Close games...

[Juke99]

Close losses mean nothing to you.... nothing means anything to you except hating Tuna. Even when it comes at the expense of good judgement.

Since Landry is not of this earth and Jimmah "62-7" Johnson's coaching tree is now expired, maybe we can get Campo back and go 5-11, 5-11, 5-11 so you can be happy again as a disgruntled Cowboys fan!

*snore* yes, I hate Parcells. You know me so well that you can make that statement. Lemme know when you can also select winning Lottery numbers. And there ya go....the worst supporting arguement for what Parcells has done here...compare him to Campo. 'Nuff said. Parcells has 6 million reasons to be better than Campo. I wasn't a disgruntled Cowboy fan when you were in diapers...I'm still not. Difference is, I see things as they are. 25-24. "You are what your record says you are"

 

[Juke99]

How is it "spin" to say "look how close this team was this year. Look at what they had to deal with this year. Be excited for next year. This team is right there." How is that spin? Seems like a realistic outlook on how this season went, and what we can expect next year. First year 3-4, significant injuries to LBs and CBs, Flozell out, and yet this team finished 9-7, with a real shot at 12-4.

Now THIS is a discussion I can have. We simply see it from different perspectives. Where I start to lose faith in these discussions is when we bring up injuries as a reason for why we'll be better next year. I'd be willing to bet that we were below the league average in games lost by starters due to injuries. 9-7 could just as easily have been 5-11 as 12-4. Ya know, I think at some point it simply comes down to a matter of experience and perspective. I've been a fanatical follower of this team for 40 years. When I see people being satisfied, or finding positives in losing close games, it simply boggles my mind. Yep, compared to the 15-33 under Campo, 25-24 must feel good. But I think that when we start to feel comfortable with close losses, in anything we do in life, we become losers. Just one guy's opinion. Thanks for an intelligent, articulate response.

 

[superpunk]

Now THIS is a discussion I can have. We simply see it from different perspectives. Where I start to lose faith in these discussions is when we bring up injuries as a reason for why we'll be better next year. I'd be willing to bet that we were below the league average in games lost by starters due to injuries. 9-7 could just as easily have been 5-11 as 12-4. Ya know, I think at some point it simply comes down to a matter of experience and perspective. I've been a fanatical follower of this team for 40 years. When I see people being satisfied, or finding positives in losing close games, it simply boggles my mind. Yep, compared to the 15-33 under Campo, 25-24 must feel good. But I think that when we start to feel comfortable with close losses, in anything we do in life, we become losers. Just one guy's opinion. Thanks for an intelligent, articulate response.

I haven't been alive for 40 years. I can barely remember the third super bowl win, watching it with my dad. So maybe I don't have the same outlook as alot of older fans, who are used to flat out dominating the league. In my eyes, that is barely possible anymore, and requires a ton of work to get there, through the draft, and a little luck, too. I said it then, and I say it now. Making the playoffs in 2003 was terrible. It led to a whole misconception that the 2003 team was able to compete NOW, and that set the rebuilding process back two years.

Should Parcells have recognized it too, and taken steps to avoid what happened last year? Sure he should. But I don't see how he COULD move on with his plan, after that playoff season. How could you be taken seriously by any of your players, when they take you to the playoffs, and then you dismantle them? So, I view this year as Parcell's second with the team. Yes, it's been unspectacular, and actually pretty awful so far. But I can see hope. I see a young defense that played above themselves this year, learning a new scheme no less. I see promise on offense, from the TE, and from the RB, if we ever maintain a legitimate blocking scheme. I can also see this team needs to continue preparing for the future in many areas, such as OL, QB, and WR. And maybe they are preparing. We don't know everything that goes on, and are hardly in a position to evaluate the players we don't see. I am encouraged by the progress from last year to this year.

And that's what alot of people mean I guess, when they find encouragement. They're not so much finding encouragement in losing, as they are in the team's performance. When I look at the fact that the Cowboys took three of the four team's in the Conference Championship games to the woodshed, and had them beaten, save for a kicking error, that encourages me. You're not going to blow teams out in the NFL, and this close game experience can be invaluable to a young team, especially if we find a legitimate kicker. That bodes well for next year, and we haven't even seen what the draft and free agency will bring.

 

[chinch]

Now THIS is a discussion I can have. We simply see it from different perspectives. Where I start to lose faith in these discussions is when we bring up injuries as a reason for why we'll be better next year. I'd be willing to bet that we were below the league average in games lost by starters due to injuries. 9-7 could just as easily have been 5-11 as 12-4. Ya know, I think at some point it simply comes down to a matter of experience and perspective. I've been a fanatical follower of this team for 40 years. When I see people being satisfied, or finding positives in losing close games, it simply boggles my mind. Yep, compared to the 15-33 under Campo, 25-24 must feel good. But I think that when we start to feel comfortable with close losses, in anything we do in life, we become losers. Just one guy's opinion. Thanks for an intelligent, articulate response.

Gimme a break with this predictable, precanned response of yours.

Noone here is satisfied in losing instead of winning.

Noone feels better being 25-24 than if we were 35-14.

OTOH you present yourself as some great, true Cowboys fan who knows the deep secrets of football and how Tuna is an incompetant, overrated fool running our great franchise into despair. All along ignoring Jerruh's last 12 years of GM/Ownership. and 5-11, 5-11, 5-11. Those numbers are posted as you are seemingly incapable of seeing any shades of grey (only wins or losses).

*boring*

 

[Nors]

5-11
5-11
5-11

To try and convince yourself that the 2001/2002 teams were anything more than suck is surreal!

That team got pounded - You see that Eagle debacle at the Vet in 02? I was there - we SUCKED. This years team pounded Eagles and played toe to toe with 3 of the 4 remaining teams.

01/02 - WHAT WAS THE NUCLEUS OF TALENT? Aging Woodson, Allen out shape, Ellis/Glover (?)

This team is poised and markedly better, deeper with core talent.

Stop Juke - you are running out of blood!

 

[Nors]

I'll take the 2005 Cowboys over the 2001/2002 Cowboys all day everyday, today, tomorrow and yesterday too!

Line would be about 8 points in Vegas too.:laugh2: :laugh1:

 

[Juke99]

Gimme a break with this predictable, precanned response of yours.

Noone here is satisfied in losing instead of winning.

Noone feels better being 25-24 than if we were 35-14.

OTOH you present yourself as some great, true Cowboys fan who knows the deep secrets of football and how Tuna is an incompetant, overrated fool running our great franchise into despair. All along ignoring Jerruh's last 12 years of GM/Ownership. and 5-11, 5-11, 5-11. Those numbers are posted as you are seemingly incapable of seeing any shades of grey (only wins or losses).

*boring*

Thank you for recognizing my brilliance. I knew I'd win ya over. BTW, since you know everything about what I am feeling, I have a doctor's appointment tomorrow...I'm a little short on time, can you go for me and let me know my test results?

 

[DipChit]

The truth is, it prolly doesnt matter how you lose in any given year in regards to how you'll do the next year. If you lose, you lose. You do your best to get better.

Funny though how some of us think "we're close". Think about what the losing SB teams' fans must have felt the last 7 years or so. I bet they all were thinking that "next year" was going to be their year. They came *this* close.

Then low and behold, I think every one of those teams, save the Titans, didnt even make it to .500 the next year.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Man....that Campo really had this team sooooo close to being a playoff team.

In his last two seasons, we lost 13 games by a TD or less.

Instead of going 10-22 in those seasons we could have reversed that record with some luck and a few less injuries....

As the man says, "You are what your record says you are"

Losing close games isn't the sign of a particularly good team. I'd venture a guess that a third of NFL games are decided by a TD or less. Teams that have playmakers can make the plays that win close games.

Teams that don't will eternally talk about how close they came to winning...and how close they are to being a playoff team.

Just one guy's opinion.

Good afternoon MR Ray of sunshine.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Interestingly enough, I was thinking about this today.

We played 7 games in which we won or lost by 3 or less and 4 more in which we won or lost by 7 or less.

The league is obviously more competative, or watered down if you prefere. However, good teams don't play it this close as often as we do. Yes, the league is more competative but more so for teams that are just OK. Good teams close out games and they find a way to win.

Bears 3 games decided by 3 or less. They were 2-1 with none played in the month of Dec. or Jan.

Hags 4 games decided by 3 or less. They were 3-1 with none played in the month of Dec. or Jan

Denver played 5 games decided by 3 or less. They were 4-1 with only one played in Dec. or Jan.

Skinz played 6 games decided by 3 or less. They were 3-3 with none played in the month of Dec. or Jan.

Jags played 3 games decided by 3 or less. They were 2-1 with none played in the month of Dec. or Jan.

Carolina played 4 games decided by 3 or less. They were 2-2 with none played in the month of Dec. or Jan.

Gmen played 5 games decided by 3 or less. They were 2-3 with only one played in Dec. or Jan.

Pats played 3 games decided by 3 or less. They were 2-1 with only one played in the month of Dec. or Jan.

Bucs played 6 games decided by 3 or less. They were 4-2 with only one played in the month of Dec. or Jan.

Cincy played 2 games decided by 3 or less. They were 1-1 with only one played in the month of Dec. or Jan.

Pitt played 3 games decided by 3 or less. They were 1-2 with no games played in the month of Dec. or Jan.

Indy played only 1 game decided by 3 or less. Of course, we all know how that one turned out.

We played 7 games decided by 3 or less. We were 4-3 with only one played in Dec. or Jan.

If I break these down, it shows that Good teams don't normally play as many close games as we did. They usually win more then they lose and they have it figured out by the time money time rolls around. We have work to do but we're not so far away from being a good team. We just need to learn how to close games out and not make the kinds of mistakes that prolong games. Young teams do this and we are young. It will progressively get better in my opinion but right now, we have improvement that needs to happen.

 

[Nors]

Geez - don't most ALL teams lose some close games?????
They do play 16 games a year?

So all teams that suck are playoff contenders in shoulda could woulda land - Juke?

1988 Dallas team lost 6 games by a TD or less - damn close
1989 Dallas team too - 4 games lost in "close" fashion. That 1-15 was damn misleading.

1979 Dallas way overrated? Won FIVE games by a combined 15 points. Damn lucky bunch they were.

1991 Pats won 8 games by a TD or less in Super Bowl run. Dynasty? Playoffs?

The 2005 Dallas team win/loss Were in far more close games than I can ever remember. This "close loss" stuff is NA. This was a legit 9 to 10 win team with a tough schedule.

 

[jterrell]

Yes...he made the playoffs with Campo's players, I am aware...I'm also aware, he hasn't made the playoffs since. Simple point. Ya either win the game, or you don't. Close is nice. I'll save the horseshoes comment. This is an era of games being close...that is what parity has brought to the NFL. SO it's an OLD frame of refercence to gain comfort from close losses. Additionally, Parcells plays games close...that's his philosophy...if he was a college basketball coach, he'd stall the game and his final scores would be 45-43. He's supposed to know how to win close games... Personally, I think it's a philosophy that no longer works in the NFL...you can play the game as close as you'd like...and then lose it at the end because the other team has the playmaker we are sorely missing at this point. Close losses mean nothing.

We won 6 games last year.
This year we won 9 and beat or played the heck outta a lot of very good teams.

You gotta walk before you can run.

Its silly to me that we gotta hold everyone's hand it seems and pat them on the back apologizing for their suffering through a 9 win season against this schedule. Its pathetic.

I know you are down on BP. Everyone seems to be wayyyyyy down on someone. BP is JUST a Hall of Fame coach. By all means we should fire him and rehire Camps immediately. I really loved the drafting during that era.

BTW, I am pretty sure the 4 or 5 vet BP players Bill brought in helped make the playoffs that year. I wouldn't call it Campo's players, ROFL. Campo never had any players. Jerry did.

Basically cheer up bro, we are not that far from SB contention at all.

We didnt lose to Denver because of any playmaker. We missed a chipshot FG and then had Ron Dayne of the impressive 5.0 40 speed beat us.
We didn't lose to NYG because of any playmaker.
We couldn't block Osi or Strahan all day.
We didn't lose to Carolina because well we won.

Which teams beat us because they had better playmakers? Wash?
Perhaps but Moss did squat all day then we went brain dead in coverage twice with a lead. After Wash who exactly just whooped us with their playmakers?

We lost our vet middle linebacker, LT, starting CB. Unfortunately they were not just normal injuries but key ones. We had depth problems at LB and OL already accentuated by taking out the best players in those positions. Henry was the best Cowboy through the first half of the season. He was a playmaker.

I dont think we are all that different from Cincy or Carolina last year. Competitive teams who missed the playoffs but were poised to enter the next season as a contender.

 

[Juke99]

I haven't been alive for 40 years. I can barely remember the third super bowl win, watching it with my dad. So maybe I don't have the same outlook as alot of older fans, who are used to flat out dominating the league. In my eyes, that is barely possible anymore, and requires a ton of work to get there, through the draft, and a little luck, too. I said it then, and I say it now. Making the playoffs in 2003 was terrible. It led to a whole misconception that the 2003 team was able to compete NOW, and that set the rebuilding process back two years.

Should Parcells have recognized it too, and taken steps to avoid what happened last year? Sure he should. But I don't see how he COULD move on with his plan, after that playoff season. How could you be taken seriously by any of your players, when they take you to the playoffs, and then you dismantle them? So, I view this year as Parcell's second with the team. Yes, it's been unspectacular, and actually pretty awful so far. But I can see hope. I see a young defense that played above themselves this year, learning a new scheme no less. I see promise on offense, from the TE, and from the RB, if we ever maintain a legitimate blocking scheme. I can also see this team needs to continue preparing for the future in many areas, such as OL, QB, and WR. And maybe they are preparing. We don't know everything that goes on, and are hardly in a position to evaluate the players we don't see. I am encouraged by the progress from last year to this year.

And that's what alot of people mean I guess, when they find encouragement. They're not so much finding encouragement in losing, as they are in the team's performance. When I look at the fact that the Cowboys took three of the four team's in the Conference Championship games to the woodshed, and had them beaten, save for a kicking error, that encourages me. You're not going to blow teams out in the NFL, and this close game experience can be invaluable to a young team, especially if we find a legitimate kicker. That bodes well for next year, and we haven't even seen what the draft and free agency will bring.

Thanks for the response. You make good points. It's simply a matter of perspective sometimes. Agreed about the playoffs after the first season. I think the problem was magnified by the roster moves that were made after that season. I don't think he should have torn down the entire roster but he made moves as if we were just a few parts away from taking the next step. Back then, I felt that Parcells AND Jerry let their egos run away with them...and that they went for the playoffs at the expense of rebuilding because their egos sorta got in the way. That was fine. I think the franchise needed the lift. But to carry that thinking to the next season was ill advised. As I've said in this forum a zillion times. I was a huge Parcells fan. Watched him in NY for years. Was thrilled when he was hired...I simply don't see this as the same guy. If he was 50, he'd be coaching this team entirely differently. Time will tell, I'm just not as confident as many others here about the future....but I'll be rooting to see me proven wrong.

 

[trueblue1687]

Man....that Campo really had this team sooooo close to being a playoff team.

In his last two seasons, we lost 13 games by a TD or less.

Instead of going 10-22 in those seasons we could have reversed that record with some luck and a few less injuries....

As the man says, "You are what your record says you are"

Losing close games isn't the sign of a particularly good team. I'd venture a guess that a third of NFL games are decided by a TD or less. Teams that have playmakers can make the plays that win close games.

Teams that don't will eternally talk about how close they came to winning...and how close they are to being a playoff team.

Just one guy's opinion.

Riiiiight. Let's give ol' Dave a call and give him an invite back! Anything is better than Parcells, right?? Since BOTH coaches lost several games by less than a TD, or thereabouts, they must be equally skilled as coaches, so why not have a yes man instead of a smart***? I like your thinking!!!

 

[Nors]

We won 6 games last year.
This year we won 9 and beat or played the heck outta a lot of very good teams.

You gotta walk before you can run.

Its silly to me that we gotta hold everyone's hand it seems and pat them on the back apologizing for their suffering through a 9 win season against this schedule. Its pathetic.

I know you are down on BP. Everyone seems to be wayyyyyy down on someone. BP is JUST a Hall of Fame coach. By all means we should fire him and rehire Camps immediately. I really loved the drafting during that era.

BTW, I am pretty sure the 4 or 5 vet BP players Bill brought in helped make the playoffs that year. I wouldn't call it Campo's players, ROFL. Campo never had any players. Jerry did.

Basically cheer up bro, we are not that far from SB contention at all.

We didnt lose to Denver because of any playmaker. We missed a chipshot FG and then had Ron Dayne of the impressive 5.0 40 speed beat us.
We didn't lose to NYG because of any playmaker.
We couldn't block Osi or Strahan all day.
We didn't lose to Carolina because well we won.

Which teams beat us because they had better playmakers? Wash?
Perhaps but Moss did squat all day then we went brain dead in coverage twice with a lead. After Wash who exactly just whooped us with their playmakers?

We lost our vet middle linebacker, LT, starting CB. Unfortunately they were not just normal injuries but key ones. We had depth problems at LB and OL already accentuated by taking out the best players in those positions. Henry was the best Cowboy through the first half of the season. He was a playmaker.

I dont think we are all that different from Cincy or Carolina last year. Competitive teams who missed the playoffs but were poised to enter the next season as a contender.

Lock it down mods - this thread states it all.

Thanks,
Nors - out

 

[Ashwynn]

I dont know, but I failed to find a point to this thread.

 

[superpunk]

Thanks for the response. You make good points. It's simply a matter of perspective sometimes. Agreed about the playoffs after the first season. I think the problem was magnified by the roster moves that were made after that season. I don't think he should have torn down the entire roster but he made moves as if we were just a few parts away from taking the next step. Back then, I felt that Parcells AND Jerry let their egos run away with them...and that they went for the playoffs at the expense of rebuilding because their egos sorta got in the way. That was fine. I think the franchise needed the lift. But to carry that thinking to the next season was ill advised. As I've said in this forum a zillion times. I was a huge Parcells fan. Watched him in NY for years. Was thrilled when he was hired...I simply don't see this as the same guy. If he was 50, he'd be coaching this team entirely differently. Time will tell, I'm just not as confident as many others here about the future....but I'll be rooting to see me proven wrong.

Agreed, the moves they actually made were horrible. To not go after any corners that year was a mistake, even if in the long run it worked out to get Henry, who looks like the best of the bunch from the last two years. I saw the George signing, I cringed. I saw the Wiley signing, I was optimistic, but had reservations. Huge mistakes made by the front office. Then, I got even more pissed at Bill during the season, when reporters asked him why they didn't go after a FA corner. "Do you see any of them making a big impact on their team's record?" was his response, or something like that. Who the hell cares, Bill? It needed to be addressed, and he didn't.

He is different, though, and I only have tales of player reactions to him to go on. It seems like the players, even the young ones, love him, and love playing for him. he's changed his attitude, and he's mellowed. Maybe that's a bad thing. I'd like to see fire on this team, and that comes from the coach most of the time. I'd be even happier if one of the young kids provides that fire. Like a Ray Lewis/Michael Jordan type, who WILL NOT accept you slacking off, and WILL NOT accept and lax in intensity. I'd like to see that from Roy W., or maybe D Ware in the future. It's not coming from Parcells, though, and that concerns me. I think his new style can work, though, and I really think this year could do it.

 

[chinch]

Lock it down mods - this thread states it all.

Thanks,
Nors - out

LOL. Frame it, box it up, throw in a pacifier and send it over to Juke LOL

 

[Juke99]

Agreed, the moves they actually made were horrible. To not go after any corners that year was a mistake, even if in the long run it worked out to get Henry, who looks like the best of the bunch from the last two years. I saw the George signing, I cringed. I saw the Wiley signing, I was optimistic, but had reservations. Huge mistakes made by the front office. Then, I got even more pissed at Bill during the season, when reporters asked him why they didn't go after a FA corner. "Do you see any of them making a big impact on their team's record?" was his response, or something like that. Who the hell cares, Bill? It needed to be addressed, and he didn't.

He is different, though, and I only have tales of player reactions to him to go on. It seems like the players, even the young ones, love him, and love playing for him. he's changed his attitude, and he's mellowed. Maybe that's a bad thing. I'd like to see fire on this team, and that comes from the coach most of the time. I'd be even happier if one of the young kids provides that fire. Like a Ray Lewis/Michael Jordan type, who WILL NOT accept you slacking off, and WILL NOT accept and lax in intensity. I'd like to see that from Roy W., or maybe D Ware in the future. It's not coming from Parcells, though, and that concerns me. I think his new style can work, though, and I really think this year could do it.

Gee, isn't it amazing how someone can actually hold a conversation and keep it on point.

Thanks.

My point in all of this is pretty simple. Don't feel good about close losses. Nothing more; nothing less.

The Browns lost five games by a TD or less....the Ravens four...Hell the Texans lost six games by a TD or less...The Packers lost EIGHT games by a TD or less....Arizona, five...Detroit, five...

Don't make excuses for being 7-3 and going into a free fall. I'll bet $$$ that Parcells isn't sitting there and saying "Hey ya know, if Flozell....If Dat....With a few breaks we could have won some more games...."

Yet when someone else states just that, the Parcells' clan here loses their collective minds.

Kinda fun if ya ask me.

 

[Juke99]

We won 6 games last year.
This year we won 9 and beat or played the heck outta a lot of very good teams.

You gotta walk before you can run.

Its silly to me that we gotta hold everyone's hand it seems and pat them on the back apologizing for their suffering through a 9 win season against this schedule. Its pathetic.

I know you are down on BP. Everyone seems to be wayyyyyy down on someone. BP is JUST a Hall of Fame coach. By all means we should fire him and rehire Camps immediately. I really loved the drafting during that era.

BTW, I am pretty sure the 4 or 5 vet BP players Bill brought in helped make the playoffs that year. I wouldn't call it Campo's players, ROFL. Campo never had any players. Jerry did.

Basically cheer up bro, we are not that far from SB contention at all.

We didnt lose to Denver because of any playmaker. We missed a chipshot FG and then had Ron Dayne of the impressive 5.0 40 speed beat us.
We didn't lose to NYG because of any playmaker.
We couldn't block Osi or Strahan all day.
We didn't lose to Carolina because well we won.

Which teams beat us because they had better playmakers? Wash?
Perhaps but Moss did squat all day then we went brain dead in coverage twice with a lead. After Wash who exactly just whooped us with their playmakers?

We lost our vet middle linebacker, LT, starting CB. Unfortunately they were not just normal injuries but key ones. We had depth problems at LB and OL already accentuated by taking out the best players in those positions. Henry was the best Cowboy through the first half of the season. He was a playmaker.

I dont think we are all that different from Cincy or Carolina last year. Competitive teams who missed the playoffs but were poised to enter the next season as a contender.

'Nuff said JT, : this is where you expose yourself as being unable to stay on topic...so as you please, you can continue to have a debate with yourself...because that's exactly what you are doing if you think I stated that we should rehire Campo and fire Parcells.

Hey, btw, since you obviously don't take the time to read what I wrote, specifically, that in FACT we took no solace when we lost close games with Campo...nor should we now...AND instead, turn that into that I've stated Parcells should be fired and Campo hired...please continue to argue with yourself...and send me a PM to let me know how my side made out in the end. It's a great time saver for me. Thank you.