Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 5RINGS
Monk Maniac
I don't think that Dallas filled more holes than Washington, rather I think that the holes Dallas had were so obvious and glaring that when they got upgraded it seems like the 92/93 Cowboys all over again.
ST - Our Kicking game was horrible. Our PR was in the bottom half of the league. Optimists say that with a better kicker we could have gone 12-4. I don't think that is true but ....
WR - oh sorry..
SOLB - Demarcus Ware was getting a constant Chip or Double team because we did not have a threat on the Strong side last year - especially when Al Singleton went down. Bobby Carpenter will start in that position before game 5 and represents an upgrade in terms of being a threat to get to the QB. Carpenter and the FA Akin Ayondele help the Defense get bigger at LB in general and completes the switch to the 3/4.
QB - You are right. After Bledsoe, Jerry Jones might as well call me because we have nothing there. But Drew is Durable. He got Mashed last year Game after game but played every snap.
OL - Can we talk about something else? Okay they couldn't be worse. So we did pick up Fabini, Kosier (who was sought after by a few teams), and Columbo who was a former 1st round pick. What do you want me to say? if Parcells can get this line to work then just put him in Canton right away.
This is definately the biggest ?uestion mark this year. If they give Bledsoe protection, we will do well. if not.....
DL - Very strong here and got stronger - great DLine rotation that will help to cut down the amount of time those little recievers have to get open.
|
Thanks for the insights, 5RINGS.
This may be just me playing logical semantics, but:
1) If Dallas did not fill more holes than Washington; and
2) Dallas was 9-7 last year, did not make the playoffs, and was swept by Washington; and
3) Washington was 10-6 last year, reached the second round of the playoffs, and swept Dallas...
then how can one reasonably make the claim that the Cowboys are favorites to win the division/Super Bowl, much less perform better than the Redskins? The head-to-head matchup record, as well as overall season performance, would indicate that the Redskins were the better team last year. In order for the Cowboys to now be the better team, they would have had to fill more holes, because a lesser team couldn't possibly have fewer holes than a greater team to start with.
Granted, the use of "holes" as a barometer for improvement is not well-defined or easily measured, but I thought I'd post the argument. So much of the Cowboy-love coming out of the media is about how they have filled all their needs, while the Redskins-bashing centers around having spent a lot of money without really doing much.