Should We Fear the Cowgirls?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

I hate to admit it, but the Cowboys should probably advance into the playoffs. Looking at their roster, they've got plenty of talent and a good coaching staff that could lead to short-term success. The only good thing is that many of their starters are old and overpaid.

Look their roster:

QB - Bledsoe (he's old, but dangerous)
HB - Julius Jones (looks like a star on the rise)
WR - Glenn (has excellent deep speed and good hands)
WR - Johnson (he's not a #1 wideout, but an excellent possession receiver)
WR - Morgan (he's not as talented as Bryant, but he's an excellent #3e )
TE - Whitten (the guy is a stud)
OT - Adams (good and young)
OG - Rivera (old, but still a great guard)
OG - Allen (ancient, but still good)


DT - Glover (not the force he was with the Saints, but still a Pro-Bowler beast)
DT - Ferguson (he way overpaid and is getting up there, but still a good run-stopper)
DT - Spears (he's a promising young rookie)
DE - Ellis (a very good pass rushing end)
DE - Ware (he could move to OLB, but he's a big pass rushing threat)
MLB - Nguyen (small, but very fast and smart)
OLB - Singleton (very fast, but old)
OLB - Burnett (a young rook who should be good in run-support, a liability in coverage)
CB - Newman (he's got the talent to have a bounce-back year)
CB - Henry (he's a decent, physical corner)
CB - Glenn (he's an aging Pro-Bowler, but some still think he's a great corner)
SS - Williams (nuff said)
FS - Hunter (indications are that Hunter will be moved to FS where he could excel)


I don't know about you guys, but the Cowboys defense sounds awfully scary to me. The offense has the potential to be effective and explosive, but could fall flat if Bledsoe's age and legs catch up to him. The Cowboys will likely make the playoffs this year and watch their aging stars lead to a bloated cap and dying talent. So, fortunately, their SB run shouldn't last for more than a year or two.

[BossHog]

There's a lot of 'buts' in your post.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by BossHog

There's a lot of 'buts' in your post.

Mostly because, as I pointed out, the big names on their team aren't getting any younger.

[wolfeskins]

i'm actually not too impressed with thier team. i see them being only marginaly better than they were last year. i honestly believe that the skins have better skill position players than they do on offense and on defense, hell the skins might have better players all the way around if you really think about it. the success of dallas is much like the success of the skins, it all depends on the play of thr qbs.

[wolfeskins]

i think the cowboys, giants and skins will all take a step foward towards knocking the eagles out of first place in the east.

[saden1]

Doesn't really matter how good they are on paper. They've kicked our asses even when they sucked!

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by saden1

Doesn't really matter how good they are on paper. They've kicked our asses even when they sucked!

That's very, very true. It's sucks, but it's so true it's funny.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

That's very, very true. It's sucks, but it's so true it's funny.

it's so true it makes me :vomit-smiwhenever i think about it.

[mooby]

lmao this has to be one of the funniest threads i've ever read. the cowboys . . . .good. . .mwahhahahahahahah. don't kid yourself, the cowgirls might be the offseason paper champs this year, but as we've seen in the past, it doesn't amount to anything on the field.

[wolfeskins]

i think it's a three way race for off season paper champs.
my three are.
1) dallas
2) ravens
3) vikes


if i've left a team out who you think deserves to be in there let me know

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

The Eagles were among the winners of the 2004 offseason (with monster splashes like T.O. and Kearse and the re-acquisition of Trotter) and they didn't do too poorly if I recall. Simply because the Redskins made a mistake in 2000 and expected to win the Super Bowl doesn't somehow mean that improving your roster on paper in the offseason won't help your team in the regular season.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by mooby

lmao this has to be one of the funniest threads i've ever read. the cowboys . . . .good. . .mwahhahahahahahah. don't kid yourself, the cowgirls might be the offseason paper champs this year, but as we've seen in the past, it doesn't amount to anything on the field.

From the past? Are you referring to the Redskins 2000 and 2002 offseasons? I hope your not constructing a bright-line rule based on two offseasons.

BTW, care to make a friendly wager re: Cowboys W-L record?

[mooby]

i don't like to bet money, mainly cuz i lose too often. but i will say this. the cowgirls will not have a winning record this season. im not making that rule based on our two offseasons as you mentioned, im just saying you can't say a team will automatically be better based on the moves they made in the offseason.

[wolfeskins]

Originally Posted by Ramseyfan

The Eagles were among the winners of the 2004 offseason (with monster splashes like T.O. and Kearse and the re-acquisition of Trotter) and they didn't do too poorly if I recall. Simply because the Redskins made a mistake in 2000 and expected to win the Super Bowl doesn't somehow mean that improving your roster on paper in the offseason won't help your team in the regular season.

the eagles weren't exactly paper champs though. they brought in 1 high profile name on offense and 1 high profile name on defense.
i'm talking more about teams that bring in a couple high profile names on both sides of the ball, not just one on each.
plus the eagles were already a very good team just adding 2 players is a good thing in a situation like that. a team that is struggling , on the other hand, can be hurt by adding to many new guys.( previously the redskins )

[wolfeskins]

9 more posts and i'll no longer be a punter.