All 8 of the Cowboys SB teams won their season finale

[Jason 82 Witten]

It's a little sad that there are more negative threads than there is positive ones at this point and especially after last year. I just don't get it.

It's like there are people here who want the Cowboys to fail so they can cry, whine, and complain because that's the only way they know how to act

 

[JD_KaPow]

Once again what does "pretty large" mean?

It means nothing. Eight games is a tiny sample size, even if we ignore the fact that the '70s Cowboys have no more relevance to today's team than more recent teams of other franchises.

SB teams are very good teams. In normal circumstances, we'd expect them to go something like 6-2 in 8 games. The difference between 6-2 and 8-0 is not remotely significant, even if you ignore the fact that several of those games were more important to the Cowboys than their opponents.

 

[Doomsday101]

His goal is obviously to attempt to bumb some fans out with anything negative he can think up.

He barely posts when we win.(He was gone for weeks during our 2014 run) He just couldn't take it anymore so he has a new strategy. Yes. It's immature and lame, but it makes him happy. So let's just try our best to entertain him.

By his own rational Dallas should have gone to the SB in 2014. Dallas was 12-4 won their last game and wildcard and was booted out of the playoffs. I don't think the win vs Washington did much

 

[KJJ]

It comes down to talent and really until the 90's there were as RB taken with the overall #1 than QB. I agree it is the most important position and quite frankly the fact teams have drafted some of these guys #1 has lead to their failures since the talent was not there to make the draft choice.

Teams leaned on the run a lot years ago, it was 4 yards and a cloud of dust but no one passes up a potentially great QB at the top of the draft. Th problem is the QB position carries the most risk of any position. RBs turn out at a much higher rate than a QB.

 

[DogFace]

Go read my posts! No matter what I say you'll twist my comments which is why you won't provide that post you took issue with.

I read them. Is your argument really an argument or are you just stating past teams stats for funnies?

2014 win steak you barely posted. Now you couldn't take it anymore so you've come up with the "rufflle feathers" (your words) (who uses that phrase?) strategy.


You're getting the attention you want and I'm happy to help you anyway I can.

 

[KJJ]

His goal is obviously to attempt to bumb some fans out with anything negative he can think up.

That's your spin. Your goal is to twist everything I say which is why you refuse to post that quote....busted!

 

[KJJ]

I read them. Is your argument really an argument or are you just stating past teams stats for funnies?

2014 win steak you barely posted. Now you couldn't take it anymore so you've come up with the "rufflle feathers" (your words) (who uses that phrase?) strategy.


You're getting the attention you want and I'm happy to help you anyway I can.

Stop diverting and let's see that post you twisted. Whatever little credibility you might have has taken a big hit.

 

[Doomsday101]

Teams leaned on the run a lot years ago, it was 4 yards and a cloud of dust but no one passes up a potentially great QB at the top of the draft. Th problem is the QB position carries the most risk of any position. RBs turn out at a much higher rate than a QB.

But you said always and then used Bradshaw and Plunket as examples yet according to the list of overall #1 there were only 5 QB taken from 1969 to 1989. From the 90's on yes there were a lot of QB taken with the overall #1 Fact is some teams are stupid, they take QB with their overall 1st even though that QB has enough flaws in their game that does not justify taking him. Yes the position is important very important but not to the extent that teams have wasted their draft on poor picks just because they played QB.

 

[KJJ]

By his own rational Dallas should have gone to the SB in 2014. Dallas was 12-4 won their last game and wildcard and was booted out of the playoffs. I don't think the win vs Washington did much

I pointed out that our 8 SB teams won their season finale and you're just going off on it. That stat certainly ruffled your feathers. lol

 

[KJJ]

But you said always and then used Bradshaw and Plunket as examples yet according to the list of overall #1 there were only 5 QB taken from 1969 to 1989. From the 90's on yes there were a lot of QB taken with the overall #1 Fact is some teams are stupid, they take QB with their overall 1st even though that QB has enough flaws in their game that does not justify taking him. Yes the position is important very important but not to the extent that teams have wasted their draft on poor picks just because they played QB.

Not sure what you're getting at but I said QBs were always taken #1 overall. I said it's always been a QB driven league but that doesn't mean QBs are taken #1 overall every year. They have to warrant being selected that high.

 

[Doomsday101]

I pointed out that are 8 SB teams won their season finale and you're just going off on it. That stat certainly ruffled your feathers. lol

Not ruffled at all just shocked you would post such a meaningless stats. As if the Cowboys of the 70's had anything to do with the 2016 Cowboys and as far as that goes that the 90's Cowboys have anything to do with this current team. I understand this was a thread to talk about how you disagree with the Cowboys not playing starter more in this last game fair enough but to bring up this stat as if it had anything to do with anything just seems pointless

 

[Doomsday101]

Not sure what you're getting at but I said QBs were always taken #1 overall. I said it's always been a QB driven league but that doesn't mean QBs are taken #1 overall every year. They have to warrant being selected that high.

They are not always taken #1 I just pointed that out, many have been and there are many position that have gone #1 who were not QB.

 

[KJJ]

Not ruffled at all just shocked you would post such a meaningless stats. As if the Cowboys of the 70's had anything to do with the 2016 Cowboys and as far as that goes that the 90's Cowboys have anything to do with this current team. I understand this was a thread to talk about how you disagree with the Cowboys not playing starter more in this last game fair enough but to bring up this stat as if it had anything to do with anything just seems pointless

It was an interesting stat and if someone is slightly superstitious it's likely to bother them. You're making way too much of this.

 

[KJJ]

They are not always taken #1 I just pointed that out, many have been and there are many position that have gone #1 who were not QB.

I never said QBs are always taken #1 overall.

 

[drawandstrike]

Allow me to close this stupid thread.

1992 Super Bowl winning season the final regular season game was against the Chicago Bears. I know this because I have the entire 1992, 1993, and 1995 Super Bowl seasons stored on my hard drive.

So because this idea is being advanced that Dallas must not have rested any starters for this game since they won it, I went back and reviewed the game.

With 11:05 to play in the 3rd quarter, with the Cowboys having just turned a 3-0 lead into a 10-0 lead on a Emmitt Smith TD run, head coach Jimmy Johnson pulled the starters. Aikman came out for Beuerlein. Curvin Richards came in for Emmitt. Irvin was pulled as well. Only about 3 OL starters stayed in. Dallas would go on to win the game 27-14, giving up 2 garbage TD's late.

So theory Dallas won 8 season finales without ever pulling starters early when the game didn't matter dies an ugly death.

 

[Doomsday101]

It was an interesting stat and if someone is slightly superstitious it's likely to bother them. You're making way too much of this.

So for those who are superstitious it may have some bearing I can't argue that. lol

 

[munkee]

It means nothing. Eight games is a tiny sample size, even if we ignore the fact that the '70s Cowboys have no more relevance to today's team than more recent teams of other franchises.

SB teams are very good teams. In normal circumstances, we'd expect them to go something like 6-2 in 8 games. The difference between 6-2 and 8-0 is not remotely significant, even if you ignore the fact that several of those games were more important to the Cowboys than their opponents.

Agreed. It means absolutely nothing.

 

[drawandstrike]

The 92 Cowboys were still hoping for the #1 seed, just a game back of the niners who finished their season on MNF. Of course we didn't rest our starters that year. The 93 Cowboys couldn't rest starters. They played the giants in their finale, an epic game that gave the winner the division, the bye, and home field advantage. Emmitt played an unforgettable game w a separated shoulder, and the rest is history. The 94 Cowboys also had to win their finale to lock up the #1, as SF and GB both finished only a game behind them. I don't know about the SB teams from the 70's, but with only a 14 game schedule, I would bet they also needed to win their finale.

I understand that the Cowboys have never lost their last game and won a SB, but the Cowboys have never had the #1 seed locked up with 2 weeks to play either. They say there's a first time for everything though, right?

Not quite correct in that 1st sentence. Jimmy pulled most of the starters with 11:05 to play in the 3rd with the score 10-0 Dallas.

 

[KJJ]

So for those who are superstitious it may have some bearing I can't argue that. lol

There's plenty of superstitious fans. They jump at every little thing that appears to be a pattern.

 

[Doomsday101]

I never said QBs are always taken #1 overall.

No true, my mistake and while I agree it is the most important position that does not mean the pick was justified. I think that is why we see some teams constantly picking at the top of the draft they are foolish with their picks. You need talent to win, QB is important but no QB can win alone and to pass over legit studs because of the letter QB in front of the name is just not smart no matter how important that position may be.