Cowboyz

No dude, you are right, a defense that leads the NFL in takeaways, top 5 in sacks (two off of the the NFL leader), 7th in Yards.... yeah man, our defense sucks.

 

You know our defense really sucked when we held the NFL's leading rusher to 25 yards on 11 carries.

 

It sucked when we were knocking out QB's left and right and sacked Cutler 9 times in one half. Yeah man, you win.

remember the turnovers was your excuse for losing. i showed you, it's not the reason you lost in those games.

the notion that those takeaways, most of which were fumbles, makes you a good defense is easily dismissed.

instead of citing yards, sacks, and other meaningless numbers, where did you stand on scoring?

middle of the road.

even a dog's ass gets a little sunshine jim. especially vs the mediocre.

I think not, you have your facts wrong. You are showing a NET.... basically proving my argument for me considering how many points were scored by the other team off of OUR team's turnovers. Let me help you out (again)... our defense led the NFL in Takeaways with 39... we still ended up with a -3 t/o differential for the season, despite a record number of turnovers by our offense. Basically saying, yeah, our defense got the ball back a lot for us supports the argument that the defense is what kept us in games. We wouldn't have won 6 games this year if we had the league average in Takeaways.

jimmy, if philly scores 9 points off of turnovers, and the giants score 7 off of turnovers. that's a net gain of 2 points off of turnovers for philly. they won by 10. do the math.

fewell has always been good at creating turnovers vs lousy/mediocre qbs. that's what the tampa 2 does.

look at the qb's you faced. it's certainly a unique list, and i doubt anyone in the league faced an easier group of qb's.

This is what I mean BIGBLUE, he has no argument. His argument is actually supporting mine... that the defense was the only thing that kept us in a lot of the games we lost, and we won in spite of the offense a lot of times, too.

 

He's like, well, you guys scored 14 points yourself off of what... oh yeah, YOUR DEFENSE. The game winning play, a special teams screw up that was only allowed to happen because the Giants couldn't get a first down was... was....IRRELEVANT??? LMAO.

haha. youre running in circles jimmy.

so your defense held after some turnovers, that doesn't dispute my point at all. it still fell on your defense to stop offensive drives.

now it was all specials right? granted they did suck balls, but come on.

He was a starter all of one yr. Thats the yr he had his fumble problem.

 

The real question is, one would wonder why the crapboys havent figured out Marion Barber is not good. lol

he's always had an issue, relative to the number of carries.

Don't need one, it's already been shown to be a fallacious argument. Nothing more to be said.

what is fallacious about turnovers not being the cause of your losses in those games you mentioned?

you never commented on those numbers, and all you've got is 'I win".

those numbers show the turnovers only netted 2, -4, and 3 pts in those games for your opponents.

i think your emotions are gettin the best of you jimmy

You win the concise title. You lose the football argument.

if you say so jimmy, i'm still waiting for a retort to my last comments.

well a retort that pertains to the comment anyway

my points are concise and easy to understand

Really? It's been proven over and over? By who? There's far, FAR more evidence you need a top QB. I didn't say McMahon was a championship caliber QB, either... I said he played very well in the Super Bowl. Please try and refute how 8 of the last 10 Super Bowl winners somehow had franchise QB's? Brees, Brady, Peyton, Rodgers, yes Eli...

 

Here, I'll help you out. Here's the last 20 Super Bowl winning QB's:

 

Aaron Rodgers

Drew Brees

Ben Roethlisberger

Eli Manning

Peyton Manning

Ben Roethlisberger

Tom Brady

Tom Brady

Brad Johnson

Tom Brady

Trent Dilfer

Kurt Warner

John Elway

John Elway

Brett Favre

Troy Aikman

Steve Young

Troy Aikman

Troy Aikman

Mark Rypien

 

Lots of big names there. One would even say there's a trend. There's SEVEN HOF QB's (or likely to be in the Hall) on that list, accounting for 13 of those 20 championships, and that's not counting Kurt Warner or Ben Roethlisberger, who I believe are borderline candidates, otherwise that number would swell to 16... not counting Eli in there, either, or Aaron Rodgers (who I believe will be in the Hall one day) you have no argument. We're talking about Super Bowls, here.

so is the argument 'championship caliber' qb or is it franchise qb? you started out saying champ caliber.

alex smith was a franchise qb at one time, so was ryan leaf.

my argument is not that the qb position is unimportant, it's that it's not a necessity to have a championship caliber qb to go far in this league. youre trying to exaggerate my point.

take your list and figure who on that list had a 'good defense' vs a bad one. i think you'll see another trend.

I have a very good feeling Bradshaw will not suffer from fumbilitis.. my guess is he'll change the way he carries the ball the same way Tiki did.. and quite frankly it's not easy to hold on to the ball when you have pads between your body and the ball.. you lose the "feel" for the ball...

all coughlin did for tiki was change how he held the ball.

one would think that would be a focus for every rb that comes to the team.

and here you are again, wondering if bradshaw has a fumble problem.

I'm thinking, if it could've been fixed, it would've been by now.

I dont see how you have any time to be on a cowboys website.....lol

i said i'm a member, i didn't say i've been there a lot lately.

listening to the same opinions over the off-offseason was getting tired.

besides, i'm only on here about an hour a day total, unless of course i have to read one of jim's novellas.

Directtv is offering Sunday ticket for free this year

fuck. figures. just got rid of it.

Little meat? I've already seen that you have poor reading comprehension skills. The only weak defense here is the weak defense of your argument. But hey, at least you unwittingly acknowledged that our defense was keeping us in the game despite the offensive issues. So smart guy, how did the Giants win 10 games with a special teams unit that was pretty much the worst in the NFL and an offense that gave the ball away more than any other team in the NFL? Hmmm, smart guy? You know who was after the Giants in that stat? The 2-14 Carolina Panthers and the 6-10 Vikings were next. So we won 10 games with the worst special teams in the NFL and an offense that gave the ball away more times than any other team based on what?

 

BTW, I write however long posts I want to. You can read them or choose not to. I thoroughly bitch-slapped your argument, so now that I've done that you can really show your ignorance by arguing in the face of a comprehensive, factually based argument. If this was a judged debate, they would've already thrown in your towel.

 

Do you want me to teach you about opportunity costs of turnovers? Do we really need to go there?

that's an easy one. you played very shitty competition. go back and see my post on the combined record of teams beaten by the gints.b

it was not the turnovers, as i've just proven, it was the lack of defense.

the only thing bitchslapped is that selective memory of yours.

long-winded, superfluous, and muggy. that's your 'debate'.

Kitna is 38 years old and is a statue in the pocket. Sure, he could start for a number of teams in the NFL, but that's because there is a dearth of good QB's in the NFL, not because Kitna is a great QB. Kitna falls into the David Garrard territory. Good enough to be good enough... but will never take a team to a championship.

 

And your point about QB's is just stupid. Anyone who knows jack about football will tell you that QB is the most important position on the team. Is a great QB absolutely necessary to win a championship? No, but it's much harder to do it without a really good one. The defenses on the Ravens, Bucs, and Bears teams were all time great defenses. But if you look at Super Bowl history you're going to find that most Super Bowl champions have a great QB leading the team... 8 of the last 10 Super Bowl winners had a franchise QB in that game where without that QB playing the way they did, that team doesn't win the Super Bowl. You could go back even farther to the previous 10, and I could say with certainty that all 10 of those teams had a franchise QB that played great football to win the big one.

 

Seriously, with Brees, Brady, Peyton, Montana, Young, Elway, hell, even Aikman. Even the '85 Bears... say what you want about McMahon, but he played terrific in that Super Bowl. They blew out the Patriots, but McMahon was a big part of that.

i believe i just said basically the same thing about kitna. he could start half the teams, and he's no chump. no one said he's great.

my point about the qb's stands. it's been proven over and over that a good defense, coaching, and ball protection will take you just as far as an elite qb. yes everyone goes on and on about how important the qb position is, but any fan worth his salt knows that qb's get too much credit for the wins, and too much blame for the losses.

So you're saying McMahon was a 'championship caliber' qb? how did he do without that stout defense?

You're post is nonsensical... I put two smileys to address your ridiculous notion that 12 years isn't a long time to coach in the NFL. 12 years is a long time to do anything. It's 12 YEARS. Are there guys that have spent a lot longer than that in the NFL, guys like Tom Coughlin or Mike Holmgren? Sure... but only a complete doofus would suggest that a guy with 12 years experience coaching in the NFL is inexperienced.

 

Anyhow, to then go on to say after that when the rest of my entire post, other than the smileys, was pointing out that in the majority of the losses, the defense played good enough to win, but were undone by special teams miscues and offensive turnovers. No team can survive the enormous number of turnovers we had on offense this year. It's always about the turnovers. But it's comical how you would say I focused on the 12 year thing when I spent the entire post talking about Fewell's performance and the defense in general... oh, except the two smileys. Maybe you have poor reading comprehension skills, I suppose.

 

Anyhow, I said the Giants played poor defense in the Colts and Packers games.

 

For example, in the Titans game, all but 7 points for the Titans were scored off of turnovers or special teams blunders. They scored 29 points. The Giants turned the ball over 3 times that game. Special teams gave the Titans field position at around the 50 yard line all game long.

 

In the second Philly game, the Eagles scored 24 points off of turnovers and special teams miscues. 24 of their 38 points. And if the offense gets ONE first down with a minute to go in that game, we win. One first down. But they went incomplete, incomplete, and sack... 3 and out. Then Dodge kicks a line drive punt right to DeSean Jackson. Yep, that was all the defense's fault there. Or perhaps it was the defense's fault for Eli throwing a pick at the Giants' 25 yard line in the 2nd Quarter...

 

The first Philly game? FIVE turnovers, and they win by 10. Twice in the second quarter of that game the offense turned the ball over deep in their own territory, resulting in Philly possessions that started at the 13 yard line and 23 yard line respectively. Both times Philly was held to a field goal. Another turnover in the first half resulted in a Philly possession that started at midfield, resulting in a FG attempt that was blocked. The game was put away by the Eagles in the 4th quarter by another fumble in Giants territory late, when Eli fell to the ground and fumbled without anyone hitting him. The Eagles hit the game securing FG moments later.

 

The Dallas game we lost, I didn't think our defense played all that well in that game. We gave up a lot of big plays to Dez Bryant and Felix Jones. But the difference in that game was a Eli Manning INT when we were on the doorstep of a touchdown. McCann took it the other direction for 101 yards for a TD. That was a 14 point swing... we lose that game by 13. We lost 4 games this year because of turnovers and special teams play.

 

So don't tell me about our defensive problems. We have a pretty good damn defense. We're not the 2000 Ravens, but we're pretty close to being near the top in the NFL right now. The defense was the only reason we won 10 games last year. This offense could not protect the football. When you have 42 turnovers in a season, AND your special teams are the worst in the NFL by far, yet you still win 10 games? That is probably because you have a good defense.

 

You haven't been here long so let me clue you in. There are few posters here that will be as critical as I am to the coaching staff or players that aren't performing. We all know our football here on this board. And I'll bet you can come in here and outline the Cowboy's strengths and weaknesses a lot better than I can. But you sure as hell don't know shit about the Giants compared to me or most of us here. We are critical enough about our team... nobody here pulls punches about who's screwing up, or who needs to go.

 

Enjoy the offseason, where you guys win a championship every year from the media.

and your post sir, is long winded with very little meat.

Philly game one: The eagles scored 9 points off turnovers. The gints scored 7. 2pt differential.

That's your excuse? really?

Philly game two: egals score 10 off TO's, gints 14. the punt return should've been irrellevant, if you played good defense.

Tennessee scored 3 pts off turnovers. Your defense gave up two td drives and two fg drives (20 of 29 pts). if you want to let your defense off the hook, cause a one dimensional team got good field position, be my guest.

and it looks like we're in agreement about the rest of the losses.

like i said, weak defense.

funny how a moustache can make anyone look like a pornstar

i agree boo, peyton on saturday nite live is one of the alltime best.

You'll resign Bradshaw, Smith, and Boss.

Boss won't command much money. Blocking te's are a dime a dozen, and a te who avg's about 30 catches a year isn't going to score big in fa.

Bradshaw can be explosive so he's hard to let go, his fumble problem may keep his price down enough to budget.

Honestly dude, I used this statistic in debates with my real life friends about how Coughlin doesn't get the team ready for the big games well enough. Coughlin is a good coach but he doesn't match up well with better, more aggressive coaching styles, like the Andy Reids and the Mike Mccarthys.

to me, tisch/mara are making a mistake here. just like jerry did when he didn't can wade's fat ass after '09.

and then for coughlin to keep his staff intact?

I agree its indicative of where we're at, but thats not what he's saying. He's saying we didnt beat any good teams. And they have a better record of doing so. The Bears were a playoff team, and pretty good down the stretch. We whooped him. So his accusations aren't correct. And what I meant by my last remark was, out of the 2, its better to beat losing teams, than to be beat by losing teams. The cowboys got beat by a few scrubs last yr.

youre a lil mixed up.

the dog, in much better words than mine, explained exactly what i meant. thanks dog.

you understood part of it, but evidently not all.

we got beat by a lot of scrubs last year. during a complete implosion mind you.

meanwhile, the gints were beaten by every winning team they faced, save the bears in learning mode.

How do you know this if he's signed on anonymously?

i was looking at his profile and noticed under 'last activity' it said 'private', while mine gave the last date i was logged in. so i logged in anon and checked mine again. 'private'.

I can assure you, making an account inactive takes much less time.

what are we talking here 2 weeks?

For some reason I cant see youtube vids at work. But Im quite sure this is a Seinfeld clip.......

 

Nice, blunatic would appreciate this.

i was wrong. he didn't leave. he's just been lurking anonymously

No, you may have misunderstood me, we ALL wanted an MLB early. We just didnt think one of value would fall to us at 19.

so all of you thought a mlb was important before the draft, not so much when i point out the need for one.

gotcha

The Bears beat you, we destroyed the Bears......(at least thier QB's)....lol

 

They were a playoff team, or does that not count in your book?

yep you played them when they were still struggling to learn martz's offense, and they got us during an implosion

who else you got?

oh yeah that's it.

Yes we were. So that means all we have to talk about is who did better up until the playoffs. I think that speaks for itself.

or who did better vs heavier competition that we both faced.

Either way, its still something that takes some gelling. And theres not ONE person here who doesnt think we need an MLB thats good. So that could be a big reason too. But what we give kudos too is winning when we should. A win is a win. We take the losses as something to learn from. At least we weren't dealing with a 10 loss season.

so if i go back and look at pre-draft threads here, there's gonna be no talk about drafting a linebacker early?

i doubt it