Giants' triumph adds to Dallas Cowboys' pain

Fred Goodwin, CMA · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

Giants' triumph adds to Dallas Cowboys' pain

020508dnspocowlishaw.39798d9.html>
http://tinyurl.com/2779qo

Playoff loss that much more painful after Giants' triumph

12:18 AM CST on Tuesday, February 5, 2008
Tim Cowlishaw

The New York Giants are Super Bowl champions and, for that, the Dallas
Cowboys can only be kicking themselves.

On the one hand, the Cowboys go into the 2008 season knowing that they
will play the Super Bowl winners twice. And knowing they beat them
twice during the 2007 regular season has to instill confidence

On the other hand, it has become even more obvious just what the
Cowboys let slip through their fingers three weeks ago.

[excerpted]

Archived from group: alt>sports>football>pro>dallas-cowboys

Fred Goodwin, CMA · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

I know its not kosher to respond to one's own post, but I'm going to
anyway.

It seems like Cowlishaw wants us to feel pity for the missed
opportunity by the Cowboys, as if he's saying despite the Giants wins
over Dallas, GB and NE, that somehow Dallas is still the better team.

I say hogwash -- I don't feel the least bit sorry for the Cowboys.
They had the easy path to the Super Bowl and blew it. They apparently
didn't take the Giants very seriously -- maybe they were looking past
them to the Packers, who knows?

Romo & Co. now have the entire off-season to vacation in Mexico (or
Hawaii, for him and 12 of his teammates) and contemplate what they
allowed to slip away, while the Giants have the entire off-season to
savor the magnitude of what they accomplished.

I say congrats to the Giants, and to the Cowboys: get your heads out
of your Mai-Tais and get back to work!

twoaxes · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 26

On Feb 5, 10:35 am, "Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote:
> I know its not kosher to respond to one's own post, but I'm going to
> anyway.
>
> It seems like Cowlishaw wants us to feel pity for the missed
> opportunity by the Cowboys, as if he's saying despite the Giants wins
> over Dallas, GB and NE, that somehow Dallas is still the better team.
>
> I say hogwash -- I don't feel the least bit sorry for the Cowboys.
> They had the easy path to the Super Bowl and blew it. They apparently
> didn't take the Giants very seriously -- maybe they were looking past
> them to the Packers, who knows?
>
> Romo & Co. now have the entire off-season to vacation in Mexico (or
> Hawaii, for him and 12 of his teammates) and contemplate what they
> allowed to slip away, while the Giants have the entire off-season to
> savor the magnitude of what they accomplished.
>
> I say congrats to the Giants, and to the Cowboys: get your heads out
> of your Mai-Tais and get back to work!

First, I think Dallas is fundamentally a better team than the Giants.
I know the Giants won the game, beat the Packers and won the SB, but
you cannot just disregard what all of these teams did over a 16 game
schedule. After all, isn't a 16 game schedule a better test than a
1 game schedule?

The Giants were 10 - 6 this season and lost to every playoff team that
played except one in the regular season. Which Giants team do you
think is the real Giants team? The one that lost to Dallas twice or
the one that beat them in the playoffs? (I actually think it was the
same Giants team Dallas beat twice but Dallas did not play as well as
they had earlier in the season. )

That's not to say the Giants did not play better in the playoffs.
They did. But like the Cowboys early in the season the Giants were
the beneficiaries of a lot of breaks to help them win these games.
Remember when the fumbles were rolling into the Cowboys hands all the
time? They started rolling onto the Giants hands as some point and
that made a difference. They also made some plays when it
counted...funny but getting the breaks and making plays seem to go
together. When Dallas was getting the fumbles and breaks, even
Crayton was catching what was thrown to him.

The logic that the Giants beat Dallas in one game so they are a better
team is irrelevant now. Its a new season and when you look at the
Cowboys for next year, they are once again the odds-maker's favorite
to win the SB from the NFC. The Patriots are the favorite at 3 - 1.
Then its the Colts, Chargers, Cowboys and the Giants!

That's right. The Super Bowl Champion Giants are not even considered
the NFC favorite next year.

The Cowboys are in a great position to get to the SB next year. The
still have a very good team and 2 first round draft picks that will,
hopefully, get some playing time early and mature by the time the
playoff roll around. With another quality WR and CB, Tank Johnson
with a year of preparation, Romo with an experience that should have
taught him a lot and some new experienced coaches, Dallas should be a
better team. They need to learn to finish, cut out the penalties and
stay focused.

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

wrote ...
>
> [...]
>
> The Cowboys are in a great position to get to the SB next year. The
> still have a very good team and 2 first round draft picks that will,
> hopefully, get some playing time early and mature by the time the
> playoff roll around. With another quality WR and CB, Tank Johnson
> with a year of preparation, Romo with an experience that should have
> taught him a lot and some new experienced coaches, Dallas should be
> a better team. They need to learn to finish, cut out the penalties and
> stay focused.

Cowlishaw's 'pain' comment is aberrant
from reality, as the 'pain' is at a maxium
when a playoff loss occurs, not when a
playoff team you lost to goes on to win
an NFC Championship in another upset,
on the road, in sub-zero weather, -and-
goes on to win the NFL Championship
in yet another upset, over a previously
undefeated team.

In my view, the fact that you lost a play-
off game to the NFL Champions, if any-
thing, lessens the 'pain' -if- you concede
that the New York Giants were, indeed,
the better team at the end of the season,
and indeed, were the best team in the
entire NFL as evidenced by their over-
coming what appeared to be all-but-in-
surmountable odds to win it all.

-If-, on the other hand, one thinks that
bad luck caused the Cowboys receivers
to drop balls, or hesitate on routes, or
caused the Cowboys offensive line to
suffer 4th quarter lapses, I'd just remind
folks to re-watch the Super Bowl, and
take in how Tom Brady, behind a previ-
ously esteemed offensive line, was liter-
ally pounded into the turf, or how their
entire team was relentlessly attacked
from the first Giants drive to the final
futile Patriots comeback effort, or how
Eli Manning did exactly what was re-
quired to beat each playoff team he
faced, or how the Giants, as a team,
were at their best for all of their play-
off games -and- were the only team
to defeat the Patriots.

---

Voice-of-Reason · Joined: 14 Jan 2008 Posts: 8

Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
> I know its not kosher to respond to one's own post, but I'm going to
> anyway.
>
> It seems like Cowlishaw wants us to feel pity for the missed
> opportunity by the Cowboys, as if he's saying despite the Giants wins
> over Dallas, GB and NE, that somehow Dallas is still the better team.
>
> I say hogwash -- I don't feel the least bit sorry for the Cowboys.
> They had the easy path to the Super Bowl and blew it. They apparently
> didn't take the Giants very seriously -- maybe they were looking past
> them to the Packers, who knows?
>
> Romo & Co. now have the entire off-season to vacation in Mexico (or
> Hawaii, for him and 12 of his teammates) and contemplate what they
> allowed to slip away, while the Giants have the entire off-season to
> savor the magnitude of what they accomplished.
>
> I say congrats to the Giants, and to the Cowboys: get your heads out
> of your Mai-Tais and get back to work!
Personally, I don't think the Cowboys secondary could have covered Moss
as well as the Giants did. Until we get solid safeties, we have no
business in a game like that. Would have been Moss for the deep
touchdown had that been Roy Williams covering. I really think it was
better to not go to this years SB...I don't think we could have beat the
Patriots as the Giants did...

Justin Pate · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 18

"Voice-of-Reason" wrote in message$0o7.1047@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
> Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
> > I know its not kosher to respond to one's own post, but I'm going to
> > anyway.
> >
> > It seems like Cowlishaw wants us to feel pity for the missed
> > opportunity by the Cowboys, as if he's saying despite the Giants wins
> > over Dallas, GB and NE, that somehow Dallas is still the better team.
> >
> > I say hogwash -- I don't feel the least bit sorry for the Cowboys.
> > They had the easy path to the Super Bowl and blew it. They apparently
> > didn't take the Giants very seriously -- maybe they were looking past
> > them to the Packers, who knows?
> >
> > Romo & Co. now have the entire off-season to vacation in Mexico (or
> > Hawaii, for him and 12 of his teammates) and contemplate what they
> > allowed to slip away, while the Giants have the entire off-season to
> > savor the magnitude of what they accomplished.
> >
> > I say congrats to the Giants, and to the Cowboys: get your heads out
> > of your Mai-Tais and get back to work!
> Personally, I don't think the Cowboys secondary could have covered Moss
> as well as the Giants did. Until we get solid safeties, we have no
> business in a game like that. Would have been Moss for the deep
> touchdown had that been Roy Williams covering. I really think it was
> better to not go to this years SB...I don't think we could have beat the
> Patriots as the Giants did...

I'm glad we didn't make it to the SB. We would have been beat 38-16.
However, I am disappointed we didn't win a playoff game and at least got to
the NFC championship. I wouldn't have minded if we lost to the Packers,
even though it would have meant NFLGURU being even more obnoxious than he
has been.

Parmenion334 · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 7

On Feb 5, 12:52ï¿½pm, Voice-of-Reason wrote:
> Fred Goodwin, CMA wrote:
> > I know its not kosher to respond to one's own post, but I'm going to
> > anyway.
>
> > It seems like Cowlishaw wants us to feel pity for the missed
> > opportunity by the Cowboys, as if he's saying despite the Giants wins
> > over Dallas, GB and NE, that somehow Dallas is still the better team.
>
> > I say hogwash -- I don't feel the least bit sorry for the Cowboys.
> > They had the easy path to the Super Bowl and blew it. ï¿½They apparently
> > didn't take the Giants very seriously -- maybe they were looking past
> > them to the Packers, who knows?
>
> > Romo & Co. now have the entire off-season to vacation in Mexico (or
> > Hawaii, for him and 12 of his teammates) and contemplate what they
> > allowed to slip away, while the Giants have the entire off-season to
> > savor the magnitude of what they accomplished.
>
> > I say congrats to the Giants, and to the Cowboys: get your heads out
> > of your Mai-Tais and get back to work!
>
> Personally, I don't think the Cowboys secondary could have covered Moss
> as well as the Giants did. ï¿½Until we get solid safeties, we have no
> business in a game like that. ï¿½Would have been Moss for the deep
> touchdown had that been Roy Williams covering. ï¿½I really think it was
> better to not go to this years SB...I don't think we could have beat the
> Patriots as the Giants did...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree, for all the problems the giants had in their secondary,
they always had the better chance to cover Moss than we did. Your
scenario would have been a probable one as well, with Roy Wililams
getting burned.

Fred Goodwin, CMA · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 75

On Feb 5, 10:53 am, twoa...@optonline.net wrote:

> First, I think Dallas is fundamentally a better team than the
> Giants. I know the Giants won the game, beat the Packers and
> won the SB, but you cannot just disregard what all of these
> teams did over a 16 game schedule. After all, isn't a 16
> game schedule a better test than a 1 game schedule?

Maybe, but they don't give trophies for what you do in the regular
season.

> Which Giants team do you think is the real Giants team?
> The one that lost to Dallas twice or the one that beat
> them in the playoffs?

It doesn't matter what I think -- the only thing that counts is:
NYG 17, NE 14

> (I actually think it was the same Giants team Dallas beat
> twice but Dallas did not play as well as they had earlier
> in the season. )

Agreed, but let's give the Giants some credit for being a big part of
the reason why Dallas "did not play as well". When the Giants went on
to beat both the Packers and NE, you can't just chalk up the win over
Dallas as a fluke brought on by Dallas' own poor play.

> That's right. The Super Bowl Champion Giants are not even
> considered the NFC favorite next year.

Perhaps, but I'm sure that's little consolation to Dallas and the
other 30 teams that aren't taking home the Lombardi this year.

> They need to learn to finish, cut out the penalties and stay
> focused.

Agreed.

user · Joined: 15 Jan 2008 Posts: 2

On Feb 5, 10:28 am, "Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote:
> Giants' triumph adds to Dallas Cowboys' pain
>
> > 020508dnspocowlishaw.39798d9.html>http://tinyurl.com/2779qo
>
> Playoff loss that much more painful after Giants' triumph
>
> 12:18 AM CST on Tuesday, February 5, 2008
> Tim Cowlishaw
>
> The New York Giants are Super Bowl champions and, for that, the Dallas
> Cowboys can only be kicking themselves.
>
> On the one hand, the Cowboys go into the 2008 season knowing that they
> will play the Super Bowl winners twice. And knowing they beat them
> twice during the 2007 regular season has to instill confidence
>
> On the other hand, it has become even more obvious just what the
> Cowboys let slip through their fingers three weeks ago.
>
> [excerpted]

did it ever DAWN on you its hard to beat a team THREE teams in one
season
its only happened ONCE in nfl history
in 1980 philadelphia thumped Dallas 3 times

cdshonna · Joined: 06 Feb 2008 Posts: 1

On Feb 5, 7:28 am, "Fred Goodwin, CMA" wrote:
> Giants' triumph adds to Dallas Cowboys' pain
>
> > 020508dnspocowlishaw.39798d9.html>http://tinyurl.com/2779qo
>
> Playoff loss that much more painful after Giants' triumph
>
> 12:18 AM CST on Tuesday, February 5, 2008
> Tim Cowlishaw
>
> The New York Giants are Super Bowl champions and, for that, the Dallas
> Cowboys can only be kicking themselves.
>
> On the one hand, the Cowboys go into the 2008 season knowing that they
> will play the Super Bowl winners twice. And knowing they beat them
> twice during the 2007 regular season has to instill confidence
>
> On the other hand, it has become even more obvious just what the
> Cowboys let slip through their fingers three weeks ago.
>
> [excerpted]

Even harder to take because this is two years in a row where the
Cowboys came up short in the playoffs.

--
DVD CD Trader - Trading Lots
Buy Sell Trade DVDs CDs
http://dvdcdtrader.com

observer · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 196

wrote ...
>
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:01:32 -0800 (PST),
> twoaxes@optonline.net wrote ...
>
> >On Feb 7, 8:23 am, "will(from the reality based community)"
> wrote ...
> >>
> >> [...]
> >>
> >> Winners get it done. Losers talk about how the other
> >> team didn't really beat them.
> >
> > [...]
>
> Will gave up a long time ago, don't let his pessimism
> get to you.

Will took the revelation of the marijuana usage
of an ex-Cowboys QB as a reason to look dis-
paragingly on many matters pertaining to the
Cowboys. He felt that Jerry Jones should've
found a way to leak news about that QB's -first-
positive drug test without suffering (or in spite
of suffering) the consequences for violating the
NFL's non-disclosure policies regarding such
matters.

Will was in a uniquely vulnerable position on
that matter as he had led a fan club for that ex-
Cowboys QB, and felt that not only had that
QB let him down, but that the owner misled
the fans regarding that QB being the suppos-
edly legitimate "Cowboys QB of the future".

Will will ever get over that? Perhaps, perhaps
not, but needless to say, until Jerry Jones gets
back on the winning side of at least one playoff
game, will is likely to remain skeptical regard-
ing the Cowboys and regarding Jerry Jones as
owner/general manager of a team which has
tied the NFL record for most playoff losses in
a row.

---

"will · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 60

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:12:48 -0600, "observer"
wrote:

>
> wrote ...
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:01:32 -0800 (PST),
>> twoaxes@optonline.net wrote ...
>>
>> >On Feb 7, 8:23 am, "will(from the reality based community)"
>> wrote ...
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> Winners get it done. Losers talk about how the other
>> >> team didn't really beat them.
>> >
>> > [...]
>>
>> Will gave up a long time ago, don't let his pessimism
>> get to you.
>
>Will took the revelation of the marijuana usage
>of an ex-Cowboys QB as a reason to look dis-
>paragingly on many matters pertaining to the
>Cowboys. He felt that Jerry Jones should've
>found a way to leak news about that QB's -first-
>positive drug test without suffering (or in spite
>of suffering) the consequences for violating the
>NFL's non-disclosure policies regarding such
>matters.

It should serve as a wakeup call for any Jerry defenders and Cowboys
stuff don't stink loyalists.

Jerry knew about drugs before the draft and covered it up.
Jerry shouldn't have drafted a pot head.
Jerry then kept him on the roster and covered up a drug problem in
2002.
Jerry promoted him as a character player with all the God stuff and
dogooder activities.

Jerry didn't play it smart or safe. He didn't do the Cowboys
organization or the player any good.

>
>Will was in a uniquely vulnerable position on
>that matter as he had led a fan club for that ex-
>Cowboys QB, and felt that not only had that
>QB let him down, but that the owner misled
>the fans regarding that QB being the suppos-
>edly legitimate "Cowboys QB of the future".

There's no doubt Jerry misled people. The question is why did he pick
a mediocre player with a checkered history to play that game with?

That's an eyeopener. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame
on me.

>
>Will will ever get over that? Perhaps, perhaps
>not, but needless to say, until Jerry Jones gets
>back on the winning side of at least one playoff
>game, will is likely to remain skeptical regard-
>ing the Cowboys and regarding Jerry Jones as
>owner/general manager of a team which has
>tied the NFL record for most playoff losses in
>a row.

As someone who defended Jerry and promoted optimism and hope for the
Cowboys, I think it is only reasonable that Jerry prove he can do the
job and put the team before his ego. When he puts his ego last, good
things happen. When he imposes himself, it tends to screw things up.

When he let Parcells do his thing, we got better. Parcells built a
solid team. Now we'll see where Jerry takes it.

grinch · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 8

On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:12:48 -0600, "observer"
wrote:

>
> wrote ...
>>
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 07:01:32 -0800 (PST),
>> twoaxes@optonline.net wrote ...
>>
>> >On Feb 7, 8:23 am, "will(from the reality based community)"
>> wrote ...
>> >>
>> >> [...]
>> >>
>> >> Winners get it done. Losers talk about how the other
>> >> team didn't really beat them.
>> >
>> > [...]
>>
>> Will gave up a long time ago, don't let his pessimism
>> get to you.
>
>Will took the revelation of the marijuana usage
>of an ex-Cowboys QB as a reason to look dis-
>paragingly on many matters pertaining to the
>Cowboys. He felt that Jerry Jones should've
>found a way to leak news about that QB's -first-
>positive drug test without suffering (or in spite
>of suffering) the consequences for violating the
>NFL's non-disclosure policies regarding such
>matters.
>
>Will was in a uniquely vulnerable position on
>that matter as he had led a fan club for that ex-
>Cowboys QB, and felt that not only had that
>QB let him down, but that the owner misled
>the fans regarding that QB being the suppos-
>edly legitimate "Cowboys QB of the future".
>
>Will will ever get over that? Perhaps, perhaps
>not, but needless to say, until Jerry Jones gets
>back on the winning side of at least one playoff
>game, will is likely to remain skeptical regard-
>ing the Cowboys and regarding Jerry Jones as
>owner/general manager of a team which has
>tied the NFL record for most playoff losses in
>a row.
>
>---
>
I'm well aware of the history, I've been here a very long time.

Venger · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 55

will(from the reality based community) wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:12:48 -0600, "observer"
> wrote:
>
> It should serve as a wakeup call for any Jerry defenders and Cowboys
> stuff don't stink loyalists.
>
> Jerry knew about drugs before the draft and covered it up.

He was PROHIBITED BY NFL RULES from saying anything. Jesus...

> Jerry shouldn't have drafted a pot head.

No, he shouldn't have. But if he were to, at least it should be a
talented pot-head with an enormous achievable upside and a pedigree that
argues for overlooking the drugs and taking a chance on getting his head
right...

> Jerry then kept him on the roster and covered up a drug problem in
> 2002.

Did the same for some other players, and correct me if I am wrong, I
don't think he can cut him for it. At least at first.

> There's no doubt Jerry misled people. The question is why did he pick
> a mediocre player with a checkered history to play that game with?
>
> That's an eyeopener. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame
> on me.

Are you saying you bought into Jerry's football knowledge, and that's
why you defended Quincy for so long? He fooled you? Because anyone with
eyeballs should have seen Quincy was hopeless... it sounds like bitter
redirection...

Venger

"will · Joined: 06 Aug 2007 Posts: 60

On Thu, 07 Feb 2008 18:16:11 -0600, Venger
wrote:

>will(from the reality based community) wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Feb 2008 11:12:48 -0600, "observer"
>> wrote:
>>
>> It should serve as a wakeup call for any Jerry defenders and Cowboys
>> stuff don't stink loyalists.
>>
>> Jerry knew about drugs before the draft and covered it up.
>
>He was PROHIBITED BY NFL RULES from saying anything. Jesus...

Before the draft? He decided to sell Quincy even though there were
drug rumors in college.

>
>> Jerry shouldn't have drafted a pot head.
>
>No, he shouldn't have. But if he were to, at least it should be a
>talented pot-head with an enormous achievable upside and a pedigree that
>argues for overlooking the drugs and taking a chance on getting his head
>right...
>
>> Jerry then kept him on the roster and covered up a drug problem in
>> 2002.
>
>Did the same for some other players, and correct me if I am wrong, I
>don't think he can cut him for it. At least at first.

He can cut him any time he wants. You don't have the leadership
position on the team be a druggie.

We ALL know he cut Quincy in 2004 over drugs and it was upheld. And it
was harder to cut him in 2004 after being a full year starter than it
would have been in 2002 when you could have cited attitude or work
ethic.

>
>> There's no doubt Jerry misled people. The question is why did he pick
>> a mediocre player with a checkered history to play that game with?
>>
>> That's an eyeopener. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame
>> on me.
>
>Are you saying you bought into Jerry's football knowledge, and that's
>why you defended Quincy for so long? He fooled you? Because anyone with
>eyeballs should have seen Quincy was hopeless... it sounds like bitter
>redirection...

Some people don't get it. It was about supporting the team from Jerry
on down.

What I'm saying is that you might stick with a mediocre player with
character. Why would you stick with a mediocre player with character
problems that you covered up?

QB is a leadership position. Jerry doesn't understand leadership in
football. That's why he gets flunkies at HC.
>
>Venger

Poll: Do you have a Dallas Cowboys Christmas ornament on you My response: yes.

Cowboys Starters Want to Play (local Dallas Sports anchors) Several players were interviewed and they all want to be in the game against Romo if only for the first half.I think player friendly coach Phillips will let the starters play in the game except for the walking wounded.Would be sweet if the

Watch out for them Eagles Dallas the eagles had 14 players out of the lineup next season those guys are healthy and the eagles go 15-1 that means Dallas finishes LAST again Capesci? (thats Italien for do you understand?)

Could Dallas have gone all the way this year with Parcells? Most likely yes and possibly undefeated. The question must be asked.

Typical Dallas Crackboys Even their coaches are druggies