We are RIGHT there

[Juke99]

This is the NFL. Been that way for a while now. Yes, we were close in those games. Could have won. But the San Francisco 49ers pushed us to the brink as well. I hate quoting Bill Parcells, but we are what we are.

There are some really nice things about this team, but there are some pretty substantial issues looming. Dunno if those heartbreaking defeats you mention necessarily translate into progress, pertaining to postseason play.

On the nosey.

The NFL has been a game decided by FG's and late TD's for a while now.

The year before Parcells arrived the team lost 6 games by less than a TD. Meaningless.

The year before that we lost 7 games by a TD or less.

Meaningless.

 

[ghst187]

A healthy Dallas team could have made some noise, I believe. It didn't work out that way, and I won't cry about it. But I don't think it's coincidence that the teams that are winning are all relatively healthy.

I agree. We lost our OT and had no depth behind him. That was the difference for us. I think we could've done something in the playoffs with a healthy OL but that's the way it goes. Of course, if it would've came down to the last Wash game, we would've have won that with or without a healthy OL, we flat out weren't ready to play and they were.

I don't think we would've held it together long enough to get to the SB though.

 

[DipChit]

This is the NFL. Been that way for a while now.

Thats about the size of it. Most everybody is "right there". Ok, theres a few teams that arent (and at least we're not one of those) but still it's a whole diff deal now than the "old days".

Theres no true measuring sticks anymore from year to year. We thought it was the Eagles, right? Just finally get to a point where we can beat those bastids and we'll be good to go. Well we did that and it didnt do us any good. Partly because the Giants and Skins were better than they'd been in recent years.

This year if we'd have been better than the Giants and Skins and Sea and Chi we mighta did something. Who will we have to be better than next year? Those teams might all be better next year. Then again, it's just as likely they'll be worse. Could be TB, ATl, Minny for all anyone knows.

All you can do is keep trying to make your roster better and hope eventually everything clicks one particular year. Even if as so many recent SB participants have done.. you just drop back down to .500 the next year for whatever reasons.

 

[Nors]

I didn't see anyone say they were head and shoulders better.

thanks for making my point

 

[Nors]

Dat - Shanle and Fowler
Als - Fujita
Flo - LACKING DEPTH
Henry - Glenn, Reeves, Jones


THIS TEAM is light years better than 2002 team. End of discussion. Juke - that contention is ludicrous but does not fit your Parcells hatred mantra. Sorry

2002/03 Starters are depth guys on this team.....

 

[scottsp]

Thats about the size of it. Most everybody is "right there". Ok, theres a few teams that arent (and at least we're not one of those) but still it's a whole diff deal now than the "old days".

Theres no true measuring sticks anymore from year to year. We thought it was the Eagles, right? Just finally get to a point where we can beat those bastids and we'll be good to go. Well we did that and it didnt do us any good. Partly because the Giants and Skins were better than they'd been in recent years.

This year if we'd have been better than the Giants and Skins and Sea and Chi we mighta did something. Who will we have to be better than next year? Those teams might all be better next year. Then again, it's just as likely they'll be worse. Could be TB, ATl, Minny for all anyone knows.

All you can do is keep trying to make your roster better and hope eventually everything clicks one particular year. Even if as so many recent SB participants have done.. you just drop back down to .500 the next year for whatever reasons.

Absolutely.

The one thing I know about the NFL from week to week, but even moreso, season to season, is that I don't know what will happen.

Continue to upgrade talent the best we can. Develop what we have. Mature.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I agree with Nors. With a good kicker, a little O-line help, a free safety, another LB, and Spears-Ware-Canty having a year of experience, we should be true contenders next year.

The beauty is that except for possibly our O-line, upgrading our positions of need *can* realistically be done.

And I don't know about the injury excuse, Juke. We lost our starting LT, a very good starting CB, and our starting RB for very significant time this year. Those are three of the most important positions on the team.

 

[gbrittain]

Lets break it down

Carolina - We beat them
Seattle on Road we make a chipshot FG and win it
Denver - Beat them too sans FG miss - lose in OT

Steelers? - gave them all they could handle last year.

We have the nucleus that could do it next year with another majical draft class....

Carolina put together a 6 game winning streak in the middle of the season and they are now on a 3 game winning streak.

Denver put together a 5 game, 4 game, and now currently on a 5 game winning streak.


Seattle put together a 11 game winning steak and it would be at 13 had it not been for a meaningless loss at the Green Bay Packers the last game of the season.

Dallas biggest winning streak was a three game winning streak, followed by a two game winning streak.

If you just look at things on a micro level, it looks better than it actually is. Dallas as of right now is not comparable to those teams, no matter how Dallas played them.

 

[DragonCowboy]

Carolina put together a 6 game winning streak in the middle of the season and they are now on a 3 game winning streak.

Denver put together a 5 game, 4 game, and now currently on a 5 game winning streak.


Seattle put together a 11 game winning steak and it would be at 13 had it not been for a meaningless loss at the Green Bay Packers the last game of the season.

Dallas biggest winning streak was a three game winning streak, followed by a two game winning streak.

If you just look at things on a micro level, it looks better than it actually is. Dallas as of right now is not comparable to those teams, no matter how Dallas played them.

I kinda get what you're saying...

But look at the Panthers' six game win streak...

vs. Green Bay Packers
@ Arizona Cardinals
@ Detroit Lions
vs. Minnesota Vikings
@ Tampa Bay
vs. New York Jets

pretty creampuff schedule if you ask me, looks like Tampa was the only good team in that span...Yes, the Panthers are playing well now, but that six game win streak was against just a bunch of losers...

I agree that the Broncos played an impressive schedule, but the fact that we were a Cundiff, or lack thereof, from beating the Broncos...

Let's take a look at the Seattle Seahawks streak...

@ St. Louis
vs. Houston
vs. Dallas....We lost that game more than they won it
@ Arizona
vs. St. Louis
@ San Fran
vs. New York Giants....Feely missed THREE game winning kicks
@ Philadelphia
vs. San Fran
@ Tennessee
vs. Indy....Nothing to play for, rested starters

As you can see, the Seattle Seahawks had an extremely easy schedule, with San Francisco twice, Houston once, and St. Louis twice...

 

[gbrittain]

I kinda get what you're saying...

But look at the Panthers' six game win streak...

vs. Green Bay Packers
@ Arizona Cardinals
@ Detroit Lions
vs. Minnesota Vikings
@ Tampa Bay
vs. New York Jets

pretty creampuff schedule if you ask me, looks like Tampa was the only good team in that span...Yes, the Panthers are playing well now, but that six game win streak was against just a bunch of losers...

I agree that the Broncos played an impressive schedule, but the fact that we were a Cundiff, or lack thereof, from beating the Broncos...

Let's take a look at the Seattle Seahawks streak...

@ St. Louis
vs. Houston
vs. Dallas....We lost that game more than they won it
@ Arizona
vs. St. Louis
@ San Fran
vs. New York Giants....Feely missed THREE game winning kicks
@ Philadelphia
vs. San Fran
@ Tennessee
vs. Indy....Nothing to play for, rested starters

As you can see, the Seattle Seahawks had an extremely easy schedule, with San Francisco twice, Houston once, and St. Louis twice...

You make some good points for sure. The bottom line though is winning against the competition that is put in front of you. Sure it is easier to win if you play more bad teams than good teams, I understand that.

I dont care about the strength of schedule personally, if you can not put together considerable winning streaks.

Think about it, to win a Superbowl you have to beat 3 or 4 playoff teams in a row. Dallas never struck me as a team capable of beating 3 or 4 playoff caliber teams in a row. For that matter, Dallas never struck me as a team this year capable of beating 3 or 4 average teams in a row.

 

[DipChit]

Well theres no question..at least in my mind, that scheduling.. who you play, when you play them and where you play them.. plays a bigger role now than ever before since theres so many teams that are otherwise about equal.

Not that looking at it even before the first game of a season is played means anything because who knows whose going to be good. But as the season unfolds, and certainly in hindishgt one can point to that. Like us in '03.. scheduling played a huge factor in our record.

But for example back in '92-95 it hardly mattered at all. We were gonna win 3 out of 4 just by showin up and about the only thing that mattered (or was of any particular interest) about our scheduling was where and when we played the Niners.

Course back then the term "you are what you are" actually seemed to have some long term meaning.. for better wor worse. If you were good you tended to saty that way for awhile. Or the reverse.

Now it's to the point where most 10-11 win teams in a given year seems to bout need breaks to just to get to .500 the next.

 

[DLCassidy]

OL play is big in this equation. So is kicker. I know people hate oversimplifications but think about this before your knee jerks forward:

what would Seattle's record have been if instead of Walter Jones they spent 10 games with Torrin Tucker at LT? Cortez/Cundiff at kicker? Their kicker wasn't very good overall, but he only missed 1 kick under 40 yards. We lost 4 games as a result of kicks missed under 40.

Did anyone see the job Carolina's OL did against the Bears yesterday? Our tackles allowed an even dozen more sacks than theirs for the year. Nuff said. And their kicker John Kasay was 17-17 under 40 yards.

Now to be fair, not many teams can lose their starting LT and not have it hurt. You know the old saying, depth is great unless you have to use it. We were just worse off depth wise than just about anyone else so it bit us big time. The kicker thing? If we had signed Joe Nedney, we would have made the playoffs for sure. But noone could have predicted his season based on the past. And there weren't any "sure things" at that spot available last summer. Bad luck. I'm confident BP will shore up the OL and kicker this offseason.

 

[Nors]

NFC Championship game

Seattle versus Carolina

Last year Seattle was 9-7
Last year Carolina was 7-9


We beat Carolina and sans a chipshot FG miss beat Seattle on the road. We are right there!

 

[CF74]

We should only get better, maybe a fa and a few drafts and all our dreams come true, miami in 07 here we come.:starspin