Anyone Worried about Home Superbowl XLV?

[Matt]

All this talk reminds seems like 07-08 transition to 09-10 again. Remember, when it was 07, not much hype and we ended 13-3.... then going into the 08 season, we were already "crowned champs" and look at that season.

2009 - Not much hope, yet good ending.... Next year it's 2010, and already the media is saying we are the team to beat and we have a chance to host the game on our turf.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

All this talk reminds seems like 07-08 transition to 09-10 again. Remember, when it was 07, not much hype and we ended 13-3.... then going into the 08 season, we were already "crowned champs" and look at that season.

2009 - Not much hope, yet good ending.... Next year it's 2010, and already the media is saying we are the team to beat and we have a chance to host the game on our turf.

None of that has any bearing on what happens on the field. I like to compare seasons and eras too, but at the end of the day (to borrow a Romoism) it's up to the players to get it done.

 

[Matt]

None of that has any bearing on what happens on the field. I like to compare seasons and eras too, but at the end of the day (to borrow a Romoism) it's up to the players to get it done.

True but don't tell me the players in 08 didn't buy into the hoopla

 

[KJJ]

All this talk reminds seems like 07-08 transition to 09-10 again. Remember, when it was 07, not much hype and we ended 13-3.... then going into the 08 season, we were already "crowned champs" and look at that season.

2009 - Not much hope, yet good ending.... Next year it's 2010, and already the media is saying we are the team to beat and we have a chance to host the game on our turf.

Losing 34-3 in the divisional round of the playoffs isn't a good ending. That beating showed the Cowboys still have a ways to go. What the media says this time of year doesn't mean crap we found that out in 08. A champion is crowned in Feb not during the offseason. I think this team knows that by now and if they don't they'll continue laying an egg at the end of the season.

 

[dadymat]

building a team is a learning process..i believe theyve learned that lesson

 

[SharutoX]

get a oline and theres nothing to worry about

 

[Doomsday101]

All this talk reminds seems like 07-08 transition to 09-10 again. Remember, when it was 07, not much hype and we ended 13-3.... then going into the 08 season, we were already "crowned champs" and look at that season.

2009 - Not much hope, yet good ending.... Next year it's 2010, and already the media is saying we are the team to beat and we have a chance to host the game on our turf.

No I think this team is a more mature team than what they were on 07.

 

[Hostile]

Losing 34-3 in the divisional round of the playoffs isn't a good ending. That beating showed the Cowboys still have a ways to go. What the media says this time of year doesn't mean crap we found that out in 08. A champion is crowned in Feb not during the offseason. I think this team knows that by now and if they don't they'll continue laying an egg at the end of the season.

There is a very silly myth among way too many fans that the point spread of a loss says something. Utterly ridiculous. It doesn't say anything. The same mentality existed all last year. "44-6. I'm a realist. What about 44-6?" What about it? When it came down to brass tacks, did that 44-6 pasting in 2008 matter?

Anyone who says it mattered in 2009 is a moron. Let me clue you in on something. It would not have mattered the very next week. Just like our beating them in week 17 of this year did not matter in the Wildcard round of the playoffs. If anyone thinks the Eagles could not have won that game, they are living a fantasy world. In football, momentum can shift in a heartbeat.

In 1992 the Dallas Cowboys beat the Buffalo Bills 52-17 in Super Bowl XXVII. Do the math, that is 35 points. That day, the Dallas Cowboys were 35 points better. If anyone thinks that those results could be replicated over and over and over again they are out of their ever loving minds. Sacks and turnovers doomed the Bills that day. Jim Kelly going down, doomed the Bills that day. If the Super Bowl were a 2 out of 3 format instead of one and done, there remains a possibility the Bills could have been Champions.

Know why? Because that was a damned good football team. IMO the best non Champion team in NFL History. They could have come back and beaten us the next 2 weeks. They had that kind of talent assembled.

If the Cowboys and Vikings played a best 2 out of 3 format the idea that the Vikings could replicate 34-3 each week is moronic at best. That's right, at best. Know why? For the same reason as the Bills. The Dallas Cowboys in 2009 were a damned good football team. Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head up a dark smelly place and thinks they smell roses.

Sometimes it just isn't your day. You show up and the fates are not smiling down on you. I guarantee you there were moronic Vikings fans who thought this. "Dallas beat New Orleans, we beat Dallas, therefore we are going to beat New Orleans." You look at the stat sheet and they did. You look at the scoreboard...it tells another story doesn't it?

I swear, at no time in my life as a football fan have more people known less than at this time right now. 34-3 tells you nothing about how far off the team is. Not one damned thing and if you didn't learn that after 44-6 in 2008 and the results of 2009 then I really think you're the one with a long way to go in learning the game.

 

[Gzus]

In the end 44-6 whoopin' motivated the Boys to get past that and win a playoff game, I think in the end that 34-3 whoopin' will motivate them to get past that round and maybe even past the NFC Championship.... One can only hope, but I think each season has been a stepping stone. This is a much more mature team that knows they can't buy into the hype, but we as fans can. They'll get as far as their talent and hard work will take em, we can only hope it's to the promised land.

 

[Doomsday101]

There is a very silly myth among way too many fans that the point spread of a loss says something. Utterly ridiculous. It doesn't say anything. The same mentality existed all last year. "44-6. I'm a realist. What about 44-6?" What about it? When it came down to brass tacks, did that 44-6 pasting in 2008 matter?

Anyone who says it mattered in 2009 is a moron. Let me clue you in on something. It would not have mattered the very next week. Just like our beating them in week 17 of this year did not matter in the Wildcard round of the playoffs. If anyone thinks the Eagles could not have won that game, they are living a fantasy world. In football, momentum can shift in a heartbeat.

In 1992 the Dallas Cowboys beat the Buffalo Bills 52-17 in Super Bowl XXVII. Do the math, that is 35 points. That day, the Dallas Cowboys were 35 points better. If anyone thinks that those results could be replicated over and over and over again they are out of their ever loving minds. Sacks and turnovers doomed the Bills that day. Jim Kelly going down, doomed the Bills that day. If the Super Bowl were a 2 out of 3 format instead of one and done, there remains a possibility the Bills could have been Champions.

Know why? Because that was a damned good football team. IMO the best non Champion team in NFL History. They could have come back and beaten us the next 2 weeks. They had that kind of talent assembled.

If the Cowboys and Vikings played a best 2 out of 3 format the idea that the Vikings could replicate 34-3 each week is moronic at best. That's right, at best. Know why? For the same reason as the Bills. The Dallas Cowboys in 2009 were a damned good football team. Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head up a dark smelly place and thinks they smell roses.

Sometimes it just isn't your day. You show up and the fates are not smiling down on you. I guarantee you there were moronic Vikings fans who thought this. "Dallas beat New Orleans, we beat Dallas, therefore we are going to beat New Orleans." You look at the stat sheet and they did. You look at the scoreboard...it tells another story doesn't it?

I swear, at no time in my life as a football fan have more people known less than at this time right now. 34-3 tells you nothing about how far off the team is. Not one damned thing and if you didn't learn that after 44-6 in 2008 and the results of 2009 then I really think you're the one with a long way to go in learning the game.

I agree I would also add that the 38-6 butt whipping Det put on us in the divisional rd in 91 had 0 effect on what would take place in 92

 

[jem88]

There is a very silly myth among way too many fans that the point spread of a loss says something. Utterly ridiculous. It doesn't say anything. The same mentality existed all last year. "44-6. I'm a realist. What about 44-6?" What about it? When it came down to brass tacks, did that 44-6 pasting in 2008 matter?

Anyone who says it mattered in 2009 is a moron. Let me clue you in on something. It would not have mattered the very next week. Just like our beating them in week 17 of this year did not matter in the Wildcard round of the playoffs. If anyone thinks the Eagles could not have won that game, they are living a fantasy world. In football, momentum can shift in a heartbeat.

In 1992 the Dallas Cowboys beat the Buffalo Bills 52-17 in Super Bowl XXVII. Do the math, that is 35 points. That day, the Dallas Cowboys were 35 points better. If anyone thinks that those results could be replicated over and over and over again they are out of their ever loving minds. Sacks and turnovers doomed the Bills that day. Jim Kelly going down, doomed the Bills that day. If the Super Bowl were a 2 out of 3 format instead of one and done, there remains a possibility the Bills could have been Champions.

Know why? Because that was a damned good football team. IMO the best non Champion team in NFL History. They could have come back and beaten us the next 2 weeks. They had that kind of talent assembled.

If the Cowboys and Vikings played a best 2 out of 3 format the idea that the Vikings could replicate 34-3 each week is moronic at best. That's right, at best. Know why? For the same reason as the Bills. The Dallas Cowboys in 2009 were a damned good football team. Anyone who thinks otherwise has their head up a dark smelly place and thinks they smell roses.

Sometimes it just isn't your day. You show up and the fates are not smiling down on you. I guarantee you there were moronic Vikings fans who thought this. "Dallas beat New Orleans, we beat Dallas, therefore we are going to beat New Orleans." You look at the stat sheet and they did. You look at the scoreboard...it tells another story doesn't it?

I swear, at no time in my life as a football fan have more people known less than at this time right now. 34-3 tells you nothing about how far off the team is. Not one damned thing and if you didn't learn that after 44-6 in 2008 and the results of 2009 then I really think you're the one with a long way to go in learning the game.

To add to your point, I throw out the following scoreline: 38-6

Half-way knowledgeable fans should be able to identify which game that refers to, and why Cowboys fans have every reason to be optimistic going into next season (or at least not be overly pessimistic about the effects of the Vikings game.)

 

[jem88]

I agree I would also add that the 38-6 butt whipping Det put on us in the divisional rd in 91 had 0 effect on what would take place in 92

Man you beat me to it!!

 

[Hostile]

In the end 44-6 whoopin' motivated the Boys to get past that and win a playoff game, I think in the end that 34-3 whoopin' will motivate them to get past that round and maybe even past the NFC Championship.... One can only hope, but I think each season has been a stepping stone. This is a much more mature team that knows they can't buy into the hype, but we as fans can. They'll get as far as their talent and hard work will take em, we can only hope it's to the promised land.

In many ways a last second defeat is more demoralizing than getting blown out. You second guess yourself. "If I had only caught that pass for the 1st down." "If I could have made that tackle and forced them to punt."

You get over being blown out a lot easier than people think. "It wasn't our day."

 

[jazzcat22]

No I think this team is a more mature team than what they were on 07.

And all the drama and bad apples are gone...we actually do have team leaders now also.

 

[Cowboy Brian]

Our schedule is quite hard, but I BELIEVE

 

[Doomsday101]

And all the drama and bad apples are gone...we actually do have team leaders now also.

I agree I also think like the 91 team you learn as you go and you hope that you’re still a fairly young team when you do figure it all out so that you can make more runs at the title.

While the Vikes game was a major disappointment the season itself I think was a big turning point for this franchise and something they can build off of and learn from.

 

[Idgit]

So wait, KJJ doesn't have a clue what he's talking about?

 

[KJJ]

There is a very silly myth among way too many fans that the point spread of a loss says something. Utterly ridiculous. It doesn't say anything.

That point spread spoke volumes for that particular day. It said the Vikings were alot better team when it mattered most. They were a better team all year that's what earned them the home field advantage. When a team gets dominated in a game where their season is on the line it says they have a ways to go to be a champion, especially when it's the divisional round. The Cowboys knew what was on the line in Minnesota and got their butts handed to them. The same thing happened in Philly in 08. Having a team dominate you one year doesn't mean they're going to do the same to you the following season but it doesn't mean another team won't kick your butt when it matters most. What happened in Minnesota said alot for that particular day and it showed what an up and down season the Cowboys had. The Cowboys obviously had a vendetta against Philly entering last season after what they did to Dallas in the season finale in 08. After the Cowboys beat them in Nov they fell flat the next week against Green Bay. The same thing happened after we beat them twice at the end of the season the Cowboys relaxed and completely fell flat the next week against the Vikings. The Cowboys are a team that can become easily complacent when they're playing well we see it every season after a hot streak. We saw it in 07 after the big Green Bay win. Wade has a way of praising and coddling his players when the team is playing well which sets them up for a big fall in the end.

The same mentality existed all last year. "44-6. I'm a realist. What about 44-6?" What about it? When it came down to brass tacks, did that 44-6 pasting in 2008 matter?

Like I just mentioned that pasting by the Eagles in 08 got the Cowboys up for Philly everytime we played them this past season they were like our SB. The beating they gave us in 08 mattered THAT season because it kept us out of the playoffs. That beating didn't matter this past season because it's a new year but the Cowboys ended their season by laying an egg against another team in a do or die game. There's still a hurdle this team has yet to get over. Alot of the mistakes that crop up during the season when the team isn't playing well always seem to rear their ugly head in a huge game at the end of the year. Getting thrashed like that at the end of every season can get in the head of a team. It took almost 14 years for the Cowboys just to get over the hurdle of winning a playoff game. Once they got over that hurdle they clearly relaxed. The Cowboys have to become more consistent and not have these unexpected letdowns in big games if they're ever going to hold up another Lombardi trophy.

In 1992 the Dallas Cowboys beat the Buffalo Bills 52-17 in Super Bowl XXVII. Do the math, that is 35 points. That day, the Dallas Cowboys were 35 points better. If anyone thinks that those results could be replicated over and over and over again they are out of their ever loving minds. Sacks and turnovers doomed the Bills that day. Jim Kelly going down, doomed the Bills that day. If the Super Bowl were a 2 out of 3 format instead of one and done, there remains a possibility the Bills could have been Champions.

The overall point spread isn't really the issue it's the fact that the Cowboys keep getting beat at the end of the year in big games. Buffalo losing by 35 points in 92 may have contributed to their 17 point loss to Dallas the following year in the SB. That right there shoots your theory down that what happened the previous year doesn't mean a thing because sometimes it does. You're saying if the Super Bowl were a 2 out of 3 format instead of a one and done there remains a possibility the Bills could be champions. Sorry but Kelly got hurt against us in 92 so the Bills would have been stuck with Frank Reich in the next 2 games and that alone would have certainly did them in. Hell the Bills had 4 straight cracks at the SB against 3 different teams and the results were the same. What happened the previous year kept happening to them 4 straight seasons because losing the SB got in their heads. It doesn't matter if you lose by one point like they did in their first SB or 35 the end result is the same a LOSS. Buffalo beat the Cowboys the second week of the 93 season but they lost the game that mattered most in the end. The Cowboys beat Philly the first time around in 08 but got hammered in the game that mattered most. The Cowboys beat the Colts in 06 only to watch Indy go all the way.

The Cowboys beat the Saints this past season only to watch them go on to win it all. Watching how the Cowboys seasons have ended under Romo tells me they still have a ways to go to win a championship. Up to this point Romo has been another Danny White productive but turns the ball over in big games. Not easy winning championships with mistake prone QB's who cough it up in playoff games just look at Favre's 19 year career. The Cowboys and Romo need to improve in several areas if they're ever going to win it all. I know the game just fine we just have different points of view. That doesn't make anyone right or wrong it's an opinion. Are you saying everyone has to see it your way or they don't know the game? LOL You're giving an opinion just like everyone else so get off your high horse Bronco Billy.

 

[Gzus]

In many ways a last second defeat is more demoralizing than getting blown out. You second guess yourself. "If I had only caught that pass for the 1st down." "If I could have made that tackle and forced them to punt."

You get over being blown out a lot easier than people think. "It wasn't our day."

I guarantee you they've circled the Minnesota game next season on their calender. It's not so much because they got blown out, but because they lost and the perceived (at least by Brooking) that they disrespected them with that late score. They'll come back with a vengeance mainly because I think they knew they had one hell of a team and want to prove that they can go further than they did. They were so close but still decently far away, they'll get it done.

 

[Hostile]

That point spread spoke volumes for that particular day. It said the Vikings were alot better team when it mattered most. They were a better team all year that's what earned them the home field advantage. When a team gets dominated in a game where their season is on the line it says they have a ways to go to be a champion, especially when it's the divisional round. The Cowboys knew what was on the line in Minnesota and got their butts handed to them. The same thing happened in Philly in 08. Having a team dominate you one year doesn't mean they're going to do the same to you the following season but it doesn't mean another team won't kick your butt when it matters most. What happened in Minnesota said alot for that particular day and it showed what an up and down season the Cowboys had. The Cowboys obviously had a vendetta against Philly entering last season after what they did to Dallas in the season finale in 08. After the Cowboys beat them in Nov they fell flat the next week against Green Bay. The same thing happened after we beat them twice at the end of the season the Cowboys relaxed and completely fell flat the next week against the Vikings. The Cowboys are a team that can become easily complacent when they're playing well we see it every season after a hot streak. We saw it in 07 after the big Green Bay win. Wade has a way of praising and coddling his players when the team is playing well which sets them up for a big fall in the end.

That is the only sensible thing in the entire paragraph. Lo and behold it is exactly what I already said.

That day...

Like I just mentioned that pasting by the Eagles in 08 got the Cowboys up for Philly everytime we played them this past season they were like our SB. The beating they gave us in 08 mattered THAT season because it kept us out of the playoffs. That beating didn't matter this past season because it's a new year but the Cowboys ended their season by laying an egg against another team in a do or die game. There's still a hurdle this team has yet to get over. Alot of the mistakes that crop up during the season when the team isn't playing well always seem to rear their ugly head in a huge game at the end of the year. Getting thrashed like that at the end of every season can get in the head of a team. It took almost 14 years for the Cowboys just to get over the hurdle of winning a playoff game. Once they got over that hurdle they clearly relaxed. The Cowboys have to become more consistent and not have these unexpected letdowns in big games if they're ever going to hold up another Lombardi trophy.

Not one interesting comment. Moving on.

The overall point spread isn't really the issue it's the fact that the Cowboys keep getting beat at the end of the year in big games. Buffalo losing by 35 points in 92 may have contributed to their 17 point loss to Dallas the following year in the SB. That right there shoots your theory down that what happened the previous year doesn't mean a thing because sometimes it does.

Like I have already said, this thinking is ridiculous. We played Buffalo in game 2 of the very next season. So 2 games later. Buffalo won, 13-10. We did not have Emmitt Smith who was a holdout. But anyone who says Emmitt is a 38 point difference needs to explain to me why we didn't every game by 30+ points and why we lost.

It is a ridiculous supposition. The 1992 Super Bowl had very little bearing on the 1993 Super Bowl other than they were the same 2 teams and the same team won. The previous season had nothing to do with that win.

You're saying if the Super Bowl were a 2 out of 3 format instead of a one and done there remains a possibility the Bills could be champions. Sorry but Kelly got hurt against us in 92 so the Bills would have been stuck with Frank Reich in the next 2 games and that alone would have certainly did them in. Hell the Bills had 4 straight cracks at the SB against 3 different teams and the results were the same. What happened the previous year kept happening to them 4 straight seasons because losing the SB got in their heads. It doesn't matter if you lose by one point like they did in their first SB or 35 the end result is the same a LOSS. Buffalo beat the Cowboys the second week of the 93 season but they lost the game that mattered most in the end. The Cowboys beat Philly the first time around in 08 but got hammered in the game that mattered most. The Cowboys beat the Colts in 06 only to watch Indy go all the way.

Nothing at all interesting in this paragraph. Just more useless babble.

The Cowboys beat the Saints this past season only to watch them go on to win it all. Watching how the Cowboys seasons have ended under Romo tells me they still have a ways to go to win a championship. Up to this point Romo has been another Danny White productive but turns the ball over in big games. Not easy winning championships with mistake prone QB's who cough it up in playoff games just look at Favre's 19 year career. The Cowboys and Romo need to improve in several areas if they're ever going to win it all. I know the game just fine we just have different points of view. That doesn't make anyone right or wrong it's an opinion. Are you saying everyone has to see it your way or they don't know the game? LOL You're giving an opinion just like everyone else so get off your high horse Bronco Billy.

My way? By all means ask any NFL player or coach is a previous season has any bearing on a coming season. This year alone the following football people have said this very thing with regards to commentary about the Cowboys.

Keith Brooking
Wade Phillips
Phil Sims
Tony Romo
Jason Witten
Bradie James
Michael Irvin
Troy Aikman
Roger Staubach

...and I am sure I am forgetting some. You're right and all those great football minds are wrong?

I don't think so. In fact I know you aren't and it has nothing to do with opinion. A little common sense goes a long way.