NFL 2016 regular season

Nah. Their 'exposure' there is as 'the enemy.' They became "America's Team" during the first 'golden age' of televised football, through a combination of two things.

First, having no significant competition over a huge area. The Cardinals are still the second favorite in Arizona, New Mexico is solidly 'Cowboy country' and they own everything south of Missouri and Colorado in the middle of the country. During that era the Saints were called 'the aints,' the Oilers didn't have any fans even right in Houston, and no one in the rest of Florida feels any relationship to Miami, which was their only team so the Cowboys owned the gulf coast. Tampa, Jacksonville, Tennessee, Houston, New Orleans, Carolina, Arizona...talk to fans of those teams and they'll tell you that their parents or grandparents were Cowboy fans and likely still are.

Then they absolutely dominated their division year in year out during that critical time. They were always in the playoffs, usually having been the first team to secure their playoff berth because the rest of the division sucked so badly. That meant home games and half a season of speculation about how far they would go while other teams were still on "will they make it to the playoffs at all?" Tom Landry was a fixture on the sidelines and in the new age of TV football he and his signature hat became probably the most recognizable figure in professional sports outside of Muhammad Ali.

If they got any benefit at all from being in a division with those major market teams it came from crushing those teams so they weren't ever in the playoffs, or even sniffing the playoffs, during that era. Fans in the major TV markets wanted an 'America's team' because they sure couldn't maintain interest in their own. It also helped that there was a not completely subtle undercurrent in the presentation of this new media sensation that the NFC (usually led by the Cowboys) were the 'good guys' to the interloping upstart AFC's 'bad guys.'
 
When the Cowboys entered the league, the Cardinals were in St. Louis not Arizona. Arizona had no NFL team. So it makes perfect sense that Arizona folks would have more Cowboys loyalty than Cardinals. Same thing for the Saints... they didn't enter the league until 1967, and as you say, they sucked... so again, the Cowboys loyalty, especially among the older guys, makes sense. None of it justifies keeping the Cowboys in the NFC East with a bunch of East Coast teams.

Go back to the NFL timeline link I posted earlier... In 1960, the Cowboys originally entered the league in the Western Conference where they belonged, but then the next year they inexplicably went to the Eastern Conference when the Vikings were added to balance out the numbers between conferences. Minnesota I can understand being put in the West at that time, its just as far west as Dallas, but Baltimore, Chicago, Green Bay or Detroit should have gone to the East over Dallas. Its frankly inexcusable that Dallas went to the East over either of those teams. Then when Atlanta entered the league in 1966, they understandably were put in the east, where they belonged, but the Cowboys still got to stay in the East despite the imbalance. Then the next year, they split the conferences into divisions and the real crazy-time began... Atlanta goes to the Western Conference's "Coastal division" :crazyeye: with the 49ers and Rams, and to round out the division at four teams... instead of putting the Cowboys in that division, they put Baltimore in the Western "Coastal" division :crazyeye:

Meanwhile, in their continuing contortionist-worthy pretzel twisting to keep the Cowboys preferential status in the Eastern Market intact, they bump the New York Giants out of the Eastern Conference "Capitol" (coastal) division with the Redskins and Philly to keep the Cowboys instead:crazyeye:... The NYC team gets sent to the "Century" (central) division with Pittsburg, St. Louis and Cleveland. Now why NYC doesn't stay in the Eastern Capitol Division instead of Dallas, is another completely inexplicable contortion, unless you just admit that there was a concerted effort to keep the Cowboys on the East coast at all costs. This is even better demonstrated by what happens the next year. In 1968, they reorganize the divisions putting New Orleans in the Western-Central division where they belong, and the Giants in the Eastern Coastal division where they belong. At this point all the teams and divisions make sense except that Dallas is still on the East-Coast instead of either Atlanta or Baltimore. Finally, more Cowboy lapdogging crazy time in 1970 with the AFL-NFL merger, all the teams and divisions make some semblance of sense except that even with all that shuffling around (including sending Pittsburgh and Cleveland to the AFC to even out the conferences) Atlanta somehow ends up in the West:crazyeye:, again just so that the precious Cowboys can stay on the East-coast.

The Cowboy lapdogging is just so obvious when you look at the history of the division formation. Even more so when you realize that they were constantly kicking St. Louis and NYC out of the division just to keep the Cowboys there.
 
I just think you are attributing anything and everything to pure "cowboy lapdogging" and also attributing all Cowboy lapdogging strictly to the financial power of the owner of the Cowboys. Most of the decisions made that favor the Cowboys as you describe have a whole spectrum of additional inputs besides just what's best for the Cowboys. Best example there is "They had to move one team for balance, and they chose the Cowboys. They could have moved Chicago or Green Bay." You included Detroit, and yeah that might have worked, but I promise you that from that day to this any plan that involves splitting Chicago and Green Bay is a nonstarter at the league office, Cowboys completely aside. Having the Lions included in that runs counter the "financial power" side of your argument. If such financial power were indeed the root of that decision it would be the financial power of the Ford family that would carry the day.

I'm not saying the league hasn't at times made decisions favorable to the Cowboys, because they clearly have. Sometimes they made those decisions while openly waving the "backing Dallas" flag. Refusing to give Lamar Hunt a franchise in Dallas for no good reason and then getting punched in the nose with the AFL and the Dallas Texans hurt, and the Cowboys were a counterpunch that had to be backed up. I'm just saying that you are taking Cowboy lapdogging to the point of oversimplification.

As to the financial power aspects...every owner in the NFL has titanic financial power, and I don't think that any of them are kowtowing to any owner of the Cowboys on that front, ever. Most people would. Even I probably would. But other owners? Nahhhh.
 
I just think you are attributing anything and everything to pure "cowboy lapdogging" and also attributing all Cowboy lapdogging strictly to the financial power of the owner of the Cowboys. Most of the decisions made that favor the Cowboys as you describe have a whole spectrum of additional inputs besides just what's best for the Cowboys. Best example there is "They had to move one team for balance, and they chose the Cowboys.
Well first you invoked the sacrosanct, old as time-immemorial, leather helmet rivalries, now its "balance"... While I fully agree with you that its more complicated than just giving the Cowboys whatever they want... still... you seem to at least be acknowledging that what's flat-out "best for the Cowboys" seems to be getting a lot more consideration than what seems fair or coincidental...

As for the bolded... I'm absolutely not saying that. I'm betting its a combination of money, power, influence, bribery, extortion, blackmail, sexual favours, whatever... In fact, I think in many ways, its the opposite of simple financial power that keeps them there. I'd argue that the financial power/status of the Cowboys is a direct result of the preferential placement they have received historically by shoehorning them into the Northeast market and then Krazy-gluing them there come hell or high water. IMNSHO, that is exactly why they are the league's most valuable franchise (well again...that, and the cheerleaders :yumyum:). Its essentially a vicious cycle. They were unnaturally forced into the best market, so they became the most valuable/popular, and now since they are the most valuable/popular, they get whatever they want, including staying in the best market.

EDIT: One more thing... That first sentence I quoted reminds me of a (very sound and prudent) position you take a lot in political discussions... to paraphrase you... I've noticed a lot of undeniable Cowboy lapdogging going on, so I'm just assuming everything is lapdogging until proven otherwise, rather than give them the benefit of the doubt. They are clearly benefitting from at least some lapdogging, a lot frankly, so they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt.
 
Last edited:
The Cowboys generate no neutral response, they are either loved or hated. That's true pretty much everywhere.

By the way, I'm firmly in the "hate them" camp, so suggesting that I am giving them any benefit of any doubt is unlikely to sway me much. I'd exile them to the two team polar division and let them slug it out every week with the Broncoids.
 
Last edited:
Congrats to the NFC East winner Dallas.
 
The Cowboys are going to get upset in the playoffs. Congrats to them for all they accomplished with Prescott, but their wins (and Giants losses) were a little unconvincing for a 2-loss team.
 
It's either Pats vs Seahawks, or Pats vs Giants for SB51...I seriously don't see anyone beating NE in the AFC...For the NFC, I think the Cowboys are unconvincing despite their record...
 
4th in the league in both completion percentage(67.7%) and yards per attempt(7.93), 20 TDs vs 4 picks to go with 6 rushing TDs... I don't know what's not impressive about his numbers for a rookie.

More importantly, you can watch him on the field and see the enormous difference. Every Cowboys game I've watched you can see Dak's football IQ; making good reads, keeping the clock running late in games by taking a sack instead of throwing it away, having the awareness to stay in bounds on a 13 yard scramble and still keep perspective of the first-down marker, etc. Kid looks amazing. Even in Kaepernick's first year you didn't really seem his football IQ come out(and it certainly isn't showing now).

Having said all that I think it is likely the Cowboys get upset in the playoffs because rookies are still rookies. Future looks bright tho.
 
Yeah.

Tough day. Two young star quarterbacks trying to lead up and coming teams back to the mountaintop break their legs. I blame Saturday play.
 
I think the Cowboys might actually be for real this year...I watched a Dak Prescott taking good reads on the field and adjusting plays, checking as well, like if he was a seasoned QB...Zeeke struggled on the running game, but McFadden also provided a much needed burst...I still think a more experienced defense like Seattle might take them down, but that remains to be seen...
 
I am starting to feel a sense of "deja vu all over again" with the Presott - Romo situation... reminds me of the Alex Smith - Kaepernick situation in San Fran. Prescott is winning but his stats are not impressive.

This is a totally backwards comparison. Smith was replaced by Kaepernick in spite of the fact that he was good at reading defenses and Kaepernick couldn't read the plays off his wristband. Prescott reads surprisingly well for a rookie and has already demonstrated more situational awareness than Romo showed on his best day.

Besides, his stats are great.

The only question I have about the kid is how he will fare if the Cowpunks get behind and he can't hide behind that mountain range of a line and play action the opponent to death. Does he show up as the stud who can carry the team when necessary, or does he fold? There are teams in the playoffs who can score fast on the Dallas defense; Green Bay, Atlanta, Seattle on a good day...so that test is probably gonna come.

And then there's the Giants.
 
4th in the league in both completion percentage(67.7%) and yards per attempt(7.93), 20 TDs vs 4 picks to go with 6 rushing TDs... I don't know what's not impressive about his numbers for a rookie. More importantly, you can watch him on the field and see the enormous difference. Every Cowboys game I've watched you can see Dak's football IQ; making good reads, keeping the clock running late in games by taking a sack instead of throwing it away, having the awareness to stay in bounds on a 13 yard scramble and still keep perspective of the first-down marker, etc. Kid looks amazing. Even in Kaepernick's first year you didn't really seem his football IQ come out(and it certainly isn't showing now). Having said all that I think it is likely the Cowboys get upset in the playoffs because rookies are still rookies. Future looks bright tho.
This is a totally backwards comparison. Smith was replaced by Kaepernick in spite of the fact that he was good at reading defenses and Kaepernick couldn't read the plays off his wristband. Prescott reads surprisingly well for a rookie and has already demonstrated more situational awareness than Romo showed on his best day. Besides, his stats are great. The only question I have about the kid is how he will fare if the Cowpunks get behind and he can't hide behind that mountain range of a line and play action the opponent to death. Does he show up as the stud who can carry the team when necessary, or does he fold? There are teams in the playoffs who can score fast on the Dallas defense; Green Bay, Atlanta, Seattle on a good day...so that test is probably gonna come. And then there's the Giants.
I have to admit, my comment is based on a knee jerk reaction to his stats in few games that I noticed were very Kaepernick-like... 2XX yds w/1 passing or rushing TD- type stats... so you guys comments are probably on-point. However, I still have that gut feeling that that the Cowboys are in for the same dose of bubble-boom-then-bust the 49ers went through with the Smith Keapernick thing. As you guys point out, its probably more just an overall pessimism/history-repeats-itself thing than anything based on stats.

I mean, I like Prescott, he seems like a nice guy, but I also liked Kaep initially and wanted to see him succeed. I was definitely on the "Dump-Smith" bandwagon. I also liked Russell Wilson, and while they did get a SB ring out of it... it seems like the wheels have fallen off... I am just getting the false messiah vibe... maybe I'm being lazy with my analysis, fine I can accept that... maybe its just a bad taste from what happened to the 49ers with Smith/Kaepernick.
 
I have to admit, my comment is based on a knee jerk reaction to his stats in few games that I noticed were very Kaepernick-like... 2XX yds w/1 passing or rushing TD- type stats... so you guys comments are probably on-point. However, I still have that gut feeling that that the Cowboys are in for the same dose of bubble-boom-then-bust the 49ers went through with the Smith Keapernick thing. As you guys point out, its probably more just an overall pessimism/history-repeats-itself thing than anything based on stats.

I mean, I like Prescott, he seems like a nice guy, but I also liked Kaep initially and wanted to see him succeed. I was definitely on the "Dump-Smith" bandwagon. I also liked Russell Wilson, and while they did get a SB ring out of it... it seems like the wheels have fallen off... I am just getting the false messiah vibe... maybe I'm being lazy with my analysis, fine I can accept that... maybe its just a bad taste from what happened to the 49ers with Smith/Kaepernick.

I dunno, for me the Kaep replacement was never about Kaep being better in that moment than Smith. It was more that Kaep had more upside than Smith. Smith was competent and safe. He'd never lose you the game, but he wouldn't really win you one either. Kaepernick, with his speed, the arm, and deep accuracy was the sort of player with the potential to put the team on his back and win games. Which he did that year. So, at least to my mind, the conversation was never "which of Smith and Kaepernick is better right now," but rather, "which player has more upside going forward considering the receiving corps and coaching staff we had," and in light of that information I think it made more sense to go with Kaepernick, who was never not a project QB. Even though he's decidedly failed to pan out, I still think opting for Kaepernick made the most sense at the time.

I think a decent comp would be ca. 2010 Warriors when the decision was between keeping Curry, a young, physically gifted but untested player with big injury question marks over his head and Monta Ellis a known quantity fan-favorite who was a ton of fun to watch. Just as the 49ers did, the Warriors went with the unproven riskier player because his upside at the time was much, much higher. Ellis is still the same player he's always been while Curry's developed into one of the top 3 players in the NBA. Sometimes gambles pay off and sometimes they don't. That's the cost of making risky moves.
 
I dunno, for me the Kaep replacement was never about Kaep being better in that moment than Smith. It was more that Kaep had more upside than Smith. Smith was competent and safe. He'd never lose you the game, but he wouldn't really win you one either. Kaepernick, with his speed, the arm, and deep accuracy was the sort of player with the potential to put the team on his back and win games. Which he did that year. So, at least to my mind, the conversation was never "which of Smith and Kaepernick is better right now," but rather, "which player has more upside going forward considering the receiving corps and coaching staff we had," and in light of that information I think it made more sense to go with Kaepernick, who was never not a project QB. Even though he's decidedly failed to pan out, I still think opting for Kaepernick made the most sense at the time.

I think a decent comp would be ca. 2010 Warriors when the decision was between keeping Curry, a young, physically gifted but untested player with big injury question marks over his head and Monta Ellis a known quantity fan-favorite who was a ton of fun to watch. Just as the 49ers did, the Warriors went with the unproven riskier player because his upside at the time was much, much higher. Ellis is still the same player he's always been while Curry's developed into one of the top 3 players in the NBA. Sometimes gambles pay off and sometimes they don't. That's the cost of making risky moves.
I agree with this analysis of the Kaepernick situation. He was similar production wise, but had so much more apparent potential. Smith was just a boring clock manager, and it seemed clear he would never be anything more.
 
I agree with this analysis of the Kaepernick situation. He was similar production wise, but had so much more apparent potential. Smith was just a boring clock manager, and it seemed clear he would never be anything more.

And he still isn't anything more. He's the same old known quantity. He'll either win a game for you slowly or lose one for you slowly. He's not a player who's going to dramatically alter the course of the game.
 
Back
Top Bottom