Whatever Coach Leads Dallas To Its 6th Championship

[Hostile]

I've never understood why so many around here feel the need to villainize those who choose to address the team's shortcomings instead of glossing over them and deluding themselves. What makes you a better fan than me? Because you sometimes hold a higher, often undeserved, opinion of the team? The vast majority who don't live in Candyland with the original poster root just as hard as he does, watch just as often as he does and get just as much satisfaction out of winning. They know just as much about the history of this team and their love of the franchise runs just as deep.

So again I ask, what makes you so much damn better than me? If being a "good" fan means convincing myself that Orlando Scandrick is a great cover corner or that starting three rookies on the offensive line is a guranteed recipe for immediate improvement, then I want no part of your kind of fandom

Who said they were better than you?

Here's a little hint. Go on any fan site for any team and say nothing but negative crap about that team. Do you expect hugs, kisses, and pats on the back?

Yet you expect that here? How dare you call yourself a realist if you live in that fantasy.

 

[zrinkill]

Only in self-defense. Time and again I have to engage certain people because they threw the first punch. I'd love to ignore them, but they won't let me. Nor do I start threads calling out the homers. Too bad the OP couldn't show as much class.

And the victim comes out again.

This is how every thread goes.

Someone makes a positive thread.

You enter it and say some negative bull about how the starter of thread is a homer and we still suck.

People tell you off .....

You claim you are victimized .....

 

[The30YardSlant]

Here's a little hint. Go on any fan site for any team and say nothing but negative crap about that team. Do you expect hugs, kisses, and pats on the back?

I never said I expected anything of the sort

 

[Hostile]

I never said I expected anything of the sort

Then shut up about it and I am damned serious.

 

[bbgun]

And the victim comes out again.

This is how every thread goes.

Someone makes a positive thread.

You enter it and say some negative bull about how the starter of thread is a homer and we still suck.

People tell you off .....

You claim you are victimized .....

:laugh1:

This was an attack thread, not just a CrazyCowboyish positive thread. Or perhaps you think putdowns like "internet experts," "malevolent fanbase" and "internet harlequins Cowboy fans" are compliments or something. You do what you always do: wait for someone else to do the heavy lifting and then pile on when you have safety in numbers. In other words, weak and cowardly, but what else is new?

 

[JustDezIt]

wait, bb is only 44? I always figured he was sixty plus???

edit: inb4lock

 

[Idgit]

The internet harlequins Cowboy fans are oversensitive tonight. Well, every night. Being right all the time must make you touchy.

 

[Hoofbite]

Scream on. Scream on. We love you BBGun.

1/32 = 3.1%

A rich man once said "I'd rather be rich than right."

Hard not to be "right" with them odds...

Scream on!...

Lotto Ball odds at work, I see.

 

[Idgit]

I've never understood why so many around here feel the need to villainize those who choose to address the team's shortcomings instead of glossing over them and deluding themselves.

If this was what happened around here, I'd be confused by it, too. Instead, I see plenty of addressing the team's shortcomings and plenty of rational discussion, with the irrational or intentional digs shouted down routinely. As they should be.

What makes you a better fan than me? Because you sometimes hold a higher, often undeserved, opinion of the team? The vast majority who don't live in Candyland with the original poster root just as hard as he does, watch just as often as he does and get just as much satisfaction out of winning. They know just as much about the history of this team and their love of the franchise runs just as deep.

I'm not including you necessarily in this group, but, in my opinion, the most knowledgable posters on the board are almost always the equanimous posters. The 'realists,' as a group (and there are notable exceptions to this rule), are driven largely more by their disappointment than by their understanding of the game. Thirty yard slant. Especially during this recent stretch where the team's been a contender for several years. I don't know if this makes the more reasoned posters better fans. But it makes them more likely to have better opinions about the game. That's all that matters on a sports board. Make a short-list of the board's best posters, and then tell me who on that list is normally considered a 'realist.' There won't be many names.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Then shut up about it and I am damned serious.

You know damn well what I'm referencing. I'm talking about all the endless attack threads such as this, I'm talking about the term "realist" being used as some sort of passive insult towards those who don't tow the line with everything the organization does. I don't expect that "realists" be treated like kings, only that they be treated with the same respect as anybody else. So many times "realists" have been the ire of hatred, ESPECIALLY when the "negative" things they say actually do come to fruition..as if them saying what they said is part of the problem with the team's success. It's preposterous, old, dry, and predicatable.

 

[CowboyMike]

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

Ever since I was a little girl I would discuss realists VS homers with my father, it was our favorite past time on Sunday afternoons.

 

[RastaRocket]

Garrett is a G.

You can tell this dude is on a mission and I'm all for whatever Garrett does.

We have a damn good football team. You can't have a dynasty every decade people.

 

[The30YardSlant]

If this was what happened around here, I'd be confused by it, too. Instead, I see plenty of addressing the team's shortcomings and plenty of rational discussion, with the irrational or intentional digs shouted down routinely. As they should be.

I agree for the most part, the problem is what many consider "irrational" is so only in their mind. For instance, many consider it "irrational" to suggest that Jerry Jones is a bad GM because he won three superbowls almost two decades ago. Many considered it "irrational" to say that Wade Phillips didnt have what it took to be an NFL head coach. There's people who will debate such points, and there are many who declare verbal war over them. If you don't like what someone in the organization, player or personel, is doing it means you have an "agenda" in their eyes. A "realists" opinion is often considered less valid because they have been labeled as such and no other reason.

I'm not including you necessarily in this group, but, in my opinion, the most knowledgable posters on the board are almost always the equanimous posters. The 'realists,' as a group (and there are notable exceptions to this rule), are driven largely more by their disappointment than by their understanding of the game. Thirty yard slant. Especially during this recent stretch where the team's been a contender for several years. I don't know if this makes the more reasoned posters better fans. But it makes them more likely to have better opinions about the game. That's all that matters on a sports board. Make a short-list of the board's best posters, and then tell me who on that list is normally considered a 'realist.' There won't be many names.

You speak as if it takes an expert on personel to see that Dallas has drafted poorly over the past several years, or that our ability to evaluate offensive linemen has been horrendous for 15 years. And many of the "best posters" are considered the best precisely because they don't post things that rub people the wrong way. People like other people who think like them, or who they believe think like them. The only difference between "good" and "bad" on a mesage board is perception, and perception is dicatated almost entirely by whether or not you agree with someone. You disagree with someone long enough, and they are "bad" regardless of the merits of their posts. For every "good" poster here I can find you at least ten posters who don't like them, save maybe Adam and Reality. Hostile is considered by many (including myself) as a great poster, and at the same time very few people here have more fellow posters who don't like him. It's all perception, good and bad mean nothing here.

 

[Idgit]

You speak as if it takes an expert on personel to see that Dallas has drafted poorly over the past several years, or that our ability to evaluate offensive linemen has been horrendous for 15 years. And many of the "best posters" are considered the best precisely because they don't post things that rub people the wrong way. People like other people who think like them, or who they believe think like them. The only difference between "good" and "bad" on a mesage board is perception, and perception is dicatated almost entirely by whether or not you agree with someone. You disagree with someone long enough, and they are "bad" regardless of the merits of their posts. For every "good" poster here I can find you at least ten posters who don't like them, save maybe Adam and Reality. Hostile is considered by many (including myself) as a great poster, and at the same time very few people here have more fellow posters who don't like him.

While I don't agree with you about our recent drafting, or about our OL evaluation necessarily, I don't think either of those statements are inherently irrational. Those aren't the sorts of comments I was referring to, and, frankly, anybody who's not capable of a reasonable discussion on the boards immediately goes on 'ignore' for me, so I don't have to even see some of the nonsense unless it's quoted.

But, as for the best poster comment, I don't mean 'favorite posters'. I mean best posters. There are a lot of good posters on the board, and they come in all stripes and all have their complaints about the team; but the posters who add the most to the board in terms of their content or their unique experience--whether it's salary cap expertise or a pro scouting background, or unique access to a source near or within the organization--these posters all tend to have been fairly positive about the organization's prospects over the last several seasons. I don't believe that's by accident. I think it's because we've been a pretty good team the last few years and these people understand that and can keep it in context.

 

[The30YardSlant]

While I don't agree with you about our recent drafting, or about our OL evaluation necessarily, I don't think either of those statements are inherently irrational. Those aren't the sorts of comments I was referring to, and, frankly, anybody who's not capable of a reasonable discussion on the boards immediately goes on 'ignore' for me, so I don't have to even see some of the nonsense unless it's quoted.

But, as for the best poster comment, I don't mean 'favorite posters'. I mean best posters. There are a lot of good posters on the board, and they come in all stripes and all have their complaints about the team; but the posters who add the most to the board in terms of their content or their unique experience--whether it's salary cap expertise or a pro scouting background, or unique access to a source near or within the organization--these posters all tend to have been fairly positive about the organization's prospects over the last several seasons. I don't believe that's by accident. I think it's because we've been a pretty good team the last few years and these people understand that and can keep it in context.

From my perspective, we we so talented in 2007, 2008 and 2009 and we could have done so much more if we had a staff that valued the little things or a front office that had drafted better in the later rounds. I think of how close we were and how a few small but unnoticed things kept us from succeeding. Then all the talent started getting old, injured or lazy and Wade lost his team last year.

The point is that some people like to focus on what we're doing right, which is fine when you're winning as consistently as some teams (Pittsburgh, for example) whereas some like to focus on the things keeping their team from it's goal, which I feel is a far more important when said team has come up short so many times in recent years. Does that make me right? No, but it also doesnt make me a "realist", it makes me a fan who wants to win.

 

[windjc]

Just for the record, the concept of BBGun never crossed my mind when I was composing this "attack" thread. I didn't even realize I was "attacking" anyone. Imagine my horror when a few hours later I check back in only to see all the carnage my original post left in its path of destruction.
I only hope others arent injured in the days to come. But the internet will hear their screams!

 

[Frozen700]

Fifteen straight years that the "internet experts" have been right. Do I hear 16? Yes, I believe I do.

The Zone: where pretty lies go to die.

just stop...

your act is old

 

[Frozen700]

bbgun - here's a tip. Stop watching. And stop coming here and *****ing.

If it's that unbearable, and you're so right, then stop posting here and stop watching and apply for a coaching or scouting position with the organization.

Either that, or continue to talk out of your booty. Your choice.

exactly....

if you have no faith we will win this year, then why stay? Just leave since you know so much, why waste time?

If we do happen to win it all, don't cheer please, don't even act like you knew we would win.

 

[Frozen700]

And the victim comes out again.

This is how every thread goes.

Someone makes a positive thread.

You enter it and say some negative bull about how the starter of thread is a homer and we still suck.

People tell you off .....

You claim you are victimized .....

This is 100% true

he always does this