got, they should have blown us out. The fact that it still went on to the last play of the game should make Giant’s fans more nervous than Cowboys fans. What I know is that we have not been “outclassed” in any of our games, and that gives me a great deal of hope.
As for the Eagles, they’re a 1/2 game ahead of us because they had a bye week…it’s not like they have more wins than us. Granted, the Raiders look like a sure win, but a 1 game lead is by now means insurmountable with 11 games left to play, and given the fact that we play them twice.
Redskins
Do you think the Redskins can still win the division?
by G Fan in England on Oct 14, 2009 2:10 PM CDT up reply actions
Is it impossible? No. Improbable? Yes.
I’m not sure an objective individual can compare the Redkins to the Cowboys. They have a lot more issues than us…
Great post
It makes you see the forest AND the trees.
I particularly appreciate the choice of pictures showing a Titans fan wearing a bag saying “Time for Vance”
I appreciate my fans in Tennessee as well!
"He has a peculiar felicity of expression." John Adams
Interesting
Funny how things evolve and patterns begin to take form.
I’m not saying we make the playoffs, but if we do, Keith Brooking very well may be the guy that gets us there. Not only with his fantastic play, but with the fire and leadership he’s brought. He’s easily the best offseason addition to the team, IMO.
I don’t know how you fix the mental errors that this team makes, but it has to happen. You can scream for a new head coach, one that will be tougher, but who’s to say that fixes anything? Parcells couldn’t fix it, so what makes anyone think any other “tough guy” coach can? That to me is the single largest obstacle standing between us and the playoffs. Find a way to fix it or this team will tank. Maybe not immediately, but all it takes is one game where the mistakes are just too much to overcome, and you’re out.
Summarizing the Dallas Cowboys in two words; inconsistently amazing.
I don't think the question is whether they make the playoffs mathematically.
What most people ignore when they cite the “negative” posts is the obvious caveat “if they keep playing like they are.” Nobody is saying that the Cowboys have been bounced from contention, they’re saying that based on how the team has played thus far, on top of how they played last season, they will not make the playoffs unless they drastically improve. Further those fans believe that the team has declined in certain area or failed to show improvement in areas that were supposed to be focused on.
People aren’t questioning the team’s ability to make the playoffs because of their current record, they’re questioning them because of their play.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 14, 2009 8:51 AM CDT reply actions
rarely do teams play the exact same way throughout a season
there a peaks and valleys with all teams, teams go through rough spots and runs throughout 16 games all the time, with maybe the exception of really bad teams or really great teams. There are no great teams in the league and we’re not part of the really bad teams either.
In Romo we Trust
I'm Not Sure This Era Is All That Unique
From 1979 to 1982, we saw a similar turbulence in the league. The first seven-loss team made it to the Super Bowl and played the Steelers dynasty close for three quarters. A wild card team won the Super Bowl for the first time since the merger the next year. The year after that, the sad-sack 49ers came from nowhere to win the Super Bowl after starting 1-2 and facing the Bengals who were an equally sad franchise the previous three years and got off to a 3-2 start. In 1982, the Redskins emerged from nowhere to become a dominant team, and the fifth-seeded Jets went to the AFC Championship Game. It was a slightly more top-heavy era than the last four years, but a nearly equal proportion of wild card teams made it the Conference Championship games (four versus five), and the winning percentage of the 2005-2008 stretch was actually greater than than the 1979-1982 era. We all know that after that turbulent period thing stabilized, with the 49ers, Redskins and Giants emerging as the dominant teams of the 1980s. I have a hard visualizing this current period as being unique, and an even harder time believing it will remain for a significant length of time.
And if we’re going to look at statistics, we should probably look at them in a meaningful way. Knowing a team started 2-2 and went to the Championship Game is not useful to know, unless we know in advance they will go to the Championship. What’s more useful is to examine the field of teams that went 2-2 or 2-3 or whatever record we choose, and see what were the probabilities of them going to the Championship. When viewed in that light, I doubt things look quite so promising (for those interested in learning more about the distinction, the principle is called posterior probability).
It’s ironic to hear an argument on one hand that is this represents a different era in which teams with mediocre starts have a chance to go deep, in other words, history matters when assessing the future; then turn around and argue that our sustained mediocrity over the last several years—excepting the perfect storm season of 2007—doesn’t matter. So, does history matter, or doesn’t it?
Was that 7 loss team odd?
It was a Rams team that owned a weak division the entire 70s and got hot.
You’re not mentioning that 82 was a strike year where the season stopped after a handful of games, started again and only nine games were played. And the playoff field was 16 teams.
Yes, there is always churn, similar churn, when you see eras end and new ones begin. In that period you cite, the Cowboys, Steelers, Rams began to dig and the 49ers and Redskins began to rise. And that next decade was pretty stable. The 49ers won four and the Redskins won three titles.
I don’t understand your last paragraph. I think I’m arguing in both cases that it doesn’t matter.
by Rafael Vela on Oct 14, 2009 10:40 AM CDT up reply actions
So Were In Agreement
This turbulent period is just a temporary phase? If so, then it could end this year, or the next. In which case, we could move into a stable period comparable to 1983-1991, where a few teams dominated the league, and where getting off to good starts does matter. If you agree with all that, it seems your research rests on less than certain ground.
No, I don't think this is temporary
this is new. There’s other stuff I didn’t include. In addition to seeing bad seeds, or low seeds, we’re seeing teams with awful defenses, teams in the bottom half or in Indy’s case in the bottom third, winning titles. That’s never happened before in the Super Bowl era. We’ve seen it happen twice in the last three seasons.
Pittsburgh used the old defense wins titles formula last year, but when has a team that lead the league in sacks allowed won?
I’m arguing that history no longer matters, that this is uncharted ground.
by Rafael Vela on Oct 14, 2009 11:46 AM CDT up reply actions
And most of those teams
benefited from being in a bad conference. Until this year, who was going to challenge the Steelers? Indy usually had the Titans to contend with, but outside of that, who? I think teams that could dominate a weak conference and get more shots at a title finally hit on the jackpot.
"Help, it's hot and dark in here and someone is laughing." Taco Bell
Virgin territory.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
http://twitter.com/BloggingTheBoys
by Aaron Novinger on Oct 14, 2009 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions
I'm gonna leave that one alone before some one accuses me of being a perv.
"Help, it's hot and dark in here and someone is laughing." Taco Bell
Not now, lunch is officially over for me.
"Help, it's hot and dark in here and someone is laughing." Taco Bell
It Actually Has Happened Before
The 1983 Raiders were below league average in points allowed, and they won the Super Bowl. Maybe we have a semantic issue what is an “awful” defense, but points allowed is the best measure because that’s the final yardstick of their success. That is happened once before should not come as a great surprise, and that it’s happened twice in three years is not something to get carried away with.
This is neither new nor in my opinion permanent. In a few years or less I expect things to solidify, as it did in the early 1980’s (the same time most commentators were saying the era of dynasties was dead forever), and your research will reflect a transition stage in the history of the league.
The hardest time to analyze a period is when you're smack dab in the middle of it
we won’t know anything for a couple of years.
Oakland’s D was rated 12th, That’s the lowest of any champion. Teams lower than that made it to the SB and were blown out.
Indy’s was 22nd or 23rd.
New York’s was 17th.
Okay So The Raiders
Were 13th in a 28 team league.
Odd that you’re now hanging your hat on a tidbit you didn’t even mention in the original article. Clearly we are in a transition period, and as you say, it’s hard to analyze. So I find it strange you are so confident about its characteristics when we are right in the middle of it, and when one can point to at least one other period that was very similar, if not exactly the same.
One of the things I have been wanting to do for many years is look at the year to year variation of teams to see if the fluctuation is any greater now than it was during the supposedly stable dynastic period of the 1970’s. One would think it’s greater now, but until someone actually looks at that and other measures, like T-tests to establish with some confidence the overall character of the league, it’s largely supposition.
kindablue
the days of dynasties are over, you will never see one or two teams dominate the league again.
Economics will not allow it.
In Romo we Trust
You're right
That’s what makes the Patriots success the past 8 years that much more impressive.
by StillHateTheGiants on Oct 14, 2009 12:53 PM CDT up reply actions
and their so called dynasty
wasn’t nearly as good as the Cowboys, Niners and Steelers dynasties.
In Romo we Trust
I don't consider their 2007 team in that group
for that reason, only their teams from 2001-2004
In Romo we Trust
Just Like in 1981
When the mantra was “we are in an league of 8-8 teams with dynasties gone forever” and the greatest post-merger dynasty was being born?
“Never” is a very long time, and anyone familiar with the history of the league, or just history in general, knows things can and do change, often on short notice.
Those who ignore that reality usually end up eating their words.
It's not about the record,
It’s about how the team is playing. If we had squeaked out a win against Denver and were 4-1 going into the bye, that wouldn’t change the fact that we have been playing like dogsmurf!
We have the talent to dominate, but we lack the discipline. Discipline must come from above. Rookies don’t discipline the vets and vets don’t discipline the coaches. Damn, we should have hired Singletary!
How did...
Singletary’s group look on Sunday against the Falcons? Thought so.
by TheCowboyFan on Oct 14, 2009 9:20 AM CDT up reply actions
yeah, Singletary really installed disipline in his team Sunday
They looked worst than we did and Mike admitted that he didn’t have his team ready.
In Romo we Trust
So your point is Dallas is playing well? Disciplined? Executing well? I suggest you go back and watch a replay. If the KC game doesn’t make you sick to your stomach you’re watching a different game than me.
by StillHateTheGiants on Oct 14, 2009 11:05 AM CDT up reply actions
Im watching
it tonight when i get home. Only thing I don’t like about the replay is that it skips the penalties.
not at all
my point is that if Singletary is such a better coach than Wade, why did he have his team less prepared??
In Romo we Trust
Let's look at a little larger body of work
Over the first 4-5 games of this season, which team has tended to over perform vs under perform. Which of the 2 has been more disciplined. Which has a lot more penalties and bone headed plays.
by StillHateTheGiants on Oct 14, 2009 12:55 PM CDT up reply actions
I think 4-5 games isn't a very large body of work
Lets see how both finish the season, to me 16 games is a better sample size.
And to answer your question, the Cowboys had committed less penalties than the 49ers up until the KC game.
In Romo we Trust
Nice writeup
You have some very valid points about how evened out the NFL has become. But lets say we make it to the playoffs. Has Wade Phillips ever demonstrated to you that he can get a team ready for the playoffs? If we make it, we will show up unprepared, have tons of penalties and we will get beat down by the giants or whoever else is there.
actually he has
I remember the Music City Miracle game several years ago, his Bills outplayed the Titans that game, but they lost on a fluke play.
In Romo we Trust
my bad
So he has prepared a team for a playoff game ONCE and still lost in one of the more embarrassing defeats of all time. That doesn’t invalidate what my point was at all. If you count the philly game last year as a playoff game(which I do) then Wades record is 0-5 in playoff appearances. Thats with 3 different teams spanning over 2 decades. And somehow he is going to magically change this year?
just because a team is prepared doesn't mean
they will automatically win. The other teams are prepared as well you know.
In Romo we Trust
You're right
0-5 is a random outcome.
by StillHateTheGiants on Oct 14, 2009 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions
just like Peyton Manning's playoff record
his first several years in the league. Does he have an 0-fer now?
In Romo we Trust
Not even close to a valid comparison
Are you really trying to make a case that Wade’s coaching abilities and record can somehow be compared to Peyton’s QB’s skills and abilities?
by StillHateTheGiants on Oct 14, 2009 12:57 PM CDT up reply actions
no, I'm making a case
that just because a player or coach hasn’t had success for a number of years doesn’t mean that will always be the case.
Wade is a better coach than most will give him credit for, he’s no HOFer, but he’s not terrible either.
In Romo we Trust
Ummmm, yes he is.
Everytime is see him on the sideline looking confused, I just want to hit him. He wins the Super Bowl and I might change my mind, until then, I have seen enough.
"Help, it's hot and dark in here and someone is laughing." Taco Bell
If you go by looks on the sideline
Belicheck looks like a damn hobo. LOL
3-2 headed for the bye week.
by APerfectStar on Oct 14, 2009 10:45 PM CDT up reply actions
Consistency still WINS Super Bowls however...
Take a look at the 4 teams that have won the last 6 Super Bowls, (New England, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, & NY Giants.) None of those teams were one of those fabled from worst to first type of stories you see from season to season. All of those teams were in the post season for at least one year prior to winning the Super Bowl, and all of them but for the Steelers in ’06 made the post season the year after. The Colts & Pats have have almost had double digits in the win column every season this decade (the Pats in ’02 fished 9-7).
In my opinion this shows that this extra playoff experience gives these teams that eventually do win the title an edge that the teams that have come out of no where just don’t have. I’d like to see the Cowboys become like these 4 teams here and make the post season for several consecutive years, greatly increasing their chances of wining that elusive 6th and 7th title.
Teams like the Titans, Panthers, Cardinals, that are here today and gone tomorrow are still in search of their franchises first ever Super Bowl title; regardless of the fact that they were close, once.
Consistency is the key and the Cowboys have been anything but consistent for a long while now. Let’s hope that this is the year in which they change that and become a franchise that is annually competing in the post season.
Of course, we could be entering into a whole new era in the NFL if next year is uncapped.
The 2009 Dallas Cowboys: Talk to me in December.
The NFC East has won 11 Super Bowls; oddly none of those have come courtesy of the Eagles.
At least the core of the team
has now been to the playoffs a couple times. Romo, Witten, Adams, Gurode, Barber, Crayton, Ware, James, Newman, Ratliff, Spears etc. have now all lost to Seattle and NY in the playoffs, and know exactly how it feels to go home empty handed, which is a pretty strong motivator.
Although if you count week 17 last year as a playoff game, it would appear they didn’t learn anything. I don’t know what happened in that game and I prefer to pretend it never happened.
Rafael...
I think that what we’re worried about is that we still have 2 games against Philly, 1 game in NY, NO, ATL….those are 6 very tough games. If we keep struggling to beat KC and what we showed against Carolina and Tampa in the 1st half then we’re in deep $hit.
It hurts to see this team leading the NFL in yards but not scoring because of penalties or stupid desicions…..
You worry, I don't
These are the teams Dallas needs to beat to make the playoffs. Who would you rather play?
If you’re scared of playing your main competition, what’s the point?
by Rafael Vela on Oct 14, 2009 10:45 AM CDT up reply actions
I don't think we are scared of anybody. But, we worry about everybody.
"Help, it's hot and dark in here and someone is laughing." Taco Bell
No. You worry about everybody. I look forward with anticipation for the challenge.
Nothing worthwhile comes easy.
of course we have to improve
I can’t understand why some fans can’t comprehend that its possible to improve as the season goes along.
No team plays exactly the same way every single game, doesn’t happen.
In Romo we Trust
But, they do consistently dumb things.
Analogy: A waiter drops a tray of food 1 time. He gets a little talking to about how to correctly carry the tray. He drops another tray of food, he gets a some retraining and a less busy shift. He drops another tray, and he in all likelyhood is looking for another gig. The Cowboys are consistent in the wrong areas. They consistently have dumb penalties. They consistently play just good enough. They consistently lose it in the final minutes. When they consistently bring it for 60 minutes then the critics will shut up. Until then be prepared to defend every move the Cowboys make.
"Help, it's hot and dark in here and someone is laughing." Taco Bell
money comment
Is playing smart too much to ask?
by silverblue5 on Oct 14, 2009 12:24 PM CDT up reply actions
probably
cause in the last 26 games, the Boys are 14-12. If they haven’t gotten better the last year and a half, why’s it going to happen now?
For the record, I don’t believe that. I can just hear a negative fan saying something like that, and I’m bored at work.
why’s it going to happen now?
Who knows? Maybe it won’t. I guess the fundamental divide between the fans is there are those who believe it can and those who rule it out right away.
I know both sides are die-hards and would appreciate a title just as much. Personally though, I always get myself riled up about how good they will be. Since they haven’t won a superbowl since I’ve been old enough to appreciate how special it is, I get crushed a lot. But when it finally happens, it is going to be oh-so-sweet. It’s way more fun this way, I could never follow something and care about something so strongly if I never had any faith in it. I guess just different personalities…
Watching them win a Super Bowl is a very special moment.
I miss it sooooo much, and that is why I get upset when they don’t play to their potential.
"Help, it's hot and dark in here and someone is laughing." Taco Bell
Holy crap are you staring over my shoulder?
"Help, it's hot and dark in here and someone is laughing." Taco Bell
Well It's my lunch time any way, so stare all you want.
"Help, it's hot and dark in here and someone is laughing." Taco Bell
we had to remove a cancerous tumor first
before we could see any improvement obviously.
In Romo we Trust
I guess bc we are so used to seeing the December collapse
that we have now come to expect it.
I hate all those easy stories for the media like Team X can’t win late in the season or play in the cold, or Player X can’t win in the playoffs. It’s so easy to report on that because you are just stating what has already happened, and then they convince the hordes of casual fans that it’s true and it becomes an annoying knock on a team.
Remember when every mediot was so sure Peyton Manning couldn’t beat Tom Brady, or win in the playoffs? Well, he did, and as soon as that happened they all shut up about it. It reminds me of how they treat Romo now. It’s not like it’s easy to win playoff games in the NFL, but just because it hasn’t happened yet doesn’t mean it never will.
That's really the core diifference between many fans.
The so called negative fans need to see proof before they will believe it, otherwise they assume it is not true. Many of these fans used to believe, but after being disappointed over and over, have changed their stance.
The so called homers resolutely believe that every uncertain situation will work out in the team’s favor until it does not, and then they believe that it will the next time.
I guess it’s each person’s call as to what works better for them or what is more realistic.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 14, 2009 11:59 AM CDT up reply actions
I think your statement is pretty accurate
I am on the pessimistic side now because there is such a clear and repeating pattern. The same things that have prevented the Cowboys from being successful for many years are the same types of things they are showing this year. Too many penalties, bad decisions, poor discipline etc.
by StillHateTheGiants on Oct 14, 2009 12:17 PM CDT up reply actions
I am too, somewhat.
But I am encouraged by Romo’s play in this last game, and believe that if he continues to play like that, this team is going to go far this year.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 14, 2009 12:21 PM CDT up reply actions
And I think that is different.
I think there is a clear line between “negative” fans and the fan that is skeptical.
I have never thought that you are negative, but more of a person that is hopeful but not sure.
The only fan that gets on my nerves is the one who is looking for something to not like, which I believe there is, and only shows up(at least on these boards) to chime in on the anger floods.
by The Immortal Iron Fist AKA AFB on Oct 14, 2009 5:38 PM CDT up reply actions
I think you're mostly right, with one big change.
I would say the homers believe that it COULD work out, not that it WILL. I just need to believe there’s a chance, and based on everything said here and Raf’s posts, it seems like there is.
How can anyone argue there is 0% chance this team does anything?
I can't argue that there is no chance
Of course there is. I just haven’t seen any evidence to suggest the tide has turned though.
by StillHateTheGiants on Oct 14, 2009 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions
I think most fans believe that it COULD work out.
That’s not what most on this board are referring to when they cite “homers”. Either way, it’s a fine line between homer, mainstream fan, and negative fan, and the same person can fluctuate. It’s when a person refuses to consider other viewpoints despite evidence to the contrary that they deserve to be labeled.
by Baked Potato Soup on Oct 14, 2009 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions
Raf,
You are like E.F. Hutton of sport writers… When you talk, I listen (or in this case when you write, I read). Great write ups! Your logic of three phases is right on. I guess the teams that recognizes early-on how to approach the changing of times/phase, are the ones who is successful…ala patriots and egeals. Thanks for your contribution.
Agreed
But explain mainstream fan – to me that is someone who knows the famous starters, takes everything ESPN says as fact, probably doesn’t even watch all the games, and yet still acts like they are the biggest fan.
I don’t care if someone is a homer or negative fan as long as they’re a diehard…
From the Boys... to the Silver and Blue report to here....
I’ve come to expect nothing less but great insight with tangible evidence and rock solid commentary. I know I’ve relied solely on my past experience of the NFL to judge our current team. But we all have to admit that we are no longer in 90’s or even early 2000’s anymore. We are in a new era, where just making it to the Playoffs is exactly like starting a whole new season. All records are thrown out an may the best team win. There is still plenty of hope for these Cowboys, even if we Forrest Gump our way into the playoffs. I would much rather get with a 50/50 shot at winning then being were we were last year not evening having the ability to compete.
Whether you think you can or you think you can't either way your right
by UnNessecsary Roughness on Oct 14, 2009 12:30 PM CDT reply actions
There are a LOT of good teams we will have to beat to get in this year
Seattle
San Francisco
Arizona
Minnesota
Chicago
Green Bay
Philadelphia
New York
Atlanta
New Orleans
That’s 10 teams (plus us, so 11 total) that are vying for 6 spots. We’ve already lost to New York (at home, no less), and we still have to play 6 of those 10 teams (including Eagles twice). Are we better than Philadelphia (not necessarily), New York (I don’t think so), New Orleans (I definitely don’t think so), Atlanta (not necessarily), Seattle (they look good with Hasselbeck, so I don’t know), and Green Bay (maybe the easiest of this entire bunch?). It’s tough sledding and if we want in, we have to be able to beat MOST of these teams. I say the odds are we lose to most of these teams.
we don't have to be better than those teams
we just have to be better than them on the day we play them which is a big difference.
Keep in mind, 4 out of the 10 teams you listed are going to win their division so it’s really only 5 or 6 we competing with for 2 spots.
In Romo we Trust
Ok as it stands now.
Seattle, Minnesota, Atlanta and NY (Ughhhh) have the divisions in the bag. That leaves us competing with
Philly
Chicago
San Fran
Arizona
Green Bay
New Orleans
for the final two spots.
We have two with Philly one with GB one with New Orleans, all must win games. That would give us a 9-2 mark. Who is left on the schedule for the other two? Oh, yeah Washington is sucking right now.
"Help, it's hot and dark in here and someone is laughing." Taco Bell
The Seahawks could make a late, annoying run now that Hasselback's beck.
I can see for miles and miles and miles and miles and miles...
http://twitter.com/BloggingTheBoys
by Aaron Novinger on Oct 14, 2009 1:46 PM CDT up reply actions
I'm not buying the Giants have the division wrapped up
2 wins is not that substantial in October. I’ve seen hot 6-2 teams finish 2-6 down the stretch for an out of the playoffs 8-8.
by AustonianAggie on Oct 14, 2009 1:52 PM CDT up reply actions
and Seattle isn't leading their own Division, SF is
Atlanta isn’t leading their Division, New Orleans is.
by AustonianAggie on Oct 14, 2009 1:53 PM CDT up reply actions
Parity sucks and I feel sorry for any young'uns
who didn’t get to watch the NFL in its heyday. The quality of play in the playoffs was so much higher.
Someone will say, but there were so many BAD teams then!
Actually, there are just as many stinkers now as then.
The NFL always had parity, eras always ended and new teams rose, it just took longer, but they screwed it up w/ the salary cap. Now you have a bunch of second-tier teams fighting it out in a watered down league.
Thank goodness the Boys had one more good run before this came along.
the NFL is a water downed league
Average teams definitely can be in contention down to the wire, that was unheard of back in the day as was qb rookies playing well, that kind of stuff just never happened.
The NFL is definitely different today, you don’t have to a great team to win the SB anymore.
In Romo we Trust
Parity under the guise of mediocrity!!!!
TO HELL WITH THIS SALARY C®AP STUFF!! ! GIVE ME THE DYNASTYS OF YESTERYEAR, WHEN YOU COULD HANG YOUR HAT ON ON CERTAIN TEAMS EVERY YEAR !(WHEN YOU COULD KEEP THE TEAMS TOGETHER), COWBOYS, NINERS, ECT.!!!
DO AWAY WITH THIS SALARY CAP JUNK AND GO BACK TO THE WAY IT WAS IN THE EARLY 90’S!!!!
sorry for the rant!!
THE CAP COST US AT LEAST 1 OR 2 SB’S IN THE 90’S!! PRIVATELY, JONES WOULD AGREE I’M SURE!!
It's never coming back
parity also brings the cap, which the players love a lot more than the ’70s and ’80s era guys loved theirs because they get paid more.
embrace it
i say embrace the worry. who doesn’t worry that dallas won’t beat philly in philly. or even in dallas for that matter. isn’t that what it’s all about? would it be any fun if dallas won every game? or lost every game? i, for one, enjoy the uncertainty and excitement each week brings. not knowing if dallas will win or lose is part of it. that’s football. and playing all these tough games down the stretch is even better. what better way to test your manhood.
Well said
I’m a die hard fan. I believe in the team. I still get anxious before the games. My adrenaline goes sky high during games. I’m never 100% sure of a win or a loss until the game is over. I take great joy and satisfaction with each win, and get upset, disgusted and depressed with each loss.
3-2 headed for the bye week.
by APerfectStar on Oct 14, 2009 10:57 PM CDT up reply actions
I don't think we've come close to reaching the pinnacle of the "parity" era
for example. The most dominant teams the last few years have been so because of qb play (in large part). It also happens to be true that thes qbs have had the best safety play generally. Manning, Brady, Ben, McNabb and Warner. Manning is going to get his team 11+ wins every year. Warner is streaky but when his team gets to the playofs, his win % is excellent. THe other 3 have incredible records in both regular season and postseason.
These 5 teams have won 6 of the last 8 superbowls. Those 5 teams have been 10 of the last 16 teams to play in the superbowl. They have been 18 of the last 32 teams to play in their conference championship.
The remainder of the league, meanwhile, is a turnstile when it comes to the playoffs. There is next to no consistency.
The reason I think parity will become even more pronounced – first of all, qb play is FINALLY improving in this league. Flacco, Ryan, Rodgers, Cutler, and even Stafford and Sanchez look decent. Eli is turning the corner into becoming an elite qb. Romo still very well may. Second, those dominant HOF qbs are nearing the age where they decline. Warner and McNabb imo have 2 years left at most at an elite level. Brady and Manning maybe 3 or 4.
Parity........
you can have it………I want my dominant "Boys back!!!! If you market your team wisely as Jones has ,you SHOULD be able to spend more, there is no shame in this!!!
ALL HAIL THE PRE-SALARY CAP ERA!!!!
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
SBNation.com Recent Stories
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- Things to know about NFL men who served in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam
- How Kyle Orton almost cost the Colts Andrew Luck
- Detroit Lions DT Nick Fairley arrested again; now has more NFL arrests than NFL sacks
- Former high-school star Brian Banks does serious time on trumped-up charge, now hopes for an NFL shot
- Former ‘idiot kicker’ Mike Vanderjagt in trouble after accosting junior-high heckler
