Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by Cowboys=SuperBowl, Apr 20, 2017.
Works for me if we win the division, all teams in the east have major problems.
So what then? 12-4?
only 2 games are due to the first place finish last year, GB and Falcons, the other east teams wont have to play those 2 teams,
which is something, but the rest of the teams, the other east teams play them too.
each year the east teams play a AFC and NFC div, plus our div, and 2 other games which vary on how the team played the previous year.
This does have an effect on players who are used to getting up early.
Thats what I was thinking, we start out facing 3 of the best defenses in nfl (2 on the road) then rams, and then GB
The truth is, we know nothing about how truly difficult this schedule will be. The way seasons play out, some good teams turn weaker, and some lower teams turn out stronger.
For example, who expected the Panthers to bomb out to the degree they did last year after appearing in the super bowl the season before?
the bummer is I am tired of the giants always the first game on sun nite.
I would rather have started with GB in a rematch, or Denver, Oakland , KC, Eagles, any of those would be more exciting than the
giants in game one.
Nah I'm good
Just wanted to be the first to point out we have a tough December ahead of us. Happy 420.
The final game of the year has the divisional opponent aspect going for it so it's not so out of the ordinary.
I have no idea why the NFL pairs the Giants and Cowboys against each other on opening week. At this point, it's all but a recognized tradition. Including this year it will be 5 of the last 6 openers, I believe.
I really wish they wouldn't do that, and I would actually prefer that the NFL not schedule any divisional games until week 4. Let teams knock the rust off against the other divisions. I think you'd get better divisional races down the stretch if teams weren't falling almost 2 games back in week 1 just because they started the season sloppy.
not really if they dont have to play GB and Atlanta, that is a difference, especially if dallas loses both games
yeah I agree, well put, but the nfl likes the ratings for those games, and ratings mean $ when they sign the next tv contract.
I think denver or GB would have done as well if not better in ratings.
It could though have something to do with the NY market for selling tv ads, maybe the fox ads sell at a higher price for that game
than they would if another team were used.
Actually, two games on a 16 game schedule is a big deal. It is absolutely the difference between a bye week or not, or could be the difference between even making the playoffs.
Having said that, teams' fortunes change drastically year over year. The Eagles' last place finish drew them the Panthers.
Everyone should have already known the schedule seemed tough before this even released because of the divisions the East plays this year. If they're good enough they will win a lot of games. If they aren't, they won't. Stop being rediculous people.
Have to agree. This isn't the NBA or MLB, 2 games do make a difference.
In college football, its probably the end of your season for the national championship. In the NFL, not as bad, but it could be the difference of being in the middle or on top.
Young fellas better step up.
I have no idea how dak and zeke will play in season 2 or if we'll stay healthy, but that schedule looks brutal. I can see 9-7 unfortunately.
Considering that it's a year to year league, it really isn't a big deal. Did anyone think that the 2015 Cowboys would suck? Or the 2016 Panthers?
No one truly knows if a schedule is hard until the games are played.
Last year, the last place teams in the NFC from 2015 had to play Dallas, who also finished last in 2015. Dallas ended up with the best record in the NFC for 2016.
No one can predict year to year who will be great, hence there being no difference.
The last one maybe flexed