Unpopular Football Opinions That You Have

[bbgun]

This is has been one of my favorite threads, and you made the best post in it.

Couldn't agree more with what you had to say here. It was time for Landry to go and I loved the choice of Johnson from day one.

The truth of this post is only surpassed by it's unpopularity. I wonder if you felt as guilty as I did for feeling this way at the time.

No guilt; just sick of losing.

 

[UnoDallas]

It was time for Landry to go and I loved the choice of Johnson from day one.

The truth of this post is only surpassed by it's unpopularity. I wonder if you felt as guilty as I did for feeling this way at the time.[/quote]

Never felt guilty it was Tom's time thats all

 

[DallasCowboysRule!]

1. Andy Reid is the best coach in the NFC

2. If the Cowboys had beaten the Giants in the playoffs a few years ago they still would have lost to Green Bay in the NFC Championship.

3. Bill Bellichick does have a personality.

 

[bbgun]

2. If the Cowboys had beaten the Giants in the playoffs a few years ago they still would have lost to Green Bay in the NFC Championship.

That game would have been played in Dallas, where we trounced them weeks earlier, so why the gloom?

 

[CutMeMick]

Emmitt Smith was a good RB, but is not a top five all-time RB, or even the best in Cowboys history. He is the product of the best OL the league has ever seen, one of the better QB's the league has ever seen, one of the most underrated TE's the league has ever seen, and one of the better WR's the league has ever seen. Put him on a team like Arizona or Cleveland and he's not an HOFer.

Arrgh, you beat me to it!

Couldn't have said it better myself!

 

[DallasCowboysRule!]

That game would have been played in Dallas, where we trounced them weeks earlier, so why the gloom?

The Green Bay game that year was the last game that I felt that Dallas really played well. After that it was like the team lost steam or something. I don't think Dallas would have played nearly as well against them the second time.

 

[bbgun]

The Green Bay game that year was the last game that I felt that Dallas really played well. After that it was like the team lost steam or something. I don't think Dallas would have played nearly as well against them the second time.

I can't envision an ancient Brett Favre getting his first Texas Stadium win in that game, but to each their own.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

You say "calls" generally. I indicated "certain calls". Your lack of detail is humorous. The way you act like you have never heard someone say this before is humorous, sheep. Your methods of communication are aggressive, tunnel visioned and obviously outplayed. I can easly do it too and better. Use integrity and an open mind and you'll get a constructive response rather than a dominating one. Say thank you for the education.

No, I've heard it before and have in the past dismissed it as ludicrous as I do now. You would do well to work on curtailing your passive aggressive tendencies as demonstrated by both of the responses to myself and to member "four". It says more about you than you might like to expose in a public forum, especially considering the content and selection of insults you rendered within the responses.

I can find no reason to debate a subject that I find on the cusp of being only a matter of reality to someone with the need of professional psychiatric help. The idea that a conspiracy exists to influence any call on the field despite the facts surrounding the level of scrutiny all officials in the NFL are subject to is as I've said before, delusional.

Perhaps if you were to "enlighten" myself and others here as to how an official can be bribed or otherwise influenced to make an erroneous decision on the field by calling a penalty or by omission of action create a situation that precludes a proper play with respect to the overall action of the game, then by all means, do so. I'm very interested, cough, in how the officials of the NFL are subjugated to the whims of the gambling world despite the transparency of their finances as subject to review of the league offices.

 

[the kid 05]

Joe Montana is overrated & NOT the greatest QB of all time.

That honor belongs to [strike]John Elway[/strike] Dan Marino.

fixed that for you.

 

[OAM]

No, I've heard it before and have in the past dismissed it as ludicrous as I do now. You would do well to work on curtailing your passive aggressive tendencies as demonstrated by both of the responses to myself and to member "four". It says more about you than you might like to expose in a public forum, especially considering the content and selection of insults you rendered within the responses.

I can find no reason to debate a subject that I find on the cusp of being only a matter of reality to someone with the need of professional psychiatric help. The idea that a conspiracy exists to influence any call on the field despite the facts surrounding the level of scrutiny all officials in the NFL are subject to is as I've said before, delusional.

Perhaps if you were to "enlighten" myself and others here as to how an official can be bribed or otherwise influenced to make an erroneous decision on the field by calling a penalty or by omission of action create a situation that precludes a proper play with respect to the overall action of the game, then by all means, do so. I'm very interested, cough, in how the officials of the NFL are subjugated to the whims of the gambling world despite the transparency of their finances as subject to review of the league offices.

There you go again with the word "conspiracy". Now we're getting into psychiatric relations. Creepy creepy!

 

[SaltwaterServr]

Teams rarely used 8 man fronts to stop Barry. They tried to limit him to 1 or 2 big gains per game. Teams had to deal with Herman Moore and Brett Perriman and Johnny Morton. I saw a stat one time that said if you took away Barry's longest carry in each game of his career that he averaged 2.5 yards per carry on the rest of them. He also lost more yardage than any RB in History.

It is my own wacky opinion but I simply would not want Barry on my team no matter what. Give me a straight ahead runner every time. 2nd & long is a handicap. 3rd & long is even worse. You simply can't beat those odds hoping for your Defense to hold up in the hope that 1 or 2 times a game he is gone for a long score.

The author of the piece eludes me at this time as does the source, but somebody on either BSPN or NFL.com did an article about Barry detailing exactly what you mentioned in bold. I expect you read the same.

Come to think of it, it might have been Simmons in response to Easterbrook. Gregg always harps on going for it on short yardage situations based on the mean gain of a rushing play in the NFL while someone else pointed out that the median gain of a play is what you should weigh your play selection and strategy on.

Same thing applies to Barry as you mentioned. His stat sheet at the end of a game might look like 1, -2, 2, 0, -5, 1, 3, -1, 0, 56, 2, -1, 3, 4. When you add it all up, it looks like a good average per carry but you have to look at the effects of those short runs on the overall game.

As you mentioned, Barry left his team in many difficult to convert 3rd and longs resulting in punts. That puts even more pressure on your defense along with relegating your offense to sputter along without any resemblance of rhythm or continuity.

However, the viewing public loves those big gains for TD's and the occasional short yardage TD that gave Barry a great box score and two clips of dynamic highlights on Sports Center. However, when you look at it from a coaching and strategy perspective, Barry Sanders gives you a multitude of headaches on your team and in my mind draws similar unflattering comparisons to Vick the running back trying to get by at playing quarterback.

 

[dadymat]

No, I've heard it before and have in the past dismissed it as ludicrous as I do now. You would do well to work on curtailing your passive aggressive tendencies as demonstrated by both of the responses to myself and to member "four". It says more about you than you might like to expose in a public forum, especially considering the content and selection of insults you rendered within the responses.

I can find no reason to debate a subject that I find on the cusp of being only a matter of reality to someone with the need of professional psychiatric help. The idea that a conspiracy exists to influence any call on the field despite the facts surrounding the level of scrutiny all officials in the NFL are subject to is as I've said before, delusional.

Perhaps if you were to "enlighten" myself and others here as to how an official can be bribed or otherwise influenced to make an erroneous decision on the field by calling a penalty or by omission of action create a situation that precludes a proper play with respect to the overall action of the game, then by all means, do so. I'm very interested, cough, in how the officials of the NFL are subjugated to the whims of the gambling world despite the transparency of their finances as subject to review of the league offices.

dont eat the brown acid......i repeat...dont eat the brown acid

 

[the kid 05]

2) Terrence Newman is overrated by Cowboys' fans. I don't care how good he is when he's "healthy". Healthy and Terence Newman are pretty much oxymoron at this point. I also feel that he's a whiner. I hate that he was one of the players to cash in during Jerry's 2008 offseason spending spree.

9 games in six years. seems pretty healthy to me even tho you say its an oxymoron to put them two together

 

[OAM]

dont eat the brown acid......i repeat...dont eat the brown acid

 

[SaltwaterServr]

The exorbant amount of revenue generated from the gambling entity of this league does impact certain calls during certain games.

Conspiracy as defined here: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conspiracy
Noun

• S: (n) conspiracy, confederacy (a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act)
• S: (n) conspiracy, cabal (a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot))
• S: (n) conspiracy, confederacy (a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose)

--------------------------

Definition of the word fits in every regard to what you are describing as happening within certain calls within certain games.

 

[OAM]

Laughs the one insinuating the conspiracy theory of fixed games?

There you go again with the word "conspiracy". Very creepy.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

dont eat the brown acid......i repeat...dont eat the brown acid

That's what I'm saying. Guy thinks games are fixed but we're the close-minded folks for not believing it?

 

[OAM]

Conspiracy as defined here: http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=conspiracy
Noun

• S: (n) conspiracy, confederacy (a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act)
• S: (n) conspiracy, cabal (a plot to carry out some harmful or illegal act (especially a political plot))
• S: (n) conspiracy, confederacy (a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose)

--------------------------

Definition of the word fits in every regard to what you are describing as happening within certain calls within certain games.

Other than using "a","to", "an" and "or", I have not used any of the other words you use in any of my posts during this thread. Get to work and look.

 

[SaltwaterServr]

There you go again with the word "conspiracy". Very creepy.

Read post above the one you quoted. The progenitor of the theory wants to distance himself from the term for obvious reasons?

 

[OAM]

Read post above the one you quoted. The progenitor of the theory wants to distance himself from the term for obvious reasons?

New words?