Cowboys winning the Superbowl?

[Bob Sacamano]

we're just not a superbowl team.

you say that with such conviction, like somehow, someway, you know more than anyone else, like you have some sort of insight into the team that the rest of us don't, I stand in awe of you, you are special

 

[iceberg]

Making stuff up is cool.

It must be fun to not let stuff go.

Whatever.

yea, normally when i'm called condecending, arrogant, and many other unflattering adjectives for a point I NEVER SAID DIRECTLY, i can usually let it go right away. not sure what's wrong with me today.

must be some runaway arrogance again.

 

[iceberg]

you say that with such conviction, like somehow, someway, you know more than anyone else, like you have some sort of insight into the team that the rest of us don't, I stand in awe of you, you are special

lower case, not yelling, shouting or other "in your face" tactics, yet i'm saying it with such conviction.

it's how i feel - is that ok if i state it???

and the people who say we "are" a superbowl team - where do they get their facts we're suddenly responsible for? how come speculation AGAIN can work THE POSITIVE way w/o question or the "slamming" yet if it goes the other way - you get all extreme and call party foul?

56% of those voting in the superbowl poll felt we'd go AND win.

44% must think otherwise. if i'm in the 44% why are you singling ME out? because i talk about it? cause it's fun for you?

and i took the short bus to school for years, damn straight i'm special.

 

[superpunk]

yea, normally when i'm called condecending, arrogant, and many other unflattering adjectives for a point I NEVER SAID DIRECTLY, i can usually let it go right away. not sure what's wrong with me today.

must be some runaway arrogance again.

You're unbelievably confused. Mixed up. Don't have your....what we like to call "facts" - straight.

I forgot.

Iceberg here.










Everyone else here.

I'll remember my place, with my fellow average fans, on our moron bus with our hammers and helmets. I'll try not to rise up again, since, chances are - you'll just mix up what actually happened and then make stuff up again so you look like the victim.

Funny - before today I have a great deal of respect for you, and then I just go off, for NO reason. AMAZING!!!!!!!!!! Maybe it's body snatchers?

Get real.

 

[iceberg]

You're unbelievably confused. Mixed up. Don't have your....what we like to call "facts" - straight.

I forgot.

Iceberg here.










Everyone else here.

I'll remember my place, with my fellow average fans, on our moron bus with our hammers and helmets. I'll try not to rise up again, since, chances are - you'll just mix up what actually happened and then make stuff up again so you look like the victim.

Funny - before today I have a great deal of respect for you, and then I just go off, for NO reason. AMAZING!!!!!!!!!! Maybe it's body snatchers?

Get real.

my facts are fine, sp. if they don't "jibe" with yours i can't help it. i've tried to explain and instead of listening and trying to understand, you warp it to some view you're trying to see.

i can't stop you - so have at it. as for making stuff up - are you the one who told me if i'd have said in my initial carter lead us to the playoffs post that this wasn't meant to validate carter as a leader much of the argument wouldn't have happened? then when i show you that's exactly what i say, it's ignored.

and you wonder where i get my frustrations from.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

lower case, not yelling, shouting or other "in your face" tactics, yet i'm saying it with such conviction.

it's how i feel - is that ok if i state it???

there's a phrase that should be used then, such as "in my opinion", w/o it, it looks like you're stating it as if it were a fact

and the people who say we "are" a superbowl team - where do they get their facts we're suddenly responsible for? how come speculation AGAIN can work THE POSITIVE way w/o question or the "slamming" yet if it goes the other way - you get all extreme and call party foul?

well, with the pieces we added in the offseason, we have a chance to field some pretty good units: O, D, special teams, and with no dominant team in this parity-ridden NFL, I feel we have as good a chance as anybody

btw, I voted no, cause I don't think it's a definite that we go, but to totally shoot down the idea isnt' right, IMO of course

 

[iceberg]

there's a phrase that should be used then, such as "in my opinion", w/o it, it looks like you're stating it as if it were a fact

oh for the love of god - who in here prefaces their opinion with THIS IS MY OPINION all the time?

stop it man. this is beyond stupid now. it should be more than obvious when i say i don't think this is a superbowl team i'm talking about MY opinion. REEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAACH here.

 

[superpunk]

i can't stop you - so have at it. as for making stuff up - are you the one who told me if i'd have said in my initial carter lead us to the playoffs post that this wasn't meant to validate carter as a leader much of the argument wouldn't have happened? then when i show you that's exactly what i say, it's ignored.

Does it need to be broken down to you with your PMs?

but i still said i wasn't trying to validate carter as a leader and that is still the crux of the reason why people went nuts

If you had actually said THAT, I feel that the argument wouldn't have occurred, or it would have been much less. But you didn't.

Notice the emphasis on THAT. As in - if you had said EXACTLY THAT.

yes i did. here's what i said - from your own quote of my words:
"Originally Posted by iceberg
but carter was the last qb to lead the cowboys to the post-season. while i don't think this is a validation of carter in as much as how things fell that year all around, he was the last one to do it."

So we have you saying that it was Carter who LEAD us, then you say it's not a validation of Carter (insert anything here, you didn't say anything about validating him AS A LEADER), and then you turn around and say AGAIN that Carter was the last one to do it.


Iceberg here
















Everyone else.

Don't let us forget.

 

[iceberg]

Originally Posted by iceberg
yes i did. here's what i said - from your own quote of my words:
"Originally Posted by iceberg
but carter was the last qb to lead the cowboys to the post-season. while i don't think this is a validation of carter in as much as how things fell that year all around, he was the last one to do it."

then just tell me this sp...

if i'm not saying it's not a validation of "leadership" then what would it be?

i'm damned for the words i use and then i'm damned for leaving one out. so you tell me - if not leadership, what am i talking about? don't tell me you won't "assume" cause you already did when you assumed it was NOT about his leadership, hence todays drama-soap-fest.

so tell me - what was i referring to then?

 

[superpunk]

Done.

 

[iceberg]

Done.

thought so. the implication was his leadership. the structure of the sentence was his leadership (or lack thereof) so when i ask for you to do nothing but DIRECTLY TELL ME what you think i meant so i can understand why you're busting my nuts all over the place today - you run to...

Done.

sorry sp. i openly admitted my "misfire" when i confused you w/summer. now that you confused what i said i don't get that back in return. when i ask you to just tell me what you thought i said you have no answer yet i'm still the hypocritical, arrogant, condecending a-hole you're making me out to be.

YOU'RE the one who took liberties with what i said.
YOU'RE the one who'd not listen to me try to explain
YOU'RE the one who simply can't tell me WHAT you thought i meant.

and i'm the bad guy.

go figure. but the question still stands regardless of your not answering it - if my saying getting into the playoffs was not a validation of carter, what am i referring to IF NOT his leadership when "leadership" is the sole focus? don't run to "i'm not gonna guess!" cause you already did when you started all this.

and i'm the hypocrite.

 

[superpunk]

thought so. the implication was his leadership. the structure of the sentence was his leadership (or lack thereof) so when i ask for you to do nothing but DIRECTLY TELL ME what you think i meant so i can understand why you're busting my nuts all over the place today - you run to...

Done.

Exactly. Me and my mongoloid brethren can't match you. Us average fans gotta stick together.

sorry sp. i openly admitted my "misfire" when i confused you w/summer. now that you confused what i said i don't get that back in return. when i ask you to just tell me what you thought i said you have no answer yet i'm still the hypocritical, arrogant, condecending a-hole you're making me out to be.

I didn't confuse anything. You made a point blank statement, claimed it wasn't a validation, and then said it again. Talking out both sides of your mouth CAN be fun, but leaves alot to be desired, particularly when you KNEW what would happen, and admitted as much after *****ing and moaning about people arguing with you. Sorry I didn't have more sympathy for your plight. try

go figure. but the question still stands regardless of your not answering it - if my saying getting into the playoffs was not a validation of carter, what am i referring to IF NOT his leadership when "leadership" is the sole focus? don't run to "i'm not gonna guess!" cause you already did when you started all this.

Let's have an example, shall we?

The President is a buffoon and makes boneheaded decisions. I'm not saying he's a bad president, but he sure as hell doesn't know what he's doing.

Tell me - what did YOU take from that statement?

And understand, that I took no issue with your original statement, in the original thread - I only said through PMs that if you had said EXACTLY what you claimed you had, there probably wouldn't have been any problem. I took issue with you talking down to everyone, putting yourself on a pedestal, complaining about an argument you KNEW you'd get, and playing the victim through it all. The original statement thing came later. If I misinterpreted it - I'm sorry. Understand that you presented two different opinions/statements in that sentence, and you reinforced one of them twice. That;s what most people took away from it - that;s what you admitted you knew would happen, and that's what you complained about. And THAT's what I took issue with. Not your original statement, but your actions after that.

And I've had more than enough of this. I attempted to let it die, but you HAD to bring it back. I'll say no more on it.

 

[iceberg]

you still never said what else i could be validating.

as for "knowing it would happen" - you mean bringing up carter in what could be contrued as a positive wouldn't normally get a reaction??? you seem to be giving yourself a lot of room you refuse to give in return.

and if were my actions after that - then why focus on "if you had said this originally, none of this would have happened"! when it is what i said, you just refuse to see it. if you got something else wrong out of my saying getting to the playoffs wasn't a validation of carter - let me know.

since leadership was the topic at hand, it's redundant to state it again. i agree this can and apparantely has led to confusion, yet you won't say WHAT ELSE i was saying wasn't a validation.

you said to me in a PM if i said "not a validation "OF HIS LEADERSHIP" none of this would have happened. yet now you say it's NOT the issue but my arrogance after that. how i knew it would cause a stir (a positive comment about carter causing a stir - better apply for my psychic certificate, huh?) only - if i had said leadership there'd not have been an argument.

the one that's apparantely after this...

and i'm the hypocrite. at this point you're just making up crap to be mad about and i can't stop that. let me know when you're done.

 

[zrinkill]

In todays NFL any team can make it to the Superbowl ...... I would say we are in line behind the playoff teams of last year till we prove something.


On Paper we look to be a Superbowl team (if we stay healthy) ....

But then again ...... we use paper to wipe our behinds

 

[Stash]

if 1/2 the team thinks we'll make it to the superbowl - you and i agree it's homerism. i'd also call this crowd your "average" fan. only i got told i was arrogant and condecending when i say so. the funny part is we ran the poll to see which fan base, ours or the skins, was more likely to "homer up" a superbowl prediction. they won at 68% to 56%.

i think both are delusional.

this is NOT to say we're a better team than 3-4 years ago, we're just not a superbowl team.

Yeah, I sure can't see how anybody could have issue with this post........

:blind:

 

[The30YardSlant]

No. We may win the division, may even a playoff game, but I think the conference title game is our absolute limit this year. Our division is just so tough, and there are so many good pass rushing teams (Carolina, Tampa Bay, New York, Seattle, etc.) who can exploit our weak O-Line that we would have to go through to even make the SB, let alone win it. This Dallas team has a problem winning big games on the road, especially late in the season, and God knows we havent won a road playoff game in forever.

We just arent there yet.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Came within 1 game of it this past year, how about you?

And yet, if not for Aaron Glenn making a play on Moss instead of the ball, our positions would have been switched

Stop acting like the Commanders were world beaters last season, when in fact you owe that playoff run to Dalals throwing away a game they had won.

 

[Stash]

No. We may win the division, may even a playoff game, but I think the conference title game is our absolute limit this year. Our division is just so tough, and there are so many good pass rushing teams (Carolina, Tampa Bay, New York, Seattle, etc.) who can exploit our weak O-Line that we would have to go through to even make the SB, let alone win it. This Dallas team has a problem winning big games on the road, especially late in the season, and God knows we havent won a road playoff game in forever.

We just arent there yet.

Looking at it from the other side, I think they are there. They were there last year in fact if not for kicking.

Last year's team had Seattle beaten in Seattle. Yes, the Seattle team that played in the Super Bowl. Kicking cost the Cowboys yet another win that day. That won't be the case this year. And they did this with the likes of Torrin Tucker at LT allowing Bledsoe to get sacked 5 times. That also won't be the case this year.

They did in fact beat the other participant in the NFC Championship Game - Carolina , in Carolina as well.

And can anyone honestly say that this year's team is not better than last year's?

 

[The30YardSlant]

Looking at it from the other side, I think they are there. They were there last year in fact if not for kicking.

Last year's team had Seattle beaten in Seattle. Yes, the Seattle team that played in the Super Bowl. Kicking cost the Cowboys yet another win that day. That won't be the case this year. And they did this with the likes of Torrin Tucker at LT allowing Bledsoe to get sacked 5 times. That also won't be the case this year.

They did in fact beat the other participant in the NFC Championship Game - Carolina , in Carolina as well.

And can anyone honestly say that this year's team is not better than last year's?

If not for kicking we would have won the division, but look what that got the Giants. There was NO WAY we would have beaten Seattle on the road in the playoffs last year, not with that team, not the way the way Seattle was playing. We cant win big road games yet, we just cant, and we havent been able to for a decade. We got our *** kicked in Washington by an inferior team in a game we HAD to win. We choked away a very winnable game on the road in new York late in the season. And you know as well as I do that a botched call aided that win in Carolina.

And yes, this year's team is better. But so is Carolina, Seattle, Washington, and New York.

 

[Stash]

If not for kicking we would have won the division, but look what that got the Giants. There was NO WAY we would have beaten Seattle on the road in the playoffs last year, not with that team, not the way the way Seattle was playing.

We almost beat Seattle previously, why couldn't they do it again? Kicking cost them that game - plain and simple. And I'm not saying they could have done it with Torrible Tucker at LT. I'm saying they can with Adams at LT.

We cant win big road games yet, we just cant, and we havent been able to for a decade. We got our *** kicked in Washington by an inferior team in a game we HAD to win. We choked away a very winnable game on the road in new York late in the season. And you know as well as I do that a botched call aided that win in Carolina.

All of those losses occured after Adams went down. That left the Cowboys with an unprepared rookie at RT and an sub-standard player trying to play LT - with no alternatives.

And yes, this year's team is better. But so is Carolina, Seattle, Washington, and New York.

True, but have any of those teams improved as much as Dallas has?

Not in my opinion.