As anyone who has read any of my recent posts would conclude, I've decided to go all in for the Cowboys in 2013. Here are four of my recent posts.
- Cowboys Primed for Success in 2013
- Cowboys will improve turnover differential by 20-25 in 2013.
- Offense or Defense: which unit will be better in 2013, and
- 10 reasons the Cowboys will be better in 2013.
Each provides what I consider to be compelling evidence of why Dallas is going to better. It's better in the coaching ranks, it has better and deeper personnel, with ton's of guys in or entering their primes, it's returning a LOT of Pro Bowl caliber talent that was injured last season, it has a defensive scheme likely to generate more turnovers, and it has an easier schedule.
Yet you still read crap from guys like Calvin Watkins, who replied to this mailbag question:
Q: Do you think a Cowboys finish at 9-7 is unrealistic? Drew (Houston)
A: Yes. When the schedule was released, I thought the Cowboys had 10 wins, but after watching nearly seven days of practices, this is probably an 8-8 team. The positive about this group is the first and second units are stronger than I've ever seen in recent years. It looks like the depth of this team has improved from last year. When injuries hit, and they will, the team needs quality backups to perform. The biggest question marks are how this group finishes the season and that's been the biggest problem with the Cowboys the past 10 years.
What complete and utter nonsense. It's not even internally consistent, as it concludes the "first and second units are stronger than I've seen in recent years" but somehow that new strength isn't going to make any difference in the team's bottom line.
Another guy I put in this camp is Tim McMahon, who seems to think that because he picked Dallas to go 8-8 the last two years, that he's completely justified in picking them to go 8-8 again. That's just lazy. To think that Dallas hasn't made any positive changes in the last year is to ignore the facts that he's supposed to be reporting on.
Of course, I could, and often do, just ignore the nonsense that these and other Cowboys writers put forth. I just don't get why their employers tolerate this kind of weak writing parading itself as "analysis." Plus, it makes no sense to have most or all of the writers on the same pessimistic page. Football prognostication is not the most exact science. Why not include some different viewpoints? It would make for much more interesting reading.