bagobonez wrote:You're right points are what matter, not yards. I wonder how the Eagles score so many points without having to move the ball? I have your answer. Penalties. Same with their defense. Their defense yardage wise was ranked 20th, but they allowed alot fewer points. This just supports my conspiracy theory beliefs. The refs do not penalize Philly, thus making the yardage they DO get count even more, and then penalize the shit out of the Eagles' opponents, so the Eagles move the ball easily without getting the actual yardage accredited to them. THen on defense, the defense is bending and bending and bending until the opponent is threatening to score, and then the refs step in and make sure the opponent only gets a field goal, or kicks them out of FG range altogether.
Well, I see you completely ignored the fact that the Eagles moved the ball further on each play than Dallas. To expand upon that, Dallas only beat their total yardage on account of having more offensive plays.
As for your conspiracy theory... after I stopped laughing I checked facts. You know its something that lends a little credit to an argument. And what do you know. Last year in terms of most penalties here's how the NFC shakes out:
(Ranking them so that the team with the most penalties against them has a higher rank).
So, in 2003 the Offense and their Defense were called for more penalties than any NFC Offense or Defense. Have as many hunches as you want, the facts are facts, this completely contradicts your theory which has no hard evidence to support it.
You checked facts huh? I don't know where you got your facts, but ESPN.com says that only 8 teams were penalized less than the Eagles last year, and none of those 8 teams were NFC East teams.
Eagles' opponents collectively were penalized 129 times.
Only Oakland was penalized more times with 134 penalties.
Eagles' opponents collectively were penalized for 1,105 yards.
Only Oakland had more penalty yards against them with 1,120 yards.
This basically shows that Eagles' opponents were getting the hell penalized out of them, and only 8 other teams had less penalties against them than the Eagles.
THOSE are the facts. You said it yourself, facts lend to support an argument. Now, I'm still waiting for someone to explain why Eagles opponents were penalized so much. I'm waiting......
Wise men do not debate with he who claims the sky is green. It seems you are just looking for a debate and will back any radical idea that supports the Cowboys to get one. You responded to BrutallyHuge's well put argument about how to judge an offense with "Yeah, that didn't really explain anything, but nice try." Why bother?
Except that there's a much more simpler and logical conclusion that can be made from those stats: the Eagles don't get penalities as much, because there aren't as many to call. Seeing how this answer doesnt require the collusion of the entire NFL management, its much more likely than your theory.
But we all know you'd refuse to believe that because you seem to be grasping at straws to find a reason why your cowboys aren't winning the NFC, instead of just realizing it takes time to rebuild a team. This whole penalty argument was just a sidetrack really from you claiming the cowboys had the #1 offense in the NFC last year, when in fact they only had the most total yards. You accredit the Eagles having less yards and more points per game to penalties and wide-ranging conspiracy. Me, I look at the simple and logical, not to mention likely answer.
At 5.3 yards per play compared to 4.9 yards per play, the Eagles simply got more yards out of each play. That stat would indicate the Eagles rove the field better because they needed less plays to get within scoring range. Then how come Dallas had more total yards? Try looking at time of possession and total offensive plays. Dallas had 1062 offensive plays and averaged a ToP of 32:34, wheres the eagles had 944 offensive plays and averaged 28:17 with the ball. Dallas averaged 7 more offensive plays a game than Philly and held the ball for 4:17 more minutes each game on average. Yet, they only averaged 7 more yards per game than the Eagles. This fact makes sense since the Eagles were effective with each play. So, there is why your 'Boys had more yards. No conspiracy involving the entire NFL organization, no ridiculous assumptions, it was just a matter of having more plays on offensive.
Who cares about yards per play? Last I checked, time of possession was an important stat.
What are you going to pick? The offense that gets 10 yards a play but only runs 20 offensive plays all game? Or the offense that gets 5 yards a play and runs 80 plays?
Yards are yards. It doesn't matter how you get them, or how long it takes you to get them. Dallas gained more yardage than Philadelphia did, and guess what? THAT is how they determine offensive ranking! I'm not saying that's the most accurate way to determine it, because points scored is obviously the more important statistic, but I find it strange that Philadelphia has the 18th ranked offense, yet they're putting up alot more points. I could even understand why if their defense was #1 in the league, because they'd always have a short field on every offensive drive. But even that wasn't the case here. So what else could it be? How did Philadelphia score more points? It obviously wasn't because they were moving the ball more (18th ranked offense) and it obviously wasn't because the defense was giving them a short field every time (20th ranked defense) so what else could it be?
Hmm, I bet those 1,105 penalty yards against the Eagles' opponents MIGHT have had something to do with it. That just MIGHT have been why the Eagles were able to get within scoring range without even having to move the ball very far.
Like I said, none of these facts PROVE a conspiracy. Nothing ever will. All I'm saying is, these facts are just a little bit fishy, and I don't think it's out of the question to say that some officials got some under the table money or something of that nature.
You know what else? Not a single one of you can PROVE that the refs DIDN'T get some under-the-table money either.
Ok guys to put it simply, the cowboys had a top ranked offence in the NFC east last year. END OF STORY. If they do it again I will be surprised because I do actually believe the Eagles will have a better offence this year. But the arguments here are a little one sided.
Ok, the Eagles got TO. Thats it from last year where they RANKED behind the cowboys. They still have the same QB and same RB (and lost 2 other RBs). If Westbrook stays healthy I'll be very surprised. If he does get hurt it will be tough for the Eagles while TO is getting gang raped in the field. But like I said, I do believe the Eagles will have a better offence this year.
The cowboys have improved their offence in every aspect. I don't care what anyone says. All cowboys fans will tell you Vinny is an upgrade over Quincy. I've had the same sig for the whole offseason. I wanted Q to be out. And for those that have the Eddie george argument, it's ridiculous because he's not the featured back. JJ WILL have more carries than george this season. I'd be willing to bet Dallas rushes for more yards than the eagles this year. TO Vs. Keyshawn, Give me TO any day of the week!! This is a dumb argument because it's so obvious. But what about the Dallas WRs as a whole Vs. the Philly WRs as a whole? Give me Dallas any day of the week.
Dallas improved their offence quite a bit this season. It's debatable whther the eagles did. I think they did. But if Westbrook gets injured they are in trouble. They have no depth at any position. if injury comes knocking they will be in trouble.
Oh and by the way, The end of story comment at the top was just to stop the debate about who was better last year. Where does the NFL rank them? They have Dallas ahead. END OF STORY. So don't bother.
My Rankings this year:
You guys can use your own rankings trying to prove the cowboys had a worse year last year...I'm just going to go with how the NFL has em ranked. It's a much easier argument.
And by the way, I've been accused of agreeing with this conspiracy theory. But in reality I don't. If anything maybe the Eagles players were playing with different rules because they had the respect of the officials. This isn't a conspiracy. It's simply the way it is. It happens in most sports. Look at Barry Bonds strike zone. Thats not a conspiracy.
So they weren't the best...and may have ended the worst. SO WHAT!