1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Offseason predictions

Discussion in 'Rant Zone' started by blindzebra, Dec 24, 2013.

  1. DFWJC

    DFWJC Well-Known Member Zone Supporter

    20,244 Messages
    832 Likes Received
    I know this is not for me, but Denver had zero playoff wins last year and they were a real SB contender.
    You never know how many playoff wins you will have, but that doesn't mean your team is not legit.
    A bad break in a game, an in-game injury, or just a terrible matchup could end the season to a very good team.

    Dallas would have to massively upgrade the defense to be in any of those conversations, IMO.
  2. tantrix1969

    tantrix1969 Well-Known Member

    719 Messages
    265 Likes Received
    Gruden wouldn't be my first choice but he is definitely better than ginger
  3. 4lifecowboy

    4lifecowboy Active Member

    801 Messages
    47 Likes Received
    Bring Waters back, cut Ware? If we aren't in all out rebuild mode then I'm totally against cutting Ware.
  4. texbumthelife

    texbumthelife Well-Known Member

    2,797 Messages
    381 Likes Received
    There is not a sliver of a chance Callahan is here next season. None. There will be a fall guy for the offense.
  5. Doomsay

    Doomsay Well-Known Member

    5,511 Messages
    620 Likes Received
    A place where Jerry granted every coach the same degree of authority from Jimmy down to Dave.
    A place where insiders know everything like: "Jerry will never fire Wade during the season."
    A place where the Cowboys are effective cap managers
    A place where perpetual restructurings of aging players is inconsequential because,, future cap hits and mountains of dead money are like "interest free loans."
    And finally, A place were Jason can be considered competent again
    jnday likes this.
  6. Picksix

    Picksix A Work in Progress

    4,462 Messages
    509 Likes Received
    The only good teams Baltimore beat last year were NE and Cincy, and those were in the first three games of the year. They barely beat KC, and got thumped by Hou and Den, the latter coming in week 15, which led to their OC being replaced They then beat up the Giants, who weren't any good, and finished the season losing to Cincy. That's not a team that was trending up at all. But they pulled it together against a surprising Colts team, and then caught one of the biggest breaks in playoff history when the S for Den forgot how to play S. In 2011, the only playoff team NYG beat was NE in the middle of the year. They lost 4 straight in Nov/early Dec, including getting thumped by NO. They beat us in a SNF game where we had another great defensive meltdown, but then turned right around and laid an egg against Wash. They finished the regular season by beating us and NYJ, two non-playoff games. Again, nothing really to suggest they were about to do anything in the playoffs, but then beat GB, who were 15-1. 2010 - GB wins on the last week at home, by a TD, over a CHI team that had nothing to play for, in what essentially was a playoff game for GB. They were up and down all year, including losing a December game to Detroit, 7-3. They won their last two games, but one was over NYG, which was another non-playoff team. They came in as a 5th seed, and weren't favored by anyone. They got hot, and won the whole thing.

    Point is, none of those were really playing great football coming in, and there were multiple teams in the playoffs that came in hotter than them. But they all found something (GB and NYG both found running games; Flacco turned into Brady), got a good share of breaks, avoided mistakes, and won. Things all three teams had trouble with during the regular season. That's basically the theme anymore...get into the playoffs somehow, whether you're playing good football or not, and get hot for 3-4 games.
  7. rcaldw

    rcaldw Well-Known Member

    5,876 Messages
    343 Likes Received
    And absolutely true.
  8. visionary

    visionary Well-Known Member

    6,793 Messages
    1,479 Likes Received
    Sorry, Jason is not just considered competent there , he is the prodigal son, the messiah, the savior

    One luminary who is now there has suggested that the cowboys should sign Garrett for 10 years , 10 years... I kid you not
    And he is the one who "schools others with football knowledge"
  9. rcaldw

    rcaldw Well-Known Member

    5,876 Messages
    343 Likes Received
    As opposed to a place - Where firing the coach is the answer to every question, and we should have run when we passed and should have passed when we ran and when the play works it was the players and when it doesn't work it is the coaches....etc etc vomit
  10. khiladi

    khiladi Well-Known Member

    10,989 Messages
    1,460 Likes Received
    I'll give you Baltimore, but none of that addresses the fact that they changed their OC and got Suggs back for the playoffs and were healthy, besides the fact Flacco played incredible football. The Giants went 3-1 and again were healthy going into the playoffs.

    And none of that changes the fact that our record in the Garrett era against winning teams is utterly horrendous. None of that changes the fact that our QB is not healthy and when we have gone into do or die games in the Garrett, we don't show up. We are not healthy, we have not fired our OC, and our best player has a back issue.

    Sorry, but comparing the state of the Cowboys to this team doesn't work. The Cowboys resemble the many a pathetic team that hobbled into the playoffs and got blown out.
  11. HoustonFrog

    HoustonFrog Well-Known Member

    1,829 Messages
    549 Likes Received
    .

    Such bs. Talk. You have nothing to back your assertions. There are a lot of people here like myself that have watched since the 70s and who look at the team objectively. Your pathetic tough guy talk just screams "look at me I'm a homer and everyone else is a hater." Learn how to look at the big picture, talk football and learn what expecting excellence is. If you can't lay out reasons after 17 mediocre years than you have no standing.

    You said you lived through a drought from 77-92. You mean going to SBs and NFC Championship games? They had an NFL record 20 winning seasons from 65-86. You are clueless. You profess to know something yet you don't know any history and yet still think .500 over 17 years is cool and a "right direction" while teams at the bottom get new coaches and make the playoffs. Clueless
    Last edited: Dec 25, 2013
  12. blindzebra

    blindzebra Well-Known Member

    9,130 Messages
    280 Likes Received
    I know a hell of a lot more about Cowboys football than you ever will.

    As I stated earlier when did we win a super bowl from 77 to 92? The final Landry years ring a bell?

    Clueless indeed.
  13. Doomsay

    Doomsay Well-Known Member

    5,511 Messages
    620 Likes Received
    Oh, you are talking about the coaching in the Green Bay game here. I agree, vomit. Or was it the all the historical "Jason doesn't need to have a winning record this season to survive" 2011, 2012, 2013 threads?
  14. Picksix

    Picksix A Work in Progress

    4,462 Messages
    509 Likes Received
    Ok. Fair enough.
  15. HoustonFrog

    HoustonFrog Well-Known Member

    1,829 Messages
    549 Likes Received
    Do you realize how dense you sound. 1) if you're throwing out a phrase about knowing more football than someone than your desperate and have zero knowledge. I know every starter on almost every team since 1975. If you do you don't actin like it. 2) the Cowboys were in a SB a year after 77...one of the best ever despite losing. They went to three straight NFC Championships after that in the 80s. The drought was late 80s and that was about it so you are just wrong 3) you are now supporting a group that has one playoff win in 17 years...something only 3 other teams have done. So the fact that you support that makes you ignorant about football and coaching considering how quick teams turn it around. Please stop
    Dodger12, jnday, visionary and 2 others like this.
  16. blindzebra

    blindzebra Well-Known Member

    9,130 Messages
    280 Likes Received
    I repeat DID THEY WIN A SUPER BOWL FROM 77 TO 92?

    All we hear is excellence, champions or bust get it now or do we need the short bus to take you to remedial reading class?
  17. HoustonFrog

    HoustonFrog Well-Known Member

    1,829 Messages
    549 Likes Received
    Again, throwing out names and "I know more" is equivalent of " if you don't agree with me you don't know football. It's a clown mentality. Excellence is reaching championship levels and expecting it. They did it back then when they hit 20 straight winning seasons. Is it disappointing to be short? Yes. But back then the expectations never changed. The last decade or more it's been .500 and hopefully playoffs to make a Giants run. You support that. Stop acting like you don't when you support Garrett and him making the same mistakes year after year
  18. blindzebra

    blindzebra Well-Known Member

    9,130 Messages
    280 Likes Received
    Good thing this site did not exist in the early 60's...the Landry witch hunt would be in full force.
  19. Dodger12

    Dodger12 Well-Known Member

    1,952 Messages
    497 Likes Received
    You're moving the goal posts again and avoiding my point but I'll play along. So instead of drought years from 77 to 92, now you go to the "final Landry years." Probably not many people are going to argue that the team had to go in a different direction at the time Landry was fired. But no one gave him the benefit of the doubt like we do Garrett. No one used an aging roster as an excuse or gave him much of chance to replace that roster. Matter of fact, we made the playoffs in 1985 and when we failed to make the playoffs for 3 straight years, Landry was fired. Only here do we excuse Garrett for something we fired a legend for. And this was done two years after our streak of 20 consecutive winning seasons ended.

    Keep digging........
    HoustonFrog, cml750 and Chocolate Lab like this.
  20. blindzebra

    blindzebra Well-Known Member

    9,130 Messages
    280 Likes Received
    And if you want to play that way Landry would not have had that 20 year streak based on your standards you'd have fired him in 64.

Share This Page