To my fellow realists... Are you as encouraged as me?

[Bob Sacamano]

I know there's a reason for this statement, but I'm sure I missed it.

That said, one day I am going to get season tix.

Thank you. I'm sure others would think otherwise. I'll take your compliment and run with it.

I like you too WG

you're fair

although kind of a sexist

 

[Doomsday101]

riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiightttttttttttttt... Who's backpedaling now?

Not backpedaling at all. I don't over react to wins and losses I call out mistakes by players without the overboard non sense of we can't win with Romo. Looking back at your post I don’t think you can claim the same Mr. Realist or should I say Mr. Sky is falling? Yeah that is more in tune with the gibberish you put out.

I don't claim SB and playoff glory after wins. I think this team is capable of doing big things but they have not done so as of yet we will see what happens as the team moves forward.

I don't run around claiming Dallas is going to walk all over the next opponent as so many tend to do acting as if other teams are not NFL teams nor will I say Dallas is incapable of winning against any team they face.

 

[Bleu Star]

I've really got to figure out how to make this thing break it up in parts like you guys do. I guess you just have to copy and paste the quote stuff before and after each part?

You just have to have a little ocd like me and you'll figure it out.

Where it's safe. But to each their own.

Exactly.

No one is crowning them anything. No one is going to call them Superbowl bound at this point. But to be thrilled about where we are right now? To know that we're not as bad as some people proclaimed we are, and would be, after a 2-2 record? yeah I don't have any problem with that and like you I refuse to see any reason to appologize for not being all "OMG! THEY SUCK! THEY'RE 2-2!!! WE'RE DEAD!!!!"

And I like the spin there. You predict 8-8 or 9-7 but if they finish as well as 11-5 you weren't that far off. Nice spin. The big difference being that 8-8 would keep them out of the playoffs where as 10-6 or 11-5 not only gets them in the playoffs, most likely, but quite likely gives them a shot at the division.

But, no, I guess that means you weren't that far off.

From day one I have said 8-8,9-7. We will not be far off from that prediction. 9-7 can get in as a WC. No? That all said, I have consistently pointed at our customary fade down the stretch as an obstacle. We haven't hit the stretch yet. When we do, I hope the "difference" continues to show.

Ummm...right. Again spin control. You don't bash anyones opinion? You tell people they're wrong because they're homers and have rose colored glasses, and that makes you a realist for not viewing things that way, but you're not bashing their opinion? Ok. If that's what gets you through the day in your world to each their own.

And being excited, thankful, and willing to be really hopeful about a season doesn't mean anyone is getting to high or too low. I'd say that pretty much calling it a lost season after a 2-2 start is really where people were getting too low. But again to each their own there as well.

Once again... never called it a lost season.. I said we would be "mediocre". After 8 games the team is on a very positive track. The key in that last sentence was 8 weeks. I'm extremely happy to see the development of these players and do enjoy a message board that's not filled with sky is falling posts. That said, my particular record on this board is not one of creating numerous sky is falling posts after losses. I have always offered my moderate opinion in existing threads and will continue to do so.

I don't spend any time worry about them. I'm just excited when they win and I'm disappointed when they lose but both of those feelings go away within 30 minutes of the game ending (Most of the time. I'll admit to my excitement lasting much longer this week cause it was Philly). My life doesn't depend on rather they are Superbowl team or not. They can go 4-12 every year and I'll still be a fan and still be as happy a person as I am when they're 13-3 and Superbowl champions. I've never understood the folks who get so emotionally invested in them that it wrecks their day, week, month, year when they aren't great. I don't know if you're that type, or ever were, but the fact that you are mentioning not being as emotionally invested seems to indicate that at one point your whole attitude about your week rested on what they do in their games.

Nah. It has never been that serious to me. I just don't get as high as I used to after a win. When I'm out I'll celebrate just as hard as the next person but as soon as I exit that environment it's back to moderation. I have always had a deep respect and love for the Cowboys franchise. I guess as I have gotten older, and found other vices in my life, I have learned to put my enjoyment of my team in its rightful place. It works very well for me and that's all that matters.

Sorry wasn't meaning for it to seem like that. Guess I should word things better.

No harm no foul. I stood at the mountain top of TO worship and survived. This is child's play.

Back at you. As long as everyones happy I guess there can't really be any harm for anyone.

Roger that.

 

[Bleu Star]

Not backpedaling at all. I don't over react to wins and losses I call out mistakes by players without the overboard non sense of we can't win with Romo. Looking back at your post I don’t think you can claim the same Mr. Realist or should I say Mr. Sky is falling? Yeah that is more in tune with the gibberish you put out.

I don't claim SB and playoff glory after wins. I think this team is capable of doing big things but they have not done so as of yet we will see what happens as the team moves forward.

I don't run around claiming Dallas is going to walk all over the next opponent as so many tend to do acting as if other teams are not NFL teams nor will I say Dallas is incapable of winning against any team they face.

Congrats to you for doing whatever it is you do. :clap2:

 

[rcaldw]

Why I am encouraged:

1. Tony Romo looks more settled, more focused, more in control than I've ever seen him. Just my perception maybe, but I don't think so.

2. The three deep backfield. Barber, Jones and Choice form a potent set of triplets.

3. The emergence of Austin Miles. (Tell me he doesn't look like Arod in his helmet?) VERY pleasant and NEEDED emergence this year.

Why I am cautious:

1. Wade Phillips. Probably a good DC, but not a good HC in my opinion.
2. Jerry Jones. Just not a good track record on the football side of things. (minus Jimmy and minus a real football guy like a past his prime Parcells) (Again, I know, just my opinion)


If I could add this to a very lively and long discussion about "realism". I sometimes think that the greatest need on the board is just some objectivity and honesty. Can we be honest when we are wrong? If we can, then maybe we will be more believable when we say we are right?

Why does an admission of wrong get thrown into the "back peddling" category and criticized? And why does "I was wrong" seem so hard to say so that we have to immediately insist that we AREN'T back peddling?

My view is that there are NO omniscient football fans. Some are more knowledgeable than others. Some are more objective than others. But there are NONE who always get it right.

I was wrong about Tony Romo, to the degree that I thought he wouldn't be a good NFL Quarterback. I am right about Tony Romo when people want to say he is already better than Troy Aikman. (Can you hear me Theogt?) Chocolate Lab is wrong about Jason Garrett (though he will never admit it ), and I am right in all these views, as they have been delivered with the utmost objectivity

 

[Bleu Star]

Why I am encouraged:

1. Tony Romo looks more settled, more focused, more in control than I've ever seen him. Just my perception maybe, but I don't think so.

2. The three deep backfield. Barber, Jones and Choice form a potent set of triplets.

3. The emergence of Austin Miles. (Tell me he doesn't look like Arod in his helmet?) VERY pleasant and NEEDED emergence this year.

Why I am cautious:

1. Wade Phillips. Probably a good DC, but not a good HC in my opinion.
2. Jerry Jones. Just not a good track record on the football side of things. (minus Jimmy and minus a real football guy like a past his prime Parcells) (Again, I know, just my opinion)


If I could add this to a very lively and long discussion about "realism". I sometimes think that the greatest need on the board is just some objectivity and honesty. Can we be honest when we are wrong? If we can, then maybe we will be more believable when we say we are right?

Why does an admission of wrong get thrown into the "back peddling" category and criticized? And why does "I was wrong" seem so hard to say so that we have to immediately insist that we AREN'T back peddling?

My view is that there are NO omniscient football fans. Some are more knowledgeable than others. Some are more objective than others. But there are NONE who always get it right.

I was wrong about Tony Romo, to the degree that I thought he wouldn't be a good NFL Quarterback. I am right about Tony Romo when people want to say he is already better than Troy Aikman. (Can you hear me Theogt?) Chocolate Lab is wrong about Jason Garrett (though he will never admit it ), and I am right in all these views, as they have been delivered with the utmost objectivity

Nice post. I'm also cautious about your #1. Just as the team has not proven anything in many years, Wade has not proven that he can step it up that extra notch in the playoffs. Sure. Anything is possible. The earth could also stray outside of its orbit today and kill us all. No one remembers the Buffalo Bills of the early 90s. I don't hear them mentioned in casual conversation. Perennial losers... Wade is a good DC but as a HC... No thanks.

 

[Doomsday101]

Congrats to you for doing whatever it is you do. :clap2:

No problem supporting the team, remaining level headed and giving players and coaches a fair oppertunity to do the job. I would think most fans would be more than willing to do that. Coming here you find that is not the case.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

The definition of real...

re·al 1 (rl, rl)
adj.
1.
a. Being or occurring in fact or actuality; having verifiable existence: real objects; a real illness.
b. True and actual; not imaginary, alleged, or ideal: real people, not ghosts; a film based on real life.
c. Of or founded on practical matters and concerns: a recent graduate experiencing the real world for the first time.

I'll let you figure the rest out.

Whether I referred to them as realists, moderates, middle of the roaders, etc etc... The bottom line is that they aren't looking at this from a ideal point of view. They're going with what they see at that very moment. It's funny how some complain so much of others on a freaking message board... really... :laugh2: With as much crap as I have taken from many others over the years, you don't see me complaining one bit. Aren't we supposed to welcome an opposing point of view by a fellow fan? I'm pretty sure that's a huge part of what comprises a strong message board.

As I have said before... yes. Some of us can and do take it to the ridiculous extremes. I tend to just steer clear of those threads mostly. That said, the opposite end of the spectrum is proclaiming victory after 8 weeks.

How many of us are in that yellow car after 8 weeks? Hmmm. Let's peruse the board a bit. Thread titles not so much... Once you get into the meat of some of the threads the over inflation is off the chain. That's all good though. I just offer perspective when I see it. If it weren't for some of you attempting to cast those with a moderate point of view by the wayside, I wouldn't have even brought it up.

–noun
1. interest in or concern for the actual or real, as distinguished from the abstract, speculative, etc.
2. the tendency to view or represent things as they really are.
3. Fine Arts.
a. treatment of forms, colors, space, etc., in such a manner as to emphasize their correspondence to actuality or to ordinary visual experience. Compare idealism (def. 4), naturalism (def. 2).
b. (usually initial capital letter) a style of painting and sculpture developed about the mid-19th century in which figures and scenes are depicted as they are experienced or might be experienced in everyday life.
4. Literature.
a. a manner of treating subject matter that presents a careful description of everyday life, usually of the lower and middle classes.
b. a theory of writing in which the ordinary, familiar, or mundane aspects of life are represented in a straightforward or matter-of-fact manner that is presumed to reflect life as it actually is. Compare naturalism (def. 1b).
5. Philosophy.
a. the doctrine that universals have a real objective existence. Compare conceptualism, nominalism.
b. the doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the act of perception. Compare idealism (def. 5a).
Origin:
1810–20; real 1 + -ism; cf. F réalisme
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009.
Cite This Source | Link To realism

Explore the Visual Thesaurus »
Related Words for : realism
pragmatism, naive realism, reality, realness, naturalism
View more related words »


re·al·ism (rē'ə-lĭz'əm)
n.
An inclination toward literal truth and pragmatism.

The representation in art or literature of objects, actions, or social conditions as they actually are, without idealization or presentation in abstract form.

Philosophy

The scholastic doctrine, opposed to nominalism, that universals exist independently of their being thought.

The modern philosophical doctrine, opposed to idealism, that physical objects exist independently of their being perceived.

realism

An approach to philosophy that regards external objects as the most fundamentally real things, with perceptions or ideas as secondary. Realism is thus opposed to idealism. Materialism and naturalism are forms of realism. The term realism is also used to describe a movement in literature that attempts to portray life as it is.


realism

An attempt to make art and literature resemble life. Realist painters and writers take their subjects from the world around them (instead of from idealized subjects, such as figures in mythology or folklore) and try to represent them in a lifelike manner.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/realism

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I'd say Bleu is more of an "idealist" than a "realist".

 

[MONT17]

We got some realist out today! Nice... Well Im shocked with the amount of emotion this team plays with, Witten sealed the deal with a DBL OVERHAND FIST PUMP almost made me hit my TV. The team has talent, thats why no-one wants to predict less than 8-8, but what they didnt have was killer instinct... and they still dont. BUT I think its developing... The Victor Butler play on McD is an example of this team coming into its own and learning how to close things out unlike the KC drive to send the game to OT. This team should have killed the Iggs by 2 TDs... Honestly, it should have been a blowout bc we finally match well v. the Iggs!

I give credit to the Iggs but Andy Reid told me something when he went for the FG instead of the 1st down to end the game. Along with is gameplan that kept the Iggs away from possible negative plays not too many tricks or gotcha plays, right? LOL WOW, the "great" Andy Reid showed genuine fear of our Dallas Cowboys! I still cant get over that... the film study on this D must be awesome!


Every year I love watching the rookies play thats where my excitement for this team begins... remember back in the day, Jimmy would unveil new weapons, this year we have OTree and VButler on D... Miles is like a rookie too since he never really played in 4 yrs.

I give a ton a credit, to a guy I thought was great back in the day but washed up... and I welcome Brooking here for at least 3 more yrs. maybe more if he is that type of athlete!







Green Bay is going down next!​

 

[Bleu Star]

I'd say Bleu is more of an "idealist" than a "realist".

I'd say you're mistaken.

 

[5Stars]

I'd say you're mistaken.

I read this whole thread, Bleu...and as always, you have the knack of painting yourself into a corner. Now, that take talent!


:laugh2:

 

[Bleu Star]

I read this whole thread, Bleu...and as always, you have the knack of painting yourself into a corner. Now, that take talent!


:laugh2:

It's my own little twisted way of amusing myself. Happy Veteran's Day!

 

[DallasEast]

I believe that we can all agree today that any prediction of 8-8, 7-9, etc., had zero realism embedded within it. It doesn't matter who said so (i.e. Emmitt Smith, etc.), those predictions were virtually baseless and were motivated by something other than an overall evaluation of the makeup of the team and its 2009 schedule. 9-7 or greater always made more sense.

 

[Bleu Star]

I believe that we can all agree today that any prediction of 8-8, 7-9, etc., had zero realism embedded within it. It doesn't matter who said so (i.e. Emmitt Smith, etc.), those predictions were virtually baseless and were motivated by something other than an overall evaluation of the makeup of the team and its 2009 schedule. 9-7 or greater always made more sense.

So I guess I reside somewhere in the middle of baseless and making more sense since my contention from day one was 8-8, 9-7 at best. Key word middle.

 

[chinch]

Most all of your points except coaching is something I agree with. The team is on a nice upswing bolstered by moves demanded by anyone sensible (removing TO, pacman, tank, greg from the lockerroom) AND simultaneously having Romo (cowboy savior really) play up to what we saw 2 years ago. All mistakes by-the-way that were self-induced.

calls for 7-9 or 8-8 were mostly from feeling the team would collapse under pressure & self-destruction, not lack of talent.

we're 6-2 and helped by a weakened Skins/NYG team but we can still easily miss the playoffs erasing any feel-good 6-2 start after 2-2 might bring.

the cowboys Veteran PLAYERS seems to have an urgency and non-complacency that has not been seen in Valley Ranch for a while. Lets hope it continues because last year (and the one before) has shown our coaches/gm/owner are powerless to stop such a self-induced a slide.

I sit here tonight satisfied with the way the first half of the season has unfolded. We've had our ups and downs but through it all the team appears to have grown into an actual "team". I've taken a different stance this season. I'm not getting too high or too low. Call me moderate. It feels good to be where I am right now. I'm happy that we're 6-2 but realize we have only scratched the surface and have a lot of work to do in order to continue taking positive steps. This is no time to become complacent or content with the current state of the team. There's plenty of work to do.

When I watch this team, lately I have felt as though they share my thoughts regarding improvement. They appear to be working harder with each passing week and communicating more and more with each other. It's great to see them talking it up on the sidelines after positive and negative plays. That improved communication will only lead to bigger and better things. I'm just going to make a few mid season observations. Feel free to critique them.

Victor Butler, Alan Ball, Kevin Ogletree, OScan, Tashard Choice... these are just a few backups that are making a collectively strong impact when they're on the field. The depth is growing and it will only serve to help us through those tough times down the stretch.

Roy Williams appears to be driven by jealously. With Miles Austin getting all of the pub and the reporter skipping Roy's locker he appears to be waking up. Motivation comes in many forms. Whatever works I guess... I'm trying really hard to like the guy but running out of bounds instead of taking the contact or making an inside move to potentially go the distance really gets under my skin.

The FO's decision to draft Buehler is looking like one of the most cerebral decisions they've made in a long time. Who woulda thunk a kicker would have made the monumental impact Buehler has made on the team? Dude not only kicks, he tackles and runs a pretty solid 40 time. Let me rephrase.. He'll knock your block off. What an athlete!

Keith Brooking! I have to give it to Wade. He wanted this guy and I loved the pick from the start. It does make me a little nauseous to embrace a decision influenced by Wade but it is what it is. Brooking has been the FA pickup of the year for us.

Romo really is a big kid in a candy store. He just needs to figure out how not to stuff every piece of candy in his mouth at one time. It appears he is figuring out where to moderate and that is paying dividends for his teammates. The emergence of Miles had really given Romo a true go to threat that can stretch the field and go the distance at will. There were moments last night where Romo didn't even care to look elsewhere. Prime example, the TD pass to Miles... Romo didn't even know Witten or RW were on the field.

Garrett is showing continued improvement and I am beginning to really like what I am seeing from him. You can tell he's really into it and the offense rallies around him. When Romo hit Miles for that TD, Garrett was right there with everyone else on the sidelines jumping up and down. It was refreshing to see some emotion from him for a change.

Wade... I just can't bring myself to like Wade as a HC. I think he is in his element as DC. As a HC, I can't ride the wagon. I strongly believe that the team right now is prospering from a true split between offense and defense. Wade is in total control of the Defense and Garrett has total control of the offense. I just don't think Wade has much say in what goes on offensively. Whatever works... I look forward to grading out the overall coaching performance over the course of a full regular and post season.

How are my fellow realists feeling about this team? I originally called 8-8, 9-7 at best. I think this team will win more than 9 games if they continue to make the solid progress that they've made with each passing week and I will be happy to be completely wrong about their record... especially if they take things deep into the playoffs.

What has to happen in order to make Wade's job turnover to next year? Super Bowl appearance? NFC Championship appearance? Hmmmmm

 

[DallasEast]

So I guess I reside somewhere in the middle of baseless and making more sense since my contention from day one was 8-8, 9-7 at best. Key word middle.

So I guess I reside somewhere in the middle of baseless and making more sense since my contention from day one was 8-8, 9-7 at best. Key word middle.

No. That simply highlights your confusion. 8-8 is not a winning record. It is not the same as saying 9-7, 10-6, 11-5, etc. An inclusion of 8-8 writes the disclaimer for its user as:

"The following statement indicates that I have zero confidence in the team finishing above .500, but I'm inserting a +.500 record claim
which I can cash in later just in case my admitted lack of properly evaluating the overall team, schedule, etc., falls flat on its face".​

The real question is why were you confused in the first place? What was/were the underlying factor(s) for including a .500 record prediction? Cupcake Wade Phillips? Satan a.k.a. Jerry Jones? The "killer" drafts by the Giants and/or Eagles? The seasonal trends which only mysteriously inflicts the Cowboys? The Jenkins/Scandrick indecision? Romo turnoveritis? The 2-TE projected offensive sets? Terrell Owens in Siberia? Etc., etc.

The Cowboys were 13-3 in 2007 for specific reasons. Last season, they dipped to 9-7 for specific reasons. What specific reasons would encourage someone to predict a lesser record for this team?

It's understandable that someone like Emmitt Smith would levy a 7-9 record on the team. He defined an intangible for the team not having enough "inner determination" or "heart" to win more games than they would lose. He wasn't interjecting realism into his prediction. He was simply taking a wait-and-see approach for finding out if the team could direct its very obvious talent in a positive fashion (e.g. wins). Additionally, he should be credited for not hiding behind any kind of disclaimer for his opinion.

There's nothing wrong with that. He wasn't saying that the team didn't have the tools to get the job done. He was only questioning if the team had the will. Let's face it. His contention is not the same as others here (some of whom go by the term 'realist') could and do claim.

The forum archives are positively littered with reasons for why this team will finish above .500, at .500 or below .500. Anyone can go back and review them. The reasoning behind some of the non-winning record claims were as mind boggling then as they are now.

 

[Bleu Star]

No. That simply highlights your confusion. 8-8 is not a winning record. It is not the same as saying 9-7, 10-6, 11-5, etc. An inclusion of 8-8 writes the disclaimer for its user as:

"The following statement indicates that I have zero confidence in the team finishing above .500, but I'm inserting a +.500 record claim
which I can cash in later just in case my admitted lack of properly evaluating the overall team, schedule, etc., falls flat on its face".​

The real question is why were you confused in the first place? What was/were the underlying factor(s) for including a .500 record prediction? Cupcake Wade Phillips? Satan a.k.a. Jerry Jones? The "killer" drafts by the Giants and/or Eagles? The seasonal trends which only mysteriously inflicts the Cowboys? The Jenkins/Scandrick indecision? Romo turnoveritis? The 2-TE projected offensive sets? Terrell Owens in Siberia? Etc., etc.

The Cowboys were 13-3 in 2007 for specific reasons. Last season, they dipped to 9-7 for specific reasons. What specific reasons would encourage someone to predict a lesser record for this team?

It's understandable that someone like Emmitt Smith would levy a 7-9 record on the team. He defined an intangible for the team not having enough "inner determination" or "heart" to win more games than they would lose. He wasn't interjecting realism into his prediction. He was simply taking a wait-and-see approach for finding out if the team could direct its very obvious talent in a positive fashion (e.g. wins). Additionally, he should be credited for not hiding behind any kind of disclaimer for his opinion.

There's nothing wrong with that. He wasn't saying that the team didn't have the tools to get the job done. He was only questioning if the team had the will. Let's face it. His contention is not the same as others here (some of whom go by the term 'realist') could and do claim.

The forum archives are positively littered with reasons for why this team will finish above .500, at .500 or below .500. Anyone can go back and review them. The reasoning behind some of the non-winning record claims were as mind boggling then as they are now.

:laugh2: You said...

8-8 = baseless

9-7 = makes more sense

Did you not? Way to go out there into left field to try and prove a point. From day one I said this team was mediocre and I saw 9-7 at best. We're 2/3 of the way there. Shall we begin celebrating now or would you consider it more prudent to wait until it all shakes out? Hopefully we'll both be celebrating when it does all shake out. My reason and motives for seeing 8-8/9-7 are well documented. I'm not unto unearthing it all again. I'll leave that to you and others that have plenty of desire to do so.

I never realized using the word realist would get so many panties bunched up.

 

[DallasEast]

My reason and motives for seeing 8-8/9-7 are well documented.

"The following statement indicates that I have zero confidence in the team finishing above .500, but I'm inserting a +.500 record claim
which I can cash in later just in case my admitted lack of properly evaluating the overall team, schedule, etc., falls flat on its face".​

 

[Bleu Star]

"The following statement indicates that I have zero confidence in the team finishing above .500, but I'm inserting a +.500 record claim
which I can cash in later just in case my admitted lack of properly evaluating the overall team, schedule, etc., falls flat on its face".​

That looks like a classic DE quote contrived to fit DEs agenda. Very nice.