I've been hearing from an acquaintance of mine the past two days about his QB and RB and how the OL will run roughshod over defenses again this season. He refuses to even respond when I remind him the Giants beat them twice last year.
I don't follow ever conversation "around the division" or league for that matter. I try to keep up, but it's tough.
I've read some opinions that the Dallas offense may slow down a bit? That some might figure our Dak. And am I right thinking their vaunted O-line may take a step back (albeit a small one)?
Is the Dallas D supposed to be improved?
I realize it's still June and this all speculation ... but what's the realistic speculation?
Haven't been following the defense this offseason.
That's the biggest question for me because their run game dictates both their offense and defense.
Packers followed the Giants strategy and tore them up even though Dak played better in that game, he still can not read a defense.
Dez coming off two straight sub-par years. Can we expect a resurgence there? Or is he lost? He's played 22 or 32 regular season games the last two.
They are going to get torn to shreds in their own house.
Look, the Cowboys have the offense I envy. Built around a trophy O-Line, monster running back, solid veteran skill players and a fun, young QB.
I expect Prescott will not come close to his crazy great rookie stats, and whether or not the revamping of the defensive backfield works is anyone's guess. The Cowboys will be in the thick of it all year, I'm guessing an 11 win season.
The pukes OL is now questionable on the right side. Collins has never been healthy and may be getting complacent after two years in the Big D. He doesn't seem like a character guy who works hard to me. Who is the RG? Does anybody know?
I have felt for decades that when opposing DCs when they get film on you can figure a way to neutralize that player. Who was Dak last September? Exactly; nobody. The Dallas offense will be up and down depending on how the other team feels that day.
As for the defense; they play a good system but today it's basketball on grass and if the Giants can give Eli any pass pro then the Dallas secondary is untested with rookies and newbies. I have confidence the Giants will pass pro for Eli at least a little.
IMHO the cowboys will bring up the rear of the east
Packers followed the Giants strategy and tore them up even though Dak played better in that game, he still can not read a defense.
Not everyone has the horses that we have on defense though. You can leave the "blueprints" but if you don't have the right materials ....
Laughable that Giants fans are relying on the Dallas OL to be their kryptonite. Oh and two wins by 4 whole points. That'll keep I'm sure.
Packers followed the Giants strategy and tore them up even though Dak played better in that game, he still can not read a defense.
The Pack tore them up? Now they did go into Dallas and win, but they had to do it on game winning FG with less than a minute to go. Elliot rushed for over 100 and Dez had over 100 as well + 2 TDs. The Pack roughed em up in the first half, but Dallas bounced back.
Dallas will contend for the NFC East title along with the Giants. I expect them to be able to run the ball about as well as last year (which is really good) and if Dak gets better, than that offense will get better with him. That defense though...not so good. That may be their down fall.
That team is built to control the ball and keep your offense off the field. The problem is, they couldn't do that against the Giants defense last year. That's why Dallas went 14 and Giants last year.
We beat them what? 10 - 7 in the second game. They couldn't do dick against our defense and now our offense will take a step forward. Come crunch time that's a team we are built to own.
Dallas is perhaps the franchise best positioned in the entire league. Don't let your fevered dreams cloud your vision. They have the second most All Pros, the most in PFFs top 50, the second most in the top 100 all on a team that managed to go 13-2 while fielding the league's third youngest roster. They have franchise players all over the field. The D isn't relying on youth. Their all value added. They don't win games with their defense. They put teams away with one of the NFLs most efficient offenses.
Quote:
Too many new and inexperienced players this season makes this D vulnerable. O will have greater pressure carrying the load. Dallas franchise will take a big step back for the next two or three years.
Dallas is perhaps the franchise best positioned in the entire league. Don't let your fevered dreams cloud your vision. They have the second most All Pros, the most in PFFs top 50, the second most in the top 100 all on a team that managed to go 13-2 while fielding the league's third youngest roster. They have franchise players all over the field. The D isn't relying on youth. Their all value added. They don't win games with their defense. They put teams away with one of the NFLs most efficient offenses.
LOL best positioned franchise in the entire league? How so? The best part of the team is completely negated by a great run defending DL that the Giants have. How many of those franchise players reside on defense? I will give you Lee at this point (if he stays healthy again), but they have 0 other proven players. The Giants roster is more well-rounded and not much older.
Laughable that Giants fans are relying on the Dallas OL to be their kryptonite. Oh and two wins by 4 whole points. That'll keep I'm sure.
Id love to know how LAST years point differential has anything to do with this years team when the opponents are totally different for both as well as the personnel on both teams changing. Also, dont fool yourself. The only reason why those Dallas games were so close was due to the total ineptness of the Giants bottom 10 offense, which figures to improve this year. Value added, as you said.
Laughable that Giants fans are relying on the Dallas OL to be their kryptonite. Oh and two wins by 4 whole points. That'll keep I'm sure.
Dallas fan? Having those numbers on hand if youre a Giants fan is quite impressive.
The only thing your numbers DON'T tell you is how the teams match up with each other and how each team's structire has changed. The Giants kept in tact a defense that made EVERYTHING difficult for the Cowboys in both games. While on offense, they added at least 3 pieces that were a form of weakness to thwir offense (#2 WR with size, pass catching match up nightmare that can destroy the only answer teams had for Odell and an inline blocker at TE). No question Dallas was the better all around team last year and theur record showed it. But to rely on last year's stats and your team not adding much of anything at all in the offseason is a loser's argument.
I agree with this part of what you've said. What's left is to determine if they will still be one of the NFL's most efficient offenses. Hope you can be realistic in viewing the challenges they face going forward on offense this year.
2 new starters on offensive line and Dak admitting that he is working on the part of his game that the Giants figured out - he must improve his efficiency in the pocket. Will he be able to figure that out? Not sure. What the Giants do against the pass isn't easy to replicate given the talent in their secondary. But there is a lot of reason to believe that teams will be looking not to sack or blitz Dak this year, unlike what most teams tried to do against him last year. They will be looking to contain him in the pocket and force him to look to his second and third reads.
Will he be able to do that? Who knows. It's a lot to ask. Regardless, his performance in the pocket was not exceptional last year and remains an area he must improve upon if he is going to lead "one of the NFL's most efficient offenses".
Quote:
Too many new and inexperienced players this season makes this D vulnerable. O will have greater pressure carrying the load. Dallas franchise will take a big step back for the next two or three years.
Dallas is perhaps the franchise best positioned in the entire league. Don't let your fevered dreams cloud your vision. They have the second most All Pros, the most in PFFs top 50, the second most in the top 100 all on a team that managed to go 13-2 while fielding the league's third youngest roster. They have franchise players all over the field. The D isn't relying on youth. Their all value added. They don't win games with their defense. They put teams away with one of the NFLs most efficient offenses.
Yea who are the all pros outside of Elliot and the 3 headed monster on the OL? Dez? Hes damaged goods. Dak? Dallas fans have jumped the gun on him.
And didnt we hear this about one of those Dallas teams a few years ago the year after we won the Super Bowl?
Washington is Washington.
Philly will always be a problem, and they made some solid offensive additions ... but Snacks/DRC/Apple/Collins/JJ should help contain Alshon/Blount. Wentz is the wild card
Quite frankly I've never been so excited for a season if this team stays healthy there are not many more talented/balanced rosters in this league.
I am very much looking forward to blowing out Dallas week 1.
Washington is Washington.
Philly will always be a problem, and they made some solid offensive additions ... but Snacks/DRC/Apple/Collins/JJ should help contain Alshon/Blount. Wentz is the wild card
Quite frankly I've never been so excited for a season if this team stays healthy there are not many more talented/balanced rosters in this league.
I am very much looking forward to blowing out Dallas week 1.
The Giants couldn't blow out absolute bottom feeders. You're wishcasting
The defense is Sean Lee and a bunch of nobodys. Dez is "a beast", but he's lost a step and even if he didn't - JJ/Apple/DRC/Collins is more than enough to counter.
I am expecting a week 1 blowout.they have no answer for beckham/marshall/shepard. I'm also well aware it'll probably be a close, quiet aggravating game - with the giants ultimately winning.
Quote:
and their defense is a joke.
Washington is Washington.
Philly will always be a problem, and they made some solid offensive additions ... but Snacks/DRC/Apple/Collins/JJ should help contain Alshon/Blount. Wentz is the wild card
Quite frankly I've never been so excited for a season if this team stays healthy there are not many more talented/balanced rosters in this league.
I am very much looking forward to blowing out Dallas week 1.
The Giants couldn't blow out absolute bottom feeders. You're wishcasting
no I'm just banking on actually having talent at TE (tye/donnell is now engram/ellison) + the exponential upgrade at WR from Cruz to Marshall + Shepard year 2 ... last year is irrelevant to me.
Teams now have tape on Dak and when Commissioner Goodell finishes his investigation that he's busily working on, EE can expect a hefty suspension.
His losing a step seems to have only taken away one part of his game - that is, his ability to stretch the field and his YAC. I no longer worry about him being able to outrun defenders or run for 25 yards after catching the ball.
However his ability to find spots in the zone, and his ability to use his body leverage to catch balls even when tightly covered is still strong. Nothing suggests this will change even if he loses another step. He will be a nice outlet for Dak for some time, imo. He just will be more likely an outlet, chain-moving type TE than anyone who can break us in a game.
With regards to the Dallas offense being efficient, I don't think Witten will be a liability at all. He will help them get first downs now, just as before.
Quote:
In comment 13514028 idinkido said:
Quote:
Too many new and inexperienced players this season makes this D vulnerable. O will have greater pressure carrying the load. Dallas franchise will take a big step back for the next two or three years.
Dallas is perhaps the franchise best positioned in the entire league. Don't let your fevered dreams cloud your vision. They have the second most All Pros, the most in PFFs top 50, the second most in the top 100 all on a team that managed to go 13-2 while fielding the league's third youngest roster. They have franchise players all over the field. The D isn't relying on youth. Their all value added. They don't win games with their defense. They put teams away with one of the NFLs most efficient offenses.
LOL best positioned franchise in the entire league? How so? The best part of the team is completely negated by a great run defending DL that the Giants have. How many of those franchise players reside on defense? I will give you Lee at this point (if he stays healthy again), but they have 0 other proven players. The Giants roster is more well-rounded and not much older.
The Giants roster is not anywhere close to well rounded or anywhere close in age. Giant holes on the OL, in the backfield, at LB and K. A defensive team that can't run the ball or rely on their kicker. They have lots of proven players and more importantly a track record that says that their defense will not lose them games regardless of the names on the jerseys. Yes multiple All Pros under 26 means your set up well and having one team who is apparently relying on the RB playing his first game ever, or playing in a game with 17 points and 6 TOs and that lost two starters in their front 7 doesn't remove that reality.
Teams now have tape on Dak and when Commissioner Goodell finishes his investigation that he's busily working on, EE can expect a hefty suspension.
Relying on things that will never happen just shows your true feelings
Dallas thrived by using a power running scheme that's rarely seen around the league anymore, and for which defenses are not prepared. The Giants were able to stop the run, force Dak to beat them through the air, and he couldn't. Will he be up to that in 2017? Maybe. Can't yet tell how good this guy can be.
On defense, who knows?
>got exposed
>300 yards, 3 TDs, 30 points
Pick one
Their defense could be better with the infusion of young talent in their secondary. Their DC is underrated in my opinion. Not sure what kind of rush they'll generate with all of the suspensions.
Quote:
Packers,
>got exposed
>300 yards, 3 TDs, 30 points
Pick one
Yeah, I don't really like that argument either. Did the Giants defense get exposed by the Packers? Not good to extrapolate too much from a single game.
elbowj, you aren't really responding to my comments though. Do you think it's reasonable to expect teams to try and keep Dak in the pocket more this year than last? Also, is it reasonable to expect the Dallas run game to take a step backward due to new faces on the OL?
It seems to me these are legitimate arguments and you haven't really addressed them. Curious if you are a reasonable Dallas fan who can speak to these things or just someone tied up in a Dallas delusion of greatness? (It's been many, many years since they hoisted the big trophy, ya know)
Quote:
is favored by 6. Has been picked for the division by Vegas, PFF, FO, is favored in 12 games, a push in two and picked to lose one game. Is the third youngest team in the league. Outscored their opponents by 130 points last year (NYG outscored their opponents by 2 points). That's the most common determination of future success. Has gone 28-6 with their starting QB over the three last seasons.
Laughable that Giants fans are relying on the Dallas OL to be their kryptonite. Oh and two wins by 4 whole points. That'll keep I'm sure.
Dallas fan? Having those numbers on hand if youre a Giants fan is quite impressive.
The only thing your numbers DON'T tell you is how the teams match up with each other and how each team's structire has changed. The Giants kept in tact a defense that made EVERYTHING difficult for the Cowboys in both games. While on offense, they added at least 3 pieces that were a form of weakness to thwir offense (#2 WR with size, pass catching match up nightmare that can destroy the only answer teams had for Odell and an inline blocker at TE). No question Dallas was the better all around team last year and theur record showed it. But to rely on last year's stats and your team not adding much of anything at all in the offseason is a loser's argument.
It's a statistical argument. Pythagorean uses scoring margin and is most reliable predictor of future success. Has a much higher correlation than Wins and losses. The additions are fun but their not an answer to the huge weaknesses on the OL and a QB who's unreliable past 5 yards.
Quote:
In comment 13514167 81_Great_Dane said:
Quote:
Packers,
>got exposed
>300 yards, 3 TDs, 30 points
Pick one
Yeah, I don't really like that argument either. Did the Giants defense get exposed by the Packers? Not good to extrapolate too much from a single game.
elbowj, you aren't really responding to my comments though. Do you think it's reasonable to expect teams to try and keep Dak in the pocket more this year than last? Also, is it reasonable to expect the Dallas run game to take a step backward due to new faces on the OL?
It seems to me these are legitimate arguments and you haven't really addressed them. Curious if you are a reasonable Dallas fan who can speak to these things or just someone tied up in a Dallas delusion of greatness? (It's been many, many years since they hoisted the big trophy, ya know)
I think pinning any hopes on Dallas underperforming on the OL is fools errand. Dak played some of his best ball post Giants. Put up 33 a game. He had 17 TDs and 3 picks from November to January. I'm plenty reasonable and appreciate the discussion. I just believe there's a lot of wishful thinking about Dallas here. There's a reason they're favorites.
I don't think it's mostly Eli. He just had no confidence in his blockers to hold up for long passes. His decision making and reads are on his brother level at this point. But his arm decline combined with an utter inability to hold up for any substantial amount of time hurt him a lot.
having said that, JPP/Snacks/OV are equally as dominant - with an elite secondary behind them.
The Giants match up very well with Dallas, which is why they swept them a year ago and have now made significant changes/improvements to the offense. Dallas has gotten worse.
I can't wait for week 1.
Tape is not a sufficient counter, especially for running games.
Hey look guys. They hand him the ball. Then they push the guys out of his way. Then he runs by the rest of the defense. So just stop that and we're good.
Quote:
And rbs who carry the ball as much as he did last year don't typically have very long and healthy careers
Tape is not a sufficient counter, especially for running games.
Hey look guys. They hand him the ball. Then they push the guys out of his way. Then he runs by the rest of the defense. So just stop that and we're good.
tape would show tendencies, aka "keys", for run play calling - which would be quite useful (i.e. gaps to target with a blitz, personnel packages, etc.)
a DT like snacks in between JPP/OV also helps.
Quote:
Too many new and inexperienced players this season makes this D vulnerable. O will have greater pressure carrying the load. Dallas franchise will take a big step back for the next two or three years.
Dallas is perhaps the franchise best positioned in the entire league. Don't let your fevered dreams cloud your vision. They have the second most All Pros, the most in PFFs top 50, the second most in the top 100 all on a team that managed to go 13-2 while fielding the league's third youngest roster. They have franchise players all over the field. The D isn't relying on youth. Their all value added. They don't win games with their defense. They put teams away with one of the NFLs most efficient offenses.
DOOMED! or not - ( New Window )
I feel like I am reading another Language?
Quote:
In comment 13514028 idinkido said:
Quote:
Too many new and inexperienced players this season makes this D vulnerable. O will have greater pressure carrying the load. Dallas franchise will take a big step back for the next two or three years.
Dallas is perhaps the franchise best positioned in the entire league. Don't let your fevered dreams cloud your vision. They have the second most All Pros, the most in PFFs top 50, the second most in the top 100 all on a team that managed to go 13-2 while fielding the league's third youngest roster. They have franchise players all over the field. The D isn't relying on youth. Their all value added. They don't win games with their defense. They put teams away with one of the NFLs most efficient offenses.
We beat your ass twice last year. Now piss off.
Dang. And I was starting to be convinced that last year doesn't matter. Yes NYG won two close games against Dallas. Game one they won a game that was the first game for two rookies. NYG dominated their way to a one point win. Then they won a game in which the teams combined for as many punts as points after an 11 game winning streak. The rest of the season Dallas blew out a bunch of teams the Giants struggled with or lost to while Dallas won the East.
actually, win a SB on a high definition television - then talk.
actually, win a SB on a high definition television - then talk.
Yep context is meaningless. Maybe every game will be the first one for the rookies or out in the cold. Hold onto that.
Quote:
then talk. congrats on the lower 1st round pick though!
actually, win a SB on a high definition television - then talk.
Yep context is meaningless. Maybe every game will be the first one for the rookies or out in the cold. Hold onto that.
Or maybe you'll just keep coming up with new excuses every time the Cowboys lose to the Giants. :)
Quote:
In comment 13514268 annexOPR said:
Quote:
then talk. congrats on the lower 1st round pick though!
actually, win a SB on a high definition television - then talk.
Yep context is meaningless. Maybe every game will be the first one for the rookies or out in the cold. Hold onto that.
Or maybe you'll just keep coming up with new excuses every time the Cowboys lose to the Giants. :)
I doubt I'll have to worry about it. But if Dallas loses to the Giants and wins all the rest of the games I think I'd be okay with that.
Quote:
Too many new and inexperienced players this season makes this D vulnerable. O will have greater pressure carrying the load. Dallas franchise will take a big step back for the next two or three years.
That is my Favorite Apple juice for Appletini. by far the sweetest apple juice ever.
Quote:
In comment 13514272 elbowj said:
Quote:
In comment 13514268 annexOPR said:
Quote:
then talk. congrats on the lower 1st round pick though!
actually, win a SB on a high definition television - then talk.
Yep context is meaningless. Maybe every game will be the first one for the rookies or out in the cold. Hold onto that.
Or maybe you'll just keep coming up with new excuses every time the Cowboys lose to the Giants. :)
I doubt I'll have to worry about it. But if Dallas loses to the Giants and wins all the rest of the games I think I'd be okay with that.
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
Quote:
In comment 13514276 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
In comment 13514272 elbowj said:
Quote:
In comment 13514268 annexOPR said:
Quote:
then talk. congrats on the lower 1st round pick though!
actually, win a SB on a high definition television - then talk.
Yep context is meaningless. Maybe every game will be the first one for the rookies or out in the cold. Hold onto that.
Or maybe you'll just keep coming up with new excuses every time the Cowboys lose to the Giants. :)
I doubt I'll have to worry about it. But if Dallas loses to the Giants and wins all the rest of the games I think I'd be okay with that.
I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.
Yeah that could never happen
Who are your corners again?
I think pinning any hopes on Dallas underperforming on the OL is fools errand. Dak played some of his best ball post Giants. Put up 33 a game. He had 17 TDs and 3 picks from November to January. I'm plenty reasonable and appreciate the discussion. I just believe there's a lot of wishful thinking about Dallas here. There's a reason they're favorites.
There's all types of thinking around here, including the wishful type. What I don't think is happening is anyone here truly pinning their hopes on Dallas underperforming on the OL. Certainly, that's reason to expect a step back in performance, but it is NOT the reason for optimism around here.
In case you didn't notice fans around here believe we have improved significantly in areas of weakness. This is not something Giants fans believe Dallas has done. We are not pinning our hopes on Dallas underperforming as much as we are pinning them on our being better.
Although Dallas won the East, their record was only two games better than the Giants. They were playing a last-place schedule. The first-place schedule they face this year could be the difference this year. Pointing to point differential last year means nothing. Scoring extra points against bad teams doesn't count for more wins, especially when you look at how the teams are built. Dallas has an efficient offense - but as you've acknowledged they need to be efficient because they cannot rely upon their defense to win games. By mid-year Coach McAdoo began to alter his strategy to rely on his defense to win games. They were closer, to be sure, but that's often a natural outcome of playing defensive-minded football.
The Giants don't need Dallas to fall as much as they need to get better. We won't feel like celebrating around here if we win the division, clinch home field, just to get beat at home in the playoffs. We know we were 11-5 and we believe we can be better, much better than that. We believe we can play well against Dallas and believe with our improved team we can play well against any of the playoff contenders.
Dallas on the other hand hasn't seemed to do much with regards to improving themselves, at least not from our perspective. I don't know, maybe your revamped secondary will be an improvement, but there isn't any real basis for believing that. Will Taco and the other draft picks help? Maybe, but that's far from a certainty. Will a second year in the system make DP and EE better? Possibly, but there are plenty of QB's who struggle in their sophomore season, and besides, relying on improvement from current players is more wishful thinking than expecting improvements from roster upgrades.
Either way - get one thing straight. Giants fans are PUMPED about our offseason moves and the direction the team is headed. The confidence in the east is all about the Giants, not some hope that Dallas will stumble. Don't flatter yourself that way.
There's the wishful thinking. NY had one of the biggest and most well-known weaknesses in the NFL. They did nothing of significance to address that. It makes no sense. Dallas had areas of weakness. They drafted two DBs in a historic DB draft class by the numbers. That was by design.
Signing and drafting two WRs doesn't help the OL. Signing a backup fullback has never gained as much attention as Ellison is being granted by Giants fans.
*Although Dallas won the East, their record was only two games better than the Giants.*
They sat out a game.
*Pointing to point differential last year means nothing.*
This is titling at windmills. There are decades of research that contradict your contention. It is simply an unsupportable position. You seem like you'd be above that. Avail yourself.
*We won't feel like celebrating around here if we win the division, clinch home field, just to get beat at home in the playoffs.*
There sure seems to be a lot of celebrating about not winning the division and getting blown out in the playoffs. So I doubt that.
*We know we were 11-5 and we believe we can be better, much better than that.*
Yet statistical probability strongly suggests the opposite. Where for Dallas it doesn't. That's why we have on one side people with an understandable and easily discernable bias versus statistics, pretty much every analytical publication, the vast majority of NFL media, and the guys who have money on the outcome. They all watched the offseason and said the Giants failed to attempt to sufficiently address their obvious holes. Despite the perception here, Dallas did just that.
*Will Taco and the other draft picks help? Maybe, but that's far from a certainty.*
Dallas has been extremely successful in the draft. The Giants bought a great defense. Dallas has built their great offense entirely thru the draft.
*Will a second year in the system make DP and EE better?*
Zeke was like the youngest player in the league last season. 1st team All Pro. Dak had about 10 days to prepare as a starter. He put up the 31st highest rated season in NFL history. Expectations for improvement are again supported by the vast majority of similar examples.
*relying on improvement from current players is more wishful thinking than expecting improvements from roster upgrades.*
This isn't true in any sense. It goes against both conventional wisdom and historical consensus. If you have anything to support it I'm open to hearing it. But it reads like something you hope rather than something you can defend.
*Either way - get one thing straight. Giants fans are PUMPED about our offseason moves and the direction the team is headed. The confidence in the east is all about the Giants, not some hope that Dallas will stumble. Don't flatter yourself that way.*
I disagree. For evidence I propose this thread as Exhibit A.
Now we see how both teams build off last year. The NFL is and isn't a year to year league. There can and will be carryover, but there's more attrition these days due to the cap. Dallas suffered more. Doesn't mean they can't repeat as divisonn champs. Things just get a little harder for Dallas and we haven't even discussed the tougher schedule or possible book is out theory on dak.
Then there's the giants question of Whether Eli is slipping. I don't think he is but it's out there. Can the giants improve enough to win games more convincingly in 2017, which is likely essential to navigating a good year. It will be interesting.
But Giants fans are NOT sitting here thinking that we haven't improved and we have to hope Dallas steps back. Only in your mind is that the case. Giants fans almost universally feel the team is improved.
But, alas.. here you are!
Anyway. Several posters in this thread are being entirely too flippant towards the Cowboys and are dismissing them when the reality is that they're likely to be a good team and our main competition to win the NFCE. A lot of claims that the Giants are going to just march in and wipe the floor with the Cowboys on September 10th.
How long have you guys been Giants fans?
I can tell you right now that if we win that game, it's not going to be a blowout.
That said, I don't see Dallas winning 13 games again this year. 10 or 11 I could see. 13? I doubt it. They did lose a couple of their offensive linemen. They have question marks in their secondary, their defensive line isn't exactly murderers row.
Dez doesn't look like the guy he was before the foot injury. I don't know if he'll ever get it back. Remains to be seen.
A lot of things can happen between now and September anyway.
I think NYG have a better roster than they did a year ago, but it wouldn't shock me if they didn't win more than 11 games. It wouldn't even surprise me if they only won 10. If they win less than 10, something really went wrong.
Certainly looking forward to this season. That's for sure.
1) I don't have the patience to find all the 13+ win seasons since went to 16-game seasons see if any team did it 2 or more years in a row, but
2) 13-3 is Dallas's best-ever regular season record over that span, and they'd done it twice before last season, in 1992 and 2007. So yeah, it's unlikely that they reach 13 wins or better this season.
But y'know, unlikely things happen all the time.
There's the wishful thinking. NY had one of the biggest and most well-known weaknesses in the NFL. They did nothing of significance to address that. It makes no sense. Dallas had areas of weakness. They drafted two DBs in a historic DB draft class by the numbers. That was by design.
Signing and drafting two WRs doesn't help the OL. Signing a backup fullback has never gained as much attention as Ellison is being granted by Giants fans.
*Although Dallas won the East, their record was only two games better than the Giants.*
They sat out a game.
*Pointing to point differential last year means nothing.*
This is titling at windmills. There are decades of research that contradict your contention. It is simply an unsupportable position. You seem like you'd be above that. Avail yourself.
*We won't feel like celebrating around here if we win the division, clinch home field, just to get beat at home in the playoffs.*
There sure seems to be a lot of celebrating about not winning the division and getting blown out in the playoffs. So I doubt that.
*We know we were 11-5 and we believe we can be better, much better than that.*
Yet statistical probability strongly suggests the opposite. Where for Dallas it doesn't. That's why we have on one side people with an understandable and easily discernable bias versus statistics, pretty much every analytical publication, the vast majority of NFL media, and the guys who have money on the outcome. They all watched the offseason and said the Giants failed to attempt to sufficiently address their obvious holes. Despite the perception here, Dallas did just that.
*Will Taco and the other draft picks help? Maybe, but that's far from a certainty.*
Dallas has been extremely successful in the draft. The Giants bought a great defense. Dallas has built their great offense entirely thru the draft.
*Will a second year in the system make DP and EE better?*
Zeke was like the youngest player in the league last season. 1st team All Pro. Dak had about 10 days to prepare as a starter. He put up the 31st highest rated season in NFL history. Expectations for improvement are again supported by the vast majority of similar examples.
*relying on improvement from current players is more wishful thinking than expecting improvements from roster upgrades.*
This isn't true in any sense. It goes against both conventional wisdom and historical consensus. If you have anything to support it I'm open to hearing it. But it reads like something you hope rather than something you can defend.
*Either way - get one thing straight. Giants fans are PUMPED about our offseason moves and the direction the team is headed. The confidence in the east is all about the Giants, not some hope that Dallas will stumble. Don't flatter yourself that way.*
I disagree. For evidence I propose this thread as Exhibit A.
I had a very long and thoughtful, outlined post outlined, but then I did something that deleted it.
All I can say is dude, just face the music for talking about numbers and OL ineptitude and all this stiff that was valid last year while completely and entirely ignoring this offseason and stick around to answer for your ill advised hubrus. We have seen this before from Coboys fans: They get hyped about their O with names like Marion Barber, Terrell Owens, Tony Romo, Felix Jones, Jason Witten, Patrick fucking Crayton. Then they lose, usually, fantastically. Their season is shot by mid season and the fans start clamoring to fire Garrett. Only difference is that in the past you had some beasts on D.
Just show up here and answer your call outs when the Giants O is back to scoring 22+ per game with this D and Dallas is running the ball well and maybe in 2nd place.
The ultimate decider is that WE ARE BUILT TO BEAT YOU. Our defense is also an underperforming (injured) D end away from being a real force in this league. But yea, the great year you had last year will save you from that just like our 08 season saved us 09.
Keep up the good work elblowj! Keeping Cowboys fans Cowboys fans.
The type of insight we expect from you Lord Imminence.
Now we see how both teams build off last year. The NFL is and isn't a year to year league. There can and will be carryover, but there's more attrition these days due to the cap. Dallas suffered more. Doesn't mean they can't repeat as divisonn champs. Things just get a little harder for Dallas and we haven't even discussed the tougher schedule or possible book is out theory on dak.
Then there's the giants question of Whether Eli is slipping. I don't think he is but it's out there. Can the giants improve enough to win games more convincingly in 2017, which is likely essential to navigating a good year. It will be interesting.
I think you are more or less correct based on the record, but I disagree that the 2016 Cowboys were a better team than the 2016 Giants. Their offense was far better than ours. Our Defense was better than ours. They scored more points than we did and beat teams more handily. Our defense beat the snot out of them twice and if we had any sniff of the production we had even the year before, we play the Falcons in the NFCCG.
Dallas was NOT a better team than we were. Our D was fixed overnight from 3 big FA signings just like their O was ran by a couple of rookies who went nuts. Lets see if Taco Charlton and Jaylon Smith can out do Evan Engram and Paul Perkins.
Off the top of my head and confirmed by wiki, the 89 and 90 Niners went 14-2 consecutively
Quote:
Simply Because they won 13 games last year. Has a team ever won 13 games in consecutive years? Let alone an overachieving one when a green qb?
Off the top of my head and confirmed by wiki, the 89 and 90 Niners went 14-2 consecutively
Thanks. It's not hard to look up, but I've been posting from my phone. But I had a feeling that it was rare if not Impossible. Even those bellicheck Brady teams playing in that awful minor league division for 17 years have never done it.
So unless Dak= Joe Montana, it will be highly unlikely. The question isn't IF Dallas will tumble. It's how far.
I know Garrett is held in pretty high esteem here, but how many times have we seen him abandon the run in the second half of crucial games? How many times, even in Giants games, has he gone away from what has given them a lead and ended up on the short end of the stick? Hell, there's really no excuse for Dalas to have lost the second game vs. us last year. As much as we complained about the Giants playing that game in a shell, Garrett was worse.
He's only had 2 seasons over .500 in his career, yet gets a lot of credit, even though he's often taking the team projected to be the division winner in the preseason and not fulfilling that expectation. To put it in perspective, the Cowboys have finished 3rd or 4th ion the division more than they've finished 1st or 2nd under Garrett.
I'd call this elbow twat some names but Dallas fans are like a zit. If you pop or pick at them it just makes things worse. Let the zit explode under its own mortality and short life span. Then another zit surfaces elsewhere.
Dallas Has everything going for them and nothing to fear! The giants did nothing to address the offensive struggles. Blocking TEs don't help an offense block. WRs and move TEs don't help and offense improve. This accoeding to the zit. Get that? Good.
+1
Laughable that Giants fans are relying on the Dallas OL to be their kryptonite. Oh and two wins by 4 whole points. That'll keep I'm sure.
A little dose of reality...good post
Umm. Prescott was a rookie last year, so they went 13-3 with him. Have no idea what a record with the "starting QB" means anyway.
agreed .. they are the only real "threat" in my opinion. Smith,Alshon are huge upgrades @ WR for them
Quote:
Has gone 28-6 with their starting QB over the three last seasons.
Umm. Prescott was a rookie last year, so they went 13-3 with him. Have no idea what a record with the "starting QB" means anyway.
Look, They were a good team, they won the East. That is a reality. We struggled on offense and while we match up well against their strengths, they are still a good team until they show they aren't.
Personally, I think they lost more than they gained in the offseason. I did not like what I saw from Prescott against us, so I think there is a danger there for the Cowboys as teams scheme better against him. I think the Giants were smart this offseason and plugged some holes in their game, not all the holes but some of them. So I think the Giants will be better this year and the Cowboys take a step back.
BUT, I still think this was a solid post because we can't lose sight of the fact that the Cowboys were one of the best teams in football last year and the Giants struggled to mount an offense. I think our defense will improve slightly and our offense enough to make this a really solid team, but let's see it on the field.
Quote:
The post basically says their margin of victory LAST YEAR translates to this year. As well as this nugget:
Quote:
Has gone 28-6 with their starting QB over the three last seasons.
Umm. Prescott was a rookie last year, so they went 13-3 with him. Have no idea what a record with the "starting QB" means anyway.
Look, They were a good team, they won the East. That is a reality. We struggled on offense and while we match up well against their strengths, they are still a good team until they show they aren't.
Personally, I think they lost more than they gained in the offseason. I did not like what I saw from Prescott against us, so I think there is a danger there for the Cowboys as teams scheme better against him. I think the Giants were smart this offseason and plugged some holes in their game, not all the holes but some of them. So I think the Giants will be better this year and the Cowboys take a step back.
BUT, I still think this was a solid post because we can't lose sight of the fact that the Cowboys were one of the best teams in football last year and the Giants struggled to mount an offense. I think our defense will improve slightly and our offense enough to make this a really solid team, but let's see it on the field.
The Giants won 11 games last year. Did the Giants get better or worse or the same in the offseason? Will they win 11 games this year? Or more or fewer? You could make a very compelling case that if they did not get any better than last year, they at least stayed level. That is to say, an 11-5 team. You could also make a tougher case that they regressed, but then not by much.
Dallas won 13 games last year. Off the bat, I can tell you that they are NOT a 13-3 or better team this year, based on history. ONLY the 89-90 Niners won that many games in back to back years, and I don't see Joe Montana or Jerry Rice on this Dallas team.
So you can bet your house that the Dallas Cowboys will finish with at least one win fewer than last year. Victims of their own success.
Additionally, you can make a case that Dallas is actually worse than last year, as teams figure out how to play Dak and the offense, and Witten ages out. So you can knock off at least one other win.
I set the over/under of Dallas wins this year at 10 (or 10.5? I'm not a gambler). Either they exceed expectations and come in at 11 (this accounts for one loss for winning 13 games last year, and just one loss for not maxing out their possible wins at 12), or they fall short and only win 9.
Quote:
Has gone 28-6 with their starting QB over the three last seasons.
Umm. Prescott was a rookie last year, so they went 13-3 with him. Have no idea what a record with the "starting QB" means anyway.
Its their record when they're not starting a backup QB.
The scoring margin is statistics. I'm not making it up. It's an established equation. And its based on year to year numbers. Not sure why its so hard to grasp but I'm assuming it's largely due to what it says.
Sounds like you're using a lot of past years stats to say they'll be good this year. And you don't realize why that's hard to grasp? At least that tells me a lot about why you think those stats are important - because you seem to be fucking useless at understanding them.
Quote:
The post basically says their margin of victory LAST YEAR translates to this year.
Quote:
Has gone 28-6 with their starting QB over the three last seasons.
Umm. Prescott was a rookie last year, so they went 13-3 with him. Have no idea what a record with the "starting QB" means anyway.
Its their record when they're not starting a backup QB.
The scoring margin is statistics. I'm not making it up. It's an established equation. And its based on year to year numbers. Not sure why its so hard to grasp but I'm assuming it's largely due to what it says.
then why include 2016? Dak was the backup until Romo got hurt.
Quote:
The scoring margin is statistics. I'm not making it up. It's an established equation. And its based on year to year numbers. Not sure why its so hard to grasp but I'm assuming it's largely due to what it says.
Sounds like you're using a lot of past years stats to say they'll be good this year. And you don't realize why that's hard to grasp? At least that tells me a lot about why you think those stats are important - because you seem to be fucking useless at understanding them.
I'm not inventing them. It's not a lot of stats. It's a single statistical formula used specifically for year to year predictions.
Quote:
In comment 13514701 FatMan in Charlotte said:
Quote:
The post basically says their margin of victory LAST YEAR translates to this year. As well as this nugget:
Quote:
Has gone 28-6 with their starting QB over the three last seasons.
Umm. Prescott was a rookie last year, so they went 13-3 with him. Have no idea what a record with the "starting QB" means anyway.
Look, They were a good team, they won the East. That is a reality. We struggled on offense and while we match up well against their strengths, they are still a good team until they show they aren't.
Personally, I think they lost more than they gained in the offseason. I did not like what I saw from Prescott against us, so I think there is a danger there for the Cowboys as teams scheme better against him. I think the Giants were smart this offseason and plugged some holes in their game, not all the holes but some of them. So I think the Giants will be better this year and the Cowboys take a step back.
BUT, I still think this was a solid post because we can't lose sight of the fact that the Cowboys were one of the best teams in football last year and the Giants struggled to mount an offense. I think our defense will improve slightly and our offense enough to make this a really solid team, but let's see it on the field.
The Giants won 11 games last year. Did the Giants get better or worse or the same in the offseason? Will they win 11 games this year? Or more or fewer? You could make a very compelling case that if they did not get any better than last year, they at least stayed level. That is to say, an 11-5 team. You could also make a tougher case that they regressed, but then not by much.
Dallas won 13 games last year. Off the bat, I can tell you that they are NOT a 13-3 or better team this year, based on history. ONLY the 89-90 Niners won that many games in back to back years, and I don't see Joe Montana or Jerry Rice on this Dallas team.
So you can bet your house that the Dallas Cowboys will finish with at least one win fewer than last year. Victims of their own success.
Additionally, you can make a case that Dallas is actually worse than last year, as teams figure out how to play Dak and the offense, and Witten ages out. So you can knock off at least one other win.
I set the over/under of Dallas wins this year at 10 (or 10.5? I'm not a gambler). Either they exceed expectations and come in at 11 (this accounts for one loss for winning 13 games last year, and just one loss for not maxing out their possible wins at 12), or they fall short and only win 9.
I completely agree. I predict the Giants have about the same record because they are a better team but playing a more difficult schedule. I predicted above that Dallas takes a step back so we agree there as well.
Outscoring teams in one season is NOT indicative of future success. Otherwise, the Panthers wouldn't have gone from a Super Bowl appearance to missing the playoffs. Or the 5-7 teams each year who had favorable point differentials one season only to have that margin drastically lessen the following year causing them to miss the playoffs.
For fuck's sake, it isn't even a "single statistical formula" - point differential is a plain stat. And it has no bearing on the following year. Are you really trying to say otherwise?
Quote:
Outscored their opponents by 130 points last year (NYG outscored their opponents by 2 points). That's the most common determination of future success
Outscoring teams in one season is NOT indicative of future success. Otherwise, the Panthers wouldn't have gone from a Super Bowl appearance to missing the playoffs. Or the 5-7 teams each year who had favorable point differentials one season only to have that margin drastically lessen the following year causing them to miss the playoffs.
For fuck's sake, it isn't even a "single statistical formula" - point differential is a plain stat. And it has no bearing on the following year. Are you really trying to say otherwise?
Far be it for me to defend a Cowboys fan but what happened last year is not nothing. The Cowboys were a good team and they might decline somewhat. But if I had to take one statistic to predict a W-L record in any given year, it would be the W-L record in the previous years.
Sure, teams rise and fall but it is not exactly random. The Steelers and Patriots are likely to have winning records this year even though past performance cannot guarantee future results.
Also, one can't say that results from a previous year don't matter and then use the Giants' 11-5 record to predict a playoff team. It makes more sense to say the Giants and Cowboys are really good football teams unless they falter this year for one reason or another.
In any given year, there is a 50% turnover in playoff teams. You have some divisions like the NFC South (and to a large extent the NFC East) that has rarely had a repeat division champion, with the previous year's champion missing the playoffs outright 80% of the time (going back 15 years).
You can point to teams like the Pats and Packers on the top side and the Browns and Bills on the low side, but then the argument falls flat because the vast majority in the middle swap spots year after year.
Using the previous year's W-L record is not indicative of future success across the board. Just look at 2016 vs. 2015. You had the Raiders at 12-4, the Titans at 9-7, the Cowboys at 13-3, and the Falcons at 11-5. The prior year, those teams were 7-9, 3-13, 4-12 and 8-8 and all missed the playoffs. This happens every year. That doesn't even take into account the Panthers and Redskins going from division winners to missing the playoffs.
What makes it even more full of shit is if point differential were indicative of anything, the Cowboys of 2016 would have been projected to be a shitty team based on 2015.
Defend him if you'd like, but it only makes you look like a moron to think last year's success has a significant bearing on the following year.
Teams go from the bottom to the top of divisions and vice versa fairly often in the NFL. You can find examples every year.
Hell, let's use Dallas...
They went 4-12 in 2015 and then went 13-3 in 2016.
Was their 2015 record an indicator of their 2016 season? It most certainly was not.
The Raiders went from 3-13, to 7-9, to 12-4.
The Jets went from 4-12, to 10-6, to 5-11.
Carolina's last 4 seasons: 12 wins, 7 wins, 15 wins, 6 wins
Cincinnati went from 12-4 to 6-9-1.
The examples are endless.
Quote:
But if I had to take one statistic to predict a W-L record in any given year, it would be the W-L record in the previous years.
In any given year, there is a 50% turnover in playoff teams. You have some divisions like the NFC South (and to a large extent the NFC East) that has rarely had a repeat division champion, with the previous year's champion missing the playoffs outright 80% of the time (going back 15 years).
You can point to teams like the Pats and Packers on the top side and the Browns and Bills on the low side, but then the argument falls flat because the vast majority in the middle swap spots year after year.
Using the previous year's W-L record is not indicative of future success across the board. Just look at 2016 vs. 2015. You had the Raiders at 12-4, the Titans at 9-7, the Cowboys at 13-3, and the Falcons at 11-5. The prior year, those teams were 7-9, 3-13, 4-12 and 8-8 and all missed the playoffs. This happens every year. That doesn't even take into account the Panthers and Redskins going from division winners to missing the playoffs.
What makes it even more full of shit is if point differential were indicative of anything, the Cowboys of 2016 would have been projected to be a shitty team based on 2015.
Defend him if you'd like, but it only makes you look like a moron to think last year's success has a significant bearing on the following year.
You're wrong. Pythagorean expectation is the most accurate predictor of future success for NFL teams. Does that mean that it's 100% correct? No. But it has proven to be the best measure. I didnt invent it. Pointing out exceptions doesn't diminish the statistical relevance.
Football’s Pythagorean Theorem
In a Sentence: Point differential is a better indicator of future winning percentage than winning percentage itself.
How It Works: Created by Bill James for baseball and modified for football in the early ’90s by current Houston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey, the Pythagorean theorem (or “Pythagorean expectation”) is a formula that translates a team’s points scored and allowed into an “expected” winning percentage. That formula isn’t exactly for the faint of heart:
Points For2.37 / (Points For2.37 + Points Against2.37)
As an example, let’s take the 2011 Chiefs, who went 7-9 while scoring 212 points and allowing 338. Our formula is 2122.37 / (2122.37 + 3382.37) = 0.248. That’s the Chiefs’ expected winning percentage from their point differential, and if we multiply it by 16 games, we get a total of just 4.0 wins. The Pythagorean theorem suggests that the Chiefs outperformed their true level of performance by three full wins.
Why It Works: Because all wins aren’t created equal. During Kansas City’s three-game winning streak last year, they beat the Raiders 28-0 in a game in which they forced six interceptions. Pretty impressive. A week later, they beat the Chargers 23-20 in overtime during that game in which Philip Rivers fumbled a meaningless snap moments before San Diego could attempt a game-winning field goal. For each of those two performances, Kansas City got the same exact mark on their record: one win. Nobody in his right mind would think that Kansas City looked equally good in both of those games, even if they got the same result. That’s where the “All that matters is the W” argument falls apart. It’s like saying the pass/fail system is just as useful as the traditional grading scale when figuring out how well somebody did in a class.
Prove That It Works: The simplest way to show off the efficacy of the Pythagorean expectation is to show off the impact it has on a team’s record during the following year. The chart below lumps teams from 1983 to 2010 into groups by the difference between their expected win total and their actual win total, and then notes how that team’s win total changed during the following year.
what a crock of shit.
A better indicator than winning percentage doesn't mean the BEST indicator.
At least try to understand the fucking statistic.
Because of the changing nature of NFL rosters and the rotating schedule, professional football has less correlation to playoff teams from year to year than any of the major sports. Trying to predict future success from the results of a past year is simply horseshit.
Quote:
In a Sentence: Point differential is a better indicator of future winning percentage than winning percentage itself.
A better indicator than winning percentage doesn't mean the BEST indicator.
At least try to understand the fucking statistic.
Because of the changing nature of NFL rosters and the rotating schedule, professional football has less correlation to playoff teams from year to year than any of the major sports. Trying to predict future success from the results of a past year is simply horseshit.
Sir Isaac, you're arguing that it's meaningless. It's actually the most meaningful. You've said repeatedly it has no correlation. That puts you on the wrong side of decades of examples.
But I can understand why such a fact would offend you. Having your bubble burst by someone pointing out the reality that every measure favors Dallas can't be fun. Glad I could be of assistance.
So how exactly did they win 13 games in 2016? Let's go back another year:
2014 Cowboys: .570....so how the hell did the Cowboys go 4-12 in 2015?
Hell, I could do this all day
You're trying too hard to be formulaic and sound smart here. There are too many variables in football and injuries to key players have large impacts on multiple teams each year.
You can sit at your chalkboard and try to play Einstein all you want - the reality is that you're choosing to accept certain factors and dismiss others in order to craft the best argument you can as to why Dallas will be just as good as they were a year ago.
If we could determine everything by using formulas and un-waivering indicators, we wouldn't even need to watch the games.
You're trying too hard to be formulaic and sound smart here. There are too many variables in football and injuries to key players have large impacts on multiple teams each year.
You can sit at your chalkboard and try to play Einstein all you want - the reality is that you're choosing to accept certain factors and dismiss others in order to craft the best argument you can as to why Dallas will be just as good as they were a year ago.
If we could determine everything by using formulas and un-waivering indicators, we wouldn't even need to watch the games.
As pretty as that strawman is that is not at all what I'm doing. I'm arguing against the notion that it has nothing to do with performance. I've acknowledged that their are flaws in the approach and exceptions to the rule. I've just been repeatedly told it was meaningless, a contention that is not at all supported by the weight of the evidence.
And it is a single piece of the puzzle. The issue is the vast majority of the other ones lean Dallas as well.
Teams go from the bottom to the top of divisions and vice versa fairly often in the NFL. You can find examples every year.
Hell, let's use Dallas...
They went 4-12 in 2015 and then went 13-3 in 2016.
Was their 2015 record an indicator of their 2016 season? It most certainly was not.
The Raiders went from 3-13, to 7-9, to 12-4.
The Jets went from 4-12, to 10-6, to 5-11.
Carolina's last 4 seasons: 12 wins, 7 wins, 15 wins, 6 wins
Cincinnati went from 12-4 to 6-9-1.
The examples are endless.
You are citing anecdotes rather than stats. I predict the Jets will lose to the Pats on October 15. I predict the Browns will have a less than .500 record. I predict the Steelers will have a greater than .500 record. That is because they have been a winning team and the roster turnover is not complete from one year to the next. I suspect if you plot the W-L percentage in one year versus the W-L percentage in the next, that it would show a positive correlation.
Quote:
W/L is actually a pretty poor indicator of future success in this league.
Teams go from the bottom to the top of divisions and vice versa fairly often in the NFL. You can find examples every year.
Hell, let's use Dallas...
They went 4-12 in 2015 and then went 13-3 in 2016.
Was their 2015 record an indicator of their 2016 season? It most certainly was not.
The Raiders went from 3-13, to 7-9, to 12-4.
The Jets went from 4-12, to 10-6, to 5-11.
Carolina's last 4 seasons: 12 wins, 7 wins, 15 wins, 6 wins
Cincinnati went from 12-4 to 6-9-1.
The examples are endless.
You are citing anecdotes rather than stats. I predict the Jets will lose to the Pats on October 15. I predict the Browns will have a less than .500 record. I predict the Steelers will have a greater than .500 record. That is because they have been a winning team and the roster turnover is not complete from one year to the next. I suspect if you plot the W-L percentage in one year versus the W-L percentage in the next, that it would show a positive correlation.
13 teams had more wins in 2016 than 2015 and 13 had less. Average difference of 2.875 year over year.
Quote:
W/L is actually a pretty poor indicator of future success in this league.
Teams go from the bottom to the top of divisions and vice versa fairly often in the NFL. You can find examples every year.
Hell, let's use Dallas...
They went 4-12 in 2015 and then went 13-3 in 2016.
Was their 2015 record an indicator of their 2016 season? It most certainly was not.
The Raiders went from 3-13, to 7-9, to 12-4.
The Jets went from 4-12, to 10-6, to 5-11.
Carolina's last 4 seasons: 12 wins, 7 wins, 15 wins, 6 wins
Cincinnati went from 12-4 to 6-9-1.
The examples are endless.
You are citing anecdotes rather than stats. I predict the Jets will lose to the Pats on October 15. I predict the Browns will have a less than .500 record. I predict the Steelers will have a greater than .500 record. That is because they have been a winning team and the roster turnover is not complete from one year to the next. I suspect if you plot the W-L percentage in one year versus the W-L percentage in the next, that it would show a positive correlation.
You're using teams that are much more exceptions than norms to illustrate your point.
The Belichick-era Patriots are basically a complete anomaly at this point. What they've accomplished and the regularity of doing so is unparalleled in through the leagues entire history.
Conversely, Cleveland has been a doormat for the vast majority of their existence and the Steelers have like one losing season since the turn of the century.
Most teams in this league fluctuate far more in terms of record on a year-to-year basis.
That's not to say there's zero correlation between a team record one year to the next - but there are far too many instances of using W/L as a predictor being completely unreliable for it to be the basis of projection.
I can literally show you multiple teams from every single NFL season in history where the record from one season was not at all indicative of the record the next. There are far more of those than there are teams on the other end of the spectrum.
It is NOT the most meaningful! Your so tied to the stat and being so dense, that you're completely missing the point that it isn't meant to predict FUTURE seasons - it is meant to show within a season who is overperforming and underperforming.
There isn't a correlation to future seasons, and several people on this thread have pointed out the reasons why.
Just look at YAJ's posts, where he'll politely tell you you're full of shit, where I'm blatantly saying it.
That says nothing about what the Chiefs will do the following year, just that they outperformed their performance within a given year by three games.
Quote:
Sir Isaac, you're arguing that it's meaningless. It's actually the most meaningful. You've said repeatedly it has no correlation. That puts you on the wrong side of decades of examples.
It is NOT the most meaningful! Your so tied to the stat and being so dense, that you're completely missing the point that it isn't meant to predict FUTURE seasons - it is meant to show within a season who is overperforming and underperforming.
There isn't a correlation to future seasons, and several people on this thread have pointed out the reasons why.
It is the most meaningful. It is used to predict future seasons. There is a statistically significant correlation between seasons. You have yet to support a single position with anything outside of taunts you picked up on a playground. You want to disprove its use make an argument that goes beyond because I said so.
Denver did it most recently.
Outside of that.. I believe the Fisher Titans did it in 99-00. The Montana-era 49ers probably did. The Bills around 1990. The Bears in the mid-80's.
I'm pretty sure that's it.
And those were all teams that either played in or won Super Bowls.
If you think Dallas is winning 13 games again this coming season, history isn't on your side.
Quote:
In comment 13515002 arcarsenal said:
Quote:
W/L is actually a pretty poor indicator of future success in this league.
Teams go from the bottom to the top of divisions and vice versa fairly often in the NFL. You can find examples every year.
Hell, let's use Dallas...
They went 4-12 in 2015 and then went 13-3 in 2016.
Was their 2015 record an indicator of their 2016 season? It most certainly was not.
The Raiders went from 3-13, to 7-9, to 12-4.
The Jets went from 4-12, to 10-6, to 5-11.
Carolina's last 4 seasons: 12 wins, 7 wins, 15 wins, 6 wins
Cincinnati went from 12-4 to 6-9-1.
The examples are endless.
You are citing anecdotes rather than stats. I predict the Jets will lose to the Pats on October 15. I predict the Browns will have a less than .500 record. I predict the Steelers will have a greater than .500 record. That is because they have been a winning team and the roster turnover is not complete from one year to the next. I suspect if you plot the W-L percentage in one year versus the W-L percentage in the next, that it would show a positive correlation.
You're using teams that are much more exceptions than norms to illustrate your point.
The Belichick-era Patriots are basically a complete anomaly at this point. What they've accomplished and the regularity of doing so is unparalleled in through the leagues entire history.
Conversely, Cleveland has been a doormat for the vast majority of their existence and the Steelers have like one losing season since the turn of the century.
Most teams in this league fluctuate far more in terms of record on a year-to-year basis.
That's not to say there's zero correlation between a team record one year to the next - but there are far too many instances of using W/L as a predictor being completely unreliable for it to be the basis of projection.
I can literally show you multiple teams from every single NFL season in history where the record from one season was not at all indicative of the record the next. There are far more of those than there are teams on the other end of the spectrum.
There is a statistically significant autocorrelation of W-L percentages from one year to the next. The autocorrelation declines if you try to correlate current records 2 years back, even lower 3 years back, etc.
To say there is no information in last year's record is demonstrably untrue. All of the exceptions you state are valid, nothing is certain, but there is an underlying correlation. It makes sense because roster turnover is not complete one year to the next.
If I were a betting man, I would rather know the prior years record than nothing at all.
Denver did it most recently.
Outside of that.. I believe the Fisher Titans did it in 99-00. The Montana-era 49ers probably did. The Bills around 1990. The Bears in the mid-80's.
I'm pretty sure that's it.
And those were all teams that either played in or won Super Bowls.
If you think Dallas is winning 13 games again this coming season, history isn't on your side.
Nor is the almighty pythagorean theorem, which has Dallas at 9.26 wins
To say there is no information in last year's record is demonstrably untrue. All of the exceptions you state are valid, nothing is certain, but there is an underlying correlation. It makes sense because roster turnover is not complete one year to the next.
If I were a betting man, I would rather know the prior years record than nothing at all.
Well, I certainly never claimed there was no information in the prior years record or that I wouldn't want to know the team record from the most recent season if I were trying to project what they'd do in the upcoming one.
I just don't think it's a reliable indicator due to the frequency in which it has proven not to be.
Obviously "this has no value" and "this has limited value" are entirely different claims. The latter I believe, the former I do not.
You keep saying it is the most meaningful predictor of future seasons, yet have yet to prove that point at all. All you've shown is a quote that says it is better than point W-L record. That's it. Meanwhile, your example is showing how a team performs within a season, not beyond it.
I've made several arguments above - showing the fact that there is a nearly a 50% turnover in playoff teams from year to year, a number that stays relatively static. That there are a few divisions that have had an 80% or higher rate where the team that won the division one year finishes out of the playoffs the next.
If you choose not to heed those points, then I'm guessing the playground insults are more appropriate for your level of analysis, since it seems to be completely full of shit.
Quote:
There is a statistically significant autocorrelation of W-L percentages from one year to the next. The autocorrelation declines if you try to correlate current records 2 years back, even lower 3 years back, etc.
To say there is no information in last year's record is demonstrably untrue. All of the exceptions you state are valid, nothing is certain, but there is an underlying correlation. It makes sense because roster turnover is not complete one year to the next.
If I were a betting man, I would rather know the prior years record than nothing at all.
Well, I certainly never claimed there was no information in the prior years record or that I wouldn't want to know the team record from the most recent season if I were trying to project what they'd do in the upcoming one.
I just don't think it's a reliable indicator due to the frequency in which it has proven not to be.
Obviously "this has no value" and "this has limited value" are entirely different claims. The latter I believe, the former I do not.
14 of 32 teams had a net change in wins of 3 or more from 2015 to 2016.
The last team to do it was the Eagles from 2001-2004.
Quote:
It is the most meaningful. It is used to predict future seasons. There is a statistically significant correlation between seasons. You have yet to support a single position with anything outside of taunts you picked up on a playground. You want to disprove its use make an argument that goes beyond because I said so.
You keep saying it is the most meaningful predictor of future seasons, yet have yet to prove that point at all. All you've shown is a quote that says it is better than point W-L record. That's it. Meanwhile, your example is showing how a team performs within a season, not beyond it.
I've made several arguments above - showing the fact that there is a nearly a 50% turnover in playoff teams from year to year, a number that stays relatively static. That there are a few divisions that have had an 80% or higher rate where the team that won the division one year finishes out of the playoffs the next.
If you choose not to heed those points, then I'm guessing the playground insults are more appropriate for your level of analysis, since it seems to be completely full of shit.
And you keep saying it has no correlation. Here's the fun thing. All of the other measurements favor Dallas too. Bully for you.
What fucking measurements are you talking about? That they were better than us last year? No shit.
Last year was last year. It has little to do with this year.
When the Giants have a better record than the Cowboys this year, what the fuck will that mean? That we will lord over them for years to come?
Successive years have shown to have very little correlation. I'll repeat it again - there are two divisions in the NFL - the NFC South and the NFC East that have over 80% of the time seen the division winner one year MISS THE PLAYOFFS the next year. Just look at the post above me as to how effective the NFC East winner has been at repeating.
I don't even know what measurements you're debating - my point is that neither W-L record or some Pythagrian bullshit is accurate at predicting future seasons. Please show how it is or shut the fuck up.
Quote:
Quote:
It is the most meaningful. It is used to predict future seasons. There is a statistically significant correlation between seasons. You have yet to support a single position with anything outside of taunts you picked up on a playground. You want to disprove its use make an argument that goes beyond because I said so.
You keep saying it is the most meaningful predictor of future seasons, yet have yet to prove that point at all. All you've shown is a quote that says it is better than point W-L record. That's it. Meanwhile, your example is showing how a team performs within a season, not beyond it.
I've made several arguments above - showing the fact that there is a nearly a 50% turnover in playoff teams from year to year, a number that stays relatively static. That there are a few divisions that have had an 80% or higher rate where the team that won the division one year finishes out of the playoffs the next.
If you choose not to heed those points, then I'm guessing the playground insults are more appropriate for your level of analysis, since it seems to be completely full of shit.
And you keep saying it has no correlation. Here's the fun thing. All of the other measurements favor Dallas too. Bully for you.
The theorem was off by 3 or more wins on 14 of 32 teams for 2016.
Quote:
Quote:
It is the most meaningful. It is used to predict future seasons. There is a statistically significant correlation between seasons. You have yet to support a single position with anything outside of taunts you picked up on a playground. You want to disprove its use make an argument that goes beyond because I said so.
You keep saying it is the most meaningful predictor of future seasons, yet have yet to prove that point at all. All you've shown is a quote that says it is better than point W-L record. That's it. Meanwhile, your example is showing how a team performs within a season, not beyond it.
I've made several arguments above - showing the fact that there is a nearly a 50% turnover in playoff teams from year to year, a number that stays relatively static. That there are a few divisions that have had an 80% or higher rate where the team that won the division one year finishes out of the playoffs the next.
If you choose not to heed those points, then I'm guessing the playground insults are more appropriate for your level of analysis, since it seems to be completely full of shit.
And you keep saying it has no correlation. Here's the fun thing. All of the other measurements favor Dallas too. Bully for you.
Pray tell, what exactly are these "measurements" you're referring to? I'd love to see these...
Please show the correlation. If it is the BEST predictor, shouldn't there be countless references to this "formula"? Wouldn't bettors use it to gain an edge?
C'mon - it should be fairly easy to show that it is the best predictor of future success.
Quote:
The post basically says their margin of victory LAST YEAR translates to this year.
Quote:
Has gone 28-6 with their starting QB over the three last seasons.
Umm. Prescott was a rookie last year, so they went 13-3 with him. Have no idea what a record with the "starting QB" means anyway.
Its their record when they're not starting a backup QB.
The scoring margin is statistics. I'm not making it up. It's an established equation. And its based on year to year numbers. Not sure why its so hard to grasp but I'm assuming it's largely due to what it says.
Okay, here is some more sobering statistics for you: Since '96, the Dallas Cowboys have finished above .500 only once the year following a 10 plus win season (2008 they finished 9-7 good for 3rd in the division) and they havent once repeated as division champs. 7 of those times they finished 6-10 or worse.
So I guess that means youre looking at 9-7 or worse. Because, you know, its history...
Cmon, Greg - we don't acknowledge the instances where the prior years record failed to correlate to the following season. We're only talking about the times it did happen. Try and keep up!
TeamsAvg. Change in Wins-3 to -2 57 Improved by 2.6 wins
-2 to -1.5 44 Improved by 2.5 wins
-1.5 to -1 86 Improved by 2.0 wins.
-1 to -0.51 24 Improved by 0.6 wins
-0.5 to 0 119 Neither improved nor declined
0 to 0.5 123 Neither improved nor declined
0.5 to 1 127 Declined by 0.9 wins
1 to 1.5. 97 Declined by 1.5 wins
1.5 to 2. 66 Declined by 1.8 wins
2 to 3. 33 Declined by 2.5 wins
Their Pythagorean expectation predicted a regression. Hey thanks for the help. But injures is the answer.
Dallas won't get near the return as the Giants because they're heavily favored according to the odds. But that's math again so I'm sure it makes you uncomfortable.
Let me keep it on your level. Hurr Durr Coboys suk Eli rulez Flowers for MVP.
TeamsAvg. Change in Wins-3 to -2 57 Improved by 2.6 wins
-2 to -1.5 44 Improved by 2.5 wins
-1.5 to -1 86 Improved by 2.0 wins.
-1 to -0.51 24 Improved by 0.6 wins
-0.5 to 0 119 Neither improved nor declined
0 to 0.5 123 Neither improved nor declined
0.5 to 1 127 Declined by 0.9 wins
1 to 1.5. 97 Declined by 1.5 wins
1.5 to 2. 66 Declined by 1.8 wins
2 to 3. 33 Declined by 2.5 wins
Looking at all those historic years from 1983-2000ish is irrelevant considering the league was completely different due to FA. I'd like to see the data for all of 2011-2016 (ie current league rules)
For your period, almost 50% of teams were between-.5 to .5. For 2016, only 5 of 32 teams were between -.5 to .5.
Quote:
on your math if you're such a proponent of it. Come back at the end of the season and report back to us on your math.
Dallas won't get near the return as the Giants because they're heavily favored according to the odds. But that's math again so I'm sure it makes you uncomfortable.
Let me keep it on your level. Hurr Durr Coboys suk Eli rulez Flowers for MVP.
Duh, if the math supports it, then the returns would be less, but still, it's much less risk. So what's stopping you, other than your copout excuse? Grow a sack and bet the house on the Cowturds.
Quote:
In comment 13515186 David in LA said:
Quote:
on your math if you're such a proponent of it. Come back at the end of the season and report back to us on your math.
Dallas won't get near the return as the Giants because they're heavily favored according to the odds. But that's math again so I'm sure it makes you uncomfortable.
Let me keep it on your level. Hurr Durr Coboys suk Eli rulez Flowers for MVP.
Duh, if the math supports it, then the returns would be less, but still, it's much less risk. So what's stopping you, other than your copout excuse? Grow a sack and bet the house on the Cowturds.
This is what happens when you're unable to keep up with the adult discussion. Take your toys back to the kiddie table since its obvious you're out of your depth here. I never made a single unqualified contention. Sorry that you're only able to knock down arguments no one is making. I'm sure that's quite frustrating for you in many aspects of life. I'd be happy to offer you some basic instruction in logic for a nominal fee. Ask your old lady for my number.
Not worth it, imo. Simply a guy who is convinced his team is improved and should be the favorite to repeat as division champs. Anyone who believes this given the history of the league over the last 20 years is foolhardy. Exception for Patriots fans, for obvious reasons, and possibly a few other teams with less competition in their division. The Cowboys and the NFC east are neither of these things, but elbowj doesn't care or is looking beyond that.
Quote:
Expected Wins vs. Actual Wins
TeamsAvg. Change in Wins-3 to -2 57 Improved by 2.6 wins
-2 to -1.5 44 Improved by 2.5 wins
-1.5 to -1 86 Improved by 2.0 wins.
-1 to -0.51 24 Improved by 0.6 wins
-0.5 to 0 119 Neither improved nor declined
0 to 0.5 123 Neither improved nor declined
0.5 to 1 127 Declined by 0.9 wins
1 to 1.5. 97 Declined by 1.5 wins
1.5 to 2. 66 Declined by 1.8 wins
2 to 3. 33 Declined by 2.5 wins
Looking at all those historic years from 1983-2000ish is irrelevant considering the league was completely different due to FA. I'd like to see the data for all of 2011-2016 (ie current league rules)
For your period, almost 50% of teams were between-.5 to .5. For 2016, only 5 of 32 teams were between -.5 to .5.
I was reading a book on analytic methods in sports (Severini if I recall). He claimed (actually showed) the autocorrelation from one year to the next declined with the advent of the salary cap era, which I suppose is what the salary cap was supposed to do. Football has a lower autocorrelation from one year to the next than baseball does, which is also interesting.
Not worth it, imo. Simply a guy who is convinced his team is improved and should be the favorite to repeat as division champs. Anyone who believes this given the history of the league over the last 20 years is foolhardy. Exception for Patriots fans, for obvious reasons, and possibly a few other teams with less competition in their division. The Cowboys and the NFC east are neither of these things, but elbowj doesn't care or is looking beyond that.
I engaged rational individuals rationally. Dude's I responded to weren't able to formulate a point that didn't attack me so I returned the favor.
Quote:
There is a statistically significant autocorrelation of W-L percentages from one year to the next. The autocorrelation declines if you try to correlate current records 2 years back, even lower 3 years back, etc.
To say there is no information in last year's record is demonstrably untrue. All of the exceptions you state are valid, nothing is certain, but there is an underlying correlation. It makes sense because roster turnover is not complete one year to the next.
If I were a betting man, I would rather know the prior years record than nothing at all.
Well, I certainly never claimed there was no information in the prior years record or that I wouldn't want to know the team record from the most recent season if I were trying to project what they'd do in the upcoming one.
I just don't think it's a reliable indicator due to the frequency in which it has proven not to be.
Obviously "this has no value" and "this has limited value" are entirely different claims. The latter I believe, the former I do not.
That's all I was trying to say.
Quote:
I thought this guy was better than a troll. I gave him a chance at a reasonable conversation. Here he is stooping to insults.
Not worth it, imo. Simply a guy who is convinced his team is improved and should be the favorite to repeat as division champs. Anyone who believes this given the history of the league over the last 20 years is foolhardy. Exception for Patriots fans, for obvious reasons, and possibly a few other teams with less competition in their division. The Cowboys and the NFC east are neither of these things, but elbowj doesn't care or is looking beyond that.
I engaged rational individuals rationally. Dude's I responded to weren't able to formulate a point that didn't attack me so I returned the favor.
If you want to be taken seriously on this or other team's forums I would encourage you to simply avoid posters who don't make compelling arguments than to post as you have here. We have several posters from other teams who have been able to do so. You are not off to a great start in that regard.
Quote:
In comment 13515242 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
I thought this guy was better than a troll. I gave him a chance at a reasonable conversation. Here he is stooping to insults.
Not worth it, imo. Simply a guy who is convinced his team is improved and should be the favorite to repeat as division champs. Anyone who believes this given the history of the league over the last 20 years is foolhardy. Exception for Patriots fans, for obvious reasons, and possibly a few other teams with less competition in their division. The Cowboys and the NFC east are neither of these things, but elbowj doesn't care or is looking beyond that.
I engaged rational individuals rationally. Dude's I responded to weren't able to formulate a point that didn't attack me so I returned the favor.
If you want to be taken seriously on this or other team's forums I would encourage you to simply avoid posters who don't make compelling arguments than to post as you have here. We have several posters from other teams who have been able to do so. You are not off to a great start in that regard.
Can't disagree with any of that.
My point is anyone who thinks Dallas is set for a collapse is in the distinct minority.
I'd wager the same is true for NYG.
Quote:
on your math if you're such a proponent of it. Come back at the end of the season and report back to us on your math.
Dallas won't get near the return as the Giants because they're heavily favored according to the odds. But that's math again so I'm sure it makes you uncomfortable.
Let me keep it on your level. Hurr Durr Coboys suk Eli rulez Flowers for MVP.
Dallas has undoubtedly been favored to appear in more super bowl since 2000 than the NY Giants have. Do you really want to dispute that there math boy?? If memory serves the giants have been to three, winning two, and both wins coming at the direct expense of those shit stained overrated cowboys we know and love.
Take your math and vegas horse shit odds and blow yourself.
Quote:
I thought this guy was better than a troll. I gave him a chance at a reasonable conversation. Here he is stooping to insults.
Not worth it, imo. Simply a guy who is convinced his team is improved and should be the favorite to repeat as division champs. Anyone who believes this given the history of the league over the last 20 years is foolhardy. Exception for Patriots fans, for obvious reasons, and possibly a few other teams with less competition in their division. The Cowboys and the NFC east are neither of these things, but elbowj doesn't care or is looking beyond that.
I engaged rational individuals rationally. Dude's I responded to weren't able to formulate a point that didn't attack me so I returned the favor.
No, you only seem to want to point to statistics that support this ridiculous idea that your success from last year is probably going to lead to more this year. I disproved your highlighting of the stats of your team from ONE with my post that covered the last 2 decades of Dallas football.
The FACTS are that your team, since Johnson left as HC, has been horribly inconsistent following a year of success and you didnt add any assets of real value, but in FACT lost quite a few starters. Meanwhile, the Giants added two more playmakers (indisputable playmakers), and a blockibg TE. So how exactly are your stats FROM LAST YEAR, and with, in essence, a team with less returning starters, more of a correlation to Dallas' success this year?
Sounds to me like your a pompous, introverted yet fervent Dallas fan who thinks he is smarter than people on a rival's message board and is using numbers to try and validate this faux mental superiority.
Quote:
In comment 13515255 elbowj said:
Quote:
In comment 13515242 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
I thought this guy was better than a troll. I gave him a chance at a reasonable conversation. Here he is stooping to insults.
Not worth it, imo. Simply a guy who is convinced his team is improved and should be the favorite to repeat as division champs. Anyone who believes this given the history of the league over the last 20 years is foolhardy. Exception for Patriots fans, for obvious reasons, and possibly a few other teams with less competition in their division. The Cowboys and the NFC east are neither of these things, but elbowj doesn't care or is looking beyond that.
I engaged rational individuals rationally. Dude's I responded to weren't able to formulate a point that didn't attack me so I returned the favor.
If you want to be taken seriously on this or other team's forums I would encourage you to simply avoid posters who don't make compelling arguments than to post as you have here. We have several posters from other teams who have been able to do so. You are not off to a great start in that regard.
Can't disagree with any of that.
My point is anyone who thinks Dallas is set for a collapse is in the distinct minority.
I'd wager the same is true for NYG.
You also like to put words in people's mouths huh? Nobody is saying that the Cowboys are going to collapse. Everybody here is saying the Giants got better and Dallas got worse. We are also saying that we are going to be better than you next year. Not hard to understand.
Now go ahead and string together some matrices about why your team is going to go 13-3 again fart breath.
Dude, take a look in the mirror. Get a friend, a girl, a dog.
Quote:
In comment 13515308 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
In comment 13515255 elbowj said:
Quote:
In comment 13515242 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
I thought this guy was better than a troll. I gave him a chance at a reasonable conversation. Here he is stooping to insults.
Not worth it, imo. Simply a guy who is convinced his team is improved and should be the favorite to repeat as division champs. Anyone who believes this given the history of the league over the last 20 years is foolhardy. Exception for Patriots fans, for obvious reasons, and possibly a few other teams with less competition in their division. The Cowboys and the NFC east are neither of these things, but elbowj doesn't care or is looking beyond that.
I engaged rational individuals rationally. Dude's I responded to weren't able to formulate a point that didn't attack me so I returned the favor.
If you want to be taken seriously on this or other team's forums I would encourage you to simply avoid posters who don't make compelling arguments than to post as you have here. We have several posters from other teams who have been able to do so. You are not off to a great start in that regard.
Can't disagree with any of that.
My point is anyone who thinks Dallas is set for a collapse is in the distinct minority.
I'd wager the same is true for NYG.
You also like to put words in people's mouths huh? Nobody is saying that the Cowboys are going to collapse. Everybody here is saying the Giants got better and Dallas got worse. We are also saying that we are going to be better than you next year. Not hard to understand.
Now go ahead and string together some matrices about why your team is going to go 13-3 again fart breath.
The belief that NYG will be better than Dallas in 2017 is a minority position. Go back through this thread and get back to me on what Giants fans think of Dallas. I've never argued that Dallas would be 13-3 again and don't expect them to. But I'm sensing a pattern of people who substitute easy arguments no one is making in lieu of actual discussion of what's been said. I could postulate various reasons for such a prevalent habit but I'll leave it to you to figure out.
Quote:
In comment 13515335 elbowj said:
Quote:
In comment 13515308 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
In comment 13515255 elbowj said:
Quote:
In comment 13515242 Dan in the Springs said:
Quote:
I thought this guy was better than a troll. I gave him a chance at a reasonable conversation. Here he is stooping to insults.
Not worth it, imo. Simply a guy who is convinced his team is improved and should be the favorite to repeat as division champs. Anyone who believes this given the history of the league over the last 20 years is foolhardy. Exception for Patriots fans, for obvious reasons, and possibly a few other teams with less competition in their division. The Cowboys and the NFC east are neither of these things, but elbowj doesn't care or is looking beyond that.
I engaged rational individuals rationally. Dude's I responded to weren't able to formulate a point that didn't attack me so I returned the favor.
If you want to be taken seriously on this or other team's forums I would encourage you to simply avoid posters who don't make compelling arguments than to post as you have here. We have several posters from other teams who have been able to do so. You are not off to a great start in that regard.
Can't disagree with any of that.
My point is anyone who thinks Dallas is set for a collapse is in the distinct minority.
I'd wager the same is true for NYG.
You also like to put words in people's mouths huh? Nobody is saying that the Cowboys are going to collapse. Everybody here is saying the Giants got better and Dallas got worse. We are also saying that we are going to be better than you next year. Not hard to understand.
Now go ahead and string together some matrices about why your team is going to go 13-3 again fart breath.
The belief that NYG will be better than Dallas in 2017 is a minority position. Go back through this thread and get back to me on what Giants fans think of Dallas. I've never argued that Dallas would be 13-3 again and don't expect them to. But I'm sensing a pattern of people who substitute easy arguments no one is making in lieu of actual discussion of what's been said. I could postulate various reasons for such a prevalent habit but I'll leave it to you to figure out.
Still you dont counter my argument which is cogent and lucid and completely obliterates your argument. I never said they would be 13-3. I pointed out that based on history, your team has rarely been only slightly above .500 playing a first place schedule. Your ONLY argument is that based on some offensive metrics that are very favorable to what your team accomplished LAST year, playing a last place schedule, and dismissing the fairly significant improvements divisional rivals made to their teams, that the smart money says that picking any team but the Cowboys is mathmatically incorrect. Yet you have not challenged my argument regarding your team's inability to play well against a first place schedule over two fucking decades. Your argument is TERRIBLE.
You probably dont have many friends to watch games with. You probably look like Jonah Hill.
Denver did it most recently.
Outside of that.. I believe the Fisher Titans did it in 99-00. The Montana-era 49ers probably did. The Bills around 1990. The Bears in the mid-80's.
I'm pretty sure that's it.
And those were all teams that either played in or won Super Bowls.
If you think Dallas is winning 13 games again this coming season, history isn't on your side.
It's super hard to do 13+ two years in a row. To do 12-4 two years in a row has been done a lot more times by comparison.
SF only did it once...89-90. 14-2 in both seasons.
The Niner era under Walsh/Seifert/Mariucci only produced five 13+ win seasons over a 20 year span.....'84, '89, '90, '92, '94, '97. The majority of those remaining years were 10-12 win seasons.
Patriots have done it twice....back to back 14-2 in '03/'04, then 14-2 and 13-3 over '10 and '11.
Bears were 15-1 then 14-2 in '85-'86, then put up a last hurrah 12-4 in '88 before fading out from championship ball for a long time.
Even the vaunted '90s Cowboys only won 13 games just once. I just checked and can't believe it. 13-3 in '92 followed by three seasons of 12-4. Maybe some of it was a week 17 lay down, but still....they were battling for NFC #1 seed with SF each of those years.
So to sum up by franchises (back to back 13+ win seasons):
Patriots - 2*
49ers - 1
Broncos - 1
Bears - 1
Steelers - 0
Cowboys - 0
* - 3 is pending a 13+ win campaign in 2017.
Takes a mix of having a HoF QB, dynasty level talent and/or historic defense to pull it off, none of which the Cowboys currently have.
Really, about the only true reasonable expectation of a great team is the ability to win 10+ games year in and year out.
To my knowledge nothing prior to 1978 when the NFL went to a 16 game schedule. If Pittsburgh couldn't do it, doubt anyone else can without verifying.
Cam Newton
Colin Kaepernick
Robert Griffin III
Russell Wilson
All had statistically poorer seasons in year 2, efficiency wise and all that.
Wilson's team won more games but only because the defense was significantly better.
Now if he is like Derek Carr that will be a different story.
I don't see Prescott's anticipated drop to be offset by other factors on the team. But it might still be a successful 10+ win season or mere playoff birth.
The interesting parallel to Kaepernick is/was the ability to do well against the rest of the division/league except one team. And Kap was still able to beat the Seahawks the year they won the Super Bowl.
elbowj : 6/29/2017 4:10 pm : link : reply
Expected Wins vs. Actual Wins
TeamsAvg. Change in Wins-3 to -2 57 Improved by 2.6 wins
-2 to -1.5 44 Improved by 2.5 wins
-1.5 to -1 86 Improved by 2.0 wins.
-1 to -0.51 24 Improved by 0.6 wins
-0.5 to 0 119 Neither improved nor declined
0 to 0.5 123 Neither improved nor declined
0.5 to 1 127 Declined by 0.9 wins
1 to 1.5. 97 Declined by 1.5 wins
1.5 to 2. 66 Declined by 1.8 wins
2 to 3. 33 Declined by 2.5 wins
It is a grouping of statistics that isn't predicting future success or failures, and isn't even statistically relevant - YAJ already explained why.
When you tell people to look at the "math", then you should understand it yourself and stop saying things like point differential is the BEST predictor of future success. It isn't. It is one statistic - and one that isn't predictive - even based on the best "math" you're trying to post here.
Cowboys
Redskins
barring catastrophe injuries, should be the final standings heading into January
some people talk about them like they are this unstoppable juggernaut ... as if the giants didn't sweep them last year and had a much better offseason
But they have all the "measurements" on their side. We don't know what fucking measurements they are, but they are swimming in them.
Stats might not be the only field of math that's a struggle - perhaps proof?
Cam Newton
Colin Kaepernick
Robert Griffin III
Russell Wilson
All had statistically poorer seasons in year 2, efficiency wise and all that.
Wilson's team won more games but only because the defense was significantly better.
Now if he is like Derek Carr that will be a different story.
I don't see Prescott's anticipated drop to be offset by other factors on the team. But it might still be a successful 10+ win season or mere playoff birth.
The interesting parallel to Kaepernick is/was the ability to do well against the rest of the division/league except one team. And Kap was still able to beat the Seahawks the year they won the Super Bowl.
elbowj - remember I said how there were certain fans of other teams whose contributions are valued here? NINEster is one who came to mind immediately. He has occasionally gotten into it with other posters - he defends his team but is realistic, and he doesn't ever stoop to bad behaviors. He's a good poster, imo.
Having said that - I think you get the point and if you're really interested in good football chat from a Giants fan perspective this is a great place. Don't let your first attempts here keep you from enjoying it. Also, don't get caught up in the double-standard that long time, knowledgeable football posters enjoy here where they are valued and still make personal attacks. It's a Giants site - there is always going to be some bashing of rivals.
Cam Newton
Colin Kaepernick
Robert Griffin III
Russell Wilson
All had statistically poorer seasons in year 2, efficiency wise and all that.
Wilson's team won more games but only because the defense was significantly better.
Now if he is like Derek Carr that will be a different story.
I don't see Prescott's anticipated drop to be offset by other factors on the team. But it might still be a successful 10+ win season or mere playoff birth.
The interesting parallel to Kaepernick is/was the ability to do well against the rest of the division/league except one team. And Kap was still able to beat the Seahawks the year they won the Super Bowl.
Dak is mobile. But he runs at a much lower rate than any of these comps. Cam 126, RG3 120, Russ 94, Kap 63 In 7 starts, Dak 57. His rushing attempts are closer to Eli in his first full season than any of those guys for example. And Russ saw a bump in TD:int ratio, rate, y/a.
There are 6-7 games that on paper should be tough.
@ Eagles
@ Bucs
@Broncos
Seahawks
Chiefs
@Raiders
@Cards
Better offense....same D. The Giants are in each of these games. Honestly....11-5 would probably be a great season. Too much travel, too many teams off byes and a tough NFCE for a 12+ win season IMO.
Damn sure not a team that the Giants swept last year... that's for sure.
Quote:
Who exactly are we to be afraid of this year?
Damn sure not a team that the Giants swept last year... that's for sure.
Last year doesn't matter...until it suits the argument
Quote:
In comment 13515791 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
Who exactly are we to be afraid of this year?
Damn sure not a team that the Giants swept last year... that's for sure.
Last year doesn't matter...until it suits the argument
Last year doesn't matter.... in the sense you're trying suit your argument.
Quote:
In comment 13516575 T-Bone said:
Quote:
In comment 13515791 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
Who exactly are we to be afraid of this year?
Damn sure not a team that the Giants swept last year... that's for sure.
Last year doesn't matter...until it suits the argument
Last year doesn't matter.... in the sense you're trying suit your argument.
... you're trying TO suit your...
Giants defense still has all pro talent at several positions
Giants offense has greatly improved the talent level at TE
Brandon Marshall >> Victor Cruz
Shepard year 2, rave reviews all offseason
Perkins year 2, highly productive when actually given the ball
Dallas offseason;
OL reshuffle
Suspensions
...
I can not wait for week 1's blowout.
Giants defense still has all pro talent at several positions
Giants offense has greatly improved the talent level at TE
Brandon Marshall >> Victor Cruz
Shepard year 2, rave reviews all offseason
Perkins year 2, highly productive when actually given the ball
Dallas offseason;
OL reshuffle
Suspensions
...
I can not wait for week 1's blowout.
Facts:
Dallas won more games than NYG
Dallas blew out a bunch of teams NYG struggled with
Dallas had a top 5 offense, NYG had a bottom five offense
NYG was second in points allowed, Dallas was fifth
Dallas is favored by nearly a touchdown over NY
Dallas is favored to win the NFC East, NY is not
Dallas is considered a top 5 team, NY is not
Second year players: Dallas had the highest AV from a draft in NFL history. Find a new angle
Dallas has the one of the best OL in the NFL, NYG has one of the worst. Find a new angle
Brandon Marshall was outplayed by a UDFA
Evan Engram isn't a TE
1 guy was suspended
You're not going to enjoy getting blown out
Quote:
Giants swept Dallas
Giants defense still has all pro talent at several positions
Giants offense has greatly improved the talent level at TE
Brandon Marshall >> Victor Cruz
Shepard year 2, rave reviews all offseason
Perkins year 2, highly productive when actually given the ball
Dallas offseason;
OL reshuffle
Suspensions
...
I can not wait for week 1's blowout.
Facts:
Dallas won more games than NYG
Dallas blew out a bunch of teams NYG struggled with
Dallas had a top 5 offense, NYG had a bottom five offense
NYG was second in points allowed, Dallas was fifth
Dallas is favored by nearly a touchdown over NY
Dallas is favored to win the NFC East, NY is not
Dallas is considered a top 5 team, NY is not
Second year players: Dallas had the highest AV from a draft in NFL history. Find a new angle
Dallas has the one of the best OL in the NFL, NYG has one of the worst. Find a new angle
Brandon Marshall was outplayed by a UDFA
Evan Engram isn't a TE
1 guy was suspended
You're not going to enjoy getting blown out
I see a few alternative facts in there but whatever. We'll find out soon enough.
Quote:
In comment 13515791 Big Blue '56 said:
Quote:
Who exactly are we to be afraid of this year?
Damn sure not a team that the Giants swept last year... that's for sure.
Last year doesn't matter...until it suits the argument
Omg, that one stat is a helluva lot more valid than any of the shit you posted.
And yet you still havent answered my argument. Stuff like this is what gets you clowned on BBI.
How old are you? Im guessing early 20s?
Quote:
Giants swept Dallas
Giants defense still has all pro talent at several positions
Giants offense has greatly improved the talent level at TE
Brandon Marshall >> Victor Cruz
Shepard year 2, rave reviews all offseason
Perkins year 2, highly productive when actually given the ball
Dallas offseason;
OL reshuffle
Suspensions
...
I can not wait for week 1's blowout.
Facts:
Dallas won more games than NYG
Dallas blew out a bunch of teams NYG struggled with
Dallas had a top 5 offense, NYG had a bottom five offense
NYG was second in points allowed, Dallas was fifth
Dallas is favored by nearly a touchdown over NY
Dallas is favored to win the NFC East, NY is not
Dallas is considered a top 5 team, NY is not
Second year players: Dallas had the highest AV from a draft in NFL history. Find a new angle
Dallas has the one of the best OL in the NFL, NYG has one of the worst. Find a new angle
Brandon Marshall was outplayed by a UDFA
Evan Engram isn't a TE
1 guy was suspended
You're not going to enjoy getting blown out
You really are the worst. Would you kindly supply your email address in your profile so that if you get your asses kicked week one and dont show up to take your medicine we can force feed it to you?
And wait, Evan Engram isnt a TE.
Here is the only fact you need to know: we beat you both times last year. And we should have beaten you worse.
Go read your Playgirl.
Yep, they suck. If it weren't for the refs helping them they would be the Browns of the NFC East.
you all kill me....
Quote:
Giants swept Dallas
Giants defense still has all pro talent at several positions
Giants offense has greatly improved the talent level at TE
Brandon Marshall >> Victor Cruz
Shepard year 2, rave reviews all offseason
Perkins year 2, highly productive when actually given the ball
Dallas offseason;
OL reshuffle
Suspensions
...
I can not wait for week 1's blowout.
Facts:
Dallas won more games than NYG
Dallas blew out a bunch of teams NYG struggled with
Dallas had a top 5 offense, NYG had a bottom five offense
NYG was second in points allowed, Dallas was fifth
Dallas is favored by nearly a touchdown over NY
Dallas is favored to win the NFC East, NY is not
Dallas is considered a top 5 team, NY is not
Second year players: Dallas had the highest AV from a draft in NFL history. Find a new angle
Dallas has the one of the best OL in the NFL, NYG has one of the worst. Find a new angle
Brandon Marshall was outplayed by a UDFA
Evan Engram isn't a TE
1 guy was suspended
You're not going to enjoy getting blown out
So Evan Engram isn't a TE? That's a fact? And what if he's lethal anyway?
Here's a fact for you. Dallas fans are the lowest form of life on this planet. I have proof.
Find a new angle and shove it.
Eli has made his bones against Dallas and I don't care about his head to head record with Dallas which is around 500 or so, maybe slightly over. More often than not Eli has shredded Dallas and the bigger the game the better he's played.
I respect the talent Dallas has. I respect the coaching staff. Dallas should be a pain in the ass to deal with. But they are far far far from dominant or flawless and they will need to improve defensively on the backs of a lot of ifs. Deny that and you're a fucking fool. And denying that the giants improved their offense is crap. Oline warts and all Eli still get sacked a lot and the running game slowly improved as 2016 progressed. If the running game picks up where it left off in 2016 and the 3 other additions help even a little bit, the NFL is in big trouble. And you know it's true. We've got the qb with the pelts. So fuck off this shit.
Most feel that NY had the better offseason and should be favored to win the division this year.
The Dallas offseason was not the disaster most believe. The big question is the secondary. Before the draft and OTAs I would have agreed. But since then I've softened my stand. The best part of the OTAs was the play of the secondary. This was the supposed weakness of the defense but I believe it will be the story for Dallas's success this year. Training camp will tell better, but I'm getting a good vibe from this bunch.
The other question mark was the OL losing two starters. Collins has laid claim to the starting RT spot replacing Free. This is a wash and in the running game it's a plus. Collins will be able to get to the second level better and Elliott will have longer gains running to the right this year.
The second hole is at LG. Training camp will decide which player will be the starter. It will be between four players, Cooper, Looney, Green, or Bell. The winner will be the weak link on the line, but the losers will provide tremendous depth.
My point is the two areas in the offseason were Dallas lost players and were perceived weakness, will not turn out that way.
Most feel that NY had the better offseason and should be favored to win the division this year.
The Dallas offseason was not the disaster most believe. The big question is the secondary. Before the draft and OTAs I would have agreed. But since then I've softened my stand. The best part of the OTAs was the play of the secondary. This was the supposed weakness of the defense but I believe it will be the story for Dallas's success this year. Training camp will tell better, but I'm getting a good vibe from this bunch.
The other question mark was the OL losing two starters. Collins has laid claim to the starting RT spot replacing Free. This is a wash and in the running game it's a plus. Collins will be able to get to the second level better and Elliott will have longer gains running to the right this year.
The second hole is at LG. Training camp will decide which player will be the starter. It will be between four players, Cooper, Looney, Green, or Bell. The winner will be the weak link on the line, but the losers will provide tremendous depth.
My point is the two areas in the offseason were Dallas lost players and were perceived weakness, will not turn out that way.
You're getting a good "vibe" from the secondary based on OTAs? What a convincing argument. As rock solid as the other Dallas fan pretending to be the smartest guy in the room with his bullshit math formulas.
Quote:
What's new.
Most feel that NY had the better offseason and should be favored to win the division this year.
The Dallas offseason was not the disaster most believe. The big question is the secondary. Before the draft and OTAs I would have agreed. But since then I've softened my stand. The best part of the OTAs was the play of the secondary. This was the supposed weakness of the defense but I believe it will be the story for Dallas's success this year. Training camp will tell better, but I'm getting a good vibe from this bunch.
The other question mark was the OL losing two starters. Collins has laid claim to the starting RT spot replacing Free. This is a wash and in the running game it's a plus. Collins will be able to get to the second level better and Elliott will have longer gains running to the right this year.
The second hole is at LG. Training camp will decide which player will be the starter. It will be between four players, Cooper, Looney, Green, or Bell. The winner will be the weak link on the line, but the losers will provide tremendous depth.
My point is the two areas in the offseason were Dallas lost players and were perceived weakness, will not turn out that way.
You're getting a good "vibe" from the secondary based on OTAs? What a convincing argument. As rock solid as the other Dallas fan pretending to be the smartest guy in the room with his bullshit math formulas.
Agreed..Amazing how ANYONE puts any credence into shorts and shells and 7 on 7s..Enjoy the OTAs? Fine..Put any significance into it? Extremely silly imv
Since Marinelli became the DC the Dallas defense has been a question mark and every year they have exceeded expectations. Once again this year will be no different. I don't expect this defense to be a top defense, but I expect that it will be more than good enough to win because of a surprising secondary.
Dallas always gets the love this time of year. In this case it's a little more warranted but if I had a dollar for every summer Dallas received over the top praise and expectations I'd be better off.
It's going to be fun watching Sean Lee run around in circles all game ...
Dallas always gets the love this time of year. In this case it's a little more warranted but if I had a dollar for every summer Dallas received over the top praise and expectations I'd be better off.
That's exactly why these two on this thread are Dallas fans. They fell hook, line and sinker for the Dallas Cowboys hype when they were little turds. They chose as youngsters to go with the "popular" team because of the ridiculous hype the media gives them. Neither one could point out Dallas on a map of put within 30 miles of it, but hey, follow the crowd!
dallas is relying on the worst cb cut by the eagles and a bunch of mid round draft choices to turn around thier defence they are also banking on jaylon smith and have already lost several DL players to bans for the start of the season (irvin and gregory yet again) they lose too many games early the pressure will tell on the young players in dallas and the clamour for romo if they go 1-4 or 2-5 will only make things worse
that secondry will be even weaker than it was already after losing carr,claiborne,church and wilcox and will have to deal with an improved WR corp on every team in the division
everyone in the division also beefed up thier DL's to better deal with the cowboys running game which will struggle to score and a defence that is likely to give up more big plays and points all equals a far poorer record
they are also now locked into dak and zeke with a full years tape on these guys teams will be better prepared to deal with them and if they regress that will cost them wins too i see sub 500 for them (5-6 wins)with redskins around the 7-8 wins mark and the eagles and giants fighting it out for the division 8-11 win range the inter divisional games will decide who wins out in all likelyhood
Why?
Because that is what happens when we play NFCE divisional games...
dallas is relying on the worst cb cut by the eagles and a bunch of mid round draft choices to turn around thier defence they are also banking on jaylon smith and have already lost several DL players to bans for the start of the season (irvin and gregory yet again) they lose too many games early the pressure will tell on the young players in dallas and the clamour for romo if they go 1-4 or 2-5 will only make things worse
that secondry will be even weaker than it was already after losing carr,claiborne,church and wilcox and will have to deal with an improved WR corp on every team in the division
everyone in the division also beefed up thier DL's to better deal with the cowboys running game which will struggle to score and a defence that is likely to give up more big plays and points all equals a far poorer record
they are also now locked into dak and zeke with a full years tape on these guys teams will be better prepared to deal with them and if they regress that will cost them wins too i see sub 500 for them (5-6 wins)with redskins around the 7-8 wins mark and the eagles and giants fighting it out for the division 8-11 win range the inter divisional games will decide who wins out in all likelyhood
Exhibit B.
"dallas is relying on the worst cb cut by the eagles"
No. He wasn't and they're not relying on him. He's also picked off Eli in two of the last three games.
"to turn around thier defence they are also banking on jaylon smith"
No. Value added if he's there. If not they have the same guys who allowed all of .8 points more than the vaunted Giants
"they lose too many games early the pressure will tell on the young players in dallas and the clamour for romo if they go 1-4 or 2-5 will only make things worse"
Where do you come up with this stuff?
"that secondry will be even weaker than it was already"
Hey your secondary sucks. Let's guys go. Hey you suck now because you let those guys leave. I too enjoy some cognitive dissonance. Fun fact. Dallas went without some of those guys last season with no draft picks. Went undefeated.
"everyone in the division also beefed up thier DL's to better deal with the cowboys running game which will struggle to score"
Absolute delusion here. Chris Baker was Washingtons best DL. He's no longer in Washington. Bennie Logan and Jonathan Hankins also exited stage left. Dallas running game having trouble scoring. Let's see, Dallas rushing TDs #2. Where did the Giants end up there? Oh last in the NFL. Good show mate.
"they are also now locked into dak and zeke with a full years tape on these guys teams will be better prepared to deal with them"
Teams had tape on them last season. They run an offense that's been around for decades. They still improved as the season progressed. Dak went for 17 TDs and 3 picks from November to January.
Dallas always gets the love this time of year. In this case it's a little more warranted but if I had a dollar for every summer Dallas received over the top praise and expectations I'd be better off.
Quote:
But their d was, is and will be a problem until proven otherwise. Maybe they hit on all those draft picks. Stranger things have happened. But they dont have a good front four. They have good lbs, maybe great if smith pans out and a shaky secondary that needs a lot of ifs to pan out.
Dallas always gets the love this time of year. In this case it's a little more warranted but if I had a dollar for every summer Dallas received over the top praise and expectations I'd be better off.
no way the Dallas defense is as good, at least not to start the season. If Eli doesn't get 350 against that secondary we are doing something wrong.
He put up around 350 three times last season. Put up 2 TDs with 5 Elis and went 1-2. He's averaged 190 yards his last 4 against Dallas though.
The secondary is young and athletic and brought a lot of energy and enthusiasm during OTAs. This year it helps that there are 5 weeks in training camp. Can't wait to see how this unit develops.
The secondary is young and athletic and brought a lot of energy and enthusiasm during OTAs. This year it helps that there are 5 weeks in training camp. Can't wait to see how this unit develops.
The giants OL will be fine. The starting OTs will be Hart and Flowers (flowers was the best olineman during OTAs) and both are entering their respective prime. Pugh is a borderline pro bowler who makes it if not for injury. Jerry is one of the better pass blocking guards in football and richburh is an emerging star at center.
The nyg OL is cohesive and brings a lot of energy and enthusiasm during practice. It's hungry and determined to prove the naysayers wrong. Can't wait to see how things develop.
Quote:
just fine. The starting CBs will be Scandrick and Brown(best player during OTAs). The slot will be Awuize, rounding out are Lewis and White. The safeties are Jones and Heath with the backups being Frazier, Woods, and Blanton.
The secondary is young and athletic and brought a lot of energy and enthusiasm during OTAs. This year it helps that there are 5 weeks in training camp. Can't wait to see how this unit develops.
The giants OL will be fine. The starting OTs will be Hart and Flowers (flowers was the best olineman during OTAs) and both are entering their respective prime. Pugh is a borderline pro bowler who makes it if not for injury. Jerry is one of the better pass blocking guards in football and richburh is an emerging star at center.
The nyg OL is cohesive and brings a lot of energy and enthusiasm during practice. It's hungry and determined to prove the naysayers wrong. Can't wait to see how things develop.
Scandrick and Brown actually have a history of solid performance in the NFL. Flowers and Hart...
The Dallas Cowboys finished with the third-best spread record at 10-5-1 ATS.
Looks like some more conventional wisdom on BBI.
It went way over your head. He was mocking the post that he replied to, from the fanatic clown.
Quote:
barring a significant injury or a stupid line, I'm putting a ton of money on nyg for the first game of the season; I imagine the line will be something like DAL -5, which I think is asinine. (I made a ton of money that Thanksgiving game where Romo came back at home against Carolina; the spreads often overrate Dallas.)
The Dallas Cowboys finished with the third-best spread record at 10-5-1 ATS.
Looks like some more conventional wisdom on BBI.
Actually, they were 10-7 against the spread last year, including the playoff game where they got walloped, according to this site: https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/trends/ats_trends/
Also, way to use a significant data set. According to the same website, since 2003 (as far back as it goes), they are 22nd in the NFL against the spread, and worst in the NFC East. You don't try too hard, huh. And, in any event, I've gotten paid off of the un-deserved Romo lovefest. What did you get out of it?
Quote:
In comment 13518063 Mike from SI said:
Quote:
barring a significant injury or a stupid line, I'm putting a ton of money on nyg for the first game of the season; I imagine the line will be something like DAL -5, which I think is asinine. (I made a ton of money that Thanksgiving game where Romo came back at home against Carolina; the spreads often overrate Dallas.)
The Dallas Cowboys finished with the third-best spread record at 10-5-1 ATS.
Looks like some more conventional wisdom on BBI.
Actually, they were 10-7 against the spread last year, including the playoff game where they got walloped, according to this site: https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/trends/ats_trends/
Also, way to use a significant data set. According to the same website, since 2003 (as far back as it goes), they are 22nd in the NFL against the spread, and worst in the NFC East. You don't try too hard, huh. And, in any event, I've gotten paid off of the un-deserved Romo lovefest. What did you get out of it?
Troll didn't respond to getting pwned. Shocking.
I usually appreciate when fans from other teams post here, but I'd prefer their posts to be somewhat balanced instead of adopting an "us vs. you" mentality.
Elbowj makes for some great shitter reading.
The moment he tossed out Pythagorean...I knew he was doomed.
Like watching sharks circling a sinking ship...
added to the suspensions yes charlton could be a good player but even they admitted they picked a second round talent in the first and even first round DL prospects will take time to acclimate to the nfl level bad enough if the rest of the line is in place to help but they lost key guys to bans that will weaken them further when you add a rookie who will make mistakes early
the defence played better than expected last year but they have lost some guys that will hurt them carr and wilcox particularly. claiborne never panned out and i doubt they miss him, church was a solid guy too even for some continuity they should have kept a couple of starters and then worked the rookies into the lineup they lost 2 cb and 2 safeties in one offseason was the point
Quote:
You've got to be kidding...
It went way over your head. He was mocking the post that he replied to, from the fanatic clown.
and everything I said was just as "true" as fanatic's take. Flowers has had a great off-season. Bla bla bla
However...
Elboyj, feel free to call me as soon as Dak Prescott throws two TD passes in the 4th quarter to win a Super Bowl.
Until that happens, siddown and shaddap.
Quote:
You've got to be kidding...
It went way over your head. He was mocking the post that he replied to, from the fanatic clown.
No. I am all in. Flowers was dominate at OTAs and the weight room in March with Hart.
Championship...
Quote:
In comment 13518102 Jimmy Googs said:
Quote:
You've got to be kidding...
It went way over your head. He was mocking the post that he replied to, from the fanatic clown.
mm
No. I am all in. Flowers was dominate at OTAs and the weight room in March with Hart.
Championship...
So, instead of admitting that you put your foot in your mouth in your rush to shit all over Flowers, you double down? The Flowers thing in OTAs was clearly a jab at the fanatic guy, but why let that get in the way of your typical chrisr replica, contrarian bullshit?
Yes, I doubled-down and you stepped up to the plate and caught me.
Congrats, you magnificent bastard...
-Attitude, as they worked their asses off this year
-Pride, they know they played as bad as any tandem
-Youth, only 23 and now entering year #3
-Coach Solar, year #2 usually shows strides
-Physical, they changed their bodies to maximize performane
Flowers was a raw rookie, played hurt and got by. Hart wasn't NFL ready as a rookie either but played some snaps. Last year they had a new OL coach but I didn't read they worked hard in the off-season like they did this year.
I see this entire OL coming together much better this year and becoming "legit" enough to allow Eli to hit our talented group of skillset players.
Losing his production will HURT the Dallas offense.
Losing his production will HURT the Dallas offense.
What a killer that guy was. Very deserving HoFer. I'm a younger vintage fan, so can't remember an opposing TE make me want to pull my hair out more than him. (A little too young to remember Novacek.)
Quote:
Lets remember, Giants killer Jason Witten is now a year older and he was clearly fading last year. He has been so key for them for so long that we take it for granted he'll produce like year's past. My brother is a Cowboy fan and even he admits he'll be more of a "short receiver" than anything. I bet he catches 50 passes but doesn't threaten much.
Losing his production will HURT the Dallas offense.
What a killer that guy was. Very deserving HoFer. I'm a younger vintage fan, so can't remember an opposing TE make me want to pull my hair out more than him. (A little too young to remember Novacek.)
But I honestly believe Witten's decline hurts the Dallas offense, unless of course someone on the roster really steps up.
The secondary is young and athletic and brought a lot of energy and enthusiasm during OTAs. This year it helps that there are 5 weeks in training camp. Can't wait to see how this unit develops.
They are athletic and enthusiastic? Gosh that's adorable.
Looking forward to this all star cast attempting to cover Beckham, Marshall, Shepard, Engram.
Quote:
just fine. The starting CBs will be Scandrick and Brown(best player during OTAs). The slot will be Awuize, rounding out are Lewis and White. The safeties are Jones and Heath with the backups being Frazier, Woods, and Blanton.
The secondary is young and athletic and brought a lot of energy and enthusiasm during OTAs. This year it helps that there are 5 weeks in training camp. Can't wait to see how this unit develops.
They are athletic and enthusiastic? Gosh that's adorable.
Looking forward to this all star cast attempting to cover Beckham, Marshall, Shepard, Engram.
Also, can LB Sean Lee (Mr. Concussion) have another year like last year where he was one of the NFL's best defensive players? Not sure.
Packers followed the Giants strategy and tore them up even though Dak played better in that game, he still can not read a defense.
Just curious...How do you know he can't read a defense? I find it comical when fans make assessments like this from their TV broadcast.
Quote:
We left "blue prints" for the League to follow to defeat them.
Packers followed the Giants strategy and tore them up even though Dak played better in that game, he still can not read a defense.
Just curious...How do you know he can't read a defense? I find it comical when fans make assessments like this from their TV broadcast.
Not sure why so many on BBI think opponents either overachieve or underperform in perpetuity...
Not sure why so many on BBI think opponents either overachieve or underperform in perpetuity...