2011 Cowboys vs 2007 Cowboys vs 2009 Cowboys

[The30YardSlant]

Columbo > Tyron? :laugh2:

Pass the pipe bro.

Potential wise, of course not. However, Columbo was fantastic in 2007. In fact, the only lineman who didnt play at an elite level was Gurode, with his bad snaps and poor lateral movement. And he still made the probowl.

I can't believe how quickly we have forgotten how good that line was. Davis was maybe the best lineman in football that year, he was just dominant. Adams had one of the best years of his career and Kosier had THE best year of his career. Only two teams all year were able to really get after Romo, and we could run the ball between the tackles as good as anyone.

 

[sonnyboy]

It's pretty sad that our 2 recent "good" teams worth comparing this team to have a whopping 1 playoff win between the 2 of them.

I think we'd all like for one of those past 4 teams to have been a SB champion.

But "sad"? No I don't believe so. Do I really need to list all the teams that have had less success than we have the past four years?

All the teams with one or fewer playoff wins who have not reached the divisional rd twice.

 

[sonnyboy]

Which team do you think was the best of those three teams?

2007, we went 13-3 and were the top seed in the NFC, we lost in the divisional round of the playoffs. We beat the super bowl champion Giants twice in the regular season, and fell short in the playoffs by 4 points.

2009, we won the division going 11-5, beat philly in the wild card round, but lost to the vikings in the divisional round. We beat the super bowl champion Saints, ending their undefeated season.

2011: Currently 7-4, on top of the NFC East, favored to win the division, Detroit and Chicago have taken set backs due to injury, we already beat San Fransisco. Only two other teams are ahead of us in the NFC.

We are 9th in passing yards, 12th in rushing yards, 14th in pass defense (yards), 9th in rush defense (yards).

Note: I think the Giants are a tad bit overrated. They became the favorite in the division by default, simply because people didn't want to give it to Dallas.

5th in passing yards, 31st in rushing yards, 18th in pass defense (yards), 21st in rush defense (yards)

Despite playing 1 more game than they have we have allowed less total points while scoring A GREAT deal more points than they have. We've played ESSENTIALLY the same schedule so far.

Differences? They played Arizona, while we have played Washington twice (they lost to them), and Detroit.

Fact is them having to play us twice is a bigger disadvantage to them than it is to us. Not necessarily schedule wise, but strength of schedule wise. And that SHOULD be more evident when we play them, and we're likely to be 8-4 and they are likely to be 6-6.

We have played 5 teams who average more points per game on offense than the Giants. We have played 8 teams who average less points per game on defense than the Giants.

We could go 12-4, 11-5 or even 10-6, I think we would be a better team than those 2007 and 2009 teams.

Going strickly off results, the 2007 team was the best. 13-3, #1 seed and only a play or two away from playing the NFC Cahmpionship game at home.

That team was clearly closer to the SB than the 2009 team that got that all valuable playoff win.

But this could be better. Still have a great shot at the division and a decent chance for a 12-4 #2 seed.

 

[jnday]

The 2007 team had so many players in their prime. They knew how to win. The 2011 team has several players that are on the tailend of their careers and several young players that are not playing to their potential yet. 2011 is kind of a rebuilding year. There is really no comparison.

 

[The30YardSlant]

The 2007 team had so many players in their prime.

This is the key. Barber, Adams, Columbo, Kosier, Davis, TO, Witten, Romo, Ratliff, Ware, Spencer, James, Newman and Hamlin were all at the top of their games that season. We also had McBriar and Folk playing at high levels, whereas McBriar is not healthy this season and only kicker is a strength instead of both. Garrett's playcalling was also new and unique and nobody had it figured out yet.

We would have at least made the SB if not won it outright with the majority of the head coaches in the league that season. We just happened to have a cupcake who let his players and coordinators do all the work, then was unable to get them to step up down the stretch.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

The 2007 team had so many players in their prime. They knew how to win. The 2011 team has several players that are on the tailend of their careers and several young players that are not playing to their potential yet. 2011 is kind of a rebuilding year. There is really no comparison.

How did they know how to win? They'd never won a division and had only been in one playoff game, which they lost.

Players like Romo and Ware are more in their prime now than they were then.

The only top player from then who has declined much is Newman. I can't think of another one.

 

[The30YardSlant]

The only top player from then who has declined much is Newman. I can't think of another one.

Seriously? Davis? Columbo? Kosier? Adams? James? TO? Ratliff? All played at a probowl or all-pro caliber level in 2007 and are now all either retreads, backups or out of the league.

Hoe can you have such a foggy memory after just four years?

 

[jnday]

How did they know how to win? They'd never won a division and had only been in one playoff game, which they lost.

Players like Romo and Ware are more in their prime now than they were then.

The only top player from then who has declined much is Newman. I can't think of another one.

13 and 3 says alot about winning. There are several players that have lost a step,Spears, James, Rat, Tnew, Kosier, and Witten has even lost a step. Romo does not scramble like he once did. Romo and Wittem are still holding up ,but age is showing. 2007 just had so many players in their prime.

 

[realtick]

It's a stupid argument. He knows it but won't relent. That dog don't hunt...

 

[jnday]

It's a stupid argument. He knows it but won't relent. That dog don't hunt...

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Just a sidenote:

We beat the undefeated Colts the year they went on to win their SB.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Seriously? Davis? Columbo? Kosier? Adams? James? TO? Ratliff? All played at a probowl or all-pro caliber level in 2007 and are now all either retreads, backups or out of the league.

Hoe can you have such a foggy memory after just four years?

It should be obvious that I'm talking about players from 2007 who are still on the team now. That is what we're talking about, after all, that team versus this one.

I don't think Jay has declined much, if at all. I might have said Witten a few weeks ago, but not after he's played so well the last couple of games. Kosier and James were never a "top players" anyway, which is what I stated.

And I think it's quite funny that you're using Pro Bowls as a measure of how good a player is when we all know that's baloney. Most of those players made the Pro Bowl because our record was good, as happens every year. Was Ken Hamlin really some great player? Of course not.

13 and 3 says alot about winning.

Uh, yeah, but how much had they won prior to that year?

Romo does not scramble like he once did.

Did you not have the TV on Thanksgiving day?

 

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

13 and 3 says alot about winning. There are several players that have lost a step,Spears, James, Rat, Tnew, Kosier, and Witten has even lost a step. Romo does not scramble like he once did. Romo and Wittem are still holding up ,but age is showing. 2007 just had so many players in their prime.

:laugh2:

 

[mmohican29]

Id like to add that the Divisional Game vs NYG was as close to a fixed result I've seen since the Pittsburgh/Seattle SB. The NYG got EVERY possible call in that game:

Off the top of my head, some factors in the result:

1) Offsides call on DWare nullifying a sack strip fumble recovery (he was NOT offisdes). Manning would find Toomer on a blown tackle TD a few plays later.

2) Very questionable Intentional Grounding penalty late in the game with the Cowboys driving for the go ahead score. Romo airmails a pass with a receiver at the sidelines and is flagged for IG... playing at home, this particular call should NOT have been made. It was politic-ed for by the Giants bench and the gutless official finally threw a flag.

3) Questionable personal foul on Leonard Davis who continued to block a heavy handed NYG rush, nothing egregious on that play that warranted either a hold or pf call.

4) Unreasonable drops by Patrick Crayton who played his worst game as a Dallas Cowboy

5) Several late/borderline hits by the Giants DL on Romo, who did not play badly in this ballgame as the media would have you believe. I believe since Romo has been starter he has been the beneficiary of only TWO pf calls.


The officiating bias in this particular game in combination with a sub-par performance by the Cowboys was the perfect recipe for disaster in the most painful loss by the Cowboys since 1994. We were easily the best team on the field that day.

I invite anyone to watch that game and tell me that I'm wrong. I've watched it two or three times and spotlighted several plays that made the difference with unbiased fans and I think even they would tell you we were somewhat jobbed in that game.

 

[KJJ]

Which team do you think was the best of those three teams?

2007, we went 13-3 and were the top seed in the NFC, we lost in the divisional round of the playoffs. We beat the super bowl champion Giants twice in the regular season, and fell short in the playoffs by 4 points.

2009, we won the division going 11-5, beat philly in the wild card round, but lost to the vikings in the divisional round. We beat the super bowl champion Saints, ending their undefeated season.

2011: Currently 7-4, on top of the NFC East, favored to win the division, Detroit and Chicago have taken set backs due to injury, we already beat San Fransisco. Only two other teams are ahead of us in the NFC.

We are 9th in passing yards, 12th in rushing yards, 14th in pass defense (yards), 9th in rush defense (yards).

Note: I think the Giants are a tad bit overrated. They became the favorite in the division by default, simply because people didn't want to give it to Dallas.

5th in passing yards, 31st in rushing yards, 18th in pass defense (yards), 21st in rush defense (yards)

Despite playing 1 more game than they have we have allowed less total points while scoring A GREAT deal more points than they have. We've played ESSENTIALLY the same schedule so far.

Differences? They played Arizona, while we have played Washington twice (they lost to them), and Detroit.

Fact is them having to play us twice is a bigger disadvantage to them than it is to us. Not necessarily schedule wise, but strength of schedule wise. And that SHOULD be more evident when we play them, and we're likely to be 8-4 and they are likely to be 6-6.

We have played 5 teams who average more points per game on offense than the Giants. We have played 8 teams who average less points per game on defense than the Giants.

We could go 12-4, 11-5 or even 10-6, I think we would be a better team than those 2007 and 2009 teams.

For the first 13 weeks of the regular season the 07 team was easily the best of the 3 teams you listed. The 07 team reached 12-1 and no Cowboy team in franchise history was ever 12-1. That team was averaging around 32 points a game and was arguably the most explosive offense in team history. Romo passed for a franchise record 36 TD's. That team beat the Giants twice that season who went on to win the SB. The 07 team won the NFC East and was the #1 seed. The wheels started coming off that that team the final month of the 07 season against Philly. The team went from averaging 32 points a game to around 14 points a game the final month of the season. By the end of the season that team was a shell of what it was earlier that year and it ended up leading to a one and done in the playoffs.

The 09 team started off shaky with a 2-2 start and began getting things going after the OT win over KC in week 5 which was the game Miles Austin emerged. That sent the 09 team on a 4 game winning streak. That team started off Dec with 2 straight losses and it appeared the Cowboys were once again fading in Dec. Then out of nowhere the 09 team beat the 13-0 Saints and the team caught fire. That team went on to finish out the season with 2 straight shutouts and appeared to be the hottest team entering the playoffs.

The team went on to dominate Philly in the playoffs earning the Cowboys their first playoff win in 13 years. That season ended the following week in a blowout loss to Minnesota. The 2011 Cowboys started the season up and down and are currently riding a 4 game winning streak. Still a long way to go to find out what kind of team this ends up being.

 

[perrykemp]

The officiating bias in this particular game in combination with a sub-par performance by the Cowboys was the perfect recipe for disaster in the most painful loss by the Cowboys since 1994. We were easily the best team on the field that day.

The Cowboys were, IMHO, the best team on the field for the NFC Divisional game against the Giants. The Cowboys had beat the Giants in both regular season meetings. The Giants won the Divisional game.

The Packers were, IMHO, the best team on the field for the NFC Championship game against the Giants. The Packers had already beat down the Giants in NY 35-13 during the regular season. The Giants won the NFC Championship game.

The Patriots were, IMHO, the best team on the field for the Superbowl. The Giants won the Superbowl.

Basically, the Giants fought through a murderer's row of opponents post-season and deserve their SB ring.

On paper, the Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots were all better than the Giants... Every one of those teams can probably point to some freaky play / bad call / etc that was the reason they lost...

In the end I think it's just best to man up and say the Giants earned it utterly and completely.

 

[DallasDomination]

The Cowboys were, IMHO, the best team on the field for the NFC Divisional game against the Giants. The Cowboys had beat the Giants in both regular season meetings. The Giants won the Divisional game.

The Packers were, IMHO, the best team on the field for the NFC Championship game against the Giants. The Packers had already beat down the Giants in NY 35-13 during the regular season. The Giants won the NFC Championship game.

The Patriots were, IMHO, the best team on the field for the Superbowl. The Giants won the Superbowl.

Basically, the Giants fought through a murderer's row of opponents post-season and deserve their SB ring.

On paper, the Cowboys, Packers, and Patriots were all better than the Giants... Every one of those teams can probably point to some freaky play / bad call / etc that was the reason they lost...

In the end I think it's just best to man up and say the Giants earned it utterly and completely.

No doubt about it. They played better teams on paper, teams they would probably lose to 80% of the time. Those are some bad odds, yet they came through. Pretty impressive if you ask me.


to answer the original question though. I say 2007 team was the best. We had a much better defense in those days, and an explosive offense featuring Marion the BArbarian in his prime.

 

[jnday]

It should be obvious that I'm talking about players from 2007 who are still on the team now. That is what we're talking about, after all, that team versus this one.

I don't think Jay has declined much, if at all. I might have said Witten a few weeks ago, but not after he's played so well the last couple of games. Kosier and James were never a "top players" anyway, which is what I stated.

And I think it's quite funny that you're using Pro Bowls as a measure of how good a player is when we all know that's baloney. Most of those players made the Pro Bowl because our record was good, as happens every year. Was Ken Hamlin really some great player? Of course not.


Uh, yeah, but how much had they won prior to that year?





Did you not have the TV on Thanksgiving day?

What does the record of the 2006 team have to do with anything ? To clarify , Romo still moves well in the pocket , but he is not the running threat that he was earlier in his career.

 

[Red Dragon]

In 2007, we had a mirage of a running game (Julius Jones and Barber).

 

[Switz]

2007 doesnt bother me. That team was already defeated by the Pats in texas stadium. I don't feel they in anyway could have won vs NE. It took a team on a hot streak and some major luck... meaning Eli should have been picked off twice on that drive he ended up tossing that TD to Plaxico. Plus the catch Teyree made.. it was a perfect storm for the Giants to win that game. Plus 08 we basically did nothing.. I am way over 08

1994 is the hardest season to swallow.