ESPN Insider: Scouts Inc: Secondary Rankings- Cowboys' secondary is second to none

[Rskins91]

I don't see why everyone is acting so sour grapes of the Cowboys having high ratings. Yeah, they are our rivals. And guess what? Our rivals are talented. There have been times in history when the Cowboys have more talent than us. And there are times when we have more talent. The games are usually close though, so that issue isn't that important.

Do you know what other team is good? The Pats. So are the Colts. The Vikings have a Super Bowl caliber roster everywhere but QB. The Steelers are good too.

Amazingly, other teams can be good.

In our hay-day when we were winning Lombardis with Gibbs I, we were given respect and were viewed as having a talented team. I'm sure the Cowboys were sick of us being better.

But in everyone one of these threads, I see people getting all sour grapes and making scorned comments like "Just give it to them."

Some of you get pissed just seeing someone say the Cowboys are good. I see that and think to myself, "Let's rebuild this thing and be better than them!"

It'll just make it sweeter when we beat them.

It's not really being pissed at the Cowboys being good or talented. Nor is it where they place the Skins in conjunction with where they place the Cowboys. I actually think that #12 is a bit high for our secondary considering Springs age and Rogers injury. #15 would have been probably better for us.

To me, it's the fact that the media has given them so much credit when they've accomplished very little worthy of this level of hype. If it was the Patriots getting this much media love, then I would have to agree with most of their rankings, even though I'd hate it.

You said it yourself - the Skins were respected back when we were winning Lombardi's under Gibbs. So why should we give this much credibility to the Cowboys when they haven't won a Super Bowl, much less a playoff game, in the past 12 years?

[JustAfan47]

Found this good vid of our D last year...i hope our D steps up big again this year...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWi1r...eature=related

[ABQCOWBOY]

If it were me, I'd probably pick San Diego as number 1. No matter, it is what it is. I don't put too much stock into these kinds of things. All that matters is winning championships. You can have the best secondary ever but if there is no championship to show for it, it's not worth the paper you might use to write the list on.

That's how I see it anyway.

[mhearn]

You have to rank their secondary #1 because they put up those numbers with a bad LB corps and a suspect D-line. Oh wait....they have them as top units as well.

haha man that had me laughin good

[Califan007]

If it were me, I'd probably pick San Diego as number 1. No matter, it is what it is. I don't put too much stock into these kinds of things. All that matters is winning championships. You can have the best secondary ever but if there is no championship to show for it, it's not worth the paper you might use to write the list on.

That's how I see it anyway.

That's how I view Denver acquiring Bailey lol ...

[ouvan59]

You are getting so angry that you are not understanding what the issue is here. This comment proves it.

This is a ranking about talent.

This is not something that says "This team is guaranteed to be a better team when matched up against any team below it and therefore should win every game." Nor does it say the obverse that every team ranked will lose to a team above it.

Talent does not mean a better team. And there is solace in that.

I'm sure the NYG reaction would be, "Who cares who is more talented? We won in the playoffs."

Or, that would be my reaction.

Again, the Cowboys vs. Redskins game is always close even when one team is considered to be better by third parties. So when we whip the Cowboys this year, it will be sweeter.

Some of you read this as someone saying "Redskins suck, Cowboys rule." That isn't what this says.

I have no problem saying at the end of the year, "Yeah, the Cowboys may have more talented players, but we were the better team and proved it by beating them twice."

Please explain how we were a better defense yet they are miles better in each unit? Is Wade that bad of a defensive coach? Or should we wait and see that they will also rank him as a top 10 coach.

[skindogger47]

They were 13th in pass defense last year, washington was 16th. So naturally their secondary should be ranked 1 and ours, 12.

But they got PAC MAN!

/wishes there was a pac-man smiley

[skindogger47]

Found this good vid of our D last year...i hope our D steps up big again this year...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWi1r...eature=related

Man we played awesome the last 5 games. Todd Collins had ALL DAY to throw, and Clinton was a completely different player. I am stoked to see what JC can do with a healthy squad.

[VCDefectors]

If it were me, I'd probably pick San Diego as number 1. No matter, it is what it is. I don't put too much stock into these kinds of things. All that matters is winning championships. You can have the best secondary ever but if there is no championship to show for it, it's not worth the paper you might use to write the list on.

That's how I see it anyway.

Agreed. I just don't see how anybody would rate the Cowboys DBs #1 right now. Granted, they now have a nice set of CBs, but even there are question marks. No one knows just how good Pacman is going to be. Jenkins is a rookie, and even if he plays well, 99.99% of rookie CBs get beat for TDs.

Also, teams will always attempt to force Roy Williams into coverage. Now, I happen to think that RW didn't play nearly as bad as most fans tend to believe. It's not like he got beat several times last year. But, he also hasn't proven any consistency in coverage and does still tend to take bad angles to the ball (going for the hit instead of covering the receiver).

In any case, the Cowboys do have a shot at having a great year in the secondary, but #1? Premature ESPN ejaculation, IMO.

[DallasSucks19922010]

dallas pro bowlers? championship...wait first round exit but the next year definitely championship and this will be a never ending cycle

[RIDETHEWALRUS]

It seems to me that the folks over at espn have set up a hammock attached to the inside of jerrah jones' thighs.

[Califan007]

Agreed. I just don't see how anybody would rate the Cowboys DBs #1 right now. Granted, they now have a nice set of CBs, but even there are question marks. No one knows just how good Pacman is going to be. Jenkins is a rookie, and even if he plays well, 99.99% of rookie CBs get beat for TDs.

Also, teams will always attempt to force Roy Williams into coverage. Now, I happen to think that RW didn't play nearly as bad as most fans tend to believe. It's not like he got beat several times last year. But, he also hasn't proven any consistency in coverage and does still tend to take bad angles to the ball (going for the hit instead of covering the receiver).

In any case, the Cowboys do have a shot at having a great year in the secondary, but #1? Premature ESPN ejaculation, IMO.

So why do you think they did rank the Cowboys' secondary as #1?

[ncr2h]

Just my opinion but:

Cowboys - We have 2 players in our secondary that would definitely start if they were on the Cowboys: (1) Laron would start over Roy, and (2) Take your pick of Springs, Smoot, or Rogers, any of them could probably start over Henry.

Giants - Every starter in our secondary, with the probably exception of Daughty and the possible exception of Springs Smoot or Rogers, would start if they were on the Giants.

Eagles - Only Landry would start if he were on the Eagles.

[VCDefectors]

So why do you think they did rank the Cowboys' secondary as #1?

Potentially, they could be. Talent and depth at CB. The first time in YEARS the Cowboys have had good players at the nickel and dime CB. Hamlin is also a pretty decent FS. RW can't cover, as everybody knows, but he will be moved to ILB on passing downs, Henry will cover TEs (huge advantage Cowboys), Newman goes into the slot and Pacman goes over the top. Jenkins replaces RW and plays the dime when teams go 3 wide or no-back set. On paper, the Cowboys match up against any offense out there.

But, that's why they play the game, right? Pacman has to be viewed as a question mark (he hasn't played in a year, has been fully reinstated yet), and offenses will continue to go after RW when he's lined up as safety. And, if Zach Thomas goes down, it will limit some of the secondary packages that they will be able to run. You would also see problems in the middle.

[SkinsFTW]

The funny thing is that ESPN will talk all their players up all season. Dallas is better than every other team in almost everything. They should win every game 45-3 by their rankings. They are clearly superior to even New England by these rankings.

Then when they lose their first playoff game (again) ESPN won't be talking about what POS underachievers the Pukes are.

There will be another headline like last year: "Cowboys fall short on last effort as Giants move on to face Packers" I can almost see the tear in their eye when writing that.

All they really need to do is post this:



Or even this: