Extremeskins fan here: Huge weekend for both of us!

[MossTDMossTD]

I hate trolls, don't you guys?

 

[zrinkill]

I hate trolls, don't you guys?

Yea ..... they are almost as bad as people who bandwagon to whatever team is winning.

edit (who thinks of the Commanders Moss when they think of touchdowns?)

 

[03EBZ06]

So michael went running back to ES to get some backup for this thread... here are some of the responses:

Having actually met Hos, this one cracks me up the most. I think ole 88lion88 would crap his pants if Hos looked at him crosseyed.



http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220958&page=2&pp=15

:cry2: :abuseme:

 

[CowboyChris]

D*MN!

priceless

 

[Hostile]

So michael went running back to ES to get some backup for this thread... here are some of the responses:









Having actually met Hos, this one cracks me up the most. I think ole 88lion88 would crap his pants if Hos looked at him crosseyed.



http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220958&page=2&pp=15

Thanks DW. I responded to a few posts.

Not one of them though. I'd get banned for sure.

I wonder if that guy who likes violence would like to test if he likes receiving it?

 

[McCordsville Cowboy]

Bradon Lloyd is a stud....:laugh1:

 

[firehawk350]

I will consider this post my invitation to join the fray.

Please do...

When Commanders fans decide to talk trash, about the only thing they have to crow about is that our teams have met twice in the playoffs and they've won both games.

I do not buy the lame attempts to pigeon hole the discussion about the last 10 years only. That is about as lame as a 40 year old horse. It needs to have a merciful death and put out of its misery. Will Skins fan ever do this? I can't answer for them. Either look at the entire History of the 2 franchises or none of it. Don't pick and choose one tiny window and think it matters.

Cowboys fans would never do this, right?! Right??? Eck, I seem to remember something about 15 out of 16 before an infamous Monday night in September 05. Surely that's not picking and choosing. Basing records on an era definitely does bear mentioning though. Football is played completely differently now than it was played in the 90s or 80s or 70s, etc... Football is played differently now than it was even 5 years ago, so I believe recent records and the like does bear mentioning out of the context of overall history of the rivalry. I mean, the Eagles don't have great records vs. any of the other NFC East rivals, but other than 05 and this year, they have been the best team in the East.

The fact is the only thing about our series that they have a right to crow about is the 2 playoff wins. Head to head in the playoffs they are 2-0 against the Cowboys, both in NFC Championship games for the right to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl. Both also played in Washington, meaning we were the wildcard team, they were the division champion, and favored to win. Still, Advantage Commanders. Congratulations. I stand here and give them credit for this fact.

<<<Me, acknowledging this feat.

"The Commanders had a better record, so we had to play in Washington, wahhhh". Guess what, if you were a better team, you get the better record and we'll play at your house.

In every other way their team's history compared to ours is inferior. Most of this is purely for the entertainment of our fans.


Super Bowls played... advantage Cowboys, 8 to 5.

Super Bowls won...advantage Cowboys, 5 to 3.

How many times can I correct this little myth? Yes, in super bowl championship, you win. Great job. However, we have won 5 championships (like you) they just weren't called super bowls back then (in 37 and 42). We also played in 2 championships (40 and 43) but lost. Leaving the Skins to tie the Cowboys in total championships won, but leading in total championships appeared in.

Their team began in 1932 as the Boston Braves, they became the Washington Commanders in 1937.

Our team began in 1960.

That means that when we were an expansion franchise they had a 23 year head start, minimum. It is 28 years in reality. Their franchise has played in 39 post season games.

We've won 32 post season games, not played in 32, won 32. We've played in 54. 15 more post season games played in 28 fewer years.

Advantage, Cowboys.

Still think that 2-0 mark is a big feather in your cap Commanders fans?

You're right, you have been in more playoff games in less years (btw, update, you've been in 55 playoff games). Good job. I'll admit you guys are pretty impressive in this regard. However, consider this...

The Skins have won 59.0% of their playoff contests. Dallas has won 58.2%. Since the Boys have been in the league, the Skins have a playoff record of 20-12. That translates into a winning percentage of 62.5%. I thought this was relevant since Cowboys fans claim not to care about making the playoffs, but making noise in the playoffs when bringing up that 11 year playoff win drought (a record between the franchises).


In 9 coappearances by the Cowboys and Commanders, the Skins advanced further 5 times (as opposed to the Cowboys 3 times). So we would have a better record against you (since you say the 2-0 is a feather in our headress [get it right]), had you guys come to play.

When the decade of the 1960's ended the head to head record was advantage Cowboys 10-7-2. We were 5-2-2 in Dallas, 5-5 at Washington.

When the decade of the 1970's ended the head to head record was advantage Cowboys 12-8. We were 8-2 at home, 4-6 at Washington. The Commanders won our first playoff meeting in Washington in 1972.

The 80's was their decade right? I mean 2 of their 3 Super Bowl wins were in that decade, and we got shut out.

Yet when the decade of the 1980's ended it was advantage Cowboys 11-8. we were 4-5 at home, but 7-3 in Washington. The Commanders did win our 2nd playoff matchup in Washington in 1982.

Not even in their dominant decade, and our worst, were they better.

You know the decade of the 1990's was ours right? Yep...

When the decade ended it was advantage Cowboys 12-8. We were 8-2 at home, 4-6 in Washington.

Now we get to the current decade, still in progress. From 2000 through the game this season it is advantage Cowboys 10-4. We are 6-1 at home and 4-3 in Washington. Unless the Commanders sweep the rest of the decade they'll be behind once again.

I actually don't know where to find any of those stats, but this is the same thing you post over a year ago, so the Cowboys still have the advantage, 10-5 in this decade, but are 4-4 in Washington.

All time series record...advantage Cowboys 55-35-2. That's 20 games folks. In other words to catch up they'd have to sweep us for the next 10 years. Just to pull even. It ain't gonna happen Sparky.

We are 31-12-2 at home. We are 24-23 in Washington, not counting their 2 playoff wins there. In their house. We win the matchups in their house more often than they do.

Again, 24-24 in Washington, and 55-36-2. But your right, advantage Cowboys.

The Commanders fans that showed up in 2005 love to talk about the series sweep in 2005. They also swept the series in 1984, 1987, and 1995 for a total of 4 series sweeps.

Dallas had 2 sweeps in the 1960's... 1968, & 1969.
Dallas had 2 sweep in the 1970's...1970 & 1977.
Dallas had 3 sweeps in the 1980's...1980, 1981, & 1985.
Dallas had 3 sweeps in the 1990's...1994, 1998 & 1999.
Dallas has 4 sweeps this decade...2000, 2001, 2003, & 2004.

That's 14 season sweeps. Advantage Cowboys.

The Skins swept you in 72 (including a playoff game) as well. Which is a feat you never managed to do by the way. Beating you three times in one year, wow.

So, I'll acknowledge and congratulate the Commanders fans for the 2-0 record in the playoffs against us. The question is, can they acknowledge that in every other way, shape, and form, the Dallas Cowboys are the better franchise with more to crow about? Can they man up and do that? If they can then the message below is not for them, it's for the Commanders homers who want to come here and bring a flyswatter to a gunfight.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, to any of the Commanders fans who want to come here and crow. Stand in our shadow and shiver from the cold.

Wow, that's some serious rheotric dude. Stand in your shadow and shiver? I think, we can see that the Cowboys are the regular season heroes whereas the Skins outperform the Cowboys in the playoffs. Which is more important, you decide (since after all, you don't care about playoff appearances, just championships, as I have been told)...

 

[zrinkill]

Please do...

Some people never learn.

 

[zrinkill]

How many times can I correct this little myth? Yes, in super bowl championship, you win. Great job. However, we have won 5 championships (like you) they just weren't called super bowls back then (in 37 and 42). We also played in 2 championships (40 and 43) but lost. Leaving the Skins to tie the Cowboys in total championships won, but leading in total championships appeared in.

How many teams were in the league in 1937 and 1942? And do you really think that is even close to being in the same league as now?

 

[firehawk350]

How many teams were in the league in 1937 and 1942? And do you really think that is even close to being in the same league as now?

Does your championships in the 70s, ours in the 80s and 90s and yours in the 90s count in that case? Completely different eras, less teams, salary caps. If you discount the ones you don't like, then you have to discount them all as Hostile so cleverly stated. You can't just pick and choose.

 

[adamknite]

The Skins swept you in 72 (including a playoff game) as well. Which is a feat you never managed to do by the way. Beating you three times in one year, wow.

ok congratulations add one more sweep into there. I'll take 14 season sweeps over 5 including one 1 season of 3 game sweeps, anyday of the week.

 

[zrinkill]

Does your championships in the 70s, ours in the 80s and 90s and yours in the 90s count in that case? Completely different eras, less teams, salary caps. If you discount the ones you don't like, then you have to discount them all as Hostile so cleverly stated. You can't just pick and choose.

How many teams did your team face in the 30's and 40's? and how many where there in the 70's and 90's?

Or are you afraid to answer the question?

 

[Hostile]

Please do...

Okay. Got a pillow to cushion the blow?

Cowboys fans would never do this, right?! Right??? Eck, I seem to remember something about 15 out of 16 before an infamous Monday night in September 05. Surely that's not picking and choosing. Basing records on an era definitely does bear mentioning though.

Of course Cowboys fans do this. Did you really expect me to deny it? To what purpose? I don't enjoy looking foolish. Is it valid to you when we do it? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Football is played completely differently now than it was played in the 90s or 80s or 70s, etc... Football is played differently now than it was even 5 years ago, so I believe recent records and the like does bear mentioning out of the context of overall history of the rivalry. I mean, the Eagles don't have great records vs. any of the other NFC East rivals, but other than 05 and this year, they have been the best team in the East.

I have no idea what the point of this was meant to be, but I honestly don't care either. Let's get back to what is relevant.

"The Commanders had a better record, so we had to play in Washington, wahhhh". Guess what, if you were a better team, you get the better record and we'll play at your house.

You can save this stuff for people who don't understand the game of football. It is wasted on someone like me.

How many times can I correct this little myth? Yes, in super bowl championship, you win. Great job. However, we have won 5 championships (like you) they just weren't called super bowls back then (in 37 and 42). We also played in 2 championships (40 and 43) but lost. Leaving the Skins to tie the Cowboys in total championships won, but leading in total championships appeared in.

Had I wanted to add the NFL Championships I would have. As I said on ES, I probably should have. I was talking only about Super Bowls.

You're right, you have been in more playoff games in less years (btw, update, you've been in 55 playoff games). Good job. I'll admit you guys are pretty impressive in this regard. However, consider this...

The Skins have won 59.0% of their playoff contests. Dallas has won 58.2%. Since the Boys have been in the league, the Skins have a playoff record of 20-12. That translates into a winning percentage of 62.5%. I thought this was relevant since Cowboys fans claim not to care about making the playoffs, but making noise in the playoffs when bringing up that 11 year playoff win drought (a record between the franchises).

Make up your mind, is it 59% or 62.5%?

In 9 coappearances by the Cowboys and Commanders, the Skins advanced further 5 times (as opposed to the Cowboys 3 times). So we would have a better record against you (since you say the 2-0 is a feather in our headress [get it right]), had you guys come to play.

Yes. I still think the number of times one or the other have completely missed the playoffs is more relevant than this though. Don't you?

I actually don't know where to find any of those stats, but this is the same thing you post over a year ago, so the Cowboys still have the advantage, 10-5 in this decade, but are 4-4 in Washington.

See the Head to Head thread in our History Zone. It breaks down every game in our History.

Again, 24-24 in Washington, and 55-36-2. But your right, advantage Cowboys.

I'll double check the math, but I'm pretty certain my numbers are correct.

The Skins swept you in 72 (including a playoff game) as well. Which is a feat you never managed to do by the way. Beating you three times in one year, wow.

I'll bet you $1000.00 that you are wrong on this. You taking the bet or eating crow?

Wow, that's some serious rheotric dude. Stand in your shadow and shiver? I think, we can see that the Cowboys are the regular season heroes whereas the Skins outperform the Cowboys in the playoffs. Which is more important, you decide (since after all, you don't care about playoff appearances, just championships, as I have been told)...

LOL

You haven't come close to "outperforming us in the playoffs." Nice pipe dream. More wins in fewer years. Pretty simple math.

 

[Hostile]

ok congratulations add one more sweep into there. I'll take 14 season sweeps over 5 including one 1 season of 3 game sweeps, anyday of the week.

Don't congratulate him for a fictional accomplishment.

 

[CowboyChris]

Hostile is breaking out the big red letters, this is getting serious

 

[adamknite]

1972 Dallas Cowboys

Game-by-game results
+--------+-------------------------------+----------+---------+
| Week | Opponent | Result | Score |
+--------+-------------------------------+----------+---------+
| 1 | Philadelphia Eagles | W | 28- 6 |
| 2 | at New York Giants | W | 23-14 |
| 3 | at Green Bay Packers | L | 13-16 |
| 4 | Pittsburgh Steelers | W | 17-13 |
| 5 | at Baltimore Colts | W | 21- 0 |
| 6 | at Washington Commanders | L | 20-24 |
| 7 | Detroit Lions | W | 28-24 |
| 8 | at San Diego Chargers | W | 34-28 |
| 9 | St. Louis Cardinals | W | 33-24 |
| 10 | at Philadelphia Eagles | W | 28- 7 |
| 11 | San Francisco 49ers | L | 10-31 |
| 12 | at St. Louis Cardinals | W | 27- 6 |
| 13 | Washington Commanders | W | 34-24 |
| 14 | New York Giants | L | 3-23 |
+--------+-------------------------------+----------+---------+

Postseason
NFC Divisional Playoff: won 30 - 28 at San Francisco 49ers
NFC Championship Game: lost 3 - 26 at Washington Commanders

 

[adamknite]

Don't congratulate him for a fictional accomplishment.

I didn't bother to look it up to see if he was right until just now, I was laughing at him for taking pride in having one more season sweep when we still had over twice as many, but now I realized he made it up, so it's even funnier.

 

[firehawk350]

Okay. Got a pillow to cushion the blow?

Ohhh, Hos is pulling out his big boy smack now. Intimidating.

Of course Cowboys fans do this. Did you really expect me to deny it? To what purpose? I don't enjoy looking foolish. Is it valid to you when we do it? A simple yes or no will suffice.

But I'll give you so much more!

Hostile: Skins fans are stupid for mentioning the rivalry in anything but it's whole context. You consider all of it, or none of it.
Firehawk: But didn't the Cowboys fans do it when worked out for them?
Hostile: Yes

My point is proven, you do it when it works for you, but say it isn't fair when it doesn't. Whether I agree with it is irrelevant. However, like I said before, if you are comparing franchises, a comparison in the current era is revelant, because it shows how the teams deal with the rules, structures, salary cap, etc... as they pertain to football now. So a recent comparison, in say, the last 5 years or so is relevant.

I have no idea what the point of this was meant to be, but I honestly don't care either. Let's get back to what is relevant.

Analogies, use them I will! My point is there are teams that have horrible overall records that are good (and have been for the past decade or so) now. Using what they did in the 70s, 80s and 90s doesn't bear mentioning, because those players are retired, whereas mentioning what they did in the past couple of years does.

You can save this stuff for people who don't understand the game of football. It is wasted on someone like me.

Okay...

Had I wanted to add the NFL Championships I would have. As I said on ES, I probably should have. I was talking only about Super Bowls.

Fair enough. Are you conceding my point?

Make up your mind, is it 59% or 62.5%?

Clear distinctions. We have a 62.5% playoff record since you've been in the league, which bears mentioning as you are concerned with what the teams did since the boys have been in the league. 59% is what we done since our inception. Either way, it's better than yours.

Yes. I still think the number of times one or the other have completely missed the playoffs is more relevant than this though. Don't you?

I conceded that you do well in the reg season, better than as do we. Yes, it bears mentioning. However, once getting to the playoffs, we do better. Better winning percentage.

See the Head to Head thread in our History Zone. It breaks down every game in our History.

I'll double check the math, but I'm pretty certain my numbers are correct.

Did you copy/paste this from your 11/2/06 post? The numbers look like you did. But thanks for showing me that, I put together a game preview for the Cowboys every week for my bro (big cowboys fan, getting him a romo jersey for christmas) and I do a small section on series history.

I'll bet you $1000.00 that you are wrong on this. You taking the bet or eating crow?

LOL

You haven't come close to "outperforming us in the playoffs." Nice pipe dream. More wins in fewer years. Pretty simple math.

I am wrong, it was 87. Sorry, I misread my notes.

Don't congratulate him for a fictional accomplishment.

87 dude, 87... I don't know how I misread my notes like that...

 

[Hostile]

Ohhh, Hos is pulling out his big boy smack now. Intimidating.

Of course I am, you invited me to.

You forget that already? That Sierra Vista fog has you all goofed up.

]But I'll give you so much more!

Hostile: Skins fans are stupid for mentioning the rivalry in anything but it's whole context. You consider all of it, or none of it.
Firehawk: But didn't the Cowboys fans do it when worked out for them?
Hostile: Yes

My point is proven, you do it when it works for you, but say it isn't fair when it doesn't. Whether I agree with it is irrelevant. However, like I said before, if you are comparing franchises, a comparison in the current era is revelant, because it shows how the teams deal with the rules, structures, salary cap, etc... as they pertain to football now. So a recent comparison, in say, the last 5 years or so is relevant.

LMAO

So, what you are saying is you have no objection or comeback whatsoever for anyone who reminds you about 15 of the last 18 head to head games? You never once tried to remind anyone about just 2005 right?

Come on man, don't try and con me.

Analogies, use them I will! My point is there are teams that have horrible overall records that are good (and have been for the past decade or so) now. Using what they did in the 70s, 80s and 90s doesn't bear mentioning, because those players are retired, whereas mentioning what they did in the past couple of years does.

If you say so. This isn't even interesting.

Fair enough. Are you conceding my point?

Sure. I'm not a dunce. Will you acknowledge that we were not in the NFL in 1937 and 1942 and that it had nothing whatsoever to do with the head to head rivalry?

Clear distinctions. We have a 62.5% playoff record since you've been in the league, which bears mentioning as you are concerned with what the teams did since the boys have been in the league. 59% is what we done since our inception. Either way, it's better than yours.


I conceded that you do well in the reg season, better than as do we. Yes, it bears mentioning. However, once getting to the playoffs, we do better. Better winning percentage.

Better job of explaining it.

Let me put this to you this way. I don't care about that stat and not because of the fact it looks better for your team.

If you ask me if I would be okay with losing more Super Bowls if it meant we also were the first team to 6 or 7, I would tell you that I would be okay with that in a heartbeat. To me, that is the goal. To get there and then win it. To have the most.

It cracks me up that there are people who deny this is relevant. I hate the Yankees, but you know what? It matters that they have more World Series wins than any other team. I hate the Boston Celtics. Same thing. I am not a fans of the Montreal Canadiens. Same thing.

When the 49ers got to 5 before we did, it ate at me. It eats at me that they have never lost one. If I were a 49ers fan though I can promise you that I would lose 4 more if it meant I got 6 before anyone else. It eats at me that Pittsburgh has a 5th.

I take great joy in reminding Eagles fans that they have zero. You know what's funny? Skins fans do that too. I've seen it so many times over at ES. By doing that do you know what you are doing? Ignoring their 3 NFL CHampionships in 1948, 1949, and 1960. The same thing you gripe about me doing by ignoring 1937 and 1942.

You know what the big difference is between you and me in doing that? My team wasn't in existence when those games were played but yours was.

Did you copy/paste this from your 11/2/06 post? The numbers look like you did. But thanks for showing me that, I put together a game preview for the Cowboys every week for my bro (big cowboys fan, getting him a romo jersey for christmas) and I do a small section on series history.

Not sure why this matters to you. Yes.

I am wrong, it was 87. Sorry, I misread my notes.

87 dude, 87... I don't know how I misread my notes like that...

We didn't play you in the 1987 post season. So the claim you made never happened.

Can you acknowledge that?

 

[BehindEnemyLinez]

Way to keep your knee on his neck, Hos! No matter what way he spins it, the 'Skins will NEVER be able to live up to our standards!:suxskins: