What's up with the excuses?

[DMWSackMachine]

I get the fact that the Packers were a little short handed last night. That's fine and dandy, and I concede that it may have made a bit of a difference had both KGB and Woodson played (but give me a break, Rouse?).....but no one mentions that the Cowboys played--and continue to dominate--without our only true deep threat, Terry Glenn, our starting nose tackle and pre-season Most Indispensable Player, Jason Ferguson, with two gimpy CBs--one of which has not started a game since week 5 because of a nagging high ankle sprain--in Anthony Henry and Terence Newman (who has been struggling with a plantar fascia tear all year)......and I could go on ad infinitum.

It's pretty bad when Jamie Dukes has to provide the voice of reason, which is that there is that at no point in time did it ever look like Green Bay was as good (let alone better) than the Dallas Cowboy's team. In fact, if it weren't for the out-of-the-blue play of Aaron Rodgers, Dallas would have blown that game off of it's hinges.

I just don't get it, why is everyone so eager to excuse the Pack? I sincerely want to know what's behind it.

[VoteLynnSwan]

this is just what packers fans do, they will never admit that their team was simply beat, there's always a reason, be it penalties or injuries.

[DMWSackMachine]

That's not that uncommon with FANS, what I'm failing to understand is the media is rushing to invalidate this game.

I didn't hear anyone providing the Cowboys a free pass when we played the Pats without OUR second best CB, with a hobbled Greg Ellis, with Terry Glenn missing, with Newman barely coming back from his plantar fascia tear, with Jason Ferguson out for the year, and with several other guys banged up.

No, it was just "Wow, the Pats are so f***ing good!". Now, when reverse happens, all the people in the media are like "this game means nothing, Green Bay was injured". Well, news flash people, INJURIES ARE PART OF THE GAME. If you are going to discount anything that happens because of injuries, then you will never have anything meaningful happen. Every team has them. The only time its semi-relevant is when a team is simply decimated by them. The Packers weren't even close to that level. They were missing a starting CB and a nickel pass rusher. They still had Kampman, Hawk, Barnett, Harris, Driver, Jennings, Tauscher, Clifton, Grant, and lets not forget the actual starter (the one that replaced KGB in the SL) at RE: Cullen Jenkins. He's not exactly chopped liver.

It's just baffling.

And its not like we were taking advantage of the missing guys that much, either. Al Harris is recognized--by nearly unanimous opinion--as the better of the two CBs.....and he was destroyed. TO made him his ***** for most of the game, and even Crayton got the better of him on numerous occasions. So was Woodson supposed to make Harris play better, too?

It's just ridiculous.

[FinChase]

Well, news flash people, INJURIES ARE PART OF THE GAME. If you are going to discount anything that happens because of injuries, then you will never have anything meaningful happen. Every team has them. The only time its semi-relevant is when a team is simply decimated by them.
It's just ridiculous.

As you say, injuries are part of the game. It's a well-known fact that the winner of the Super Bowl is usually the team that's been luckiest with injuries during the year--or gets healthy at the right time.

[sweetness34]

If you want to talk about "breaks" how about TO dropping a sure TD pass in the endzone and it getting picked off. That's another 7 points right there if we're playing the "if" game. So Dallas wins by 17, not 10.

[SFbear]

I think it has to do with the storylines the media is trying to set up in the run to the playoffs. When the Patriots beat Dallas they can keep running with "Greatest team ever? Undefeated?" discussion which they can spend hours on. When Dallas beat Green Bay its better for them to play "What happens when these teams meet in the playoffs? Was Green Bay robbed?" kind of discussion than some kind of "Dallas is the best team in the NFC by a small to medium margin over the Packers, and although they aren't historically good they probably will be unabated to the Superbowl" meme.

[bearsfan_51]

You seemed very incensed at this. I question why. Do you really care whether everyone recognizes at week 12 that the Cowboys are the best team in the NFC? Does this prove anything longterm?

[no love]

Look the NFL is about entertainment. And entertainment is reliant on the idea that there is a even level of competition (thus the idea of any given Sunday).
The media has a vested interested in making it seem like these two teams are equal so that when this match up comes back in the playoffs they can give it more hype.

Don't get butt hurt about the way the media works, as they always say, "The NFL is a business." And it's true, by making things seem like there is parity the product suddenly becomes more watchable because no one wants to watch a game knowing who will win (unless you are a fan of the team).

And I dont' see why you are complaining that the media hasn't given your boys props when everyone has been slobbering ALL OVER TO and ROMO's nuts this whole year. Yes they are good, and yes they get credit for it. Just like Brady and Moss are THAT good and yes they will receive credit for it, when a team is this good that they have dominated every single team they played, they are going to get their props.

Besides, I don't think that people are excusing the Cowboys victory, rather they are offering explanations as to the win. You make it seem as if the game was an absolute domination by the Cowboys (which it should have been), but it wasn't. And thats why, the next time these teams play it will be interesting to see how the Pack will fair with Farve, Woodson and KGB.

I also think you are missing the concept of how having Woodson on the other side of Harris effects the game. Yes TO had his way with Al Harris, but you have to understand that missing a star player effects the way you will change your coverages, the way you assign safety help and the way you have to move people around. I don't see how you emphasized the value of losing Terry Glenn, but you don't recognize the value of losing C-Woodson - it's the same deal. This thread reeks of homerism.

[someone447]

Look the NFL is about entertainment. And entertainment is reliant on the idea that there is a even level of competition (thus the idea of any given Sunday).
The media has a vested interested in making it seem like these two teams are equal so that when this match up comes back in the playoffs they can give it more hype.

Don't get butt hurt about the way the media works, as they always say, "The NFL is a business." And it's true, by making things seem like there is parity the product suddenly becomes more watchable because no one wants to watch a game knowing who will win (unless you are a fan of the team).

And I dont' see why you are complaining that the media hasn't given your boys props when everyone has been slobbering ALL OVER TO and ROMO's nuts this whole year. Yes they are good, and yes they get credit for it. Just like Brady and Moss are THAT good and yes they will receive credit for it, when a team is this good that they have dominated every single team they played, they are going to get their props.

Besides, I don't think that people are excusing the Cowboys victory, rather they are offering explanations as to the win. You make it seem as if the game was an absolute domination by the Cowboys (which it should have been), but it wasn't. And thats why, the next time these teams play it will be interesting to see how the Pack will fair with Farve, Woodson and KGB.

I also think you are missing the concept of how having Woodson on the other side of Harris effects the game. Yes TO had his way with Al Harris, but you have to understand that missing a star player effects the way you will change your coverages, the way you assign safety help and the way you have to move people around. I don't see how you emphasized the value of losing Terry Glenn, but you don't recognize the value of losing C-Woodson - it's the same deal. This thread reeks of homerism.

He talks like the Cowboys beat the Packers by 30. They were down one score late in the game. Was anyone really surprised TO dropped an easy catch? He has ALWAYS done that.

[Burns336]

Harris was covering Crayton on his second TD... If Harris couldn't cover him, who is to say Woodsen would have? The reasoning is flawed. Who cares though. Personally, I love everyone doubting Dallas. As soon as you get too much praise, you let your guard down. I hope they go out and play as the media Underdog to teams like this all year. It happened against the Giants 2 weeks ago and it just happened again with GB. Keep doubting us... Really, please do, I hope the team hears it.

[DMWSackMachine]

You seemed very incensed at this. I question why. Do you really care whether everyone recognizes at week 12 that the Cowboys are the best team in the NFC? Does this prove anything longterm?


Look the NFL is about entertainment. And entertainment is reliant on the idea that there is a even level of competition (thus the idea of any given Sunday).
The media has a vested interested in making it seem like these two teams are equal so that when this match up comes back in the playoffs they can give it more hype.

Don't get butt hurt about the way the media works, as they always say, "The NFL is a business." And it's true, by making things seem like there is parity the product suddenly becomes more watchable because no one wants to watch a game knowing who will win (unless you are a fan of the team).

And I dont' see why you are complaining that the media hasn't given your boys props when everyone has been slobbering ALL OVER TO and ROMO's nuts this whole year. Yes they are good, and yes they get credit for it. Just like Brady and Moss are THAT good and yes they will receive credit for it, when a team is this good that they have dominated every single team they played, they are going to get their props.

Besides, I don't think that people are excusing the Cowboys victory, rather they are offering explanations as to the win. You make it seem as if the game was an absolute domination by the Cowboys (which it should have been), but it wasn't. And thats why, the next time these teams play it will be interesting to see how the Pack will fair with Farve, Woodson and KGB.

I also think you are missing the concept of how having Woodson on the other side of Harris effects the game. Yes TO had his way with Al Harris, but you have to understand that missing a star player effects the way you will change your coverages, the way you assign safety help and the way you have to move people around. I don't see how you emphasized the value of losing Terry Glenn, but you don't recognize the value of losing C-Woodson - it's the same deal. This thread reeks of homerism.

I will respond to both of you at the same time.

Here is my explanation:

Its starts from the bottom. Why do you watch sports?

Because you enjoy competition.

Why do you enjoy competition?

Because it touches a spot deep inside you that desires a measuring of you and yours against any and all comers. When you get to the point where you are good enough to compete against the elite of the given domain, then it becomes about respect and, ultimately, glory. The whole point is to be better than the other guy. Why do they play the game? To win. What does winning mean? That you are better than the other guy. It's very simple.

Now, the media's job is to convey the message or product of what is going on "in the ring" to the viewers in a way that gives it context, continuity, and presentation for maximum viewing pleasure. That's what this is all about: pleasure. You can have a team that kills everyone else, but if everybody explains it away, you will not enjoy it as much because the very source of your enjoyment, proving you are better than the other guy, has been invalidated, spoiled or taken away.

So, to answer your question, hell yes it chaps me to have to put up with it. Postgame is supposed to be a time for giving credit where credit is due, and giving the spoils to the victor. Not to be used for explaining away all the shortcomings of the opposing team.

I could give a **** less about TO and Romo when the team isn't getting its due credit. Hell, three weeks ago there was a large contingent among the media saying that the Giants were better than them. Now, in recent weeks, a ton of people were saying that the Packers were better than them. Then after they beat the Packers convincingly--and, yes, it was convincing--there is immediately a stream of articles, video segments, and commentary about how this game didn't prove anything....and even a couple (like the one on espn) about how the Cowboy's can't touch the Patriots. Why?

What is the motivation?

You can't tell me that having the Cowboys as a potential all-time great team isn't just as good as story as them and the Pack being neck-and-neck. We're talking about the most storied franchise in the NFL over the last 30 years, with all the glamor and fame that comes along with it, turning into a juggernaut right in front of everyone's eyes, wouldn't that angle be just as good?

My problem is that it doesn't make sense. The Cowboys were clearly the better team. I don't think there is much of an argument otherwise. Would the Pack be better off with all their injured guys? Maybe, who knows? BUT WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF HYPOTHETICALS. This is a business of who does what, and the Dallas Cowboys just dropped 37 points on the Packers, and won by 10.

So what's the story? "Cowboy's win doesn't prove anything"

Give me a break.

[GB12]

You're tired of hearing excuses so you make another thread about it? That makes sense.
:rolleyes:

And its not like we were taking advantage of the missing guys that much, either. Al Harris is recognized--by nearly unanimous opinion--as the better of the two CBs.....and he was destroyed. TO made him his ***** for most of the game, and even Crayton got the better of him on numerous occasions. So was Woodson supposed to make Harris play better, too?
You weren't taking advatage of them? The first three Cowboys TDs came off of Bush who was covering who Woodson would have had. TO dominated Harris last night, I'll admit that, but that bolded sentence is just dumb. Woodson was supposed to stop the guys opposite Harris. Had Woodson been in there those 3 TDs probably don't happen. Even if he just stopped one of those TDs it's a much different game. Cowboy fans are dismissing Woodson's injury as if it wouldn't matter if he was in. That is completely incorrect.

[Boston]

It's pretty bad when Jamie Dukes has to provide the voice of reason, which is that there is that at no point in time did it ever look like Green Bay was as good (let alone better) than the Dallas Cowboy's team. In fact, if it weren't for the out-of-the-blue play of Aaron Rodgers, Dallas would have blown that game off of it's hinges.

I hope to god you mean during the course of that game.

[DMWSackMachine]

Yeah, that's what I meant. But I don't get what you're saying.....

[Boston]

Yeah, that's what I meant. But I don't get what you're saying.....

The Packers are a lot better than you seem to think...

[bearsfan_51]

You can't tell me that having the Cowboys as a potential all-time great team isn't just as good as story as them and the Pack being neck-and-neck. We're talking about the most storied franchise in the NFL over the last 30 years, with all the glamor and fame that comes along with it, turning into a juggernaut right in front of everyone's eyes, wouldn't that angle be just as good?

My problem is that it doesn't make sense. The Cowboys were clearly the better team. I don't think there is much of an argument otherwise. Would the Pack be better off with all their injured guys? Maybe, who knows? BUT WE'RE NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF HYPOTHETICALS. This is a business of who does what, and the Dallas Cowboys just dropped 37 points on the Packers, and won by 10.
You lost me here. If we're not into the business of hypotheticals then it is FAR too speculative to say that the Cowboys are "turning into a juggernaut" or a "potential all-time great team".

I'm sorry, but how many playoff games have the Cowboys won in the last 10 years? Let's start there and work our way forwards before we start throwing out "greatest of all time" mantras.

This gets to the heart of your complaint. You want respect for things that the Cowboys haven't earned yet. Congrats on winning 11 games. Really. But I'm going to hold out untill...I dunno...the Superbowl...before I start making my Cowboys dynastry trophy.

[no love]

Because it touches a spot deep inside you that desires a measuring of you and yours against any and all comers. When you get to the point where you are good enough to compete against the elite of the given domain, then it becomes about respect and, ultimately, glory. The whole point is to be better than the other guy. Why do they play the game? To win. What does winning mean? That you are better than the other guy. It's very simple.

Now, the media's job is to convey the message or product of what is going on "in the ring" to the viewers in a way that gives it context, continuity, and presentation for maximum viewing pleasure. That's what this is all about: pleasure. You can have a team that kills everyone else, but if everybody explains it away, you will not enjoy it as much because the very source of your enjoyment, proving you are better than the other guy, has been invalidated, spoiled or taken away.

So, to answer your question, hell yes it chaps me to have to put up with it. Postgame is supposed to be a time for giving credit where credit is due, and giving the spoils to the victor. Not to be used for explaining away all the shortcomings of the opposing team.


Ok, wrong. The media's job is to make money off of whatever gets ratings. Not to validate that YOUR team played a good game, but to get people to still watch even though the game is over and the victor has been crowned. You are getting mad at ANALYSTS, but the fact of the matter is that it is their job to look at all of the factors in game (such as important injuries) that were important such as the short comings of the other team. If you don't agree with their analysis, fine, don't watch analysts you don't think are any good. Just watch the sports center highlights and say to yourself "Wow we are really good"

You say "maximum viewing pleasure" from the viewpoint of a Cowboy fan and a Cowboy fan alone. The rest of the NFL fans do not get any pleasure out of a glorification of the Cowboys victory. If the media had said at the end of the game "Wow did you see those Cowboys? Really wiped those Cheeseheads off the field? Aren't they the best?" Well that would be entirely inaccurate. What they do by illustrating the injuries on the Packers team is to set the CONTEXT (your words) for the Cowboy victory.

It's obvious that you are very bitter that everyone is calling the Patriots the best ever in a year where in all respects your team is having a great year. But thats the way the cookie crumbles. Everyone at the very top gets all of the glory (and thats the Patriots because they are undefeated), just be happy you aren't a fan of the Dolphins. It sounds like you just want to have petty bragging rights about the media saying your team is awesome. As far as I am concerned I could care less what the talking heads say about my team as long as I am winning.

[nrk]

I don't think I've ever seen someone whine after they won a game. Especially about media attention.

[ks_perfection]

After the Pats beat the Colts there was limit mention of the injuries that they had. Sure they said how much Manning looked lost without Harrison, but they never said that the win should be taken into context given the players that the Colts were without. It was alla bout the perfect season and the comeback.

As for Green Bay the team definitly played better overall with the injuries. Sure Woodson and KJB would have helped alot, but Farve was horrible and Rogers played really well. If Farve didn't get hurt its very unlikely he would have made a 180 and produced like Rogers did.

[JF4]

There is no excuse, the Pack got beat. Pretty handilly too IMO.

The reasons why the Cowboys won.

Gameplan: The way they used T.O in that game was genius. They would sometimes motion him down the line to get him off Al Harris and onto Bush or even in one case Hawk. If they weren't throwin to TO they were using him as a distraction and other players were getting open because of him. All the props in the world to the Cowboys coaching staff but it's a lot harder to outcoach someone the second time around.

Depth:Injuries happen to everyone. You need to have backups who can come in and be somewhat productive. A great team needs to have depth at all positions because you never know who can go down next. Unfortunately the Packers have no depth in the Secondary and while I wouldn't say the Cowboys have excellent depth back there it is still leaps and bounds better than the Packers.

Nick Collins, Atari Bigby, Jarret Bush: I usually don't like to call out individual players on their efforts but this is a special case.. These 3 were terrible in coverage all night. One of the worst games i've seen each of them play. Nick Collins looked really rusty coming off that injury and there was a point where I was hoping they would put Rouse back in for him. I love Atari Bigby because he definately leaves everything on the field but he is just terrible in coverage. Way too many blown coverages and penalties. Do I even need to point out what Bush did wrong? You all saw the game.

Brett Favre turning back the clock to 2 years ago: Chris Collinsworth kept saying it and all Packers fans kept thinking it. That was not the offense I've grown to love this year with Favre. I have no problem with Favre's shots down the field (keeps them safties honest) but he has really avoided throwing into the double and triple coverages this year. Against the Cowboys for some reason that wasn't the case and it resulted in a couple bad picks. Both of them resulted in scores too(I think). Why Favre just couldn't do the same thing that A-Rod did when he came in and get the ball in the hands of his playmakers baffles me.

I really do hope the Pack and Cowboys meet again. But untill then the Cowboys probably are the better team. I just know the Packers can put out a better effort than that. I've seen them play way too well this year not to truly believe that. It's always alot tougher to beat a team the second time around and I don't think the Packers will make some of the mistakes they made this game.

Don't get too confident Cowboys fans!

[The Unseen]

This is the most pointless thread I've seen in awhile. If hype like this gets on your nerves so much, stop watching sports. Or any form of competition, for that matter.

[Nitschke-Hawk]

That's not that uncommon with FANS, what I'm failing to understand is the media is rushing to invalidate this game.

I didn't hear anyone providing the Cowboys a free pass when we played the Pats without OUR second best CB, with a hobbled Greg Ellis, with Terry Glenn missing, with Newman barely coming back from his plantar fascia tear, with Jason Ferguson out for the year, and with several other guys banged up.

No, it was just "Wow, the Pats are so f***ing good!". Now, when reverse happens, all the people in the media are like "this game means nothing, Green Bay was injured". Well, news flash people, INJURIES ARE PART OF THE GAME. If you are going to discount anything that happens because of injuries, then you will never have anything meaningful happen. Every team has them. The only time its semi-relevant is when a team is simply decimated by them. The Packers weren't even close to that level. They were missing a starting CB and a nickel pass rusher. They still had Kampman, Hawk, Barnett, Harris, Driver, Jennings, Tauscher, Clifton, Grant, and lets not forget the actual starter (the one that replaced KGB in the SL) at RE: Cullen Jenkins. He's not exactly chopped liver.

It's just baffling.

And its not like we were taking advantage of the missing guys that much, either. Al Harris is recognized--by nearly unanimous opinion--as the better of the two CBs.....and he was destroyed. TO made him his ***** for most of the game, and even Crayton got the better of him on numerous occasions. So was Woodson supposed to make Harris play better, too?

It's just ridiculous.

LOL. Obviously Dallas won the game, they are better for now. They won at home covering the spread, that's what they're supposed to do.

They did not dominate. Al Harris wasn't good but he wasn't dominated either. The two biggest catches by Owens, Al Harris wasn't even covering him or assigned to him because of the Cowboys' motion before the snap. Owens is still running when they snap the ball, he comes inside and runs a big slant acorss the field and when there's no pressure he will be wide open.

Owens had 7 catches for 156 yards. A catch for 37 yards Harris wasn't on him, the catch for 48 yards Harris wasn't on him. That's 5 catches for 71 yards against Harris. It could be even less, I haven't watched the game twice to find exact numbers.

9 Penalties for 149 yards, the last of which was B.S. of course with Austin tripping over his own foot for like 50 yards to the 6 yard line. Either way, tons of penalties, terrible officiating that went in the Cowboys favor the majority of the time. Blown coverages on defense. Two awful INT's by Favre to start the game that also resulted in 14 points for the Cowboys on short field. These are all correctable mistakes that the Packers haven't made this year.

It was also in your house, The Boys couldn't put the Packers away when it was 27 to 10 even with all the help they had along the way.

Dallas still executed better, is better (for now), and won. But I don't wanna hear **** about them dominating.

[cordscords]

LOL. Obviously Dallas won the game, they are better for now. They won at home covering the spread, that's what they're supposed to do.

They did not dominate. Al Harris wasn't good but he wasn't dominated either. The two biggest catches by Owens, Al Harris wasn't even covering him or assigned to him because of the Cowboys' motion before the snap. Owens is still running when they snap the ball, he comes inside and runs a big slant acorss the field and when there's no pressure he will be wide open.

Owens had 7 catches for 156 yards. A catch for 37 yards Harris wasn't on him, the catch for 48 yards Harris wasn't on him. That's 5 catches for 71 yards against Harris. It could be even less, I haven't watched the game twice to find exact numbers.

9 Penalties for 149 yards, the last of which was B.S. of course with Austin tripping over his own foot for like 50 yards to the 6 yard line. Either way, tons of penalties, terrible officiating that went in the Cowboys favor the majority of the time. Blown coverages on defense. Two awful INT's by Favre to start the game that also resulted in 14 points for the Cowboys on short field. These are all correctable mistakes that the Packers haven't made this year.

It was also in your house, The Boys couldn't put the Packers away when it was 27 to 10 even with all the help they had along the way.

Dallas still executed better, is better (for now), and won. But I don't wanna hear **** about them dominating.

Exactly. Go ahead and use up your bragging rights now because you beat us fair and square. But you didnt dominate.

With both teams at full strength I'm hoping to see a rematch in the playoffs.

[PACKmanN]

can we move on.... all these threads are being made to make the same point over and over....