Quantcast
The NFL Thread 2018: Jerry Jones blames Cowboys' Loss on Shoes

Forums - Sports Discussion - The NFL Thread 2018: Jerry Jones blames Cowboys' Loss on Shoes

Who Will Win Super Bowl LIII?

Saints 5 35.71%
 
Chiefs 2 14.29%
 
Rams 1 7.14%
 
Patriots 3 21.43%
 
Cowboys 2 14.29%
 
Chargers 1 7.14%
 
Eagles 0 0.00%
 
Colts 0 0.00%
 
Total:14
Snoopy said:
MTZehvor said:

Yep. Got your picks.

There are two NFC East teams representing the 4 NFC teams left in the playoff. And you said Cowboys division is weak lol. Also, if the Redskins had their starting QB there was a good chance they would've made it.

...unless my memory is failing me horribly, I'm pretty sure I never said anything like that. I said the Giants were terrible, and that playing your division rivals is not tougher than playing outside of it, regardless of division. You'll have to point me to where I said the NFC East was a weak division.



Around the Network
MTZehvor said:
Snoopy said:

There are two NFC East teams representing the 4 NFC teams left in the playoff. And you said Cowboys division is weak lol. Also, if the Redskins had their starting QB there was a good chance they would've made it.

...unless my memory is failing me horribly, I'm pretty sure I never said anything like that. I said the Giants were terrible, and that playing your division rivals is not tougher than playing outside of it, regardless of division. You'll have to point me to where I said the NFC East was a weak division.

You made the point the Bears division is weak and then try to compare the scenario multiple times to the Cowboys. Not only that but you also showed many times that you are not impressed with Cowboys at all, the division winners. So if you're not impressed by the Cowboys, you must think their division is weak. Also, Giants are not weak, they almost beat the Cowboys and Eagles, 2 of the top 4 teams in the NFC. Proving my point yet again these division teams play hard.

Last edited by Snoopy - on 06 January 2019

Snoopy said:
MTZehvor said:

...unless my memory is failing me horribly, I'm pretty sure I never said anything like that. I said the Giants were terrible, and that playing your division rivals is not tougher than playing outside of it, regardless of division. You'll have to point me to where I said the NFC East was a weak division.

You made the point the Bears division is weak and then try to compare the scenario multiple times to the Cowboys. Not only that but you also showed many times that you are not impressed with Cowboys at all, the division winners. So if you're not impressed by the Cowboys, you must think their division is weak. Also, Giants are not weak, they almost beat the Cowboys and Eagles, 2 of the top 4 teams in the NFC. Proving my point yet again these division teams play hard.

...all of a sudden, I now understand why reading comprehension scores are so bad across the board for the state of Texas.



MTZehvor said:
Snoopy said:

You made the point the Bears division is weak and then try to compare the scenario multiple times to the Cowboys. Not only that but you also showed many times that you are not impressed with Cowboys at all, the division winners. So if you're not impressed by the Cowboys, you must think their division is weak. Also, Giants are not weak, they almost beat the Cowboys and Eagles, 2 of the top 4 teams in the NFC. Proving my point yet again these division teams play hard.

...all of a sudden, I now understand why reading comprehension scores are so bad across the board for the state of Texas.

... all of sudden I know why you make excuses. 



I can't believe I am saying this, but I pray that the Eagles beat the Saints.

Around the Network
Snoopy said:
MTZehvor said:

...all of a sudden, I now understand why reading comprehension scores are so bad across the board for the state of Texas.

... all of sudden I know why you make excuses. 

All right, let's try going over this one more time, very slowly.

I never said the NFC North was weak, and that I'm 100% confident on. I never compared the NFC North to the NFC East. I brought up two independent examples of division winners who did well against their division and did not play as well outside of their division, demonstrating that, no, division winners do not perform worse against their division than they do outside of it. I never once said the two divisions were equivalent, or that they were weak divisions, or that any team outside of the Giants and Dolphins were bad teams

I picked the Bears and Cowboys because they were easy examples, but I can point to others as well. My own Patriots went 5-1 in their division and 6-4 outside of it. The Rams went 6-0 in their division and 6-4 outside of it. None of this says anything about them as a team, or either the Cowboys or Bears. It merely shows that teams do not perform better against their division than teams outside of it.

Once again: I have never said anything negative about the NFC East, North, or any other division, or about any team besides saying the Giants and Dolphins are awful teams. If you somehow think after reading this that I'm still insulting the Cowboys or the NFC East, please find your local English teacher and ask for a refund.



MTZehvor said:
Snoopy said:

... all of sudden I know why you make excuses. 

All right, let's try going over this one more time, very slowly.

I never said the NFC North was weak, and that I'm 100% confident on. I never compared the NFC North to the NFC East. I brought up two independent examples of division winners who did well against their division and did not play as well outside of their division, demonstrating that, no, division winners do not perform worse against their division than they do outside of it. I never once said the two divisions were equivalent, or that they were weak divisions, or that any team outside of the Giants and Dolphins were bad teams

I picked the Bears and Cowboys because they were easy examples, but I can point to others as well. My own Patriots went 5-1 in their division and 6-4 outside of it. The Rams went 6-0 in their division and 6-4 outside of it. None of this says anything about them as a team, or either the Cowboys or Bears. It merely shows that teams do not perform better against their division than teams outside of it.

Once again: I have never said anything negative about the NFC East, North, or any other division, or about any team besides saying the Giants and Dolphins are awful teams. If you somehow think after reading this that I'm still insulting the Cowboys or the NFC East, please find your local English teacher and ask for a refund.

You did say the NFC North was a weak division.

"And it's not as if this is just a case of the NFC North being weak and the Bears having a better record only because everyone in their division sucks; "

Also, you said the Cowboys win wasn't impressive because they barely won against the "weak giants".

"a playoff team should probably be more than one point better than the Giants."

Last edited by Snoopy - on 06 January 2019

Snoopy said:
MTZehvor said:

All right, let's try going over this one more time, very slowly.

I never said the NFC North was weak, and that I'm 100% confident on. I never compared the NFC North to the NFC East. I brought up two independent examples of division winners who did well against their division and did not play as well outside of their division, demonstrating that, no, division winners do not perform worse against their division than they do outside of it. I never once said the two divisions were equivalent, or that they were weak divisions, or that any team outside of the Giants and Dolphins were bad teams

I picked the Bears and Cowboys because they were easy examples, but I can point to others as well. My own Patriots went 5-1 in their division and 6-4 outside of it. The Rams went 6-0 in their division and 6-4 outside of it. None of this says anything about them as a team, or either the Cowboys or Bears. It merely shows that teams do not perform better against their division than teams outside of it.

Once again: I have never said anything negative about the NFC East, North, or any other division, or about any team besides saying the Giants and Dolphins are awful teams. If you somehow think after reading this that I'm still insulting the Cowboys or the NFC East, please find your local English teacher and ask for a refund.

You did say the NFC North was a weak division.

"And it's not as if this is just a case of the NFC North being weak and the Bears having a better record only because everyone in their division sucks; "

Also, you said the Cowboys win wasn't impressive because they barely won against the "weak giants".

"a playoff team should probably be more than one point better than the Giants."

Quoting the first few words of that first sentence:

"And it's not as if"

...in other words, I'm saying that this is not the case. My argument there is deflecting the potential counterargument that the Bears just play in a weak division. Someone might try to counter the point I had made previously by saying that the reason the Bears had a better in division record than out of division record was because they played in a weak division. I'm directly arguing against that point of view by saying that, no, this isn't the case, it's a phenomenon spread league wide.

Also, you said the Cowboys win wasn't impressive because they barely won against the "weak giants".

And I stand by that. There is no scenario where beating the fourth worst team in the league by one point is going to be impressive. That doesn't mean I think the Cowboys are a bad team; there are several wins from the Patriots' season that I also think were thoroughly underwhelming (both games against the Bills, first game against the Jets), and I don't believe New England is a bad team. Same goes for the Chiefs, Saints, Rams, and every other team still alive in the Super Bowl race. Every team has at least one game where they played a bad team and should have won by a lot more than they did given the quality of their opponent. 

None of that means I think those teams are bad. It's just that I wouldn't go bragging about barely beating a bad team, regardless of the circumstances.



Looks like we're on to the Rams. The good thing is, the Rams will basically have no home-field advantage over Dallas, in fact, I suspect there will be more Dallas fans in attendance at the game than Rams.

MTZehvor said:
Snoopy said:

You did say the NFC North was a weak division.

"And it's not as if this is just a case of the NFC North being weak and the Bears having a better record only because everyone in their division sucks; "

Also, you said the Cowboys win wasn't impressive because they barely won against the "weak giants".

"a playoff team should probably be more than one point better than the Giants."

Quoting the first few words of that first sentence:

"And it's not as if"

...in other words, I'm saying that this is not the case. My argument there is deflecting the potential counterargument that the Bears just play in a weak division. Someone might try to counter the point I had made previously by saying that the reason the Bears had a better in division record than out of division record was because they played in a weak division. I'm directly arguing against that point of view by saying that, no, this isn't the case, it's a phenomenon spread league wide.

Also, you said the Cowboys win wasn't impressive because they barely won against the "weak giants".

And I stand by that. There is no scenario where beating the fourth worst team in the league by one point is going to be impressive. That doesn't mean I think the Cowboys are a bad team; there are several wins from the Patriots' season that I also think were thoroughly underwhelming (both games against the Bills, first game against the Jets), and I don't believe New England is a bad team. Same goes for the Chiefs, Saints, Rams, and every other team still alive in the Super Bowl race. Every team has at least one game where they played a bad team and should have won by a lot more than they did given the quality of their opponent. 

None of that means I think those teams are bad. It's just that I wouldn't go bragging about barely beating a bad team, regardless of the circumstances.

You only said "And it's not as if" to point the fact that the Bears wins and loss record is better in their division than outside their division has nothing to do with the NFC North being weak. In the next sentence, you even said this scenario is found throughout the NFL indicating this isn't just occurring in a weak division. 

Saying Cowboys win against "Weak Giants" without Zeke and three pro bowl lineman isn't impressive is an insult on their hard work and never giving up.