BUY OR SELL: The Cowboys have enough talent to reach the Super Bowl this year.

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki

Very true Hos. Say you baking out in the desert yet?

68 degrees here. Everything is green. Absolutely beautiful. :p

Naw only going to be 102 today. Want any pictures of what female body parts look like? I think I have some from January when people were laying out.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

Parity is an idea that any team any year has the ability to attain the top.

That is not true.

Make you wonder who came up with that definition of Parity........

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

If you do even a modicum of research on the teams which arrived on Super Bowl Sunday, you will see there are reasons why.

I agree. But I couldn't find any reasons why anyone would think the Atlanta Falcons (3-13 in 1996, 7-9 in 1997) would have any success going into the 1998 season. I couldn't find any reasons why anyone would think the St. Loius Rams (4-12 in 1997, 5-11 in 1998) would have any SuperBowl aspirations going into the 1999 season.

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

To say Carolina didn't have the notion they would be their at the beginning of the season is false. They had a very solid defense and two players which lit up the league in sacks the year before.

They shopped for both a proven runningback and a quarterback which had some experience in winning in Europe, which I was screaming about for our team to sign him, but was told I had no clue by the Quincy Man-Love Clan.

These are the same Panthers that won 1 game in 2001. The same Panther team that won only 7 games in 2002. We all know everyobe knew the Panthers had the tools because they had 2 double digit sack generating DEs. Productivity never seen before in the NFL on a losing team. We all knew Jake Delhomme was a key piece, especially after he couldn't even win the starting job at training camp, but of course he had an NFLE championship ring.

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

The Pats were rebounding off a poor season and had made some significant off-seasoin addition. Not to mention they have been stockpiling picks for the last several years.

I am assuming you are talking about the 2003 Patriots, because if you are talking about the 2001 Patriots you are only partially correct. The 2001 Patriots were 5-11 in 2000. They hadn't stock piled any picks in the years prior to their 1sr SuperBowl run. We all saw the Patriots coming didn't we. In the previous year they had sunken to mediocrity. But we all knew Brady was a steal and he was going to lead the Patriots to the SuperBowl in 2001.

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

Each year since this parity mantra has been trotted out there has been a definite reason why the Super Bowl teams showed up.

Even Baltimore, which was probably the weakest team offensively of all the parity Champs, had reasons it would be a terrific team.

And if you did the research you would see that Baltimore had over 20 1st round picks on their squad that year. They had the team assembled.

They also had a little luck. Which the poorer teams haven't had.

But if this parity is such an equalizer, then please explain why a team like the Eagles, which we all hate but have to admit have had some very scary teams over the last three years, have not ascended to the top?

The easy answer is parity makes everyone have the same shot at the Championship.

And that is untrue. Only the teams with the players and coaches in place have that shot. All others need not apply.

So please explain to us how fans like yourself KNEW that the 2003 Panthers, 1998 Falcons, 2001 Patriots and 1999 Rams had PLAYERS and Coaching in place prior to their respective SUperBowl appearances.

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

Do any of you really believe the Cardinals or Chargers have that shot?

If not, then how does parity apply to us and not them?

I believe they do. If the team with the worst winning PCT (Rams 90-98) in the 90's can make 2 SuperBowl appearance whose to say Denny Green and Marty Shotteinmer ( 2 of the most winnigest coaches) can't get there. Wasn't Dick Vermeil in the same boat like MArty and Denny until 1999.

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

Parity, in the form touted on boards like this is a myth. because the teams that rise still must have the players and coaches in p.alce.

I do not feel this team has those in place. That is my opinion. And no parity argument will change that. Because that is the same as asking about any question mark the Cowboys have and getting this stupid answer, "In Parcells I trust."

Finally the truth emerges from all the fluff.

Parity is the result of Salary cap and free agency. Owners, coaches and players in the NFL have all stated that in todays NFL every team has the chance to be competitive. Some fans believe the Cowboys have some of the factors that are required to be successful and competitive.

It's not surprising that you would dismiss Parity, because if you acknowledged that Parity existed it would mean that some of those players you don't like (Carter) have a chance to get the Cowboys to the SuperBowl.

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

Nav22, your continued attempt to paint me in a corner doesn't work because you don't get it.

And since your one note is to tell me about my prediction last year as if that has any meaning. Then extrapolating it to some nebulous football knowledge you feel I lack, thanks but I pass on making a prediction this year.

Well I've known you for quite sometime. We've had fun together at extremeskins and posted together at various Cowboy forums. I know you have been 80% wrong on the QB position for the past 2 and half seasons. I respect your posts and always visit your web site, but you've still been wrong on the QB position

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

But please ignore that I was one of the more vocal proponents to acquire Delhomme on all these boards this last year. And guys like you were right there telling me Delhomme was a waste.

Now how does that work? I predicted a dismal season for the Cowboys and was wrong. But I also predicted Delhomme was a pretty terrific player and we shoulkd acquire him.

Your views on delhomme are just like your parity theory Nav, it's jaded by your opinions of Quincy.

And wrong.

Your views on the Cowboys is jaded by your opinion of Carter.

I believe you'd have a different outlook if there was another QB penciled to start.

[TruBlueCowboy]

I think it all goes back to Bill Parcells' own confession that there wasn't much of a difference between the top and bottom teams in today's NFL. We can act like we know which teams will have successful seasons and which ones won't, but truth is, we don't know a damn thing and almost every team in this league has a chance to win the Super Bowl these days. Teams go from 5-11 to 11-5 and vice versa like it's no big thing, anyone who says they can predict it is fooling themselves.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by TruBlueCowboy

I think it all goes back to Bill Parcells' own confession that there wasn't much of a difference between the top and bottom teams in today's NFL. We can act like we know which teams will have successful seasons and which ones won't, but truth is, we don't know a damn thing and almost every team in this league has a chance to win the Super Bowl these days. Teams go from 5-11 to 11-5 and vice versa like it's no big thing, anyone who says they can predict it is fooling themselves.

So TwoDeep3 is fooling himself

[CoCo1]

Parity does NOT make everyone equal. It simply means there are a lot of teams matched more closely thereby increasing the odds that someone other than the declared favorites can rise to the top.

Of course we can now see, in retrospect, the seeds of potential on the rosters of recent surprise SB participants. But if one could clearly identify the Panthers, Rams, Patriots etc meteoric rises then why were they preseason underdogs instead of favorites. It is very difficult to know which question marks will pan out and which will blow up.

Is Dallas one of those teams with the potential to rise up in 2004? Yes! But its still against the odds IMO. So while I cannot PREDICT a SB run for Dallas in 2004 I can sure see how it COULD happen in this unpredictable age of parity.

That said, I'm selling, but hoping.

[Nav22]

So TwoDeep3 is fooling himself

Yes..he is.

TwoDeep, you make some good points, but here's what it really comes down to...

You claim you wanted Delhomme in Dallas, thinking he'd be a steal.

When the Panthers picked him up, and he didn't even win a starting job in TC, did you HONESTLY think he'd take over at some point and take that team to the Big Dance? That team that went 7-9 the previous year, and with a HC that didn't have much HC experience.

And let's see you honestly tell everyone here that you figured the Rams had a great shot at winning it all after going 5-11 the year before and Trent Green got hurt in Preseason before 1999-2000.

Oh, then there's the Pats of 2001. After going 5-11 in 2000, they started off 0-2, Bledsoe was hurt for the year, and Cris Collinsworth at that point called them "the worst team in football." Did you sit there thinking "hah what a fool..Tom Brady, the 6th round pick from last year with no experience, will tear it up, and with that supporting cast and D he can take them all the way to the top this year!!!"

See, you're sitting there acting like it's easy to tell which teams will be good and which teams have no real shot, but I don't remember you saying "watch out for those Panthers!" before last year. And I'd be willing to bet that you didn't think the Ravens, Rams, or Pats were ready to contend for the Super Bowl before they each won it.

If what you're saying is true, that you can tell which teams (despite their record in the previous year) will be contendors, then please enlighten us.

Tell us which teams with losing records in 2003 you have penciled in as playoff/Super Bowl contendors.

[TwoDeep3]

The biggest difference between you and me Nav is...

You seem to really care what I think.

[Hook'em#11]

And it still all goes back to what the Defensive and Offensive lines are gonna be like.

[Nav22]

I do care about what you think, TwoDeep. In the same way Jane Goodall cared about what apes were thinking.

Nice job avoiding the topic at hand though, Jimmy the Greek.

[Hook'em#11]

Originally Posted by Nav22

I do care about what you think, TwoDeep. In the same way Jane Goodall cared about what apes were thinking.

Nice job avoiding the topic at hand though, Jimmy the Greek.

Hell , that is Classic Twodeep.