One Too May Negative Cowboy Fans Out There

[Ultra Warrior]

Suggesting he's garbage and all that.. that's negativity.

He's on the Bengals now so it's confirmed. He's Garbage.

 

[Biggems]

just give me a playoff win in February and i will be happy

 

[silverbear]

:bravo:

I don't know why you're applauding, it was long ago proven that you're not a "realist", you're just always negative...

You wouldn't know realism if it walked up behind you and bit you on your... well, never mind...

 

[silverbear]

when Romo shows he can still be a good qb without Owens than i'll start to think positive again.

You'd better warm up first, I wouldn't want you to pull a brain muscle...

 

[Coy]

when Romo shows he can still be a good qb without Owens than i'll start to think positive again.

Am I wrong or does this mean you DON'T TRUST Romo???? you might as well change your picture bro.

 

[masomenos]

Everyone thinks they're keeping it real, because it's their opinion.

Hear hear.

 

[Hoofbite]

I didn't even try to read that. Something about huge blocks of text that just makes me want to skip right over it.

Puts some frigging breaks in between thoughts.

As far as the topic goes, I think negativity and being realistic are all too commonly confused with one another.

 

[birdwells1]

There is a large difference being negative and being a realist.

Negative means nothing the team does suits you.

Being a realist simply means show me.

Does Romo have great stats? In every category but one. And that one supersedes all others.

Super Bowl victories.

Am I down on him for this? Nope.

But of all the people mentioned in the first paragraph, only Dan Fouts didn't win it all. Bring home the ring and some of us realists will forget he is 29 and entering an era of his game the others mentioned would not reach for a number of years.

Roy Williams is a terrific receiver.

But this is a team with their eyes on the play-offs and more.

I think he will stand up to the challenge. But here's the deal.

I do not believe Miles Austin will cause enough furor on the other side to force teams to account for him and be troubled by the starting pair.

Now tell me how Witten is really number 2 and the discussion is over. Because all the denial in the world won't change the defenses keying on Williams and Witten and forcing you to beat them with Austin.

The running game will be fabulous, if we have a passing game. If we don't scare anybody in the air, the running game will see eight man fronts all day.

There is a very large difference between being a homer and being a realistic fan that asks questions coming into a season.

Labeling one as a hater because he asks questions is absurd.

Exactly, this is what happened last year with TO and Garrett could not adjust to it. In 2007 Garrett said check and in 2008 defensive coordinators said check mate. TO's number didn't fall off because of diminshed skills so much but by the way they defensed the Boys. Garrett is going to have make an effort to show the league that if you double RW11 and Witten then we'll kill your 1 on 1 coverage with Miles. That should have happened last year but hopefully Garrett has learned his lesson.

 

[birdwells1]

I do think many are realist and for the most part do not get labeled negative nellies. For me the perfect example is Tony Romo. Last year I did indeed say some critical things about him that I felt were and continue to be areas of some concernt.

However, when you look at all Romo has done in a short 2 1/2 years and all you can say is he has not won in December, has not won a playoff game and has not won a Super Bowl...then yeah that person is just being negative.

Again that is just a single example of negativity IMO. It is not just about Romo of course.

Do you understand how big this all is? This is the Dallas Cowboys not Seattle, KC, Carolina, or Houston. If he gets rid of this all then 80% of his critics will go away. You'll still have some that say he hasn't won the SB but not me. I just want to see him get that monkey off his back (first playoff win) and then I think he'll be fine ala Steve Young.

 

[billknows]

So when you see a guy like Roy Williams the strong safety, and he less than pleases, are you being a realists when you say he needs to move on, or are you being negative?

At what point is seeing players that are not tops at their position, or fail and suggesting maybe they have issues is negative rather than realistic?

I'm as pumped as anyone going into this next season.

I also think there are some serious issues to overcome and not talking about them will not make them go away.

I think they call that the elephant in the livingroom paradigm.

As far as an elephant in the cowboys locker room , a better paradigm would be , more like a "farting dog in the room" ... our woes just are'nt elephant in scale...:laugh1:

 

[Kangaroo]

Exactly, this is what happened last year with TO and Garrett could not adjust to it. In 2007 Garrett said check and in 2008 defensive coordinators said check mate. TO's number didn't fall off because of diminshed skills so much but by the way they defensed the Boys. Garrett is going to have make an effort to show the league that if you double RW11 and Witten then we'll kill your 1 on 1 coverage with Miles. That should have happened last year but hopefully Garrett has learned his lesson.

I have to disagree completely the offense problems had nothing to do with scheme and which plays we ran.

The entire issue started with the Headcaoch and training camp. This team did not practice hard and it showed game day they felled to execute simple plays. They did not do the little things to win games they where sloppy and unmotivated in many games.


I am sorry the problem with the Boys had everything to do with Execution and hardwork. Which goes back to the headcoach and camp cupcake.

 

[Bleu Star]

Fool me once... That happened last year.

There won't be a twice. I'll enjoy my Boys this year will full expectations of 8-8. If anything more substantial happens I will embrace it but I will not expect it. I see too much that still needs to improve. I can actually go out with the fellas and enjoy the games at the local watering hole this year because my expectations are tempered. This is a good place to be.

 

[Bach]

What sort of fan awards are handed out for being a realist? Can we have some sort of contest where we determine which is the realest fan in the land? A reality show pitching every Cowboys fan who obsesses over December collapses, celebrity girlfriends and silicon Jerry against one another, in a no hold barred faceoff to see who can paint the bleakest picture of the Cowboys upcoming season?

Then that wouldn't be a realest then would it?

 

[Bach]

I don't know why you're applauding, it was long ago proven that you're not a "realist", you're just always negative...

Proven by whom, a group of homers?

BTW, have you looked at the last dozen seasons? Sometimes reality isn't positive. When it is, I'll say so, same for when it's not.

 

[AsthmaField]

Proven by whom, a group of homers?

BTW, have you looked at the last dozen seasons? Sometimes reality isn't positive. When it is, I'll say so, same for when it's not.

It's simple really: If someone looks at this Cowboys team... one which has talent throughout the roster along with one of the better QB's in today's game... and can't really come up with anything positive, then that isn't being realistic. That is being WAY overly negative.

Offensively, the Cowboys are set at QB, RB, TE, have enough talent at WR, and the OL has some good players on it.

Defensively, the Cowboys have a proven attacking scheme, the best pass rusher in the game, good players throughout, one of the best defensive coordinators in the last twenty years, and just got a huge influx of youth and talent.

Not to mention that the team's scouting and drafting are light years ahead of where they were just 5 years ago, and that we seem to find good, young talent every year in the draft as well as after it. The team's philosophy is 1000 times better.

That is a whole lot to be positive about.

Now, if you want to say we have a head coach that hasn't proven himself in the postseason... then that is realistic. If you want to say that the whole team hasn't proven itself late in seasons... then that is realistic also. Say the team lacked discipline last year and that it remains to be seen if Phillips can become more strict on the players... then that is being realistic. Say Roy Williams has to prove himself. Say the OL needs to do a much better job. Say the DB's need to be better. All of that is realistic.

However, when a person looks at all that as a whole - both the positives and the negatives - and all they can manage to do is to tear the team down and point out shortcomings, then AT BEST that person is overly negative. At worst, he or she has personal issues with the team or it's front office.

Always pointing out the negatives and the downside of everything related to the Cowboys is not being realistic... and to think that average fans are too stupid to see the difference is pure, unadulterated BS. And you should stop wasting your time as well as ours in trying to convince anyone at all, that you are anything even close to neutral in your views.

JMO, of course.

 

[5Stars]

It's simple really: If someone looks at this Cowboys team... one which has talent throughout the roster along with one of the better QB's in today's game... and can't really come up with anything positive, then that isn't being realistic. That is being WAY overly negative.

Offensively, the Cowboys are set at QB, RB, TE, have enough talent at WR, and the OL has some good players on it.

Defensively, the Cowboys have a proven attacking scheme, the best pass rusher in the game, good players throughout, one of the best defensive coordinators in the last twenty years, and just got a huge influx of youth and talent.

Not to mention that the team's scouting and drafting are light years ahead of where they were just 5 years ago, and that we seem to find good, young talent every year in the draft as well as after it. The team's philosophy is 1000 times better.

That is a whole lot to be positive about.

Now, if you want to say we have a head coach that hasn't proven himself in the postseason... then that is realistic. If you want to say that the whole team hasn't proven itself late in seasons... then that is realistic also. Say the team lacked discipline last year and that it remains to be seen if Phillips can become more strict on the players... then that is being realistic. Say Roy Williams has to prove himself. Say the OL needs to do a much better job. Say the DB's need to be better. All of that is realistic.

However, when a person looks at all that as a whole - both the positives and the negatives - and all they can manage to do is to tear the team down and point out shortcomings, then AT BEST that person is overly negative. At worst, he or she has personal issues with the team or it's front office.

Always pointing out the negatives and the downside of everything related to the Cowboys is not being realistic... and to think that average fans are too stupid to see the difference is pure, unadulterated BS. And you should stop wasting your time as well as ours in trying to convince anyone at all, that you are anything even close to neutral in your views.

JMO, of course.

 

[Rampage]

Am I wrong or does this mean you DON'T TRUST Romo???? you might as well change your picture bro.

no I don't until he shows me he can be effective without Owens(something no one on this board has seen yet.

 

[Bach]

It's simple really: If someone looks at this Cowboys team... one which has talent throughout the roster along with one of the better QB's in today's game... and can't really come up with anything positive, then that isn't being realistic. That is being WAY overly negative.

Now, if you want to say we have a head coach that hasn't proven himself in the postseason... then that is realistic. If you want to say that the whole team hasn't proven itself late in seasons... then that is realistic also. Say the team lacked discipline last year and that it remains to be seen if Phillips can become more strict on the players... then that is being realistic. Say Roy Williams has to prove himself. Say the OL needs to do a much better job. Say the DB's need to be better. All of that is realistic.

However, when a person looks at all that as a whole - both the positives and the negatives - and all they can manage to do is to tear the team down and point out shortcomings, then AT BEST that person is overly negative. At worst, he or she has personal issues with the team or it's front office.

Always pointing out the negatives and the downside of everything related to the Cowboys is not being realistic...

There are positives. Even when we went 1-15 there were some positives. But when you talk about the team as a whole and what the have accomplished (or not accomplished) the last twelve years, well, that hasn't been positive.

Get back to me about being too negative when we start winning some playoff games, make it to the Super Bowl, win the Super Bowl. If I'm negative then, then you'll have a point. But that hasn't been the case. I wasn't negative in the early 90's. I wasn't negative in the mid 90's, other than realizing our drafting had gone in the tank once Jimmy left. The reality the last dozen years have been primarily negative so if one is realistic about that then they just may come off as being negative. Funny how it works that way.

 

[Clove]

Exactly, this is what happened last year with TO and Garrett could not adjust to it. In 2007 Garrett said check and in 2008 defensive coordinators said check mate. TO's number didn't fall off because of diminshed skills so much but by the way they defensed the Boys. Garrett is going to have make an effort to show the league that if you double RW11 and Witten then we'll kill your 1 on 1 coverage with Miles. That should have happened last year but hopefully Garrett has learned his lesson.

Actually, and I agree with you btw, the boys started to struggle the last part of the 2007 campaign going into the play offs.

How can people forget so easily? There was so much complaining about how we were stumbling into the play offs, it was because schemes were devised to take Owens out of the game, and Garrett/Austin/Crayton and company had no answer.

This did not change going into the 2008 season, so IMO, Garrett has been struggling since late 2007.

 

[Disturbed]

Even during the bad years (prior to 2000) it had not been that long since the Cowboys had won their division, playoffs, or SB. The Cowboys won so often that from the 60's through mid 90's that everyone envied the organization.

Fans always had hope that any bad year was temporary, and a few draft picks and/or trades would get us back on top. Then the salary cap and old age caught up with the cowboys in the 90's. 13 years without a significant playoff win, with hype and promise every year, will eventually make fans negative about the future.

No matter what is done in the off-season, the team will have this monkey on their backs until they finally win in the playoffs...and they really need to win a SB for many fans to not be negative.