Should We Fear the Cowgirls?

[BigSKINBauer]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Lets not forget when Dallas's D was #1 their opponents had a winning percentage of something like .4 or maybe high .3's. They had an extremely easy schedule that year.

good point

2 of them were us though

[monk81]

Originally Posted by Daseal

Lets not forget when Dallas's D was #1 their opponents had a winning percentage of something like .4 or maybe high .3's. They had an extremely easy schedule that year.

Excellent point Daseal that schedule made their 10-6 record nothing more than an illusion..........in the playoffs you could tell they didnt belong there..........

[e16bball]

I think the Cowboys are being overrated based on these offseason acquisitions.

As has been previously mentioned, the majority of their additions have age and injury issues. Bledsoe, Glenn, Rivera, and Ferguson are all perfect examples of this; Parcells is playing for the "now" as opposed to building for the future, which is fine by me. Now, the fact that he is mortgaging the future doesn't mean they won't be good this year, and I understand that. The fact that these players are well past their prime does, on the other hand. Bledsoe no longer has any passion to play football, and his renowned arm strength has waned a bit. He has never been a good decision-maker, and has the Ramsey-like tendency to take sacks, now more than ever as at this point he very well may be less mobile than Vinny was last year. He doesn't have the necessary deep threats to take advantage of his preferred style of passing, which is to air the ball out. He may very well struggle in their run-oriented offense as well, just as he has in Buffalo. Rivera, as has been mentioned several times, has the back issue, and, while it doesn't seem to be too serious, that can lead to tentative play. He hasn't been a dominator in the running game of late anyway. He will be solid, just not a game-changer there at RG. Aaron Glenn, well, he is spent. That's about all there is to say about the guy, except that he was definitely a good player in his prime. Last year, though, he was one of the biggest offenders in the porous Texans defense. He will be a nickel player, and not a factor. Ferguson is tough, but I'm not sure how I like him at NT in the 3-4. I like him as a run-stuffing NT in the 4-3, where he's not necessarily the lynchpin of the defense, but I just don't see him having the workman-like attitude or the conditioning necessary to take on multiple blocks each play. He will be fine, too, but again just a role player, not a game-changer. Anthony Henry is about the same. He's a decent CB, but I remember a statistic that he was the 2nd most burned corner in the league last year. His speed isn't impressive, and I have heard rumblings that they may move him to FS. I'm really not worried about him, although he's definitely an upgrade over Lance Frazier and the other poor kids they put over there last year.

My other comment focuses on the rumored shift to the 3-4, or the installation, at least, of a sort of hybrid. Their defensive personnel is all over the board, and I'm really not sure what their plan is. It almost seems like they could go with two separate units, one being the 4-3 group and and the other being the 3-4 group. Players like La'roi Glover, Greg Ellis, Dat Nguyen, Kevin Burnett, Leonardo Carson, and Bradie James, to an extent, are all well-suited for the 4-3. Most of them are holdovers from earlier years, and are really just undersized for their respective positions in the 3-4. On the other hand, some of their new acquisitions like Marcus Spears, Demarcus Ware, and Chris Canty are really tailored toward the 3-4 specifically. Spears and Canty lack the explosion to be pass-rushers at DE in the 4-3, and Ware is not big enough to effectively play every down in the 4-3 at DE, but doesn't have the coverage skills, either. It just seems like a strange group of players, and, while they are all good players, I don't see how they fit together. But, I'm not the future Hall of Fame coach, so far be it from me to tell Bill Parcells he doesn't know how to assemble a team. I just don't see it at the moment.

[e16bball]

Oh and there just one more thing, to quote good old Columbo. The beauty of the current Redskins-Cowboys debate is the dichotomy between the goals of our respective coaches, something I sincerely believe stems from loyalty.

Parcells has no major personal connection with the Cowboys, as he has been equally associated with the Giants, Patriots, and Jets. In fact, he spent the early portion of his coaching career hating Dallas. He is there simply because it is a high-profile that piqued his interest in rebuilding sorry franchises. In other words, his motives are purely selfish, and his goals for the Cowboys are all centered on the next year or two, because that will be the extent of his tenure there. My point is, he has no real desire to see them succeed after he leaves. Sure, he'd like if they did well (I think, although perhaps he might like to see them fail without him at the helm) but he doesn't bleed silver and blue. This is exceedingly clear in some of his moves, like continually bringing in old veteran QBs and stunting the growth of Henson, or any of the other numerous signings they have made of players who will really only contribute for 2 or 3 years max. This is just wonderful for Redskins fans, because we have seen the consequences of mortgaging the future on the more instant gratification of veterans. They did have a very impressive draft, but even that consisted mostly of players with the ability to contribute early but with limited upside. The exception there is of course Demarcus Ware, who could be an awesome player.

Gibbs, on the other hand, lives and dies with the Redskins. He has been the face of the organization for over 20 years; even when he wasn't at the helm, he was regarded as probably the greatest legend in Washington football history, with perhaps the exception of Sammy Baugh. Gibbs's desire for the Redskins to become the greatest team in the NFL as soon as possible is probably matched by Parcells's, but the difference is that Gibbs is building the team to maintain its position at the top of the heap. We are actively developing young talent, breeding impressive depth, and attempting to control our cap and free agency. It's a great feeling to know we are building for 2005 and beyond, as opposed to dealing only with the here and now.

[MTK]

Speaking of the Tuna he's building a house in my area, up in Saratoga on Lake Lonely. Over 8000 square feet.

[NYCSkin]

The Cowgirls own us. Couple that with the fact that Parcells owns Gibbs. I honestly think that we have a better shot beating the Iggles (once) next year than the Boys (at all). It's a psychological thing. Been that way for 15 years now. And counting...

[FRPLG]

What the heck has Bledsoe ever done? He is a slightly more polished version of Jeff George without so much of the mental bagage. In the end he is a supreemly talented guy who never got the job done. I have heard often his intelligence is relatviely low for a QB and that is why he has had problems(in addition to the fact that he is slow and couldn't avoid a sack if mother teresa was blitzing). The only thing I worry about with the Cowturds is ole Parcells. He is good and that is what we should worry about.

[MTK]

Bledsoe is the best QB the Cowboys have had since Aikman. That might not be saying much but he can still be a very productive QB, especially in a system like Parcell's that is going to focus on the running game and protecting the QB.

[firstdown]

We have to fear the Cowboys because what they have done to us over the past five years. They seem to beat every way possible and we have found new ways to lose. We need to turn this trend around just think that 1/3rd of their victories last year was beating us. I was at a game the year before last and their saying was we can count on two victories a year and to make matters worse I have a bet of 100 with a friend that one team will sweep. He is deep in my pockets.

[backrow]

Should we fear the cowgirls?

The correct answer should be NO! You never show fear! NEVER!

The better question should be: Should we hate the cowroids?

THAT correct answer should be: YES!

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I remember back when the Cowboys were winning all those Super Bowls, it seems the ONLY teams that beat them were us and the 9ers. I'm going to say that since it seems they ACTUALLY have talent, we are going to kick their ass: 1) because we're due and 2) because for once we weren't the paper champs.

[RedskinRat]

No, we should fear no team.

Our time has come.

[celts32]

Why wouldn't you fear a team that beats you twice a year every year?

[TheMalcolmConnection]

I wouldn't fear them, just hate them a lot.

[RedskinRat]

Fear isn't a rational way to deal with something like the Cow Whores. We have a better team and superior coaches for the 2005 season. We can take them.

Despise them, yes. Fear, no.