Twitter: Drew Pearson and Marshall Faulk talk Cowboys Playoff Chances

[Direwolf63]

Marshall Faulk tries to balance off Micheal Irvin's blatant homerism. The problem is that he often sounds silly when doing so. Same with Warren Sapp. Hence the intense dislike for both.

There are millions of non-Cowboys fans who have the same criticisms of Irvin. A lot of the critiquing has to do with who the person roots for.

 

[Hook'em#11]

I have seen how Seattle, Carolina have been playing..

And, then, how Dallas is playing. Really, let's not kid ourselves here. It would be great to see Dallas do something in the playoffs, but,, come on.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

People hate Marshall Faulk cause he says it how it is.

Your right. We hate to hear it because we're Cowboy fans but the Cowboys have proved Marshall Faulk more right than wrong throughout his analyst careers. Its clear there's a agenda on his part but he's rarely wrong in his criticisms of us. He and Stephen A.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I have seen how Seattle, Carolina have been playing..

And, then, how Dallas is playing. Really, let's not kid ourselves here. It would be great to see Dallas do something in the playoffs, but,, come on.

I've been as impressed with us offensively as I have been with Panthers and the Seattle if not more. Defenses......yeah....not so much.

 

[Idgit]

Actually he doesn't say how it is. Marshall is the classic example of pretty good football player, terrible analyst....

Great football player, terrible analyst.

 

[Risen Star]

Your right. We hate to hear it because we're Cowboy fans but the Cowboys have proved Marshall Faulk more right than wrong throughout his analyst careers. Its clear there's a agenda on his part but he's rarely wrong in his criticisms of us. He and Stephen A.

I'd be embarrassed if I lacked the maturity to accept dissenting opinions and I had to create this fantasy land where everyone's out to get my football team during the worst era of Cowboys football in it's history.

What has Marshall Faulk ever said that was so wrong and hateful? The Cowboys suck? Well they have and they do. What I hate is he's been right for far too long.

You want to productively point your hate somewhere, start and end with the Owner of this team. He's the guy who's truly out to get the Dallas Cowboys and he's the only one in position to really do it.

 

[DFWJC]

Marshall Faulk tries to balance off Micheal Irvin's blatant homerism. The problem is that he often sounds silly when doing so. Same with Warren Sapp. Hence the intense dislike for both.

There are millions of non-Cowboys fans who have the same criticisms of Irvin. A lot of the critiquing has to do with who the person roots for.

I have a hard time lumping Sapp and Faulk together.
Sapp has been a Cowboys fan forever and is quick to say so. So when he criticizes them, I at least pay attention (though may only agree sometimes).
Faulk has been a blatant hater for years. He's been irrational about many times.

 

[Idgit]

I'd be embarrassed if I lacked the maturity to accept dissenting opinions and I had to create this fantasy land where everyone's out to get my football team during the worst era of Cowboys football in it's history.

What has Marshall Faulk ever said that was so wrong and hateful? The Cowboys suck? Well they have and they do. What I hate is he's been right for far too long.

You want to productively point your hate somewhere, start and end with the Owner of this team. He's the guy who's truly out to get the Dallas Cowboys and he's the only one in position to really do it.

I basically agree with you, but I've heard Faulk even get into it with Irvin on the topic of the Cowboys great teams of the early 90's and be disparaging. Faulk is no dummy, and his criticisms aren't always fair, but at least they're always smart takes; he doesn't parrot obviously bad arguments about Tony Romo that I've seen, for example. But, right or wrong on any given argument, the guy's definitely a Cowboy hater.

 

[Risen Star]

I basically agree with you, but I've heard Faulk even get into it with Irvin on the topic of the Cowboys great teams of the early 90's and be disparaging. Faulk is no dummy, and his criticisms aren't always fair, but at least they're always smart takes; he doesn't parrot obviously bad arguments about Tony Romo that I've seen, for example. But, right or wrong on any given argument, the guy's definitely a Cowboy hater.

I wish "hater" was the code word around here for the parents to come pick you guys up.

Criticizing a bad team isn't hating. It's doing your job as an analyst.

What happens when/if the Cowboys ever get good again? Do you guys laugh at how all the "haters" have backtracked and now love your football team?

 

[Idgit]

I wish "hater" was the code word around here for the parents to come pick you guys up.

Criticizing a bad team isn't hating. It's doing your job as an analyst.

What happens when/if the Cowboys ever get good again? Do you guys laugh at how all the "haters" have backtracked and now love your football team?

One, you're lumping me in with a group I don't necessarily belong in. My hate is mostly for the local Dallas media, and mostly because they're buffoons who can't do their jobs. That's been proven or rendered mostly moot because all but Calvin Watkins and JJT are pretty much the only two who remain from that group, thankfully.

But you're naive to think that national sports networks don't play off the Cowboy love/hate to generate debate and drive viewership. It's possible you know, to both be critical and to be a 'hater' in that sense. As I said, I don't have any problem with Faulk not liking the team as long as his criticism is insightful and relevant which, for the most part, it is. But he and Irvin have a very obviously orchestrated love/hate thing going re: the Cowboys that they've played up for years for all the obvious sensationalist reasons. If you were really as objective as you pretend to be about the topic, you could acknowledge that without letting it threaten your point that it doesn't matter what the theater is as long as the criticisms are relevant.

 

[The Quest for Six]

does it really matter if Dallas makes the playoffs, nobody is beating Seattle in the NFC

 

[big dog cowboy]

People hate Marshall Faulk cause he says it how it is.

100% wrong in my case.

 

[Risen Star]

One, you're lumping me in with a group I don't necessarily belong in. My hate is mostly for the local Dallas media, and mostly because they're buffoons who can't do their jobs. That's been proven or rendered mostly moot because all but Calvin Watkins and JJT are pretty much the only two who remain from that group, thankfully.

But you're naive to think that national sports networks don't play off the Cowboy love/hate to generate debate and drive viewership. It's possible you know, to both be critical and to be a 'hater' in that sense. As I said, I don't have any problem with Faulk not liking the team as long as his criticism is insightful and relevant which, for the most part, it is. But he and Irvin have a very obviously orchestrated love/hate thing going re: the Cowboys that they've played up for years for all the obvious sensationalist reasons. If you were really as objective as you pretend to be about the topic, you could acknowledge that without letting it threaten your point that it doesn't matter what the theater is as long as the criticisms are relevant.

"You're lumping me in where I don't belong. I only hate the Dallas media."

Making a villain of the media in defense of your football team is weak sauce. It's childish and can't be taken seriously. It is the blood brother of "the refs are out to get us". You don't have to agree with everything they say or write, and I know it can be quite painful sometimes, but by and large these are professionals doing their job. The truth about the Cowboys the last 15 plus years is negative. That's the reality. Any media member worth his/her own salt should reflect that in their analysis.

I have no problem with it. I don't attack their credibility for it, nor do I cast them aside as "haters". Whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.

How do we deal with haters anyway? After class behind the swing set?

 

[MagicMan]

I have seen how Seattle, Carolina have been playing..

And, then, how Dallas is playing. Really, let's not kid ourselves here. It would be great to see Dallas do something in the playoffs, but,, come on.

absolutely agree.....Dallas, as a team, is playing a lot better, but it is expected based on the competition. The problem has been with the over .500 teams. Have not proven yet they can WIN, and that is what you run into come playoff time----whole different level at that point. Let's see what happens, still root for the Boys, but keep a level head.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

I'd be embarrassed if I lacked the maturity to accept dissenting opinions and I had to create this fantasy land where everyone's out to get my football team during the worst era of Cowboys football in it's history.

What has Marshall Faulk ever said that was so wrong and hateful? The Cowboys suck? Well they have and they do. What I hate is he's been right for far too long.

You want to productively point your hate somewhere, start and end with the Owner of this team. He's the guy who's truly out to get the Dallas Cowboys and he's the only one in position to really do it.

Yeah i'm more mad at the Cowboys than I am the analysts.

It reminds me of how Charles Barkley use to have criticisms of Dirk and the Mavericks. CAlling them "soft" among other things. He wasn't wrong. They fixed their team went on a run and Barkley hasn't had nothing to say since .

We can be mad about the message all we want but until proven otherwise he isn't wrong. You can hate the messenger but you should hate that the message is being proved right every season.

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

does it really matter if Dallas makes the playoffs, nobody is beating Seattle in the NFC

That's what everyone said the year the Pats went undefeated......ended up losing to a team that almost didn't even make the playoffs. Just saying......games are played on the field. Not on the stat ****.

 

[tyke1doe]

No. People don't like him because he's a pompus ***. He didn't invent football.

You're right. How dare that pompous *** think he invented football. Didn't any tell him that the posters of Cowboyszone invented football. Just ask them. They know everything there is to know about football and none of them has a bias bone in their bodies.

 

[tyke1doe]

That's what everyone said the year the Pats went undefeated......ended up losing to a team that almost didn't even make the playoffs. Just saying......games are played on the field. Not on the stat ****.

But they were beaten by a team that got to the Super Bowl and played the Pats on neutral ground.
Every so often, one team has that look of a future Super Bowl representative. The Seahawks are that team.
I'd love to see them against the Broncos, provided, of course, the Cowboys don't get there.

 

[Idgit]

"You're lumping me in where I don't belong. I only hate the Dallas media."

Making a villain of the media in defense of your football team is weak sauce. It's childish and can't be taken seriously. It is the blood brother of "the refs are out to get us". You don't have to agree with everything they say or write, and I know it can be quite painful sometimes, but by and large these are professionals doing their job. The truth about the Cowboys the last 15 plus years is negative. That's the reality. Any media member worth his/her own salt should reflect that in their analysis.

I have no problem with it. I don't attack their credibility for it, nor do I cast them aside as "haters". Whatever the heck that's supposed to mean.

How do we deal with haters anyway? After class behind the swing set?

Making a villain of the media in defense of a football team is weak sauce. Avoiding making accurate criticisms of some members of the media who don't do good work *because* you're too concerned with the perception that you might look like you're accidentally defending your football team...do you really think that sauce is any stronger? Because it's not.

Either the guys do their jobs well, and the criticism is accurate, or they don't, and it is not. Nobody's saying the issue is with the fact that the commentary is critical. The issue is with commentary--to the extent there is an issue--is with bias. We don't have to pretend bias doesn't exist at ESPN in order to keep the team's recent play in context. The reality is, there's plenty of legitimate criticism of this team's play the last 15+ years *and* there's lots of obvious sensationalism--positive and negative--surrounding the Dallas Cowboys in the cable sports media. The two aren't mutually exclusive, and I can't really believe you're trying to make the argument that the sensationalism doesn't exist with a straight face. It's an absurd argument.

And it's not a blood brother of 'the refs are out to get us' argument. League officials are required to be impartial. NFL Network and ESPN sportscasters are required to be interesting. The two have completely different objectives.

 

[jrumann59]

Well, we winning but I'd say we're on the lower end of the playoff play. But we're winning. The pass defense is well, challenged, until they get backed up to the RZ then it starts working. If I was smart enough I could tell you why that is; beyond the obvious stuff.

Hard to get beat deep if deep is less than 10 yards.