The problem with this guy's article is that he's too focused on the schedules for the Cowboys and Saints. What about the bears that play in probably the weakest division in Football. They could have 6 easy wins and win their division easily with poor play on offense to top it all off. His article has no merit except for the fact that you pointed it out to us.
Posted by Thomas Pace @ 4:08 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
What an idiot. So this guy's whole rational for saying Cowboys are no good is because they haven't beaten "quality" opponents? Nevermind that one of the "quality" opponents he talks about has lost to the Texans and played us in week 1. Also I guess based on this guys math the Redskins are as good as us since they split with Indy and Jax? Now you know why this guy writes for MSN sports. Didn't even know they covered sports.
Posted by Thomas Pace @ 4:11 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Even better. Go look at the power rankings for the same site (cold hard facts...). Checkout the "quality" wins for the teams ahead of the Cowboys. That's right the only ones with a winning "quality" record are the Bears and Colts. And we beat the Colts.
Posted by Trey @ 4:22 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
What an idiot!! Beating the Giants in NY wasn't a "quality" win in his opinion. Give me a break.
Posted by Not Really @ 4:23 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Meh, sort of has a point, but I wonder if he uses the same criteria for all the teams he mentioned. Both Carolina and the Giants had winning records -- until we beat them and dropped them to .500.
Posted by ernest t bass @ 4:26 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Before we "anoint" McBriar All-Pro, let's see him "pundit" in the playoffs.
Take my wi...
Posted by Steve Collins @ 4:26 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Someone apparently gave this guy Word of the Day toilet paper, and well, today was "pundit". He simply wants everyone to be aware that he wields the power necessary to calculate the Quality Wins Quotient.
Posted by Blake Weldon @ 4:30 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Matt, that's why he works for coldhardfootballfacts.com and you work at the most notorious sports sections of a newspaper in the United States. This guy doesn't understand the NFL. Five wins in the last six is hard for any football team, regardless of who they are playing.
Posted by Dave @ 4:31 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
This guys an idiot. NYG and Carolina BOTH had winning records when Dallas beat them on the road.
Posted by Beckey @ 4:39 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
thanks for the afternoon lift...now I'm going to go drown my sorrows....
Posted by Joshua Adams @ 4:40 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Anyone notice this guys Cold Hard Facts are backed up soley by his opinion of what a quality win is? Beating the Giants in December at the meadowlands wasn't quality?
MSNBC needs to stick to politics.
Posted by honest abe @ 4:41 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
sorry i fell asleep during that article he will have to re-do it
Posted by Randy @ 4:43 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
“In fact, the Saints and Cowboys are so fraudulent that the IRS should come in and do an audit.”
Everyone has a right to their opinion. My question to that guy at CHFFs is “If the Cowboys or Saints have success in the playoffs will you write an article proclaiming that you’re nothing more that a 2-bit hack with writing skills unworthy of even covering Mini-Mite Hockey?”
Posted by Craig @ 4:57 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Eh, this guy can suck eggs. He's found some nichey little stat that allows him to spout off on what is and what isn't a "quality win," but he ignores the impressive play of the Cowboys and (presumably, as I haven't watched their games) the Saints. No matter how you qualify the wins, 5 out of 6, with the kind of play we're getting out of them, is impressive.
Posted by Not Really @ 5:10 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Without even digging very deep, I found this: Bengals beat 2-0 Panthers and it's MASSIVE QUALITY WIN, but Cowboys beat one-game-over-500 Panthers and it's a fraud.
Posted by Mike @ 5:14 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
This story was obviously written in crayon. Don't forget to rate the story below so MSNBC will have some clue that they are showcasing poor "pundits" on their site.
Posted by larry @ 5:16 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
THIS GUYS OBVIOUSLY WRITES FOR "EFFECT", OR, HE IS SIMPLY AN IDIOT. A TEAM CAN ONLY PLAY THE TEAMS ON THEIR SCHEDULE AND THEIR STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE IS ONLY ONE OF MAYBE 25 WAYS TO JUDGE A TEAM. BESIDES, I HAVE A HARD TIME NOT CONSIDERING CAROLINA AND NEW YORK ON THE ROAD NOT TO BE QUALITY VICTORIES.
Posted by Bernardo @ 5:16 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
This guy is a huge idiot. The Colts game was huge and the Giants and Panthers are pretty decent clubs. Besides, one nice thing has been that against 'lesser' teams the margin of victory has been large.
Posted by Chris @ 5:23 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Guess Wins AT New York against the Giants and At Carolina are not quality wins. Must be a East Coast writer that chooses to not put Harvey Martin or Bob Hayes in the HOF!!
A quality win is one against an opponent currently over .500. The Boys will pick up a quality win this week when the Giants or Panthers win.
Posted by A-Cast @ 6:09 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
MSNBC and Football? enough said. That guy probably got on some AFC football chat room in order to write his story before his deadline. In the words of Troy Aikman....Get Real
Posted by John @ 6:13 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Also note that although some of the Cowboys wins weren't against "quality" opponents, in most cases, the margin of victory was great...17 points, 31, 28, 21, 17, and 28. It's not like they've needed field goals at the end to beat many of these teams.
Posted by Judd @ 6:35 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
So let's think this through. He defines a good team by the number of teams with a winning record it has beaten. The Cowboys, for instance, have a great record at 8-4, and thus would be a "Quality Win" for, say, Washington. But no, not really, because we're fraudulent, so beating us must not have really been a very big deal. So records don't really mean anything at all, according to his theory, right? Moron.
Someone needs to calculate the winning % of every team that we beat right before we beat them. One of the reasons these teams have bad winning % is because we beat them. I'll bet Pittsburgh didn't have a whole lot of wins over quality teams until they went on a run and kept running.
Posted by CFFL @ 10:23 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Not to be a homer, but that is the dumbest NFL article I've read all season. His "2006 Quality Standings" reveal the inherent flaws of his premise -- only Chicago, Indy, Jax, KC and Baltimore having winning "Quality" records. Teams with .500 "Quality" records include not only Dallas, but also New England, Cincy and San Diego. I guess those teams are frauds too. Seattle, Denver, New Orleans and the Giants must be toast with their losing "Quality" records. To further expose the idiocy, the Redkins have the best "Quality" record in the NFC East.
Dumb. Apparently a viable columnist strategy is to think of something idiotic and add fraudulent statistics.
Posted by bbanzai @ 1:00 AM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
by his system cowboys will get better next week even if they lose. either the Panthers or Giants will be over .500 after the week, so it will add a quailty win. how goofy is that?
strength of schedule matters in evaluating teams, problem with ranking by it (exclusively) is it that a teams standing can change based only on what other teams do.
Posted by Alan @ 7:38 AM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
Isnt Cold hard football facts the website that has the love-in with the Patriots and proclaimed them to be the greatest of all time?
Posted by Joyce @ 7:58 AM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
wow, who is this guy? it sounds like he has a grudge against the saints and cowboys. but did you notice jay novacek's picks on the page??? all that other stuff just went in one ear and out the other when i saw who jay's picks were! :)
j
Posted by Mike N. @ 8:47 AM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
That guy can't write his name. As for the schedule, I'm not sure there are that many "nobody" teams in the NFL.
Posted by Brad @ 9:23 AM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
When we win the Super Bowl I say we throw this article back in this idiot's face! Jacksonville is a quality team?? Is he serious? If two losses to HOUSTON makes you a quality team then the Cowboys are cream of the crop!
And would someone please explain to my how the Bears (the biggest fraud of them all) were left of this list?? Seattle and New England have been their two biggest opponents and they went 1-1. Give me a break!
Posted by Larry in SF @ 11:31 AM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
Sounds like this guys is perfect for the B(C)S! I bet he thinks the NFL should put in a strength of schedule format for the playoffs.
Posted by Ken In SA @ 1:07 PM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
The only thing that matters is which team is ahead in the score when the final gun goes off at the Super Bowl. Any attempt to speculate about who is the better team before that is just opinion, I don't care what "statistics" or methodolgy you want to use.
Posted by Joey @ 3:13 PM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
It's obvious this guy has a huge crush on the AFC. That's great he wants to take out his hatred of an entire conference on its 2 hottest teams, but that doesn't explain why they aren't capable of reaching the Super Bowl (since only the final game will be played against his lovers the AFC).
Posted by steve @ 4:04 PM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
So what this joker is saying is that based on Dallas' and New Orleans' lack of quality wins they won't get a chance to play in a BCS game even if they win out.
Newsletter sign-up: 
Get Dallas Cowboys news on your cell
E-mail 
Comments
Posted by Tony D @ 4:07 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
The problem with this guy's article is that he's too focused on the schedules for the Cowboys and Saints. What about the bears that play in probably the weakest division in Football. They could have 6 easy wins and win their division easily with poor play on offense to top it all off. His article has no merit except for the fact that you pointed it out to us.
Posted by Thomas Pace @ 4:08 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
What an idiot. So this guy's whole rational for saying Cowboys are no good is because they haven't beaten "quality" opponents? Nevermind that one of the "quality" opponents he talks about has lost to the Texans and played us in week 1. Also I guess based on this guys math the Redskins are as good as us since they split with Indy and Jax? Now you know why this guy writes for MSN sports. Didn't even know they covered sports.
Posted by Thomas Pace @ 4:11 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Even better. Go look at the power rankings for the same site (cold hard facts...). Checkout the "quality" wins for the teams ahead of the Cowboys. That's right the only ones with a winning "quality" record are the Bears and Colts. And we beat the Colts.
Posted by Trey @ 4:22 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
What an idiot!! Beating the Giants in NY wasn't a "quality" win in his opinion. Give me a break.
Posted by Not Really @ 4:23 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Meh, sort of has a point, but I wonder if he uses the same criteria for all the teams he mentioned. Both Carolina and the Giants had winning records -- until we beat them and dropped them to .500.
Posted by ernest t bass @ 4:26 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Before we "anoint" McBriar All-Pro, let's see him "pundit" in the playoffs.
Take my wi...
Posted by Steve Collins @ 4:26 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Someone apparently gave this guy Word of the Day toilet paper, and well, today was "pundit". He simply wants everyone to be aware that he wields the power necessary to calculate the Quality Wins Quotient.
Posted by Blake Weldon @ 4:30 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Matt, that's why he works for coldhardfootballfacts.com and you work at the most notorious sports sections of a newspaper in the United States. This guy doesn't understand the NFL. Five wins in the last six is hard for any football team, regardless of who they are playing.
Posted by Dave @ 4:31 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
This guys an idiot. NYG and Carolina BOTH had winning records when Dallas beat them on the road.
Posted by Beckey @ 4:39 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
thanks for the afternoon lift...now I'm going to go drown my sorrows....
Posted by Joshua Adams @ 4:40 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Anyone notice this guys Cold Hard Facts are backed up soley by his opinion of what a quality win is? Beating the Giants in December at the meadowlands wasn't quality?
MSNBC needs to stick to politics.
Posted by honest abe @ 4:41 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
sorry i fell asleep during that article he will have to re-do it
Posted by Randy @ 4:43 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
“In fact, the Saints and Cowboys are so fraudulent that the IRS should come in and do an audit.”
Everyone has a right to their opinion. My question to that guy at CHFFs is “If the Cowboys or Saints have success in the playoffs will you write an article proclaiming that you’re nothing more that a 2-bit hack with writing skills unworthy of even covering Mini-Mite Hockey?”
Posted by Craig @ 4:57 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Eh, this guy can suck eggs. He's found some nichey little stat that allows him to spout off on what is and what isn't a "quality win," but he ignores the impressive play of the Cowboys and (presumably, as I haven't watched their games) the Saints. No matter how you qualify the wins, 5 out of 6, with the kind of play we're getting out of them, is impressive.
Posted by Not Really @ 5:10 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Without even digging very deep, I found this: Bengals beat 2-0 Panthers and it's MASSIVE QUALITY WIN, but Cowboys beat one-game-over-500 Panthers and it's a fraud.
Posted by Mike @ 5:14 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
This story was obviously written in crayon. Don't forget to rate the story below so MSNBC will have some clue that they are showcasing poor "pundits" on their site.
Posted by larry @ 5:16 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
THIS GUYS OBVIOUSLY WRITES FOR "EFFECT", OR, HE IS SIMPLY AN IDIOT. A TEAM CAN ONLY PLAY THE TEAMS ON THEIR SCHEDULE AND THEIR STRENGTH OF SCHEDULE IS ONLY ONE OF MAYBE 25 WAYS TO JUDGE A TEAM. BESIDES, I HAVE A HARD TIME NOT CONSIDERING CAROLINA AND NEW YORK ON THE ROAD NOT TO BE QUALITY VICTORIES.
Posted by Bernardo @ 5:16 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
This guy is a huge idiot. The Colts game was huge and the Giants and Panthers are pretty decent clubs. Besides, one nice thing has been that against 'lesser' teams the margin of victory has been large.
Posted by Chris @ 5:23 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Guess Wins AT New York against the Giants and At Carolina are not quality wins. Must be a East Coast writer that chooses to not put Harvey Martin or Bob Hayes in the HOF!!
Posted by Rob @ 5:25 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
A quality win is one against an opponent currently over .500. The Boys will pick up a quality win this week when the Giants or Panthers win.
Posted by A-Cast @ 6:09 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
MSNBC and Football? enough said. That guy probably got on some AFC football chat room in order to write his story before his deadline. In the words of Troy Aikman....Get Real
Posted by John @ 6:13 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Also note that although some of the Cowboys wins weren't against "quality" opponents, in most cases, the margin of victory was great...17 points, 31, 28, 21, 17, and 28. It's not like they've needed field goals at the end to beat many of these teams.
Posted by Judd @ 6:35 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
So let's think this through. He defines a good team by the number of teams with a winning record it has beaten. The Cowboys, for instance, have a great record at 8-4, and thus would be a "Quality Win" for, say, Washington. But no, not really, because we're fraudulent, so beating us must not have really been a very big deal. So records don't really mean anything at all, according to his theory, right? Moron.
Posted by kameleon_o @ 7:35 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Someone needs to calculate the winning % of every team that we beat right before we beat them. One of the reasons these teams have bad winning % is because we beat them. I'll bet Pittsburgh didn't have a whole lot of wins over quality teams until they went on a run and kept running.
Posted by CFFL @ 10:23 PM Thu, Dec 07, 2006
Not to be a homer, but that is the dumbest NFL article I've read all season. His "2006 Quality Standings" reveal the inherent flaws of his premise -- only Chicago, Indy, Jax, KC and Baltimore having winning "Quality" records. Teams with .500 "Quality" records include not only Dallas, but also New England, Cincy and San Diego. I guess those teams are frauds too. Seattle, Denver, New Orleans and the Giants must be toast with their losing "Quality" records. To further expose the idiocy, the Redkins have the best "Quality" record in the NFC East.
Dumb. Apparently a viable columnist strategy is to think of something idiotic and add fraudulent statistics.
Posted by bbanzai @ 1:00 AM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
by his system cowboys will get better next week even if they lose. either the Panthers or Giants will be over .500 after the week, so it will add a quailty win. how goofy is that?
strength of schedule matters in evaluating teams, problem with ranking by it (exclusively) is it that a teams standing can change based only on what other teams do.
Posted by Alan @ 7:38 AM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
Isnt Cold hard football facts the website that has the love-in with the Patriots and proclaimed them to be the greatest of all time?
Posted by Joyce @ 7:58 AM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
wow, who is this guy? it sounds like he has a grudge against the saints and cowboys. but did you notice jay novacek's picks on the page??? all that other stuff just went in one ear and out the other when i saw who jay's picks were! :)
j
Posted by Mike N. @ 8:47 AM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
That guy can't write his name. As for the schedule, I'm not sure there are that many "nobody" teams in the NFL.
Posted by Brad @ 9:23 AM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
When we win the Super Bowl I say we throw this article back in this idiot's face! Jacksonville is a quality team?? Is he serious? If two losses to HOUSTON makes you a quality team then the Cowboys are cream of the crop!
And would someone please explain to my how the Bears (the biggest fraud of them all) were left of this list?? Seattle and New England have been their two biggest opponents and they went 1-1. Give me a break!
Posted by Larry in SF @ 11:31 AM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
Sounds like this guys is perfect for the B(C)S! I bet he thinks the NFL should put in a strength of schedule format for the playoffs.
Posted by Ken In SA @ 1:07 PM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
The only thing that matters is which team is ahead in the score when the final gun goes off at the Super Bowl. Any attempt to speculate about who is the better team before that is just opinion, I don't care what "statistics" or methodolgy you want to use.
Posted by Joey @ 3:13 PM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
It's obvious this guy has a huge crush on the AFC. That's great he wants to take out his hatred of an entire conference on its 2 hottest teams, but that doesn't explain why they aren't capable of reaching the Super Bowl (since only the final game will be played against his lovers the AFC).
Posted by steve @ 4:04 PM Fri, Dec 08, 2006
So what this joker is saying is that based on Dallas' and New Orleans' lack of quality wins they won't get a chance to play in a BCS game even if they win out.