A mid-camp look at the NFC East: Dallas in a landslide

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
61,910
Reaction score
95,626
Kiko has played 1 season and coming back from a terrible injury, not sure how he is a stud. While Murray is a good back he doesn't fit the hurry up no huddle offense and Matthews can't stay healthy the same as Murray having injury issues. I don't feel the secondary has been upgraded. You scared of Walter Thurman?

Admittedly, they have taken some injury risks, especially at QB. But in today's world, guys come back from ACL tears all the time with little to no effects so I doubt Alonso can't come back. Bradford, with two ACL injuries to the same knee, well that's different. But I also don't expect every injury risk they took to result in the negative outcome.

Looking at their team, they have a stout front seven. No, I am not "scared" of Walter Thurmond but I also realize that he's better than Nate Allen, who we all saw in that Dec game was terrible. And I don't think Maxwell is Revis or Sherman. But is he better than Cary Williams? I would guess yes. Fletcher was horrible so I fail to see how Carroll or even their rookie Rowe, could be even worse. So overall, I think their secondary has gotten better, even only slightly. So overall, I think they have the makings of a sound defense, probably one better than last year's.

Offensively, I like the talent of their three WRs - Matthews, Algohor and Huff. Granted, they are inexperienced. Yes, they had to replace two OGs (in reality, one OG, Todd Herremans was flat out awful last year so upgrading his spot is no big deal). Them cutting Mathis over his contract squabble smacks of Chip arrogance. But they have two very good OTs and a quality C. So it's not like their OL is crap. They are deeper at RB than they were a year ago. And as I have said, I never thought much of Foles. I thought his 2013 season was an anomaly. I think Bradford, even with his injuries, is a more talented QB and if Kelly can get what he got out of retreads like a Sanchez and never really was in Foles, I suspect he can get at least a comparable performance out of a more talented QB in Bradford. Obviously his ability to stay on the field is a big question. But in relation to us, QB is a huge reason I have us over them. We are settled at QB, they clearly are not.

So no, I don't necessarily see the massive drop off to 6 or 7 wins. Now if one assumes Bradford is definitely going to get hurt, then I can see that. Vegas has them pegged at 9.5 wins, they also have them with the 8th best odds in the NFL right now. So it's not unusual or bizarre that people think that Eagles team is probably just about the same as the two previous Kelly teams.
 

StarBoyz83

Well-Known Member
Messages
17,453
Reaction score
11,994
This can't be true! According to most eagles fans they already have the nfce locked up. They already know becuase they looked so good during the 1st preseason game.
 

CATCH17

1st Round Pick
Messages
67,720
Reaction score
86,325
So no, I don't necessarily see the massive drop off to 6 or 7 wins. Now if one assumes Bradford is definitely going to get hurt, then I can see that. Vegas has them pegged at 9.5 wins, they also have them with the 8th best odds in the NFL right now. So it's not unusual or bizarre that people think that Eagles team is probably just about the same as the two previous Kelly teams.

They may be the one team in the NFL that can say their QB position doesn't really matter.

If Bradford were to go down today they would still have the same expectations.
 

ActualCowboysFan

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,416
Reaction score
9,498
Looking at their team, they have a stout front seven. No, I am not "scared" of Walter Thurmond but I also realize that he's better than Nate Allen, who we all saw in that Dec game



Fletcher was horrible so I fail to see how Carroll or even their rookie Rowe, could be even worse.

Thurmond has never played safety and was unable to stay healthy as a CB. I don't think there's any definitive proof that he's better.

Carroll was on the team last year yet couldn't get on the field over guys who you're saying he's definitely better than.

I don't disagree that they could be better, but I think to assume that they automatically are simply because they shuffled their deck chairs is folly. And they also lost one of their best pass rushers in Cole and replaced him with another guy who couldn't get on the field at all last year.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jday

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
13,284
Cockiness is dangerous in all sports. It's important to avoid it at every turn, and especially in such an emotional and thin-lined league like the NFL. It's claimed more than its share of promising teams and turned them into last-place comedy fodder.

But dang it if I can figure out a way Dallas loses the NFC East outside of a colossal injury to Romo or a rash of them to key players. I just don't see how.

Simply put, this division looks putrid, other than the Cowboys.

Philadelphia Eagles: I just don't get the fascination. I guess if you put your Fantasy Football or Madden videogame hat on, this thing looks innovative and unstoppable. But from a REAL football standpoint, it's haphazard, foolish, and plays out like a ticking time bomb.

Chip keeps running off everybody that hurt Dallas. Gone are McCoy, Jackson, Maclin, and even Foles, who had some game to him. Ran off a good offensive lineman, too, as an early Christmas present. Somebody needs to check Chip to see if he's wearing Cowboys-star boxers or briefs, or check to see if he's filled out any college coaching applications yet.

The loss of the Mariotta sweepstakes seems to have sent Chip stir crazy, and now he's shuffling around with misfit quarterbacks looking to find themselves awash. Their lone realistic hope is that Sam Bradford can reclaim his knees and remember how to play quarterback. He hasn't done that particularly well in a long, long time. Against a good pass rush, I see these quarterbacks folding like a pair of twos at the big table.

Even if the best case QB situation comes into focus, they still have to have one of their young receivers become an immediate star, or the running game has to become better than Dallas' of last year out of the gate. I just don't see this coming together fast enough, or balanced enough, to rack up enough wins. Murray is good, as is Matthews, as is Sproles. But so what? That doesn't win without a consistent passing attack to go with it. And Murray and Matthews have long injury histories to boot.

Defensively, the Eagles suffer mightily from Chip's experimental wizardy. They have a stout defensive line, but the number of plays wears on them, especially as the number of games racks up on their big bodies. Add to that a weak secondary coupled with an iffy crop of linebackers. McCoy fetched a good one from Buffalo in Kiko Alonso, who's still trying to recover from a torn ACL last year.

I expect this to wane as the season marches on like usual, only faster this time. They're out of it by Thanksgiving.

New York Giants: I have immense respect for Tom Coughlin, and Eli Manning is a legitimate pro quarterback with rings. That commands attention right there, and it's the reason I initially thought they were the biggest threat. But Holy Mara, this thing is off to an ugly start.

Eli played four series in their first preseason game, and he didn't have a chance. They amassed 38 whole yards and one first down. The season-ending loss of their left tackle has them scrambling on an already weak front. Eli will be under a heavy pass rush all season, so those talented wideouts will be pressed constantly. If they can't effectively run behind that o-line, which I don't think they can, this could be a painfully sluggish offense.
Add to that the loss of their best pass rusher to July 4th explosion and a defense bereft of stars and proven pedigree, and this doesn't look like a typical Giants team that can play possession and field position with opponents. The makeup of this team won't allow Coughlin to manage games like he does so well.

Washington Commanders: I laughed when I heard the gushing about how well RG3 played in the preseason opener. They were "so encouraged" by his 4-for-8 performance for 36 yards. Garcon dropped a deep ball, but still, does anyone think Griffin is ready to suddenly command an offense and read defenses? Nope, he'll tuck and run, and that spells doom.

The Commanders, as always, have talent sprinkled about their roster. Pretty good offensive and defensive lines, reasonable skill players, seemingly adequate elsewhere.

The Commanders remain who they are, which was Dallas for a good long while but no more. Dysfunctional and rudderless, with nary a clue from coach or quarterback. More of the same.


Dallas Cowboys: I think we're way overly worried about the running backs for two reasons. First, these current guys are far from bad, and second, if something is needed, the Cowboys have the ammo and opportunity to go get what they need.

Dallas still stands with an elite QB, an elite offensive line, and an elite group of receivers. Average running backs....oh the horror. I think the running game remains highly potent behind this line.

What truly is exciting is how the new defensive line is shaping up. They're winning battles in camp against the o-line; last year they got embarrassed in camp. The corners are shaping up to be a team strength, if Sean Lee holds up, the defensive leader is back to this mix. With a pass rush, this could be a top 10 defense in the league.

The coaching staff as a whole is the best in the division, and the specialists are rock solid. There really aren't any weaknesses to this team, just a couple of areas of average-ness. What team doesn't have at least a couple areas of question? None.


And so, the division in my eyes mid-camp:

Dallas 12-4 (6-0 in the division will help)
Philly 7-9 (win early, but fade fast)
New York 6-10 (never gets off the ground)
Washington 5-11 (same old Commanders)

If bias consumed bandwidth, I'm not sure this site could carry this thread. Be as optimistic as you like, Erod, but I honestly believe the Cowboys have more questions than you give them credit for in the OP.

First and foremost, let's discuss that win / loss ratio. Anytime in the history of predictions someone said their team would go 12 and 4, what they may or may not have realized is that in doing so they took out their credibility card, handed it to everyone who happened to hear or see said prediction and asked them to hold that for the season. It's a bit early to be doing that in mind...especially if you want people to take serious everything you write between now and the results of game 17. In my mind, 10 and 6 is as optimistic as you can get, if you want to continue to be taken seriously.

Second, you are dismissing many of the intangible and unpredictable aspects of football. It seems as though you are putting on blinders to the fact that players fall off...especially if they haven't played in over a year, like Hardy and Lee, for example. I'm not saying we won't get what we expect there but at the same time we can't assume they will pick up where they left off. Obviously, injuries are a factor and I'll acknowledge you mentioned them, but Romo is not the only singular injury that could lead to the Cowboys missing that 12 and 4 mark. From the looks of things, should either of the offensive tackles go down, the Cowboys will be in serious trouble....especially if it is Tyron.

Third, I think wishful-thinking is forcing you to see our divisional foes through a muddy window. You are only seeing the negatives that you want to see and ignoring what many pundits ignored of the Cowboys last season. As a Cowboy fan, all things you considered, you really should know better. The Eagles could very well be good...very good. I think most fans of the Cowboys would take at least 2 of the 3 running backs the Eagles have over any back currently in our stable. You may not, but that is beside the point. The Eagles don't need a superstar at receiver...they only need a guy who can consistently get open and consistently catch the ball...that's it. If a combination of their receivers can do that, holes will open up for those running backs...and I suspect Chip may even do a better job of keeping Murray strong for the entire season, instead of running him in the ground ala Cowboys 2014.

If you followed RGIII throughout his college career, you would know he wasn't a run first quarterback. He was a quarterback, who could also run. The Commanders tried to mask many of their weaknesses as a football team by taking advantage of his athletic ability, but that was not RGIII makeup as a QB and they may or may not have ruined his career as a result...we will find out. But just know this, if he can in some way return to the guy he was in college, watch out...he could really hurt the Cowboys.

The Giants have surprised Cowboys fans twice in the last decade, so if you are surprised again, you really haven't been paying attention. I'm not saying they look like contenders on paper...what I am saying, though, is the same could be said of the team they were in the preseason before the last two Super Bowls they won.

Lastly, again taking a look at the win / loss ratio, the Cowboys strength of schedule this year could prove to be a much bigger challenge. I wholeheartedly believe the Cowboys will make the playoffs (don't get me wrong)...I just struggle with buying them duplicating their 2014 success, despite the loss of the player who was a significant part of their offensive production and, of course, the aforementioned points above.

Again, I don't want to mess with your enthusiasm, but I respect you as a writer and think how your contributions are perceived should be preserved and protected. If you come across as too enthusiastic, how it is viewed could be diminished.
 

erod

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,810
Reaction score
60,535
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
If bias consumed bandwidth, I'm not sure this site could carry this thread. Be as optimistic as you like, Erod, but I honestly believe the Cowboys have more questions than you give them credit for in the OP.

First and foremost, let's discuss that win / loss ratio. Anytime in the history of predictions someone said their team would go 12 and 4, what they may or may not have realized is that in doing so they took out their credibility card, handed it to everyone who happened to hear or see said prediction and asked them to hold that for the season. It's a bit early to be doing that in mind...especially if you want people to take serious everything you write between now and the results of game 17. In my mind, 10 and 6 is as optimistic as you can get, if you want to continue to be taken seriously.

Second, you are dismissing many of the intangible and unpredictable aspects of football. It seems as though you are putting on blinders to the fact that players fall off...especially if they haven't played in over a year, like Hardy and Lee, for example. I'm not saying we won't get what we expect there but at the same time we can't assume they will pick up where they left off. Obviously, injuries are a factor and I'll acknowledge you mentioned them, but Romo is not the only singular injury that could lead to the Cowboys missing that 12 and 4 mark. From the looks of things, should either of the offensive tackles go down, the Cowboys will be in serious trouble....especially if it is Tyron.

Third, I think wishful-thinking is forcing you to see our divisional foes through a muddy window. You are only seeing the negatives that you want to see and ignoring what many pundits ignored of the Cowboys last season. As a Cowboy fan, all things you considered, you really should know better. The Eagles could very well be good...very good. I think most fans of the Cowboys would take at least 2 of the 3 running backs the Eagles have over any back currently in our stable. You may not, but that is beside the point. The Eagles don't need a superstar at receiver...they only need a guy who can consistently get open and consistently catch the ball...that's it. If a combination of their receivers can do that, holes will open up for those running backs...and I suspect Chip may even do a better job of keeping Murray strong for the entire season, instead of running him in the ground ala Cowboys 2014.

If you followed RGIII throughout his college career, you would know he wasn't a run first quarterback. He was a quarterback, who could also run. The Commanders tried to mask many of their weaknesses as a football team by taking advantage of his athletic ability, but that was not RGIII makeup as a QB and they may or may not have ruined his career as a result...we will find out. But just know this, if he can in some way return to the guy he was in college, watch out...he could really hurt the Cowboys.

The Giants have surprised Cowboys fans twice in the last decade, so if you are surprised again, you really haven't been paying attention. I'm not saying they look like contenders on paper...what I am saying, though, is the same could be said of the team they were in the preseason before the last two Super Bowls they won.

Lastly, again taking a look at the win / loss ratio, the Cowboys strength of schedule this year could prove to be a much bigger challenge. I wholeheartedly believe the Cowboys will make the playoffs (don't get me wrong)...I just struggle with buying them duplicating their 2014 success, despite the loss of the player who was a significant part of their offensive production and, of course, the aforementioned points above.

Again, I don't want to mess with your enthusiasm, but I respect you as a writer and think how your contributions are perceived should be preserved and protected. If you come across as too enthusiastic, how it is viewed could be diminished.

I assure you I'm being objective first, and a fan second. Teams are first judged by quarterback, followed by offensive line, then pass rush. Dallas is the only team that stands up to that measure.

I don't believe in Chip Kelly's approach, the moves he's made, or the belief his players have in him, which seems shaky. There's a lot of confusion in that team regarding their coach.

They have every opportunity to prove me wrong, but I find that highly unlikely.
 

Irvin88_4life

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,509
Reaction score
26,396
Admittedly, they have taken some injury risks, especially at QB. But in today's world, guys come back from ACL tears all the time with little to no effects so I doubt Alonso can't come back. Bradford, with two ACL injuries to the same knee, well that's different. But I also don't expect every injury risk they took to result in the negative outcome.

Looking at their team, they have a stout front seven. No, I am not "scared" of Walter Thurmond but I also realize that he's better than Nate Allen, who we all saw in that Dec game was terrible. And I don't think Maxwell is Revis or Sherman. But is he better than Cary Williams? I would guess yes. Fletcher was horrible so I fail to see how Carroll or even their rookie Rowe, could be even worse. So overall, I think their secondary has gotten better, even only slightly. So overall, I think they have the makings of a sound defense, probably one better than last year's.

Offensively, I like the talent of their three WRs - Matthews, Algohor and Huff. Granted, they are inexperienced. Yes, they had to replace two OGs (in reality, one OG, Todd Herremans was flat out awful last year so upgrading his spot is no big deal). Them cutting Mathis over his contract squabble smacks of Chip arrogance. But they have two very good OTs and a quality C. So it's not like their OL is crap. They are deeper at RB than they were a year ago. And as I have said, I never thought much of Foles. I thought his 2013 season was an anomaly. I think Bradford, even with his injuries, is a more talented QB and if Kelly can get what he got out of retreads like a Sanchez and never really was in Foles, I suspect he can get at least a comparable performance out of a more talented QB in Bradford. Obviously his ability to stay on the field is a big question. But in relation to us, QB is a huge reason I have us over them. We are settled at QB, they clearly are not.

So no, I don't necessarily see the massive drop off to 6 or 7 wins. Now if one assumes Bradford is definitely going to get hurt, then I can see that. Vegas has them pegged at 9.5 wins, they also have them with the 8th best odds in the NFL right now. So it's not unusual or bizarre that people think that Eagles team is probably just about the same as the two previous Kelly teams.

You had some nice points, just wanted to know why you thought the way you did. Thank you for your breakdown.

I hear many guys talking about McFadden always being hurt. So if you feel like all the many injury risk that the Eagles took most likely pays off could the same not be said about McFadden?
 

jday

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
13,284
I assure you I'm being objective first, and a fan second. Teams are first judged by quarterback, followed by offensive line, then pass rush. Dallas is the only team that stands up to that measure.

I don't believe in Chip Kelly's approach, the moves he's made, or the belief his players have in him, which seems shaky. There's a lot of confusion in that team regarding their coach.

They have every opportunity to prove me wrong, but I find that highly unlikely.

Okay, perhaps you are being objective when it comes to the rest of our division. On paper, there is not alot to hang your hat on, if you are trying to convince people contrary to your assessment. I can admit that. But claiming 12 and 4 for the Cowboys is still a bit over the top. Also, there is that very well known phenomenon within the NFCE that holds regardless of record outside of the division, how these teams play each other is on a completely different playing field, so-to-speak. Anytime the Cowboys are playing the Eagles, Giants or Commanders, you have to put on a blindfold, when it comes to what those teams have done thus far. It honestly does not matter because the way they play the Cowboys is like it is their own personal Super Bowl and no other game played or to be played matters on that given day. So again, I still say the OP is a tad too much on the optimistic side, but that is just my opinion.
 

erod

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,810
Reaction score
60,535
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Okay, perhaps you are being objective when it comes to the rest of our division. On paper, there is not alot to hang your hat on, if you are trying to convince people contrary to your assessment. I can admit that. But claiming 12 and 4 for the Cowboys is still a bit over the top. Also, there is that very well known phenomenon within the NFCE that holds regardless of record outside of the division, how these teams play each other is on a completely different playing field, so-to-speak. Anytime the Cowboys are playing the Eagles, Giants or Commanders, you have to put on a blindfold, when it comes to what those teams have done thus far. It honestly does not matter because the way they play the Cowboys is like it is their own personal Super Bowl and no other game played or to be played matters on that given day. So again, I still say the OP is a tad too much on the optimistic side, but that is just my opinion.

I think the Cowboys are 9-3 in the division the past two years. The Cowboys have gotten better, and the others have gotten worse.

That's the reason for 12-4. A bad division.
 

Beast_from_East

Well-Known Member
Messages
30,173
Reaction score
27,245
It's almost impossible to predict wins and losses in the NFL. Even the experts barely bat .500

For fun, I always keep the preseason magazines with all of the season predictions and then compare to actual results. Like I said, even the best experts barely even get 50% correct
 

jday

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
13,284
I think the Cowboys are 9-3 in the division the past two years. The Cowboys have gotten better, and the others have gotten worse.

That's the reason for 12-4. A bad division.

I believe I may have isolated the issue here: In football, there is only so much credence you can lend to your eyes and the so-called experts...and that applies to all things from the draft, to final 53 predictions, to win / loss ratio predictions...etc. In one fell swoop you dismissed everything our division opponents have done to improve over this offseason, stating as fact that they have "gotten worse." In that same sentence, all at once you declared that the Cowboys "got better," despite the loss of several Free Agents. This, of course, also ignores the potential for other teams to have "gotten better," including our division opponents. For all we know, by merit of changes other teams have made the Cowboys could be the same or even may have taken a step back. Obviously we won't know truth until more than likely half of the season is under the Cowboys belt. Which brings me to my original point/question: Are you really all that sure about that 12 and 4 prediction?
 

Garrettop

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,115
Reaction score
2,121
Starting with the ever necessary (but should be a given) qualification "barring important/a rash of injuries", looking at the injuries already sustained elsewhere in the division, and looking at how Chip's system wears his own team out down the stretch, I think this year's NFCE W/L record is going to look pretty identical to last season. I think Dallas has improved, but that it may translate into more convincing wins this year rather than an increase in the wins column.
 

erod

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,810
Reaction score
60,535
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
I believe I may have isolated the issue here: In football, there is only so much credence you can lend to your eyes and the so-called experts...and that applies to all things from the draft, to final 53 predictions, to win / loss ratio predictions...etc. In one fell swoop you dismissed everything our division opponents have done to improve over this offseason, stating as fact that they have "gotten worse." In that same sentence, all at once you declared that the Cowboys "got better," despite the loss of several Free Agents. This, of course, also ignores the potential for other teams to have "gotten better," including our division opponents. For all we know, by merit of changes other teams have made the Cowboys could be the same or even may have taken a step back. Obviously we won't know truth until more than likely half of the season is under the Cowboys belt. Which brings me to my original point/question: Are you really all that sure about that 12 and 4 prediction?

Of course, I'm not "sure" because you can never be sure about a league that is so close each and ever week. However, I do think the Cowboys are now constructed like those rare teams - New England, Green Bay, Seattle, Denver - that are designed for 11 to 13 years a year. Yes, that's how far this franchise has come. They're now an elite organization because the most critical components are there. Pretty much, only injury could derail this.

Likewise, the rest of the division is in purgatory because they either lack a legitimate quarterback or they have a fatal flaw. Basically, Eli Manning has Romo's 2011 offensive line, and he can't move like Romo. That spells disaster. The Commanders are cornered by an impossible QB problem, and the Eagles are just all over the place with strange personnel decisions, and I don't think the players are that fond of Kelly.

So.......

If the Cowboys go 6-0 in the division, they finish 13-3 or 12-4.

If they go 5-1 in the division, they go 12-4 or 11-5.

If they go 4-2 in the division, they go 11-5 or 10-6.

That's my thinking.
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
61,910
Reaction score
95,626
You had some nice points, just wanted to know why you thought the way you did. Thank you for your breakdown.

I hear many guys talking about McFadden always being hurt. So if you feel like all the many injury risk that the Eagles took most likely pays off could the same not be said about McFadden?

Absolutely. But I am not one of the ones who has written McFadden off yet. He's a big IF though just like Bradford.
 

Sydla

Well-Known Member
Messages
61,910
Reaction score
95,626
Starting with the ever necessary (but should be a given) qualification "barring important/a rash of injuries", looking at the injuries already sustained elsewhere in the division, and looking at how Chip's system wears his own team out down the stretch, I think this year's NFCE W/L record is going to look pretty identical to last season. I think Dallas has improved, but that it may translate into more convincing wins this year rather than an increase in the wins column.

Yep.
 

Idgit

Fattening up
Staff member
Messages
58,971
Reaction score
60,826
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
I don't have a problem with a 12-4 prediction. As long as the margin for error is +/-4 games or so. :) Too much happens throughout the course of a season to know with any certainty whatsoever how it's going to impact the W/L record. When 25% of your games are decided by two or three plays that get made or not. And when injuries or suspensions or players just blowing up or massively regressing can't be figured in at all.

I would agree with the OP, though, that the Sk*ns have a huge gap to close, the Giants have an uneven team and a rash of early injuries to overcome and that the Eagles, while a good team on paper, have a ton of player volatility and some significant culture issues they have to deal with. Dallas has been, by far, the most stable team his offseason. They've added more than they lost, and at some more important positions (give me an elite pass rusher over a borderline elite RB, anyday). All things being equal (and they never are), I can see a take that we're likely to have widened the gap between us and the rest of the division, if anything. At least, I don't think it's that far-fetched to believe so. Go Cowboys.
 

SkinsHokieFan

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,469
Reaction score
240
At this point, if there's a surprise team, I think it will be Washington. Talent exists there if they can get anything at all from the quarterback position.

.

Eh, I think you are over estimating the talent. A surprise would be if the Commanders reach 7 wins

There are improvements like Knighton, Peae, Culliver and Galete, and I think Scherff will be an excellent RG. The secondary overall is still suspect, the DC was horrid in Detroit and the team is going to try and play a style which will eventually wear it down due to the lack of depth.

The Commanders are 3-4 McLoughan drafts plus a new coaching staff away from being .500
 

5Stars

Here comes the Sun...
Messages
37,924
Reaction score
17,114
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
Eh, I think you are over estimating the talent. A surprise would be if the Commanders reach 7 wins

There are improvements like Knighton, Peae, Culliver and Galete, and I think Scherff will be an excellent RG. The secondary overall is still suspect, the DC was horrid in Detroit and the team is going to try and play a style which will eventually wear it down due to the lack of depth.

The Commanders are 3-4 McLoughan drafts plus a new coaching staff away from being .500

Your team will compete...just take care of the eagles and the Giant's...the Cowboys will take care of the rest.
 

jday

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
13,284
Of course, I'm not "sure" because you can never be sure about a league that is so close each and ever week. However, I do think the Cowboys are now constructed like those rare teams - New England, Green Bay, Seattle, Denver - that are designed for 11 to 13 years a year. Yes, that's how far this franchise has come. They're now an elite organization because the most critical components are there. Pretty much, only injury could derail this.

Likewise, the rest of the division is in purgatory because they either lack a legitimate quarterback or they have a fatal flaw. Basically, Eli Manning has Romo's 2011 offensive line, and he can't move like Romo. That spells disaster. The Commanders are cornered by an impossible QB problem, and the Eagles are just all over the place with strange personnel decisions, and I don't think the players are that fond of Kelly.

So.......

If the Cowboys go 6-0 in the division, they finish 13-3 or 12-4.

If they go 5-1 in the division, they go 12-4 or 11-5.

If they go 4-2 in the division, they go 11-5 or 10-6.

That's my thinking.

What I meant to ask is, are you certain you want to stand by that prediction...which you still answered, so next question: By my math, you have the Cowboys winning at least 6 outside of our division. Who do the Cowboys beat?
 

erod

Well-Known Member
Messages
38,810
Reaction score
60,535
CowboysZone LOYAL Fan
What I meant to ask is, are you certain you want to stand by that prediction...which you still answered, so next question: By my math, you have the Cowboys winning at least 6 outside of our division. Who do the Cowboys beat?

Jets, Panthers, Saints, Bills, Falcons, Bucs.

And they are more than capable of beating the Patriots, Seahawks, Packers, and Dolphins.
 
Top