jsmith6919
Honored Member - RIP
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2013
- Messages
- 28,407
I would be down with that.I feel like, at this point, player conduct should be enforced by the teams, and the NFL should punish the teams if their players keep effing up.
Holy crap. Almost 20 years. But, we want to see them at full strength and all that nonsense.
Not gonna happen this year either.
To be fair it's not like we play them every year. It would make far more sense to state how many times they have beaten us in a row. Which I have no idea. Because we don't play them that often.Holy crap. Almost 20 years. But, we want to see them at full strength and all that nonsense.
I'm too lazy to look it up, but still 20 years is a long time.To be fair it's not like we play them every year. It would make far more sense to state how many times they have beaten us in a row. Which I have no idea. Because we don't play them that often.
That's only 4 games though. Hell it wasn't even that recent that we lost to them last. We last played them in 2011 I believe and it was a close 20-16 game. We beat them in 1996 so it's actually less then 20 years also...I'm too lazy to look it up, but still 20 years is a long time.
They have beaten us 5 times in a row over a spanse of 20 years. It's significant.That's only 5 games though. Hell it wasn't even that recent that we lost to them last. We last played them in 2011 I believe and it was a close 20-16 game.
Honestly that history has no bearing on how the Cowboys/Patriots game will end up. It's not the same as saying the Eagles have beat us 5 times straight. Heck most of our roster probably doesn't even remember that last Patriots/Cowboys game.
I got that wrong. I included that 1996 game as a loss. We've actually only lost 4 straight. And that starts in 1999. It's really not significant at all. Statistically it's pretty insignificant.They have beaten us 5 times in a row over a spanse of 20 years. It's significant.
I got that wrong. I included that 1996 game as a loss. We've actually only lost 4 straight. And that starts in 1999. It's really not significant at all. Statistically it's pretty insignificant.
How is that significant?They have beaten us 5 times in a row over a spanse of 20 years. It's significant.
Because they have beaten us with at least 3 completely different teams. Whereas, if we got beat by the Eagles 4 years in a row, it would be basically the same team playing against each other all four years.How is that significant?
How can playing a team 4 times in 20 years be significant?
So Quincy Carter being beat 10-15 years ago means what exactly? Do you think it makes the Patriots more likely to beat us next year? In your example I'd at least say maybe the Eagles have our number. The Patriots I'd say that's just a random statistic. The longer period of time you expand 4 wins over the less important that statistic is.Because they have beaten us with at least 3 completely different teams. Whereas, if we got beat by the Eagles 4 years in a row, it would be basically the same team playing against each other all four years.
I'm bored at home as much as anything. Oh, and BTW, I never said the stat supported the Pats beating us yet again this year.So Quincy Carter being beat 10-15 years ago means what exactly? Do you think it makes the Patriots more likely to beat us next year? In your example I'd at least say maybe the Eagles have our number. The Patriots I'd say that's just a random statistic. The longer period of time you expand 4 wins over the less important that statistic is.
Well that makes sense. Yeah I was just trying to figure out what you thought the meaning was. Fact of the matter is the Patriots are going to be a bitch to beat this year now that Brady will be in the lineup. We certainly have the talent to do it, but Garoppolo would have been a ton easier to face.I'm bored at home as much as anything. Oh, and BTW, I never said the stat supported the Pats beating us yet again this year.
With Hardy likely to get his suspension canceled as well I'm liking the odds of our pass rush in that game getting to Brady.Well that makes sense. Yeah I was just trying to figure out what you thought the meaning was. Fact of the matter is the Patriots are going to be a bitch to beat this year now that Brady will be in the lineup. We certainly have the talent to do it, but Garoppolo would have been a ton easier to face.
That last game was when we had no way to control the game and keep Brady off the field because our OL sucked. I think we went three and out for like five yards and gave Brady the ball back. This should be a different kind of OL and different kind of defense.Heck most of our roster probably doesn't even remember that last Patriots/Cowboys game.
Easy-- run 50-50 play selection and play pass-first on defense. Let the back seven handle the run while the DL pins their ears back. Lee will get at least one pick.That last game was when we had no way to control the game and keep Brady off the field because our OL sucked. I think we went three and out for like five yards and gave Brady the ball back. This should be a different kind of OL and different kind of defense.
I like how we match up in some ways, but not in others. I don't think we can handle their offense schematically. If we had a real running game it would help.
The Peterson and Brady decisions were very similar. Both revolved around the fact that the league had no precedent of punishment for the players' respective actions WHEN the actions occurred. Nor has it been ratified by the CBA and passed out to players in written conduct policies that these are (or will be) the suspensions for these behaviors.Are they the same thing? Hardy was suspended for some kind of domestic thing as I recall. Will this fall under the same judicial mindset?