Yakuza Rich
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 18,043
- Reaction score
- 12,385
Last week I had a post detailing what the playoff teams in the NFL look like each year. Given that there were 16 teams with losing records in 2010, the projection (based on research dating back to 1999) look like this:
A) 4 of the playoff teams will have had losing records in 2010
B) 4 of the playoff teams will have won their division in 2010
C) 3-4 of the playoff teams will have made the wildcard in 2010
D) 0-1 of the playoff teams will have had a .500+ record, but didn’t make the playoffs in 2010
For the last week’s post detailing this, go to here
http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4028130&postcount=1
Dallas is potentially in Group A…or as I like to call them, the ‘Fab Four’ of the NFL. The teams that make the playoffs despite a losing record in the prior season.
And the good news is that Dallas is the prototypical team in Group A. They have a veteran QB who is at least ‘decent.’ In fact, out of all of the teams with losing records in 2010, I think Romo is the best QB of the bunch…although one could make a case for Houston’s Matt Schaub.
That obviously begs the question ‘What teams who have losing records one season, and have a ‘veteran QB who is at least decent’, still miss the playoffs the next season?’
Here’s some more good news…
It typically doesn’t happen that often. And when it does, it’s because the QB wound up getting hurt or they have a veteran whose playing days are about dying down and they are just not even ‘decent’ anymore.
The only team I’ve seen in the past few years that had the ‘veteran QB who was at least decent’ and still missed the playoffs after a losing record the year before was the 2008 Saints. They made the NFC Championship Game in 2006, went 7-9 in 2007, then went 8-8 in 2008…all with a healthy Drew Brees.
So where did the Saints slip up in 2008? Mostly on defense. They were 26th in points allowed.
That being said, I think anybody would take Dallas’ defensive players and Rob Ryan over the 2008 Saints defensive players and Gary Gibbs.
I think what people forget is that you don’t have to great individual players at each position to have a decent defense…or even a good one. That’s why I feel the media reared its ugly head once again.
You mean to tell me that a defense, not even 1 week into training camp, got owned by a really good looking offense in an inter-squad scrimmage?
This is what gets me about these hacks in the media. They act like no other team that has scrimmages ever has their defense or offense struggle. Nope, just the Cowboys according to their eyes.
Yeah, I know they do it because they can get a rise out of Cowboys fans, but just be up front about it instead of trying to pose yourself like you are some credible journalist.
Anyway, the secondary is my main concern for this team right now. But, if the offense plays well enough, it can certainly protect against that weakness. I mean, nothing is easier for the defense when they know the opposing team has to pass just to get back into the game.
And personally I look at it this way…last season we had a terrible Newman due to being banged up and a terrible Jenkins due to slacking off. Scandrick did get a lot better once Garrett was in charge. Would you rather have bad Newman and bad Jenkins over improving Scandrick and motivated Jenkins?
Is it ideal? Of course not. But, THAT is what too many fans don’t understand. Nowhere in the history of the game does it say that every position or group of players HAVE to be ideal in order to win a Super Bowl.
That’s why I’m kinda excited about the move of Kosier to right guard and inserting Arkin at left guard. It’s not ideal, but in the long run it may best serve us. It also sends a message that nobody is safe. I know Holland is banged up, but in the past we probably would’ve just had Arkin replace him until Holland got better. This time it feels like we are fully prepared to insert Arkin into the lineup, even if Holland comes back healthy.
We still have a long way to go before the Jets game, but for now I’m looking to see how we do in these areas.
YR
A) 4 of the playoff teams will have had losing records in 2010
B) 4 of the playoff teams will have won their division in 2010
C) 3-4 of the playoff teams will have made the wildcard in 2010
D) 0-1 of the playoff teams will have had a .500+ record, but didn’t make the playoffs in 2010
For the last week’s post detailing this, go to here
http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4028130&postcount=1
Dallas is potentially in Group A…or as I like to call them, the ‘Fab Four’ of the NFL. The teams that make the playoffs despite a losing record in the prior season.
And the good news is that Dallas is the prototypical team in Group A. They have a veteran QB who is at least ‘decent.’ In fact, out of all of the teams with losing records in 2010, I think Romo is the best QB of the bunch…although one could make a case for Houston’s Matt Schaub.
That obviously begs the question ‘What teams who have losing records one season, and have a ‘veteran QB who is at least decent’, still miss the playoffs the next season?’
Here’s some more good news…
It typically doesn’t happen that often. And when it does, it’s because the QB wound up getting hurt or they have a veteran whose playing days are about dying down and they are just not even ‘decent’ anymore.
The only team I’ve seen in the past few years that had the ‘veteran QB who was at least decent’ and still missed the playoffs after a losing record the year before was the 2008 Saints. They made the NFC Championship Game in 2006, went 7-9 in 2007, then went 8-8 in 2008…all with a healthy Drew Brees.
So where did the Saints slip up in 2008? Mostly on defense. They were 26th in points allowed.
That being said, I think anybody would take Dallas’ defensive players and Rob Ryan over the 2008 Saints defensive players and Gary Gibbs.
I think what people forget is that you don’t have to great individual players at each position to have a decent defense…or even a good one. That’s why I feel the media reared its ugly head once again.
You mean to tell me that a defense, not even 1 week into training camp, got owned by a really good looking offense in an inter-squad scrimmage?
This is what gets me about these hacks in the media. They act like no other team that has scrimmages ever has their defense or offense struggle. Nope, just the Cowboys according to their eyes.
Yeah, I know they do it because they can get a rise out of Cowboys fans, but just be up front about it instead of trying to pose yourself like you are some credible journalist.
Anyway, the secondary is my main concern for this team right now. But, if the offense plays well enough, it can certainly protect against that weakness. I mean, nothing is easier for the defense when they know the opposing team has to pass just to get back into the game.
And personally I look at it this way…last season we had a terrible Newman due to being banged up and a terrible Jenkins due to slacking off. Scandrick did get a lot better once Garrett was in charge. Would you rather have bad Newman and bad Jenkins over improving Scandrick and motivated Jenkins?
Is it ideal? Of course not. But, THAT is what too many fans don’t understand. Nowhere in the history of the game does it say that every position or group of players HAVE to be ideal in order to win a Super Bowl.
That’s why I’m kinda excited about the move of Kosier to right guard and inserting Arkin at left guard. It’s not ideal, but in the long run it may best serve us. It also sends a message that nobody is safe. I know Holland is banged up, but in the past we probably would’ve just had Arkin replace him until Holland got better. This time it feels like we are fully prepared to insert Arkin into the lineup, even if Holland comes back healthy.
We still have a long way to go before the Jets game, but for now I’m looking to see how we do in these areas.
YR
