NFL PLAYBOOK Examines NFC EAST - Page 4 - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Everlastingxxx · 03-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM1613

Talking about injuries? The minicamps haven't even started yet and one of you new pickups already got injured.

The Redskins lost Pierce, but they got Barrow and Arrington (played four games). They lost Coles, but got Moss and Patten. They lost Smoot, but they got Bowen (played five games), Rabach and Jansen. They also got stabilty at quarterback, which is a must. Just because they didn't have the most glamorous offseason for the first time in ten years doesn't mean they will be even worse this season.

Sorry if I sound like a troll...but I believe it.

And the Giants are obvious.

Why does this Eagles fan always seem to make more sense? :iggles:

mschmidt64 · 03-24-2005

You frickin' guys.

Every year its the same.

You panic over the Skins, time and time again, because you think the talent they have and the talent they acquire is worth two shats.

Those bums aren't going to take a single step forward next year, especially if they draft a CB at 9, so cross your frickin' fingers that they do.

That team is a mess from top to bottom. Their QB situation isn't stable. Its a complete and utter mess. Brunell was worse than Vinny and paid 47 times as much. Ramsey is their own personal Quincy Carter... the guy with the physical abilities of Dan Marino and the mental acuity of a fig. The problem is, those retards are even slower than we are. They still think Ramsey is going to put it all together. Even we weren't braindead enough to continue with Carter.

Their offensive line is a joke. Samuels is probably the most overrated lineman in the league, given the money he's making.

The one position on offense that was a strength for them -- WR -- they just turned into an afterthought. Moss isn't Coles. Patten isn't anyone.

Their defensive front 4 is a joke. They don't have a single player on that line worth keeping outside of Cornelius Griffin. And he's about as good as some of the backups on the Eagles.

Lavar Arrington is undisciplined and costs the defense more big plays than he makes. Barrow is old and fragile, and yet somehow they spin it as a positive thing that they continue to pay that 36 year old while letting go of the better, younger Pierce.

And now they just lost Smoot. Meaning they are going to have to invest big money and resources on a CB in the draft -- the most meaningless position on the defense!

Finally, Gregg Williams is going to end up experiencing a Zimmer-like setback with his blitz schemes now that people have had a year to figure them out. In the end, if you don't have success up front, which they don't, teams will beat you cause you can't blitz forever.

You guys should be throwing up your hands with the state that team is in.

They're a non frickin factor and they will be watching the playoffs home yet again this offseason.

The Giants are the team that I've been thinking about. They could be solid.

Depends on Coughlin more than anyone else, IMO.

dargonking999 · 03-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Everlastingxxx

Why does this Eagles fan always seem to make more sense? :iggles:

because we have idiot wanna be cowboys fans(oilerman)

Eddie · 03-24-2005

Honestly, I don't think we've closed the gap between the Eagles and us. They have 6 day 1 picks ... and have done a good job in turning unwanted players into draft picks. I'm not sure how they got Miami to give them a 2nd rounder for AJ Feeley, but they're doing something right.

We've done decent in FA this year, but still don't have much talent otherwise. I honestly don't see any player on this team other than Roy Williams starting on the 92 Super Bowl team.

joshjwp · 03-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by mschmidt64

You frickin' guys.

Every year its the same.

You panic over the Skins, time and time again, because you think the talent they have and the talent they acquire is worth two shats.

Those bums aren't going to take a single step forward next year, especially if they draft a CB at 9, so cross your frickin' fingers that they do.

That team is a mess from top to bottom. Their QB situation isn't stable. Its a complete and utter mess. Brunell was worse than Vinny and paid 47 times as much. Ramsey is their own personal Quincy Carter... the guy with the physical abilities of Dan Marino and the mental acuity of a fig. The problem is, those retards are even slower than we are. They still think Ramsey is going to put it all together. Even we weren't braindead enough to continue with Carter.

Their offensive line is a joke. Samuels is probably the most overrated lineman in the league, given the money he's making.

[View Full Quote]

Couldn't have said it better myself!

bsheeern · 03-24-2005

We've done decent in FA this year, but still don't have much talent otherwise. I honestly don't see any player on this team other than Roy Williams starting on the 92 Super Bowl team.[/quote]

I wouldn't compare any player on this team by that analogy. This isn't 1992 when it comes to the NFL. Those days are over. Free agency has eliminated Teams like the 90's Cowboys, 80's 49ers and so on. Don't get me wrong the Pats are a great team, but they would be just a good team if they had played in the 90's. We had better talent than you could possibly acquire now because of FA.
I do think we have closed the gap a lot between us and the Eagles. I'd be willing to bet that we win at least 9-11 games this year and beat the Eagles once.

bsheeern · 03-24-2005

[quote=OILERMAN]Ferguson will require double teams, on running downs.

[quote=OILERMAN]On passing downs the only player on the Cowboys roster that could require a double team is Glover, and even he has seen his better days.

Well last year Glover got double teamed on every single down. 1st through 3rd. Most of the time he would also get chipped by a RB as well, so what will you do next year. You can't double Glover and Ferg.

AJM1613 · 03-24-2005

From what I saw in New York, Ferguson was never the one drawing the double teams, it was Robertson, who at this point of his career is probably better than Glover.

AJM1613 · 03-24-2005

And the reason why Ferguson was never subbed on passing downs was because Evans was hurt, and Reed really isn't that good.

aikemirv · 03-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM1613

From what I saw in New York, Ferguson was never the one drawing the double teams, it was Robertson, who at this point of his career is probably better than Glover.

Oh yeah, him and all of his three sacks who rarely was in the starting lineup as a rookie..
Ferguson had more sacks and tackles than Robertson, so I guess Ferguson is better than Robertson too. Please don't tell me Robertson got the doubles when teams were dealing with Abraham and Ellis!.

That is a laugher that Robertson is better than Glover.

That just shows you're bias and nothing else!

bsheeern · 03-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM1613

From what I saw in New York, Ferguson was never the one drawing the double teams, it was Robertson, who at this point of his career is probably better than Glover.

That's funny Glover had more sacks in one year that that kid has had in his career.

AJM1613 · 03-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by aikemirv

Oh yeah, him and all of his three sacks who rarely was in the starting lineup as a rookie..
Ferguson had more sacks and tackles than Robertson, so I guess Ferguson is better than Robertson too. Please don't tell me Robertson got the doubles when teams were dealing with Abraham and Ellis!.

That is a laugher that Robertson is better than Glover.

That just shows you're bias and nothing else!

Since when did I say Ferguson didn't have more sacks and tackles than Robertson? That doesn't make him better. Tackles are a real weak way to judge a player and sacks for interior linemen only go so far (Glover had more sacks and tackles than Seymour, does that make him the better player?).

And because I thought one Jets linemen was better than the other I'm bias? I didn't form opinions on these players today.

ravidubey · 03-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM1613

You'll still beat them but they will have the better record.

And I'm pretty sure they won the East in 1999, and finished with a better record than you in 2000, 2001, and 2002.

Dallas is what, 13-1 against Washington since late 1997? The Cowboys have also had a better record since 2003. Where Washington really buggers us is in Championship games where they have us 0-2, but Dallas is 5-3 in the Superbowl compared with Washington's 3-2.

Philly, despite it's post-McNabb success, has no hardware to show for it (unless you count that NFC Championship game trophy). That's truly sad!

OILERMAN · 03-24-2005

You can't say anything bad about the Cowboys though......

aikemirv · 03-24-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by AJM1613

Since when did I say Ferguson didn't have more sacks and tackles than Robertson? That doesn't make him better. Tackles are a real weak way to judge a player and sacks for interior linemen only go so far (Glover had more sacks and tackles than Seymour, does that make him the better player?).

And because I thought one Jets linemen was better than the other I'm bias? I didn't form opinions on these players today.

No, you are Bias because you said Roberston was better than Glover.

I saw the Jets play a few times last year and Robertson did very little and Ferguson was always a prescence, that was before the Cowboys got him and he was my #1 choice for a FA pickup before FA ever started this year. And sacks and tackles aside Ferguson is better than Robertson from what I observed.