- Thread starter
- #101
I think calling a Washington team that pretty handily beat by Dallas not that long ago "better than dallas" is pretty dumb, personally. It isn't like we need to compare stats, just compare head to head results this year.So you're saying the Eagles are below avg. Skins are not the best offensively or the best defensively but they're above avg on both offense and defense to make them a more complete team. Like I said before Dal is all offense, Vikes are all defense, Falcons are all offense, Seachickens are the closest to being a complete team. Redskins will most likely be 6-2 before they face the Vikes at home. Calling them average at best is the dumbest post of the year.
Absolutely, but the team to beat looks like the Cowboys.....
Cowboys Patriots Superbowl?
Now that would be an explosion of arrogance.....
My point is recent past is more relevant than ancient history. The 5>1 argument is true but Aikman, Smith and Dion would have grey beards if not for the hair dye.
Nothing new, I've become accustomed to that way of thinking.Translation: "I'm going to make arbitrary calls about what history is allowed and what isn't in order to support my trollish comment that fell flat on its face".
So you're saying the Eagles are below avg. Skins are not the best offensively or the best defensively but they're above avg on both offense and defense to make them a more complete team. Like I said before Dal is all offense, Vikes are all defense, Falcons are all offense, Seachickens are the closest to being a complete team. Redskins will most likely be 6-2 before they face the Vikes at home. Calling them average at best is the dumbest post of the year.
LOL...it remains what it is after all these years of Dallas being average to bad.Translation: "I'm going to make arbitrary calls about what history is allowed and what isn't in order to support my trollish comment that fell flat on its face".
everywhere but Dallas I guess.The Cowboys going into the season were supposed to be SB contenders
everywhere but Dallas I guess.
How a team goes 4-12 with no defense and a hurt ageing QB was considered SB contenders is beyond me. I know Sunday morning of the first game this season, not one Dallas media head had Dallas playing in the NFC championship, most had them at 8-8. Where do you guys get this stuff?
really....all the media outlets in the U. S. you say. Dallas is in the U.S. and they didn't have Dallas anywhere near the SBall the media outlets in the U.S. were drinking the Cowboys Kool Aid
no problem....your philly fan card won't be revokedIt wasn't my reporting. I personally did not think they were contenders but it seems all the media outlets in the U.S. were drinking the Cowboys Kool Aid. I personally don't think they would win the SB with Romo as QB.
really....all the media outlets in the U. S. you say. Dallas is in the U.S. and they didn't have Dallas anywhere near the SB
must be an NFC east thing or you're dean's cousin or something
fail
I'm pretty sure the talk was with Romo Dallas should win the East, as for the SB I think most had Arizona, Green Bay, Seattle and Carolina as SB contenders. When Romo went down all Dallas playoff talk was taken off the table.It wasn't my reporting. I personally did not think they were contenders but it seems all the media outlets in the U.S. were drinking the Cowboys Kool Aid. I personally don't think they would win the SB with Romo as QB.
I'm pretty sure the talk was with Romo Dallas should win the East, as for the SB I think most had Arizona, Green Bay, Seattle and Carolina as SB contenders. When Romo went down all Dallas playoff talk was taken off the table.