Latest NFL power ranking has Cowboys just barely in the Top 10

[stuckindc]

I relished it all. I am begging for a return to greatness like that time. Thats why it’s been so frustrating. It’s been 27 years and many fans seem like they are settling for falling short every year. Mike Fisher tells us hey we are pretty good last 2 years and we fans are spoiled. That thinking has spread like a cancer and it’s sad. I feel like it’s about goals and greatness. If this isnt the goal, what are we doin? Landry and Staubach oozed greatness and expectations in their sleep. They demanded it. Someone needs to tell me why I am wrong wanting us to be elite again. I think it’s realistic.

I would have liked to see Romo get one. Dude took a lot of heat. A lot was self inflicted. 2014 team had a legit shot. Patriots would have been difficult though

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

Settle down, Paco. I know you miss Romo. Take it easy. No need to parlay unto us what you would do for him.

Sing a few bats of Ave Maria. Sing it like you mean it.

 

[noshame]

This will be a transition year.
Next year we'll be contending.

 

[DFWJC]

Last offseason, despite the Cowboys shipping out Amari Cooper, the team was typically in the top eight or so of the rankings and considered a valid Super Bowl contender. This week, post draft, we have a power ranking from veteran NFL observer Peter King, and the Cowboys have slipped down to tenth in his ranking.


Whatever you think of the ranking, there is some interesting reasoning here about the Cowboys. Their offense can be on fire for long stretches, and along with a top-notch defense, they can rack up back-to-back 12-win seasons. But once they hit the playoffs against the 49ers, the offense fizzles.

The other side of that thinking might have been about Dak Prescott. The Cowboys likely believe, and with some pretty solid history to back them up, that Prescott will not be so careless with the football as he was in 2022. Not all of those interceptions were his fault, but he put the ball in danger too many times. The Cowboys are counting on him not making that mistake a second year in a row.

Other things about this ranking of note. King has the Eagles as the solid number one in his rankings over their Super Bowl nemesis, the Chiefs. Interestingly, King has teams like the Lions at number six, and the Dolphins at number eight. Even the Aaron Rodgers-led Jets have jumped to number nine. All that seems pretty bullish on some teams who are just now entering the upper echelons of the league.


https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/202...llas-cowboys-barely-top-10-dak-prescott-draft

Let's be clear here--this is just one of dozens of power rankings.
Peter King may as well be any of a hundred people on this site.
Maybe it's accurate, maybe not. Doesn't seem too crazy.

 

[Motorola]

hey we ate that up didnt we? Those teams were so dang great I think we expected a win every week. There's nothing wrong with that either. I want that again.

I do too.
And when it happens = the 6th (7th) NFL Championship happens over the next five seasons - I am not going to brag or boast -but just give a wry smile ala "The Grinch" and mimic that "DeCaprio Toast".

 

[CowboyRoy]

Agree. But our defense, very well could be the best in the league and flip the tables on SF and Philly

We can only hope. But they still have better oline, run games, weapons.

 

[DandyDon52]

Power rankings are done for many leagues across a number of sports. They're just exercises in expressing opnions -just like player ratings (NFL.com Top 100 and Madden Ratings on deck.)
Stir up discussion and debate for those who are interested.
Stay tuned for - or INGORE - the many ones that will be churned now until the regular season starts.

I will ignore them, I would rather read opinions of the people on CZ than the so called experts.

 

[Diehardblues]

I relished it all. I am begging for a return to greatness like that time. Thats why its been so frustrating. Its been 27 years and many fans seem like they are settling for falling short every year. Mike Fisher tells us hey we are pretty good last 2 years and we fans are spoiled. That thinking has spread like a cancer and its sad. I feel like its about goals and greatness. If this isnt the goal, what are we doin? Landry and Staubach oozed greatness and expectations in their sleep. They demanded it. Someone needs to tell me why I am wrong wanting us to be elite again. I think its realistic.

I hear ya but this isn’t the championship caliber class of the league franchise we grew up with. And hasn’t been for a long time .

We are all frustrated but it is what it is. I’m amazed this 80 year old narcissist agenda driven owner is even able to muster the team he has .

 

[Diehardblues]

hey we ate that up didnt we? Those teams were so dang great I think we expected a win every week. There's nothing wrong with that either. I want that again.

We all want that. But expecting it with this dysfunctional ownership is questionable.

The mistake we have made cumulatively as fans this era has been rewarding this ownership for a lesser product . Basically we have sent him the wrong message.

 

[NotForLong]

Last offseason, despite the Cowboys shipping out Amari Cooper, the team was typically in the top eight or so of the rankings and considered a valid Super Bowl contender. This week, post draft, we have a power ranking from veteran NFL observer Peter King, and the Cowboys have slipped down to tenth in his ranking.
The other side of that thinking might have been about Dak Prescott. The Cowboys likely believe, and with some pretty solid history to back them up, that Prescott will not be so careless with the football as he was in 2022. Not all of those interceptions were his fault, but he put the ball in danger too many times. The Cowboys are counting on him not making that mistake a second year in a row.

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/202...llas-cowboys-barely-top-10-dak-prescott-draft

He point blank said this is on Dak

 

[DallasEast]

It’s Debate 101. If you don’t like the message , try to discredit the messenger.

Which is fine in a courtroom type setting but attacking the witness in this forum is against the rules .

'Courtroom' and 'witness' are poor analogies. 'Debate' and 'debater' would be more accurate representations in my opinion.

 

[Diehardblues]

'Courtroom' and 'witness' are poor analogies. 'Debate' and 'debater' would be more accurate representations in my opinion.

Well, I opened with its Debate 101. And I used the courtroom witness as an example most can relate to as far as discrediting a messenger. Not everyone has been in an organized or classroom type debate.

 

[diamonddelts]

Breaking news: Dallas not favored to make the Super Bowl.

 

[DallasEast]

Well, I opened with its Debate 101. And I used the courtroom witness as an example most can relate to as far as discrediting a messenger. Not everyone has been in an organized or classroom type debate.

‘Discrediting a witness’ in a civil or criminal court setting is a stretch of a comparison between that and what anonymous folks do on a discussion board but okay.

 

[Diehardblues]

‘Discrediting a witness’ in a civil or criminal court setting is a stretch of a comparison between that and what anonymous folks do on a discussion board but okay.

Of course but the concept is similar.it’s Debate 101. Discredit the messenger if you don’t like the message.

 

[DallasEast]

Of course but the concept is similar.

Okay.

 

[Diehardblues]

Okay.

Can you think of another analogy or example where Debate 101 is used to discredit the messenger?

 

[DallasEast]

Can you think of another analogy or example where Debate 101 is used to discredit the messenger?

Lol. Certainly but first it should be noted that debate does not occur in a court of law. An officer of the court can question or cross-exam a witness in certain situations where the goal is to discredit someone’s testimony but it is not a form of debate.

There is a common every day form of discussion in which a receiver might attempt to discredit a message. It’s called a traffic stop.

A police officer directs a driver to stop and questions them, “Do you know why I pulled you over?” The driver may respond, “No. I did nothing wrong.” The officer: “I clocked you doing 60 in a 55.” The driver: “My speedometer said I was going 55.” Officer: “You should get it fixed because it is wrong.”

There are MANY examples of discrediting a messenger outside of traffic stops that are more similar to what happens on a discussion board. Try two officials, one saying he saw the receiver catch the ball out of bounds. The other ref saying the receiver dragged his back foot. Replay is inconclusive but the initial ref says HE’S right when his fellow official points to a very faint puff of sideline chalk on the replay screen.

None of this is necessary though. If you say what happens here is the same as what happens between lawyers and witnesses as far as discrediting someone’s message, okay. My name’s Hamilton Bulger. I’ve already lost the case already, lol.

 

[Diehardblues]

Lol. Certainly but first it should be noted that debate does not occur in a court of law. An officer of the court can question or cross-exam a witness in certain situations where the goal is to discredit someone’s testimony but it is not a form of debate.

There is a common every day form of discussion in which a receiver might attempt to discredit a message. It’s called a traffic stop.

A police officer directs a driver to stop and questions them, “Do you know why I pulled you over?” The driver may respond, “No. I did nothing wrong.” The officer: “I clocked you doing 60 in a 55.” The driver: “My speedometer said I was going 55.” Officer: “You should get it fixed because it is wrong.”

There are MANY examples of discrediting a messenger outside of traffic stops that are more similar to what happens on a discussion board. Try two officials, one saying he saw the receiver catch the ball out of bounds. The other ref saying the receiver dragged his back foot. Replay is inconclusive but the initial ref says HE’S right when his fellow official points to a very faint puff of sideline chalk on the replay screen.

None of this is necessary though. If you say what happens here is the same as what happens between lawyers and witnesses as far as discrediting someone’s message, okay. My name’s Hamilton Bulger. I’ve already lost the case already, lol.

No, my referral to Debate 101 and analogy for discrediting a witness I suppose needs clarity as there is no debating as such in a courtroom.

For those who took Speech in school Debate 101 is one of the first things you learn in debating is attacking your opponents message and if necessary discredit them personally.

Yes, you said correctly debating as such isn’t used in a courtroom but those basis for discrediting the witness is. And why I used such an analogy. I hope that clears this up. Thanks

 

[DallasEast]

No, my referral to Debate 101 and analogy for discrediting a witness I suppose needs clarity as there is no debating as such in a courtroom.

For those who took Speech in school Debate 101 is one of the first things you learn in debating is attacking your opponents message and if necessary discredit them personally.

Yes, you said correctly debating as such isn’t used in a courtroom but those basis for discrediting the witness is. And why I used such an analogy. I hope that clears this up. Thanks

Like mud. Thanks.