Are the Cowboys soft?

[InmanRoshi]

Sorry, I don't really buy the "We played well, the Giants were just red hot.' They bumbled their way into the Superbowl. The Giants had 230 total yards against us, and we found a way to lose. Are you kidding me? Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Favre basically gave them the game in Green Bay and the Patriots were sputtering by the Superbowl. The Chargers nearly played them to a draw with half of their team hurt and their Qb playing on a torn ACL.

That's what kills me the most ... it was right there for the taking. We might have better teams than last year's on the horizon, but it's doubtfull we'll ever have a better opportunity. The rest of the NFL isn't standing still.

 

[MONT17]

if u compare it to another team let's say the cowboys of the 90s yeah this team is very soft. But if u compare them to the skins ide say no. Who would u rather have in a fight to the death owens or irvin. Big e or columbo. Troy or romo. La or kosier. Tui or the hotel. Haley or ware. Moose or cricket. Yeah compared to the 90s cowboys I would say this team is very soft but compare to the teams 2day no but they aren't very hard by comparison either.

 

[Disturbed]

Soft or without proper "on field" leadership?

 

[Doomsday101]

Sorry, I don't really buy the "We played well, the Giants were just red hot.' They bumbled their way into the Superbowl. The Giants had 230 total yards against us, and we found a way to lose. Are you kidding me? Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Favre basically gave them the game in Green Bay and the Patriots were sputtering by the Superbowl. The Chargers nearly played them to a draw with half of their team hurt and their Qb playing on a torn ACL.

That's what kills me the most ... it was right there for the taking. We might have better teams than last year's on the horizon, but it's doubtfull we'll ever have a better opportunity. The rest of the NFL isn't standing still.

Giants were just not making many mistakes. Eli who had been turning the ball over quite often for most of the season did not turn the ball over during the post season and the Giants were able to keep the penalty total way down. I do think had Dallas played up to their ability and made fewer mistakes that we could have won but that was not the case. Giants did what they needed to do and for that they deserve the credit and the SB trophy. I don't think they got lucky for all 4 games they had to play in the post season but I do think they were able not to beat themselves with stupid mistakes

 

[Disturbed]

The question posed was --- "are the Cowboys soft".

If you look back over the past five years one might say yes given how they finished the seasons...but is it really being soft or a lack of on field leadership. I say the offense has leadership in Romo, Witten, and TO. But the defense is still trying to find it....and I hope that Zack can help fill that void.

If you look toward this year, you hope they have learned from past mistakes, and are getting more comfortable in this system. The coaches were upgraded which should help, and the team chemistry is very good. I hope this year everything comes together...

 

[InmanRoshi]

Giants were just not making many mistakes. Eli who had been turning the ball over quite often for most of the season did not turn the ball over during the post season and the Giants were able to keep the penalty total way down.

230 total yards, they were going they were going 3 and out every drive. They didn't play enough snaps to make many mistakes.

When a team wins a Superbowl not because they were a great team, but because they didn't screw anything up, it pretty much sums how ripe the Superbowl was for the taking.

 

[Disturbed]

if u compare it to another team let's say the cowboys of the 90s yeah this team is very soft. But if u compare them to the skins ide say no. Who would u rather have in a fight to the death owens or irvin. Big e or columbo. Troy or romo. La or kosier. Tui or the hotel. Haley or ware. Moose or cricket. Yeah compared to the 90s cowboys I would say this team is very soft but compare to the teams 2day no but they aren't very hard by comparison either.

I agree with that... The 90's team never bought into the hype and played every down. This team seems to think they can win by showing up....they have not developed the swagger, disposition, and killer instinct of a championship team yet.

The 90's team would destroy this one.

 

[AtlCB]

I agree with that... The 90's team never bought into the hype and played every down. This team seems to think they can win by showing up....they have not developed the swagger, disposition, and killer instinct of a championship team yet.

The 90's team would destroy this one.

The 90's team would destroy any team in the NFL.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

San Diego never had its "first-team" offense on the field. Its two best players never saw a snap. Does that not count in the "first-team," "second-team," "whatever-team" comparison?

I never said anything about San Diego's "first team" offense. I simply reiterated the fact that, when Dallas began pulling its starters, the score was 7-0 Cowboys and Dallas' starting defense had stymied San Diego's starting offense on its first two possession.

For purposes of this discussion, the players who actually constitute the "first team" units for San Diego and Dallas are irrelevant. We can only judge the game by what occurred, not what would hypothetically occur if certain players had not been absent.

Do we also disregard special teams and penalties when judging the outcomes of games? In my book, the only place a whipping counts is on the scoreboard and our reserve players got trounced 24-10.

I never advocated disregarding special teams and penalties when assessing a game's outcome. I simply disagree with the notion that Dallas was "whipped." Throughout this thread, you've used two terms--whipped and manhandled--that, in my opinion, have very specific connotations regarding the type of victory a team has earned against its opponent.

The words whipping and manhandling seem to suggesta certain level of physical domination, such as a team outgaining its opponent by a wide margin or totally dominating along the lines of scrimmage. Neither was the case against SD.

No, my post refers to both practice and the second preseason game.

This being the case, how can you compare this year's Cowboys team to last year's Cowboys team at this same point in time when the second preseason game hasn't even been played yet?

Not at all. It's your post. Say whatever you want. I only asked if your last sentence referred to something I'd written because because the rest of your post did.

It was just an observation.

 

[redskins1]

I see some simularities between the Mavericks and Cowboys, they both are soft! I have not seen a mean streak attitude on the Cowboys for awhile and this really bothers me. Just sayin...........

soft as a cupcake!!!

 

[Doomsday101]

230 total yards, they were going they were going 3 and out every drive. They didn't play enough snaps to make many mistakes.

I'm not talking just about the Cowboys game but the total post season. Eli looked like he figured out that he has a good defense he does not have to force stupid throws that had been hurting his team. I don't care for the Giants but the fact it they took it after 4 games on the road and to say other just played bad and Giants were lucky? I don't buy that, Giants did enough things right to win the games and deserve what they got. This does not mean I think the Giants are one of the best SB winning teams in the history of the NFL because I don't but I think they did what they had to do to win last year despite all the nay Sayers who said they had no chance

 

[Everlastingxxx]

This years team is not last years team. Let’s see what happens first and ok if they flop again, then say what you want. But really, this is a new team, new year, new perspective. How can anyone say this years team is soft? Did you watch the first series by the starters, pretty dang impressive against a very good team. Last year was last year, doesn’t matter now. I’m over the Giants game, it’s over and done with. You had all offseason to ponder it. New season now.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I'm not talking just about the Cowboys game but the total post season. Eli looked like he figured out that he has a good defense he does not have to force stupid throws that had been hurting his team. I don't care for the Giants but the fact it they took it after 4 games on the road and to say other just played bad and Giants were lucky? I don't buy that, Giants did enough things right to win the games and deserve what they got. This does not mean I think the Giants are one of the best SB winning teams in the history of the NFL because I don't but I think they did what they had to do to win last year despite all the nay Sayers who said they had no chance

Gilbride was KEY.

 

[Doomsday101]

Gilbride was KEY.

I agree. Kevin Gilbride was able to get through to Eli that he did not have to go out and play lights out for the team to win. When you have a good defense they will keep you in the game just don't put them in bad situations with turnovers. All in all I thought Eli played well and made the throws he had to but seldom did he force passes.

 

[joseephuss]

Sorry, I don't really buy the "We played well, the Giants were just red hot.' They bumbled their way into the Superbowl. The Giants had 230 total yards against us, and we found a way to lose. Are you kidding me? Talk about snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Favre basically gave them the game in Green Bay and the Patriots were sputtering by the Superbowl. The Chargers nearly played them to a draw with half of their team hurt and their Qb playing on a torn ACL.

That's what kills me the most ... it was right there for the taking. We might have better teams than last year's on the horizon, but it's doubtfull we'll ever have a better opportunity. The rest of the NFL isn't standing still.

This year could be a good opportunity as well. Both teams that were in the NFC Championship game will be different. The Packers obviously have to adjust to losing Favre and I think the Giants will have to figure out how to rush the passer without Michael Strayhorn.

Dallas blew it last year. I don't think that makes them soft. It is something else. Of course there is also the Jacque Reeves factor. His position has been improved.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

I agree. Kevin Gilbride was able to get through to Eli that he did not have to go out and play lights out for the team to win. When you have a good defense they will keep you in the game just don't put them in bad situations with turnovers. All in all I thought Eli played well and made the throws he had to but seldom did he force passes.

I will add that no Tiki or Shockey allowed Gilbride to get through to Eli. They were interrupting/sidetracking Eli and his focus.

 

[Doomsday101]

I will add that no Tiki or Shockey allowed Gilbride to get through to Eli. They were interrupting/sidetracking Eli and his focus.

You could very well be right, less distraction can't hurt.

 

[Clove]

Let me respond to the "we lost last year in the playoffs" . It's simple, our D-Line has to dominate, and we didn't dominate like we should've last year. If your D-Line can't get into the faces of QBs, hang it up.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

You could very well be right, less distraction can't hurt.

In Coughlin's first couple of years with the Giants when his "tough/structure" approach was not being welcomed or bought into it just seemed unfair to him. Because I believed it could work. The inmates were running the asylum. But I always said if he got them to buy into it they would be dangerous.

I hated being right when they went on that run and beat us and won SB.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I would love to dispute this, but seeing as how it is an inherently unproveable claim, neither of us could argue our case.

The fact is that we played well and we lost to a team that--at the time--was playing better than anyone in the league including the 18-0 Patriots. I fail to see why our fans want to ignore that and instead suggest that we failed because of a problem with us. They had an aggressive defensive scheme and a QB that was playing out of his mind. IT HAPPENS. That we lost does not require the conclusion that our players "didn't want to win" (or "weren't hungry"--a phrase which is a load of BS and is some STUPID sports cliche that people abuse despite the fact it is baseless, un-quantifiable, and nothing more than a pretextual term to applaud people).

I keep seeing the suggestion that our players do not want to win. How in the heck do you reach that conclusion? The players were devastated after the loss and worked in the off-season. Did they not want to win when they fought back in Buffalo to a last second victory? Of course not. The guys wanted to win.

Again, I come back to the point that this is all a bunch of hooey based on unreasonable and fictionalized fans' expectations.

These guys have the talent to want to win and the fight to do so. There are far more reasons to be excited about this team. We improved talent wise over the off-season.

Again: if you can't be excited about this team's chances, what do you require in order to be confident and hopeful about the team's chances? (Once we answer that, we will prove my conclusion about unreasonable expectations).

Hell, the Skins fans are all confident they are going to win the Super Bowl and they have far more reasons to be concerned. Our fans have as good as reason as anyone to be hopeful and our fans are manufacturing concerns to worry about.

It's amazing how soon you forget 5-11. ENJOY THIS!

I don't think it's all that difficult to prove the point that we lost mentally as opposed to physically but whatever you choose to believe is fine with me.

I do not share that opinion.

I don't believe we are physically soft. I do believe that we are not as mentally tough as we need to be. I hope we overcome that this season. If you can find room to argue this point in what I have said, feel free.