Videos: Steve Dennis piece from the locker room tonight.

[CATCH17]

Thanks for the vids theebs.

 

[zrinkill]

I remember philo and the prophet.

What do you mean by "and"?

 

[Hostile]

average? above average?
theres only going to be one team that comes out of the season as winners depending on how strictly you're going to define it and i think its a bit harsh to call the other 31 teams losers.
to me what parcells was saying was that people are too quick to put a label on it and then file it away under that but maybe thats just my interpretation?

Let's break this down. 2000...5-11. 2001...5-11. 2002...5-11.

Losers? Yeah, I think so.

2003 after the Panthers game. 8-3.

Parcells gets emotional and says this.

"You're not going to be able to call them losers anymore. We might not be winners but we're not losers anymore. One more (meaning 9) and then you have to call us winners at least."

Sounds to me like Bill Parcells, Wade Phillips, and Keith Brooking all agree on what a winner is. I side with them over any of you swallowing Steve Dennis excuses and logic.

Why is there a need to spin control this all out of whack? You are a loser if you have a losing record. If you have a winning record, you can't be called a loser.

Why do you think Tom Landry is credited with having 20 straight winning seasons given the fact we were 8-6 in 1974 and 9-7 in 1984 and those years are within that 20 year window? Is Tom Landry suddenly a loser because the Cowboys lost the last game he ever coached. Anyone who defines loser by that standard has his head stuck so far up his trash that he needs a window in his stomach to see where he is going.

I understand being frustrated about this team and the loss. But I think the mindless need to put the team down is ignorant. Keith Brooking was 100% right. 8-4, 1st place in the NFC East. If that's not good enough for some people to consider them winners then those people are just plain stupid. Period.

I am no fan of Wade Phillips. I think his press conferences are painful to watch. I think his befuddled looks on the sidelines are galling. Saying the man is a loser and is coaching losers is going too far.

 

[Hostile]

I remember philo and the prophet.

This is so large.

 

[adbutcher]

Let's break this down. 2000...5-11. 2001...5-11. 2002...5-11.

Losers? Yeah, I think so.

2003 after the Panthers game. 8-3.

Parcells gets emotional and says this.

"You're not going to be able to call them losers anymore. We might not be winners but we're not losers anymore. One more (meaning 9) and then you have to call us winners at least."

Sounds to me like Bill Parcells, Wade Phillips, and Keith Brooking all agree on what a winner is. I side with them over any of you swallowing Steve Dennis excuses and logic.

Why is there a need to spin control this all out of whack? You are a loser if you have a losing record. If you have a winning record, you can't be called a loser.

Why do you think Tom Landry is credited with having 20 straight winning seasons given the fact we were 8-6 in 1974 and 9-7 in 1984 and those years are within that 20 year window? Is Tom Landry suddenly a loser because the Cowboys lost the last game he ever coached. Anyone who defines loser by that standard has his head stuck so far up his trash that he needs a window in his stomach to see where he is going.

I understand being frustrated about this team and the loss. But I think the mindless need to put the team down is ignorant. Keith Brooking was 100% right. 8-4, 1st place in the NFC East. If that's not good enough for some people to consider them winners then those people are just plain stupid. Period.

I am no fan of Wade Phillips. I think his press conferences are painful to watch. I think his befuddled looks on the sidelines are galling. Saying the man is a loser and is coaching losers is going too far.

 

[tomson75]

Let's break this down. 2000...5-11. 2001...5-11. 2002...5-11.

Losers? Yeah, I think so.

2003 after the Panthers game. 8-3.

Parcells gets emotional and says this.

"You're not going to be able to call them losers anymore. We might not be winners but we're not losers anymore. One more (meaning 9) and then you have to call us winners at least."

Sounds to me like Bill Parcells, Wade Phillips, and Keith Brooking all agree on what a winner is. I side with them over any of you swallowing Steve Dennis excuses and logic.

Why is there a need to spin control this all out of whack? You are a loser if you have a losing record. If you have a winning record, you can't be called a loser.

Why do you think Tom Landry is credited with having 20 straight winning seasons given the fact we were 8-6 in 1974 and 9-7 in 1984 and those years are within that 20 year window? Is Tom Landry suddenly a loser because the Cowboys lost the last game he ever coached. Anyone who defines loser by that standard has his head stuck so far up his trash that he needs a window in his stomach to see where he is going.

I understand being frustrated about this team and the loss. But I think the mindless need to put the team down is ignorant. Keith Brooking was 100% right. 8-4, 1st place in the NFC East. If that's not good enough for some people to consider them winners then those people are just plain stupid. Period.

I am no fan of Wade Phillips. I think his press conferences are painful to watch. I think his befuddled looks on the sidelines are galling. Saying the man is a loser and is coaching losers is going too far.

I agree with every word. Even the those in the last sentence.

I'm not coming to defense of this team, or its coach, as much as I'm coming to the defense of rational thought......something sorely lacking by many members of this forum.

 

[kmd24]

It's asinine.

The whole discussion came about because Wade said he had confidence that the team could rebound, that they had done it all year after tough losses (3-0 in games following a loss in 2009).

Wade said because they were winners.

So now we have this meta discussion about what a winner is?

Anyone who knows anything about the psychology of competition knows that you have to find some anchors to help yourself believe you can do it, to visualize your success.

I suppose Steve Dennis would have the Cowboys wring their hands over not being able to win a playoff game in the last three years. How is that supposed to help them win a game?

It's just asinine.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

It's asinine.

The whole discussion came about because Wade said he had confidence that the team could rebound, that they had done it all year after tough losses (3-0 in games following a loss in 2009).

Wade said because they were winners.

So now we have this meta discussion about what a winner is?

Anyone who knows anything about the psychology of competition knows that you have to find some anchors to help yourself believe you can do it, to visualize your success.

I suppose Steve Dennis would have the Cowboys wring their hands over not being able to win a playoff game in the last three years. How is that supposed to help them win a game?

It's just asinine.

That would require logic.

When you are a media member trying to make a name for yourself, trying to create a story instead of reporting about it...logic just gets in the way.

Nice post.

 

[tomson75]

It's asinine.

The whole discussion came about because Wade said he had confidence that the team could rebound, that they had done it all year after tough losses (3-0 in games following a loss in 2009).

Wade said because they were winners.

So now we have this meta discussion about what a winner is?

Anyone who knows anything about the psychology of competition knows that you have to find some anchors to help yourself believe you can do it, to visualize your success.

I suppose Steve Dennis would have the Cowboys wring their hands over not being able to win a playoff game in the last three years. How is that supposed to help them win a game?

It's just asinine.

Truth. Good post.

 

[Hostile]

It's asinine.

The whole discussion came about because Wade said he had confidence that the team could rebound, that they had done it all year after tough losses (3-0 in games following a loss in 2009).

Wade said because they were winners.

So now we have this meta discussion about what a winner is?

Anyone who knows anything about the psychology of competition knows that you have to find some anchors to help yourself believe you can do it, to visualize your success.

I suppose Steve Dennis would have the Cowboys wring their hands over not being able to win a playoff game in the last three years. How is that supposed to help them win a game?

It's just asinine.

I think it needs to climb 3 rungs on the ladder to get to asinine, but that's just me.

 

[daschoo]

Let's break this down. 2000...5-11. 2001...5-11. 2002...5-11.

Losers? Yeah, I think so.

2003 after the Panthers game. 8-3.

Parcells gets emotional and says this.

"You're not going to be able to call them losers anymore. We might not be winners but we're not losers anymore. One more (meaning 9) and then you have to call us winners at least."

Sounds to me like Bill Parcells, Wade Phillips, and Keith Brooking all agree on what a winner is. I side with them over any of you swallowing Steve Dennis excuses and logic.

Why is there a need to spin control this all out of whack? You are a loser if you have a losing record. If you have a winning record, you can't be called a loser.

Why do you think Tom Landry is credited with having 20 straight winning seasons given the fact we were 8-6 in 1974 and 9-7 in 1984 and those years are within that 20 year window? Is Tom Landry suddenly a loser because the Cowboys lost the last game he ever coached. Anyone who defines loser by that standard has his head stuck so far up his trash that he needs a window in his stomach to see where he is going.

I understand being frustrated about this team and the loss. But I think the mindless need to put the team down is ignorant. Keith Brooking was 100% right. 8-4, 1st place in the NFC East. If that's not good enough for some people to consider them winners then those people are just plain stupid. Period.

I am no fan of Wade Phillips. I think his press conferences are painful to watch. I think his befuddled looks on the sidelines are galling. Saying the man is a loser and is coaching losers is going too far.

i was responding to you saying you can't call them winners, you can't call them losers, well what are we supposed to call them? tiers?
i don't see where you get that i'm jumping to the defence of steve dennis? i said in the other thread that i liked what i saw from brooking and hoped his attitude fed down to the rest of the team. please show me where i have put the team down off the back of one loss? pretty much the only thing i would disagree with from your comment here is calling a 7-9 team a bunch of losers.

 

[Rackat]

There are 4 things a team can be at the END of a season:

1) Super Bowl Champion
2) A team with a winning record but not a Super Bowl Champion (winners)
3) A team with a losing record (Losers)
4) A team with a split record (neither winner nor loser)

Since this season is not complete, I have to say that we are currently winners, having won more than we lost. At this point the worst we can end up is in the fourth category.

Last December has as much impact on this December as a fanning feather against the wind has a chance to change the wind direction.

 

[Oh_Canada]

I just find it laughable that this guy is accusing Hamlin of having "no balls" to confront Dennis. Nothing good would have come out of a nose-to-forehead confrontation in the locker room....especially not for Dennis and ultimately for Hamlin as well.

 

[Hostile]

i was responding to you saying you can't call them winners, you can't call them losers, well what are we supposed to call them? tiers?
i don't see where you get that i'm jumping to the defence of steve dennis? i said in the other thread that i liked what i saw from brooking and hoped his attitude fed down to the rest of the team. please show me where i have put the team down off the back of one loss? pretty much the only thing i would disagree with from your comment here is calling a 7-9 team a bunch of losers.

I didn't say you did. I was expounding on my original point.

 

[daschoo]

I didn't say you did. I was expounding on my original point.

fair enough. misinterpretated because you had quoted me. apologies

 

[Hostile]

fair enough. misinterpretated because you had quoted me. apologies

No big deal man.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

I understand being frustrated about this team and the loss. But I think the mindless need to put the team down is ignorant.

This should be stickied for the whole world to see.

 

[Primetime42]

After watching that video, I can't help but feel that Steve Dennis is a piece of garbage.

To me, what he's trying to do now after the fact is even worse than what Werder did.

 

[daschoo]

After watching that video, I can't help but feel that Steve Dennis is a piece of garbage.

To me, what he's trying to do now after the fact is even worse than what Werder did.

obviously i'm from outside the country so don't tend to know the sports reporters but did anyone know this guy before this whole thing? or has he just made a name for himself? not that i think a journalist would try and cause a furore just to make it about him and get an extra few dollars when it comes time to talk about a new contract

 

[rangers71]

Dude you made a thread about never *****ing and whining any more after we beat the Eagles.

Now you come here after we lose a close game?

Get a ****ing grip. It's the NFL. Sometimes you lose!

Afterall, we are going 0-4 right? I mean, why even watch the games!? You already know what's going to happen

Well he can't help himself. If he thinks we are losers he may be right I mean he is an Aggie fan after all. He sure knows what losing football looks like.