Are the cowboys the best team ever.
Jamie Costa
time, and in the year that they did not win it all, they still made it to the
championship game.
Maverick
No. Best team ever were the 92/93 Cowboys: Gogan, Step, Newt, EWilliams,
Harper, etc: HEROES FOR THE AGES. IF Bebee(sp?) didn't knock the ball out
of Leon Lett's hands on his lightning quick rumble to the endzone, would've
been the most lopsided Superbowl victory ever.
The 95/96 was far too inconsistent to even be considered the best team of
all time; 9er game and Philly were jokes as far as game preparation is
concerned.
just another 2 cents from a Boyz fan
the Maverick
Cowboy Fan
>In my opinion the cowboys of the 90's are the best team ever to play in the NFL. I dont know of any other team who has won three suberbowls in four years
>time, and in the year that they did not win it all, they still made it to the
>championship game.
I would tend to agree, they may not have the best team ever, but if
you consider what they have did over these four years especially with
free agency dismantling them it is amazing. I still think the 85
bears are probably the best that I have ever seen in my life for a
single season but over a span of four or five years I would agree....
Randy B.
Brian Martin
>
>In my opinion the cowboys of the 90's are the best team ever to play in the
NFL. I dont know of any other team who has won three suberbowls in four years
>time, and in the year that they did not win it all, they still made it to the
>championship game.
Only time will tell if the current Cowboys turn out to be the best team ever.
If we win another Super Bowl in the 90s, (which I think we will), that will
put the Boys slightly ahead of the 70's Steelers, and the 80's 49ers. (Yes the
Steelers and 49ers won four SBs in their respective decades, but only Dallas
has done it three time in for years. If we win four in five years, that will
really be something.)
If Dallas wins five SBs in a decade, that will put us head and shoulders above
the Steelers and 49ers.
However, to be considered the best of all time, one must also consider the
Packers of the 60's, and the Browns of the 50's. How many NFL championships did
the Packers win? I don't remember. I believe four, but I'm probably wrong.
Then there are the Browns who, I think, won five or six championships in the
50's.
No doubt about it, the Browns and the Packers were the teams of thier
respective decades. The Steelers were the team of the 70's, and the 49ers the
team of the 80's. Now, the Cowboys are the team of the 90's. We have four more
seasons left in the 1990s. If we win another Super Bowl or two, (or three,
four?), then perhaps people will look back on these Dallas Cowboys and
recognize them as the best team ever to play in the NFL. I know that the
Cowboys can do it: the question is, will they?
-Brian
Ed Guillen
Fred Goodwin <fgoo...@eden.com> wrote:
>Or the Steelers of 74-79: four Lombardis in a six-year span. Recalling
>their two wins over the Cowboys, the Steel Curtain is *still* in my mind
>the most dominating team of recent memory.
I have to agree with you on this point. That team was amazing!
--
Ed Guillen "Women...can't live with 'em...pass the beer nuts"
gui...@convex.com -Norm Peterson
Fred Goodwin
jco...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu (Jamie Costa) wrote:
>In my opinion the cowboys of the 90's are the best team ever to play in
>the NFL. I dont know of any other team who has won three suberbowls in
>four years time, and in the year that they did not win it all, they
>still made it to the championship game.
I'm as big a Cowboys fan as anybody, but I'm constantly amazed at how
fans view their recent success and completely forget historical powers
like the 50s Browns, the Packers of the 60s, and the Dolphins and
Steelers of the 70s.
Consider the 71-73 Dolphins: three consecutive Super Bowls, back-to-back
wins in 72/73, and an unequaled 17-0 in 1972. How can *ANY* discussion
of the greatest teams of all time explain away that feat??
Or the Steelers of 74-79: four Lombardis in a six-year span. Recalling
their two wins over the Cowboys, the Steel Curtain is *still* in my mind
the most dominating team of recent memory.
The 60s Packers won FIVE titles in a seven year span, including three in
a row (SBs I and II in the last two years of that stretch). No team has
ever won 3 in a row besides the Pack. You think three outta four is
good?? How about 3 outta 3??
Finally, going back a ways, the Browns of the 40s and 50s had to be one
of the most dominant teams ever. Four-and-Oh in AAFC title games, then
a league title in their 1st year in the NFL (1950). The Browns played
in SIX consecutive NFL Title games, winning three.
IOW, the Browns were in a league title game EVERY year for the first
DECADE they existed!!!!! They won seven titles over that span (4-AAFC,
3-NFL) -- talk about domination!!!
Granted, I'd rank the current Cowboys with the 'Niners of the 80s -- but
IMHO, the Boys have a ways to go to equal the standard of the 50s
Browns, the 60s Packers and the 70s Steelers.
---
=========================================================================
* Fred Goodwin, SW Bell Telephone fgoo...@eden.com *
* Opinions are my own, not SWBT fg8...@ausmail1.sbc.com *
* 1616 Guadalupe, Room 640 Dallas Cowboys Training Camp Page *
* Austin, TX 78701 http://www.eden.com/~fgoodwin/cowboys.htm *
=========================================================================
Ronnie Townsend
|> Organization: Eden Matrix
|> Lines: 46
|> Message-ID: <4gh0u9$1s9q...@austin.eden.com>
|> References: <4gd4gl$5...@ulowell.uml.edu>
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: net-1-127.austin.eden.com
|> X-Newsreader: News Xpress Version 1.0 Beta #4
|> Xref: news.corp.sgi.com alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys:54728 rec.sport.football.pro:184551
|>
|> In article <4gd4gl$5...@ulowell.uml.edu>,
|> jco...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu (Jamie Costa) wrote:
|> >In my opinion the cowboys of the 90's are the best team ever to play in
|> >the NFL. I dont know of any other team who has won three suberbowls in
|> >four years time, and in the year that they did not win it all, they
|> >still made it to the championship game.
|>
|> I'm as big a Cowboys fan as anybody, but I'm constantly amazed at how
|> fans view their recent success and completely forget historical powers
|> like the 50s Browns, the Packers of the 60s, and the Dolphins and
|> Steelers of the 70s.
If one wants to consider the nucleus of this Cowboy team as a single entity
then I'd have to agree that this team is the best ever. It is somewhat
flawed though because of all the player flux brought about by free agency.
The '95 was not as good as the '93 team. The '93 team was probably the best
team I've ever seen. When they were all together and healthy they were
undefeated. This Cowboy team and the '78 Steelers are probably the only team to
have to beat another true Super Bowl Champion to get their rings. Those Steelers
beat the defending champion Cowboys while the Cowboys beat a soon-to-be champion
49ers team two years in a row. Then again, the Dolphins put down the soon-to-be
champion Steelers on their way to the top. Then the Steelers beat the declining
Dolphins to get to the top so the model doesn't fit as nicely. The Dolphins were
on top while the Steelers were growing up and the Steelers got to the top as the
Dolphins declined. Then the Raiders just had one of thoe magical years to sneak
in there in '76. Other than that, the Cowboys, Dolphins and Steelers won all the
Super Bowls in the 70's. I know Denver upset the Steelers to earn the right to be
Dallas fodder in '77 but who did the Raiders have to get by to get to the Super
Bowl?
|>
|> Consider the 71-73 Dolphins: three consecutive Super Bowls, back-to-back
|> wins in 72/73, and an unequaled 17-0 in 1972. How can *ANY* discussion
|> of the greatest teams of all time explain away that feat??
That Dolphin team was truly great but it cannot be forgotten that they played
in a division which included three of the worst teams in the league in
Buffalo, The Jets and the Pats and one mediocre team that was rebuilding in
the Colts. That was a truly great team and had it not been for the WFL, we
might never have heard about the "Steel Curtain" as the WFL robbed the Dolphins
of three star players and those players of a couple of their prime years.
|>
|> Or the Steelers of 74-79: four Lombardis in a six-year span. Recalling
|> their two wins over the Cowboys, the Steel Curtain is *still* in my mind
|> the most dominating team of recent memory.
Perhaps it bears noting that those Steeler teams as good as they were, had two
nail-biters against the Cowboys and one of the ugliest games in Super History
against the Vikes, in which neither team did much of anything... Mind you,
I think relative to their eras those Cowboy and Viking teams were better than
either the Bills or Steelers that this current group of Cowboys has beaten in
a Super Bowl but I'd wager that the 49er teams they beat in the NFC CHampionships
were better than either the '74 Vikings or the '75 Cowboys though probably not
as good as the '78 Cowboys but better than the '79 Rams. In fact, I'd probably
take the '92-'93 Bills over the '74 Vikings, the '75 Cowboys *and* the '79
Rams but I think the '78 Cowboys would cream them. The real bottom line is that
this Cowboy team has beaten all its Super Bowl and playoff opponents BY AT
LEAST 10 POINTS!!! Losing only once, to the Niners, another all-time great
team.... That's what earns them their ranking amongst the all-time great
teams. They have clobbered two Super Bowl opponents. Played a mediocre game
and still won by 10 in this most recent SB. Beat a soon to be Super Bowl champ
by 17 points in an NFC Championship. They haven't just beaten their playoff
foes.. they've creamed them. Think about the '89 Niners who beat their playoff
foes 31-3, 28-3 and 55-10... or the Bears who beat theirs 17-0, 20-0 and 46-10..?
That's kicking some serious ass. These teams left no doubt about who was the best
team in the league that year. Likewise the Cowboys in their 3 Super Bowl seasons
have never let anybody get any closer than 10 points of them. That's 9 playoff
games against supposedly top flight competition... one of those double digit
wins coming on the road!!!
|>
|> The 60s Packers won FIVE titles in a seven year span, including three in
|> a row (SBs I and II in the last two years of that stretch). No team has
|> ever won 3 in a row besides the Pack. You think three outta four is
|> good?? How about 3 outta 3??
Sorry, but as great as the Pack's accomplishments were, they were made
easier by the fact that they generally only had to win one game to do it.
Remember prior to 1967, only two teams made the playoffs and they duked it
out in a one game 'series' for all the marbles. I think the expanded playoff
format makes it far more difficult to win a championship. When you've got to
win three games minimum to do so, that's tougher than winning one.
|>
|> Finally, going back a ways, the Browns of the 40s and 50s had to be one
|> of the most dominant teams ever. Four-and-Oh in AAFC title games, then
|> a league title in their 1st year in the NFL (1950). The Browns played
|> in SIX consecutive NFL Title games, winning three.
I don't go back this far... but those virtually all-white teams of the 40's
and 50's would get creamed by the more integrated and specialized teams of
today. Yes they were great they ignored a huge segment of the talent base and
probably would have had a hard time beating some of the Negro League teams
of their day. That's not meant to incite any racism based flame war. It's just
a reflection on the times. There isn't anything we can do about what happened
to those people back then, but we can honor their memory.
|>
|> IOW, the Browns were in a league title game EVERY year for the first
|> DECADE they existed!!!!! They won seven titles over that span (4-AAFC,
|> 3-NFL) -- talk about domination!!!
|>
|> Granted, I'd rank the current Cowboys with the 'Niners of the 80s -- but
|> IMHO, the Boys have a ways to go to equal the standard of the 50s
|> Browns, the 60s Packers and the 70s Steelers.
|>
In terms of greatness measured against their contemporaries, I'd agree. But
if they lined up and played those teams, they'd probably clean their clocks.
--
Ronnie T.
SGI Product Support Engineer
CSE-UniX
ron...@csd.sgi.com
(415-390-2529)
Darrell Reel
who does not have a myoptic view of the home team!
>==========Fred Goodwin, 2/21/96==========
>
>In article <4gd4gl$5...@ulowell.uml.edu>,
> jco...@jupiter.cs.uml.edu (Jamie Costa) wrote:
>>In my opinion the cowboys of the 90's are the best team ever
to play in
>>the NFL. I dont know of any other team who has won three suberbowls in
>>four years time, and in the year that they did not win it all, they
>>still made it to the championship game.
>
>I'm as big a Cowboys fan as anybody, but I'm constantly amazed at how
>fans view their recent success and completely forget historical powers
>like the 50s Browns, the Packers of the 60s, and the Dolphins and
>Steelers of the 70s.
>
>Consider the 71-73 Dolphins: three consecutive Super Bowls,
back-to-back
>wins in 72/73, and an unequaled 17-0 in 1972. How can *ANY* discussion
>of the greatest teams of all time explain away that feat??
>
>Or the Steelers of 74-79: four Lombardis in a six-year span. Recalling
>their two wins over the Cowboys, the Steel Curtain is *still*
in my mind
>the most dominating team of recent memory.
>
>The 60s Packers won FIVE titles in a seven year span, including
three in
>a row (SBs I and II in the last two years of that stretch). No
team has
>ever won 3 in a row besides the Pack. You think three outta four is
>good?? How about 3 outta 3??
>
>Finally, going back a ways, the Browns of the 40s and 50s had to be one
>of the most dominant teams ever. Four-and-Oh in AAFC title games, then
>a league title in their 1st year in the NFL (1950). The Browns played
>in SIX consecutive NFL Title games, winning three.
>
>IOW, the Browns were in a league title game EVERY year for the first
>DECADE they existed!!!!! They won seven titles over that span (4-AAFC,
>3-NFL) -- talk about domination!!!
>
>Granted, I'd rank the current Cowboys with the 'Niners of the
80s -- but
>IMHO, the Boys have a ways to go to equal the standard of the 50s
>Browns, the 60s Packers and the 70s Steelers.
>
>---
>================================================================
Robin Stone
>Super Bowls in the 70's. I know Denver upset the Steelers to earn the right to
>be
>Dallas fodder in '77 but who did the Raiders have to get by to get to the Super
>Bowl?
Actually Denver upset Oakland to get to SB XII. Oakland got by Pittsburgh to
get to SB XI.
You made some excellent points. I do think, however, that the '77 Cowboys
were one of the best teams of all time (relative, of course). A lot of people
discount the Cowboy's of the 70's as a powerhouse because they only won two
Super Bowls, but they were in FIVE. And, they were in the championship game
two other times. That's seven out of ten seasons in the 70's when they played
in the NFC Championship game! I think the nucleus of that team has to be
considered one of the best of all time.
Of course, one can never really make a claim that a team from one year, or
era, is better that a team from another. There is no way to prove it or make
someone believe differently. Not statistically or imaginatively. It's all
relative. I got kind of frustrated year before last when SF played San Diego
in the SB and everyone (media) was saying that the 49ers looked like the best
team in the history of the league. What bullshit! Because they ran up scores
and put up big statistics doesn't make them the greatest of all time. Think
of how many teams in the past could have done the same. Think of the fact,
also, that their only real competition last year was the Cowboys who were
injured and trying to adjust to a new coach and, save seven first-quarter
minutes, outplayed them in the Championship game. My point here, is that if a
team flies towards a championship, without any real competition, everyone
lauds that team as one of the greatest of all-time! How about considering
that they may have been lucky and just the best of that season?
Cowboys of '93 had competition and still had no problem. Cowboys of '77 had
competition as well (and so did many other teams throughout history). But,
attempting to be unbiased, I think those two teams were two of the best, if
not the best, of all-time.
Robin Stone
Patrick
all time. I think those teams were better organized than the negro
league teams. BTW you are not incinuating that negro athletes are
better than caucasian athletes are you? I know you said you didn't
want to start a racism based flame war. I'd just like to know exactly
what you mean it's written a little vague. Please respond.
"America's Team"
Patrick
Ronnie Townsend
>> |>
>> |> Finally, going back a ways, the Browns of the 40s and 50s had to be one
>> |> of the most dominant teams ever. Four-and-Oh in AAFC title games, then
>> |> a league title in their 1st year in the NFL (1950). The Browns played
>> |> in SIX consecutive NFL Title games, winning three.
>>
>> I don't go back this far... but those virtually all-white teams of the 40's
>> and 50's would get creamed by the more integrated and specialized teams of
>> today. Yes they were great they ignored a huge segment of the talent base and>> probably would have had a hard time beating some of the Negro League teams
>> of their day. That's not meant to incite any racism based flame war. It's just
>> a reflection on the times. There isn't anything we can do about what happened
>> to those people back then, but we can honor their memory.
>>
>I don't know what the negro league has to do with the best team of
>all time. I think those teams were better organized than the negro
>league teams. BTW you are not incinuating that negro athletes are
>better than caucasian athletes are you? I know you said you didn't
>want to start a racism based flame war. I'd just like to know exactly
>what you mean it's written a little vague. Please respond.
>
No, I'm not about to proclaim one color of athlete any better than another. I
simply have stated that black athletes brought some very different attributes
to the game and changed it drastically. I simply think that the (generally)
smaller and slower athletes of the NFL would have had a really hard time with the
bigger faster athletes that predominated in the negro leagues as evidenced by
the immediate impact of piecemeal integrators like Bobby MItchell, John Henry
Johnson and Marion Motley. These guys were different than what the league was
used to and gave their white counterparts such fits that they forced other teams
to integrate in retaliation. That group of NFL owners would never have integrated
if not for the fact that the few blacks who did get in excelled so. As it turns
out, roughly 55% of the best football players in the world turn out to be black
if we trust our current model to be providing fair and equal opportunity for all.
There is no reason to believe that this wasn't also the case back in the 40's
and 50's and as such the teams that had the higher percentage of what seems to
be the guys best suited to play this game would tend to better than the teams
who had only one or two such players. Again, it's not about race... simply put,
our society, for whatever reason, seems to produce more and better black football
players than white ones. At the highest level this seems to be true. Before I
get flamed by those who will say that the traditionally black colleges now seem
to turn out inferior product you have to remember that prior to widespread
integration of the big football schools, Grambling turned out as many NFL
prospects as Ole' MIss.... with a fifth the student population. Obviously,
integration has led the best athletes, regardless of race, to go after the
biggest, most visible schools possible. Now those black schools are no more or
less likely to groom a future pro than any other division 1-AA or II school. In
a nutshell, that's why I think those Browns teams of the 40's would have trouble
with the negro-league teams of their time. Notice I didn't say they couldn't beat
them, but I think they'd have a hard time doing so. As a very wise man once said
you can't teach speed and size something the negro-league teams had in abundance
when the NFL teams didn't.
Michael Fester
: In article <4gh0u9$1s9q...@austin.eden.com>, fgoo...@eden.com (Fred Goodwin) writes:
: |> I'm as big a Cowboys fan as anybody, but I'm constantly amazed at how
: |> fans view their recent success and completely forget historical powers
: |> like the 50s Browns, the Packers of the 60s, and the Dolphins and
: |> Steelers of the 70s.
: If one wants to consider the nucleus of this Cowboy team as a single entity
: then I'd have to agree that this team is the best ever. It is somewhat
: flawed though because of all the player flux brought about by free agency.
: The '95 was not as good as the '93 team. The '93 team was probably the best
: team I've ever seen. When they were all together and healthy they were
The 93 team, as I recall, took a 7 point deficit into the locker room at
half-time (to a team that had beaten them in the regular season) and were
giving ground when Thurman "I only fumble when it REALLY counts; BTW, where's
my helmet?" dropped the ball. Nothing wrong with picking up turnovers, of
course, but if the game swings on essentially one play, that's hardly
domination. 4th of 4 consecutive Superbowl losses.
:undefeated. This Cowboy team and the '78 Steelers are probably the only team to
: have to beat another true Super Bowl Champion to get their rings. Those Steelers
Excuse me, but I must've missed the Superbowl; WHICH "true Super Bowl"
champion did the Cowboys beat this year? If you mean the 93 Cowboys beat the
49ers, well, yeah, and then they turned around a lost to the 49ers the
next year. THAT 49ers team would be a team that turned out to have won
Superbowls the year before-and-after.
:beat the defending champion Cowboys while the Cowboys beat a soon-to-be champion
:49ers team two years in a row. Then again, the Dolphins put down the soon-to-be
:champion Steelers on their way to the top.Then the Steelers beat the declining
:Dolphins to get to the top so the model doesn't fit as nicely. The Dolphins were
:on top while the Steelers were growing up and the Steelers got to the top as the
:Dolphins declined.
The first Packer team beat a KC team that would win a Super Bowl within
3 years. It would then defeat a team (Oakland) that would continue to be a power
in the AFC for quite a while. The Packers, Steelers, and Cowboys are the only
teams to win Superbowls against more than one franchise that would eventually
win a Superbowl. The Dallas team that beat Miami beat a team that would go on to
take 2 consecutive Superbowls. Baltimore beat a Dallas team that would win a
Superbowl in short order. The NY Jets beat a Baltimore team that would win a
Superbowl within 3 years.
Mike
Ronnie Townsend
|> Organization: Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
|> Lines: 47
|> Message-ID: <4gtep0$7...@news02.comp.pge.com>
|> References: <4gd4gl$5...@ulowell.uml.edu> <4gh0u9$1s9q...@austin.eden.com> <4gia7f$p...@murrow.corp.sgi.com>
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: wilbur.comp.pge.com
|> X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL0]
|> Xref: news.corp.sgi.com alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys:55198 rec.sport.football.pro:184939
|>
|> Ronnie Townsend (ron...@winona.csd.sgi.com) wrote:
|> : In article <4gh0u9$1s9q...@austin.eden.com>, fgoo...@eden.com (Fred Goodwin) writes:
|>
|> : |> I'm as big a Cowboys fan as anybody, but I'm constantly amazed at how
|> : |> like the 50s Browns, the Packers of the 60s, and the Dolphins and
|> : |> Steelers of the 70s.
|>
|> : If one wants to consider the nucleus of this Cowboy team as a single entity
|> : then I'd have to agree that this team is the best ever. It is somewhat
|> : flawed though because of all the player flux brought about by free agency.
|> : The '95 was not as good as the '93 team. The '93 team was probably the best
|> : team I've ever seen. When they were all together and healthy they were
|>
|> half-time (to a team that had beaten them in the regular season) and were
|> giving ground when Thurman "I only fumble when it REALLY counts; BTW, where's
|> my helmet?" dropped the ball. Nothing wrong with picking up turnovers, of
|> course, but if the game swings on essentially one play, that's hardly
|> domination. 4th of 4 consecutive Superbowl losses.
Regardless of getting their asses kicked in four SUper Bowls, only the blind
would ignore how good that Buffalo team was.
|>
|> :undefeated. This Cowboy team and the '78 Steelers are probably the only team to
|> : have to beat another true Super Bowl Champion to get their rings. Those Steelers
|>
|> Excuse me, but I must've missed the Superbowl; WHICH "true Super Bowl"
|> champion did the Cowboys beat this year? If you mean the 93 Cowboys beat the
|> 49ers, well, yeah, and then they turned around a lost to the 49ers the
|> next year. THAT 49ers team would be a team that turned out to have won
|> Superbowls the year before-and-after.
You lost me here!?!?! The '93 Cowboys beat a Niner team with a prime-age Rice,
Taylor, Young and Watters. WHen I say "This Cowboy team" I mean the '93
edition. That was a helluva team. They still had to take some serious steps up
to approach the Cowboys level and that and some key injuries got them past the
Cowboys in '94. The shoe went to the other foot this year.
|>
|> :beat the defending champion Cowboys while the Cowboys beat a soon-to-be champion
|> :49ers team two years in a row. Then again, the Dolphins put down the soon-to-be
|> :champion Steelers on their way to the top.Then the Steelers beat the declining
|> :Dolphins to get to the top so the model doesn't fit as nicely. The Dolphins were
|> :on top while the Steelers were growing up and the Steelers got to the top as the
|> :Dolphins declined.
|>
|> The first Packer team beat a KC team that would win a Super Bowl within
|> 3 years. It would then defeat a team (Oakland) that would continue to be a power
|> in the AFC for quite a while. The Packers, Steelers, and Cowboys are the only
|> teams to win Superbowls against more than one franchise that would eventually
|> win a Superbowl. The Dallas team that beat Miami beat a team that would go on to
|> take 2 consecutive Superbowls. Baltimore beat a Dallas team that would win a
|> Superbowl in short order. The NY Jets beat a Baltimore team that would win a
|> Superbowl within 3 years.
Actually it only took them 2 years. They lost
Super Bowl III and won Super Bowl V. The Jets benefitted greatly from being taken
lightly. I don't think the Colts took them seriously, and they paid for it.
The Packers beat the Chiefs and Raiders who would eventually show championship
mettle but truth be told, the Raiders who won the '77 Super Bowl had turned over
a lot from that '66-'67 team. Again, I'm not talking so much about franchises
as I am about individual team nuclei. The '78 Cowboys have nobody in common with
the '92 edition. Ditto for the '81 and '94 49ers. Again, I certainly would not
call this '95 team the best ever or even close. In fact, I consider this to be
the weakest of the Cowboys championship teams except for maybe the '71 group..
I base that mostly on the mediocrity of the defense. The offense is probably one
of the best ever in the league but the defense gets low marks when compared to
other championship defenses. I like the '93 team because of it's power, balance
and depth. This '95 team could not stay on the field with those guys for four
quarters. I don't even think this edition could beat last year's Niners...
Andy Hernandez
: the '92 edition. Ditto for the '81 and '94 49ers. Again, I certainly would not
: the weakest of the Cowboys championship teams except for maybe the '71 group..
: I base that mostly on the mediocrity of the defense. The offense is probably one
: of the best ever in the league but the defense gets low marks when compared to
: other championship defenses. I like the '93 team because of it's power, balance
: and depth. This '95 team could not stay on the field with those guys for four
: quarters. I don't even think this edition could beat last year's Niners...
: --
I know this is somewhat off the topic of discussion but I would differ
with your statement about the '71 team being the weakest. I never saw
the '71 team play but based on pure stats they looked pretty good. The
'71 team won their last 6 regular season games going 11-3 and killed a
very good (albeit young) Dolphin team in the SuperBowl. I think because
of their loss in SuperBowl V they were a determined and tough team. I do
think the '95 team is probably the weakest. However if you include the
Cowboy SuperBowl teams not winning the championship I think the '75 team is
the weakest.
-Andy
My no frills, no thrills .sig
---------------------------------------------------
| Andres R. Hernandez (MC '97) |
| P.O. Box 203133 |
| New Haven, CT 06520 |
| (203) 436-3150 |
| and...@minerva.cis.yale.edu |
| http://minerva.cis.yale.edu/~andres/dallas.html |
---------------------------------------------------
Ronnie Townsend
|> Organization: Internet Online Services
|> Lines: 77
|> Message-ID: <4h4kak$o...@news.ios.com>
|> References: <4gd4gl$5...@ulowell.uml.edu> <4gh0u9$1s9q...@austin.eden.com> <4gia7f$p...@murrow.corp.sgi.com> <4gtb0i$e...@news.ios.com> <4gtdr9$r...@murrow.corp.sgi.com>
|> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-55.ts-6.hck.idt.net
|> Xref: news.corp.sgi.com alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys:55492 rec.sport.football.pro:185171
|>
|> ron...@winona.csd.sgi.com (Ronnie Townsend) wrote:
|> >
|> > prospects as Ole' MIss.... with a fifth the student population. Obviously,
|> > integration has led the best athletes, regardless of race, to go after the
|> > biggest, most visible schools possible. Now those black schools are no more or
|> > less likely to groom a future pro than any other division 1-AA or II school. In
|> > a nutshell, that's why I think those Browns teams of the 40's would have trouble
|> > with the negro-league teams of their time. Notice I didn't say they couldn't beat
|> > them, but I think they'd have a hard time doing so. As a very wise man once said
|> > you can't teach speed and size something the negro-league teams had in abundance
|> > when the NFL teams didn't.
|> > --
|> that asian and caucasians happen to be (I don't know why) more accomplished
|> scholars than negroes worldwide. BTW no offense meant, but I am stating
|> a fact that is widely known. It seems that everyone is afraid to address
|> this subject. They think that it is too controversial. I find know problem
|> stating facts painful to one color or another,a fact is a fact. I also
|> feel some not all of the reasons for black success in sports
|> disproportionately in the U.S. has to do with blood lines. I know a lot
|> of people avoid this fact also, in the days of slavery they bred the
|> biggest and strongest slaves with one another. I think that plays a good
|> part in black success in sports. That has to do with why they are the best
|> in the world. Against any color. Getting back to the other subject I think
I used to buy this until the African emigres and their progeny started turning
France, Britain and a number of other countries into track and field powers. I
am no longer as enamored of the "slave breeding" theory as I used to be. Though
I still believe it did happen... The "biggest and strongest" argument is
weakened by the fact that most of the best athletes of our time are relatively
small ... Carl Lewis is just under 6 feet tall and weighs 160 pounds soaking
wet. Leroy Burrell is 5'9"... Bo Jackson is 6'1"... OJ Simpson is 6'1"...
Jesse Owens was 5'10". Mike Tyson is 5'10"...
|> in nature there is a trade off if your strong in one thing your going
|> to lack the other. That is as plain as the nose on someones face by
|> looking at the way negroes were not as accomplished by way of inventions
|> or evolving there lifestyles in Africa pre slavery. Let me know what you
|> think. BTW this is not meant to offend. If this subject thread is offensive,
|> I suggest you get thicker skin.
It is only offensive in that you have assumed that since blacks have not
excelled in the areas you cite that they are deficient in this area. Need I
remind you that much of the invention credited to Europeans was stolen from
other cultures and adapted. The Egyptians were the first great architects on
Earth and their methods were stolen by Europeans. The Chinese developed gun
powder and explosives and this technology was stolen from them and later used to
dominate the world. The global success of the Caucasion race is directly related
to a willingness to go out into the world and kill whomever they encounter on
the way. Other advanced cultures mastered their land and set their sights on
(relatively) peaceful pursuits. The British, the Romans, the Greeks, the
Spaniards and even the Norsemen wandered all over the place trying to conquer
everybody else. Obviously, this is a gross oversimplification of the facts but
I think you get my drift. As for the relative lack of scholarship by blacks
worldwide I think you are being naive. Listen to the Stevie Wonder song "Black
Man" from the "Songs in the Key of Life" Album circa 1976 for a lesson in the
things accomplished by Black scholars at least in this country that whites
basically took over and took credit for. This history is still not widely taught
in schools here and I doubt it's taught in other countries either. Do you ever
think about George Washington Carver whenever you eat peanut butter? Or Dr.
Benjamin Banneker when you hear of open heart surgery? Probably not... I don't
think Blacks as a race are any less intellectual than any other race. I do
think Blacks in places like America, France, England among others have their
intellectual development suppressed by the societies in which they live. Likewise,
much of the culture in Africa remains almost feudal for the simple reasons that
a) it works.. if left undisturbed, Africans could survive quite nicely on what
their land provides.. and b) it pays for the world economy to keep Africa
backward... The ability to cheaply raid Africa's vast resources is directly
tied to keeping the people there unaware that they're being exploited... Does
that make them naive and stupid? Perhaps... Does it make them dumb and
unintelligent.. No! I know these aren't the words you use but the implication is
obvious. Blacks are bred to be great athletes but they are generally less
intelligent than Caucasions and Asians. By the way, Africa is not the only place
where the world economy takes advantage of undeveloped people to make big money.
The same can be said of most of South and Central America.... and it used to be
true of the Middle East until they wised up.
Patrick
If that's the case with these examples: Read your first paragraph.
As in Negro League athletes bigger,stronger. As for Jackson,Tyson etc. How about natural
strength combined with athletic ability.BTW just because the
ancestors before were big doesn't mean they have to be tall
respectively. Anyway,we can go on and on....
> |> in nature there is a trade off if your strong in one thing your going
> |> to lack the other. That is as plain as the nose on someones face by
> |> looking at the way negroes were not as accomplished by way of inventions
> |> or evolving there lifestyles in Africa pre slavery. Let me know what you
> |> think. BTW this is not meant to offend. If this subject thread is offensive,
> |> I suggest you get thicker skin.
> It is only offensive in that you have assumed that since blacks have not
> excelled in the areas you cite that they are deficient in this area. Need I
> remind you that much of the invention credited to Europeans was stolen from
> other cultures and adapted. The Egyptians were the first great architects on
>Earth and their methods were stolen by Europeans. The Chinese developed gun
I don't know what thievery you are referring to but,I do know that
in order to get steal from these cultures (as you say) they must first
A. Build a boat.
B. Navigate the seas ie. GALILEO
C. No one taught the norsemen(or should I say) the norsemen stole this
from no one.
powder and explosives and this technology was stolen from them and later used to
Another asian invention proving my point.BTW some of your facts are considered
revisionist history which I don't recognize as having any basis in fact.
dominate the world. The global success of the Caucasion race is directly related
> to a willingness to go out into the world and kill whomever they encounter on
> the way. Other advanced cultures mastered their land and set their sights on
>
What cultures were these?
(relatively) peaceful pursuits. The British, the Romans, the Greeks, the
> Spaniards and even the Norsemen wandered all over the place trying to conquer
> everybody else. Obviously, this is a gross oversimplification of the facts but
> I think you get my drift. As for the relative lack of scholarship by blacks
> worldwide I think you are being naive. Listen to the Stevie Wonder song "Black
> Man" from the "Songs in the Key of Life" Album circa 1976 for a lesson in the
> things accomplished by Black scholars at least in this country that whites
> basically took over and took credit for. This history is still not widely taught
> in schools here and I doubt it's taught in other countries either. Do you ever
> think about George Washington Carver whenever you eat peanut butter? Or Dr.
>
I am very aware of George Carver.I am not saying blacks are not
accomplished.If you are going to use examples ie. Thomas edison,Ben Franklin
are considered the world's greatest inventors ever(stolen from no one)
Benjamin Banneker when you hear of open heart surgery? Probably not... I don't
> think Blacks as a race are any less intellectual than any other race. I do
> think Blacks in places like America, France, England among others have their
>
Thirty years ago I would agree! I don't agree with that reasoning.
You can't have your cake and eat it too. It has nothing to do with
suppression. If it did. There would be scholars outside of those places
above and beyond all others.
>intellectual development suppressed by the societies in which they live. Likewise,
Why when statistics speak for themselves, it has to be suppression???
>much of the culture in Africa remains almost feudal for the simple reasons that
a) it works.. if left undisturbed, Africans could survive quite nicely on what
> their land provides.. and b) it pays for the world economy to keep Africa
That is my point. The very fact that they are still backward proves my point.
They have not made any self advancement on their own. The Native Americans
had alot of self advancement.Btw as for Africa self providing why do we
provide them with so much charity and free food.
backward... The ability to cheaply raid Africa's vast resources is directly
> tied to keeping the people there unaware that they're being exploited... Does
> that make them naive and stupid? Perhaps... Does it make them dumb and
The fact that the industrialized world can "keep them" in any capacity
is proof enough.
unintelligent.. No! I know these aren't the words you use but the implication is
I'll stick to the meanings I state. Do not put words in my mouth. The words
I use are exactly what I mean. I am stating reasons for athletic and intllectual
excellence and less than average shortcomings.
obvious. Blacks are bred to be great athletes but they are generally less
> intelligent than Caucasions and Asians. By the way, Africa is not the only place
> where the world economy takes advantage of undeveloped people to make big money.
> The same can be said of most of South and Central America.... and it used to be
> true of the Middle East until they wised up.
America's Team
Patrick
Ronnie Townsend
|> Organization: Pacific Gas & Electric Co.
|> Message-ID: <4h7bia$2...@news02.comp.pge.com>
|> References: <4gd4gl$5...@ulowell.uml.edu> <4gh0u9$1s9q...@austin.eden.com> <4gia7f$p...@murrow.corp.sgi.com> <4gtep0$7...@news02.comp.pge.com> <4gtldi$a...@murrow.corp.sgi.com> <4h4qfk$b...@news02.comp.pge.com> <4h5eln$1...@murrow.corp.sgi.com>|> Xref: news.corp.sgi.com alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys:55600 rec.sport.football.pro:185303
|>
|> Ronnie Townsend (ron...@winona.csd.sgi.com) wrote:
|> : In article <4h4qfk$b...@news02.comp.pge.com>, mfe...@pge.com (Michael Fester) writes:
|>
|> : |> : Regardless of getting their asses kicked in four SUper Bowls, only the blind
|> : |>
|> : |> point lead. Not really domination.
|>
|> : The opponent was playing well and Dallas was flat. Once Dallas woke up the
|>
|> So, great teams put it on cruise control? In a Superbowl game? You know,
|> I've yet to hear of ANY great team that can't get "up" for a championship
|> game.
|>
|> Yet this is the team you nominate as "the best"; a bunch of slackers??????
|>
|> : second half went 24-zip Dallas...
|>
|> Yeah, after the fumble. 'Course it MIGHT be pointed out that they "woke up"
|> after getting the opening second-half kickoff driven down their throats.
|>
The fumble you cite which ignited them was returned ~40 yards, which means that
Buffalo had not even crossed mnidfield yet .. yet somehow you think they had
already assured themselves of points on this drive..
|> :I think that was more indicative of how
|> : the teams stacked up.
|>
|> Yes, Buffalo fell apart.
Yeah.. like I said, indicative of how the teams stacked up..
|>
|> : |> : |> next year. THAT 49ers team would be a team that turned out to have won
|> : |> : |> Superbowls the year before-and-after.
|> : |>
|> : |> : You lost me here!?!?! The '93 Cowboys beat a Niner team with a prime-age Rice,
|> : |> :Taylor, Young and Watters. WHen I say "This Cowboy team" I mean the '93
|> : |>
|> : |> Ah, you mean THAT Cowboy team. The one that trailed in the Superbowl at
|> : |> halftime.
|>
|> : The one that could sleepwalk through an entire half and still win the Super Bowl
|> : by 17 and whup the Niners by a similar margin... Yeah that's one helluva team.
|> Sounds more like they getting their butts kicked, and caught a lucky break,
|> doesn't it?
A lucky break? A forced fumble with a great return zig-zagging return? A diving
interception? A 90 yard TD drive with 7 straight running plays at one point? And
we are supposed to attribute all this to "luck?"
|> : |>
|> : |> :the '92 edition. Ditto for the '81 and '94 49ers. Again, I certainly would not
|> : |> :call this '95 team the best ever or even close. In fact, I consider this to be
|> : |>
|> : |> I wouldn't call the '93 Cowboy team even the best of the recent Cowboy
|> : |> championship teams.
|>
|> : I would.. They were a year older and stronger than the '92 team which was the
|>
|> And they came out and nearly lost a Superbowl. Had it not been for the
|> fortuitous fumble...
So games that are won on key turnovers are considered "nearly lost."
|>
|> : youngest in the NFL. Virtually every player on the team had a better year in
|>
|> BTW, weren't they a year OLDER the NEXT year, too?
Yup, but the injuries took them down a notch and the Niners made some key
acquisitions to move up.
|>
|> : '93 than in '92. Emmitt averaged 5.3 yards per carry in '93 vs. 4.6 in '92. Irvin
|> : had 78 catches in '92 and 88 in '93. Aikman's rating was 89.5 in '92 vs 99.0 in
|> : '93. Charles haley had 6 sacks in '92, only 4 in '93 but he forced 3 fumbles in
|> : '93 after forcing none in '92... A wash? Kevin Smith had 6 INTs in '93 after
|> :just 3 in '92. Novacek? He had a dropoff in '93 to 44 catches vs. 68 in '92. I
|> :think that reflected a maturing on the part of Troy Aikman more than a decline
|> :in Jay.. as we've seen, he's not declining. Norton had 110 tackles and no sacks
|> :in '92 but then 159 tackles and 2 sacks in '93.
|>
|> And Aikman had about 80 fewer passes, and 8 fewer TDs. Emmitt went from
|> 18 TDs to 9, and on 90 fewer carries.
Both missed significant PT that year. Aikman missed 2 and a half games and Emmitt
missed two complete games, played only half of his first game back after the
holdout and missed 3/4ths of the Atlanta game. Emmitt's yards per carry went up
drastically yards in '93. The TDs were more spread out team-wide that year.
Again, that made them BETTER.
|>
|> So your point is that the team that had less Aikman/Smith was BETTER?
Yes... that team was far more consistent when healthy than was the '92 team.
Only inujuries and a holdout derailed that team. The '92 team was really just
learning how to win...
|>
|> : |> The 93 edition was, in fact, lucky to beat Buffalo. The 92 edition was
|> : |> clearly the best of the 3 recent champs, demolishing all opponents in the
|> : |> playoffs.
|> : |>
|>
|> :That's your opinion which I respect, but I think the '93 team, saddled with the
|> : burden of repeating, the malaise of playing teams they *knew* they were much
|> : better than in the playoffs was better.. They basically sleepwalked to a 27-17
|>
|> The same team that lost to Buffalo, at home, slept-walked through the playoffs,
|> caught a lucky break, and then won, is better?
In a word, yes... This team had played the Packers in the regular season ... and
killed them. It had played the Niners in the regular season.. and killed them...
and had beaten those same Buffalo Bills by 35 points the last time they played
them *with* Emmitt Smith in the backfield. They had a hard time getting up for
the Packers but still led 27-3 late in the game. Johnson used a stroke of
motivating genius to get them ready to kill the Niners.. which they did. He had
no such tricks up his sleeve for the Super Bowl and it showed as the team played
uninspired ball for 32 minutes and then let all hell loose on the Bills for
the next 28.
|>
|> And "burdened"? with repeating???????
To quote John Wooden... "A lot of teams have won one in a row.. repeating is the
true mark of greatness." Being the defending champ and representing a chance at
enhanced reputation to every team you play is a huge burden in sports. I can't
believe I'm explaining this.
|>
|> : win over the Packers and then demolished the Niners, a team they did respect,
|> : in the NFCCG. Who could blame them for not being able to get excited about
|> :playing Buffalo in the Super Bowl? As or their demolishing all opponents in th
|>
|> Who can blame them? How about, anyone playing for a championship?
They still had an average team age of under 25.. they just didn't get it yet.
Look at how the Steelers played for most of the first half this year. And they
were a *veteran* team!
|>
|> : '92 playoffs you seem to forget a certain game at Candlestick wherein the Cowboys
|>
|> Uh, no, I don't recall forgetting that; now, how is it that a "guarantee" of
|> a home win is more indicative of "respect" for an oppenent, and more impressive
|> than going into an opponent's home field and beating him?
Jimmy Johnson himself has stated many times that he made that guarantee because
he sensed after the sleepwalk win over the Packers that his team was not focused
and he needed to do something to get their attention. The '93 Niners with Watters
now in his 3rd year and Young in his third year of starting was better than
the '92 team with those guys with a year less experience. The '93 team had Dana
Stubblefield, the '92 team didn't. My point is that the '92 team struggled
against SF while the '93 team spanked them.. twice.
|>
|> : led only 23-20 late in the fourth quarter before Harper's big catch and run
|> : setup the clinching TD. I will agree that the '92 team played the best game in
|> : the Super Bowl but they were not the best team.
|>
|> They were the best team all through the playoffs; they did demolish everyone,
|> and I don't recall them getting "sleepy" in the Superbowl.
You're revising.. They were actually outgained in the NFC Championship at
Candlestick and if winning by 10 points despite being outgained is demolishing
then they demolished the Steelers in the Super Bowl this year as well. One could
also say they demolished the Packers too by this definition.
Michael Fester
: |> : |> Again, the Cowboys were trailing, and the opponent WAS driving for a 10-to-14
: |> : |> point lead. Not really domination.
: |>
: |> : The opponent was playing well and Dallas was flat. Once Dallas woke up the
: |>
: |> So, great teams put it on cruise control? In a Superbowl game? You know,
: |> I've yet to hear of ANY great team that can't get "up" for a championship
: |> game.
: |>
: |> Yet this is the team you nominate as "the best"; a bunch of slackers??????
: |>
: |> : second half went 24-zip Dallas...
: |>
: |> Yeah, after the fumble. 'Course it MIGHT be pointed out that they "woke up"
: |> after getting the opening second-half kickoff driven down their throats.
:The fumble you cite which ignited them was returned ~40 yards, which means that
: Buffalo had not even crossed mnidfield yet .. yet somehow you think they had
Actually, they were about at mid-field.
: already assured themselves of points on this drive..
Seems less ludicrous than YOU assuming that "Well, they were kinda bored for
a while until they woke up."
Looks more like Buffalo fell apart.
: |> :I think that was more indicative of how
: |> : the teams stacked up.
: |> Yes, Buffalo fell apart.
: Yeah.. like I said, indicative of how the teams stacked up..
So, your point was that the Cowboys could beat teams that fell apart? And
this made them "great"?
: |> : |> :Taylor, Young and Watters. WHen I say "This Cowboy team" I mean the '93
: |> : |>
: |> : |> Ah, you mean THAT Cowboy team. The one that trailed in the Superbowl at
: |> : |> halftime.
: |>
: |> : The one that could sleepwalk through an entire half and still win the Super Bowl
: |> : by 17 and whup the Niners by a similar margin... Yeah that's one helluva team.
: |> Sounds more like they getting their butts kicked, and caught a lucky break,
: |> doesn't it?
:A lucky break? A forced fumble with a great return zig-zagging return?
Ah, yes. What part of that didn't you understand? Or is it your contention that
that's a standard play? (Pity they forgot it the next year, isn't it?)
: A diving
: interception? A 90 yard TD drive with 7 straight running plays at one point? And
: we are supposed to attribute all this to "luck?"
No, you can start by addressing the fumble, which WAS what I pointed out, yes?
And the interception was forced by desparation, yes?
Kinda like what the Cowboys would do next year in a couple of games vs SF,
yes?
: |> : |> I wouldn't call the '93 Cowboy team even the best of the recent Cowboy
: |> : |> championship teams.
: |>
: |> : I would.. They were a year older and stronger than the '92 team which was the
: |> And they came out and nearly lost a Superbowl. Had it not been for the
: |> fortuitous fumble...
: So games that are won on key turnovers are considered "nearly lost."
Hey, you catch on slowly, but you do catch on.
:|>: youngest in the NFL. Virtually every player on the team had a better year in
: |> BTW, weren't they a year OLDER the NEXT year, too?
: Yup, but the injuries took them down a notch and the Niners made some key
: acquisitions to move up.
You know, the 49ers had a few injuries themselves. And their "a year older"
was more significant.
: |> And Aikman had about 80 fewer passes, and 8 fewer TDs. Emmitt went from
: |> 18 TDs to 9, and on 90 fewer carries.
: Both missed significant PT that year. Aikman missed 2 and a half games and Emmitt
: missed two complete games, played only half of his first game back after the
So, it's a better team because its starters couldn't start, is THAT what you're
saying?
:holdout and missed 3/4ths of the Atlanta game. Emmitt's yards per carry went up
:drastically yards in '93. The TDs were more spread out team-wide that year.
Yeah, his TDs went down, though.
:Again, that made them BETTER.
Then it LOOKS like both Emmitt AND Aikman had better years the year before.
: |> So your point is that the team that had less Aikman/Smith was BETTER?
: Yes... that team was far more consistent when healthy than was the '92 team.
: Only inujuries and a holdout derailed that team. The '92 team was really just
: learning how to win...
Oh, right, while the 93 waited around for things to happen. I forgot that
you think that's a SELLING point.
: |> The same team that lost to Buffalo, at home, slept-walked through the playoffs,
: |> caught a lucky break, and then won, is better?
:In a word, yes... This team had played the Packers in the regular season ... and
In a word, b*llsh*t.
:killed them.
Hmm, you know, I do remember a furious comeback by Green Bay in that game...
:It had played the Niners in the regular season.. and killed them...
:and had beaten those same Buffalo Bills by 35 points the last time they played
:them *with* Emmitt Smith in the backfield. They had a hard time getting up for
:the Packers but still led 27-3 late in the game. Johnson used a stroke of
And let them back in. This is a team that "knew how to win"??? YOUR nomination
for one of the best of all time?
Sheesh.
:motivating genius to get them ready to kill the Niners.. which they did. He had
:no such tricks up his sleeve for the Super Bowl and it showed as the team played
:uninspired ball for 32 minutes and then let all hell loose on the Bills for
:the next 28.
Actually, Buffalo choked.
And playing uninspired football is NOT the mark of a great team.
Actually, though, you seem to be admitting they were lucky.
Well, nice we agree on something.
: |>
: |> And "burdened"? with repeating???????
:To quote John Wooden..."A lot of teams have won one in a row.. repeating is the
: true mark of greatness."
I didn't realize the Cowboys PLAYED college hoops. Hmm.
:Being the defending champ and representing a chance at
:enhanced reputation to every team you play is a huge burden in sports. I can't
: believe I'm explaining this.
I can't either, as you seem to be clueless on the whole thing.
Now, I don't recall OTHER great teams having a hard time "getting up for a
championship game." I can recall them struggling, and playing their hearts out
for a whole game, but sleepwalking??? Hmm, not the Steelers, not the Packers,
not the Dolphins, not the 49ers.
Perhaps this blase attitude is why Dallas didn't 3-peat.
Despite having "learned" how to win.
: |> :playing Buffalo in the Super Bowl? As or their demolishing all opponents in th
: |>
: |> Who can blame them? How about, anyone playing for a championship?
:They still had an average team age of under 25.. they just didn't get it yet.
So next year, focussed and motivated, with Emmitt and Aikman for a full
season, did they "get it"? Or did they "forget it", only to "remember it"
this year?
:Look at how the Steelers played for most of the first half this year. And they
:were a *veteran* team!
Uh, yeah, look at that.
(I assume you had a point there, somewhere.)
: |> Uh, no, I don't recall forgetting that; now, how is it that a "guarantee" of
: |> a home win is more indicative of "respect" for an oppenent, and more impressive
: |> than going into an opponent's home field and beating him?
:Jimmy Johnson himself has stated many times that he made that guarantee because
: he sensed after the sleepwalk win over the Packers that his team was not focused
Now THAT sounds like a team that "knew how to win", that "gets it".
They don't take anyone seriously.
(And you wonder why people put the Cowboys down. Even their FANS say they
have tiny attention spans.)
: and he needed to do something to get their attention. The '93 Niners with Watters
: now in his 3rd year and Young in his third year of starting was better than
: the '92 team with those guys with a year less experience. The '93 team had Dana
: Stubblefield, the '92 team didn't. My point is that the '92 team struggled
: against SF while the '93 team spanked them.. twice.
Ah, now I *KNOW* you're joking.
Damn, you had me going for a while there, too. Until you claimed the 10-6
49ers of '93 were better than the 14-2 9ers of '92.
BTW, how did you figure Watters was better? By the measures you use to claim
that EMMITT was better in 93 than 92, Watters was WORSE in 93 than 92.
: |> : led only 23-20 late in the fourth quarter before Harper's big catch and run
: |> : setup the clinching TD. I will agree that the '92 team played the best game in
:|> : the Super Bowl but they were not the best team.
:|>
:|> They were the best team all through the playoffs; they did demolish everyone,
:|> and I don't recall them getting "sleepy" in the Superbowl.
:You're revising.. They were actually outgained in the NFC Championship at
Really? I don't recall claiming a team that lost 4 more games than it had
the previous year was "better".
:Candlestick and if winning by 10 points despite being outgained is demolishing
: then they demolished the Steelers in the Super Bowl this year as well. One could
: also say they demolished the Packers too by this definition.
But you did that very thing, didn't you?
Mike
Robin Stone
>>The 93 edition was, in fact, lucky to beat Buffalo.
>halftime score was. THe Bills had less than 100 yds. rushing. The
>Bills didn't give the ball away because they're nice guys, you know.
>No matter how Buffalo performed in the first half, they couldn't do it
>in the second, and were put in a lot of bad situations in the 2nd by
>the Cowboys defense.
>You can call it "lucky" if you want, but it just shows an ignorance of
>the facts.
You are absolutely right. By that logic of the other poster the Giants were
lucky in '91 because the Bills were leading 12-10 at halftime. And, of
course, the Steelers were lucky in 1980 because the Rams were leading 13-10 at
halftime--and lucky in 1976 when the Cowboys led 10-7 at halftime in SB X.
The Cowboys also led SB V 13-6 at halftime, but the Colts were lucky to come
back and win. You see, any team that is behind at halftime and comes back to
win in the second half is only lucky.
Robin Stone
Gilbert L Pang
What standards of free agency and a salary cap did these other teams
have to face? Free agency allows a player to demand a price for his
services, the salary cap was designed to prevent teams from being able
to keep their teams intact. Did the Browns, Packers, and the Steelers
have to worry abou these two things from year to year? If you don't
think that these are obvious concerns, then why is the salary cap and
free agency two of the biggest talked about issues in the off season?
Go Cowboys!!!
Gilbert L Pang
pa...@cs.unr.edu
Dennis Greene
Organization: Radford University
Distribution:
Ronnie Townsend (ron...@winona.csd.sgi.com) wrote:
: In article <4h7911$1...@news.ios.com>, Patrick <hair...@mcny.com> writes:
: |> Organization: Internet Online Services
: |> Lines: 148
: |> Message-ID: <4h7911$1...@news.ios.com>
: |> References: <4gd4gl$5...@ulowell.uml.edu> <4gh0u9$1s9q...@austin.eden.com> <4gia7f$p...@murrow.corp.sgi.com> <4gtb0i$ec3@news.: |> > |> Message-ID: <4h4kak$o...@news.ios.com>
: |> > |> References: <4gd4gl$5...@ulowell.uml.edu> <4gh0u9$1s9q...@austin.eden.com> <4gia7f$p...@murrow.corp.sgi.com> <4gtb0i$e...@news.ios.com> <4gtdr9$r...@murrow.corp.sgi.com>
: |> > |> NNTP-Posting-Host: ppp-55.ts-6.hck.idt.net
: |> > |> Xref: news.corp.sgi.com alt.sports.football.pro.dallas-cowboys:55492 rec.sport.football.pro:185171
: |> > |>
: |> > |> ron...@winona.csd.sgi.com (Ronnie Townsend) wrote:
: |> > |> >
: |>
: |> > I used to buy this until the African emigres and their progeny started turning
: |> > France, Britain and a number of other countries into track and field powers. I
: |> > am no longer as enamored of the "slave breeding" theory as I used to be. Though
: |> > I still believe it did happen... The "biggest and strongest" argument is
: |> > weakened by the fact that most of the best athletes of our time are relatively
: |> > small ... Carl Lewis is just under 6 feet tall and weighs 160 pounds soaking
: |> > wet. Leroy Burrell is 5'9"... Bo Jackson is 6'1"... OJ Simpson is 6'1"...
: |> > Jesse Owens was 5'10". Mike Tyson is 5'10"...
: |>
: |> If that's the case with these examples: Read your first paragraph.
:
: Yes, I stated that the black athletes of the 40's and 50's were bigger and
: faster than their white counterparts.. but I don't attrubute all of that to
: slave breeding.
:
: |> As in Negro League athletes bigger,stronger. As for Jackson,Tyson etc. How about natural
: |> strength combined with athletic ability.BTW just because the
: |> ancestors before were big doesn't mean they have to be tall
: |> respectively. Anyway,we can go on and on....
:
: Agreed.. we could. When taken in an intellectual context, it can be a fascinating
: discussion.. I'm surprised it has lasted this long without deteriorating into
: some useless name-calling.
:
: |>
: |>
: |>
: |> > |> in nature there is a trade off if your strong in one thing your going
: |> > |> to lack the other. That is as plain as the nose on someones face by
: |> > |> looking at the way negroes were not as accomplished by way of inventions
: |> > |> or evolving there lifestyles in Africa pre slavery. Let me know what you
: |> > |> think. BTW this is not meant to offend. If this subject thread is offensive,
: |> > |> I suggest you get thicker skin.
: |>
: |> > It is only offensive in that you have assumed that since blacks have not
: |> > excelled in the areas you cite that they are deficient in this area. Need I
: |> > remind you that much of the invention credited to Europeans was stolen from
: |> > other cultures and adapted. The Egyptians were the first great architects on
: |> >Earth and their methods were stolen by Europeans. The Chinese developed gun
: |>
: |> I don't know what thievery you are referring to but,I do know that
: |> in order to get steal from these cultures (as you say) they must first
: |> A. Build a boat.
: |> B. Navigate the seas ie. GALILEO
: |> C. No one taught the norsemen(or should I say) the norsemen stole this
: |> from no one.
:
: But the Norsemen weren't the ones who raided Egypt for its knowledge and
: technology. That's generally attributed to the Romans. Mind you the Egyptians
: had been hell-bent on world-domination at different stages in their development
: too.
:
: |>
: |> powder and explosives and this technology was stolen from them and later used to
: |>
: |> Another asian invention proving my point.BTW some of your facts are considered
: |> revisionist history which I don't recognize as having any basis in fact.
:
: Considered revisionist by whom? Unfortunately, the society we live in has proven
: tiem and again that it will teach us the history that it *wants* us to learn and
: de-emphasize what it doesn't.
: |>
: |>
: |> dominate the world. The global success of the Caucasion race is directly related
: |> > to a willingness to go out into the world and kill whomever they encounter on
: |> > the way. Other advanced cultures mastered their land and set their sights on
: |> >
: |> What cultures were these?
:
: The Incas and Mayans would be a good example. Highly developed, ordered societies
: who were relatively content to stay on *their* side of the ocean.
:
: |>
: |> (relatively) peaceful pursuits. The British, the Romans, the Greeks, the
: |> > Spaniards and even the Norsemen wandered all over the place trying to conquer
: |> > everybody else. Obviously, this is a gross oversimplification of the facts but
: |> > I think you get my drift. As for the relative lack of scholarship by blacks
: |> > worldwide I think you are being naive. Listen to the Stevie Wonder song "Black
: |> > Man" from the "Songs in the Key of Life" Album circa 1976 for a lesson in the
: |> > things accomplished by Black scholars at least in this country that whites
: |> > basically took over and took credit for. This history is still not widely taught
: |> > in schools here and I doubt it's taught in other countries either. Do you ever
: |> > think about George Washington Carver whenever you eat peanut butter? Or Dr.
: |> >
: |> I am very aware of George Carver.I am not saying blacks are not
: |> accomplished.If you are going to use examples ie. Thomas edison,Ben Franklin
: |> are considered the world's greatest inventors ever(stolen from no one)
: |>
: |> Benjamin Banneker when you hear of open heart surgery? Probably not... I don't
: |> > think Blacks as a race are any less intellectual than any other race. I do
: |> > think Blacks in places like America, France, England among others have their
: |> >
: |> Thirty years ago I would agree! I don't agree with that reasoning.
: |> You can't have your cake and eat it too. It has nothing to do with
: |> suppression. If it did. There would be scholars outside of those places
: |> above and beyond all others.
:
: I'm not sure of what you're trying to say here. The suppression of talent in the
: U.S. is obviously the example I'm most familiar with. Little facts like that
: as recently as 40 years ago, there were states in this country that had laws
: making it illegal to teach a black child to read... and as recently as the late
: 1960's many of these same states routinely barred blacks from the best colleges.
: American blacks in particular have essentially been deprived of 300 years of
: intellectual evolution. Yet you hold it against them that they have not been
: able to recoup that in the 30-some years that this country has professed to
: provide equal educational opportunity... Sorry.. I can't buy that.
:
: |>
: |>
: |>
: |> >intellectual development suppressed by the societies in which they live. Likewise,
: |>
: |> Why when statistics speak for themselves, it has to be suppression???
:
: Sure... if we accept the axiom that necessity is the mother of invention then
: it stands to reason that those cultures which evolved in Artic and sub-Artic
: Europe and Asia would have to develop a lot more advanced "stuff" than those
: that evolve in equatorial climes. Climates which provide ample, land, food,
: wildlife and yes heat require less ingenuity to prosper than those poor folk
: along the North Sea...
:
: |>
: |> >much of the culture in Africa remains almost feudal for the simple reasons that
: |> a) it works.. if left undisturbed, Africans could survive quite nicely on what
: |> > their land provides.. and b) it pays for the world economy to keep Africa
: |>
: |> That is my point. The very fact that they are still backward proves my point.
: |> They have not made any self advancement on their own. The Native Americans
: |> had alot of self advancement.Btw as for Africa self providing why do we
: |> provide them with so much charity and free food.
:
: Simple, we (and I use the term loosely) went over and disturbed the balance of
: what they had going. We started hunting their animals to extinction, poisoning
: the water supplies with our pollution and oh, yeah.. stealing large numbers of
: their men to do our manual labor... we imposed our way of life on these people
: without their asking. We take what benefits us and give back only enough to
: keep them barely alive.
: |>
: |> backward... The ability to cheaply raid Africa's vast resources is directly
: |> > tied to keeping the people there unaware that they're being exploited... Does
: |> > that make them naive and stupid? Perhaps... Does it make them dumb and
: |>
: |> The fact that the industrialized world can "keep them" in any capacity
: |> is proof enough.
:
: Proof of what? That we as industrialist are cold, exploiting assholes who
: willingly prey on our fellow man... Just makes you want to get up and sing
: "Yankee Doodle" just thinking about it doesn't it?
:
: |>
: |> unintelligent.. No! I know these aren't the words you use but the implication is
: |>
: |> I'll stick to the meanings I state. Do not put words in my mouth. The words
: |> I use are exactly what I mean. I am stating reasons for athletic and intllectual
: |> excellence and less than average shortcomings.
: |>
:
: I don't see the Negro race as lacking in intellect at all. I do see them as
: lacking in opportunity to develop it whether it be here in the states or
: elsewhere in the world. Whel will that change? Probably not in our lifetime.
:
:
: --
:
:
: Ronnie T.
: SGI Product Support Engineer
: CSE-UniX
: ron...@csd.sgi.com
: (415-390-2529)
You guys need to find another place to post your political discussions.
Interesting reading but not in a football newsgroup
--
Dennis C. Greene dgr...@runet.edu
CS major AKA : Bean
Confutious say : He who laughs last probably didn't get the joke.
Patrick
"America's Team"
Patrick
Crazy Pyro
NO WAY! The Cowgirls suck! The Steelers dominated them in the superbowl.
I don't give a crap who got the "W" in the win column. Pittsburgh was the
better team. If it wasn't for the Cowgirls real MVP(Neil O'donnell) the
best team would have won. Larry Brown, MVP - what a crock of crap! Just
watch what the Steelers do with a good QB this year! Look out Superbowl
here we come!!
Cowboys eat Armadillo Dung!
Go Steelers!
Soon to become best of the 90's.
Kick some butt!
Go Cordell! Go Rod - He's baaaaaaacccckkkkk!
Crazy Pyro
Larry Edwards
: [...]
: But the Norsemen weren't the ones who raided Egypt for its knowledge and
: technology. That's generally attributed to the Romans. Mind you the Egyptians
: had been hell-bent on world-domination at different stages in their development
: too.
Empires expand and contract... regions that were under the influence
of a more advanced civilization sometimes become the new masters of
technology..e.g. Romans->Northern Europe, Greece->Romans,
Egypt->Greece. High technology seems to develop where there is a
stationary population of fairly high density... as opposed to loosely
knit tribes of wandering herdsman. One could argue that the reason
that Europeans benefited more than sub-saharan Africans from Egypts
technology, was in fact the barrier created by the Sahara desert.
: |>
: |> powder and explosives and this technology was stolen from them and later used to
: |>
: |> Another asian invention proving my point.BTW some of your facts are considered
: |> revisionist history which I don't recognize as having any basis in fact.
: Considered revisionist by whom? Unfortunately, the society we live in has proven
: tiem and again that it will teach us the history that it *wants* us to learn and
: de-emphasize what it doesn't.
: |>
: |>
: |> dominate the world. The global success of the Caucasion race is directly related
: |> > to a willingness to go out into the world and kill whomever they encounter on
: |> > the way. Other advanced cultures mastered their land and set their sights on
: |> >
: |> What cultures were these?
: The Incas and Mayans would be a good example. Highly developed, ordered societies
: who were relatively content to stay on *their* side of the ocean.
: [...]
Although the Maya didn't cross any oceans, they seem to have been as
aggressive and violent as anybody else... ritualized warfare and all
that.
: Sure... if we accept the axiom that necessity is the mother of invention then
: it stands to reason that those cultures which evolved in Artic and sub-Artic
: Europe and Asia would have to develop a lot more advanced "stuff" than those
: that evolve in equatorial climes. Climates which provide ample, land, food,
: wildlife and yes heat require less ingenuity to prosper than those poor folk
: along the North Sea...
The most technologically advanced societies (i.e. Aztec&Mayans) in
Pre-columbian America were in Central America... nice warm places with
plenty of food... Although the Incas were in Peru...probably not so
warm.
: I don't see the Negro race as lacking in intellect at all. I do see them as
: lacking in opportunity to develop it whether it be here in the states or
: elsewhere in the world. Whel will that change? Probably not in our lifetime.
According to Tony Brown of PBS fame, African immigrants (as opposed to
ones brought by slave trade I suppose) score higher than any other
ethnic group on standardized tests in England. I have no idea of what
kind of studies he bases this on, and whether he lumps North Africans
with sub-Saharn Africans, but it is interesting.
Interesting topic, but seems to be straying a little bit from football.
Larry Edwards
GaryMRosen
>Interesting topic, but seems to be straying a little bit from football.
Wasn't there something in there about the Vikings?
- Gary Rosen
Robin Stone
>NO WAY! The Cowgirls suck! The Steelers dominated them in the superbowl.
>I don't give a crap who got the "W" in the win column. Pittsburgh was the
>better team. If it wasn't for the Cowgirls real MVP(Neil O'donnell) the
>best team would have won.
Right. And the Pittsburgh defense just decided to allow the Cowboys to score
the points they did. And I've heard through my sources that the Cowboys could
have played better, but decided that they didn't have to since they were
winning the game. Man, were those Cowboys lucky that Neil O'donnell was the
QB. I mean here's a guy who never throws interceptions and for some strange
reason, figures he'll do it in the biggest game of his life. I'm sure it had
nothing to do with the Dallas defense and their schemes. Just as I'm sure
that the Cowboy scoring drives were allowed by Pittsburgh to give the Cowboys
a false sense of security. When I think about it . . . how could such a
dominating and, obviously the greatest team this year, lose to a bunch like
the Dallas Cowboys? Excuse me, that should be THE WORLD CHAMPION DALLAS
COWBOYS.
Robin Stone
Robin Stone
>Cowboys eat Armadillo Dung!
Okay! I'm sick of you insensitive Steeler fans and your foul language. If
you're going to use offensive language like this, please stick to your own
newsgroup. Clearly you have put all of us Cowboy fans in our place, but--my
God--do you have to do it so brutally?
Robin Stone
Roland
[deleted]
> Either way, I think the answer is no.
>
> Mac
Since you seem to know so much, please substantiate your claims.
Stephen Okland
is certain ... with Emmit Smith, Michael Irvin, Troy Aikman, Johnston and
Novacek, and the best offensive line ever - they are clealy the most
balanced and indefensible offensive team ever! No-one could truly stop
this offensive team when it really mattered - nor will they next year.
Defensively ... they will be vulnerable!
Stephen Okland
Harlan
wrote:
>
>NO WAY! The Cowgirls suck! The Steelers dominated them in the superbowl.
>I don't give a crap who got the "W" in the win column. Pittsburgh was the
>better team. If it wasn't for the Cowgirls real MVP(Neil O'donnell) the
>best team would have won.
IF ! IF ! IF !
If the the dog wouldn't have to stopped to take a shit, he'd have
caught the rabbit.
Go Cowboys!
Harlan
Adam
: In article <17740B826S...@ysub.ysu.edu>, TCDE...@ysub.ysu.edu (Crazy Pyro) writes:
: |> NO WAY! The Cowgirls suck! The Steelers dominated them in the superbowl.
: |> I don't give a crap who got the "W" in the win column. Pittsburgh was the
: |> better team. If it wasn't for the Cowgirls real MVP(Neil O'donnell) the
: |> best team would have won. Larry Brown, MVP - what a crock of crap! Just
: |> watch what the Steelers do with a good QB this year! Look out Superbowl
: |> here we come!!
: |>
: |> Cowboys eat Armadillo Dung!
: |>
: |> Go Steelers!
: |> Soon to become best of the 90's.
: |> Kick some butt!
: |
:
: Nice try... Cowboy fans aint biting the bait here.
: Ronnie T.
: SGI Product Support Engineer
: CSE-UniX
: ron...@csd.sgi.com
: (415-390-2529)
Really?????
Well, let's see....I count at least four postings from these Cowboy fans,
supposedly lacking of gullibility, who've responded to this guy's posting.
The guy must be a helluva fisherman, ay?
-Adam T.A.
If you aren't fired with enthusiasm, then you will
be fired with enthusiasm.
-Vince Lombardi
The truth is rarely pure, and never simple.
-Oscar Wilde
Adam
Someone named Crazy Pyro wrote:
: : |> NO WAY! The Cowgirls suck! The Steelers dominated them in the superbowl.
: : |> I don't give a crap who got the "W" in the win column. Pittsburgh was the
: : |> better team. If it wasn't for the Cowgirls real MVP(Neil O'donnell) the
: : |> best team would have won. Larry Brown, MVP - what a crock of crap! Just
: : |> watch what the Steelers do with a good QB this year! Look out Superbowl
: : |> here we come!!
: : |> Cowboys eat Armadillo Dung!
: : |> Go Steelers!
: : |> Soon to become best of the 90's.
: : |> Kick some butt!
Ronnie wrote:
: >> Nice try... Cowboy fans aint biting the bait here.
I responded with:
: : Really?????
: : Well, let's see....I count at least four postings from these Cowboy fans,
: : supposedly lacking of gullibility, who've responded to this guy's posting.
: : The guy must be a helluva fisherman, ay?
: : -Adam T.A.
And Spike followed with:
: HAHA! You're one to talk, Adam. Have you ever originated a post?
Sure. But what does that have to do with anything? This guy Pyro isn't
this post's originator to begin with. I do believe this post's originator
did indeed present a more intelligent thread.
Of course, I could be mistaken, but from memory, that's my recollection.
: Most of what I see from you is like most of what I see from everybody....
: rhetorical responses to obvious flamebait.
Sorry, but I was speaking the truth. Ronnie said Cowboy fans weren't
going to be taken in by Pyro's flamebait. I, in turn, merely said that
this isn't correct.
And gosh darnit, I was right.
But you're correct, too. I sometimes do offer responses rhetorically to some
obvious flamebait. I won't deny this, but this isn't the sole basis to which
I respond to postings, though.
And speaking of flamebait responses, don't be too vain to exclude yourself.
You've certainly maintained quite an involvement with these Packer-Cowboy
debates, or more accurately, flame fests, in your own right.
Spike
>: Nice try... Cowboy fans aint biting the bait here.
>
>Really?????
>
>Well, let's see....I count at least four postings from these Cowboy fans,
>supposedly lacking of gullibility, who've responded to this guy's posting.
>
>The guy must be a helluva fisherman, ay?
HAHA! You're one to talk, Adam. Have you ever originated a post?
Most of what I see from you is like most of what I see from
everybody... rhetorical responses to obvious flamebait.
Spike
>: Most of what I see from you is like most of what I see from everybody....
>: rhetorical responses to obvious flamebait.
>
>Sorry, but I was speaking the truth. Ronnie said Cowboy fans weren't
>going to be taken in by Pyro's flamebait. I, in turn, merely said that
>this isn't correct.
>
>And gosh darnit, I was right.
Hell yes, you're right. Some of us actually LIKE that kind of
flamebait. Not everybody replies because they're a total guppy, but I
think I get your point.
>But you're correct, too. I sometimes do offer responses rhetorically to some
>obvious flamebait. I won't deny this, but this isn't the sole basis to which
>I respond to postings, though.
See? You like it, too, sometimes! It helps to vent, even if only once
in a while! I know, you can post logically with the best of them...
... but admit it.... doesn't it feel good to rip off a good zinger now
and then?
>And speaking of flamebait responses, don't be too vain to exclude yourself.
No, NEVER!!!!
>You've certainly maintained quite an involvement with these Packer-Cowboy
>debates, or more accurately, flame fests, in your own right.
Hehe... But to be fair, I can talk football, too, but most people
can't see my posts, because I'm POSITIVE I'm second only to Wilson in
other peoples' killfiles. I've earned them, so please give me my
props!