Defensive Line a far cry from the debacle of 2013

[Doomsday]

Ummm, how about the fact that 12-4 was the most recent record as a reason why they won't be .500? That not a reason? How about a continued strengthening OL? That not a reason? QB just had his best season ever... Not a reason? Dez Bryant, not a reason?

There are lots of reasons that you can find that this team won't be .500, if you're willing to actually, you know, think about stuff. But you don't want to do that. You just want to make sweeping generalizations and pass them off as facts. Like the team isn't committed to the run... Use your brain.

Hey - buying in is buying in. I don't knock ya for it.

I haven't bought in and I described the conditions which would make me consider it, already.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

And after the "this team is great" circle jerk is finished, the fact remains that there's not alot of difference between your 8-8 finish and your 12-4 finish, it's four games that could have gone either way given, luck. Providence. Circumstances.

Well if here is not a lot of difference between 8-8 and 12-4, then why you keep harping about how we are an 8-8 team to our core and not a 12-4 team to our core? And once again... luck/providence... wtf? Use rationale. Luck is not an argument.

And once again... what is "our core" that is 8-8? You keep avoiding that question.

That's the majority of NFL teams. There are about 20 such, average, run of the mill 8-8 type squads. Any one of which can have a magic fluke 12-4 year. That's Dallas.

Are you really this dumb and lazy? There were only TWO 8-8 teams last year: the Dolphins and 49ers. So 2 out of 32 now constitutes a majority?

We're mired in mediocrity. Playing really close to .500 ball for the last 20 years. "You are what your record says you are" according to The Tuna. Our record says we are mediocre. Only a few more 11-5 or 12-4 or 13-3 seasons all strung together, can change that. Not the protestations of Homerville, no matter how shrill and loud they may be.

What does a team from 20 years ago have to do with a team of TODAY or even last year? Most of the players on this team were 3years old 20 years ago. Just stupid. Please stop.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

What is mediocre about 12-4?

Oh, you're saying we are not what our record says we are...? We're not. Not to our "core". Because that was all luck/flukes. Or we are what our record two years ago, or three years ago says we are.... That most recent record, forget that shiz.

 

[Doomsday]

What does a team from 20 years ago have to do with a team of TODAY or even last year?

It was plural. Teams. 20 years of mediocrity.

Are you really this dumb and lazy? There were only TWO 8-8 teams last year: the Dolphins and 49ers. So 2 out of 32 now constitutes a majority?

Can you not read? 8-8 TYPE squads. There's 20 or so of them, every year. And every year, we're one of those. It's a fact. We are a mediocre team that caught alot of the good breaks, one fluke year. Just like 2007.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

That ain't what happened and in fact that never came up. What happened was, you fucking ran for cover and never returned to the thread when your claim that Nawlins was 2-1 when we played them, was blown up and exposed to be totally wrong. They in fact were 1-2 and imploding to finish with a lousy seven and fucking nine. You got your ass stomped, and ran. Thread in question.

And now you're also the one who kept repeating Peterson's value drops after draft day. Hasn't happened.

Point being, you never admit when you're wrong, you just flee then come back later with your same failed shit, and also outright lie about past conversations.

But, it is entertaining!

Ok they were 1-2 when they faced us. BIG FUCKING DEAL. A slow start. How the fuck can you claim a team is imploding with the season barely underway? The Patriots were 2-2 in the first quarter of the season. They had gotten mudstompped by the Chiefs. I supposed they were imploding as well?

After the Saints lost to us, they went on to win 3 of their next 4 games. They destroyed the Packers. The Saints were up and down all season. So what are they to their "core"? I know you will refer to their Super Bowl victory a few years back, as a means of dismissing last season... but what about the last 20 YEARS OF SAINTS' HISTORY? Are you not going to refer to that as a barometer, like you do with the Cowboys? Because if you do... you would find that the Saints were much more futile than the Cowboys.

But my question is, why stop at 20 years? Why not go beyond? You set these parameters to create a weak-ass argument. Like I said, you argue like a woman going through menopause: pure idiocy and emotion --- no rationale at all. But in defens eof women... it's not their fault --- it's hormonal. What's your excuse?

 

[Doomsday]

But my question is, why stop at 20 years? Why not go beyond? You set these parameters to create a weak-ass argument.

Umm, no. The parameter is just fact. Dallas has been exactly .500 in the win column with exception of last year, since 1997.

Ok they were 1-2 when they faced us. BIG FUCKING DEAL

Your claim that it was 2-1 came with the added claim that I had "no fucking clue." The irony is thick.

Hey once again: I don't mind at all that you and some of the others and truly, millions of other Dallas fans have bought in. You see what's being built. It's okay with me and I don't knock you for that.

I have not bought in. It's really just that simple.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

Umm, no. The parameter is just fact. Dallas has been exactly .500 in the win column with exception of last year, since 1997.
Your claim that it was 2-1 came with the added claim that I had "no fucking clue." The irony is thick.

Hey once again: i don't mind at all that you and some of the others and truly, millions of other Dallas fans have bought in. It's okay with me and I don't knock you for that.

I have not bought in. It's really just that simple.

But from 1997 to 2014 is 18 YEARS --- NOT 20. You use 1997 because of the 6-10 record --- that shows your bias right there. But if it's really 20 years you are going by... you'd have to include both the 95 and 96 season --- one of those season in which the Cowboys won their last Super Bowl. And if you do that... then what you get over that span an average of 10-win seasons.

So my question, what does those 5-11 teams coached by Campo, have to do with the Super Bowl winning teams of the 90's and the current 12-4 team of now?

 

[Doomsday]

You use 1997 because of the 6-10 record --- that shows your bias right there.

Umm, no. I "use" 1997 because that's been the meter from sports reporting, for quite some time. It represents the fall from elite, to mediocre.

20 years is today, this day 20 years ago we were looking at the offseason before our last SB win at SB 30.

Yes, this is 20 years since Dallas has been in a Super Bowl.

So my question, what does those 5-11 teams coached by Campo, have to do with the Super Bowl winning teams of the 90's and the current 12-4 team of now?

Nothing, and I didn't say they did. But what they all have in common is, Jerruh Jones.

The team has been mediocre since 1997. That is established fact. I believe it still is.

You believe it isn't.

Both stands are fair. And I don't knock anyone for their faith.

 

[Doomsday]

And you're not even seeing the other side of the pancake, which I've also said many times - any one of those 8-8 Dallas teams could have been 11-5, 12-4, but for a little break here, a few less penalties there, a few less injuries here, a few less 3 and outs there.

Because that is the nature of this league. ANY of the 20 or so mediocre teams that start off 0-0 every season, could pop up and win it all.

 

[dbair1967]

I guess, but we still didn't take a single DT while we count on Crawford and spareville Golden Cock in the middle.

.

I bet Ken Bishop beats out Hayden. Bishop played pretty well v Green Bay and is more active than Hayden is. We also have Terrell McClain, I don't think he was ever really 100% all of last yr. Hopefully he will be this yr

This Whaley kid bears watching as well.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

Umm, no. I "use" 1997 because that's been the meter from sports reporting, for quite some time. It represents the fall from elite, to mediocre.

20 years is today, this day 20 years ago we were looking at the offseason before our last SB win at SB 30.

Yes, this is 20 years since Dallas has been in a Super Bowl.
Nothing, and I didn't say they did. But what they all have in common is, Jerruh Jones.

The team has been mediocre since 1997. That is established fact. I believe it still is.

You believe it isn't.

Both stands are fair. And I don't knock anyone for their faith.

You're all over the place. Quit trying to clean the bullshit up talking about the offseason 20 years ago. You were exposed. No games are played during the offseason, hence why it is called the offseason. Not once until now did you ever refer to the offseason of 20 years ago. Your shit is flawed. 97 is not 20 years ago.

You referred to 20 years ago, and now are trying to throw out the last Super Bowl victory --- which was 20 year ago, and use the offseason following the last Super Bowl win. You cannot even keep your arguments consistent. Quite an ovarian trait.

 

[dbair1967]

Playing .500 ball over the last 20 years with NO reason at all to believe that won't continue for the foreseeable future. Gee, they went 13-3 on 2007. Bet you were screaming SUPER BOWL NEXT YEAR!!!!!

I think some of this has been covered. This team is considerably younger than the 2007 team was. And while the OL in 2007 was good for most of the year, it was nowhere near as talented or effective as this group is.

And despite what most people who hate Garrett think, he's a far better coach than Wade was too. This coaching staff is also better than the staff that was here under Wade.

 

[Doomsday]

You were exposed.

I've been quite consistent in what I have been saying. The fact that you believe your own bullshit and misstatement of what I have been saying, changes nothing.

You're one of the devoted faithful, I am not. There's no crime either way.

I think some of this has been covered. This team is considerably younger than the 2007 team was. And while the OL in 2007 was good for most of the year, it was nowhere near as talented or effective as this group is.

And despite what most people who hate Garrett think, he's a far better coach than Wade was too. This coaching staff is also better than the staff that was here under Wade.

None of this changes the fact that the religious faithful WERE screaming "SUPER BOWL NEXT YEAR" after the 2007 season. Exactly like they are now.

 

[Doomsday]

No games are played during the offseason, hence why it is called the offseason.

You're not even bothering to read. I never said any games were played during the offseason.

THIS offseason is 20 years exactly - 20 years ago we were looking at the offseason before our last SB win at SB 30.

Yes, it's been 20 years since Lord Jerruh led his faithful followers to the Promised Land.

 

[dbair1967]

None of this changes the fact that the religious faithful WERE screaming "SUPER BOWL NEXT YEAR" after the 2007 season. Exactly like they are now.

I'm not screaming "SUPER BOWL NEXT YR!!!!!"

But there is nothing about this team right now that would suggest we are going to be far WORSE than last season. The single biggest weakness of the team was an impotent pass rush. On paper at least that has been significantly upgraded. It also helps to have Sean Lee back and Rolando McClain in a full offseason training program.

Right now we have to be considered one of the favorites to win the NFC. Doesn't mean we will but there is definitely more reason for optimism than at this same time last yr. A lot of stuff can happen (injuries being the worst) but this is a pretty young team that's had a pretty significant talent infusion so far this offseason. The only position that any person could argue is WORSE off is the RB spot, and I think anyone with half a brain believes with an elite OL, even average backs can produce at an acceptable level.

I'd be very surprised right now if we finish worse than 11-5 or 10-6.

 

[Doomsday]

I'm not screaming "SUPER BOWL NEXT YR!!!!!"

Because you're not one of the devout faithful. Pardon if it seemed I was saying you were.

I'd be very surprised right now if we finish worse than 11-5 or 10-6.

And in truth, nothing would really surprise me. Even 0-16. I don't expect that, I expect at least 8-8 or better, but less wouldn't be a surprise neither would 12-4 or even 14-2.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

In other news, Patriots released both CBs Brandon Browner and Kyle Arrington.

Cowboys ought to take a look at one of them.

 

[Doomsday]

In other news, Patriots released both CBs Brandon Browner and Kyle Arrington.

Cowboys ought to take a look at one of them.

I saw they did that earlier today, before the news of their Ballghazi punishment came out.

 

[Iamtdg]

And in truth, nothing would really surprise me. Even 0-16. I don't expect that, I expect at least 8-8 or better, but less wouldn't be a surprise neither would 12-4 or even 14-2.

So, 0-16 wouldn't surprise you? Really?

 

[Doomsday]

So, 0-16 wouldn't surprise you? Really?

Well of course, depending on what happens with injuries and etc. I should moderate that and say yeah, if they didn't have a disastrous injury situation 0-16 would be a surprise. Not a huge one, due to the vagaries of the league itself, but a mild one.

Like I said I expect 8-8, 9-7, something along those lines.