Grizz: Close, but no cigar, yet

[tunahelper]

I think playing in the Nfc/Afc Championship games and of course the Superbowl ,places teams in elite status.

 

[Sarge]

Close?

It's come to this?

We're "close"??

I happen to think we're close to being close.

 

[jobberone]

The RedStinks are! Just read this board when they show up...

Someone pointed out that over on ES they are REALLY thinking that they are going to the NFC champ game this year.

I guess that doesn't surprise me. They had a defense once. Not sure that's the case anymore.

I've thought so little of them lately I couldn't begin to name their starters. I use to at least know most of them. I'd actually feel sorry for them if they weren't the Commanders. Even so I still dread playing at Fedex.

 

[firehawk350]

If we get a pass rush and better safety play who has a better team than us in the NFC?

Not Philly. Not Seattle. Not NO. Maybe Chicago if Rex becomes a good QB this year.

Philly has a much more well-rounded defense (their tackles have been disappointing though) and a considerably better offense. Seattle I think is a team on the way out, but I think your discounting a team that dispatched a healthy Cowboys' team with a very badly injured secondary. New Orleans absolutely whomped you, and will only be that much better this year. Chicago is the defending NFC Champs. So there's no "maybe" about it.

 

[5Stars]

Philly has a much more well-rounded defense (their tackles have been disappointing though) and a considerably better offense. Seattle I think is a team on the way out, but I think your discounting a team that dispatched a healthy Cowboys' team with a very badly injured secondary. New Orleans absolutely whomped you, and will only be that much better this year. Chicago is the defending NFC Champs. So there's no "maybe" about it.

How did your team do?

Can you count to 5...?

 

[DallasEast]

Philly has a much more well-rounded defense (their tackles have been disappointing though) and a considerably better offense. Seattle I think is a team on the way out, but I think your discounting a team that dispatched a healthy Cowboys' team with a very badly injured secondary. New Orleans absolutely whomped you, and will only be that much better this year. Chicago is the defending NFC Champs. So there's no "maybe" about it.

With Grossman at quarterback, the success of the Bears mainly hinges on its defense. Defense wins championships, but even Chicago's defense was neutralized when it's offense fell flat against the Colts defense.

 

[jobberone]

Philly has a much more well-rounded defense (their tackles have been disappointing though) and a considerably better offense. Seattle I think is a team on the way out, but I think your discounting a team that dispatched a healthy Cowboys' team with a very badly injured secondary. New Orleans absolutely whomped you, and will only be that much better this year. Chicago is the defending NFC Champs. So there's no "maybe" about it.

Ok you're not a Cowboys fan. Perhaps you can lend a more objective point of view for us.

What makes you say Philly has a more rounded defense? Keep in mind I said if we get a pass rush and better safety play. That should vault us into the top five defenses in the NFC. Weren't the Cowboys a top ten defense with Ellis around?

I'm not discounting Seattle. The fact is we will have a better defense than them and at least as good of an offense. That's not homerism. It's base on the facts of where we were last year before the team admittedly tanked. Seattle didn't exactly overwhelm us either. And we didn't attempt to throw on that team until we had to. Parcells obviously felt we could play extremely conservatively and still win. But you're right. They did beat us.

I think NO will have a better chance at being better than us than anyone else. Including Chicago. I don't think their defense will be as good as us and I'm not certain anyone will have the offense we will. Including NO which will have a very good O. Our O will go as far as our D allows them to. We definitely won't be as conservative as we were last year.

Finally, Chicago will be in it because their D is so good. But unless Rex plays better I don't expect them to have it so easy. They played in a very weak division last year. The Vikings and Detroit will be significantly better this year. And the Packers may also be a marginal playoff team.

That's some of my thinking. What else do you think?

 

[firehawk350]

Ok you're not a Cowboys fan. Perhaps you can lend a more objective point of view for us.

What makes you say Philly has a more rounded defense? Keep in mind I said if we get a pass rush and better safety play. That should vault us into the top five defenses in the NFC. Weren't the Cowboys a top ten defense with Ellis around?

First off, they have a better secondary. Nothing against Roy but I'd take Dawkins over him any day. If you get better safety play, it's still not going to equal having a Dawkins on your team. Roy isn't nearly as versatile. Lito has made a lot more big plays and I don't remember him getting burnt too often. And Sheldon Brown isn't bad either. Your pass rush is going to be predicated on blitzing, which will make it exploitable. The Eagles have decent ends that can do so without creating holes.
So your saying that Ellis is the cause of the defensive collapse? You were the luckiest team I can think of as far as injuries (only one to the whole team) and if you can't spot a LB in a 3-4 system then you got problems.
Even if you do have a top 5 defense (in the NFC), they do too and they definitely have a better offense.

I'm not discounting Seattle. The fact is we will have a better defense than them and at least as good of an offense. That's not homerism. It's base on the facts of where we were last year before the team admittedly tanked. Seattle didn't exactly overwhelm us either. And we didn't attempt to throw on that team until we had to. Parcells obviously felt we could play extremely conservatively and still win. But you're right. They did beat us.

You can't pick and choose your facts. You were good for part of the season but not the other? Eli was doing great the first half of the season too. A lot of players/teams get hot and cold, you can't say you were better then a team (especially one that lost their pro-bowl QB and MVP RB for that time span) for a part of the season and then say that makes you a better team.

I think NO will have a better chance at being better than us than anyone else. Including Chicago. I don't think their defense will be as good as us and I'm not certain anyone will have the offense we will. Including NO which will have a very good O. Our O will go as far as our D allows them to. We definitely won't be as conservative as we were last year.

I think with some defensive improvement, NO is going to be REAL good. Their offense is scary talented and REALLY young. They are just going to get better and better. Dallas' offense might be top ten again, I see no reason why NO won't be top 3.

Finally, Chicago will be in it because their D is so good. But unless Rex plays better I don't expect them to have it so easy. They played in a very weak division last year. The Vikings and Detroit will be significantly better this year. And the Packers may also be a marginal playoff team.

Chicago's defense is THAT good. Indy didn't win the super bowl so much as Rex lost it. Their defense dominates and they have just enough weapons on offense to be a threat too. I don't think they'll go to the big dance this year though.

That's some of my thinking. What else do you think?

I think your overly optimistic, but then again, so am I about my own team. It comes with the territory of our football fanaticism.

 

[WoodysGirl]

Philly has a much more well-rounded defense (their tackles have been disappointing though) and a considerably better offense. Seattle I think is a team on the way out, but I think your discounting a team that dispatched a healthy Cowboys' team with a very badly injured secondary. New Orleans absolutely whomped you, and will only be that much better this year. Chicago is the defending NFC Champs. So there's no "maybe" about it.

Health is relative. Just because they weren't on the injury reports doesn't mean that every player was healthy. I think the team was alot more beat up than was let on. I attribute that to Parcells wanting players to play regardless of their probable need to sit.

Aside from that, I really enjoy when fans who don't spend half the time we do obsessing over the 'boys can come onto the board and tell us ALL that is wrong with the 'boys and claim they're being objective. Oh well, I see this thread going 5 pages for me...

BTW, Coco, that was a great post.

 

[bbgun]

Save the "close" talk for the NFC Championship Game.

 

[firehawk350]

Health is relative. Just because they weren't on the injury reports doesn't mean that every player was healthy. I think the team was alot more beat up than was let on. I attribute that to Parcells wanting players to play regardless of their probable need to sit.

Aside from that, I really enjoy when fans who don't spend half the time we do obsessing over the 'boys can come onto the board and tell us ALL that is wrong with the 'boys and claim they're being objective. Oh well, I see this thread going 5 pages for me...

BTW, Coco, that was a great post.

There's a big difference between playing guys that were in pain, and having injuries. Roy Williams with a hurt shoulder playing is better then picking up a guy that was walking the street the week before and starting him. I'm sure the team was more beat up, but it faired considerably better then most teams still.
I just pointed out that saying you were better then Philly (who beat you twice), Seattle (who beat you while horribly decimated by injuries), NO (who beat you silly) and Chicago (who beat everyone in the NFC) is very, very homeristic.

 

[big dog cowboy]

I happen to think we're close to being close.

I think we are closer than that.

 

[jobberone]

First off, they have a better secondary. Nothing against Roy but I'd take Dawkins over him any day. If you get better safety play, it's still not going to equal having a Dawkins on your team. Roy isn't nearly as versatile. Lito has made a lot more big plays and I don't remember him getting burnt too often. And Sheldon Brown isn't bad either. Your pass rush is going to be predicated on blitzing, which will make it exploitable. The Eagles have decent ends that can do so without creating holes.
So your saying that Ellis is the cause of the defensive collapse? You were the luckiest team I can think of as far as injuries (only one to the whole team) and if you can't spot a LB in a 3-4 system then you got problems.
Even if you do have a top 5 defense (in the NFC), they do too and they definitely have a better offense.


You can't pick and choose your facts. You were good for part of the season but not the other? Eli was doing great the first half of the season too. A lot of players/teams get hot and cold, you can't say you were better then a team (especially one that lost their pro-bowl QB and MVP RB for that time span) for a part of the season and then say that makes you a better team.


I think with some defensive improvement, NO is going to be REAL good. Their offense is scary talented and REALLY young. They are just going to get better and better. Dallas' offense might be top ten again, I see no reason why NO won't be top 3.


Chicago's defense is THAT good. Indy didn't win the super bowl so much as Rex lost it. Their defense dominates and they have just enough weapons on offense to be a threat too. I don't think they'll go to the big dance this year though.


I think your overly optimistic, but then again, so am I about my own team. It comes with the territory of our football fanaticism.

The Philly DBs were definitely better last year. And they may be better this year. You can definitely think one DB on one team is better than another. You may think the entire defensive backfield is better comparing position to position as well as one unit to another. I think the Philly DB unit can be better but I think we will be close if not better. Our DB will look better with a better pass rush. Even if you're not a fan that statement in general will almost always be correct.

I'll take Newman against anyone in Philly. He's as good a CB as Dawkins is a S. He still has to prove it over time but I think he will. And Henry can be as good as anyone but Dawkins. He wasn't last year. That statement is my opinion but there is more than one 'expert' out there who agrees with me about Henry. Williams is not good enough in coverage to cover for others nor to play well without a pass rush. He'll be better this year not being asked to do things he can't do. And asked to do things he excells at. I can't say much about Hamlin other than many others think he can do the job. Yeah, I think our DBs are close enough to Philly.

We will blitz more. But I hope our pass rush is not based on it. We should have a good to excellent pass rush with Ellis back and throwing Spencer into it. Add in a different scheme besides blitzing and we should have a very good pass rush. If Spencer is as good as many say and Ellis is back then we should be dominant. We can be as good as Philly was just a few years ago.

I'm not picking and choosing facts IMO. We were close to being dominant until the NO game and beyond. Obviously that means little when you don't play that well the entire season. Look at our stats and PPG. I'll take that and we should be better. All my point is there is we showed what we're capable of. Thinking we can get back there with Ellis back is not a pipe dream. I'll be among the first to admit that should and could be is not going to cut it. Spencer is a player who is being asked to change positions and he is a rookie. But if he plays half as well as Merriman did then we should be an excellent to dominant D. Ellis has proven what he can do. He still has to come back from that injury. And I did not say we were better than Philly last year. Clearly they were the better team. Clearly. I'm saying we will be better than they will be this year if we get a pass rush. And I think we will.

I personally think Philly got better when they put Garcia in there. I don't think Garcia is better than McNabb but in that system he makes that team more consistent. When they pulled back to play within Garcia's skill set they got better. You can disagree with that and I'll understand where you're coming from. But clearly they performed better as a team last year with Garcia in there.

I won't argue with you about NO. They are scary. I don't think they will have a defense as good as we will. I think our offense is going to be scary. Maybe not as good but in the end both teams will have more than enough offense to win.

Chicago will go as far as Rex allows them to. I don't see them having enough offense to be better. I think they will struggle some even with that D. We may not have the defense they will. We haven't shown that for years. But I don't see myself as being that optimistic about our D. I'm not guaranteeing anything. But our D should be a dominating one if we get a pass rush and Hamlin plays well enough. He doesn't need to be a Pro Bowler either.

 

[WoodysGirl]

There's a big difference between playing guys that were in pain, and having injuries. Roy Williams with a hurt shoulder playing is better then picking up a guy that was walking the street the week before and starting him. I'm sure the team was more beat up, but it faired considerably better then most teams still.

Like I said, health is relative. Just because a guy can suit up and play, doesn't mean he's all that effective.

I just pointed out that saying you were better then Philly (who beat you twice), Seattle (who beat you while horribly decimated by injuries), NO (who beat you silly) and Chicago (who beat everyone in the NFC) is very, very homeristic.

I don't find it all that homeristic at all. Philly is still the class of the division until someone can consistently knock them off.

In Seattle, the 'boys were one bobbled ball away from going to the next round.

I admit the 'boys were exposed by NO, but I also wouldn't mind another shot at them either.

Chicago is not that good... I think the 'boys could've taken 'em. With the game plan that Parcells liked to employ, grind it out, holding TOP, Chicago's little defense would've tired out.

On a side note, I think NO is actually better than Chicago, too...and had they not gotten stage fright, they could've beat Chicago.

 

[Biggems]

off topic, but does that saying come from horse racing?

close, but no cigar

what I mean is, Cigar would be the horse's name and the other horses in the race are close, but not as good as Cigar, thus close, but no cigar....

just wondering if I am on the right track with what I perceive is the origin of the phrase.

 

[dogunwo]

Until we win a superbowl we are not in the elite category.

Naw, Philadelphia has been an elite organization without winning the big one lately.



God, I hate em.

 

[dogunwo]

Billick is still the coach, Newsome is still the personell man Guysl like Lewis Ogden Reed, McCalister, Gragg, Heap and Stover remain starters from the 2001 supe4rbowl team. Heck last year they still had Lewis.

Other than Starks and Dilfer, the marquee names remain the same.

They actually have an upgrade at QB now, too.

 

[WoodysGirl]

off topic, but does that saying come from horse racing?

close, but no cigar

what I mean is, Cigar would be the horse's name and the other horses in the race are close, but not as good as Cigar, thus close, but no cigar....

just wondering if I am on the right track with what I perceive is the origin of the phrase.

Only because I was curious too...

Meaning
Fall just short of a successful outcome and get nothing for your efforts.

Origin
The phrase, and its variant 'nice try, but no cigar', are of US origin and date from the mid-20th century. Fairground stalls gave out cigars as prizes, and this is the most likely source, although there's no definitive evidence to prove that.


It is first recorded in print in Sayre and Twist's publishing of the script of the 1935 film version of Annie Oakley:

"Close, Colonel, but no cigar!"​

It appears in U. S. newspapers widely from around 1949 onwards. For example, a story from The Lima News, Lima, Ohio, November 1949, where The Lima House Cigar and Sporting Goods Store narrowly avoided being burned down in a fire, was titled 'Close But No Cigar'.

http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/close-but-no-cigar.html

 

[theebs]

Billick is still the coach, Newsome is still the personell man Guysl like Lewis Ogden Reed, McCalister, Gragg, Heap and Stover remain starters from the 2001 supe4rbowl team. Heck last year they still had Lewis.

Other than Starks and Dilfer, the marquee names remain the same.

The key guy is newsome. They havent done much since winning that super bowl and I dont consider them an elite team in any way. A few very good seasons though since then, but in the end not much.

 

[jobberone]

There's a big difference between playing guys that were in pain, and having injuries. Roy Williams with a hurt shoulder playing is better then picking up a guy that was walking the street the week before and starting him. I'm sure the team was more beat up, but it faired considerably better then most teams still.
I just pointed out that saying you were better then Philly (who beat you twice), Seattle (who beat you while horribly decimated by injuries), NO (who beat you silly) and Chicago (who beat everyone in the NFC) is very, very homeristic.

The fact Philly beat us twice last year doesn't mean we can't be better or as good defensively this year than they are . And beat them. You can't predict wins against us this year based on wins last year. Unless nothing has changed. We'll be better in the defensive backfield and should have a very good pass rush. If so I predict we'll be better than the Eagles from the front seven on back. That's not that homerish IMO. It's plain common sense. You're saying something I say is homerish therefore you're right and I'm wrong is a fairly good tactic but not fair or good/nice. And it won't work on me.

I'm not the only person predicting the Cowboys to do some special things this year. And more than a few state Philly will take a step backward based on reasonable arguments. So I think I'm being relatively non-homeristic for a true blue Cowboys fan.