Old School Cowboys Fans, I have a Hypothetical [Archive] - Dallas Cowboys Forum

View Full Version : Old School Cowboys Fans, I have a Hypothetical

HighTechDave

10-09-2006, 02:30 PM

question.

With the current players, how would the Greatness of Tom Landry called that game?

I want to see if you guys have the same couple of 3 ideas I had. I was not impressed obviously with the play calling and certain personell placement on some plays

joseephuss

10-09-2006, 02:40 PM

Chuck 54

10-09-2006, 02:47 PM

I am not a big fan of Romo's, but Landry would have played him in the 2nd half...either the whole 2nd half or after more sacks. Landry did not care for statues at QB...that's one reason Roger won the position from Morton who had a far superior arm. Roger brought more to the position. I think Landry would have pulled Bledsoe when it was apparent we couldn't protect him and played the more mobile QB. If Romo sucked, Landry would have even put Bledsoe back in in the 4th...he didn't care about hurting a guy's feelings or coddling him. He once even had QB's alternate plays....lol.

CATCH17

10-09-2006, 02:50 PM

I dont know how Landry would've done it but I know the way BP did it PUT US IN A POSITION TO WIN even with all of the turnovers and big plays given up by the defense.

By no means was coaching to blame yesterday.

CanadianCowboysFan

10-09-2006, 02:52 PM

Yeah like Landry never lost big games and his teams never choked, after all we didn't lose three straight NFC championship games including letting the 49ers drive right down the field on us, didn't lose three SBs with him as coach etc :rolleyes:

THUMPER

10-09-2006, 02:55 PM

Shotgun.

Rolled the QB a little more. Not too much more because there is only so much you can do with Bledsoe

Quick pitches/tosses to the running backs.

Split the running back out by himself and actually throw it to him.

Try a play action pass on second and short, which I think Dallas has done only about once this season.

I HATE that we don't run play-action much but then we haven't since the Landry days. Even under Johnson we didn't run play-action much but I think was due more to Aikman's inability to sell the fake worth squat than Jimmy's reluctance to call it. Troy was the worst play-fake QB I've ever seen.

I couldn't figure out why, with Philly blitzing up the middle so often, we didn't run some toss plays to Julius.

I am not a big fan of Romo's, but Landry would have played him in the 2nd half...either the whole 2nd half or after more sacks. Landry did not care for statues at QB...that's one reason Roger won the position from Morton who had a far superior arm. Roger brought more to the position. I think Landry would have pulled Bledsoe when it was apparent we couldn't protect him and played the more mobile QB. If Romo sucked, Landry would have even put Bledsoe back in in the 4th...he didn't care about hurting a guy's feelings or coddling him. He once even had QB's alternate plays....lol.

Landry had no qualms about pulling a QB that wasn't producing in a particular game and replacing him with someone else. It didn't necessarily mean that the following week the new guy would start but he understood that sometimes a guy is just having a bad day or the defense has him figured out and putting another guy in at QB can fire up the team and create confusion for the defense.

Landry was about winning, not about "his guys". He really liked Morton as a person but would pull him without a 2nd thought if he felt it would help the team win. Morton came in for Merideth as well.

Both of you came up with very excellent comments! Nicely done. :bow:

HighTechDave

10-09-2006, 02:58 PM

By no means was coaching to blame yesterday.

:lmao2:

your kidding, right?

:lmao:

joseephuss

10-09-2006, 03:04 PM

GoCowboysGo

10-09-2006, 03:07 PM

THUMPER

10-09-2006, 03:16 PM

Cbz40

10-09-2006, 03:18 PM

At least those were playoff and Superbowl games. These Cowboys haven't been there in a while.

Very Good. Post of the day.

Stautner

10-09-2006, 03:23 PM

At least those were playoff and Superbowl games. These Cowboys haven't been there in a while.

I'm a Cowboy fan from WAY back in the early days, and a huge Landry fan, but this comment is off base.

Landry didn't win right off the bat it took several years to have his first winning record and 10-11 years to win his first championship. Then, starting in the mid 80's he put out horrible teams for a number of years, which is why he was fired.

Landry definitely had his dry spells to go along with the great years.

And Parcells hasn't been here that long - and inherited a team that had been 5-11 for three straight years.

CATCH17

10-09-2006, 03:26 PM

your kidding, right?

No im not kidding. The coaching was easily good enough for us to win. EASILY.

We gave them 24 points off turnovers. 24.

7 of them came on McBriars little fiasco.

Another 3 of them came on when Bledsoe takes a 2 step drop and gets the ball knocked out. Didnt know it was possible to get hit on a 2 step drop.

An interception came when Bledsoe was about to throw deep to Owens in the first half and had his arm hit and picked off.

Greg Ellis was all over McNabb and didn't make a tackle against McNabb. Watkins bites on a double move so theres 7 again.

Philly runs a flea flicker and Pat Watkins is sitting PERFECTLY in coverage and all he has to do is knock the ball down. Instead its 7 more.

Bledsoe misses Owens and badly badly underthrows him. Cost us 7.

The players were put in a position to succeed yesterday. How can you ask for anything more?

superpunk

10-09-2006, 03:29 PM

Good call catch17. Good to know someone else was actually watching the game. I didn't like us getting away from the run, early, but the coaching was pretty good, in that game.

joseephuss

10-09-2006, 03:30 PM

I'm a Cowboy fan from WAY back in the early days, and a huge Landry fan, but this comment is off base.

Landry didn't win right off the bat it took several years to have his first winning record and 10-11 years to win his first championship. Then, starting in the mid 80's he put out horrible teams for a number of years, which is why he was fired.

Landry definitely had his dry spells to go along with the great years.

And Parcells hasn't been here that long - and inherited a team that had been 5-11 for three straight years.

You have been a fan longer than me.(My nice way of saying you are older.) I was just responding to the direct comparison of Landry losing the big games made from my friend to the north. He specifially referred to Superbowl and NFC championship games. I know my history and that Landry had to build a team from less than scratch and it took a while to do. So there is no real comparison because Parcells in Dallas has yet to get the team in those positions. If he does, it would be a fair comparion between Landry's Boys and Parcells Boys.

parchy

10-09-2006, 03:36 PM

I'm a Cowboy fan from WAY back in the early days, and a huge Landry fan, but this comment is off base.

Landry didn't win right off the bat it took several years to have his first winning record and 10-11 years to win his first championship. Then, starting in the mid 80's he put out horrible teams for a number of years, which is why he was fired.

Landry definitely had his dry spells to go along with the great years.

And Parcells hasn't been here that long - and inherited a team that had been 5-11 for three straight years.

Landry took over a team literally built from players other teams didn't want. His roster was a barren wasteland for years before he and Schramm finally accumulated the talent necessary to win.

The 2003 Dallas Cowboys are in no way comparable to the 1960 Dallas Cowboys. Not even close.

Clove

10-09-2006, 03:36 PM

No im not kidding. The coaching was easily good enough for us to win. EASILY.

We gave them 24 points off turnovers. 24.

7 of them came on McBriars little fiasco.

Another 3 of them came on when Bledsoe takes a 2 step drop and gets the ball knocked out. Didnt know it was possible to get hit on a 2 step drop.

An interception came when Bledsoe was about to throw deep to Owens in the first half and had his arm hit and picked off.

Greg Ellis was all over McNabb and didn't make a tackle against McNabb. Watkins bites on a double move so theres 7 again.

Philly runs a flea flicker and Pat Watkins is sitting PERFECTLY in coverage and all he has to do is knock the ball down. Instead its 7 more.

Bledsoe misses Owens and badly badly underthrows him. Cost us 7.

The players were put in a position to succeed yesterday. How can you ask for anything more?I agree with everything here. Mistakes/technique/ inexperience at FS/ and QB nerves.. WR/QB were not on the same page, and that's disturbing. What are they doing in practice?

I will say thing, Tom would've destroyed that eagles team. When you look back at the video, the only TD they deserved was INT at the end of the game but other than that, mistakes gave them touch downs

Stautner

10-09-2006, 03:39 PM

You have been a fan longer than me.(My nice way of saying you are older.) I was just responding to the direct comparison of Landry losing the big games made from my friend to the north. He specifially referred to Superbowl and NFC championship games. I know my history and that Landry had to build a team from less than scratch and it took a while to do. So there is no real comparison because Parcells in Dallas has yet to get the team in those positions. If he does, it would be a fair comparion between Landry's Boys and Parcells Boys.

There really is no point of comparison at all at this point.

Cochese

10-09-2006, 03:41 PM

Landry took over a team literally built from players other teams didn't want. His roster was a barren wasteland for years before he and Schramm finally accumulated the talent necessary to win.

The 2003 Dallas Cowboys are in no way comparable to the 1960 Dallas Cowboys. Not even close.

And the roster in 2003 was jampacked with talent? I think the way to describe that roster IS a barren wasteland and players that other teams diddnt want.

joseephuss

10-09-2006, 03:48 PM

There really is no point of comparison at all at this point.

Yep, pretty much.

jwhardin

10-09-2006, 07:46 PM

Actually Landry took over a brand new franchise, with out all of the benefits that new franchises get now and had them in the playoffs within 5 years.

Dave_in-NC

10-09-2006, 07:53 PM

:lmao2:

your kidding, right?

:lmao:

Why would he be kidding? He's right. Execution of highly paid pros cost us that game yesterday.

peplaw06

10-09-2006, 07:53 PM

Landry took over a team literally built from players other teams didn't want. His roster was a barren wasteland for years before he and Schramm finally accumulated the talent necessary to win.

The 2003 Dallas Cowboys are in no way comparable to the 1960 Dallas Cowboys. Not even close.

How many players that were jettisoned after BP got here are no longer in the league? I'll give you a hint... It's a lot.

HighTechDave

10-09-2006, 11:30 PM

gawd you guys suck. BTT.

What would Landry do on play calling.

gaaaaaaawd. only a few got it.

and your an idiot iff coaching wasn't part of the loss. Idiot......

parchy

10-10-2006, 12:09 AM

How many players that were jettisoned after BP got here are no longer in the league? I'll give you a hint... It's a lot.

Seriously... seriously? The 2003 team MADE THE PLAYOFFS.

The 1960 team won ZERO games.

The '03 Cowboys overachieved, sure, but the comparison is not the same... at all. Landry had a million times less talent to work with than BP had in '03, making his rebuilding project easier. I'm not denying that he needed to rebuild quite a bit, but to compare it to a freaking expansion team? That's ludacris.