nfl lockout has finally come to an end

today, the 32 player reps voted unanimously to accept the cba, therefore ending the lockout. before the cba can go into full affect, the antitrust lawsuit has to be resolved, and all 1900 players have to agree to return the nflpa to union status. however, the 2011 season and all that comes with it (besides the hall of fame game) is saved

Dammit.

Now we get to laugh at the likes of Minnesota, Tampa Bay, Oakland, San Fransisco, and the rest of the shitty teams

Those teams will suck.

Dan wrote:

Now we get to laugh at the likes of Minnesota, Tampa Bay, Oakland, San Fransisco, and the rest of the shitty teams

San Fran won't be as shitty as Minnesota and Oakland. and why not talk about other teams like dallas who don't have that good of a qb and have had to cut a lot of talent for the new salary cap. sure san fran has a bad qb, but if you mention san fran you gotta think of dallas. and, the teams you mentioned were all solid in 2010, not the best, but not the worst. 6-10 teams. 8-8 teams. you even mentioned a 10-6 team. but hey, i'm a biased 49ers fan.

STFU. Romo is a good Quarterback. But I don't agree with releasing of Barber, Williams, or Davis. I agree of them releasing Colombo and Kris Brown. Colombo let anyone and everyone pass him the past 2 seasons. And Brown isn't needed.

Though we know Jerry Jones thinks highly of Felix Jones, Tashard Choice, Dez Bryant, and David Beuhler.

"Asshole" Mikel wrote:

STFU. Romo is a good Quarterback. But I don't agree with releasing of Barber, Williams, or Davis. I agree of them releasing Colombo and Kris Brown. Colombo let anyone and everyone pass him the past 2 seasons. And Brown isn't needed.

Though we know Jerry Jones thinks highly of Felix Jones, Tashard Choice, Dez Bryant, and David Beuhler.

not really. last season, romo lost most of the games he started. Kitna won more games. Jon motherfucking kitna. not to mention the fact that he chokes in the playoffs. romo is prob the most overrated qb in charge of the most overrated team in the nfl.

SuperByNature wrote:

"Asshole" Mikel wrote:

STFU. Romo is a good Quarterback. But I don't agree with releasing of Barber, Williams, or Davis. I agree of them releasing Colombo and Kris Brown. Colombo let anyone and everyone pass him the past 2 seasons. And Brown isn't needed.

Though we know Jerry Jones thinks highly of Felix Jones, Tashard Choice, Dez Bryant, and David Beuhler.

not really. last season, romo lost most of the games he started. Kitna won more games. Jon motherfucking kitna. not to mention the fact that he chokes in the playoffs. romo is prob the most overrated qb in charge of the most overrated team in the nfl.

Listen.. Look at this:
Wade Phillips was the problem.

Wade, 1-7 as Head Coach. 1-5 with Romo as starter. 0-2 with Kitna as starter (Both blowouts).

Jason Garrett came in and was 5-3 with Kitna the starter in all those games. And all came in close.


Wade was the problem, not Romo. Garrett is the Head Coach now and has a really good relationship with Tony Romo.


Also, Romo got hurt in the Giants game. They were up like 17 points before getting injured before halftime. They ended up losing that game.

"Asshole" Mikel wrote:

SuperByNature wrote:

"Asshole" Mikel wrote:

STFU. Romo is a good Quarterback. But I don't agree with releasing of Barber, Williams, or Davis. I agree of them releasing Colombo and Kris Brown. Colombo let anyone and everyone pass him the past 2 seasons. And Brown isn't needed.

Though we know Jerry Jones thinks highly of Felix Jones, Tashard Choice, Dez Bryant, and David Beuhler.

not really. last season, romo lost most of the games he started. Kitna won more games. Jon motherfucking kitna. not to mention the fact that he chokes in the playoffs. romo is prob the most overrated qb in charge of the most overrated team in the nfl.

Listen.. Look at this:
Wade Phillips was the problem.

Wade, 1-7 as Head Coach. 1-5 with Romo as starter. 0-2 with Kitna as starter (Both blowouts).

Jason Garrett came in and was 5-3 with Kitna the starter in all those games. And all came in close.


Wade was the problem, not Romo. Garrett is the Head Coach now and has a really good relationship with Tony Romo.


Also, Romo got hurt in the Giants game. They were up like 17 points before getting injured before halftime. They ended up losing that game.

how long do you have to blame all the coaches who leave before you blame the players?

last time cowboys won the superbowl: 1995, 15 years ago
coaches cowboys have had since then: 5.

eventually, you gotta start blaming the players. its like calling alex smith a good quarterback and blaming Mike Singletary for the failure.

Eh, Smith is a bad QB, and Singletary is a slight below average coach. It's just they only had Michael Crabtree, Frank Gore, and that Linebacker. But Gore didn't produce enough.

But the Cowboys, look. They had a bad year. Who doesn't? The Steelers had a bad year after winning the Super Bowl. And where were they this year? The Super Bowl.

Rams had a bad year at 7-9, but won their division. They got into the playoffs and beat the Super Bowl defending Saints.

You can't judge a team on 1 season. You can't judge a player on 1 season. Once Irvin, Emmitt, and Aikman stepped down. They are not replacable. Dez could live up to some of Irvin. Aikman, maybe Romo could be it. We don't got nobody for Emmitt, and there will be not another Emmitt in the history of the National Football League.

So the Cowboys have 1 bad season at 6-10 and you think they are in the names of the Raiders, 49ers, Vikings, Panthers, and Bills? No. It isn't how that works.

To be fair, Smith has had to deal with not only learning a new system every year, but working with a (far from great) team that's also learning a new system every year. Learning a new system makes it much more difficult to add to your skillset. Not making excuses for him, or saying he's good by any means, but changing OCs every year isn't a recipe for success.

But we could go on for weeks about what should've happened, or what would've happened had situations gone differently. Hell, I could make an argument for the Lions being 10-6 last season had Stafford not gotten hurt. (Bears x2, Eagles, and another win over the Packers.) But guess what? I don't actually know that would've happened. So, after my ramblings, just know that if you say something, I will argue with you.

"Asshole" Mikel wrote:

Eh, Smith is a bad QB, and Singletary is a slight below average coach. It's just they only had Michael Crabtree, Frank Gore, and that Linebacker. But Gore didn't produce enough.

But the Cowboys, look. They had a bad year. Who doesn't? The Steelers had a bad year after winning the Super Bowl. And where were they this year? The Super Bowl.

Rams had a bad year at 7-9, but won their division. They got into the playoffs and beat the Super Bowl defending Saints.

You can't judge a team on 1 season. You can't judge a player on 1 season. Once Irvin, Emmitt, and Aikman stepped down. They are not replacable. Dez could live up to some of Irvin. Aikman, maybe Romo could be it. We don't got nobody for Emmitt, and there will be not another Emmitt in the history of the National Football League.

So the Cowboys have 1 bad season at 6-10 and you think they are in the names of the Raiders, 49ers, Vikings, Panthers, and Bills? No. It isn't how that works.

*Seahawks.

yes, one season. but how about 15 seasons? is that enough to say a team is in a rut? or are you waiting for someone to fail like the cubs?

Cowboys are not in a rut. Hell, look. Look at all the teams who haven't won a Super Bowl in franchise history, or just has one. Look at the teams who have fallen like the 49ers. The 49ers are in a huge rut.

Have you noticed this... The AFC's dominant teams are the Steelers, Colts, and Patriots. Jets are the B-Team. But in the NFC, it changes every single year. Bears, Giants(sadly), Cardinals, Saints, Packers.. And look who they faced. Bears lost to Colts. Giants beat Patriots(sadly). Steelers beat Cardinals. Saints beat Colts. Packers beat Steelers.

That is the previous 5 Super Bowls. There have only been 3 AFC Teams in the Super Bowl and all 5 of the previous Super Bowls have had different NFC Teams.

And look at the Cardinals. They were not good this year. Look at the Saints. Lost to 7-9 SEAHAWKS. Look at the Packers. They didn't succeed for years before that Super Bowl.

SuperByNature wrote:

Dan wrote:

Now we get to laugh at the likes of Minnesota, Tampa Bay, Oakland, San Fransisco, and the rest of the shitty teams

San Fran won't be as shitty as Minnesota and Oakland. and why not talk about other teams like dallas who don't have that good of a qb and have had to cut a lot of talent for the new salary cap. sure san fran has a bad qb, but if you mention san fran you gotta think of dallas. and, the teams you mentioned were all solid in 2010, not the best, but not the worst. 6-10 teams. 8-8 teams. you even mentioned a 10-6 team. but hey, i'm a biased 49ers fan.

Tampa has a real schedule this year so they will likely be like 4-12

"Asshole" Mikel wrote:

Cowboys are not in a rut. Hell, look. Look at all the teams who haven't won a Super Bowl in franchise history, or just has one. Look at the teams who have fallen like the 49ers. The 49ers are in a huge rut.

Have you noticed this... The AFC's dominant teams are the Steelers, Colts, and Patriots. Jets are the B-Team. But in the NFC, it changes every single year. Bears, Giants(sadly), Cardinals, Saints, Packers.. And look who they faced. Bears lost to Colts. Giants beat Patriots(sadly). Steelers beat Cardinals. Saints beat Colts. Packers beat Steelers.

That is the previous 5 Super Bowls. There have only been 3 AFC Teams in the Super Bowl and all 5 of the previous Super Bowls have had different NFC Teams.

And look at the Cardinals. They were not good this year. Look at the Saints. Lost to 7-9 SEAHAWKS. Look at the Packers. They didn't succeed for years before that Super Bowl.

They are in a rut. San fran might be in a little bigger rut, but dallas is still in a rut. And yes, other teams like the lions have never even been in a super bowl, but it doesn't matter how many super bowl rings you have, it matters how many you have had lately.

And look at the teams in the nfc you mentioned. The one thing they share? Foundation, or really good free agent signings. Bears had a great defense, and a very solid offense in 2005, and everything fell in place to win a super bowl. Giants had a great offense with eli and plaxico and a solid defense in 2006, and the super bowl fell into their hands. The cardinals signed kurt warner, which turned out to be the final piece in the puzzle. For saints, an explosive offense was put off by a great nfc south, finishing 8-8 and in 4th place. But they were solid and had foundation. The packers had a great qb with some experience as well as great defense and a lot of great wide recievers but the saints momentum kept them out of the super bowl in 2009. Cowboys have an overrated team that is being cut down by salary cap, and all the good free agents are taken.

As for cardinals sucking, they lost a lot of their team. Its like saying "broncos won a super bowl, the BRONCOS and look how bad they sucked the next season without john elway". Same with seahawks. They lost their most important player (hasselbeck) through a lot of the season, and if hasselbeck was healthy they wouldn't have had a 7-9 record.

Glad to see This even though the First Preseason game is going to be Kansas City vs Tampa Bay?? what kind of shit is that

No. It's like Chargers and the Seahawks.