Here is a different question. - Page 2 - Dallas Cowboys Forum

Hostile · 05-14-2005

From some really silly reason a lot of people think there is less to respect about a WCO. I have never understood that. Every NFL system has something about it that makes it difficult to run and plays to a strength somewhere. Is Roger Staubach ever maligned for the Shotgun offense and having Preston Pearson as almost automatic on 3rd down?

Bottom line, Montana had great presence, nerves, and a head for the game. I don't think he was the best ever, but any speculation that he is over rated because of a WCO is silly.

We had 2 QBs play in a version of the WCO here. Anyone want to tell me it helped them pad their stats? Good luck.

cml750 · 05-14-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by blindzebra

So we were both right.

Yep, Marty has to have his running game!!

THUMPER · 05-14-2005

It is very difficult to judge a QB that way, to wonder how he would do if he were in a different system. Most of it depends on the talent surrounding him as well as on the other side of the ball, and just for the heck of it, how good the competition was that he faced. But that's what makes talking about it so fun.

Montana was blessed to be surrounded with a lot of talent on both sides of the ball as well as being in a system that played to his strengths while minimizing his weaknesses.

Archie Manning, on the other hand, was a great QB with all the tools but played on some horrible teams. He was seemingly always playing from behind, only had a partial supporting cast at best for 95+% of his career, and never played on a winning team. If we would have drafted him in 1971 he would have been one of the best QBs ever but then we wouldn't have had Roger starting for us so forget that.

People say that Aikman was great only because he had Emmitt, Irvin, and a great O-Line, as well as a top defense, but that is true of every great QB. Staubach was blessed with the Doomsday Defense, some great WRs, RBs, and O-Line (despite what the HoF voters would have us believe). He would not have been anywhere near the QB he was if he had played for the Saints instead of the Cowboys.

If Landry had stuck to his guns and forced Roger to stay in the pocket and not improvise things would have been different too, and we probably would have started Morton a lot longer and ended up with another QB once he retired. Staubach's strengths were in his ability to improvise and make something out of nothing while on the move, or to gain critical yards on the run. Landry recognized this and grudgingly allowed him to do so while helping him become a better pocket-passer.

Bill Walsh started out with Steve DeBerg at QB in San Fran, and while DeBerg had some excellent skills, they really didn't fit the WCO. He installed Montana in that offense and, VIOLA, it took off. I believe Montana would have been successful in any system provided he had enough talent around him but the WCO was tailor-made for his skill-set.

DeBerg would have been perfect in Norv Turner's offense, an outstanding play-action passer, strong arm, pretty accurate, smart, and tough. His problem was that he ended up playing on a lot of lame teams where he was forced, like Manning, to play from behind and threw a lot of INTs because of it. Funny thing is, we originally drafted DeBerg in 1977 but cut him because we had Danny White. I liked White but I believe DeBerg would have been a better QB for us in the 80s.

Another good example of this is Earl Morrall. Morrall started a lot of games for some pretty lame teams in Detroit and NY but his best seasons (1968 & 1972) were when he was filling in for the regular starter (Unitas & Griese). Those teams went 13-1 in 1968 and 14-0 in 1972 with Morrall starting most of those games. He stunk when he was the starter before so why was he able to be so successful then? Easy, he was playing on SB caliber teams, loaded with talent on both sides of the ball. He rarely had to play from behind, had outstanding running games, top defenses, great O-Lines, excellent WRs, and Don Shula was the HC in both cases and knew how to get the most of or old Earl. Talent and the right system made him a much different QB.

Luck plays a big part in the success or failure of a QB. You get drafted by the right team with the right coach and you could end up being great. If not then you might end up wasting your talent.

Hostile · 05-14-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by THUMPER

It is very difficult to judge a QB that way, to wonder how he would do if he were in a different system. Most of it depends on the talent surrounding him as well as on the other side of the ball, and just for the heck of it, how good the competition was that he faced. But that's what makes talking about it so fun.

Montana was blessed to be surrounded with a lot of talent on both sides of the ball as well as being in a system that played to his strengths while minimizing his weaknesses.

Archie Manning, on the other hand, was a great QB with all the tools but played on some horrible teams. He was seemingly always playing from behind, only had a partial supporting cast at best for 95+% of his career, and never played on a winning team. If we would have drafted him in 1971 he would have been one of the best QBs ever but then we wouldn't have had Roger starting for us so forget that.

[View Full Quote]People say that Aikman was great only because he had Emmitt, Irvin, and a great O-Line, as well as a top defense, but that is true of every great QB. Staubach was blessed with the Doomsday Defense, some great WRs, RBs, and O-Line (despite what the HoF voters would have us believe). He would not have been anywhere near the QB he was if he had played for the Saints instead of the Cowboys.

If Landry had stuck to his guns and forced Roger to stay in the pocket and not improvise things would have been different too, and we probably would have started Morton a lot longer and ended up with another QB once he retired. Staubach's strengths were in his ability to improvise and make something out of nothing while on the move, or to gain critical yards on the run. Landry recognized this and grudgingly allowed him to do so while helping him become a better pocket-passer.

Bill Walsh started out with Steve DeBerg at QB in San Fran, and while DeBerg had some excellent skills, they really didn't fit the WCO. He installed Montana in that offense and, VIOLA, it took off. I believe Montana would have been successful in any system provided he had enough talent around him but the WCO was tailor-made for his skill-set.

DeBerg would have been perfect in Norv Turner's offense, an outstanding play-action passer, strong arm, pretty accurate, smart, and tough. His problem was that he ended up playing on a lot of lame teams where he was forced, like Manning, to play from behind and threw a lot of INTs because of it. Funny thing is, we originally drafted DeBerg in 1977 but cut him because we had Danny White. I liked White but I believe DeBerg would have been a better QB for us in the 80s.

Another good example of this is Earl Morrall. Morrall started a lot of games for some pretty lame teams in Detroit and NY but his best seasons (1968 & 1972) were when he was filling in for the regular starter (Unitas & Griese). Those teams went 13-1 in 1968 and 14-0 in 1972 with Morrall starting most of those games. He stunk when he was the starter before so why was he able to be so successful then? Easy, he was playing on SB caliber teams, loaded with talent on both sides of the ball. He rarely had to play from behind, had outstanding running games, top defenses, great O-Lines, excellent WRs, and Don Shula was the HC in both cases and knew how to get the most of or old Earl. Talent and the right system made him a much different QB.

Luck plays a big part in the success or failure of a QB. You get drafted by the right team with the right coach and you could end up being great. If not then you might end up wasting your talent.

That was just an overall outstanding post. Nice job.

Hoov · 05-14-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by cml750

I agree totally with what you said. I wasn't saying anything bad about Joe, I was just pointing out that the system he was in was perfect for him. With his football smarts he would hsve succeeded in any offense but the WCO was perfect for him. I really I have a lot a respect for Joe but I sure hated him in the 80's. I feel the same way about Larry Bird. I hated both of them when they were playing but after their retirements I have nothing but the upmost respect for their abilities and accomplishments.

I know you werent ragging on joe, its just that your post helped me make my point

. also the O they ran in SF was a good fit for Rice too. that team had a great coach who put all the peices of the puzzle together and made it work.

THUMPER · 05-14-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

That was just an overall outstanding post. Nice job.

Thank you Hostile.

ghst187 · 05-14-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

He was just fine in KC. Sometimes what's between the ears matters more than the gun hanging from the shoulder.

actually, for a QB, that's almost ALWAYS the case.
I think 2000 OU QB Josh Heupel is the best example of that I've seen in a while. Guy was undertalented, undersized, underarm strength, but watching him was like watching an artist. His weaknesses were exposed when he tried to go pro.

kartr · 05-14-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hostile

From some really silly reason a lot of people think there is less to respect about a WCO. I have never understood that. Every NFL system has something about it that makes it difficult to run and plays to a strength somewhere. Is Roger Staubach ever maligned for the Shotgun offense and having Preston Pearson as almost automatic on 3rd down?

Bottom line, Montana had great presence, nerves, and a head for the game. I don't think he was the best ever, but any speculation that he is over rated because of a WCO is silly.

We had 2 QBs play in a version of the WCO here. Anyone want to tell me it helped them pad their stats? Good luck.

The quarterbacks here didn't have a Jerry Rice,John Taylor, Brent Jones at tight end, Tom Rathman at fullback,Roger Craig,Wendall Tyler at running back and weren't given 48 consecutive starts in the WCO to pick it up. They also didn't have a Hall of Fame calibre coach for each game of their careers either, not to mention a top 5 defense every year.Remember, Charles Haley started out as a 9'er along with Keena Turner,Ronnie Lott,Dwight Hicks,Pierce Holt. Not saying Montana wasn't great, just that he had a whole lot more help than most QB's, cause Steve Young picked up right where he left off and even their 3rd string QB, Steve Bono looked good in their offense, until he left for Kansas City.

Hostile · 05-14-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by kartr

The quarterbacks here didn't have a Jerry Rice,John Taylor, Brent Jones at tight end, Tom Rathman at fullback,Roger Craig,Wendall Tyler at running back and weren't given 48 consecutive starts in the WCO to pick it up. They also didn't have a Hall of Fame calibre coach for each game of their careers either, not to mention a top 5 defense every year.Remember, Charles Haley started out as a 9'er along with Keena Turner,Ronnie Lott,Dwight Hicks,Pierce Holt. Not saying Montana wasn't great, just that he had a whole lot more help than most QB's, cause Steve Young picked up right where he left off and even their 3rd string QB, Steve Bono looked good in their offense, until he left for Kansas City.

It always cracks me up. The WCO made those WRs, TEs, QBs, until it comes to ours. Then we didn't have the weapons.

Cowboy Junkie · 05-14-2005

Montana was a great QB.one of the best of all time and it is hard to believe people are actually questioning this.
That said I love the debate
Lots of QBs failed in the WCO