What Happens if Bledsoe is Injuried?

[kartr]

His record in those games?

3 wins. 4 losses.

As for the "no running game", Hambrick was bad, but nothing compared to what Testeverde had in terms of support over the first half of the season.

Testeverde's record with Jones?

3 wins. 4 losses.

Excuses run both ways.

You're right, Carter had 4 losses, but so did most of the league at that time. Most teams records then were either 4-3 or 3-4 and that was against the toughest teams on our schedule. Testeverde loss games by throwing bad picks at the end of close games that could have gone eigher way. And Testeverde didn't need a running game as much because we played against teams that couldn't stop the run or the pass in the first part of the season.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

So what you're saying is that
1) Joey Harrington, 1st round draft pick was not a starter
2) Kerry Collins,1st round draft pick was not a starter
3) Jake Delhomme was not a starter
4) Donavan McNabb,1st round draft pick was not a starter
5) Drew Bledsoe,1st round draft pick was not a starter
6) Brad Johnson was not a starter

Only the Jets and Falcons and the Giants in the second game didn't have their starting qb's.

Carter record against Kerry Collins is 2-1 and in 4 games against the Giants has thrown for over 1000 yards against them and more touchdowns and ints going back to 2001. Did Carter catch a break with Troy Hambrick as the starting back, or with rookie A. Bryant starting instead of Rocket Ismael in 2002 or with Joey Galloway hurt against the Pats in 2003. Carter has winning record over Steve McNair,Kurt Warner,Jeff Garcia,Kerry Collins Patrick Ramsey,Joey Harrington, both 1st rounders plus Vinny and Drew Bledsoe, yet so many here act like he was worst qb in Cowboy history. This team clearly is not as good without him because he is a dual threat, able to run and throw. He just the kind of qb that Buffalo,Baltimore are trying to develop now. He's a new millenia qb, cut from the same cloth as McNabb,Vick,Culpepper who are all evolutions of Steve Young,John Elway,Randall Cunningham. He just needs a little more time to develop. Thirty four starts is bearly 2 years worth of starts.

Harrington is terrible but so was that team. Don't see the big accomplishment there.

Collins got beat on a fluke kick off play and subsiquient on sides. Look at that game and you will see that Carter sucked until the very end and in OT. Also, we had an extremely good running game. Never the less, if we don't get lucky, we lose that game.

Delhomme was injured the first time around.

McNabb was injured the first time around.

Drew Bledsoe had a terrible game and still beat us.

Brad Johnson had a field day against us. TB exposed Carter and we got took to the wood shed in a very pivitol game the really decided our season for us. The rest of the league watched what TB did to us and basically replicated it. We pretty much got spanked the second half of the season.


Your completely off base with all of the QBs you compare to Carter. All of those guys posted much better numbers then did Carter at the same stages of there careers and none had issues.

At the end of the day, those are all good to great QBs. Carter is out of football. There is no comparisisons between Carter and any of the rest.

 

[kartr]

I don't believe I support your position in this post. You make the points that the defenses we faced were tougher but I would ask that you go back and actually see where those defenses were ranked at the time we played them. I suspect you will find some interesting info there. I would also ask you to see who we faced at QB. You will see that we didn't face a lot of healthy starters as we did in 2004.

The supporting cast in not a good argument IMO. JJ was hurt much of last season so I don't think you can say he was a major difference. Witten was better but Campbell was out all of last year. That is a major impact to the offense. The WR core was more talented in 2003 then in 2004 IMO so I don't see the logic there. Carter may have only been in his 3rd season but he was in a very easy offense. Our offense, in Dallas, is extremely basic. We did not ask very much of the QB. He had youth and the advantages that go along with that as well as familiarity with the personel. Vinnie, on the other hand, was in his 18th season. He was never supposed to be the starter and he had never played in Payton's offense or with most of the players in Dallas. There is no advantage or disadvantage to either player here. As for the Jets thing, I've addressed that in a previous post.

The whole career stat thing doesn't hold water in this comparison. If you want to compare, compare them over the last three years of there careers. The game has changed a lot in 18 years. Carter has never played for a team as bad as Tampa Bay was when Vinnie got drafted. It's unfair to associate that. Different time and place all together. Lastly, you fail to recongnize the obviouse. Points scored and offensive performance were almost exact. The big difference was the defensive play. It's not Carter or Vinnie.

These are the healthy d-line that Carter faced in 2003:
Michael Strayhan
Shaun Ellis
John Abraham
Leonard Rodgers
Warren Sapp
Simeon Rice
Julius Peppers
Richard Seymour
Ted Thompson
Pat williams
Jason Taylor
Ogunleye
Charles Grant
Darren Howard
Patrick Kearney and others whose names I can't remember now
plus
corners such as:
Taylor and Vincent
Surtain and Madison
Bailey and Smoot X2
Ty Law and Tyrone Poole
Nate Clements and Winfield
Ronde Barber plus other defensive stars such as
Takeo Spikes
Lavar Arrington
Willie Mcginest
Jeremiah Trotter
Yeah facing these guys with the likes Galloway,Glenn, and Hambrick was just a walk in the park.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

McMahon
Detmer

Cannoty agree. Koy Detmer is a quality QB. Offensive lines have a lot to say about who gets to injury QBs! Otherwise I agree, they all need to stay healthy.

On what?

I know Detmer. I watched him while at Colorado and early on in Philly. I think you can probably go to school on Detmer a bit from the 98 season. He's limited as a QB. I agree, the OL has much to say on how a QB fares, but in the final annaliysis, I think you have to conclude that Detmer can probably hold the line for a couple of games but if he has to play for an exteneded period of time, he's a liablity. Your season is done if you are in a position to have to depend on him.

I've also watched McMahon play while with Detroit. Your talking about a guy who has started 7 games in 4 years. None in the past two seasons. He carries a 55% QB rating career. I can't see him being a long term replacement either.

It is what it is. The difference between our two backup QB sito's is not much different IMO. The difference is what's on the line. If our starter goes down, I think it probably helps our team grow and be better in the long run. If your starter goes down, that another opportunity at a championship down the drain and the clock is ticking in Philly.

That's basically how I see it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

These are the healthy d-line that Carter faced in 2003:
Michael Strayhan
Shaun Ellis
John Abraham
Leonard Rodgers
Warren Sapp
Simeon Rice
Julius Peppers
Richard Seymour
Ted Thompson
Pat williams
Jason Taylor
Ogunleye
Charles Grant
Darren Howard
Patrick Kearney and others whose names I can't remember now
plus
corners such as:
Taylor and Vincent
Surtain and Madison
Bailey and Smoot X2
Ty Law and Tyrone Poole
Nate Clements and Winfield
Ronde Barber plus other defensive stars such as
Takeo Spikes
Lavar Arrington
Willie Mcginest
Jeremiah Trotter
Yeah facing these guys with the likes Galloway,Glenn, and Hambrick was just a walk in the park.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the NFL you still have to be able to score points to win, correct?

Most of the teams we faced in the first 8 games were seriously limited offensively. More so then ourselves. You can try to make the case that Carter won those games but the facts do not support your position. The defense he played with were collectively better then any of the above. Say what you want about Galloway/Glenn or Hambrick but the facts remain. Our offensive out put was almost the same as in 04. AYPC were almost the same. Total passing yards were almost identical. Points against were vastly different.

If the point your trying to get across is that you really like Carter, I think you've accomplished that.

If the point your trying to get across is that Carter was the difference, I don't believe your converting anybody.

Carter was not the difference.

 

[Doomsday101]

ONce again, a partial truth, you act as is Martin did nothing in the games that Pennington played in. Martin was on a tear the whole season as far as rushing yards, but he didn't throw a single touchdown pass and Carter did. Carter wasn't asked to put up big numbers in those games,just manage them. Carter threw for 262 yards against the Falcons, over 600 yards in 2 games against the Giants, 264 yards against the Panthers,210 yards against the Pats on the road,288 yards against the Dolphins and 290 yards against the Saints on the road, all without benefit of a running game. So you should know better than to go there.

I'm telling you like it is, your trying to make Carter out as some great QB and the fact is he is not that good of a QB and clearly was never going to be a franchise QB for this team. Currently no team wants to touch a pot head QB that lacks accuracy and throws like **** on the run. Carter is a backup at best in the NFL but you seem to be the only one who can't figure this out.

 

[Alexander]

You're right, Carter had 4 losses, but so did most of the league at that time.

What? This was the wins and losses in those games, not the standings at that time.

Testeverde loss games by throwing bad picks at the end of close games that could have gone eigher way.

I suppose the turnovers that Carter had against New England (very close game), Tampa Bay and New Orleans did nothing to hurt our cause in games that "could have gone either way"? The second Philadelphia game's momentum swung when he was picked off deep in our territory after closing at the half. Testeverde also did not direct an offense that got SHUT OUT twice and held without a TD in another.

And Testeverde didn't need a running game as much because we played against teams that couldn't stop the run or the pass in the first part of the season.

L O L

We did not need a running game against the Giants in Dallas? Against Pittsburgh? Against Cincinnati?

You have one game where it was out of hand. That was the Viking game. Other than that, our inability to run just made things worse.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

What if games? Jeff Garcia had horrible game against us last year. Against our bad defense, Quincy with good running game and Vinny's 3 ints, Cleveland clearly would have beat us. Quincy had great numbers against the Ravens, the Jets coaches and pass defense lost the Ravens game. Kyle Boller looked like the second coming Joe Montana in the second half of that game. Do you really think that Quincy wouldn't have outplayed Henson in the Bears game. The teams I mentioned had absoutely horrible qb play. Quincy was needed the most for the Jets when Pennington was hurt. In the playoffs, Quincy wasn't needed because Pennington was healthy enough to play. He was great in San Diego playoff game, he didn't look hurt at all to me, but he played lousy in the Pittsburgh playoff game, so they said his shoulder was hurting again. Quincy is not under league suspension, which means he's not in trouble with the NFL. He can play from day one with any team that signs him.

Carter did not have great numbers against Baltimore. FYI, the week before, Garcia played Baltimore and he went 15/24 62.5 comp %, 180 yards or 7.5 YPA and 1TD against 0 INTs.

In week two against us, Garcia had a horrid game throwing the ball. He was playing in his second game in Clevelands offense and it showed. However, Cleveland had a great game rushing the football. They rushed for 136 yards against us and a 5.2 AYPC. Cleveland also lost Winslow early in that game, if you recall. Vinnie had a great game except for the INTs. Vinnie was 23/35 or 65.7 Comp% for 322 yds, 9.2 YPA, 1TD and 3INTs. If not for the TDs, Vinnie would have had a lights out game. Rush support in that game was not great. We rushed for 82 yards on 27 carries or 3.0 YPC.

Quincy went 13/22 or 59% comp, 175 yards or 7.9 YPA, 0 TDs and 0 INTs. I would not call those numbers great. The fact is that Garcia put up superior numbers against Baltimore with nothing close to the same kind of run support and beat Baltimore in his very first game. Quincy got 156 yards rushing off 36 carries or 4.3 YPC. If you get that kind of support in the running game, as a tested Vet QB, you should be able to make a few more plays then what was done by Quincy. I mean, Boller had nothing close to that kind of run support and he posted vastly superior numbers to Carter. This from a young guy with much less experience. He basically won the game. What does that say?

In the Dallas game, I don't know what QC would have done. I'll tell you this, he wouldn't have had much success against our defense. BP knows QCs weakness' better then anybody. I'm also not convinced Henson would have started if Carter would have been playing that game. Clearly Vinnie could play and probably would have. If your asking me if Carter could have beaten Vinnie had he started that game, the answer is a resounding no. I believe Vinnie would have beaten Carter to a bloody red pulp, had they played each other last Thanksgiving. Of course, that's the what if game again.

Carter's problems should be resolved soon if it's just weed. We will see what happens when, if he comes out of rehab. I don't think his phone is going to be ringing off the hook.

We will see.

 

[kartr]

Harrington is terrible but so was that team. Don't see the big accomplishment there.

Collins got beat on a fluke kick off play and subsiquient on sides. Look at that game and you will see that Carter sucked until the very end and in OT. Also, we had an extremely good running game. Never the less, if we don't get lucky, we lose that game.

Delhomme was injured the first time around.

McNabb was injured the first time around.

Drew Bledsoe had a terrible game and still beat us.

Brad Johnson had a field day against us. TB exposed Carter and we got took to the wood shed in a very pivitol game the really decided our season for us. The rest of the league watched what TB did to us and basically replicated it. We pretty much got spanked the second half of the season.


Your completely off base with all of the QBs you compare to Carter. All of those guys posted much better numbers then did Carter at the same stages of there careers and none had issues.

At the end of the day, those are all good to great QBs. Carter is out of football. There is no comparisisons between Carter and any of the rest.

I guess Carter throwing for 321 yards was a fluke play too and the Cowboys scoring 35 points was a fluke too.

McNabb wasn't injured in 2003, it was 2002.
Jake Delhomme wasn't injuried in 2003 either
Drew Bledsoe and the Bills lost to us in 2003. It was Bledsoe's fumble, not an interception of Carter that won the game.

Vinnie was considered a bust until he played for the Jets and he was number one draft pick

Delhomme was playing in NFL Europe when in his 3rd year in the playoffs, not taking a team to the playoffs

You're making up some rediculous stuff, which is what people claimed I've been doing, but all my points can verified on NFl,espn.com or whatever.

Carter not being on a team is more a reflection of the sorry management of the NFL, not his ability.
These stupid gm's didn't think Carter could quarterback a team to the playoffs in 2003,but he did, didn't think he could beat Hutch, but he did and worst of all didn't try to sign him in 2004 and didn't make the playoffs with their sorry qb play. But Carter had a qb rating of 98 in 2004 and a 3 to 1 td to int ratio and completed over 60% of his passes while a team like Chicago had the 32nd passing offense in the NFL, yeah, that's much better than what Carter did in 2003.LOL

 

[blindzebra]

You don't have to take my word on anything. If you care to know the truth, I base my opinion on the stats from nfl.com. If you sort on total defense, it will clearly show that we played against 8 of the top 10 defenses that year, and that's without RB like a Marchall Faulk,Shaun Alexander,Travis Henry or a Priest Holmes. If you look at Hambrick's stats that year, he had 5 td runs in the 1st 8 games and 0 in the last 8, whereas Carter had 3 200+ games and 2 190+ games in the the first 8 and 5 200+ games in the last 8, including 200+ against the Pats,Dolphins,Panthers,Giants and Saints. Hambrick averaged around 30 yards per game in the last 8 games. That's means our offense didn't have enough of a running threat to counter-balance our passing attack and that's clearly Parcells' fault for not getting a better RB to complement Carter. Had he done so, Carter would have been better and we'd had a fighting chance against the Eagles,Pats and Dolphins late in the season. All of those teams outrushed us which put less pressure on their qb's.

I DID look up the stats, and you are LYING!

You produce more BS than all the bulls in Texas.

He did not face 8 of the top 10 defenses, and you first said PASS DEFENSES by the way, he played against FIVE. He also had bad games against 4 of the 5 teams he did face.

For record the top 10, per NFL.com in total defense in 2003 were:

1. Dallas

2. Buffalo

3. Baltimore

4. Denver

5. Tampa Bay

6. Jacksonville

7. New England

8. Carolina

9. Pittsburgh

10. Miami

Dallas opponents are in bold.

 

[kartr]

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the NFL you still have to be able to score points to win, correct?

Most of the teams we faced in the first 8 games were seriously limited offensively. More so then ourselves. You can try to make the case that Carter won those games but the facts do not support your position. The defense he played with were collectively better then any of the above. Say what you want about Galloway/Glenn or Hambrick but the facts remain. Our offensive out put was almost the same as in 04. AYPC were almost the same. Total passing yards were almost identical. Points against were vastly different.

If the point your trying to get across is that you really like Carter, I think you've accomplished that.

If the point your trying to get across is that Carter was the difference, I don't believe your converting anybody.

Carter was not the difference.

The defense scored 14 points in 2003, that's less than 1 point per game. You really think you can win a game by scoring that much. You said those teams were severely challenged offensively, you're right, but that's what made our defense look so good, despite not having a pass rush and finishing near the bottom of the NFl in defensive turnovers. Carter had to be the difference because we had a pedestrian Rb, receivers who ran poor routes, dropped balls and wouldn't come back to the ball and a leaky offensive line. Carter set a Cowboys record for passing yards in a season, he also threw the highest td total since Aikman with 17,which matches Aikman's 2nd highest total for tds and Carter did it in his first full season and without a hall of fame RB,WR and TE like Aikman had and the Cowboys had pass rushers, corner backs who could get ints. Yeah, the Cowboys receivers had one of the highest dropped pass stats in the league with Bryant dropping a whopping 20%.

And don't tell about how bad the other teams offenses were, because the Cowboys offense was playing the other teams defenses which were pretty good, what's being missed here is that the Cowboy defense caught the breaks because they were playing against poor offenses, while Carter was playing against tough defenses. The bottom line is that the Cowboys defense played well against pedestrian offenses in 2003 while Carter played reasonably well against tough defenses and without a legitamate starting RB.

Your contention that Carter was not any good and that the rest of the team propped him up was blown to smitherines because:
A) the Cowboys D was shown to be a paper tiger against good offense in 2004
B) Vinny's numbers were no better than Carter's with a better supporting cast and weaker defenses to play against and more experience
D) Parcells showed that his genius alone wasn't what got this team to the playoffs,i.e.he didn't make it the playoffs without Quincy,but Quincy showed he could improve his qb rating,completion percentage and td to int ratio and help a team get to the playoffs without Parcells.
C) Hambrick still couldn't beat out E.Smith in Arizona or anyone else

 

[blindzebra]

The defense scored 14 points in 2003, that's less than 1 point per game. You really think you can win a game by scoring that much. You said those teams were severely challenged offensively, you're right, but that's what made our defense look so good, despite not having a pass rush and finishing near the bottom of the NFl in defensive turnovers. Carter had to be the difference because we had a pedestrian Rb, receivers who ran poor routes, dropped balls and wouldn't come back to the ball and a leaky offensive line. Carter set a Cowboys record for passing yards in a season, he also threw the highest td total since Aikman with 17,which matches Aikman's 2nd highest total for tds and Carter did it in his first full season and without a hall of fame RB,WR and TE like Aikman had and the Cowboys had pass rushers, corner backs who could get ints. Yeah, the Cowboys receivers had one of the highest dropped pass stats in the league with Bryant dropping a whopping 20%.

And don't tell about how bad the other teams offenses were, because the Cowboys offense was playing the other teams defenses which were pretty good, what's being missed here is that the Cowboy defense caught the breaks because they were playing against poor offenses, while Carter was playing against tough defenses. The bottom line is that the Cowboys defense played well against pedestrian offenses in 2003 while Carter played reasonably well against tough defenses and without a legitamate starting RB.

Your contention that Carter was not any good and that the rest of the team propped him up was blown to smitherines because:
A) the Cowboys D was shown to be a paper tiger against good offense in 2004
B) Vinny's numbers were no better than Carter's with a better supporting cast and weaker defenses to play against and more experience
D) Parcells showed that his genius alone wasn't what got this team to the playoffs,i.e.he didn't make it the playoffs without Quincy,but Quincy showed he could improve his qb rating,completion percentage and td to int ratio and help a team get to the playoffs without Parcells.
C) Hambrick still couldn't beat out E.Smith in Arizona or anyone else

More crap.

2004 top 10 defenses:

1. Pittsburgh

2. Buffalo

3. Washington X 2

4. Denver

5. Tampa Bay

6. Baltimore

7. NYJ

8. Miami

9. New England

10. Philadelphia X 2

That is SIX games versus the top 10 against FIVE for Carter.

Hambrick and company rushed for 1999 yards at 3.9 per pop.

We ran for 1769 and 3.9 last year.

We had a hobbled Key and were down to Crayton and Copper at the end of the year. We also lost Anderson, Carter's top receiver, and Campbell who hurt both the passing and running games.

Facts hurt, time to dish more lies.:jerk:

 

[kartr]

Correct me if I'm wrong but in the NFL you still have to be able to score points to win, correct?

Most of the teams we faced in the first 8 games were seriously limited offensively. More so then ourselves. You can try to make the case that Carter won those games but the facts do not support your position. The defense he played with were collectively better then any of the above. Say what you want about Galloway/Glenn or Hambrick but the facts remain. Our offensive out put was almost the same as in 04. AYPC were almost the same. Total passing yards were almost identical. Points against were vastly different.

If the point your trying to get across is that you really like Carter, I think you've accomplished that.

If the point your trying to get across is that Carter was the difference, I don't believe your converting anybody.

Carter was not the difference.

Ps. You said those first 8 teams were limited offensively more than ourselves.
If Quincy was no good, then why. We werent better because of Hambrick.
Terry Glenn wasn't thought of very highly early in 2003. They said if he couldn't do it with Brett Favre, then he certainly could do anything with Carter as his qb and yet Terry Glenn had his best year in years with QC. Galloway was considered an under-achiever, Bryant was just a second year guy and Witten a rookie and O-line, a bunch of under-achievers cause they couldn't protect Hutch down the stretch the year before. The Cowboys had the number one passing offense in the first six games, not the number one rushing offense and a 5-2 record. Every quarterback we played against was considered better than Carter going into the 2003 season, yet Carter outplayed them all and still finished 12th in passing yardage, despite a brutal schedule with little help at the end of the season.

This clearly shows your irrational bias against Carter when you state that the team won in spite of him instead of because of him. He finished statistically higher than any offensive player on the team and he finished statistically higher than any qb he faced whose name was not Brady or McNabb and maybe Brooks. In my book, that's some pretty good work for a first year starter. One last thing, Vinnie couldn't win enough games in 2003 to help his team get to the playoffs when Pennington got hurt, so that's one more thing Carter has on Vinnie.

 

[Waffle]

In my book, that's some pretty good work for a first year starter.

Oh please! If you're going to chastize other posters for not giving Quincy his due, at least be honest in your approach. He started EIGHT games as a Rookie and SEVEN in 2002 before he was benched.

"First Year Starter".

 

[blindzebra]

Oh please! If you're going to chastize other posters for not giving Quincy his due, at least be honest in your approach. He started EIGHT games as a Rookie and SEVEN in 2002 before he was benched.

"First Year Starter".

I think it's time to stop feeding this troll.

I know I'm not that bored, even in this gap with nothing going on.

 

[Waffle]

I think it's time to stop feeding this troll.

I know I'm not that bored, even in this gap with nothing going on.

You are probably right. I've kept my mouth shut for over three pages of this thread. But that "first year starter" stuff had to be refuted.

Sorry.

 

[blindzebra]

You are probably right. I've kept my mouth shut for over three pages of this thread. But that "first year starter" stuff had to be refuted.

Sorry.

I've been blowing up his lies since his first post, I'm just tired of it.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I guess Carter throwing for 321 yards was a fluke play too and the Cowboys scoring 35 points was a fluke too.

McNabb wasn't injured in 2003, it was 2002.
Jake Delhomme wasn't injuried in 2003 either
Drew Bledsoe and the Bills lost to us in 2003. It was Bledsoe's fumble, not an interception of Carter that won the game.

Vinnie was considered a bust until he played for the Jets and he was number one draft pick

Delhomme was playing in NFL Europe when in his 3rd year in the playoffs, not taking a team to the playoffs

You're making up some rediculous stuff, which is what people claimed I've been doing, but all my points can verified on NFl,espn.com or whatever.

Carter not being on a team is more a reflection of the sorry management of the NFL, not his ability.
These stupid gm's didn't think Carter could quarterback a team to the playoffs in 2003,but he did, didn't think he could beat Hutch, but he did and worst of all didn't try to sign him in 2004 and didn't make the playoffs with their sorry qb play. But Carter had a qb rating of 98 in 2004 and a 3 to 1 td to int ratio and completed over 60% of his passes while a team like Chicago had the 32nd passing offense in the NFL, yeah, that's much better than what Carter did in 2003.LOL

McNabb was hurt early in the season in 2003. However, I conceed the point on Delhomme. I had thought he was out for that game when in fact, he did play. Delhomme spent 5 years in NO starting a total of 2 games. He threw a total of 86 passes in 5 years. When he lost to Carter, he had started a total of 12 games. 6 games later, he came back and stomped us in the playoffs. With 20 started games under his belt, he has taken his team to the Super Bowl and almost won it against a very tough New England team. Having said that, I clearly stated that you should look at the first 8 games and you come back with Buffalo and this game, Carolina, both in the second half of the season. For the record, I never said anything about any fumbles with Bledsoe or who ever. Nice.

Lets look at that first Giants game.

Carter was 25/40 for 321 yards. Of which, 157 came late in the 4th and OT. An OT set up by a terrible error from the Giants out of bounds kick with 11 seconds left on the clock. Cundiff kicks a 52 yarder to send it into OT. This is a game in which Dallas leads 23-7 early in the 3rd. This is a game in which Carter throws no TDs, throws an INT returned for an TD, takes 3 sacks, fumbles twice, one of which is late in OT, where we gets luckly to have it recovered by a Cowboy. This is a game in which Cundiff is 7/8 with kicks of 37, 49, 42, 36, 52 with 11 seconds in regulation and 25 in OT to win the game.

You look at this game and you see a stellar performance by QC. I look at this game and I see a guy who should have lost but got lucky. A guy who probably passes for 300+, most of which was yac. I see a guy who made more then enough mistakes to cost himself this game. Lastly, I see a guy who was fortunate enough to have a kicker go 7 for 8 with two kicks over 50, one to send it to OT, one to win it in OT.

 

[Nors]

trolls, agenda's, thumping chests, schooling people, man you guys are too funny. Party on!

I'm amused! Thanks for the banter - great stuff!

 

[Alexander]

Carter set a Cowboys record for passing yards in a season

3980 by Danny White in 1983 is the record.

Do you make up stuff like this in real life or is this just a message board act?

Yeah, the Cowboys receivers had one of the highest dropped pass stats in the league with Bryant dropping a whopping 20%.

what's being missed here is that the Cowboy defense caught the breaks because they were playing against poor offenses, while Carter was playing against tough defenses.

So if he were our QB today, should we just hope we get the luck of the draw and play bad defenses?

A) the Cowboys D was shown to be a paper tiger against good offense in 2004

The personnel were NOT the same. But, here some more fingerpaints for you to try to eat and splatter on the wall.

B) Vinny's numbers were no better than Carter's with a better supporting cast and weaker defenses to play against and more experience
D) Parcells showed that his genius alone wasn't what got this team to the playoffs,i.e.he didn't make it the playoffs without Quincy,but Quincy showed he could improve his qb rating,completion percentage and td to int ratio and help a team get to the playoffs without Parcells.
C) Hambrick still couldn't beat out E.Smith in Arizona or anyone else

I am convinced this is an act. Nobody is this devoid of common sense.