Cowboys and Garrett Against Quality Competition

[visionary]

Cowboys "excuse-rolodex" (of seinfeld fame)

1) injuries

2) bad luck

3) NFL is cyclical

4) bounce of the ball

5) this can happen to any team

6) its a process

7) the fan base is spoiled (after all we have been mediocre for only 17 years)

8) back to excuse #1

and so on

[zrinkill]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

When you do these types of breakdowns, you have to take our game(s) out of the opponent's record. Otherwise, you're skewing the results because certain games will show up as being "against winning teams" ONLY if we lose them.

For example, we beat the Steelers, who went 8-7 against the rest of the league. But because we won, they finished 8-8, and it doesn't count as a game against a "winning team." If we had lost, however, it would count as a loss against a "winning team" because the Steelers would have finished 9-7.

[View Full Quote] Also, the gist of your post isn't exactly true. Plenty of teams have had breakdowns that look like that, then have made a run in the playoffs. Last year, the Giants had ONE win in the regular season against a "winning team" (by your definition), then beat four winning teams in row in the playoffs. The 2011 Patriots didn't beat a single "winning team" (by your definition) during the regular season, then beat two straight to reach the Super Bowl. That's right, we had as many wins against "winning teams" (by your definition) in 2011 as the two Super Bowl teams combined.

This post will be ignored unfortunately.

[hmcorp]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

When you do these types of breakdowns, you have to take our game(s) out of the opponent's record. Otherwise, you're skewing the results because certain games will show up as being "against winning teams" ONLY if we lose them.

For example, we beat the Steelers, who went 8-7 against the rest of the league. But because we won, they finished 8-8, and it doesn't count as a game against a "winning team." If we had lost, however, it would count as a loss against a "winning team" because the Steelers would have finished 9-7.

[View Full Quote] Also, the gist of your post isn't exactly true. Plenty of teams have had breakdowns that look like that, then have made a run in the playoffs. Last year, the Giants had ONE win in the regular season against a "winning team" (by your definition), then beat four winning teams in row in the playoffs. The 2011 Patriots didn't beat a single "winning team" (by your definition) during the regular season, then beat two straight to reach the Super Bowl. That's right, we had as many wins against "winning teams" (by your definition) in 2011 as the two Super Bowl teams combined.

Close the thread now...this post just raped anything else said in this thread

[Future]

The soft schedule we've had the last two years, and the second half of JGs first, is the only reason that he is still here.

[SilverStarCowboy]

Originally Posted by zrinkill

This post will be ignored unfortunately.

And after 17 years of futility it should be.

[visionary]

Originally Posted by Future

The soft schedule we've had the last two years, and the second half of JGs first, is the only reason that he is still here.

nope, he is here becasue

1) the person evaluating him is a football idiot but doesnt want to admit his latest idiocy

2) he is in the family portrait

[zrinkill]

Originally Posted by SilverStarCowboy

And after 17 years of futility it should be.

17 years no SuperBowl = ignore common sense.

Gotcha.

[CATCH17]

We just need to play to win and stop playing to everyone elses level.

Our playcalling isn't really built to demolish teams.

Most of the time we're winning these games simply because we can just out athlete teams.

[Apollo Creed]

Of course I based it off the team's record at the end of the year.

I'm not going to go back and look at each team's record for every game we played, that's for nerds - or people with a Manti Te'o like lovelife.

So I went by final record, duh, the only thing that matters.

And regardless of what the robot and spindoctors try to suggest - we suck against good teams.

Case closed.

[hmcorp]

Originally Posted by Apollo Creed

Of course I based it off the team's record at the end of the year.

I'm not going to go back and look at each team's record for every game we played, that's for nerds - or people with a Manti Te'o like lovelife.

So I went by final record, duh, the only thing that matters.

And regardless of what the robot and spindoctors try to suggest - we suck against good teams.

Case closed.

So did the pats and the giants last year...your argument means nothing...

[Apollo Creed]

Originally Posted by hmcorp

So did the pats and the giants last year...your argument means nothing...

But the Pats and Giants have proven for 5 years now that they are capable of beating quality teams when it matters.

The Giants did it twice, beating playoff teams 4 times in a row during both their runs. I don't think we've beaten 4 good teams since I was 5 years old.

The Pats have been beating quality teams for over a decade now.

Cherry picking two seasons doesn't make their ridiculous rebuttle anymore right.

This place makes me feel like I'm in the twilight zone. Has this team won 2 outta 3 Super Bowls or something? Am I missing something here?

[L-O-Jete]

Originally Posted by AdamJT13

Also, the gist of your post isn't exactly true. Plenty of teams have had breakdowns that look like that, then have made a run in the playoffs. Last year, the Giants had ONE win in the regular season against a "winning team" (by your definition), then beat four winning teams in row in the playoffs. The 2011 Patriots didn't beat a single "winning team" (by your definition) during the regular season, then beat two straight to reach the Super Bowl. That's right, we had as many wins against "winning teams" (by your definition) in 2011 as the two Super Bowl teams combined.

No, the Giants beat 5 winning teams and the Pats beat two. You only mention the wins, how many losses did they have?

[RS12]

Originally Posted by Apollo Creed

Of course I based it off the team's record at the end of the year.

I'm not going to go back and look at each team's record for every game we played, that's for nerds - or people with a Manti Te'o like lovelife.

So I went by final record, duh, the only thing that matters.

And regardless of what the robot and spindoctors try to suggest - we suck against good teams.

Case closed.

Final record equals big picture, small picture, and every picture in between. If 'you play to win the game" what else matters? Never heard of coaches getting fired over statistics, but I have heard of coachs getting fired over record.

[burmafrd]

We have not been able to consistenly beat the better teams and that is why we are where we are.

Teams that get it done when it matters like the Pats and company are in the playoffs and we are not.

Bottom line is that we are not good enough.

This year the NFC east was clearly down. We could not win even a weak division.

That says it all.

[punchnjudy]

To me, a trend like that demonstrates talent issues more than coaching issues. I was actually ready to see Garrett go, but now I'm not so sure.

IOW, if a team handles top competition but struggles against weaker teams, that bespeaks issues with preparation, taking teams too lightly, that sort of thing.

A .500 team that consistently loses to good teams and consistently beats bad teams is doing pretty much what it's supposed to do. You can argue that the talent here should have enabled Dallas to beat the better teams and the weaker teams, but I find it hard to believe that a coaching staff would hold back a talented team that much. If Dallas was really talented, that talent should have shown up enough to beat quality teams more often even with the worst coaching staff.