Two Cowboys fan behaviors that have always puzzled me

Runwildboys said:

Relax, there's no reason to be salty.

Click to expand...

I ain't the one throwing insults around, you might wanna address that poster.

birdwells1 said:

I ain't the one throwing insults around, you might wanna address that poster.

Click to expand...

I'll be honest, I haven't read every post in this thread. I apologize if he's been asking for it.

Nav22 said:

2) They like pretending they’re on this journey with the players/coaches and their fandom somehow contributes to the team’s success.

Click to expand...

Also, some people are very concerned about shutting people up who aren't talking about what they want to talk about.

Shane612 said:

Unless you work for them, you're an outsider.
I like your spirit, tho.

Click to expand...

The fans who make noise for them in the stadium are helping them win.........Teammates.

Whirlwin said:

Personally I don't look ahead there's no reason to. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it we're not the ones on the field

Click to expand...

lol I never said there was anything wrong with it. If people want to look way ahead , fine feel free
to do so and have fun!
I used to do it, but it never worked out the way I saw it !

Whirlwin said:

Personally I don't look ahead there's no reason to. But that doesn't mean there's anything wrong with it we're not the ones on the field

Click to expand...

Man Alive, brother! Am I ever looking forward( ,,,er,,, btw,which is, in it's boiled down vernacular, equal to or greater than that utilized ahead casing-liner,ya know?) to some of these oft' quoted & superiorly queried claims of "when we're being forced to "find out" just who's who,once facing real nfl teams" , , , & we got a genuine half a fistful of em' on that upcoming itinerary.

Red Dragon said:

In the many years that I've been a member of Cowboys message boards, I've always seen two recurring fan sentiments that baffle me:

1. "I would rather that our opponent be at full strength and have all of their players healthy so that they have no excuse when we beat them, than play an injury-weakened opponent" - really? You'd rather face a strong opponent and have only a 50% chance of beating them, than an injury-weakened opponent and have a 70% chance of beating them? A win is a win and a loss is a loss in the W-L column, no matter how you got there. Injuries don't factor into tiebreakers.
2. "We can't afford to look ahead - we need to focus on our weak opponent this week. Let's not talk about the games that lie further ahead and focus only on one game at a time." If people who say this are referring to Cowboys players and coaches, then I absolutely agree - one game at a time. But oftentimes, it seems that people who say this are referring to Cowboys fans - they seem to think that if Cowboys fans get ahead of ourselves and start talking about Thanksgiving or December or January when it's still Week 3, that somehow our behavior on an Internet message board will cause the Cowboys players and coaches to lose games by losing focus - what gives?

Click to expand...

What I say matters. I know that if I look ahead the cowboys organization could pay dearly.

Valkyr said:

So, the Cowboys make it to the Super Bowl and play the Pats.

You find out Tom Brady gets hit in the head by a flying squirrel the day before and won't play in the game.

Your reaction to that is what?

Click to expand...

A full& throughly complete national wildlife Superfunded investigation into this non-native rodent invasion, & upon a doctor's visual 'nod' of a possible 50% semi-functional recovery of our living national icon, appoint the Tom Brady as supreme chief of casing-liner command , In the utter Annihilation & complete eradication of this disease bearing & of quite possible truly epically proportionate worldwide plague Worthy preemptive precautionary measures,
vermin , that , having clearly exhibited Sentient self awareness in & of it's furry tree climbing& air gliding hairy tailed rat-like physical physiological make -up,,,be duly authorized to start his exterminator gig, beginning with the big#1 head cheese & chieftain Lord rat squirrel ,over all the flying tree rat minions of which he reigns,,, Roger Goodell.


* pretty sure they'd succumb to that ol' "cut the head offa' the snake first " maneuvered adage as well,,,huh?





LMAO

xwalker said:

I agree. That was my point on this statement:
"I could understand wanting a top talent at DT added but the obsession with getting a mega heavy weight DT is getting absurd."


Woods (6-0, 318) is a legit 1-tech.

Covington is a better backup 1-tech than they've had in recent years. They really didn't have one last year.

The Cowboys were too small at DT back in 2014 with Crawford and Nick Hayden. Both were under 300 (Hayden might have been right at 300).

This year:

• Collins 311
• Woods 318
• Covington 310 to 320 range

They drafted Hill in part because they wanted size without sacrificing quickness.

His was 6-3, 308 at the combine but reportedly played at over 320 at some points in college.

Click to expand...

While I believe Woods is decent, I consider him more of a backup type.

However, we agree in principle.

birdwells1 said:

So I guess we should just skip the game this week huh? Ask the players what they would like to play against, privately they'll tell you GB without Rodgers. I've talk to NFL and NBA players off the court and field so I know, it's the people that don't play that are all cocky.

Click to expand...

Definitely. If we were to do a survey right now, "Saints with Brees or without Brees?", I'd bet that close to 80% of Cowboys fans would say they would rather Dallas play New Orleans without Brees.

The 20% baffle me to no end.

kskboys said:

Most of the data being presented is not objective. The data can often be misconstrued, and often the people compiling the data are questionable compilers at best.

However, I've seen many many people try to use the eyeball test as the endall conclusion, and that is also often incorrect.

Click to expand...

I hear you and acknowledge that does happen.

That said, it's not what I am referring to. I'm talking about instances in which there is black and white data which can't be misinterpreted. An example of what used to happen, particularly on the old DC.com boards: For years people would claim the offense would do nothing but go 3 & out causing our defense to get gassed. Yet the raw numbers proved the offense was one of the very best at NOT going 3 & out.

These simple counts can't be misconstrued. Yet, when it is brought to their attention they double and triple down on it disregarding the objective stats deferring to their eye ball test instead. It's clear their eyeball test puts much more value on the few 3 & out drives and disregards the many other non-3&out drives. That's the type of clear cut scenarios I'm referring to.

Red Dragon said:

Definitely. If we were to do a survey right now, "Saints with Brees or without Brees?", I'd bet that close to 80% of Cowboys fans would say they would rather Dallas play New Orleans without Brees.

The 20% baffle me to no end.

Click to expand...

Man, are you reading our responses?

I love matchups, I love tough matchups even better. I'd much rather face full strength NO and beat them.

If baffles me that you want the easy way out, that you want a cheap victory.

kskboys said:

Man, are you reading our responses?

I love matchups, I love tough matchups even better. I'd much rather face full strength NO and beat them.

If baffles me that you want the easy way out, that you want a cheap victory.

Click to expand...

How do you feel about that 1995 super bowl championship?