The most optimistic I've been about a season since 2007

[Toruk_Makto]

No, the reason we lost the game is because Romo choked it away with 3 interceptions. Even with all the running Washington did, our defense which was comprised of mainly backups played as good as they could and gave Romo the ball back with 3 minutes left, down by 3, and all 3 timeouts left. What does he do? He throws interception #3 and puts the battered defense back on the field. In every game, you are only as strong as your weakest link and when that link happens to be your QB, you are in big trouble considering he touches the ball on EVERY offensive play.

Romo was our weakest link last year?

I don't even...

 

[CrownCowboy]

I am excited, but optimistic? Nope.

I think we have some great players on this team at certain spots and I have always been a supporter of Tony Romo. As mentioned though, this team just seems to have the same endings over and over again. Losing virtual division title games the last two years has taken its toll on me and it's hard for me to expect that we'll take the next step.

I look forward to seeing how the new defensive scheme will work and hope that we can stay healthy. I can't wait to see Dez continue to grow and dominate. I'll pull for them like I always do, but until they prove that they can win consistently at home, stop the double digit a game penalties and create turnovers on a regular basis, I can't honestly be optimistic that this team will be a Super Bowl contender.

Hopefully they'll prove that they have got it all together and make a run.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Remember, TwoDeep, the hurdle I have to clear here is 'we weren't bad all of those 17 years.' That's not a high hurdle. Your own data shows 7 playoff teams in those years. Six, if you go up to 2012 and knock off 1996.

It's one thing to feel bad about the 17 year stretch if you want to. It's another to overlook the playoff appearances entirely just because one is trying to exaggerate a point.

I see losses.

 

[ATXcowboyzfan]

Oh, I suppose you're right... A starting RB, a couple starting offensive linemen, an All-Pro caliber middle linebacker, and a rising star at LB probably wouldn't have made any difference in any losses. Why even resign those guys? They obviously have no bearing on the outcome of any games.

True, but all teams have those kind of injuries. Hell, the Deadskins lost Orakpo and Fred Davis early on, and they still swept us, including the last game when RG3 played on one knee.

 

[KB1122]

What was the last team that went from 'meh' to a Super Bowl victory? Most of the teams that have won lately are in the mix year after year. I'll settle for a deep run this year. Then maybe next year.

 

[reddyuta]

I am weirdly optimistic too(atleast to win the division),we have been so close just just couldnt get over the hump.I think forcing more turnovers will be the key for this defense to help out our offense a bit.

 

[Idgit]

I see losses.

We all do.

Then again, 31 teams' seasons end in losses every year. To defend the argument, do you consider them all bad? Or do you concede that good teams, or not bad ones, lose in the playoffs, too. Remember, we're only making the case that not ever Dallas Cowboys team over the last 17 years (18, actually) "has been a HUGE failure." That's from the post that Zepp referred to which I originally commented on.

 

[TwoDeep3]

We all do.

Then again, 31 teams' seasons end in losses every year. To defend the argument, do you consider them all bad? Or do you concede that good teams, or not bad ones, lose in the playoffs, too. Remember, we're only making the case that not ever Dallas Cowboys team over the last 17 years (18, actually) "has been a HUGE failure." That's from the post that Zepp referred to which I originally commented on.

I consider the first 35 years of this team's history, save for a few years in the 60's and 80's to be stellar.

I see no link in the last seventeen with the first thirty five.

 

[Idgit]

I consider the first 35 years of this team's history, save for a few years in the 60's and 80's to be stellar.

I see no link in the last seventeen with the first thirty five.

This I'll agree with. I just don't consider them a huge failure. There were a lot of failures mixed in with some postseason berths.

 

[kevm3]

I'm taking a wait and see approach, but I do think we've made some changes that will have a largely positive effect on the team. I like what the defense has shown so far, especially in regards to turnovers. The offense still looks a bit questionable, but the O-Line looks improved with Frederick there and the play-calling looks better. Dez to Romo will be huge as well. Also, the overall attitude of this team is better than it used to be.

The guys we've drafted have a much more competitive and serious edge to them. They WANT to be competitive and win. When you see some of your best players losing a close game to a divisional rival and they are walking off the field with a smile on their face, you know there's a problem. We've slowly, but surely gotten rid of that soft attitude. We seem to have brought in a lot more 'hard-nosed' players. Brandon Carr isn't afraid to get physical. Sean Lee always wants to make a play and isn't afraid to be vocal. This new kid Wilcox isn't afraid to go and hit somebody. Bruce Carter is another guy that gets it done on field. Ware is Ware. I see guys flying towards the ball more now and not giving up on plays. On offense, we have Dez, Witten, Murray, Harris and even guys like Philip Tanner who don't want to go down easy. Romo showed his toughness by playing through the rib injury. We're slowly transferring from a 'finesse' team to a more hard-nosed one.

I see Garrett doing a lot better this year. Never liked him as offensive coordinator, but as a head coach, I think he can do well. I don't really see Garrett as a field commander type as in he's the guy commanding in the trenches and calling plays, but I see him more of a highly skilled administrator. Garrett knows how to get talent here. Letting him hire a bunch of qualified guys and letting them run things is something that I can see Garrett being really successful at. Getting him away from the play-calling and leaving it up to the coordinators will put this team on a better track, which is something they've done this year. I will give Garrett a lot of credit for making this organization a lot more professional. I'm seeing a lot less giddiness and playing around and a more serious minded football attitude take over. For example, we don't have these players running youtube shows and constantly clowning around and we don't have a media circus here anymore.

 

[kevm3]

This is the first year I'm not seeing any sort of clownish activities going on that have me scratching my head. No more 'camp cupcake.' There are hints that accountability is returning, with Demarco getting benched as a sign. Practices are a lot more intense and focused. No more trying to force-feed Garrett into a dual coach role and instead allowing him to focus on one job. We have highly qualified coordinators in Callahan/Kiffen and they are allowed to do their jobs. No media circus or players having time to film tv shows. We have more hard-nosed players and vocal leaders... I say that this is the year that the franchise returns to respectability. I'm not predicting a super bowl win, but I will say we will at least get to the second round.

 

[ufcrules1]

Romo was our weakest link last year?

I don't even...

Not at all.. he was our weakest link in THAT game.

 

[perrykemp]

What was the last team that went from 'meh' to a Super Bowl victory? Most of the teams that have won lately are in the mix year after year. I'll settle for a deep run this year. Then maybe next year.

Rams 1999. 4-12 to Superbowl. That was, however, 14 years ago.

 

[Idgit]

Rams 1999. 4-12 to Superbowl. That was, however, 14 years ago.

2006 Giants were 8-8.

 

[KJJ]

2006 Giants were 8-8.

They were 11-5 in 05 and made the playoffs so you could chalk up that 8-8 season in 06 to a down year. The Cowboys are in a 3 year rut where they haven't been above 500. They're clearly an 8-8 team until proven otherwise.

 

[KJJ]

Rams 1999. 4-12 to Superbowl. That was, however, 14 years ago.

Yes that was 14 years ago and although football is a team sport you have to give most of the credit for what happened to the Rams to Kurt Warner. Things completely changed for that team when he took over it was like magic. The Pats were 5-11 in 2000 and SB champs in 2001. Although Brady was more of a bus driver that season you have to point to him for that turnaround. That Pats team stepped up around him. NE started the 2001 season 0-2 with Bledsoe and appeared they were off to another 5-11 season.

 

[Idgit]

They were 11-5 in 05 and made the playoffs so you could chalk up that 8-8 season in 06 to a down year. The Cowboys are in a 3 year rut where they haven't been above 500. They're clearly an 8-8 team until proven otherwise.

You could. The other side of the argument is that 'you are what your record says you are.' There are a lot of reasons teams go 8-8. They apply to both the Cowboys and the Giants. There's very little to differentiate the Giants 2006 8-8 from any other team's 8-8. Two off-seasons (2005, 2006) is a lot of roster overhaul in today's NFL.

 

[GimmeTheBall!]

If we can stay healthy, this is a Super Bowl caliber team. I don't care if that is too much of a homerrific thing to say or not. Based on the talent and the improved coaching and leadership and the hunger that our team is showing, we can make the Super Bowl without question.

Consider this my Jimmy Johnson guarantee. I'll bring this thread back up in February to prove my amazing Nostradamusness to all you doubting Tom's.

Unless I'm wrong, then I'll let this sucker fade away into obscurity.

Sorry to rain on your fussilade.
We have a superb passing attack.
Then it all goes downhill.
2 weeks ago I was thinking 11-5. Now, seeing a lackluster defense, I say 8-8. Or, in other words, same old, same old.
I just want to rebuild and move on to a place called Hope.

 

[KJJ]

You could. The other side of the argument is that 'you are what your record says you are.' There are a lot of reasons teams go 8-8. They apply to both the Cowboys and the Giants. There's very little to differentiate the Giants 2006 8-8 from any other team's 8-8. Two off-seasons (2005, 2006) is a lot of roster overhaul in today's NFL.

The way I see it one 8-8 season doesn't necessarily mean you're an 8-8 team especially coming off an 11-5 season the year prior. Things can happen during a course of a season whether it be injuries or whatever that can result in a bad season but back to back 8-8 seasons confirms you're an 8-8 team. The 82 49ers went 3-6 in the strike shortened season after coming off a 13-3 SB winning season the year before. It's when you start putting bad years together that you are what your record says you are. If a team can't rebound from a bad season they're a bad team.

When Parcells took over the Cowboys in 03 he said they are what their record says they are but I'm sure he was looking at the fact they were coming off three straight 5-11 seasons. That was clear confirmation they were a 5-11 team. The Cowboys have been below or at 500 the past 3 seasons so they're clearly a mediocre team. The Cowboys have had 3 offseasons under Garrett there's been a lot of overhaul on the team and the record has remained 8-8 the past 2 seasons.

 

[EMMITTnROY]

Sorry to rain on your fussilade.
We have a superb passing attack.
Then it all goes downhill.
2 weeks ago I was thinking 11-5. Now, seeing a lackluster defense, I say 8-8. Or, in other words, same old, same old.
I just want to rebuild and move on to a place called Hope.

Lackluster defense? Are you talking about the defense (starting unit) that has yet to let a team score a touchdown on them in the preseason? The one that is currently playing without Claiborne, Spencer and Ratliff? Oooookay.