Cowboys in 2012

[boohyah]

I could base one of the Cowboys superbowl wins on the fact that the Steelers once had a qb named Neil O'Donnell. care to discuss?

[Cowboyz]

But notice how your attitude changed when it wasn't just me saying that.

 

Notice how you called me 'dumbass' in your first response, while he did not. Why would i have the same attitude toward you both?

[Cowboyz]

It would have been called a circus catch for sure. But I have seen much more spectacular catches. Hell, I saw Brandon Lloyd make TWO circus catches against my team in one game when he was in San Fran. Certainly not with as much importance, but absolutely with as much of that surreal element.

 

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/09000d5d8067d05e/SB-XLII-Can-t-Miss-Play-Eli-miracle

 

Look at it again. You can see it exactly as I described it. Furthermore, Harrison was not more physical than Tyree on that play. Maybe 9 out of 10 times, but not that play. And that ball was under control when Tyree landed. He had both hands on it, and it never came within an inch of the turf. Even after that, when Harrison was desperately digging at the ball, Tyree never let go; so there was no question that he had control and possession.

 

Circus, miracle, fluke. Only to gint fans does this distinction matter.

I doubt it. Everyone who has joined this debate has attempted to compare it with another, less miraculous play. I think it suits your purpose in the debate, but i dont doubt for a second that youve all called it the greatest play of all time to anyone who would listen.

If Lloyd has a better play, post it and poll them head to head.

 

Ive seen the play as much as anyone here.

You should scrap the video for still shots. Clearly the ball is within an inch of the turf.

 

I didnt make an observation about who was more physical on the play, but that harrison is/was a more physical player than Tyree period.

Height, weight, athleticism.

 

Now how does such a tired discussion get so much interest from those who are most tired of it?

[Cowboyz]

I could base one of the Cowboys superbowl wins on the fact that the Steelers once had a qb named Neil O'Donnell. care to discuss?

i could base one of the gints superbowl wins on the fact that the Ravens once had a qb named Trent Dil ...

oh nevermind.

Discuss?

[ksm7]

No offense man, but you have entirely too much time on your hands. And you're comparing what I said in a moment of anger at the end of a disappointing season in a way that was meant to be more of a reflection on Coughlin than the team's performance that game to what I believe after some time to cool down after that let down of a season.

 

I still dislike Coughlin, always will. He got the job done one year and then failed miserably with a better team every year since. In all reality, we could have had a Patriots-like "dynasty" and we didn't. We could have at least got somewhere in the playoffs, but didn't.

 

and no offense to you, but statements like that have absolutely no basis. comparing the giants from 2007 until present to the patriots teams that won three super bowls in those years and continue to be a team that is in the running most years since is disturbing. the dog is hard pressed to believe that you really feel that way. they won a super bowl in 2007 in what you have termed a "fluke run" (even if it in a fit of rage), they followed that with a division win and best record in the NFC only to be bounced unceremoniously in round 1 the next year, since then they have gone 18-14 in two years with no playoff appearances...and that is comparable to the patriots dynasty years????

[boohyah]

i could base one of the gints superbowl wins on the fact that the Ravens once had a qb named Trent Dil ...

oh nevermind.

Discuss?

 

 

How does that comment counter my statement?. The Giants lost that superbowl not down to Trent Dilfer or do you watch these games at all? And we're discussing teams who win superbowls, not lose them.

 

Cheap way to avoid my question.

[boohyah]

and no offense to you, but statements like that have absolutely no basis. comparing the giants from 2007 until present to the patriots teams that won three super bowls in those years and continue to be a team that is in the running most years since is disturbing. the dog is hard pressed to believe that you really feel that way. they won a super bowl in 2007 in what you have termed a "fluke run" (even if it in a fit of rage), they followed that with a division win and best record in the NFC only to be bounced unceremoniously in round 1 the next year, since then they have gone 18-14 in two years with no playoff appearances...and that is comparable to the patriots dynasty years????

 

 

Didn't you read the part where he said they "could have", or are you just like the other champ here who answers what they feel like answering?

[Storm]

Notice how you called me 'dumbass' in your first response, while he did not. Why would i have the same attitude toward you both?

 

Because you aren't a thin skin poster prone to letting emotionality affect your responses.

[Storm]

and no offense to you, but statements like that have absolutely no basis. comparing the giants from 2007 until present to the patriots teams that won three super bowls in those years and continue to be a team that is in the running most years since is disturbing. the dog is hard pressed to believe that you really feel that way. they won a super bowl in 2007 in what you have termed a "fluke run" (even if it in a fit of rage), they followed that with a division win and best record in the NFC only to be bounced unceremoniously in round 1 the next year, since then they have gone 18-14 in two years with no playoff appearances...and that is comparable to the patriots dynasty years????

 

Talent wise, those Giants teams had better players all around during those years (this is my opinion, you can disagree if you'd like, that's fine). It's no secret that the Patriots have won with good coaching, a good quarterback, and many above average players. There's one superstar on that team, Tom Brady. They don't have Tucks and Strahans.....and only had a guy like Moss on their team for what, 1 Super Bowl (I don't know)? The coaching and QB leadership and skill wasn't there for the Giants. That's the point.

 

And we have continuously been a team that's competed at a high level without having a real losing season every year since. I'm simply saying we should have been better. Especially in 2008 (I don't blame Burress) and last season. If you read, I said it COULD HAVE been similar to the Patriots dynasty, but if you want to turn it in to me saying the Giants from 07-10 had a run that is directly comparable to the Patriot's-like dynasty, be my guest. We all know how you like to twist around what others say to fit your argument.

[Storm]

Didn't you read the part where he said they "could have", or are you just like the other champ here who answers what they feel like answering?

 

Thanks, boo,

[fishgutmartyr]

Circus, miracle, fluke. Only to gint fans does this distinction matter.

I doubt it. Everyone who has joined this debate has attempted to compare it with another, less miraculous play. I think it suits your purpose in the debate, but i dont doubt for a second that youve all called it the greatest play of all time to anyone who would listen.

If Lloyd has a better play, post it and poll them head to head.

 

Ive seen the play as much as anyone here.

You should scrap the video for still shots. Clearly the ball is within an inch of the turf.

 

I didnt make an observation about who was more physical on the play, but that harrison is/was a more physical player than Tyree period.

Height, weight, athleticism.

 

Now how does such a tired discussion get so much interest from those who are most tired of it?

Two circus catches in a single game isn't flukish? One catch by leaping as high as he could, arching backwards, and catching the ball one-handed while the arm is fully extended and a defender has him completely covered?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9OT4VeXiCA

 

Keep in mind Lloyd had a second catch, equally as amazing in that game.

 

The bottom line was the ball never touched the ground. It was in control. With both Tyree's hands on it.

 

I don't really care if Harrison would break 2x4's to get himself a toothpick on other days. For that play, he was not the more physical player--if he were, it would have fallen incomplete. You're bouncing between a career and a moment in time.

 

It may be tired, but this is about as close to a football discussion as I'm likely to have this year.

[JMFP]

You should scrap the video for still shots. Clearly the ball is within an inch of the turf.

 

An inch, a foot....doesn't matter. It was a completion, indisputably.

 

That play was due to one thing only - the Giants wanted it more than the Patriots. If not, Eli would have been sacked, and Tyree wouldn't have come down with the ball.

 

If effort = fluke, then yes, it was an absolute fluke.

[Cowboyz]

How does that comment counter my statement?. The Giants lost that superbowl not down to Trent Dilfer or do you watch these games at all? And we're discussing teams who win superbowls, not lose them.

 

Cheap way to avoid my question.

 

Trent Dilfer scored. Your offense did not. At least give the man his due.

 

We're discussing teams that win superbowls, in my 'cowboys in 2012' thread. i like that.

 

You're saying it was a gimme win cause we face o'donnell, and i say facing a mediocre (or subpar as in dilfer's case) qb isn't a guranteed victory.

 

Before O'donnell threw those picks in the superbowl, he was leading the league in int%.

 

was there a real question in there or just a request to discuss?

[Cowboyz]

Because you aren't a thin skin poster prone to letting emotionality affect your responses.

 

 

emotion and attitude are not the same thing

 

it's a shame i have to be part of such a lame discussion.

 

you have no football left in you? you jealous you didn't get a 'good post' from me?

 

hahah

[Cowboyz]

Two circus catches in a single game isn't flukish? One catch by leaping as high as he could, arching backwards, and catching the ball one-handed while the arm is fully extended and a defender has him completely covered?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9OT4VeXiCA

 

Keep in mind Lloyd had a second catch, equally as amazing in that game.

 

The bottom line was the ball never touched the ground. It was in control. With both Tyree's hands on it.

 

I don't really care if Harrison would break 2x4's to get himself a toothpick on other days. For that play, he was not the more physical player--if he were, it would have fallen incomplete. You're bouncing between a career and a moment in time.

 

It may be tired, but this is about as close to a football discussion as I'm likely to have this year.

 

help me out here. how does Lloyd having 2 fluke catches in a game, prove tyree's catch was no fluke?

it does not.

 

i'm not buying for one second that that catch is more miraculous than tyree's, nor that you believe it to be.

i've seen one handed grabs in high school, college, and pro games. i've yet to see another like tyree's.

so far it's been compared to smith's 3rd down catch, boss' 30 yarder, antonio brown's helmet grab, and now Lloyd's one hander. come on. reaching

 

the fact harrison is more physical, had good position, and was pulling tyree's arms lends to the legend of the play.

 

there's really nothing tired about it is there. if there were no element of truth in my words, there wouldn't be 10+ pages of debate on the subject. i could come in here and state the sun is red, and there would likely be little to no response.

but the truth is the little itch you have to scratch

[Cowboyz]

An inch, a foot....doesn't matter. It was a completion, indisputably.

 

That play was due to one thing only - the Giants wanted it more than the Patriots. If not, Eli would have been sacked, and Tyree wouldn't have come down with the ball.

 

If effort = fluke, then yes, it was an absolute fluke.

 

it can be a fluke and an indiputable completion. correct?

[Storm]

emotion and attitude are not the same thing

 

it's a shame i have to be part of such a lame discussion.

 

you have no football left in you? you jealous you didn't get a 'good post' from me?

 

hahah

 

No one has gotten a coherent post from you, let alone a "good" post. I was just noting your selective attention, which I should be used to. The Dog has it, too, it must be all you Cowboys fans.

[Cowboyz]

No one has gotten a coherent post from you, let alone a "good" post. I was just noting your selective attention, which I should be used to. The Dog has it, too, it must be all you Cowboys fans.

 

 

:yawn

[boohyah]

Trent Dilfer scored. Your offense did not. At least give the man his due.

 

 

 

 

We're discussing teams that win superbowls, in my 'cowboys in 2012' thread. i like that.

 

You're saying it was a gimme win cause we face o'donnell, and i say facing a mediocre (or subpar as in dilfer's case) qb isn't a guranteed victory.

 

Before O'donnell threw those picks in the superbowl, he was leading the league in int%.

 

was there a real question in there or just a request to discuss?

 

Must.....avoid....the ... point.....at all costs.

 

 

Even the ravens knew what they had in Dilfer, and cut him the next season.

 

facing O'Donnell subpar or not, the point is that perhaps a better QB wouldn't have telegraphed passes to a mediocre corner. I mean the guy owes his huge free agent contract with the raiders to Neil O'Donnell for Christ's sake.

 

Let's discuss that so, you don't think there was a certain flukiness to you winning that superbowl?

[Cowboyz]

Must.....avoid....the ... point.....at all costs.

 

 

Even the ravens knew what they had in Dilfer, and cut him the next season.

 

facing O'Donnell subpar or not, the point is that perhaps a better QB wouldn't have telegraphed passes to a mediocre corner. I mean the guy owes his huge free agent contract with the raiders to Neil O'Donnell for Christ's sake.

 

Let's discuss that so, you don't think there was a certain flukiness to you winning that superbowl?

 

haha right, what point are you making?

that o'donnell was the 12th highest rated qb that year and had the lowest int % prior to the superbowl?

or that the cowboys had the 3rd ranked defense and held opposing qb's to a 72 rating avg that year?

or that o'donnell had to throw at brown because there was an all-pro on the other side of the field?

 

what exactly is your point?

[ksm7]

Talent wise, those Giants teams had better players all around during those years (this is my opinion, you can disagree if you'd like, that's fine). It's no secret that the Patriots have won with good coaching, a good quarterback, and many above average players. There's one superstar on that team, Tom Brady. They don't have Tucks and Strahans.....and only had a guy like Moss on their team for what, 1 Super Bowl (I don't know)? The coaching and QB leadership and skill wasn't there for the Giants. That's the point.

 

And we have continuously been a team that's competed at a high level without having a real losing season every year since. I'm simply saying we should have been better. Especially in 2008 (I don't blame Burress) and last season. If you read, I said it COULD HAVE been similar to the Patriots dynasty, but if you want to turn it in to me saying the Giants from 07-10 had a run that is directly comparable to the Patriot's-like dynasty, be my guest. We all know how you like to twist around what others say to fit your argument.

 

the dog does think the level of the talent you are looking at is debatable. strahan left after the 2007 season. uminyora is as inconsistent as it gets, and seems to always be fighting some injury. the secondary has always been average (and the dog would argue wasn't exploited during the SB run b/c of the defensive scheming and execution that hid it - again, as the dog has pointed out before, romo, favre and brady all eluded to having players open down the field, but had no time to get them the ball). the linebackers have been a position area that has been argued to be a weak link here by everyone throughout all those years. offensively, toomer played one more year and had declining skills. burress did what he did. they have brought in a good core of young receivers, but that is a position that takes several years to pull it all together. the o-line has been very strong, but is aging and showed signs of that the last two seasons. you know how the dog feels about brandon jacobs being as overrated as it comes as a back, and bradshaw is a talent but not necessarily one that can be an every down back. manning is not a QB that can elevate a team to greatness by himself. so where is all the talent that makes them that much better than the patriots dynasty? the dog doesn't see it. so when you say "in all reality, we could have been a patriots-like dynasty and we didn't" - the dog struggles to see this...

[Cowboyz]

Must.....avoid....the ... point.....at all costs.

 

what happened? you don't want to discuss this anymore boo?

[JMFP]

it can be a fluke and an indiputable completion. correct?

 

The Immaculate Reception, the Memphis Miracle....those were more "flukey" than Manning-Tyree.

 

I remember when Phil McConkey caught a TD that was originally a dropped pass by Bavaro....some could call that a fluke.

 

But, Manning breaking out of a collapsing pocket, throwing a pass downfield to Tyree, who makes an incredible, leaping grab.....I'd call that much more a product of effort than luck.

 

"Resilient" is a much better description of the play than "fluke".

 

As your guy Troy Aikman said, "That's a great catch by David Tyree".....

 

Let's go to the tape for confirmation....(0:50).

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27XeNefwABw&feature=related

[Cowboyz]

The Immaculate Reception, the Memphis Miracle....those were more "flukey" than Manning-Tyree.

 

I remember when Phil McConkey caught a TD that was originally a dropped pass by Bavaro....some could call that a fluke.

 

But, Manning breaking out of a collapsing pocket, throwing a pass downfield to Tyree, who makes an incredible, leaping grab.....I'd call that much more a product of effort than luck.

 

"Resilient" is a much better description of the play than "fluke".

 

As your guy Troy Aikman said, "That's a great catch by David Tyree".....

 

Let's go to the tape for confirmation....(0:50).

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=27XeNefwABw&feature=related

 

all of which is a matter of opinion. exactly what we've been going back and forth with for 10 pages now. Anyone of those can be a fluke. Calling one such, doesn't exclude the rest from it as well.

 

what would you expect the commentator to say? is he supposed to be biased cause he's a HoF cowboy?

it was a great catch, and just like the others you mentioned, it can be a great catch and a fluke.

[Virginia Giant]

1 Fluke Super Bowl victory > an antire generation of cowboys fans who only have their fathers stories about America's Team.

 

 

Fluke Play, Fluke win, fluke season, call it the fluke super bowl for all I care. Rename Eli and Tyree , Fluke Manning and David Fluke and it's still better than the alternative.