The excited fan vs. the realistic fan

CowboysDrew · Apr 11, 2019

I predict 0-0-16

Ranching · Apr 11, 2019

GimmeTheBall! said:
There comes a great barker, Jerry, who is perpetually expecting a Super Bowl. I love Jerry, but he is lost in mediocrity.
Some of you, too.
Blokes, goons, scholars, oafs ... You have every right to be optimistic. Yet
We are, realistically, a DT, a safety and a QB away from the Super Bowl.

Can you, assorted ruffians, offer honest views about your expectations in 2019??
Will ya?

10-6
1 and out in the playoffs.
Repeat in 2020.

Are you Garrett, cuz you suck!!!! Lol!!! Say hi to ye mum, salud!

SoupcanSam · Apr 11, 2019

GimmeTheBall! said:
There comes a great barker, Jerry, who is perpetually expecting a Super Bowl. I love Jerry, but he is lost in mediocrity.
Some of you, too.
Blokes, goons, scholars, oafs ... You have every right to be optimistic. Yet
We are, realistically, a DT, a safety and a QB away from the Super Bowl.

Can you, assorted ruffians, offer honest views about your expectations in 2019??
Will ya?

10-6
1 and out in the playoffs.
Repeat in 2020.

I think we are another generation of fans away from a SB.

JustChip · Apr 11, 2019

Idgit said:
Is there ever going to come a point when the self-appointed Realists are actually realistic about things going into a season? Or is it always just going to be a euphemism for “dissatisfied with everything”?

Howboutdemcowboys31 · Apr 11, 2019

Last year I wasn’t excited at all just never believed in the team fully. This year I’m real excited

CT Dal Fan · Apr 11, 2019

Joe Realist said:
They have not shown they can be good 2 years in a row. First place schedule next season. It will be them and Eagles

First place schedule means two different games than the rest of the NFC East. And Dallas could have been good three years in a row if Zeke wasn't suspended in 2017, in my opinion.

Jake · Apr 11, 2019

Idgit said:
Is there ever going to come a point when the self-appointed Realists are actually realistic about things going into a season? Or is it always just going to be a euphemism for “dissatisfied with everything”?

Maybe after the Cowboys actually play for some sort of championship again?

I too am tired of the "we're gonna suck" posts in April but the guys talking about Super Bowls (plural) are equally tedious.

I'm sticking with my wait-and-see approach. I've speculated enough this century. Always hopeful, but need to see it at this point.

GimmeTheBall! · Apr 11, 2019

CowboysDrew said:
I predict 0-0-16

Then, harbor boy, why do ya come around, then?
1 predict 10-4
You are ... anarchist?

GimmeTheBall! · Apr 11, 2019

Ranching said:
Are you Garrett, cuz you suck!!!! Lol!!! Say hi to ye mum, salud!

Lots of anger in there, chapo.
Repent or forever be a chapo.
Sod.

TwoDeep3 · Apr 11, 2019

GimmeTheBall! said:
There comes a great barker, Jerry, who is perpetually expecting a Super Bowl. I love Jerry, but he is lost in mediocrity.
Some of you, too.
Blokes, goons, scholars, oafs ... You have every right to be optimistic. Yet
We are, realistically, a DT, a safety and a QB away from the Super Bowl.

Can you, assorted ruffians, offer honest views about your expectations in 2019??
Will ya?

10-6
1 and out in the playoffs.
Repeat in 2020.

Please post empirical proof the underlined is more than just your opinion. You state is as fact. You could be correct. But as it stands, this is much more opinion than fact.

Sell me you are correct.

GimmeTheBall! · Apr 11, 2019

TwoDeep3 said:
Please post empirical proof the underlined is more than just your opinion. You state is as fact. You could be correct. But as it stands, this is much more opinion than fact.

Sell me you are correct.

Touchy you are. Sorry, I am not from Vegas, Earl.

TwoDeep3 · Apr 11, 2019

Idgit said:
Is there ever going to come a point when the self-appointed Realists are actually realistic about things going into a season? Or is it always just going to be a euphemism for “dissatisfied with everything”?

Here is the issue I take with this position. Year after year over the last two decades people have been labeled here. Positive and Negative. Or pumpers and realists.

And it seems every time someone who labels themselves as a realists posts a thread like this, someone comes back and paints that term as derogatory. But in the history of this franchise in the last two decades, which side was correct?

Now I am not taking a shot at you for your post. But there have been a great number of people that see the sunshine and ignore glaring holes in this team's roster, coaching staff, and management. They have been vocal and called out the "realist" for his opinion.

However, the black and white win loss stats of the last two decades indicates the team hardly ever lived up the the glee the pumpers anticipated..

So if we were all to gather together and look at the results and vote, without our prejudices involved, which sides came closer to seeing the team more like what they thought they would be?

Does not the history of the last 20+ years suggest the realist was kinda right?

But your last line I do question. The anchor post laid out the three areas this guy felt were keeping this team from a Lombardi. How can that be considered dissatisfied with everything?

I don't know if I agree or disagree with his post. But I clearly see him making his case, without much proof thus far, yet he did not rant about all the question marks this team does or might have.

And I believe, in my own opinion, this type of labeling the guys who consider the parts and how they will ultimately perform (the realist) as malcontents is one of the most dismissive responses that has been a mainstay here for a very long time.

TwoDeep3 · Apr 11, 2019

GimmeTheBall! said:
Touchy you are. Sorry, I am not from Vegas, Earl.

Nope. You were specific about what you thought were the weal points. So why do you think that? What leads you to believe you have the answers?

Touchy? No. Just asking for details.

kskboys · Apr 11, 2019

windward said:
The latter.

The realists are seldom realistic.

That's because the ones who claim to be realists are not realists. They are negativists who use the term realist to hide their negative attitude.

There are a few actual realists on this site, but they generally don't see the need to declare themselves realists. Alexander, Nightman, n some others are true realists.

GimmeTheBall! · Apr 11, 2019

TwoDeep3 said:
Nope. You were specific about what you thought were the weal points. So why do you think that? What leads you to believe you have the answers?

Touchy? No. Just asking for details.

Well, the weal points, as you call them, were being 3 players away. Then the cheer leading Youth attacked, sir!

aria · Apr 11, 2019

There’s the realists, optimists and delusionists. The latter two are often confused with each other and frequently switch stances week to week based on minuscule hypotheticals and acquisitions. I tend to find the realists more even keel week to week.

Idgit · Apr 11, 2019

TwoDeep3 said:
Here is the issue I take with this position. Year after year over the last two decades people have been labeled here. Positive and Negative. Or pumpers and realists.

And it seems every time someone who labels themselves as a realists posts a thread like this, someone comes back and paints that term as derogatory. But in the history of this franchise in the last two decades, which side was correct?

Now I am not taking a shot at you for your post. But there have been a great number of people that see the sunshine and ignore glaring holes in this team's roster, coaching staff, and management. They have been vocal and called out the "realist" for his opinion.

However, the black and white win loss stats of the last two decades indicates the team hardly ever lived up the the glee the pumpers anticipated..

So if we were all to gather together and look at the results and vote, without our prejudices involved, which sides came closer to seeing the team more like what they thought they would be?

Does not the history of the last 20+ years suggest the realist was kinda right?

But your last line I do question. The anchor post laid out the three areas this guy felt were keeping this team from a Lombardi. How can that be considered dissatisfied with everything?

I don't know if I agree or disagree with his post. But I clearly see him making his case, without much proof thus far, yet he did not rant about all the question marks this team does or might have.

And I believe, in my own opinion, this type of labeling the guys who consider the parts and how they will ultimately perform (the realist) as malcontents is one of the most dismissive responses that has been a mainstay here for a very long time.

If we’re using the definition of “dissatisfied with everything,” then, no, the “realists” haven’t been kinda right. They have just been disappointed and consistently angry.

It doesn’t mean they were likely to be any better at predicting the outcomes of seasons. I know for a fact my own predictions in the annual won-loss prediction threads have generally been more conservative than a lot of so-called realists. Because it’s not about what we think will happen. It’s about attitude towards the team.

You’re right that I, at least, have been dismissive of that consistently negative attitude around here for a long time.

ChuckA1 · Apr 12, 2019

CouchCoach said:
I've always liked how the word "realist" gets applied to football fans. Isn't realism rooted in being "left-brained" and more dependent on logic to assess facts and make decisions? Where's the logic in being a fan? It's total emotion and at times, defies logic.

What facts do we have to assess about this team?

Does the presence of the unknown about the one thing this team struggled with the most last season, the offense, that being an untried, unproven and inexperienced OC?

As a realist, the D looks to be about the same and they're not going to get a lot of help at 58. They'll probably get an OK pick but the D needs a difference maker. Adding Quinn can help but he must stay healthy and Gregory is an unknown. They're still weak on the back end. But the D is good enough to go to the Big Dance, providing the offense is the horse they ride.

The best seasons we've seen 07, 14 and 16 were all about the offense and the NFL is all about the offense with a good enough defense.

It is hard to have a feel for how this team will do with a completely unknown at OC. The only thing we know is that some people think he's smart and born to coach. If he doesn't struggle in his first year then he will be a true exception because he will be facing more experienced DC's with better defenses and I think there has to be a learning curve. The exception is that inexperience beats experience in the NFL, which is why they recycle coaches so much.

I can argue for each side of the realists' argument. Until I see some football for real, at least 4 games, I don't know what kind of season this team is going to have and after 8 games last season, my prediction would have been wrong. But don't ya just love the unknown and the unexpected?

Too much cake (brain work) and not enough icing (sugar coating) for this poor fan.

TwoDeep3 · Apr 12, 2019

Idgit said:
If we’re using the definition of “dissatisfied with everything,” then, no, the “realists” haven’t been kinda right. They have just been disappointed and consistently angry.

It doesn’t mean they were likely to be any better at predicting the outcomes of seasons. I know for a fact my own predictions in the annual won-loss prediction threads have generally been more conservative than a lot of so-called realists. Because it’s not about what we think will happen. It’s about attitude towards the team.

You’re right that I, at least, have been dismissive of that consistently negative attitude around here for a long time.

See how you reworded it to fit your narrative.

The realist states they don't see the success path. Some don't give you much but satisfaction. Other list out their thoughts. This has been the case for the last twenty years. Likewise the pumpers state why they think it will work out.

Since most of the time it did not, as stated by the realists, then to conclude they were just negative ignores results.

Your last line sums up my point exactly. To give you an example if you go to a mechanic and he tells you you need a brake job, is he excessively negative, or just being realistic.

Idgit · Apr 12, 2019

TwoDeep3 said:
See how you reworded it to fit your narrative.

The realist states they don't see the success path. Some don't give you much but satisfaction. Other list out their thoughts. This has been the case for the last twenty years. Likewise the pumpers state why they think it will work out.

Since most of the time it did not, as stated by the realists, then to conclude they were just negative ignores results.

Your last line sums up my point exactly. To give you an example if you go to a mechanic and he tells you you need a brake job, is he excessively negative, or just being realistic.

I worded it the way I had worded it in the post you quoted earlier.

For an actual 'realist,' it's not that they 'don't see the success path,' it's that they describe the likely path as they see it--whether it's likely to be successful or not. My exact criticism is that so many calling themselves "realists," as you say, are just people who 'don't see a success path' at all, whether there's one there or not. To use your analogy, they're mechanics who tell you you need a brake job no matter what, and then tell you they're just being realistic. Spoiler alert: they aren't actually realistic.

The excited fan vs. the realistic fan

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Beyond tired of Jerry

Junior College Transfer

Junior College Transfer

Well-Known Member

Junior College Transfer

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior College Transfer

Well-Known Member

Fattening up

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fattening up