Did The Cowboys Have A Better Season Than The Redskins?

[MTK]

Maybe we should ask who had the more disappointing season?

[SouperMeister]

The Cowboys certainly had a better regular season. However, when you factor in the post-season, their disappointment has to be far more bitter than the Skins. It has been 20 years since a #1 seed in the NFC lost in their first round. A better way of saying that is the #1 seed has reached the NFC Championship game every year since 1987. The Cowboys pissed away a golden opportunity, and they will have to live with that for a long offseason.

[Coff]

Having the #1 seed in the conference and losing in the first round is as dissapointing as going 3-13. We had a better season. Regardless of what happens to the Giants though, they had the best season of any NFC East team.

[BrunellMVP?]

our only solace is that we'll have better picks in the draft.

say what you want, they were 13-3 with a first round bye, we barely squeaked in an lost in the wild card. I don't understand how this is up for debate. I hate the 'boys as much as the next, but how is this a serious question? I'm not taking anything away from what the skins did post the taylor tragedy, however, we should have never been in such a big hole to begin with...we did that by losing close games with poor play and/or untimely turnovers. The season for both of us was 17 games long (though they "lasted longer" due to the bye), they played "well" for whole season, not just the last four games.

[SmootSmack]

Except the Cowboys get two picks in the first round.

The irony is, even with Gibbs leaving, we will probably have more stability moving into 2008 than they will; assuming Williams stays.

[mcarey032]

Being highly biased, I would say that we did. When you are a number one seed in the playoffs and get a bye week, you are supposed to at least make it to the NFC championship game. They clearly had not been playing good football the last month of the season, whereas the Redskins had been playing their best ball of the year in December. The real tragedy for us is that we weren't able to capitalize on the momentum in the Seattle game. Dallas made stupid undisciplined mistakes at home. There is no reason to get a false start at home ever. It's one thing for your offensive line to get one on the road, but at home? Come on. Also there were several drops by the wideouts that led to the offense's inefficency to keep drives going. As bad as the score was in the seattle game, we should have won. As close as the cowboys game was they definitely should have lost anyway. They had been lucky in a couple of close games which they squeaked out victories. Their 13-3 was highly inflated, if you ask me.

[Rajmahal33]

Its an interesting question...The way i look at it is at the beginning of the season, teams have checklists of what they want to achieve (tangible and intangible). If i were on an NFL team my checklist would look like this:

Tangible
1) Qualify for the postseason
2) Win The Division
3) Win a Playoff game
4) Win The Conference
5) Win The Superbowl

Intangible
1) Play as a team, preserve chemistry
2) Better the understanding of the younger players, develop the talent and depth
3) Secure the Veterans for the offseason
4) Retain as much of the coaching staff as possible/maintain continuity
5) Position the organization well for the offseason (draft/FA)
6*) Play guts out and leave everything on the field

By these standards, I would say that the cowboys had a better season from a tangible and intangible standpoint as well. They won the division crown and secured the top seed, there is something to be said for the regular season. They did play well as a team even though they lost, and surprisingly TO didn't blame any one for the loss. I think we developed our talent and depth better than they did b/c we were forced to due to injury. On the other hand, they are positioned better for the offseason in terms of the cap and the draft unless something changes drastically. As far as how the veterans and coaching staff moves shake out, that is yet to be determined for both teams. However, we whooped their ass as far at #6 goes, haha.

[12thMan]

I think my gripe with the Cowboys is that it seems like they bought into their own hype. The mark of a well coached team and team with character, for that matter, they know how to focus and block out the clippings. I think to go 13-3 during the regular season and flop in your first round divisional game points to something. Not saying the Giants didn't deserve to win, because they played a helluva game and wanted it. But the Cowboys made mental error after mental error.

Not to jump on the Patriots bandwagon, but those guys are all business leading up to big games.

[SouperMeister]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

...

Not to jump on the Patriots bandwagon, but those guys are all business leading up to big games.

The Pats are all business against the weaker teams as well. If Gibbs/Saunders had kept the pedal on the metal early in the year when we were ahead of the Giants, the Packers, and others, we might have won a few more games and not had to play in Seattle in the first round. As soon as Collins became the QB, Gibbs/Saunders stopped coaching to win every game by only 3 points. Let's hope that we attack with similar aggression next season.

[lespaul]

I think the Skins win this debate. We finished strong even with all the turmoil endured. If Snyder doesn't blow it,we should have some stability next season.

I know we lost the first playoff game,but it was chalked up as a loss on the field and not connected to off field stuff that makes us a laughing stock. QB in Mexico,hot blond girlfriend,big ass cry baby crap etc...

[QBall]

Yes they did.

[hagams]

Better season or not, I'm happy with what we were able to accomplish. To go from winning only 5 games the year before, to a playoff team in one off-season is pretty good in my book. Plus, half of our team was injured at one point or another.
I think we had a better year than Dallas though, they made it one more game than we did in the playoffs, but all that got them was a later draft pick.

[GMScud]

We also played a tougher schedule. In fact, at seasons end, the Redskins and Eagles had the two toughest schedules (as far as opponents win %). We played 9 playoff teams from 2006. We played the Bucs, the Giants twice, the Packers on the road, the Cowboys twice, and the Patriots on the road. Not to mention tough Minnesota, Buffalo, and Arizona teams. Plus we overcame a 5-7 hole, the murder of our best player, and a mountain of injuries. And it looks like Jason Garrett and Tony Sparano, the Cowgirls two best assistants, are on their way to head coaching jobs elsewhere....

Cowgirls- better record, Redskins- better season.

[irish]

Originally Posted by hagams

Better season or not, I'm happy with what we were able to accomplish. To go from winning only 5 games the year before, to a playoff team in one off-season is pretty good in my book. Plus, half of our team was injured at one point or another.
I think we had a better year than Dallas though, they made it one more game than we did in the playoffs, but all that got them was a later draft pick.

Dont forgetthat the Skins went form 10-6 to 5-11 in only 1 offseason as well.

[#56fanatic]

[quote=mcarey032;408043]Being highly biased, I would say that we did. When you are a number one seed in the playoffs and get a bye week, you are supposed to at least make it to the NFC championship game. They clearly had not been playing good football the last month of the season, whereas the Redskins had been playing their best ball of the year in December. The real tragedy for us is that we weren't able to capitalize on the momentum in the Seattle game. Dallas made stupid undisciplined mistakes at home. There is no reason to get a false start at home ever. It's one thing for your offensive line to get one on the road, but at home? Come on. Also there were several drops by the wideouts that led to the offense's inefficency to keep drives going. As bad as the score was in the seattle game, we should have won. As close as the cowboys game was they definitely should have lost anyway. They had been lucky in a couple of close games which they squeaked out victories. Their 13-3 was highly inflated, if you ask me.[/quot


This is a total homer/hater remark. sorry, not to jump on you. If the question was who played better the last 4 weeks, then yes the Skins played better. Some of the statements : false start at home, every team in the NFL gets false starts at home, even ours (a lot!) drops happen on every team, even ours (remember seattle) Lucky a couple of games, maybe, but dont you think we were lucky in some of our 9 wins, Miami, Jets, Arizona to mention a few. Fact is, there were 13-3 with basically the same schedule as ours. we were 9-7, I dont see how anyone could say we had a better season, that is just crazy. You are judged on your record, that was says you had a better season. We were 6th best in the NFC, they were #1 in the NFC. They won the division, that alone says they had a better overall season.