Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=punch it in;1161499]I have never see Smith show the ability to take over a play let alone a game. Lol.
Just because they are playing does not mean they are contributing. Fuller looked absolutely lost.
Listen any of the guys you mentioned can certainly turn it around or become, at the very least, solid roll players.
None of them get me too excited now though. Cravens, but he has to stay healthy.
We will see. Hope they all turn into solid contributors.[/quote]

Fuller got beat a lot but he was in position all the time. He just wasn't making an actual play on the ball. He's a rookie DB and as you know there are going to be growing pains there. It's not like he was looking like Whitner, who just couldn't cover a snail.

As far as Smith goes, he didn't have a good year. Personally I just don't think he's explosive enough to be a dominant player. His motor seems to just a tad too slow. Maybe they need to move him inside on obvious pass downs.

Spaight looked completely lost when he got his first start. Just looked like the game was too fast for him.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=punch it in;1161524]Only thing I value more is a big time ILB. Mason has shown enough to warrant a starting role but I would love a stud to pair up with him. I just think that is the epicenter of any good defense. FS is an extremely close second. [B]Than grab a slab of beef like a Snacks Harrison somewhere to obliterate the run[/B].[/quote]

Have to give the Giants credit -- he was a great pickup for them. Dammit.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=SouperMeister;1161040]I'm not saying fire the GM, but this is not the team that McGloughan promised when he took the job. He sold us visions of tough, physical teams, and what we saw the last two home games, with a playoff berth at stake, was a butter-soft team on both sides of the ball. We can't run the ball, and we can't stop opponents from running down our throat. That's a bad recipe for winning December games when the weather is often a factor. It is time that Scot finally addresses our interior deficiencies on both lines through the draft and free agency. I hope that Josh Doctson is a stud, because that draft spot could have been used to fill a glaring deficiency in this lost season.[/quote]

Two more seasons will tell the tale if Scott is the real deal or just a GM that worked wonders at his previous gig. We need to realize that most of the fans of most of the NFL franchises are in the same boat as Skins fans. We are hyped up with hope every offseason/draft that things will dramatically change for the better, keeping us continually interested, with the coaching carousel, new rookies/free agents, etc. To me the problem is mostly with the fans and unrealistic expectations that are generated by the hype. Remember when analysts gave our 2016 draft grade as either a B+ or A-, when after all was said and done it was rather average at best? Most of us bought into that stuff, and it wasn't based on any real sense of reality. The NFL is a corporation and the bottom line is money and that entails getting the butts into the seats, getting TV ratings, and getting fans to buy crap they really don't need. How do you do that? Either build a winner or create a sports soap opera, like you have with the Lions, Redskins, and others that love to tease their fan base on a regular basis. Think about it. Snyder had the Skins as the most lucrative sports franchise on the planet at one point, and they were average at best. IF a competitive winner isn't built 2 seasons from now I think it should be apparent that the whole thing under Snyder is just keeping interest in the team via chaos. I trust Scott to build a winner, but I am going to stick with the 2 year thing. Hopefully his 2017 draft is more like his first draft and even better. 2016 really wasn't as nearly as good as initially advertised.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

I, for one, trust Scot McCloughan completely. He's got my support. He can be here for the next 10 years at least as far as I'm concerned. I think he's doing great things for this team, and I think over the next several seasons, the rest of you guys will start to see it too. This team needs to be done with the proverbial revolving door at key positions. Not only do the leashes need to be lengthened, but they just need to be taken off completely. Allow these guys (the GM, the coaching staff, the players) to grow and build this team. While I'm not too crazy for Barry and won't cry if he is let go, I believe, overall, we stick with the same group of guys that has improved this team greatly over the 3-13 mess Shanahan left for us. Now his tenure was an example of a team not growing. At least with SM and Gruden, we've seen this team go from 4-12 to having two winning seasons. The way I see it is, you have first got to establish that this team can be consistently at or above .500 on a regular basis. Then you take this team to the next step at making them a playoff team on a consistent basis, and eventually a championship caliber team. The team has first got to learn how to win. Last year it was that the team couldn't beat any winning teams. This year, people said this team can't win on the road. So, that's the next thing to work on - being road dogs!

Guys and gals, we're getting there, just gotta believe and keep grinding.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=metalskins;1161626]I, for one, trust Scot McCloughan completely. He's got my support. He can be here for the next 10 years at least as far as I'm concerned. I think he's doing great things for this team, and I think over the next several seasons, the rest of you guys will start to see it too. This team needs to be done with the proverbial revolving door at key positions. Not only do the leashes need to be lengthened, but they just need to be taken off completely. Allow these guys (the GM, the coaching staff, the players) to grow and build this team. While I'm not too crazy for Barry and won't cry if he is let go, I believe, overall, we stick with the same group of guys that has improved this team greatly over the 3-13 mess Shanahan left for us. Now his tenure was an example of a team not growing. At least with SM and Gruden, we've seen this team go from 4-12 to having two winning seasons. The way I see it is, you have first got to establish that this team can be consistently at or above .500 on a regular basis. Then you take this team to the next step at making them a playoff team on a consistent basis, and eventually a championship caliber team. The team has first got to learn how to win. Last year it was that the team couldn't beat any winning teams. [B]This year, people said this team can't win on the road[/B]. So, that's the next thing to work on - being road dogs!

Guys and gals, we're getting there, just gotta believe and keep grinding.[/quote]This team is too soft to even protect its own house!!! 4-4 at home is completely unacceptable for a team that saw itself on the rise going into 2016. Until McCloughan adds size, strength, and toughness in the trenches, expect more of the same.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=SouperMeister;1161628]This team is too soft to even protect its own house!!! 4-4 at home is completely unacceptable for a team that saw itself on the rise going into 2016. Until McCloughan adds size, strength, and toughness in the trenches, expect more of the same.[/quote]

I'm expecting to see a lot of players added in the front 7 on defense this year. Thru both free agency and the draft.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=Schneed10;1161508]Rewind back to November 2007 and convince Sean Taylor not to stay in his Miami home that night? I know that's not your question but man do I miss his ability to play single-high and still cover sideline to sideline in the deep middle. You didn't even need a second safety, he became an eighth box player.

Sigh. What could have been. Still makes me emotional.

So if I have Cravens as one of my safeties I think it affects me on a game-by-game basis as I develop my gameplans. For example, if I'm facing the Eagles with their dreadful WRs this year, I think I don't bother flexing the responsibilities of the safeties. I'd tell Cravens, you look at the formation, and you line up on the strong side of the formation. If a guy goes in motion and switches the strong side of the formation to the other side of the field, then you motion with him to the other hash mark.

I tell my free safety, whoever it is, to do the opposite. On the snap, he retreats to single high while Cravens takes up a zone coverage responsibility around the seam at the 10-12 yard mark. If it's a run then he's positioned to come up and hit, if it's a pass then he's not asked to run too deep.

Since their WRs aren't that threatening, you put the onus on the corners to win, and you let the single high free safety just be responsible for saving the day and keeping the guy out of the end zone.

Right now, Barry seems to love having everyone be responsible for a side of the field. I hate it, because offenses put players in motion to move them into position for mismatches. I'd instead teach the secondary how to move as the formation shifts. Cravens goes to the strong side, Norman follows the best WR, the FS goes opposite Cravens. These players aren't dumb, it should be entirely possible to teach them this.

Now, against a team with very good WRs like the Giants with Beckham and Shepherd, I'm feeling pretty vulnerable with Cravens back there no matter what I do. So I'm probably blitzing the hell out of the Giants and hoping for the best, including sending Cravens on occasion. If my FS was Sean Taylor, I'd feel pretty good about it.

Sigh.[/quote]Watching Sean Taylor on TV didn't do justice to how good he was. I had end zone seats for 3-4 games a year while he was with us, and he typically lined up 20 yards off the line of scrimmage in the middle of the field, yet was athletic and instinctive enough to cover sideline to sideline on deep corner routes. Everything clicked that fourth season, and I had no doubt that at 24 years old, he was the best (and most feared) safety in the league. I still go back to his highlights on YouTube a couple times a year. What could have been...

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[QUOTE=SouperMeister;1161628]This team is too soft to even protect its own house!!! 4-4 at home is completely unacceptable for a team that saw itself on the rise going into 2016. Until McCloughan adds size, strength, and toughness in the trenches, expect more of the same.[/QUOTE]



Dont forget speed on the edges, and guys who can friggin tackle!

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=SirLK26;1161497]I like how two years ago when Scot came on board everyone was glad we were going to build through the draft. Now people want to sign all the big name free agents again. Scot hit a home run with Norman, but I hope he doesn't make signing big dollar free agent contracts the norm

He's finding us some good players each year in the draft, give them time to develop. Preston Smith has shown an ability to take over games, next year could be a breakout year for him. Cravens looks to be a beast if he can stay healthy. All the experts including Cooley love Kendall Fuller. And other young guys are contributing like Dunbar, Spaight, Ioaniddis, Lanier, Everett. Let's have patience and stay the course[/quote]

At some point, maybe after year 3, I'd love to see a detailed analysis of Scot's draft performance as it relates to the rest of the division. When he came here, I thought he'd outsmart everyone else and find late round gems year in and year out, but it appears to me that Dallas and NY have done better during his time here. Dak and Zeke were in the MVP discussion this year and the Giants found a pro-bowl safety in Collins at pick #33 while we got a pro bowl guard with the 5th overall pick in the same draft. Yes, Crowder was a good find, but the Giants got similar value with Shepard.

Matt Jones in the 3rd round looks like a bust, but Preston Smith, Fuller and Cravens may turn into something. He's found some good contributors, but no one that really knocks your socks off. Time will tell I guess.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

Not sure I agree that the other teams have dominated us in the draft. You're referencing a lot of first round picks. It's GOOD those worked out, because they definitely should. :)

I'll give credit to the Cowboys for finding Dak, but I think anyone who can game manage could have done the same thing. I think a lot of people also thought Elliott was the best back to come out in a long time.

I think Crowder is far superior to Shepard, even though Shepard is OK. I think we've been competitive in the draft since Scot's been here. If I really think about it, I can't say one team really has any huge edge.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;1161732]Not sure I agree that the other teams have dominated us in the draft. You're referencing a lot of first round picks. It's GOOD those worked out, because they definitely should. :)

I'll give credit to the Cowboys for finding Dak, but I think anyone who can game manage could have done the same thing. I think a lot of people also thought Elliott was the best back to come out in a long time.

I think Crowder is far superior to Shepard, even though Shepard is OK. I think we've been competitive in the draft since Scot's been here. If I really think about it, I can't say one team really has any huge edge.[/quote]

I was just throwing out examples off the top of my head and Zeke was the only 1st rounder. We got a pro bowl guard at 5th overall and they got a league leading rusher with the #4 overall pick. Collins was a 2nd rounder, Dak a 4th rounder, Shepard a 3rd and Crowder a 4th. Even Gruden is questioning Scot's picks.

I'm all in on Scot and hope some of his other picks turn into good players, but it doesn't seem he's done anything but keep pace with our division rivals. Coming in, I thought he'd give us a big advantage, particularly in the later rounds. Plenty of questionable picks and the free agent decisions have been mediocre at best. That said, I hope he's our GM for years to come. I believe over the long term, he'll outperform the rest of our division and much of the NFC, if not the entire league.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

I will agree with you on one point: it seems like every other team in the NFCE but us seems to get some HUGE cog in their team.

Giants got OBJ.
Cowboys got Zeke/Prescott (even though I really don't think he'll improve that much)
Eagles got Wentz.

We got an awesome guard. :D

Again, I don't think you can definitively say one team has crushed us. I'm with you, I do think we'll be MUCH better over the long term.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=TheMalcolmConnection;1161738]I will agree with you on one point: it seems like every other team in the NFCE but us seems to get some HUGE cog in their team.

Giants got OBJ.
Cowboys got Zeke/Prescott (even though I really don't think he'll improve that much)
Eagles got Wentz.

We got an awesome guard. :D

Again, I don't think you can definitively say one team has crushed us. I'm with you, I do think we'll be MUCH better over the long term.[/quote]

Agreed. I think my bigger point was to keep the rest of the division in mind when we assess how Scot and his staff is or isn't doing. Maybe it does make sense to grade his performance in a vacuum, but if the rest of the division is doing better with their picks and free agent acquisitions then we're fighting an uphill battle. I want him to kick their assess when it comes to player personnel and think he will in the long run.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

I was VERY disappointed when Scot traded down from our 4th round pick (120 overall) in the last draft, with NT Andrew Billings on the board. In return, we got New Orleans' 5th round pick (selecting Matt Ioannidis) and their 2017 5th rounder. Billings went 122 overall to Cincy, but was injured and spent the season on IR. Most graded Billings as 2nd round talent, so it would not have been a reach for Scot to use our original 4th round pick to fill a GLARING need - a true run-stopping interior lineman with elite strength. Don't know what he saw in Ioannidis, who is just a guy. I hope he proves me wrong and develops into the anchor in the middle of the line that Scot envisioned.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=SouperMeister;1161628]This team is too soft to even protect its own house!!! 4-4 at home is completely unacceptable for a team that saw itself on the rise going into 2016. Until McCloughan adds size, strength, and toughness in the trenches, expect more of the same.[/quote]

Nope. Now since the defensive coaching staff has been kicked to the curb. I will expect better results with a few upgrades.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=punch it in;1161635]Dont forget speed on the edges, and [B]guys who can friggin tackle![/B][/quote]

Honestly I've seen improvement on missed tackles this year (but it felt like it couldn't get worse the year before).

Only Whitner and Compton were missing tackles on a regular basis.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[QUOTE=FrenchSkin;1161806]Honestly I've seen improvement on missed tackles this year (but it felt like it couldn't get worse the year before).



Only Whitner and Compton were missing tackles on a regular basis.[/QUOTE]



No doubt it was better than last year and yes that was bottom of the barrel. Lol. Still need to improve.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[QUOTE=metalskins;1161782]Nope. Now since the defensive coaching staff has been kicked to the curb. I will expect better results with a few upgrades.[/QUOTE]



Of course that is what we said when Haslett left.
We need a damn guru.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=SouperMeister;1161628]This team is too soft to even protect its own house!!! 4-4 at home is completely unacceptable for a team that saw itself on the rise going into 2016. Until McCloughan adds size, strength, and toughness in the trenches, expect more of the same.[/quote]

+1 ...sums up my feelings.

Build from the lines out.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

The Whitner signing was an effing disaster. Anytime Cleveland doesn't want you then you might not want to bring that guy in. He looked like a 50 year old man in coverage.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=MTK;1161055]All I know is the Redskins of old were perennial last place finishers in the division. We've definitely made progress under McCloughan but there's plenty more work to do.

I'm really not sure what anyone expected after just 2 seasons, but back to back winning seasons is a good start and something I'm sure all of you would have signed on for at the start.[/quote]
My question here is if you start the season 9-0 but finish at 9-7? Is that really a winning season?

Not trying to piss on anyones Wheaties. But was listening to Pat Kirwan the other day and his theory is "You are as good as your last 4 to 6 games. That is the team you are today. Not who you were at the start of the season, but who you are today." Is 2-4 a more accurate reflection? Or is 8-7-1?

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;1161898]My question here is if you start the season 9-0 but finish at 9-7? Is that really a winning season?

Not trying to piss on anyones Wheaties. But was listening to Pat Kirwan the other day and his theory is "You are as good as your last 4 to 6 games. That is the team you are today. Not who you were at the start of the season, but who you are today." Is 2-4 a more accurate reflection? Or is 8-7-1?[/quote]

We started 0 and 2.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;1161898]My question here is if you start the season 9-0 but finish at 9-7? Is that really a winning season?

Not trying to piss on anyones Wheaties. But was listening to Pat Kirwan the other day and his theory is "You are as good as your last 4 to 6 games. That is the team you are today. Not who you were at the start of the season, but who you are today." Is 2-4 a more accurate reflection? Or is 8-7-1?[/quote]

9-7 last year and won four straight to end the year. We definitely stunk it up a few times this year on the way out, but I think we're a much improved team over the 2015 version. Not sure I buy that theory by Pat...

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[QUOTE=sandtrapjack;1161898]My question here is if you start the season 9-0 but finish at 9-7? Is that really a winning season?



Not trying to piss on anyones Wheaties. But was listening to Pat Kirwan the other day and his theory is "You are as good as your last 4 to 6 games. That is the team you are today. Not who you were at the start of the season, but who you are today." Is 2-4 a more accurate reflection? Or is 8-7-1?[/QUOTE]



Yes more wins than losses equals a winning season, it's simple math.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;1161898]My question here is if you start the season 9-0 but finish at 9-7? Is that really a winning season?

Not trying to piss on anyones Wheaties. But was listening to Pat Kirwan the other day and his theory is "You are as good as your last 4 to 6 games. That is the team you are today. Not who you were at the start of the season, but who you are today." Is 2-4 a more accurate reflection? Or is 8-7-1?[/quote]

:doh:

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;1161898]My question here is if you start the season 9-0 but finish at 9-7? Is that really a winning season?

Not trying to piss on anyones Wheaties. But was listening to Pat Kirwan the other day and his theory is "You are as good as your last 4 to 6 games. That is the team you are today. Not who you were at the start of the season, but who you are today." Is 2-4 a more accurate reflection? Or is 8-7-1?[/quote]

8-7-1 is a winning season, but I will not argue with the theory that you are as good as your last 4-6 games.

The Cowboys, for example, finished the season 2-2...

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

In the famous words of Mr. Parcells: “You are what your record says you are.”

Your final record shows who you are over the course of a season. Maybe it's different in the extreme examples of going 8-0 then 0-8, or thereabouts. Even there, you have shown the talent and ability to win half your games in a 16 game season. Each year is a new year, how many "worsts to first" (and vice versa) does it take to prove that?

We were a 9-7 team last year and are an 8-7-1 team this year - that's who we are right now, and it's an improvement over when we were a 4-12 team or when we finished fourth in the division 8 out of 11 years between 2004 and 2014.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=MTK;1161908]Yes more wins than losses equals a winning season, [B]it's simple math[/B].[/quote]

You forget - he is a Dallas fan.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;1161898]My question here is if you start the season 9-0 but finish at 9-7? Is that really a winning season?

Not trying to piss on anyones Wheaties. But was listening to Pat Kirwan the other day and his theory is "You are as good as your last 4 to 6 games. That is the team you are today. Not who you were at the start of the season, but who you are today." Is 2-4 a more accurate reflection? Or is 8-7-1?[/quote]

Who the fuck is pat kirwan?

Lol skins certainly moving in the right direction. Another winning season and a core of solid talent to boot. We are doing ok...firing a bad d coordinator is only gonna help. Good luck to you in the playoffs, y'all should do just fine.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

I am going to have a great time on the dallas cowards forums when they get sent home from the playoffs.. if they win it all then fine with that but why the heck do they come to this site and poke around..

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[QUOTE=Chief X_Phackter;1161911]8-7-1 is a winning season, but I will not argue with the theory that you are as good as your last 4-6 games.

The Cowboys, for example, finished the season 2-2...[/QUOTE]


Clearly a fail of a season

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;1161898]My question here is if you start the season 9-0 but finish at 9-7? Is that really a winning season?

Not trying to piss on anyones Wheaties. But was listening to Pat Kirwan the other day and his theory is "You are as good as your last 4 to 6 games. That is the team you are today. Not who you were at the start of the season, but who you are today." Is 2-4 a more accurate reflection? Or is 8-7-1?[/quote]

I would argue that going 2-4 in your last 6 games is more a reflection that you did poorly in your last 6 games, whereas going 8-7-1 over the course of a season reflects that you were above average by the slimmest of margins. That's just me though.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[QUOTE=sandtrapjack;1161898]My question here is if you start the season 9-0 but finish at 9-7? Is that really a winning season?



Not trying to piss on anyones Wheaties. But was listening to Pat Kirwan the other day and his theory is "You are as good as your last 4 to 6 games. That is the team you are today. Not who you were at the start of the season, but who you are today." Is 2-4 a more accurate reflection? Or is 8-7-1?[/QUOTE]



Win a playoff game before u get so smug,.... and remember when you lose your first playoff game you are 0-1 until next year

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[QUOTE=rocnrik;1161918]I am going to have a great time on the dallas cowards forums when they get sent home from the playoffs.. if they win it all then fine with that but why the heck do they come to this site and poke around..[/QUOTE]



Sandtrap isn't really a troll, but he is as delusional as any other Cowboy fan. I swear you would think they win championships every other day. Lol. How many playoff wins do they have in the last 20 years?

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=MTK;1161908]Yes more wins than losses equals a winning season, it's simple math.[/quote]

C'mon? Be serious now. Your just looking at my avatar and trying to write sh*t off.

But you know and I know as well as anyone else knows that if a team, any team, starts a season off 9-0 and finishes 0-7 there will be coaches looking for jobs. Even a head coach. Sure 9-7 is a 'winning season' by simple math. But that 0-7 finish is a coffin nail.

Someone in Landover agress. Washington was in first place in the division for a short time this season. Then they finish 2-4 and the entire defensive staff gets fired.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

You're confusing winning season with successful season. And the entire staff wasn't fired.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=sandtrapjack;1162224]C'mon? Be serious now. Your just looking at my avatar and trying to write sh*t off.

But you know and I know as well as anyone else knows that if a team, any team, starts a season off 9-0 and finishes 0-7 there will be coaches looking for jobs. Even a head coach. Sure 9-7 is a 'winning season' by simple math. But that 0-7 finish is a coffin nail.

Someone in Landover agress. Washington was in first place in the division for a short time this season. Then they finish 2-4 and the entire defensive staff gets fired.[/quote]

Your talking about several things now and seems like your digging. Defense kinda been questionable since Barry took the reigns.

But whatever you have to tell yourself that the Skins aren't getting better, feel free. But the facts remain winning seasons back to back...couple division titles since 2012...this feeling of stability throughout the organization and throughout the league is pretty obvious.

I actually believe the Skins, Cowboys and Giants are pretty much evenly matched. Not a lot of separation. Eagles got some work to do, but overall the East is back.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=MTK;1162226]You're confusing winning season with successful season. [/quote]
The two are mutually exclusive? I'm intrigued.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[quote=Chico23231;1162227]Your talking about several things now and seems like your digging. Defense kinda been questionable since Barry took the reigns.

But whatever you have to tell yourself that the Skins aren't getting better, feel free. But the facts remain winning seasons back to back...couple division titles since 2012...this feeling of stability throughout the organization and throughout the league is pretty obvious.

I actually believe the Skins, Cowboys and Giants are pretty much evenly matched. Not a lot of separation. Eagles got some work to do, but overall the East is back.[/quote]
I did not say that the 'Skins are not getting better. I did not say they got any worse, nor that they are status quo. All I asked (I did NOT say). But I asked a fargin' question. You guys have never given a crap about what I think anyway. So that is why I asked a question.

Question I asked is whether 8-7-1 is more indicative of who you are today or is 2-4?

Lets look at it another way. Would you rather have finished the last 6 weeks of season at 4-2 to be at 8-7-1? Or 2-4 and finish at 8-7-1?

And yes and concur. Put the rest of the league on notice, the NFC Beast is back.

Re: In Scot we trust?
 

[QUOTE=sandtrapjack;1162228]The two are mutually exclusive? I'm intrigued.[/QUOTE]



Come on man, you know a one and done playoff run is not what the Cowboys or their fans have in mind. If The Packers come into Dallas and knock you out of the playoffs will you say "hey we won a bunch of games this year and lost a home playoff game - Im good with that"!