Patriots & Fans Scared of Cowboys

[CF74]

The Patriots and their weird talking fans are afraid of coming into TX stadium and getting beat. It is rumored that they are considering forfeiting the game due to so much fear, stay tuned for more info...

 

[YosemiteSam]

This guy thinks the 04' Patriots were better than the 92' Cowboys.

Due to tables involved, I'm not going to post the text.

LINK

Whats funny is he says Brady and nobodies are better than the triplets.

 

[CF74]

This just in:

The Pats will play us but the fans are to afraid to watch, stay tuned for more details...

 

[CATCH17]

This guy thinks the 04' Patriots were better than the 92' Cowboys.

Due to tables involved, I'm not going to post the text.

LINK

Whats funny is he says Brady and nobodies are better than the triplets.

We could beat the 04 Pats or any kind of Pats without even throwing a pass with one of our 90's teams.

 

[AsthmaField]

They base a lot of their decision that New England was the better Dynasty on the fact that New England beat more quality teams. Better "Big Game" team.

BS I say.

The post free agent, 32 team NFL is anything but stacked with talented teams.

In 1992 you had a dominant 49'er team that you had to beat every year (and sometimes twice a year), as well as some very good teams around the NFL. The NFL didn't have the Jacksonville/Carolina/Houston etc. teams that have watered down the talent around the NFL.

Flat out, the playoff teams in 2004 simply didn't have as much talent as the playoff teams from 1992.

Heck, I'd say that the opponent in the Super Bowl in 2004 (Philly) wasn't nearly as talented as the Buffalo team with Kelly, Thurman, Bruce Smith, Andre Reed, etc. that we decimated. Not even close, IMO.

Plus, New England didn't have to overcome a Dynasty like we did with the 49'ers. We had to beat them out to even get to the super bowl. Who did New England have to beat out? Indy? Who else would have provided enough of a challenge to stop New England?

Not to mention that Dallas didn't have the ability to go out and get a player they need to get over the hump (in free agency) like the Pat's did in 2004. It was all our own homegrown players back then.

 

[NorthTexan95]

That's one lousy article. He has this huge checklist but many of the points are meaningless. He brings up a fact about "level of competition" and gives the edge to New England without bring up the lack of free agency in '92.

It also seems for some reason the Cowboys are discredited for having Hall of Fame players while the Patriots get and advantage for not having big names.

Geeez ... what a stupid article. I challenge the guy to talk with real coaches and scouts who saw both teams play. I have yet to hear one give the nod to New England.

Geez ... this guy just pulls out whatever stats makes his agenda work. What a piece of trash.

 

[NorthTexan95]

They base a lot of their decision that New England was the better Dynasty on the fact that New England beat more quality teams. Better "Big Game" team.

BS I say.

The post free agent, 32 team NFL is anything but stacked with talented teams.

In 1992 you had a dominant 49'er team that you had to beat every year (and sometimes twice a year), as well as some very good teams around the NFL. The NFL didn't have the Jacksonville/Carolina/Houston etc. teams that have watered down the talent around the NFL.

Flat out, the playoff teams in 2004 simply didn't have as much talent as the playoff teams from 1992.

Heck, I'd say that the opponent in the Super Bowl in 2004 (Philly) wasn't nearly as talented as the Buffalo team with Kelly, Thurman, Bruce Smith, Andre Reed, etc. that we decimated. Not even close, IMO.

Plus, New England didn't have to overcome a Dynasty like we did with the 49'ers. We had to beat them out to even get to the super bowl. Who did New England have to beat out? Indy? Who else would have provided enough of a challenge to stop New England?

Not to mention that Dallas didn't have the ability to go out and get a player they need to get over the hump (in free agency) like the Pat's did in 2004. It was all our own homegrown players back then.

All great points!

 

[Cowboys22]

This guy thinks the 04' Patriots were better than the 92' Cowboys.

Due to tables involved, I'm not going to post the text.

LINK

Whats funny is he says Brady and nobodies are better than the triplets.

Just tell him there is no way they could beat any of the 90's superbowl teams because they wouldn't have been able to cheat because they wouldn't have had any of their special video available. They would have had to man up and play and we would have spanked them. Those teams dominated while the pats have barely squeaked by in each of their superbowl wins. The Cowboys dominated the Bills twice and they were as good or nearly as good as the 04 pats. Take away the cheating and I think the Bills teams were better. See how mad he gets to that response and you'll know you gat him!

 

[peplaw06]

This guy thinks the 04' Patriots were better than the 92' Cowboys.

Due to tables involved, I'm not going to post the text.

LINK

Whats funny is he says Brady and nobodies are better than the triplets.

That is the worst statistical analysis I've ever seen.

The offenses are basically a wash... with a difference of 7 YPG and 1.6 PPG.

But the defense is where we CRUSH them. It isn't even close... well, the PPG are close (1.0 better for us), but the yardage... we gave up 65 fewer yards PER GAME!! or 1,041 over the 16 game season.

They won one more game that season than the 92 boys. Well the stats breakdown the record in 4 different ways and give them the edge in 3 of 4. So they won one more game but edge us in 3 categories and one wash. Ridiculous.

"Games won division by"??? I'm assuming this means how many game lead we had at the end of the season?? Well the 1992 Cowboys were in playing in the NFC East... where btw, the 1990 champion Giants, the 1991 champion Commanders, and the 11-5 Eagles were playing. How do they get an extra mark for playing in a 4 team division with a 10-6 Jets team, a 9-7 Buffalo and a 4-12 Miami team? Just another way to give em a point for having a better record.

Numbers don't lie, but statisticians do.

 

[AsthmaField]

All great points!

Thanks Bro.

Seriously... if you take away all the expansion teams since 92 (Carolina, Jax, Houston, Cleveland) the remaining 28 teams are more talented than they are right now.

These are the guys (who I can think of off the top of my head) that would be playing on one of the 28 teams, if we wouldn't have had any expansion. (sorry for spelling):

Carolina:
Steve Smith
Julius Peppers
Jordan Gross
Deangilo Williams
Jake Delhomme
Chris Jenkins
Mike Rucker
Chris Gamble
Dan Morgan
N'ail Diggs
Jon Beason

Jaxonville:
Greg Jones
Fred Taylor
Kaleif Barnes
Marcedes Lewis
Marcus Stroud
John Henderson
Reshard Mathis
Reggie Neslon

Houston:
Andre Johnson
Ahman Green
Matt Schaub
Dante Robinson
Mario Williams
DeMeco Ryans
Travis Johnson
Amiobe Okoye

Cleveland:
Eric Steinbach
Joe Thomas
Kellen Winslow
Braylon Edwards
Jamal Lewis
Joe Jurevicius
Ted Washington
Kamerion Wimbley
Sean Jones


And those are just the guys off the top of my head that would be playing elsewhere, putting guys who are on 53 man rosters now, out on the street back then. I'm sure there are more than just those guys who would make a roster.

The botton of the roster would be stronger for each team and each team would have more stars per team. Simply the same amount of talent divided by fewer teams.

Not to mention that 4 coaches who are now head coaches would still be assistants instead. The coaching wasn't as watered down then and neither was the talent.

It was a more difficult time to win. Teams like Dallas and San Fran could build a dynasty and keep them together as long as they wanted without free agency and salary caps.

 

[trickblue]

This guy thinks the 04' Patriots were better than the 92' Cowboys.

Due to tables involved, I'm not going to post the text.

LINK

Whats funny is he says Brady and nobodies are better than the triplets.

I am dumber for having read that...