They were tearing up the league last year before RT Lane Johnson got hurt. Their point differential was positive and suggestive of how dominant they were.
I like Prescott and think he'll move forward this year, but I like Wentz better and his pedigree seemingly suggests that his second-year advancement will be exponential and is more certain than Precott's. I saw glimpses of potential that was off the charts, with a super strong arm, leadership abilities and much more than merely mobile.
They added a superb vet receiver (Jeffries?) to what had been a very weak corp. That alone should provide a significant upgrade.
Mgmt. has demonstrated that they're way above "competent".
The are somewhat dependent on a corner they drafted with a knee injury, but the first round DE could be downright scary and move that allready capable front seven to dominant. And, unlike Dallas, who we match up well with, Philly's front seven might exploit our offensive line - meanin that if we match up well with Dallas, Philly matches up well with us.
Dallas is losing three defensive backfield starters and two defensive linemen (one through suspension). They picked darn near on the bottom of the draft and are lookin for rooks to fill those holes (for the most part though Brown, Scarndrick and Jones return).
And Dallas's schedule is brutal too. How does a New secondary look against OBJ, Marshall, Ephram, Vereen & Shepard? They face Julio Jones early too. That's a darn tough way to open.
One has to like their offense, but there's two new linemen and everything went right for them last year.
I don't understand Vegas or so many of TV/s pundits who have made Dallas a heavy favorite. I can see them being excellent again, but I think this edition could just as easily struggle. We've been looking at each other, but Wash and Philly are so dramatically improved that I can see them in the hunt too.
FAct is, I've seen this division be very tough and competitive at the top, but I don't see a last place team among the four and while I think we could be over the top crazy good, I also think anything could happen and surprises are going to be more likely than not.
Curious, to see how other - more knowledgeable than me - posters see it.
Dallas has problems at CB, but Philly has the worst CBs in the league
Dallas has problems at CB, but Philly has the worst CBs in the league
With our personnel we should be unstoppable if healthy
As far as their OL goes, they still have one of the best even with the 2 losses. The key will be Collins. If he can play decent they will still be dominant. If not then we can attack them. Witten is a shell of his former self when it comes to blocking. He is brutal now. They will need to get someone else on the field to help Collins out. Who is playing LG? Is it Cooper? He has been a major bust.
So, it wouldn't surprise me to see Dallas be a .500 team or even like 7-9. It also wouldn't surprise me to see Dalls push us to the end of the season.
With our personnel we should be unstoppable if healthy
There was a reason it wasn't creative, did you not watch the games last season or realize what we had on defense?
If you don't think McAdoo is creative than I don't know what to tell you.
As for the OP, the Eagles will always be a wildcard no matter how good or bad they look. Year 2 for Wentz will be interesting. If he improves they improve. But their defense sucks so that will be a big test for Wentz to "carry" the team.
The Eagles might be a year away but I am more concerned about them then Dallas.
I would be shocked if we did not beat Dallas week one......I can not say that at Philly.
I suspect that Dallas' offense will actually take a step back in 2017 as defenses increase their awareness of Prescott's limitations and strengths. Moreover, the Cowboys added no one of note to their roster on that side of the ball, but lost two key players on their OL. I won't even comment on their defense; Rod Marinelli deserves 3 lbs. of blow from Jerrah's private stock for all the exceptional work he's done with the garbage provided him by the front office.
Philly's offense will grow, though, both through the air and on the ground. I like the 5th round pick they got (Donnel Pomphrey) and think he'll be a terrific 3rd down back.
Washington regressed, in my opinion: I'm not sure who's catching passes for them and I'm not sure who's their workhorse in the backfield. Plus, the distraction element Washington annually derails them, even in good years.
I still think the Giants are the class of the division; then comes a horse race between Dallas and Philly for the wildcard, with Washington limping home with prospects for a top five slot in the 2018 NFL draft.
Cowboys-Skins tied
Eagles
I think we can safely assume that Dak and Wentz are going to ruin a lot of perfectly good Sundays over the next decade.
How many times has the consensus pick for last finished first and vice versa?
I think you could make a case for any of the four teams being the best (in the East) on paper and that's before you take into account injuries, adjusted strength of schedule, when you play common opponents, etc.
It should be a fun year.
If the last 11 years are any indication it would predict that the division will go through Dallas.
I am not sold on Dak or Carson Skins lost some firepower . On paper I feel we had the best off season in the division
The defense is our strength even with the loss of Hankins and the question of OO ever playing let alone living up to his draft status . Were still a top 10 defense . The concern is do we have enough of a pass rush if Okwara blossoms
and Wynn improves we could add another Vet along the way .
On offense I expect Eli to improve providing the O-line
does as well .This will be a tell tale year for Flowers I am somewhat confident that he does . It will be interesting when they put the pads on see if one of the younger guys emerge , Something tells me they may not
retain Pugh but its a prove it year for him as well as
Richberg I do worry even more so about the health because of the lack of experience .
If we can run the ball with consistency especially on 1st down and when we need to eat time off the clock .
Another place I worry a bit is RB I hope Gallman's style works at the pro level he seems to run a bit upright but
he is a scrapper if he pans out especially in short yardage . This offense will get back to 28 PPG we will be
very tough to contend with .
The Eagles might be a year away but I am more concerned about them then Dallas.
I would be shocked if we did not beat Dallas week one......I can not say that at Philly.
If the last 11 years are any indication it would predict that the division will go through Dallas.
If the last 11 years are any indication the giants are the only team in the east capable of winning the super bowl. Twice.
Clearly we agree. Thanks.
Defensively the Eagles got better with Barnett through the draft and Jernigan through FA (who Reese was looking at). Better front 7 than Dallas. The Eagles Achilles heel is their secondary. Sidney Jones and Douglas could rectify this but their secondary is probably a year or two away. Slight edge to Dallas overall but arguably a push.
The Giants match up better w Dallas as we saw last year. Stop the running game and make Dak beat you.
Against Philly, the OL has to give Eli time to exploit their secondary. I like the Giants d vs philly o but they're definitely more dynamic and capable than Dallas o.
Quote:
Understand your reasoning and what's so is what's so and that is that Dallas has no secondary defense, DL has no depth and has been weakened, OL change of personnel, questionable LBs, questionable Receivers,and a second year QB.
I have a feeling Prescott has a harder time this year as their is film on him. Just a wish.
I like the Giants d vs philly o but they're definitely more dynamic and capable than Dallas o.
Dak had the 31st highest rated season in NFL history. 10 points higher than Eli's career best. Dallas was a top 3 offense. He's one of two QBs in NFL history to put up 3500 yards and less than 5 picks. The only other player to accomplish that is Tom Brady.
Wentz was mostly bad. There's nothing, not a single piece of evidence from the eye test to statistics to record, that supports your thesis. Wentz was abysmal in terms of accuracy. He puts no thought into where he's throwing the ball. His deep ball accuracy was miles below Dak. His accuracy on throws to the line of scrimmage was one of the worst in NFL history. He threw picks by staring down his first read. He threw picks by overthrowing receivers. He threw picks by trying to be too aggressive. His footwork was atrocious. Happy feet? No tree trunks. He's big and mobile. That's pretty much it.
They're substantially better offensively. I know the message hasn't filtered to NY, but OL play is the easiest road to success in the modern NFL. OAK, ATL, DAL, GB. Different QBs, different RBs. Combined for 56 wins on the backs of their OL. Whistling past the graveyard again here.
Quote:
Wentz is a better QB than Dak.
I like the Giants d vs philly o but they're definitely more dynamic and capable than Dallas o.
Dak had the 31st highest rated season in NFL history. 10 points higher than Eli's career best. Dallas was a top 3 offense. He's one of two QBs in NFL history to put up 3500 yards and less than 5 picks. The only other player to accomplish that is Tom Brady.
Wentz was mostly bad. There's nothing, not a single piece of evidence from the eye test to statistics to record, that supports your thesis. Wentz was abysmal in terms of accuracy. He puts no thought into where he's throwing the ball. His deep ball accuracy was miles below Dak. His accuracy on throws to the line of scrimmage was one of the worst in NFL history. He threw picks by staring down his first read. He threw picks by overthrowing receivers. He threw picks by trying to be too aggressive. His footwork was atrocious. Happy feet? No tree trunks. He's big and mobile. That's pretty much it.
They're substantially better offensively. I know the message hasn't filtered to NY, but OL play is the easiest road to success in the modern NFL. OAK, ATL, DAL, GB. Different QBs, different RBs. Combined for 56 wins on the backs of their OL. Whistling past the graveyard again here.
Quote:
In comment 13517932 WillVAB said:
Quote:
Wentz is a better QB than Dak.
I like the Giants d vs philly o but they're definitely more dynamic and capable than Dallas o.
Dak had the 31st highest rated season in NFL history. 10 points higher than Eli's career best. Dallas was a top 3 offense. He's one of two QBs in NFL history to put up 3500 yards and less than 5 picks. The only other player to accomplish that is Tom Brady.
Wentz was mostly bad. There's nothing, not a single piece of evidence from the eye test to statistics to record, that supports your thesis. Wentz was abysmal in terms of accuracy. He puts no thought into where he's throwing the ball. His deep ball accuracy was miles below Dak. His accuracy on throws to the line of scrimmage was one of the worst in NFL history. He threw picks by staring down his first read. He threw picks by overthrowing receivers. He threw picks by trying to be too aggressive. His footwork was atrocious. Happy feet? No tree trunks. He's big and mobile. That's pretty much it.
They're substantially better offensively. I know the message hasn't filtered to NY, but OL play is the easiest road to success in the modern NFL. OAK, ATL, DAL, GB. Different QBs, different RBs. Combined for 56 wins on the backs of their OL. Whistling past the graveyard again here.
What Dak accomplished last year was truly amazing but can he repeat those numbers? That kind of play?? Teams catch up, figure guys out a bit. I just look at Dallas and I say Witten is a year older; the OL took some small hits; the secondary is, sorry, no way as solid at least not to start the season. My hope is Dallas starts slow and we start fast to build a cushion.
His improvement throughout the season suggests yes. His last three games were his best IMO. 17 TDs from November to January.
Quote:
In comment 13518003 elbowj said:
Quote:
His improvement throughout the season suggests yes. His last three games were his best IMO. 17 TDs from November to January.
Quote:
Since 2006 Dallas has competed for the NFC East title into week 17. The two exceptions were 2010 and 2015 when Romo was injured. Last year was the exception when Romo was injured and Dallas competed for the division.
If the last 11 years are any indication it would predict that the division will go through Dallas.
If the last 11 years are any indication the giants are the only team in the east capable of winning the super bowl. Twice.
Clearly we agree. Thanks.
The thread is about the biggest threat, Dallas or Philadelphia. I gave the last11 years(since Romo took over) to show that it's Dallas who is the biggest threat.
Quote:
Wentz is a better QB than Dak.
I like the Giants d vs philly o but they're definitely more dynamic and capable than Dallas o.
Dak had the 31st highest rated season in NFL history. 10 points higher than Eli's career best. Dallas was a top 3 offense. He's one of two QBs in NFL history to put up 3500 yards and less than 5 picks. The only other player to accomplish that is Tom Brady.
Wentz was mostly bad. There's nothing, not a single piece of evidence from the eye test to statistics to record, that supports your thesis. Wentz was abysmal in terms of accuracy. He puts no thought into where he's throwing the ball. His deep ball accuracy was miles below Dak. His accuracy on throws to the line of scrimmage was one of the worst in NFL history. He threw picks by staring down his first read. He threw picks by overthrowing receivers. He threw picks by trying to be too aggressive. His footwork was atrocious. Happy feet? No tree trunks. He's big and mobile. That's pretty much it.
They're substantially better offensively. I know the message hasn't filtered to NY, but OL play is the easiest road to success in the modern NFL. OAK, ATL, DAL, GB. Different QBs, different RBs. Combined for 56 wins on the backs of their OL. Whistling past the graveyard again here.
Dak was a game manager last year with a better OL and skill guys than Wentz. The eagles added a workhorse back, a legit WR, and their OL should be intact (unlike last year). You gloss over this like it doesn't matter. Dallas did nothing to get better this off season on offense besides get older and lose offensive linemen.
NY filtered glasses? I hate Philly more than Dallas. But the facts show Philly got better this offseason. More improved than Dallas.
You assume Dallas OL will be dominant in perpetuity. Any Giants fan on this board can tell you how fast a dominant OL can turn into a liability.
Quote:
In comment 13517932 WillVAB said:
Quote:
Wentz is a better QB than Dak.
I like the Giants d vs philly o but they're definitely more dynamic and capable than Dallas o.
Dak had the 31st highest rated season in NFL history. 10 points higher than Eli's career best. Dallas was a top 3 offense. He's one of two QBs in NFL history to put up 3500 yards and less than 5 picks. The only other player to accomplish that is Tom Brady.
Wentz was mostly bad. There's nothing, not a single piece of evidence from the eye test to statistics to record, that supports your thesis. Wentz was abysmal in terms of accuracy. He puts no thought into where he's throwing the ball. His deep ball accuracy was miles below Dak. His accuracy on throws to the line of scrimmage was one of the worst in NFL history. He threw picks by staring down his first read. He threw picks by overthrowing receivers. He threw picks by trying to be too aggressive. His footwork was atrocious. Happy feet? No tree trunks. He's big and mobile. That's pretty much it.
They're substantially better offensively. I know the message hasn't filtered to NY, but OL play is the easiest road to success in the modern NFL. OAK, ATL, DAL, GB. Different QBs, different RBs. Combined for 56 wins on the backs of their OL. Whistling past the graveyard again here.
Dak was a game manager last year with a better OL and skill guys than Wentz. The eagles added a workhorse back, a legit WR, and their OL should be intact (unlike last year). You gloss over this like it doesn't matter. Dallas did nothing to get better this off season on offense besides get older and lose offensive linemen.
NY filtered glasses? I hate Philly more than Dallas. But the facts show Philly got better this offseason. More improved than Dallas.
You assume Dallas OL will be dominant in perpetuity. Any Giants fan on this board can tell you how fast a dominant OL can turn into a liability.
NY has never had an OL as dominant as Dallas. 3 top 3 guys at their position. All 26 or younger. Listening to Giants fans concerns about Dallas OL is one of the funniest things Ive heard.
I never said anything about glasses though so miss on that one. Dallas won 13 games in 2016. Seems like a 7 win team might need to improve to get close but that seems to be lost here.
The Eagles added a 30 year old guy who averaged <4 ypc. And has never done anything outside of New England. Jeffrey has been out more than on for the last two seasons. He's a straight line runner on a team that uses the fewest straight line routes in the league with a QB who was bottom 5 in deep ball accuracy last season.
Dallas had the third youngest roster in the NFL last year. Age isn't much of an issue right now, but it fits the fact free nature of your post.
Dak wasn't a game manager. You don't finish top 5 against the blitz, top 10 aganist pressure and top 5 in ypa as a game manager. Oh and you contended with nothing about Wentz so I guess you agree there. Nice to see that someone around here can analyze slightly beyond what they here on TV.
All Pros
NYG OL= 1
Dallas OL= 5
Blount led the league in rushing TDs and was 8th in rushing yards. Alshon is an 1100+ 10+ TD guy if he plays a full season -- something I qualified in my original post. Regardless, the guy's talent isn't disputable.
You put Dak on Philly last year and Dak looks like the shitty 4th round pick he was.
As far as your "top 3 OL at their positions" comment, that's nice but that's not really determinative of OL play as a whole. If the right side of your OL is trash it's not going to matter how good Smith, Martin, and Frederick are.
I know the message hasn't filtered to NY, but OL play is the easiest road to success in the modern NFL. OAK, ATL, DAL, GB. Different QBs, different RBs. Combined for 56 wins on the backs of their OL. Whistling past the graveyard again here. [/quote]
The four teams you named combined for 29 wins the year before. And what different QBs were there in GB, OAK, and Atl? Oak and Atl had the same RB both years as well. Arguably 4 of the last 5 superbowls have been won by the team with the worst line. Are you sure you should be whistling past the graveyard and not the library instead?
Blount led the league in rushing TDs and was 8th in rushing yards. Alshon is an 1100+ 10+ TD guy if he plays a full season -- something I qualified in my original post. Regardless, the guy's talent isn't disputable.
You put Dak on Philly last year and Dak looks like the shitty 4th round pick he was.
As far as your "top 3 OL at their positions" comment, that's nice but that's not really determinative of OL play as a whole. If the right side of your OL is trash it's not going to matter how good Smith, Martin, and Frederick are.
So a guys stats are meaningless to their performance. First I've heard of that. How many 30 year old retreads have panned out? It's kind of funny when you argue both for and against scheme's impact and stats in the same post. Almost like you pick whatever brings you to the conclusion you're seeking. Alshon's fit is the issue. Carson can't throw deep. Alshon made his money as a second option with a guy with a cannon. None of those will apply to Philly. They weren't actually missing guys on their OL all year. You believe that it was Lane's absence that made the difference. But the truth is he won three of his four games without Lane against the Bears, Browns and the Cowboys with Sanchez as QB. You have yet to posit a single reason for Wentz's poor performance, mental and physical lapses. You've just named guys on his roster as if that will help him read a defense, look off defenders and throw accurate passes. He's done none of those. Dak has. I'm going to guess your depth chart level of analysis is due to your limited knowledge of their actual performance.
And no, our good lines don't even compare with this Dallas edition. David Diehl was ordinary at best, Mac a nice player, Ohara and Suey ...good players and overachievers.
Only the son in law was a superb all pro type.
Disagree with Elbow on at least with some of his points.
And no, our good lines don't even compare with this Dallas edition. David Diehl was ordinary at best, Mac a nice player, Ohara and Suey ...good players and overachievers.
Only the son in law was a superb all pro type.
Disagree with Elbow on
at least with some of his points.
And no, our good lines don't even compare with this Dallas edition. David Diehl was ordinary at best, Mac a nice player, Ohara and Suey ...good players and overachievers.
Only the son in law was a superb all pro type.
Disagree with Elbow on his contention that ONLY the good offensive teams are winning superbowls in the modern era. That Denver team with a crippled Peyton won exclusively with the defense.
I disagree too about Wentz. I thought he played well and has great potential.
Dak is almost too good to be true. But, in spite of Elbows contention he was a caretaker for most of the year and the benefiary of superb game packages and even playcalling.
. He had to open it up once they were behind to Green Bay and he looked great in doing it, but through most of the year he was the beneficiary of a great supporting cast...great O line, superb receivers, smart TE, and a dominant running back.
He's hard working and a great character guy. I don't doubt that he makes great gains in his sophomore year, but he hasn't done it yet.
A puzzle wrapped inside of a mystery surrounded by an enigma, that's what I think of your defense.
Were they really as bad as everyone said? Or were they cohesive and middle of the road.? Will Jaylon play? And if so, how good will he be? Can Lee stay healthy. Will the disappointing Jones make a leap at safety. Was the suspended guy good last year only because of performance enhancing drugs?
Collins and Cooper two more question marks.
Never was oimpressed with Scandrick and don't expect to be next year.
Frankly, I thought the three you lost were decent players who knew the system.
Elbow, if many of your points are convincing, I still think there's too many question marks....Maybe too many things have to go your way for you to be a superbowl contender. And having said that, I can see Dak making exponential gains and being enough to carry you.
Conclusion.... Eagles have made significant improvements and I think there was a good base to begin with. This Dallas edition looks like feast or famine to me.
And no, our good lines don't even compare with this Dallas edition. David Diehl was ordinary at best, Mac a nice player, Ohara and Suey ...good players and overachievers.
Only the son in law was a superb all pro type.
Disagree with Elbow on at least with some of his points.
And no, our good lines don't even compare with this Dallas edition. David Diehl was ordinary at best, Mac a nice player, Ohara and Suey ...good players and overachievers.
Only the son in law was a superb all pro type.
Disagree with Elbow on
at least with some of his points.
And no, our good lines don't even compare with this Dallas edition. David Diehl was ordinary at best, Mac a nice player, Ohara and Suey ...good players and overachievers.
Only the son in law was a superb all pro type.
Disagree with Elbow on his contention that ONLY the good offensive teams are winning superbowls in the modern era. That Denver team with a crippled Peyton won exclusively with the defense.
I disagree too about Wentz. I thought he played well and has great potential.
Dak is almost too good to be true. But, in spite of Elbows contention he was a caretaker for most of the year and the benefiary of superb game packages and even playcalling.
. He had to open it up once they were behind to Green Bay and he looked great in doing it, but through most of the year he was the beneficiary of a great supporting cast...great O line, superb receivers, smart TE, and a dominant running back.
He's hard working and a great character guy. I don't doubt that he makes great gains in his sophomore year, but he hasn't done it yet.
A puzzle wrapped inside of a mystery surrounded by an enigma, that's what I think of your defense.
Were they really as bad as everyone said? Or were they cohesive and middle of the road.? Will Jaylon play? And if so, how good will he be? Can Lee stay healthy. Will the disappointing Jones make a leap at safety. Was the suspended guy good last year only because of performance enhancing drugs?
Collins and Cooper two more question marks.
Never was oimpressed with Scandrick and don't expect to be next year.
Frankly, I thought the three you lost were decent players who knew the system.
Elbow, if many of your points are convincing, I still think there's too many question marks....Maybe too many things have to go your way for you to be a superbowl contender. And having said that, I can see Dak making exponential gains and being enough to carry you.
Conclusion.... Eagles have made significant improvements and I think there was a good base to begin with. This Dallas edition looks like feast or famine to me.
The thing is Dallas has had most of the same questions for years. The answer has been if they can avoid injuries to their QB none of the rest of them add up to losses. As well as Dallas played on defense in relation to their talent level, defense is not the reason they win football games. Dominant running game with efficient passing is how they win. They have an established pattern of not only winning, but winning at a high clip with that formula. None of the other teams in the division can say that. There's a reason Dallas is favored to win the East everywhere but this little corner. Philly finding answers at QB and NYG finding an answer for their entire offense are much more substantial question marks. And unlike those other teams Dallas actually endeavored to address their Achilles heel in the secondary while Philly did little at QB and NYG failed to seek much help on the OL.
These two are like every single Dallas fan that I know. They always think everybody should be scared shitless of them. The most annoying fan base in all of sports. And second isn't even close. Who the fuck spends three days on a rivals website trying to convince everyone how awesome their team is? Dallas fans, that's who.
Listen to any Dallas fan talk about football for 3 seconds and you just want to throat punch them.
They lost one starting OL. Giving up 18.6 a game= trash. Giving up 17.8= new look doomsday.
NFL East is always a dog fight.
Quote:
and their defense is trash. Our defense will be in Year 2 of our guys we signed from last year in the same defense. They'll be as good as last year, if not alot more familiar with the playbook and eachother. Neither Philly nor Dallas scare me this year. And that is the first year in forever I can honestly say that.
They lost one starting OL. Giving up 18.6 a game= trash. Giving up 17.8= new look doomsday.
Context, amateur. Basing a defenses effectiveness on points per game is ludicrous. Dallas' offense had the ball for 3/4 of the game every week. How many points can the defense give up when they aren't on the field? Maybe Dallas can control the clock and keep the defense off the field again this year, but does that make the defense great because they aren't giving up points while sitting on the sidelines? Of course it does, in your bizarro world.
Why are you a Cowboys fan? I'd love to know the backstory of why someone chooses to root for that random team in Texas. Cause you watched them on Thanksgiving in your onesies while sitting on uncle Stu's lap? It's just strange. What makes a non Texas Cowboys fan? The need to root for the "popular" team? They won all the time when you were younger so you hopped on the bandwagon like a chicken shit?
NFL East is always a dog fight.
As pretty as that strawman is, they were past the first round last season. The first round is the one where NYG put up a spirited fight by losing by 25 points. The second round was the one where the feeble Cowboys got blown out by three points. They were also in the second round in 2014 after winning in the first round. They lost again on a ho hum call in another blowout. Facts aren't real popular around here. People really think a team that outscored their opponents by 130 points wasn't good and a team that outscored their opponents by 2 points was robbed of their title of greatest show on turf.
Quote:
In comment 13518075 Dave in Hoboken said:
Quote:
and their defense is trash. Our defense will be in Year 2 of our guys we signed from last year in the same defense. They'll be as good as last year, if not alot more familiar with the playbook and eachother. Neither Philly nor Dallas scare me this year. And that is the first year in forever I can honestly say that.
They lost one starting OL. Giving up 18.6 a game= trash. Giving up 17.8= new look doomsday.
Context, amateur. Basing a defenses effectiveness on points per game is ludicrous. Dallas' offense had the ball for 3/4 of the game every week. How many points can the defense give up when they aren't on the field? Maybe Dallas can control the clock and keep the defense off the field again this year, but does that make the defense great because they aren't giving up points while sitting on the sidelines? Of course it does, in your bizarro world.
Why are you a Cowboys fan? I'd love to know the backstory of why someone chooses to root for that random team in Texas. Cause you watched them on Thanksgiving in your onesies while sitting on uncle Stu's lap? It's just strange. What makes a non Texas Cowboys fan? The need to root for the "popular" team? They won all the time when you were younger so you hopped on the bandwagon like a chicken shit?
I was born about 3 minutes from the stadium. Good guess though. Almost as good as those .8 points being the difference in elite and garbage.
Quote:
In comment 13518075 Dave in Hoboken said:
Quote:
and their defense is trash. Our defense will be in Year 2 of our guys we signed from last year in the same defense. They'll be as good as last year, if not alot more familiar with the playbook and eachother. Neither Philly nor Dallas scare me this year. And that is the first year in forever I can honestly say that.
They lost one starting OL. Giving up 18.6 a game= trash. Giving up 17.8= new look doomsday.
Context, amateur. Basing a defenses effectiveness on points per game is ludicrous. Dallas' offense had the ball for 3/4 of the game every week. How many points can the defense give up when they aren't on the field? Maybe Dallas can control the clock and keep the defense off the field again this year, but does that make the defense great because they aren't giving up points while sitting on the sidelines? Of course it does, in your bizarro world.
Why are you a Cowboys fan? I'd love to know the backstory of why someone chooses to root for that random team in Texas. Cause you watched them on Thanksgiving in your onesies while sitting on uncle Stu's lap? It's just strange. What makes a non Texas Cowboys fan? The need to root for the "popular" team? They won all the time when you were younger so you hopped on the bandwagon like a chicken shit?
Come on, man. They won, what, 2 playoff games in how many years? How dare anyone have any questions about them, especially after their absolutely nothing to write home about off-season! Super Bowl, here they come!
Did Jerry Jones deliver you?
[quote] And unlike those other teams Dallas actually endeavored to address their Achilles heel in the secondary while Philly did little at QB and NYG failed to seek much help on the OL.[quote].
You lost three of four starters in your secondary. And you want to call that "addressing the problem, because you spent very late second and third round picks on cornerbacks.?
13-3 is by iteself impressive. Two of those losses were close and to a team that matched up very well with you, the third loss after the season was effectively over. So in my mind that makes the 13-3 even more impressive and inarguable.
But we were close, not only in head to head but overall.
Are you going to say that we didn't improve more than you.?
NYG: Vereen, Ellison, Marshall, Ephram, Tollinson, Goodson, D. Thompson with only the loss of Hankins. Just Marshall alone is an unbeliveable upgrade.
Dallas: Additions Taco, three late pick defensive backs, maybe Jaylon Smith ....loss of two starting offensive limeman, loss of two defensive lineman (counting the suspension) and the loss of three defensive secondary players (starters all and underrated at that... . Total starters loss....about 7. Starters gained... I'm not sure, likely none, maybe Cooper. Collins, Scarndrick, Brown were all there and all not good enough to start last year.
My conclusion re: Dallas (again) high upside, low downside. Anywhere from superbowl to 8-8 maybe 7-9.
I think our upside is at least as high without your corresponding downside...That a staggering amount of talent to add to the offense and almost the equicalant of what we added to the D last year.. And without additions (except Ellison who will matter) I see the offensice line getting better...if only marginally.
BTW, Elboy, thanks for contributing, I think your arguements and presence adds to the board.
[quote] And unlike those other teams Dallas actually endeavored to address their Achilles heel in the secondary while Philly did little at QB and NYG failed to seek much help on the OL.[quote].
You lost three of four starters in your secondary. And you want to call that "addressing the problem, because you spent very late second and third round picks on cornerbacks.?
13-3 is by iteself impressive. Two of those losses were close and to a team that matched up very well with you, the third loss after the season was effectively over. So in my mind that makes the 13-3 even more impressive and inarguable.
But we were close, not only in head to head but overall.
Are you going to say that we didn't improve more than you.?
NYG: Vereen, Ellison, Marshall, Ephram, Tollinson, Goodson, D. Thompson with only the loss of Hankins. Just Marshall alone is an unbeliveable upgrade.
Dallas: Additions Taco, three late pick defensive backs, maybe Jaylon Smith ....loss of two starting offensive limeman, loss of two defensive lineman (counting the suspension) and the loss of three defensive secondary players (starters all and underrated at that... . Total starters loss....about 7. Starters gained... I'm not sure, likely none, maybe Cooper. Collins, Scarndrick, Brown were all there and all not good enough to start last year.
My conclusion re: Dallas (again) high upside, low downside. Anywhere from superbowl to 8-8 maybe 7-9.
I think our upside is at least as high without your corresponding downside...That a staggering amount of talent to add to the offense and almost the equicalant of what we added to the D last year.. And without additions (except Ellison who will matter) I see the offensice line getting better...if only marginally.
BTW, Elboy, thanks for contributing, I think your arguements and presence adds to the board.
Did Jerry Jones deliver you?
Do you somehow think the Metroplex is imaginary? There's millions of us.
[quote] And unlike those other teams Dallas actually endeavored to address their Achilles heel in the secondary while Philly did little at QB and NYG failed to seek much help on the OL.[quote].
You lost three of four starters in your secondary. And you want to call that "addressing the problem, because you spent very late second and third round picks on cornerbacks.?
13-3 is by iteself impressive. Two of those losses were close and to a team that matched up very well with you, the third loss after the season was effectively over. So in my mind that makes the 13-3 even more impressive and inarguable.
But we were close, not only in head to head but overall.
Are you going to say that we didn't improve more than you.?
NYG: Vereen, Ellison, Marshall, Ephram, Tollinson, Goodson, D. Thompson with only the loss of Hankins. Just Marshall alone is an unbeliveable upgrade.
Dallas: Additions Taco, three late pick defensive backs, maybe Jaylon Smith ....loss of two starting offensive limeman, loss of two defensive lineman (counting the suspension) and the loss of three defensive secondary players (starters all and underrated at that... . Total starters loss....about 7. Starters gained... I'm not sure, likely none, maybe Cooper. Collins, Scarndrick, Brown were all there and all not good enough to start last year.
My conclusion re: Dallas (again) high upside, low downside. Anywhere from superbowl to 8-8 maybe 7-9.
I think our upside is at least as high without your corresponding downside...That a staggering amount of talent to add to the offense and almost the equicalant of what we added to the D last year.. And without additions (except Ellison who will matter) I see the offensice line getting better...if only marginally.
BTW, Elboy, thanks for contributing, I think your arguements and presence adds to the board.
Collins was here and was a starter. Brown and Scandrick were here and were starters. Marshall was outplayed by a UDFA last season, had his worst season, and is old. Goodson was there and wasn't good enough to start. Dallas draft picks were scrubs and NY are all upgrades? You want to check out what Dallas has done with late draft picks? A team that scraped by or lost to every good team they played vs a team that had more wins against teams .500 or over than anyone in the NFL last season. And Dallas was missing those starters for a good chunk of last season and went undefeated. They signed placeholders to replace placeholders and drafted guys with upside. If they don't pan out then Carroll Scandrick and Brown are the starters. They do that every year.
I know you actually follow Dallas some so I appreciate your input here. But if you're paying attention you would realize that they've done exactly that for a few years now. And in that time they've accumlated a 28-6 record with their starting QB. The 2017 defense will be much more talented than 2014.
I think NY could very well be better. But I don't think Engram, Marshall and a backup TE are a staggering amount of anything and I'd rather have high draft picks than stick with what wasn't working which is exactly what NY did with their OL. Signing a backup guard and drafting a 6th round flier is a poor excuse for something that caused Eli and the offense to regress so heavily and I'd like to think that reality could be acknowledged.
Last year's OL problems were also due our Center, Weston Richbrug playing injured the entire season, as he got injured in the pre-season. And another starter, Justin Pugh, missing 5-6 games due to injury. Flowers is in better shape, and he is absolutely due to improve and he better. Fluker was added and he's hungry to save his career. There really wasn't much available to upgrade the OLine this offseason. So, we upgraded our position players on that side of the ball rather significantly. Marshall is also a fantastic blocking WR, which won't hurt, either.
I post on their board all the time and couldn't have done that years ago. And , give them their due, shorter histroy than ours but some major accomplishments.
I've seen some eight dynasties..only Dallas has two of them. Three of the best players I've ever seen at their position...Lily , Neon Deon and the ORT with The Jimmy Jones team.
1. Browns with Otto Graham Paul Brown ,2 Lombardi/ Starr, 3. Landry/Stauback, 4 Bradshaw's steelers, 5.Dallas /Aikman/ Jimmy Jones, 6. San Fran with Montana/Young, 7. Pats.Brady 8 NYG Eli (we'll see about no 8, could still happen..
That's tearing up the league?
And the almost silly idea that you can lose three starters and get better with late picks is not impossible but very unlikely.. Esp. because I think the three lost players were very good and victimized by your poor pass rush.
I also vehemently disagree with the supposed sagacity of your picks.
You are two years of three win seasons without the pure luck that Dak represents. Passed over approximately 150 times you're going to call that skillful?
Getting a franchise QB for virtually nothing whil eother teams give up no picks is great luck that teams Like Seattle and New England turned into near dynasties.
You got Collins , a potential no 1 pick , on pure luck too and without giving up a single pick (or using one).
We are all to result orientated but Jaylon Smith , no matter how it turns out was incompetency. Not with a late first or very early two...this is a gamble that only should have been taken with a three or four. I'll give you a pass with Gregory but not with Jaylon...even if he's great this year. Too high a risk and you lose a year when you could have gone to the superbowl with one more impact player on the D.
Dak Prescott for nothing...pure luck.
I have a surprisingly effective prediction system...which team has the most probowl types..
.Dallas, Fredrick, the kid from Notre dame, Smith, Elliot, Lee , Dez (marginally)...[6]
Giants JPP, Snacks, Oliver, Cromartie, Jenkins, Collins, OBJ, Marshall,..8.
really good....Apple, Kennard (wait and see..breakout), Pugh, Shepard, Richenberg...
really good Dallas...??? ??? ??? ??? ??
If I wanted to list the sub standard starters we'd have Flowers, Jerry, Hart....and not much more...you'd have maybe 9. cooper, a few defensive linmean, two corners ,two linebacker and two safeties...
all of which is completely insubstantial and after next year is over it will be only a little clearer.
Having said that I will bet you a draft beer on game no. 1
Dak had an all-pro OL and an electric rookie RB his first year. I don't think any QB in this league has an "easy" job, but I do think he had about as ideal a situation as you can as a rookie.
The Eagles have a much better WR group than Dallas does. Dez hasn't looked like the same guy since the foot injury. Maybe that changes - but even still, Alshon, Matthews, Smith is better than what DAL has.
Elliott and the DAL run game is better than what the Eagles have - but the Eagles also have a better defense than Dallas does, IMO.
This is going to be a tough division.
I know it's easy to dismiss WSH but they're not going to be a cakewalk either. The NFCE has had a reputation for being one of the toughest in football for a while and in recent years it kind of dropped off a bit.. but I think this year is going to be one of the most competitive in recent memory. Not one of the 4 teams is going to be bad. Or at least I'd be surprised.
Dak appeared to be a more finished product, but he had a vastly better supporting cast.
This division is going to be brutal.
I'm all about matchups ... and in my opinion, the Giants match up perfectly with Dallas. I fully expect the Giants to blow the Cowboys out week 1 - they will have no answer for Beckham/Marshall/Shepard/Engram.
Let JJ own Dez with occasional safety help ... Snacks/Collins will do what they do to at least contain EE - make Dak beat them. He won't.
Now going into this year and the moves this off season....I would say the Giants have done a better job improving weaknesses compared to the other 3 teams. Will that equate to wins??? No one knows
On the last Dallas thread, I chose not to engage your statistical argument. This thread I have three questions for you. First, how many new starters will there be for Dallas on opening night (presuming health, of course), and what 13 win team in the past 20 games replaced that many starters and still won 13 or more game? Finally, how many wins are you predicting Dallas to have?
Not many rosters have this much top-end talent. *I know he's a rookie, but he feels like 1 of those "too talented to fail" type selections - and he'll never see a double team with Odell on the field.
Not many rosters have this much top-end talent. *I know he's a rookie, but he feels like 1 of those "too talented to fail" type selections - and he'll never see a double team with Odell on the field.
accidentally (?) left off Pugh/Richburg - who are 2 of the best at their positions when healthy
Dallas is all Elliot and that OL. Philly is too young and has a lot more holes.
Washington has Cousins. Solid but he's one of the most over paid guys in the NFL.
The Giants D was enough to beat Dallas twice. And their O an D took. Step back IMO.
As long as the Cowboys have Dak and Elliott, they are going to be a tough out. I don't even think their O-line has to be as superb as it's been for that to be the case. Obviously, it helps them. But Dak and Elliott are good enough to make them competitive against any team in the NFL.
The Eagles are a huge question mark. They did not improve to the level of Dallas or even close.
Alshon Jeffrey doesn't concern me at all (what's the over/under on how many games he'll play this season, 11.5?). Torrey Smith? One dimensional, and we have Jackrabbit and DRC. The biggest add they have is Blount, very good player going into his age 30 season, had 3.9 ypc on a team led by Brady, and we have the best run-stopping DT in the NFL by a wide margin.
Who are their scary weapons? Derek Barnett? Good prospect, could just as easily be a league average football player. Chris Long? Please, he's little more than a warm body at this point.
Brandon Graham? Good player, but started 16 games and only mustered 5.5 sacks and 41 tackles, with 1 PD.
Wentz has to go from a pretty good prospect to Aaron Rodgers in one season for them to be on the level of the Cowboys. They may get one from us because the Giants and Eagles games are so friggin' weird, but they are not a threat to the division; they are not a threat to us.
and we can knock Alshon/Smith all we want, they are much better players than what they trotted out last year.
As long as the Cowboys have Dak and Elliott, they are going to be a tough out. I don't even think their O-line has to be as superb as it's been for that to be the case. Obviously, it helps them. But Dak and Elliott are good enough to make them competitive against any team in the NFL.
Thank you, Voice of Reason.
He failed to top 30 attempts in half his games and barely completed 50% against the Giants - with 1 TD in 2 games.
GB made every QB look great - that secondary might as well have been starting wacky inflatable arm flailing tube men at corner by the end of the season.
As long as the Cowboys have Dak and Elliott, they are going to be a tough out. I don't even think their O-line has to be as superb as it's been for that to be the case. Obviously, it helps them. But Dak and Elliott are good enough to make them competitive against any team in the NFL.
The Eagles are a huge question mark. They did not improve to the level of Dallas or even close.
Alshon Jeffrey doesn't concern me at all (what's the over/under on how many games he'll play this season, 11.5?). Torrey Smith? One dimensional, and we have Jackrabbit and DRC. The biggest add they have is Blount, very good player going into his age 30 season, had 3.9 ypc on a team led by Brady, and we have the best run-stopping DT in the NFL by a wide margin.
Who are their scary weapons? Derek Barnett? Good prospect, could just as easily be a league average football player. Chris Long? Please, he's little more than a warm body at this point.
Brandon Graham? Good player, but started 16 games and only mustered 5.5 sacks and 41 tackles, with 1 PD.
Wentz has to go from a pretty good prospect to Aaron Rodgers in one season for them to be on the level of the Cowboys. They may get one from us because the Giants and Eagles games are so friggin' weird, but they are not a threat to the division; they are not a threat to us.
I actually do feel that way about Elliot. I don't think Elliot needs the best offensive line in football to be successful. Dak was impressive, when I look at that Dallas offense, it just reminds me of when Leinart was at USC, he looked fantastic, but this was a guy that was just handed the keys to the car, and what a car.
If you swapped Prescott and Eli last year, took Eli and put him in that Dallas offense, with that line, with Elliot, with Dez Bryant and Jason Witten...what kind of year do you think Eli would have?
Take Dak Presscott and stick him the Giants offense last year, how would things change for him? With no threat of a running game? Without the ability to hold the ball and wait for receivers to break open.
Dak played extremely well, but again, when you are playing Dallas last year, your entire focus is on stopping Elliot and that run game, if you don't do that you have no chance. Dak was playing behind a fortress last year, I'm not ready to say he'd keep that level up with a lesser supporting cast.
and we can knock Alshon/Smith all we want, they are much better players than what they trotted out last year.
Philly's defense MIGHT be better than Dallas (that's not even a slam dunk). But their TEAM is not better than Dallas. Not even close.
Quote:
is much better than Dallas
and we can knock Alshon/Smith all we want, they are much better players than what they trotted out last year.
Philly's defense MIGHT be better than Dallas (that's not even a slam dunk). But their TEAM is not better than Dallas. Not even close.
"not even close" ... 2nd year QBs, Philly's OL is no slouch, Ertz+ are a better receiving corp than Dallas' ...
Elliot it a great back, but "not even close" is bs. Dallas is not that good.
Quote:
In comment 13518459 annexOPR said:
Quote:
is much better than Dallas
and we can knock Alshon/Smith all we want, they are much better players than what they trotted out last year.
Philly's defense MIGHT be better than Dallas (that's not even a slam dunk). But their TEAM is not better than Dallas. Not even close.
"not even close" ... 2nd year QBs, Philly's OL is no slouch, Ertz+ are a better receiving corp than Dallas' ...
Elliot it a great back, but "not even close" is bs. Dallas is not that good.
Well, they won 13 games last year and Philly won 7. You are severely overrating Philly. They aren't that good, the OL is far worse than the Cowboys. They have Lane Johnson. Yeah they have Jason Peters who is 35 years old. They have a bunch of decent players, but not a lot of players that really can put them over the top. Further, Dallas' coaching staff is FAR superior to the Eagles'. All this stuff about Dallas' defense was there last year also and Marinelli still made them pretty good.
Here's the deal, Philly will likely be in the basement of the division this year. Not kidding. I don't think they will get to 7 wins like they did last year.
You can talk about individual players all around their roster, fine. But unless Wentz takes a MAJOR leap forward, then the biggest difference in the two teams is QB play, and Dak is at minimum a very good QB already. Wentz is a hope-so/maybe. And the biggest predictor of winning and losing in the NFL is QB play. And then there's Elliott, who is one of the best offensive skill players in football, and NOBODY that the Eagles have is even close.
They aren't close to Dallas. You can wish Dallas away as not being that good, but they aren't going anywhere, and I wish it wasn't so.
And you're talking about Torrey Smith... caught 20 balls in 12 games last year, ffs. Torrey Smith can run fast. He is not a good football player. Repeat...Torrey Smith ain't shit. Sure, Alshon is a nice player but when has he been a great #1? I'll tell you...NEVER. His only two seasons he cracked a thousand yards was when Brandon Marshall was carrying his water for him. He's started 20 games last 2 seasons and has 6 TDs to show for it. He's an injury-prone, overrated receiver that they overpaid for. Dez, even AFTER the foot injury, is still a bigger threat than Alshon. I wouldn't even be surprised if Jordan Matthews ends up being their most productive receiver again this year.
Further, you can knock the Cowboys receiving corps and say they aren't that great, but it doesn't matter because defenses have to worry about Elliott. And Dez, Beasley, and Terrance Williams are a strong enough trio to allow that offense to get it done, like they did last year en route to scoring the 5th most points in the NFL (Philly was 16th).
This hype around Philly is silly. In our division, the Redskins poses a greater threat than the Eagles.
Philly has a better receiving corp, a better defense, and a solid OL. On top of being an annual pain in the ass ... I don't care about last years records, Dallas is nothing special - at all, and they've done nothing to improve this offseason. Philly has.
I think the Giants are by far the most talented team ... but Philly's matchup scares me more than Dallas. Eagles DL is legit, Jenkins is great, and they have weapons now at receiver + Ertz to really do some damage if Wentz progresses.
Dallas has a great OL (with new starters) and Zeke. That's it.
And it means zero that they got a game against us last year. Nada. They would beat us once if we were undefeated and they couldn't buy a win. That's just Eagles-Giants.
Quote:
In comment 13518075 Dave in Hoboken said:
Quote:
and their defense is trash. Our defense will be in Year 2 of our guys we signed from last year in the same defense. They'll be as good as last year, if not alot more familiar with the playbook and eachother. Neither Philly nor Dallas scare me this year. And that is the first year in forever I can honestly say that.
They lost one starting OL. Giving up 18.6 a game= trash. Giving up 17.8= new look doomsday.
Context, amateur. Basing a defenses effectiveness on points per game is ludicrous. Dallas' offense had the ball for 3/4 of the game every week. How many points can the defense give up when they aren't on the field? Maybe Dallas can control the clock and keep the defense off the field again this year, but does that make the defense great because they aren't giving up points while sitting on the sidelines? Of course it does, in your bizarro world.
Why are you a Cowboys fan? I'd love to know the backstory of why someone chooses to root for that random team in Texas. Cause you watched them on Thanksgiving in your onesies while sitting on uncle Stu's lap? It's just strange. What makes a non Texas Cowboys fan? The need to root for the "popular" team? They won all the time when you were younger so you hopped on the bandwagon like a chicken shit?
Yes, how odd. A Cowboys fan in the U.S.A.
BBS - how did you become a chucklehead? I would love to know that backstory as well...
Just looking to find the weakness in the thread and saw your post...
Just happened to be you...
Who would that be? I don't think you are talking about me, because I'm pretty high on the Giants.
Quote:
Always available to tell us all how bad the Giants are and to defend the rivals as if everything they do is perfect and the Giants suck. How nice of you! What would Giants fans do without a miserable prick like you to bring us all back down to earth? How noble of you. I'm sure these two Cowboys fans really appreciate your input. Makes you "unbiased", ya know? Isn't that what you're striving for?
Who would that be? I don't think you are talking about me, because I'm pretty high on the Giants.
No, absolutely not. Jimmy Googs is the miserable contrarian. Always thinks he has to be the "voice of reason" and shit on the Gisnts while praising every other team in the league. It happens in every thread that we talk about opposing teams. I guess he thinks it makes him a smarter fan.
I do think I am both reasonable and smart, but only because reading your posts give me an ego-boost...
I do think I am both reasonable and smart, but only because reading your posts give me an ego-boost...
Eh, I'm done ruining this thread. I don't find you particularly reasonable or smart, but nothing I say will change the way you post. I wish you weren't so damn negative and contrarian but it is what it is. We are all Giants fans in the end.
If you can't, well then I know I have you pegged correctly...
Philly has a better receiving corp, a better defense, and a solid OL. On top of being an annual pain in the ass ... I don't care about last years records, Dallas is nothing special - at all, and they've done nothing to improve this offseason. Philly has.
I think the Giants are by far the most talented team ... but Philly's matchup scares me more than Dallas. Eagles DL is legit, Jenkins is great, and they have weapons now at receiver + Ertz to really do some damage if Wentz progresses.
Dallas has a great OL (with new starters) and Zeke. That's it.
Philly's better defense has been "better" in each of the last three seasons. They've given up more yards and allowed more points in each of the last three seasons. Their receivers aren't better. Dallas did the same thing they always do in the offseason and so did Philly. Which of those approaches would you consider to be more likely to have similar results?
No doubt. But if you're not allowing points and are showing consistent improvement the idea that they're trash and are sure to fail is likely more biased than an honest assessment. So it seems like it would be appropriate to add some facts to the OP's massive oversimplification.
He also thinks Prescott could make exponential advances in his sophomore year and turn a great offense into an immortal offense.
But he sees a potential downside. He thinks the three lost defensive backs were really pretty good, the Safety a good athelete and smart. The two corners experienced in the system and vastly underated and pershaps victimized by a weak pass rush.
Cagey, smart and aware of his own lack of real knowledge, he questions whether late round picks at the cornerback position can seamlessly step into the starting lineup. if they can (unlikely - E. Apple had more talent than your picks and he struggled last year) then you are a superbowl team (ie. with a little luck it's always about "a little luck"), and, if they don't then Dallas might well be a 500 team suffering from rooks, hi expectations and a tough schedule.
He's also old-fashioned and doesn't completely buy the new paradigm " Offense rules" and "imbalance can win".
So re-visit, note how smart the dude really is, pay homage. Revise untempered enthusiasm and recognize that the Cowboys defense might well be an achilles heel.
Cagey, smart and aware of his own lack of real knowledge, he questions whether late round picks at the cornerback position can seamlessly step into the starting lineup. if they can (unlikely - E. Apple had more talent than your picks and he struggled last year)
If you were as savvy as you imagine you'd probably like to know that they're not relying on any rookies to start, they have three vets who can if needed including a rookie who outplayed Apple that was drafted in the sixth round and started 11 games last year, and that when you're measuring teams by Pro Bowlers, which is a poor analysis at best, it doesn't make much of a case when you fail to include someone who actually made the Pro Bowl (Dak) from your list.
No it doesn't. My entire argument is that NFC East fanbases are biased as hell and know little to nothing about Dallas or Wentz. There are some exceptions but for the most part opinions are wildly off base.
Dallas kept their core and built thru the draft. None of the rest of the East can claim that. They were the best team in the division last season and losing some guys from the 26th ranked pass defense or their 5th and 6th best OL are unlikely to be enough to derail them. And that they're the favorites according to pretty much everyone for a reason.
Quote:
hinges on the main Cowboy players taking the next step and offsetting the losses from the offseason with ease yet aren't apply that same logic or chance to the Giants. Congrats.
No it doesn't. My entire argument is that NFC East fanbases are biased as hell and know little to nothing about Dallas or Wentz. There are some exceptions but for the most part opinions are wildly off base.
Dallas kept their core and built thru the draft. None of the rest of the East can claim that. They were the best team in the division last season and losing some guys from the 26th ranked pass defense or their 5th and 6th best OL are unlikely to be enough to derail them. And that they're the favorites according to pretty much everyone for a reason.
He says Witten is a year older and that hurts. So overall, Dallas took some hits but is regrouping via the draft. Depends on how they develop???
Quote:
hinges on the main Cowboy players taking the next step and offsetting the losses from the offseason with ease yet aren't apply that same logic or chance to the Giants. Congrats.
No it doesn't. My entire argument is that NFC East fanbases are biased as hell and know little to nothing about Dallas or Wentz. There are some exceptions but for the most part opinions are wildly off base.
Dallas kept their core and built thru the draft. None of the rest of the East can claim that. They were the best team in the division last season and losing some guys from the 26th ranked pass defense or their 5th and 6th best OL are unlikely to be enough to derail them. And that they're the favorites according to pretty much everyone for a reason.
Did the Giants not build through the draft in addition to also filling 2 huge holes at WR and FB/TE in FA? Again, you are applying your logic only to the Cowboys as if they are they only team that had draft picks or players who will improve in year 2 or 3.
I personally think Dallas is still the team to beat but their biggest question mark is year 2 Prescott and whether or not he improves. It's a valid question and if he doesn't, they are going to lose more games than in 2016. We see shitty sophomore years all the time, the Cowboys aren't above that.
Quote:
In comment 13519336 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
hinges on the main Cowboy players taking the next step and offsetting the losses from the offseason with ease yet aren't apply that same logic or chance to the Giants. Congrats.
No it doesn't. My entire argument is that NFC East fanbases are biased as hell and know little to nothing about Dallas or Wentz. There are some exceptions but for the most part opinions are wildly off base.
Dallas kept their core and built thru the draft. None of the rest of the East can claim that. They were the best team in the division last season and losing some guys from the 26th ranked pass defense or their 5th and 6th best OL are unlikely to be enough to derail them. And that they're the favorites according to pretty much everyone for a reason.
Did the Giants not build through the draft in addition to also filling 2 huge holes at WR and FB/TE in FA? Again, you are applying your logic only to the Cowboys as if they are they only team that had draft picks or players who will improve in year 2 or 3.
I personally think Dallas is still the team to beat but their biggest question mark is year 2 Prescott and whether or not he improves. It's a valid question and if he doesn't, they are going to lose more games than in 2016. We see shitty sophomore years all the time, the Cowboys aren't above that.
Also, LB Sean Lee had a career year and is now a year older. Will he repeat that kind of year or will he fall to his usual injuries? Also, safety valve TE Jason Witten is a year older and isn't going to get any better obviously.
The Giant can stop the run. I believe that until proven otherwise so look for us to force Prescott to beat us. And look for Eli to attack that secondary and also for Perkins to run on that DL.
Quote:
In comment 13519343 elbowj said:
Quote:
In comment 13519336 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
hinges on the main Cowboy players taking the next step and offsetting the losses from the offseason with ease yet aren't apply that same logic or chance to the Giants. Congrats.
No it doesn't. My entire argument is that NFC East fanbases are biased as hell and know little to nothing about Dallas or Wentz. There are some exceptions but for the most part opinions are wildly off base.
Dallas kept their core and built thru the draft. None of the rest of the East can claim that. They were the best team in the division last season and losing some guys from the 26th ranked pass defense or their 5th and 6th best OL are unlikely to be enough to derail them. And that they're the favorites according to pretty much everyone for a reason.
Did the Giants not build through the draft in addition to also filling 2 huge holes at WR and FB/TE in FA? Again, you are applying your logic only to the Cowboys as if they are they only team that had draft picks or players who will improve in year 2 or 3.
I personally think Dallas is still the team to beat but their biggest question mark is year 2 Prescott and whether or not he improves. It's a valid question and if he doesn't, they are going to lose more games than in 2016. We see shitty sophomore years all the time, the Cowboys aren't above that.
Does Dallas see improvement in Prescott or will teams figure him out a bit? hard to say right now but 5 interceptions is ridiculously low for anyone and will be hard to repeat that low number again.
Also, LB Sean Lee had a career year and is now a year older. Will he repeat that kind of year or will he fall to his usual injuries? Also, safety valve TE Jason Witten is a year older and isn't going to get any better obviously.
The Giant can stop the run. I believe that until proven otherwise so look for us to force Prescott to beat us. And look for Eli to attack that secondary and also for Perkins to run on that DL.
Dallas was actually #1 against the run. And Eli has averaged less than 200 yards per game vs. Dallas in the last two years.
And Dak actually only threw 4 Elis last season.
Quote:
In comment 13519372 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
In comment 13519343 elbowj said:
Quote:
In comment 13519336 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
hinges on the main Cowboy players taking the next step and offsetting the losses from the offseason with ease yet aren't apply that same logic or chance to the Giants. Congrats.
No it doesn't. My entire argument is that NFC East fanbases are biased as hell and know little to nothing about Dallas or Wentz. There are some exceptions but for the most part opinions are wildly off base.
Dallas kept their core and built thru the draft. None of the rest of the East can claim that. They were the best team in the division last season and losing some guys from the 26th ranked pass defense or their 5th and 6th best OL are unlikely to be enough to derail them. And that they're the favorites according to pretty much everyone for a reason.
Did the Giants not build through the draft in addition to also filling 2 huge holes at WR and FB/TE in FA? Again, you are applying your logic only to the Cowboys as if they are they only team that had draft picks or players who will improve in year 2 or 3.
I personally think Dallas is still the team to beat but their biggest question mark is year 2 Prescott and whether or not he improves. It's a valid question and if he doesn't, they are going to lose more games than in 2016. We see shitty sophomore years all the time, the Cowboys aren't above that.
Does Dallas see improvement in Prescott or will teams figure him out a bit? hard to say right now but 5 interceptions is ridiculously low for anyone and will be hard to repeat that low number again.
Also, LB Sean Lee had a career year and is now a year older. Will he repeat that kind of year or will he fall to his usual injuries? Also, safety valve TE Jason Witten is a year older and isn't going to get any better obviously.
The Giant can stop the run. I believe that until proven otherwise so look for us to force Prescott to beat us. And look for Eli to attack that secondary and also for Perkins to run on that DL.
Dallas was actually #1 against the run. And Eli has averaged less than 200 yards per game vs. Dallas in the last two years.
And Dak actually only threw 4 Elis last season.
They are acting as if the three starting defensive backs were let go voluntarily so they could bring in younger faster and more aggressive ball hawks.
That's not the case, they were under cap pressure. I think a case can be made that those three were the heart of the defense and were good players victimized by a poor pass rush.
Our friend likes to talk about a bias, the most outlandish proposition set forth is that rookie corners can step in and perform immediately. The question should be "can they perform at all".
Those new dbacks were taken relatively late in the draft, and they don't have great measureables. The word is that they're "ball hawks" , leaders, rich in intangibles...or exactly the type of player who can't step up.
Then there's the smug line that tells us how smart they are building through the draft. The assumption is that once the son took over sanity and sagacity rule in the city that has oil wells downtown.
I don't see that. Gregory was a no.2, Jaylon Smith almost a late one....they were terrible picks...no matter how it turns out (and we are "result orientated" way too much).
The odds of Jaylon Smith ever returning were probably only a little more than 50% and even if he did there's the lost year when he might have pushed them to the Superbowl.
Dak Prescott was complete luck. Teams give up roster to get a franchise QB...Dallas got him for a crappy fourth rounder - or virtually as a gift. The odds of that happening are about 200 to 1, but when it does franchise so benefit that Superbowls come their way.
Seattle and New England are the only two teams I can think of (it's 1:00 AM) that enjoyed that largesee and look what they did.
Collins is another first rounder that they got for absolutely nothing
So the idea that this team was built rationally with sagacious drafting is Cowboy Kool Aid. The idea that they gave up three starting defensive backs to improve is more baloney.
You can do worse case and best case scenario's for all of the teams. The Cowboys' Best case can't be denied...but it's based on Prescott making a move up (very likely), Jaylon coming back and being effective (unlikely) and late round rookies solidifying a secondary (most unlikely). It's based on a team going 13-3 last year with a rookie QB and that alone is reason to make them the favorite, but it also ignores the loss of five starters on the defense and the effect that that might have.
They are a team of great potential with a corresponding downside. But granting that ....stop with the brilliance about the way the team was fashioned.
Dallas profited from pure dumb luck and got Prescott with the approximately the 150 th. pick in the draft and without that great luck you would have put together four wins or so for two years in a row and be regarded as a laughing stock.
Cowboys 2016 Draft Board revealed - ( New Window )
Being scolded about bias is funny.
They are acting as if the three starting defensive backs were let go voluntarily so they could bring in younger faster and more aggressive ball hawks.
That's not the case, they were under cap pressure. I think a case can be made that those three were the heart of the defense and were good players victimized by a poor pass rush.
Our friend likes to talk about a bias, the most outlandish proposition set forth is that rookie corners can step in and perform immediately. The question should be "can they perform at all".
Those new dbacks were taken relatively late in the draft, and they don't have great measureables. The word is that they're "ball hawks" , leaders, rich in intangibles...or exactly the type of player who can't step up.
Then there's the smug line that tells us how smart they are building through the draft. The assumption is that once the son took over sanity and sagacity rule in the city that has oil wells downtown.
I don't see that. Gregory was a no.2, Jaylon Smith almost a late one....they were terrible picks...no matter how it turns out (and we are "result orientated" way too much).
The odds of Jaylon Smith ever returning were probably only a little more than 50% and even if he did there's the lost year when he might have pushed them to the Superbowl.
Dak Prescott was complete luck. Teams give up roster to get a franchise QB...Dallas got him for a crappy fourth rounder - or virtually as a gift. The odds of that happening are about 200 to 1, but when it does franchise so benefit that Superbowls come their way.
Seattle and New England are the only two teams I can think of (it's 1:00 AM) that enjoyed that largesee and look what they did.
Collins is another first rounder that they got for absolutely nothing
So the idea that this team was built rationally with sagacious drafting is Cowboy Kool Aid. The idea that they gave up three starting defensive backs to improve is more baloney.
You can do worse case and best case scenario's for all of the teams. The Cowboys' Best case can't be denied...but it's based on Prescott making a move up (very likely), Jaylon coming back and being effective (unlikely) and late round rookies solidifying a secondary (most unlikely). It's based on a team going 13-3 last year with a rookie QB and that alone is reason to make them the favorite, but it also ignores the loss of five starters on the defense and the effect that that might have.
They are a team of great potential with a corresponding downside. But granting that ....stop with the brilliance about the way the team was fashioned.
Dallas profited from pure dumb luck and got Prescott with the approximately the 150 th. pick in the draft and without that great luck you would have put together four wins or so for two years in a row and be regarded as a laughing stock.
About the only thing you got right was that the Gregory pick was terrible. Jaylon Smith was red shirted last year, Dallas knew this when they drafted him. This year will determine if that was a wise decision.
The remake on the secondary was not brought on by the cap. Under Stephen Jones Dallas dose'nt over pay in free agency. Jones sets a hard number and sticks to it. Just look back since he took over the running of the team and you will see this over and over again.
The players Dallas lost were good players, they all received contracts higher than Dallas was willing to pay. But look at each individual player and you can see why Dallas decided to move on from. Carr was the last player Dallas gave a large contract to in free agency and under performed. Claiborne was to up and down and not consistent as a player to warrant a new contract. Wilcox never became the player Dallas thought he would be.. The one player Dallas wanted back was Church, but Jacksonville offered more than Dallas was willing to match.
That's the free agency part of it. On the draft side there were going to be many good CBs. So many CBs that Dallas was able to draft in the 2nd and 3rd rounds players with 1st round talent. Players like you said were athletic and "ball hawks". That second trait is very important to a Marinelli defense. It's important that the defense produce turnovers, and in the secondary those are interceptions. Something the previous secondary couldn't produce.
The way the team has been constructed is the right way, through the draft. If in the future Smith and Tapper can become starters(for a total of 6)the 2016 draft will be the greatest in team history.
It's justifiable if you doubt Dallas, but this team will again exceed the expectations of the doubters and be in the playoffs.
Quote:
I concede: Dallas has a very high upside they also have a high downside (or is it low downside).
They are acting as if the three starting defensive backs were let go voluntarily so they could bring in younger faster and more aggressive ball hawks.
That's not the case, they were under cap pressure. I think a case can be made that those three were the heart of the defense and were good players victimized by a poor pass rush.
Our friend likes to talk about a bias, the most outlandish proposition set forth is that rookie corners can step in and perform immediately. The question should be "can they perform at all".
Those new dbacks were taken relatively late in the draft, and they don't have great measureables. The word is that they're "ball hawks" , leaders, rich in intangibles...or exactly the type of player who can't step up.
Then there's the smug line that tells us how smart they are building through the draft. The assumption is that once the son took over sanity and sagacity rule in the city that has oil wells downtown.
I don't see that. Gregory was a no.2, Jaylon Smith almost a late one....they were terrible picks...no matter how it turns out (and we are "result orientated" way too much).
The odds of Jaylon Smith ever returning were probably only a little more than 50% and even if he did there's the lost year when he might have pushed them to the Superbowl.
Dak Prescott was complete luck. Teams give up roster to get a franchise QB...Dallas got him for a crappy fourth rounder - or virtually as a gift. The odds of that happening are about 200 to 1, but when it does franchise so benefit that Superbowls come their way.
Seattle and New England are the only two teams I can think of (it's 1:00 AM) that enjoyed that largesee and look what they did.
Collins is another first rounder that they got for absolutely nothing
So the idea that this team was built rationally with sagacious drafting is Cowboy Kool Aid. The idea that they gave up three starting defensive backs to improve is more baloney.
You can do worse case and best case scenario's for all of the teams. The Cowboys' Best case can't be denied...but it's based on Prescott making a move up (very likely), Jaylon coming back and being effective (unlikely) and late round rookies solidifying a secondary (most unlikely). It's based on a team going 13-3 last year with a rookie QB and that alone is reason to make them the favorite, but it also ignores the loss of five starters on the defense and the effect that that might have.
They are a team of great potential with a corresponding downside. But granting that ....stop with the brilliance about the way the team was fashioned.
Dallas profited from pure dumb luck and got Prescott with the approximately the 150 th. pick in the draft and without that great luck you would have put together four wins or so for two years in a row and be regarded as a laughing stock.
About the only thing you got right was that the Gregory pick was terrible. Jaylon Smith was red shirted last year, Dallas knew this when they drafted him. This year will determine if that was a wise decision.
The remake on the secondary was not brought on by the cap. Under Stephen Jones Dallas dose'nt over pay in free agency. Jones sets a hard number and sticks to it. Just look back since he took over the running of the team and you will see this over and over again.
The players Dallas lost were good players, they all received contracts higher than Dallas was willing to pay. But look at each individual player and you can see why Dallas decided to move on from. Carr was the last player Dallas gave a large contract to in free agency and under performed. Claiborne was to up and down and not consistent as a player to warrant a new contract. Wilcox never became the player Dallas thought he would be.. The one player Dallas wanted back was Church, but Jacksonville offered more than Dallas was willing to match.
That's the free agency part of it. On the draft side there were going to be many good CBs. So many CBs that Dallas was able to draft in the 2nd and 3rd rounds players with 1st round talent. Players like you said were athletic and "ball hawks". That second trait is very important to a Marinelli defense. It's important that the defense produce turnovers, and in the secondary those are interceptions. Something the previous secondary couldn't produce.
The way the team has been constructed is the right way, through the draft. If in the future Smith and Tapper can become starters(for a total of 6)the 2016 draft will be the greatest in team history.
It's justifiable if you doubt Dallas, but this team will again exceed the expectations of the doubters and be in the playoffs.
Being scolded about bias is funny.
It's not false. Dallas had the #1 ranked rush defense in the NFL. That's a fact. Other measurements can certainly add context but per the NFL Dallas was #1.
They are acting as if the three starting defensive backs were let go voluntarily so they could bring in younger faster and more aggressive ball hawks.
That's not the case, they were under cap pressure. I think a case can be made that those three were the heart of the defense and were good players victimized by a poor pass rush.
Our friend likes to talk about a bias, the most outlandish proposition set forth is that rookie corners can step in and perform immediately. The question should be "can they perform at all".
Those new dbacks were taken relatively late in the draft, and they don't have great measureables. The word is that they're "ball hawks" , leaders, rich in intangibles...or exactly the type of player who can't step up.
Then there's the smug line that tells us how smart they are building through the draft. The assumption is that once the son took over sanity and sagacity rule in the city that has oil wells downtown.
I don't see that. Gregory was a no.2, Jaylon Smith almost a late one....they were terrible picks...no matter how it turns out (and we are "result orientated" way too much).
The odds of Jaylon Smith ever returning were probably only a little more than 50% and even if he did there's the lost year when he might have pushed them to the Superbowl.
Dak Prescott was complete luck. Teams give up roster to get a franchise QB...Dallas got him for a crappy fourth rounder - or virtually as a gift. The odds of that happening are about 200 to 1, but when it does franchise so benefit that Superbowls come their way.
Seattle and New England are the only two teams I can think of (it's 1:00 AM) that enjoyed that largesee and look what they did.
Collins is another first rounder that they got for absolutely nothing
So the idea that this team was built rationally with sagacious drafting is Cowboy Kool Aid. The idea that they gave up three starting defensive backs to improve is more baloney.
You can do worse case and best case scenario's for all of the teams. The Cowboys' Best case can't be denied...but it's based on Prescott making a move up (very likely), Jaylon coming back and being effective (unlikely) and late round rookies solidifying a secondary (most unlikely). It's based on a team going 13-3 last year with a rookie QB and that alone is reason to make them the favorite, but it also ignores the loss of five starters on the defense and the effect that that might have.
They are a team of great potential with a corresponding downside. But granting that ....stop with the brilliance about the way the team was fashioned.
Dallas profited from pure dumb luck and got Prescott with the approximately the 150 th. pick in the draft and without that great luck you would have put together four wins or so for two years in a row and be regarded as a laughing stock.
You're full of misinformation and the jealousy drips off the screen. Dallas spent more time with Dak than any other QB. Then they drafted him.
2nd and 3rd isn't late round. They're not being relied on as starters. Awuzie has insane measurables. You're off here. You copped a little info from a dying board but it was corrupted in the process of your interpretation.
on paper at least ,wentz should improve in year 2 that eagles team before a few key injuries last year was better than dallas in my view
dallas are going to lean on zeke the more they do that the more tape people get to stop him the harder it will be for dallas to rely on that alone. they need some help at WR dez isnt the dominant player he used to be, still good but not as uncoverable as he once was,witten is solid but time is catching up with him dallas is becoming all about the run and this is now a passing league
i also think washington is making improvements they were the number 8 ranked offence last year they added some parts to the defence as well they are still a work in progress but could easily finish 2 or 3rd in the division i think the division comes down to a fight between the eagles and giants
with dallas fighting washington not to end up bottom this year
with each week that passes another cowboys player runs into a potential ban that was another one this week LB damien wilson aggravated assault you have to figure a ban will follow this charge to add to gregory and irvin on an already ravaged front 7 that just opens the door for the giants week 1 and for dallas to fall behind early once that happens the clamour for romo will only make things harder on dak
it would probably have been better for dak had romo signed for another team as it stands jerry can bring him back whenever he wants
on paper at least ,wentz should improve in year 2 that eagles team before a few key injuries last year was better than dallas in my view
dallas are going to lean on zeke the more they do that the more tape people get to stop him the harder it will be for dallas to rely on that alone. they need some help at WR dez isnt the dominant player he used to be, still good but not as uncoverable as he once was,witten is solid but time is catching up with him dallas is becoming all about the run and this is now a passing league
i also think washington is making improvements they were the number 8 ranked offence last year they added some parts to the defence as well they are still a work in progress but could easily finish 2 or 3rd in the division i think the division comes down to a fight between the eagles and giants
with dallas fighting washington not to end up bottom this year
with each week that passes another cowboys player runs into a potential ban that was another one this week LB damien wilson aggravated assault you have to figure a ban will follow this charge to add to gregory and irvin on an already ravaged front 7 that just opens the door for the giants week 1 and for dallas to fall behind early once that happens the clamour for romo will only make things harder on dak
it would probably have been better for dak had romo signed for another team as it stands jerry can bring him back whenever he wants
The front seven is not so ravaged. The ends are Lawrence, Charlton, Tapper, and Mayowa. The tackles are Crawford, Collins, Thronton, and Paea. I haven't included other players that are in the mix.
The perception about the Dallas defense not having any depth at DL or secondary is just not true. What Dallas doesn't have are name or well known players. In Dallas's case the sum is greater than the whole.
Quote:
they only had 340 attempts against them for 3.9 yards per rush. Seattle and NYG had the best yards against sustained over more carries. You can draw whatever conclusions you want for how/why that happened but the math doesn't lie. NYG at .3 yards better and Seattle at .5 yards better (with 100 more attempts against).
Being scolded about bias is funny.
It's not false. Dallas had the #1 ranked rush defense in the NFL. That's a fact. Other measurements can certainly add context but per the NFL Dallas was #1.
They were #1 in total yards allowed, which is a shitty barometer when they didn't have anywhere close to the best YPC against (a whole half yard worse than Seattle as I pointed out earlier). This isn't something I'm plucking out of thin air. Who was harder to run against, Dallas or Seattle/NYG? The answer is simple and it doesn't take a fan of either team to see it.
on paper at least ,wentz should improve in year 2 that eagles team before a few key injuries last year was better than dallas in my view
dallas are going to lean on zeke the more they do that the more tape people get to stop him the harder it will be for dallas to rely on that alone. they need some help at WR dez isnt the dominant player he used to be, still good but not as uncoverable as he once was,witten is solid but time is catching up with him dallas is becoming all about the run and this is now a passing league
i also think washington is making improvements they were the number 8 ranked offence last year they added some parts to the defence as well they are still a work in progress but could easily finish 2 or 3rd in the division i think the division comes down to a fight between the eagles and giants
with dallas fighting washington not to end up bottom this year
with each week that passes another cowboys player runs into a potential ban that was another one this week LB damien wilson aggravated assault you have to figure a ban will follow this charge to add to gregory and irvin on an already ravaged front 7 that just opens the door for the giants week 1 and for dallas to fall behind early once that happens the clamour for romo will only make things harder on dak
it would probably have been better for dak had romo signed for another team as it stands jerry can bring him back whenever he wants
The front seven is not so ravaged. The ends are Lawrence, Charlton, Tapper, and Mayowa. The tackles are Crawford, Collins, Thronton, and Paea. I haven't included other players that are in the mix.
The perception about the Dallas defense not having any depth at DL or secondary is just not true. What Dallas doesn't have are name or well known players. In Dallas's case the sum of the parts are greater than the whole.
There is nothing wrong with drafting the base of your team and re-signing the core players you drafted to long-term deals. There is nothing wrong with saving your cap money, not overspending to keep marginal players, so that you have more money to spend on your own drafted players later on. There is also nothing wrong with using your cap savings earned by passing on re-signing your own players and signing better ones when you have the cap dollars to do it.
When a poster continually points out that building the team through the draft is "right" they are also implying the inverse, that buying players through FA is "wrong". To me, following a season when a divisional rival spent big bucks and all the biggest signings turned into All-Pros, pointing out that a cash-strapped team like Dallas is refusing to spend cap dollars is either fantasy or a way to deal with serious jealousy. I think the second, but there are deluded fans out there.
If Dallas had the money and could sign Snacks, OV and Jackrabbit, would Dallas fans not want them to because that's not the "right way" to build a team?
The players I didn't include are draft choices who may make the team or practice squad.
The other players are Demontre Moore, Richard Ash, and Zach Collins.
Dallas would have to keep 10 DL for one of these players to make team.
There is nothing wrong with drafting the base of your team and re-signing the core players you drafted to long-term deals. There is nothing wrong with saving your cap money, not overspending to keep marginal players, so that you have more money to spend on your own drafted players later on. There is also nothing wrong with using your cap savings earned by passing on re-signing your own players and signing better ones when you have the cap dollars to do it.
When a poster continually points out that building the team through the draft is "right" they are also implying the inverse, that buying players through FA is "wrong". To me, following a season when a divisional rival spent big bucks and all the biggest signings turned into All-Pros, pointing out that a cash-strapped team like Dallas is refusing to spend cap dollars is either fantasy or a way to deal with serious jealousy. I think the second, but there are deluded fans out there.
If Dallas had the money and could sign Snacks, OV and Jackrabbit, would Dallas fans not want them to because that's not the "right way" to build a team?
Dallas finished above the Giants on the way to winning the division. What would they have to be jealous of?
There is nothing wrong with drafting the base of your team and re-signing the core players you drafted to long-term deals. There is nothing wrong with saving your cap money, not overspending to keep marginal players, so that you have more money to spend on your own drafted players later on. There is also nothing wrong with using your cap savings earned by passing on re-signing your own players and signing better ones when you have the cap dollars to do it.
When a poster continually points out that building the team through the draft is "right" they are also implying the inverse, that buying players through FA is "wrong". To me, following a season when a divisional rival spent big bucks and all the biggest signings turned into All-Pros, pointing out that a cash-strapped team like Dallas is refusing to spend cap dollars is either fantasy or a way to deal with serious jealousy. I think the second, but there are deluded fans out there.
If Dallas had the money and could sign Snacks, OV and Jackrabbit, would Dallas fans not want them to because that's not the "right way" to build a team?
You probably have to go back to the 90s to find the last time Dallas had success with high priced free agents. I prefer the way the team is being run under Stephen Jones. Free agency is used to find bridge players until the future is drafted.
I actually look at the final 53 to see how many players have played for othet teams and how many are home grown.
If my way too early 53 is close it should be McFadden, Butler, Cooper, Looney, Bell, Irving, Mayowa, Thornton, and Paea. That's 10, which is actually higher than in recent years.
The players I didn't include are draft choices who may make the team or practice squad.
The other players are Demontre Moore, Richard Ash, and Zach Collins.
Dallas would have to keep 10 DL for one of these players to make team.
fanatic II - saying your team has depth in the secondary following an offseason like the one your team has had is a stretch at best. You may not be counting on rookies to play well, but it sure sounds like it. It's true this draft had depth @DB, but considering the guys you just let go are you certain that Dallas found qualified replacements? If Carr (FA 5-yr/50MM in 2012), Claiborne (1st Rd 6th overall) were not players worthy of a strong second contract, what does that say about Dallas' ability to find talented CB? They've been trying to get top players in their secondary for half a decade now. Church is the one player they wanted back you say, but why wouldn't they have ponied up HALF of what they paid Carr just five years ago to keep him? He wasn't worth it?
I'm not arguing that the Eagles are more of a threat than Dallas. Not at all. I don't believe that.
What I'm wondering about is the thinking when you lose 7 starters or key contributors to your defense (Church, Carr, McClain, Claiborne, Wilcox and Crawford) and are counting on either their backups, rookies, or players returning from significant injury (Jaylon Smith) and a handful of cheap FA (Blanton, Carroll, Paea, and Moore), and expecting the defense to be as good or better. To me that seems like very wishful/optimistic thinking on your part. Certainly you can understand how someone who ISN'T a Dallas fan would look at that change and think things might take a step backward. Even if the players are all just as good or better, it is reasonable to expect the defense to take some time to grow and adjust.
The biggest reason why Giants fans are optimistic about their defense is because of what happened in the last 11 games of the 2016 season. Don't forget, the Giants opened up 2-3. The defense, while adding 3 all-pro players and another solid starter, failed to reach its potential in the early part of the season. Why is it difficult to believe that the same won't be true of Dallas. It seems the best one should hope for is that the defense for Dallas will click by later in the season, and that the offense can carry them to the playoffs.
Quote:
The players I didn't include are draft choices who may make the team or practice squad.
The other players are Demontre Moore, Richard Ash, and Zach Collins.
Dallas would have to keep 10 DL for one of these players to make team.
fanatic II - saying your team has depth in the secondary following an offseason like the one your team has had is a stretch at best. You may not be counting on rookies to play well, but it sure sounds like it. It's true this draft had depth @DB, but considering the guys you just let go are you certain that Dallas found qualified replacements? If Carr (FA 5-yr/50MM in 2012), Claiborne (1st Rd 6th overall) were not players worthy of a strong second contract, what does that say about Dallas' ability to find talented CB? They've been trying to get top players in their secondary for half a decade now. Church is the one player they wanted back you say, but why wouldn't they have ponied up HALF of what they paid Carr just five years ago to keep him? He wasn't worth it?
I'm not arguing that the Eagles are more of a threat than Dallas. Not at all. I don't believe that.
What I'm wondering about is the thinking when you lose 7 starters or key contributors to your defense (Church, Carr, McClain, Claiborne, Wilcox and Crawford) and are counting on either their backups, rookies, or players returning from significant injury (Jaylon Smith) and a handful of cheap FA (Blanton, Carroll, Paea, and Moore), and expecting the defense to be as good or better. To me that seems like very wishful/optimistic thinking on your part. Certainly you can understand how someone who ISN'T a Dallas fan would look at that change and think things might take a step backward. Even if the players are all just as good or better, it is reasonable to expect the defense to take some time to grow and adjust.
The biggest reason why Giants fans are optimistic about their defense is because of what happened in the last 11 games of the 2016 season. Don't forget, the Giants opened up 2-3. The defense, while adding 3 all-pro players and another solid starter, failed to reach its potential in the early part of the season. Why is it difficult to believe that the same won't be true of Dallas. It seems the best one should hope for is that the defense for Dallas will click by later in the season, and that the offense can carry them to the playoffs.
Dallas finished above the Giants on the way to winning the division. What would they have to be jealous of?
Seriously? Wouldn't Dallas fans be ecstatic if they'd signed three all-pros on their defense last year, or this year for that matter? So we're just supposed to believe they're happier NOT signing all-pros because they're building their team "the right way"? C'mon.
Look, NYG went 9-2 in their final 11 games last year, a year all NYG fans knew was a transition year with a revamped defense and a first year HC. Included in that stretch was the one game Dallas had penciled in as a must-win, @NYG. We're obviously happy with the outcome. Rational Giants fans want improvement - they're not entirely happy with the play of the offense and they don't want to start out a season 2-3 again. But there are real roster-based reasons for Giants fans to expect improvement from their offense and real reasons to hope that the defensive play down the stretch is repeatable. Only time will tell, but there is absolutely no reason a Giants fan should feel "jealous" of the Cowboys going into this year, excepting a few acknowledged positions.
Quote:
Dallas finished above the Giants on the way to winning the division. What would they have to be jealous of?
Seriously? Wouldn't Dallas fans be ecstatic if they'd signed three all-pros on their defense last year, or this year for that matter? So we're just supposed to believe they're happier NOT signing all-pros because they're building their team "the right way"? C'mon.
Not if the results were finishing behind the Giants. Dallas fans would rather win the East than see the team pay big $ for second place. Seems pretty simple.
Not if the results were finishing behind the Giants. Dallas fans would rather win the East than see the team pay big $ for second place. Seems pretty simple.
I guess you've misunderstood my argument, since nobody would argue with what you've said there. "Any fan would rather win their division than see their team pay big $ for second place". You're right, that is a simple argument and means nothing.
I'll try again to see if you've misunderstood or incapable of understanding.
I was making a point about how the argument of "building a team the right way" is weak. I used for an example what the Giants did - which is to take one of the worst defenses in the history of the league, and upgrade it with available salary cap dollars by signing 3 all-pros.
Can you agree that "the right way" can include signing all-pros when you have the cap space to do so, particularly when you want to strengthen a unit?
If so, there is no need to keep emphasizing that Dallas is building their team "the right way", as though that's the only way to build a winning franchise. That's not necessarily correct. Let me remind you that in 2007 the Giants won a super bowl. That year the starters included the following players acquired through free agency:
Madison Hedgecock
Plaxico Burress
Kareem McKenzie
Shaun O'Hara
Fred Robbins
Antonio Pierce
Kawika Mitchell
Sam Madison
Jeff Feagles.
In 2011, when the Giants again won a SB, they had the following acquired through FA:
David Baas
Kareem McKenzie
Chris Canty
Michael Boley
Antrel Rolle
Without these players they wouldn't have won either SB. Keep patting yourself on the back for your divisional title last year. Don't sign any players (even ones you want to keep like Church because you don't have any cap space) and count on the draft to build your team. Doing so will hopefully bring you another 20 years like the last one.
The fact of the matter is that the Cowboys have been too cash-strapped to be players in free agency. That will change in the future, but this year that was a fact. Trying to boast about the strategy of not spending money (when you don't have any) is a weak argument. Get it?
Quote:
Not if the results were finishing behind the Giants. Dallas fans would rather win the East than see the team pay big $ for second place. Seems pretty simple.
I guess you've misunderstood my argument, since nobody would argue with what you've said there. "Any fan would rather win their division than see their team pay big $ for second place". You're right, that is a simple argument and means nothing.
I'll try again to see if you've misunderstood or incapable of understanding.
I was making a point about how the argument of "building a team the right way" is weak. I used for an example what the Giants did - which is to take one of the worst defenses in the history of the league, and upgrade it with available salary cap dollars by signing 3 all-pros.
Can you agree that "the right way" can include signing all-pros when you have the cap space to do so, particularly when you want to strengthen a unit?
If so, there is no need to keep emphasizing that Dallas is building their team "the right way", as though that's the only way to build a winning franchise. That's not necessarily correct. Let me remind you that in 2007 the Giants won a super bowl. That year the starters included the following players acquired through free agency:
Madison Hedgecock
Plaxico Burress
Kareem McKenzie
Shaun O'Hara
Fred Robbins
Antonio Pierce
Kawika Mitchell
Sam Madison
Jeff Feagles.
In 2011, when the Giants again won a SB, they had the following acquired through FA:
David Baas
Kareem McKenzie
Chris Canty
Michael Boley
Antrel Rolle
Without these players they wouldn't have won either SB. Keep patting yourself on the back for your divisional title last year. Don't sign any players (even ones you want to keep like Church because you don't have any cap space) and count on the draft to build your team. Doing so will hopefully bring you another 20 years like the last one.
The fact of the matter is that the Cowboys have been too cash-strapped to be players in free agency. That will change in the future, but this year that was a fact. Trying to boast about the strategy of not spending money (when you don't have any) is a weak argument. Get it?
[quote] In comment 13520410 elbowj said:
Quote:
Not if the results were finishing behind the Giants. Dallas fans would rather win the East than see the team pay big $ for second place. Seems pretty simple.
I guess you've misunderstood my argument, since nobody would argue with what you've said there. "Any fan would rather win their division than see their team pay big $ for second place". You're right, that is a simple argument and means nothing.
I'll try again to see if you've misunderstood or incapable of understanding.
I was making a point about how the argument of "building a team the right way" is weak. I used for an example what the Giants did - which is to take one of the worst defenses in the history of the league, and upgrade it with available salary cap dollars by signing 3 all-pros.
Can you agree that "the right way" can include signing all-pros when you have the cap space to do so, particularly when you want to strengthen a unit?
If so, there is no need to keep emphasizing that Dallas is building their team "the right way", as though that's the only way to build a winning franchise. That's not necessarily correct. Let me remind you that in 2007 the Giants won a super bowl. That year the starters included the following players acquired through free agency:
Madison Hedgecock
Plaxico Burress
Kareem McKenzie
Shaun O'Hara
Fred Robbins
Antonio Pierce
Kawika Mitchell
Sam Madison
Jeff Feagles.
In 2011, when the Giants again won a SB, they had the following acquired through FA:
David Baas
Kareem McKenzie
Chris Canty
Michael Boley
Antrel Rolle
Without these players they wouldn't have won either SB. Keep patting yourself on the back for your divisional title last year. Don't sign any players (even ones you want to keep like Church because you don't have any cap space) and count on the draft to build your team. Doing so will hopefully bring you another 20 years like the last one.
The fact of the matter is that the Cowboys have been too cash-strapped to be players in free agency. That will change in the future, but this year that was a fact. Trying to boast about the strategy of not spending money (when you don't have any) is a weak argument. Get it?
No. And the boast that was repeated all of once is that Dallas is confident in an approach that largely ignores free agency because they've been more successful with that approach than the rest of the East has. It was made in resposnse to the oft reissued claim that Dallas did nothing to improve. That belief is apparently centered on the notion that free agency is the only occurrence in the offseason. If you were to look at recent history in the NFC East you'd see that Washington and Philadelphia always improve the most in the offseason. Because they're very active in signing names, sometimes from Dallas. Dallas loses guys. Everyone has a big circle jerk over how horrible Dallas will be now. Then they start playing games and sure enough Dallas still does that better than they're free spending division mates. You're right that there's more than one way to skin a cat. But for all of Dallas cap woes, they allowed .8 points a game more than the Giants. Scored a TD more a game. Won the division. And didn't get blown out in the playoffs. The free spending Giants were on the wrong side of the ledger there. So I'm failing to see why you'd insist that I'd be jealous of a less successful approach.
The Cowboys have battled cap woes for the entire salary cap era. They have always been completely negligent of the cap. More than any other team. I'm sure you weren't pounding your chest at the billions of free agents they've brought in over the years. But now, you have to change your narrative. Although I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't even alive the last time Dallas won a Super Bowl. You seem very, ummm, young. We will go with young so as to not hurt your sensitivities.
the last time the cowboys actually accomplished anything.
The Cowboys have battled cap woes for the entire salary cap era. They have always been completely negligent of the cap. More than any other team. I'm sure you weren't pounding your chest at the billions of free agents they've brought in over the years. But now, you have to change your narrative. Although I wouldn't be surprised if you weren't even alive the last time Dallas won a Super Bowl. You seem very, ummm, young. We will go with young so as to not hurt your sensitivities.
Your reputation for astute yet cutting analysis was apparently well earned. Don't light any matches though. Dem scarecrows burn quick.
the last time the cowboys actually accomplished anything.
I want to see how Prescott does this year now that teams have had a chance to review & evaluate how the Cowboys execute the offense, a safe offense based on the run. Kudos to the Cowboys for 13-3 and a strong year. I look forward to camp an the writeups on how things are going for each team.
I'm sure you do enjoy it. I mean you made it up so it makes sense that you'd like it.
My only contention is that with the recent arrest issues coupled with all the new bodies on the roster, well, how can you not see the Cowboys struggling early much like the Giants struggled early last year with a new all-star cast? Football is the ultimate team sport and it takes time to gel. Thoughts?
Quote:
that all the replacement players will just step in without a hitch, picking up the slack and not only equaling but besting the 13-3 record last year.
I'm sure you do enjoy it. I mean you made it up so it makes sense that you'd like it.
So your formula is no longer good? I thought you opined that the prior years record guaranteed the same or better record? HMMM?
Quote:
In comment 13520577 UConn4523 said:
Quote:
that all the replacement players will just step in without a hitch, picking up the slack and not only equaling but besting the 13-3 record last year.
I'm sure you do enjoy it. I mean you made it up so it makes sense that you'd like it.
So your formula is no longer good? I thought you opined that the prior years record guaranteed the same or better record? HMMM?
I believe the error there is in the interpretation, but no never argued that. Good try though
My only contention is that with the recent arrest issues coupled with all the new bodies on the roster, well, how can you not see the Cowboys struggling early much like the Giants struggled early last year with a new all-star cast? Football is the ultimate team sport and it takes time to gel. Thoughts?
They had a starting QB with about 10 days to prep. Lost the first one. Then won 11 straight. Not much of a concern.
Quote:
I appreciate your POV. Your a Dallas fan and of course see your team in a good light much like I see mine in a good light.
My only contention is that with the recent arrest issues coupled with all the new bodies on the roster, well, how can you not see the Cowboys struggling early much like the Giants struggled early last year with a new all-star cast? Football is the ultimate team sport and it takes time to gel. Thoughts?
They had a starting QB with about 10 days to prep. Lost the first one. Then won 11 straight. Not much of a concern.
Quote:
In comment 13520585 SGMen said:
Quote:
I appreciate your POV. Your a Dallas fan and of course see your team in a good light much like I see mine in a good light.
My only contention is that with the recent arrest issues coupled with all the new bodies on the roster, well, how can you not see the Cowboys struggling early much like the Giants struggled early last year with a new all-star cast? Football is the ultimate team sport and it takes time to gel. Thoughts?
They had a starting QB with about 10 days to prep. Lost the first one. Then won 11 straight. Not much of a concern.
Prescott was there the entire camp. Truly amazing what he accomplished, yes, but we are talking team defense here in particular. Many moving parts. I mean, D. Wilson is done brandishing a handgun with witnesses. Caroll will certainly be suspended for the DWI at some point. New bodies. I mean, that is a LOT of change. Realistically, if this was the Giants I'd be worried about early season lapses just because that is what tends to happen with many new faces? Thoughts?
All those guys will be there for camp. Defense isn't why Dallas wins football games. Wilson who knows but the NFL doesn't seem to quick. Plus he's a SAM backer playing 20% of the snaps. About as many as Irving. They're returning the majority of their snaps in the secondary. It's not nearly the issues Giants fans wish it was IMO. Fortunate that they're playing Eli and they have his number. That's why Dallas is giving 6 points rn in week one.
I just don't get it, but then I've always been happy with the size of my penis, and I never felt the need to compensate for any "shortcomings" by getting into fights with strangers.
Heavy sigh.
Quote:
In comment 13520593 elbowj said:
Quote:
In comment 13520585 SGMen said:
Quote:
I appreciate your POV. Your a Dallas fan and of course see your team in a good light much like I see mine in a good light.
My only contention is that with the recent arrest issues coupled with all the new bodies on the roster, well, how can you not see the Cowboys struggling early much like the Giants struggled early last year with a new all-star cast? Football is the ultimate team sport and it takes time to gel. Thoughts?
They had a starting QB with about 10 days to prep. Lost the first one. Then won 11 straight. Not much of a concern.
Prescott was there the entire camp. Truly amazing what he accomplished, yes, but we are talking team defense here in particular. Many moving parts. I mean, D. Wilson is done brandishing a handgun with witnesses. Caroll will certainly be suspended for the DWI at some point. New bodies. I mean, that is a LOT of change. Realistically, if this was the Giants I'd be worried about early season lapses just because that is what tends to happen with many new faces? Thoughts?
All those guys will be there for camp. Defense isn't why Dallas wins football games. Wilson who knows but the NFL doesn't seem to quick. Plus he's a SAM backer playing 20% of the snaps. About as many as Irving. They're returning the majority of their snaps in the secondary. It's not nearly the issues Giants fans wish it was IMO. Fortunate that they're playing Eli and they have his number. That's why Dallas is giving 6 points rn in week one.
Hypothetically, if Wilson is suspended 2 games; if Caroll is suspended 2 games; and, god knows who else it HURTS. Sure, if Elliott and Prescott were suspended due to their ongoing issues it is a much bigger, material blow (they won't be suspended IMHO) than Wilson and Caroll.
As for the opening day line, the 6 points has to do with how Las Vegas thinks the money will be bet and not who will win. Apples and Oranges.
Fact is, I'm a bit worried about Eli, our OT's, FS D. Thompson's injury; whether our young RB's are ready, etc. Until the pads go on and we see a few pre-season games we won't have a true barometer of how good we've become.
On defense, I truly believe we are coming out of the gates on FIRE; that MLB B. Goodson is going to be an overall upgrade; that our depth is better this year; that M. Thompson is going to surprise & stay healthy; and, our DT rotation will be just good enough. You can't have every piece of the puzzle perfect.
All things being equal and we are healthy, I like us opening day though I think it will be a close game and not some blowout.
This is where I'm at with elbowj. I think Dallas is the team to beat - but can't seem to get elbowj to concede ANYTHING. What's wrong with admitting that some of the events over the past 4-5 months could set Dallas back just a little? I like to chat football with guys who are realists - have no real interest in doing it with guys who cannot admit any step backwards and rest entirely on their team's upside. It's too bad.
Quote:
that's exactly my point. No matter what happens there's apparently no downside and only upside for the Cowboys. Coming on this thread you'd think we were talking about the Patriots.
This is where I'm at with elbowj. I think Dallas is the team to beat - but can't seem to get elbowj to concede ANYTHING. What's wrong with admitting that some of the events over the past 4-5 months could set Dallas back just a little? I like to chat football with guys who are realists - have no real interest in doing it with guys who cannot admit any step backwards and rest entirely on their team's upside. It's too bad.
No way Wilson & Caroll aren't a "blow" to the team. And Ezekiel Elliott could end up being suspended as well. It ain't good.
I just don't get it, but then I've always been happy with the size of my penis, and I never felt the need to compensate for any "shortcomings" by getting into fights with strangers.
Heavy sigh.
I don't get it either. It takes a special kind of person with no life to troll other teams message boards with the sole intent to ignite arguments
fanatic II : 7/2/2017 12:15 pm : link : reply
Since 2006 Dallas has competed for the NFC East title into week 17. The two exceptions were 2010 and 2015 when Romo was injured. Last year was the exception when Romo was injured and Dallas competed for the division.
If the last 11 years are any indication it would predict that the division will go through Dallas.
History is funny. Since 2006, Dallas have finished 3rd or 4th in the division 4 times. They finished 2nd 3 times, and first 4 times. If you extend back to 2000, they finished dead last the same number of times as first.
The difference from that view to BBI is if the Giants go 8-8 or 7-9, any talk about them competing for a division title late in the year is called a loser mentality.
Let's bottom line it. In the last 16 years, the Cowboys have made the playoffs 6 times and have two playoff wins.
In the same period, the Giants have made the Super Bowl three times with two rings.
Quote:
NO
fanatic II : 7/2/2017 12:15 pm : link : reply
Since 2006 Dallas has competed for the NFC East title into week 17. The two exceptions were 2010 and 2015 when Romo was injured. Last year was the exception when Romo was injured and Dallas competed for the division.
If the last 11 years are any indication it would predict that the division will go through Dallas.
History is funny. Since 2006, Dallas have finished 3rd or 4th in the division 4 times. They finished 2nd 3 times, and first 4 times. If you extend back to 2000, they finished dead last the same number of times as first.
The difference from that view to BBI is if the Giants go 8-8 or 7-9, any talk about them competing for a division title late in the year is called a loser mentality.
Let's bottom line it. In the last 16 years, the Cowboys have made the playoffs 6 times and have two playoff wins.
In the same period, the Giants have made the Super Bowl three times with two rings.
The question of the thread was "who is the greater threat".
I pointed out since 2006(when Romo began to start) Dallas has been in the run for the division or playoffs right up to week 17. The only years that didn't occur was in 2010 and 2015 when Romo was hurt.
If you go by this past history it would say to you that Dallas will be in the run for the division or playoffs right up to the last game and thus the greater threat.
It has nothing to do with winning, it has to do with the team you believe will be there at the end competing against you for the division or playoff spot. That answer is Dallas.
Quote:
response from a Dallas fan:
Quote:
NO
fanatic II : 7/2/2017 12:15 pm : link : reply
Since 2006 Dallas has competed for the NFC East title into week 17. The two exceptions were 2010 and 2015 when Romo was injured. Last year was the exception when Romo was injured and Dallas competed for the division.
If the last 11 years are any indication it would predict that the division will go through Dallas.
History is funny. Since 2006, Dallas have finished 3rd or 4th in the division 4 times. They finished 2nd 3 times, and first 4 times. If you extend back to 2000, they finished dead last the same number of times as first.
The difference from that view to BBI is if the Giants go 8-8 or 7-9, any talk about them competing for a division title late in the year is called a loser mentality.
Let's bottom line it. In the last 16 years, the Cowboys have made the playoffs 6 times and have two playoff wins.
In the same period, the Giants have made the Super Bowl three times with two rings.
The question of the thread was "who is the greater threat".
I pointed out since 2006(when Romo began to start) Dallas has been in the run for the division or playoffs right up to week 17. The only years that didn't occur was in 2010 and 2015 when Romo was hurt.
If you go by this past history it would say to you that Dallas will be in the run for the division or playoffs right up to the last game and thus the greater threat.
It has nothing to do with winning, it has to do with the team you believe will be there at the end competing against you for the division or playoff spot. That answer is Dallas.
But I still think the defection on defense plus the potential suspensions will hurt them early and a slow start is very likely. If the Giants offense can't exploit that secondary, well, what can I say I'd be surprised.
But I still think the defection on defense plus the potential suspensions will hurt them early and a slow start is very likely. If the Giants offense can't exploit that secondary, well, what can I say I'd be surprised.
100% agree and it's foolish to write Dallas off altogether. They are the team to beat, but on opening night I expect our offense should be able to put up points and move the ball in the air against that defense. I also will be very disappointed if we can't do that, provided we're relatively healthy.
I'm going to be disappointed if our defense lets them control the ground game too, but that is far from a given. With a new DT joining the starting DL and a new MLB, I could definitely see them moving the ball on us. I'm not hoping that's the case. I'd like to see us gel on defense from day one, but let's not pretend that we won't have a brand new signal caller on defense at Mike who could take some adjusting of his own. And if we're fair we'll acknowledge that his biggest test of the season may be against the Dallas running game on opening night.
So fanaticII is correct when he says that Dallas is more of a threat than Philly. Anything else is wishful thinking on Giants fans part, imo.
Quote:
The Cowboys will be in it until the end. Their offense is too strong not to win some close games and such.
But I still think the defection on defense plus the potential suspensions will hurt them early and a slow start is very likely. If the Giants offense can't exploit that secondary, well, what can I say I'd be surprised.
100% agree and it's foolish to write Dallas off altogether. They are the team to beat, but on opening night I expect our offense should be able to put up points and move the ball in the air against that defense. I also will be very disappointed if we can't do that, provided we're relatively healthy.
I'm going to be disappointed if our defense lets them control the ground game too, but that is far from a given. With a new DT joining the starting DL and a new MLB, I could definitely see them moving the ball on us. I'm not hoping that's the case. I'd like to see us gel on defense from day one, but let's not pretend that we won't have a brand new signal caller on defense at Mike who could take some adjusting of his own. And if we're fair we'll acknowledge that his biggest test of the season may be against the Dallas running game on opening night.
I wonder if JT Thomas heals up enough and sticks since he's solid in coverage?
Link - ( New Window )
Strength of schedule also counts.
Quote:
Football Outsiders have Philly as their sixth ranked defense, Cowboys as their 18th ranked defense and the Giants second. Just food for thought Link - ( New Window )
Interesting. These rankings mean more to me than the pure Points Allowed statistics; yards allowed.
Strength of schedule also counts.
FO has Dallas winning the division and the Giamts at 8-8.
Are you sure you aren't looking at 2016, just as you thought point differential crossed over years instead of being predictive of the current year.
I'm starting to think your grasp of statistics is pretty fucking shitty.
They don't have a single team projected to be below 5-11 in record. That would be the 1st time that happened since a 16 game schedule was released. The probability of that happening is extremely, extremely low.
When a company who lives on statistics posts something that absurd, I'm not sure using their metrics is really going to make an argument strengthened
And for them too...
And for them too...
My guess for the Giants is 11-5 and the Cowboys 10-6, Eagles 9-7 and Skins 7-9. What does that mean? Absolutely nothing but wishful thinking.
Are you sure you aren't looking at 2016, just as you thought point differential crossed over years instead of being predictive of the current year.
I'm starting to think your grasp of statistics is pretty fucking shitty.
Scoring margin is predictive from year to year and I wasn't the one who brought up FO and they made the prediction for 2017. Anything else?
Quote:
I come here to talk about the football team I root for (and occasionally other things, too), but it would never occur to me to go to a message board for fans of another team just to talk trash and get into arguments. I mean, what's the point?
I just don't get it, but then I've always been happy with the size of my penis, and I never felt the need to compensate for any "shortcomings" by getting into fights with strangers.
Heavy sigh.
I don't get it either. It takes a special kind of person with no life to troll other teams message boards with the sole intent to ignite arguments
Well, it looks like we are dealing with a very special type of loser. This is now back to back weekends for this basement dweller.
Keeping on typing this doesn't make it true. Scoring margin is most definitely not predictive from year to year - it may be predictive within a current year (but that isn't the point).
YAJ debunked it pretty clearly in the other thread where scoring margin in a previous year was said to be predictive of the next year's success.
Quote:
Scoring margin is predictive from year to year
Keeping on typing this doesn't make it true. Scoring margin is most definitely not predictive from year to year - it may be predictive within a current year (but that isn't the point).
YAJ debunked it pretty clearly in the other thread where scoring margin in a previous year was said to be predictive of the next year's success.
Did you realize that the FO predictions, that you claimed didn't exist, are based on it right? Another oopsie
Dallas will be a threat but it will take some time. I suspect they could be off to a slow start before the defense begins to put it together.
I am hoping the Giants stay sharp and get to 5-0; Dallas 2-3.
Philly is harder for me to judge at this point. But no way you can say Dallas is clearly "better" with this off-season.
Do you mean the same FO predictions that don't have a single team lower than 5-11 this year nor do their predictive wins in total equal the predictive losses?
That's a huge "oopsie", but not on my part. You realize you're basing an argument around a system that is predicting that no team will be worse than 5-11 - which hasn't happened once since the 16 game schedule is folly, right?
Quote:
Did you realize that the FO predictions, that you claimed didn't exist, are based on it right? Another oopsie
Do you mean the same FO predictions that don't have a single team lower than 5-11 this year nor do their predictive wins in total equal the predictive losses?
That's a huge "oopsie", but not on my part. You realize you're basing an argument around a system that is predicting that no team will be worse than 5-11 - which hasn't happened once since the 16 game schedule is folly, right?
Quote:
Did you realize that the FO predictions, that you claimed didn't exist, are based on it right? Another oopsie
Do you mean the same FO predictions that don't have a single team lower than 5-11 this year nor do their predictive wins in total equal the predictive losses?
That's a huge "oopsie", but not on my part. You realize you're basing an argument around a system that is predicting that no team will be worse than 5-11 - which hasn't happened once since the 16 game schedule is folly, right?
That changes the fact that it exists and is relied upon by them for their predictions how? Your position was that I made it up, that they didn't make predictions, and that it was debunked. None of those are true. They do make predictions, their predictions are based on a statistical formula designed by Daryl Morey and no salty Giants fans angry at what how they view the respective positions can change it. Seems odd that your confidence is based on your own poor knowledge and utter reliance on weak personal attacks. You were wrong and made at data. Shits funny.
Quote:
Was every bit as good as the Dallas OL. Go ahead and compare sack and rushing totals with both units. Please. Then sprinkle in wins and losses for justice. Please. Go ahead.
All Pros
NYG OL= 1
Dallas OL= 5
Postseason success
NYG - Yes
Dallas - No.
Ok fine. I will allow that the Dallas OL is a slight tick better but make no mistake, the Giants OL DOMINATED the NFL for a good stretch of time. If the Dallas OL is better, it isn't by very much.
And please, don't sit here and tell me that Dallas doesn't get too much hype at times-- all pro accolades included and I know full well the value of the all pro nod. It's legit. Still, what I say is true.