You Know Your Team Hasn't Been Successful For A Long Time When

[erod]

So the men of the 80s had more spine than Wyatt Earp and Bill Hickok.

It's more like your ilk demonstrably has no sense of history, contemporary or otherwise.

You're the guy too soft to handle jokes from Joe Rogan. And I will gladly take you on in an history challenge any time, buddy. I used to lecture on it.

 

[fivetwos]

I’m truly amazed at people’s desire to attack each other personally around here.

Is it really that difficult to agree to disagree?

Brutal.

 

[Coogiguy03]

I’m truly amazed at people’s desire to attack each other personally around here.

Is it really that difficult to agree to disagree?

Brutal.

Trust me it is, it needs to stop on all levels. People come on here to blog not be attacked, could you imagine if someone really had emotional issues and really took to hard the personal attacks people say on here??? It's not cool, people who do this anywhere, acting tough because they're online!

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're the guy too soft to handle jokes from Joe Rogan. And I will gladly take you on in an history challenge any time, buddy. I used to lecture on it.

I say that I disagree with Rogan's proposed ethic of comic's saying whatever they want and never having to consider responsibility for what they say. Your brain turns that into my not being able to take his jokes.

All right go ahead, professor. Go ahead and point to the time where it was manly to not take responsibility for your own actions.

I particularly liked how the 80s Boomer heyday is being sold as the pinnacle of manly men. I dovetails nicely with this unsupported appeal to authority you have above.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I’m truly amazed at people’s desire to attack each other personally around here.

Is it really that difficult to agree to disagree?

Brutal.

I talk about how people behave here and am very careful to not make it anything more. I assume people can control their action but you my be right that is an unreasonable ask for some people.

 

[Established1971]

I say that I disagree with Rogan's proposed ethic of comic's saying whatever they want and never having to consider responsibility for what they say. Your brain turns that into my not being able to take his jokes.

All right go ahead, professor. Go ahead and point to the time where it was manly to not take responsibility for your own actions.

I particularly liked how the 80s Boomer heyday is being sold as the pinnacle of manly men. I dovetails nicely with this unsupported appeal to authority you have above.

dont use the B word man

 

[Established1971]

I'm not saying that each team will win precisely one Super Bowl in 32 years. I am saying that an "average" (non-existent, theoretical) team will win one every 32 years.

Take all 32 teams, add up all their SB's in 32 years. Divide the number of teams by the number of total SB's and you would get exactly one. That is the "average" number of SB's won by each team. Some teams will have three. Some will have zero. But if you add up all the SB's in the past 32 seasons you will obviously get 32 SB's.

If you toss a coin then there is a 50% probability it will be a heads. However, that doesn't mean that if you toss a coin 100 times you will get 50 heads and 50 tails. You might get 52 heads and 48 tails. However, the more you keep tossing the coin, the more the probability of a heads approaches 50%.

In a league designed for parity, every team has the same opportunity to build a SB team. Although the draft and salary cap is supposed to make things more even, the is still differences between teams in terms of management, evaluation, philosophy, coaching, etc.

yeah but 14 teams have not won a super bowl in the last 32 years. Its not just Dallas, the world doesnt owe use fans a championship.I would love it but all the teams I root for have won 1 championship this millenia.

 

[kskboys]

I say that I disagree with Rogan's proposed ethic of comic's saying whatever they want and never having to consider responsibility for what they say. Your brain turns that into my not being able to take his jokes.

All right go ahead, professor. Go ahead and point to the time where it was manly to not take responsibility for your own actions.

I particularly liked how the 80s Boomer heyday is being sold as the pinnacle of manly men. I dovetails nicely with this unsupported appeal to authority you have above.

That would be now.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That would be now.

it's funny. Cicero was talking about how the youth were to be the descent of man in the time of Caesar.

Some people never learn.

 

[kskboys]

it's funny. Cicero was talking about how the youth were to be the descent of man in the time of Caesar.

Some people never learn.

Yup. It's so weird being right in the middle of history repeating itself. Man just cannot help himself.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yup. It's so weird being right in the middle of history repeating itself. Man just cannot help himself.

and yet Caesar and Augustus led to the zenith of Rome. I should have assumed you had no sense of history and would interpret as something asinine.

 

[plasticman]

yeah but 14 teams have not won a super bowl in the last 32 years. Its not just Dallas, the world doesnt owe use fans a championship.I would love it but all the teams I root for have won 1 championship this millenia.

I'm not saying the world owes us a championship. I am looking at it as a way to compare the Cowboys present status and comparing it to what would be an average outcome.

However, I'm not saying it's all over for Jerry to win a championship, uncontested as far as who was the most responsible.

I attribute all three Super Bowl championships of the 90's to Jimmy Johnson and even claiming they would have won more had he stayed. The 1995 team was the team he built with the exception of a few players, most notably Deion Sanders.

As far Deion goes, I further claim that, not only would the Cowboys have won without him, it was his crazy contract that sped the demise of the team of the 90's. To put it another way, it was the fact that Jerry needed to buy a championship without any regards to what his actions would do to the future of the team.

If I was to begin the actual Jerry Jones era, where he is now responsible for building his own team, it would start in 1996. This means that a 32 year time table would end in 2027. This gives Jerry four seasons to win two Super Bowls.

Why two Super bowls? Well, as I explained, if the Cowboys win one Super Bowl by that time then they have satisfied the requirements of being an average team. Two Super bowls would be a notable achievement over 32 seasons. One Super Bowl would merely contribute to Jerry's legacy of mediocrity.

 

[Cmac]

I would change this to 'Occasionally, you see as many commercials of your current starting quarterback as his predecessor' lol.

I would add..."The predecessor is celebrated and the current QB is despised while having the same team successes and failures."

 

[DallasEast]

I would add..."The predecessor is celebrated and the current QB is despised while having the same team successes and failures."

'Celebrated' in what way exactly?

 

[Cmac]

'Celebrated' in what way exactly?

I would suggest reading the posts. Write something negative about the predecessor or his tenure and read the responses. Overwhelmingly different from the current one doing the same things the predecessor yielded and endured too.

 

[DallasEast]

I would suggest reading the posts. Write something negative about the predecessor or his tenure and read the responses. Overwhelmingly different from the current one doing the same things the predecessor yielded and endured too.

This site has a more than adequate search feature. I would suggest reviewing Tony Romo threads and posts created on CowboysZone, specifically between 2009 and 2015.

It is true some members post comments putting Romo in a favorable light in retrospect to Dak Prescott. The opposite happens when some members post comments putting Prescott in a similar favorable light in retrospect to Romo.

At least, Prescott conversations are a back-and-forth injecting both players. The same cannot be said of Romo conversations made here prior to his successor's tenure. Romo was 'despised' all on his own. Still is.

Celebration = propping up Romo to put down Prescott. Putting down Prescott = despised.

Celebration = propping up Prescott to put down Romo. Putting down Romo = despised.

Celebration = not propping up Romo to put down Romo. Putting down Romo = despised.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Cmac]

This site has a more than adequate search feature. I would suggest reviewing Tony Romo threads and posts created on CowboysZone, specifically between 2009 and 2015.

It is true some members post comments putting Romo in a favorable light in retrospect to Dak Prescott. The opposite happens when some members post comments putting Prescott in a similar favorable light in retrospect to Romo.

At least, Prescott conversations are a back-and-forth injecting both players. The same cannot be said of Romo conversations made here prior to his successor's tenure. Romo was 'despised' all on his own. Still is.

Celebration = propping up Romo to put down Prescott. Putting down Prescott = despised.

Celebration = propping up Prescott to put down Romo. Putting down Romo = despised.

Celebration = not propping up Romo to put down Romo. Putting down Romo = despised.

Thanks for the clarification.

No problem......but I guess you did the clarification. One thing we all can agree on for both objectively......similar playoff achievement and team elevation during separate tenures.

 

[DallasEast]

No problem......but I guess you did the clarification. One thing we all can agree on for both objectively......similar playoff achievement and team elevation during separate tenures.

So, I would assume you agree the celebration/despised observation (link) lacks relative emphasis regarding the successor, since the predecessor received more negativity than his successor. Not sure why the successor was singled out for the negativity directed at him in a reply to my earlier comment. The predecessor had more negativity singularly directed at him before 'playoff achievements and team elevation' comparisons could be made. That, in itself, could easily become another separate sub-discussion.

For the record, the thread's title reflects the satire of the OP. One of the list points was '6. You don't see any team players in national commercials'. One could say that bit of sarcasm was an exaggeration but it would not be far off the mark. A quick survey of current television, radio and even internet ads would illustrate an individual, active player is receiving the bulk of public endorsement distribution. The successor has capitalized on his marketability extremely well.

Another brief review of current media advertising sheds light on the predecessor arguably getting fairly equal airtime as a spokesperson for products like Sketchers and Corona. As such, I sarcastically replied, "I would change this to 'Occasionally, you see as many commercials of your current starting quarterback as his predecessor' lol." Sarcastic but true in reality.

There were no dots to connect between my observation and yours. Yet, some were manufactured. I was talking about Prescott and Romo commercials. You pointed out Prescott being criticized more than Romo in terms of team productivity during their careers. Point A does not have a straight line connecting with Point B. Why? Or there is, in fact, no connection, and a celebration/despised sub-conversation started out of the blue for no real reason.

 

[Cmac]

So, I would assume you agree the celebration/despised observation (link) lacks relative emphasis regarding the successor, since the predecessor received more negativity than his successor. Not sure why the successor was singled out for the negativity directed at him in a reply to my earlier comment. The predecessor had more negativity singularly directed at him before 'playoff achievements and team elevation' comparisons could be made. That, in itself, could easily become another separate sub-discussion.

For the record, the thread's title reflects the satire of the OP. One of the list points was '6. You don't see any team players in national commercials'. One could say that bit of sarcasm was an exaggeration but it would not be far off the mark. A quick survey of current television, radio and even internet ads would illustrate an individual, active player is receiving the bulk of public endorsement distribution. The successor has capitalized on his marketability extremely well.

Another brief review of current media advertising sheds light on the predecessor arguably getting fairly equal airtime as a spokesperson for products like Sketchers and Corona. As such, I sarcastically replied, "I would change this to 'Occasionally, you see as many commercials of your current starting quarterback as his predecessor' lol." Sarcastic but true in reality.

There were no dots to connect between my observation and yours. Yet, some were manufactured. I was talking about Prescott and Romo commercials. You pointed out Prescott being criticized more than Romo in terms of team productivity during their careers. Point A does not have a straight line connecting with Point B. Why? Or there is, in fact, no connection, and a celebration/despised sub-conversation started out of the blue for no real reason.

Beauty of the board.....we all have opinions, interpretations, and sarcasm. All good.