KJJ;3280914 said:
Everything is dead wrong according to you and your little posse who don't even bother to read the posts. LOL All they do is play follow the leader and agree with everything you say like it's the gospel.
Wrong as usual. I read your posts, laugh at how silly they are, dismiss most of it as babble, and lampoon the rest. And as I have already told you, I don't have a posse. I ride alone. They agree with me when I am right and disagree when I am wrong.
I don't have that idea at all that's just you getting things twisted to fit your agenda. I never gave the impression a team is branded for life.
You seem to have the impression that I'm saying "everything" that happens the prior year is always going to have a bearing on what happens the following year and I'm not saying that at all. That Cowboys team that Buffalo beat in the second week of the 93 season didn't have Emmitt Smith so that game had no bearing on anything. Buffalo knew that wasn't the same Cowboy team without Emmitt. Emmitt's dominating performance in the third quarter of the SB 4 months later sucked the life right out of the Bills. Emmitt finished that game as the MVP. All you're doing is twisting things to create arguments because you're still bitter about our last debate that had you tap dancing so much it forced you to lock the thread as a way of escape...LMAO!
Oh, so it is just the 2010 Dallas Cowboys? So lame. If that was a horse we'd have to shoot it.
I really don't understand how you can sit there in a haze and not look at what you are saying and realize it is just simply ignorant. Only the Dallas Cowboys are subject to these wild suppositions and babblings? Seriously? You're going to sit there and in all sobriety say yes? That every other team in the NFL is immune to the infection you have placed on the Cowboys?
How can you not see the ignorance of that? Honestly, it is sad.
What does this have to do with the Bills/Cowboys matchups in the SB?
Just another tap dance! :dance3: You're going off in all different directions no wonder you can't get anything straight. No one ever said that if a team loses one big game to a particular team they're always going to lose to them. LOL The 49ers have a great history and had 4 SB wins at the time they beat the Cowboys in the 94 title game. We beat them in two straight title games and they beat us in the 3rd one. Either you don't understand where I'm coming from or this is just part of your desperate MO to try and win arguments. Sorry but this isn't going to work with me.
LOL
These are called examples of how your "idea" just doesn't work in real life. In all honesty, it is really not that hard to figure out what I was doing. I am sorry that History and examples go right over your head. There is literally nothing I can do about that.
Your suppositions just don't work when put to the acid test of History. Not just the 1990's either. The 2009 Dallas Cowboys proved that 44-6 in 2008 did not matter. It had no bearing on the team. There was no added pressure. Ultimately the 2010 Dallas Cowboys will once again prove that 34-3 has no bearing on the team. I have repeatedly shown you that these bad beatings do not matter. If you are still too blind to see it maybe you should install a window in your stomach.
You COMPLETELY misunderstood what I was saying...LMAO! We'll chalk it up to your old age. LOL If you think I'm saying a team that loses a SB is sure to keep on losing SB's you're dead wrong! SB losses and wins have come in clusters for a "few" teams but I never said it's either going to be all wins or all loses....GET REAL! Denver's SB losses came in a cluster of 3 and their 2 SB wins came back to back. Never once did I say the tide can't change for a team but you clearly have an agenda against me and it's being exposed. Some teams keep losing SB's like the Bills and Vikings. This doesn't mean they'll never win one but the pressure to win after each loss they had kept building and they could never break through. Maybe someday they will. Several teams SB WINS have come in clusters because they had great teams and got on a roll but this doesn't mean they'll never lose one the Steelers finally did to the Cowboys. Looks Like I better start going a little sloooower for you.
No, I understood perfectly and used examples all from History to show that you had no earthly clue what you were babbling about.
You've got no point. I am sorry to tell you that. You've got nothing. Zero, zip, nada. You're swinging at air, and missing. Donut, bagel, goose egg baby.
As for the Cowboys/Vikings playoff game the Vikings weren't just better that day they were a better team than the Cowboys all season and their record and home field advantage backed that up. They decisively beat the Cowboys and put up a valiant effort against NO in the NFC title game. If the Cowboys are going to lose a big game with their season on the line I want to see them going down swinging not getting PASTED.
Oh goody. Let's show you just how ridiculous your stance is using the team you just oozed praise all over. On December 6, 2009 the Vikings were in Arizona to play the Cardinals. They got beaten like ugly step children. Please look it up if you doubt this.
On December 20, 2010 they were in Carolina (Psst, not a good team) to play the Panthers, and once again they got worked. That day Carolina was the pimp and the Vikings were...well, you get the point. Or maybe not. Please look this up if you have doubts.
One week later on December 28, 2009 they were in Chicago (Psst, also not a good team) to play the Bears and lost in overtime. Please look this up if you just don't believe it.
So looky here. The Vikings faded down the stretch of the regular season, made it to the playoffs based solely on their early year easy schedule, and were able to deliver a beatdown on the Cowboys. By your standards of understanding this is impossible. Every detail of evidence you have pointed your fingers at the Cowboys and Tony Romo just got pointed at the Vikings and Brett Favre. They were better all year than the Cardinals, Panthers, and Bears. Yet they got beat by all three teams. You will probably say, "on the road." Psst, the Cowboys were on the road in Minnesota.
You are nothing if not consistent. It's too bad you are consistently wrong.
Those beatings, losses, did not sink the Vikings. They did not hamper them, weigh them down, add pressure to their already full slate, or in any way deter them from performing in subsequent football games and seasons.
Lets just cut through all the BS and answer these questions or continue to tap dance. Just answer them and give your opinion and stop diverting.
1. Do you think a team that loses the Super Bowl feels a little added pressure to win if they make it back the next year?
Pressure? Yes. ADDED pressure? No. Every team is under the same pressure to do this. Their fans and media want results. Their ownership wants results.
2. Do you think the Cowboys and Romo felt any added pressure to win a playoff game the past 3 seasons...YES or NO?
This is merely a repeat of the question above. The answer remains No. Pressure is always going to exist. Especially for a team like the Cowboys. In the real world down there on that field the only pressure they feel is from the other team. On that day the Vikings applied plenty of pressure. They won.
But it is so silly to think that Dallas losing that game adds nearly insurmountable pressure for 2010. Such a fairy tale.
3. Has there been any play in any game since Romo became the starter where you thought he folded?
No, but I have seen him get beat. All athletes get beat. A lot of us like to call McNabb a choker. In reality he is one of the best QBs in the game. Just like Romo, he can be beat. Peyton Manning is the best QB I have ever seen. He got beat.
In football, that's the game we're talking about in case you can't follow along, that stuff happens. Great teams and players like Tom Brady and the Patriots come up against a team that is inferior and they get beat. Sometimes they get beat badly. Like the Vikings you think were so superior all year to the Cowboys got beat 3 times in 4 games down the stretch by inferior teams.
Did those beatings matter? Please try not to dance around that question. I know that you simply don't understand when I use examples from NFL History to refute your silly little suppositions, but this one should be easy to follow. Your stance is that a big loss proves a team "has a long ways to go." But I have repeatedly now shown you that in the real world that is not the case. Have you learned nothing from the 44-6 chants that the mouth breathers spewed that now sound as hollow as a bongo drum?
