(Editor's Note: Time to check the mail! The DallasCowboys.com staff writers answer your questions here in 'Mailbag' presented by Miller Lite.)
Now that the season is done, do you think the Cowboys are a 7-9-1 team, like their record indicates? Or are they better or worse than that? – Garet Tanaka*/Wailuku, HI*
Kurt: I think there are two legitimate answers to this question. First, the offense was definitely better than the team's 7-9-1 record. A 4,000-yard passer, a 1,000-yard rusher and two 1,000-yard receivers? Seventh in the league in scoring at 27.7 points per game? Second with 6,663 total yards, the third-highest mark in franchise history? This offense should have made the playoffs.
Of course, they didn't because the Dallas defense was actually worse than what that 7-9-1 record reflects. The Cowboys were among the statistical bottom dwellers in nearly every defensive category, including ranking last with 511 points allowed, the first time ever in franchise record books the team has given up more than 500.
According to Pro Football Reference, no team in NFL history has scored more than 400 points and allowed more than 500 in the same season. In fact, only one other team has scored at least 470 points and finished with a losing record, the 2004 Kansas City Chiefs (7-9), and of course no one on that list had a final point differential in the negative as the Cowboys did this season (-40).
So yes, Dak Prescott and his offensive mates probably deserved better, but as Hall of Fame head coach Bill Parcells famously said, "You are what your record says you are." Which in the case of the 2025 ݮƵ overall, simply wasn't good enough.
Nick: Well, the good thing about pro football is that this question really doesn't matter. It's not like college where people vote and use computer data and analytics to determine who is better than other, with a committee and all that. Here, it's just pretty simple and if you've got the better record, you're in. If not, you miss the playoffs and get to pick higher in the draft the next year.
So, to answer your question about 'better or worse' is really irrelevant in the big picture. But to play along, I usually determine these kind of questions based off the amount of close games a team had. There's a lot of games played each year that come down to a few plays. We can always say that a few losses could've been wins and vice versa. So with that, I went back and looked at the close games. To me, four non-losses (Giants, Packers, Chiefs and Eagles) very easily could've been losses, considering the Cowboys were trailing to all of those teams at one point in the fourth quarter.
As for the losses that could've been wins, maybe the Eagles in Week 1, the Panthers on the road and perhaps you could make a case for the Vikings game, but that would be a stretch. So if there were four games you could've lost and three you could've won, then I would say the Cowboys are probably about where they were supposed to be, maybe slightly worse than their record indicates.
Mailbag
Here's your chance to ask a question for the staff writers. Submit your entry now!
