Nate Newton Speaks

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by HoustonFrog

That makes no sense. It's not JTT's opinion that I was linking to. The only quote I needed from it was the one with the deficits and how many times they had a 7-0 lead. Stats. Facts. Thus my point still stands. You can look at the 4th quarter and say they never quit and hang back to back .500s on it. I see early deficits, sloppy play, still being near the bottom in penalties...in fact moving down farther... as a constant. Then I look at the Harbaughs and how they took their teams to new heights from the word go and see the difference between this process and one where guys play hard a majority of games and win them...with the same talent they had when they were losing badly. A lot of teams don't quit but their talent doesn't allow them to win. Teams that have the talent yet still can't get over the hump because they can't get out of their own way...that falls somewhere in the coaching realm...getting guys to prepare week in and week out to play a full game.

If you only needed the stats, you probably should have included them in the post. I opened the link, had no idea what you were referring to, saw it was a JJT article, and assumed you must have given the wrong link.

I'm not looking at the 4th quarter play and saying that's good enough. I'm looking at it and saying Garrett has this team playing hard. Because he does. I don't know why you don't simply acknowledge that and move on to an actual negative, but it is what it is. It's not like there aren't things to criticize about Garrett that makes sense to complain about. We could talk about red zone offense, for example. Or my favorite: turnover differential. We could even talk about game management. All of those are actual negatives and can be tied to the head coach in some way, shape, or form. But, no matter what those negatives are, this is a gutsy team that believes in its coach and plays hard. That's a good thing and not something we need to try to pretend isn't going on just because we're not happy with 8-8.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by jnday

I'll give you one example of attitude thay made the player. Bill Bates wasn't blessed with talent. Very little physical talent actually, for his position. His attitude made him one hell of s ball player and he passed that attitude on to teammates. I am not getting into an debate, but he is one of many. Bates was known as a player that would knock your off. There is not a player on the Cowboys current roster that carries the attitude and reputation that Bates had with his peers. There are better players talent wise, no doubt. Bates is just a good example of attitude making the player.

ROFL.

Bates is a terrible example. He was a dominant SEC player that started 4 years in college because he played with tremendous physicality and had college level athleticism. But when he got to the NFL he was a specialist and part-time player because he lacked NFL talent. He went undrafted.

He was a special teamer and nickel back. Even the pure ideal of attitude wasn't good enough to regularly start. He carved out an awesome 15 year career as a special teamer and back up.

A player can derail themselves with a bad attitude or max themselves out with a good attitude but you have to have talent to start with. And to make it in the NFL you need LOTS of talent.

By comparison the turd T.O. started over 200 NFL games and put up Hall of Fame numbers.

[HoustonFrog]

Originally Posted by Idgit

If you only needed the stats, you probably should have included them in the post. I opened the link, had no idea what you were referring to, saw it was a JJT article, and assumed you must have given the wrong link.

[View Full Quote]I'm not looking at the 4th quarter play and saying that's good enough. I'm looking at it and saying Garrett has this team playing hard. Because he does. I don't know why you don't simply acknowledge that and move on to an actual negative, but it is what it is. It's not like there aren't things to criticize about Garrett that makes sense to complain about. We could talk about red zone offense, for example. Or my favorite: turnover differential. We could even talk about game management. All of those are actual negatives and can be tied to the head coach in some way, shape, or form. But, no matter what those negatives are, this is a gutsy team that believes in its coach and plays hard. That's a good thing and not something we need to try to pretend isn't going on just because we're not happy with 8-8.

I quoted the Facts from the article:

The Cowboys consistently started slowly, especially at home, where they faced deficits of 7-0 (Tampa Bay Buccaneers), 24-7 (Chicago Bears), 23-0 (New York Giants), 13-0 (Cleveland Browns), 28-3 (Washington Redskins), 14-3 (Philadelphia Eagles) and 31-17 (New Orleans Saints).


The Cowboys had a 7-0 lead just once all season.

That isn't JTT's opinion. That is what happened. So are they playing hard when this happens? That is my point. If they come out a majority of games...above is just home games...and they are committing bad penalties, are making sloppy errors on offense, are falling behind early and getting outplayed...how are they playing hard those quarters?You want me to simply take 4th quarters where they are in "oh sheet" mode and make a general statement that they play hard for Garrett. You want me to just acknowledge this. But in my book if you are laying it on the line for your coach and are playing hard...then you are practicing hard, you are eliminating early mistakes..you are coming out and taking it to other teams and not CONSISTENTLY falling behind. How is that not hard to see? It's great that they didn't quit in the 4th. But why are they not showing that same urgency in the 1st 3 quarters? You can't just separate them. I just don't get excited about Garrett because of "trying hard in the 4th" when they aren't doing their jobs the other 3 quarters AND he is doing the other things you pointed out...time management issues, etc.

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by HoustonFrog

I quoted the Facts from the article:

[View Full Quote]That isn't JTT's opinion. That is what happened. So are they playing hard when this happens? That is my point. If they come out a majority of games...above is just home games...and they are committing bad penalties, are making sloppy errors on offense, are falling behind early and getting outplayed...how are they playing hard those quarters?You want me to simply take 4th quarters where they are in "oh sheet" mode and make a general statement that they play hard for Garrett. You want me to just acknowledge this. But in my book if you are laying it on the line for your coach and are playing hard...then you are practicing hard, you are eliminating early mistakes..you are coming out and taking it to other teams and not CONSISTENTLY falling behind. How is that not hard to see? It's great that they didn't quit in the 4th. But why are they not showing that same urgency in the 1st 3 quarters? You can't just separate them. I just don't get excited about Garrett because of "trying hard in the 4th" when they aren't doing their jobs the other 3 quarters AND he is doing the other things you pointed out...time management issues, etc.

LOL! My bad. I just skipped that part. I must have thought it was part of a sig or something.

The slow starts aren't a symptom of playing hard. Most of them were the result of the team not executing well early when the plays were scripted, or of turnovers and mistakes (Bears, Seahawks) early that put us in a hole. I don't dispute that that happened, at all. And it's on Garrett. It speaks to sloppiness, especially with the WR corps and with the OTs in pass protection early. And to our defense's inability to take the ball away from anybody. And those shortcomings definitely got us beat in those games where we couldn't make the adjustments and come all the way back.

Those are genuine problems on this team, and they definitely do go to the head coach to fix. That said, it's still the case that the team played hard in every game this season, and that goes on the HC, too.

[visionary]

Originally Posted by HoustonFrog

I quoted the Facts from the article:

[View Full Quote]That isn't JTT's opinion. That is what happened. So are they playing hard when this happens? That is my point. If they come out a majority of games...above is just home games...and they are committing bad penalties, are making sloppy errors on offense, are falling behind early and getting outplayed...how are they playing hard those quarters?You want me to simply take 4th quarters where they are in "oh sheet" mode and make a general statement that they play hard for Garrett. You want me to just acknowledge this. But in my book if you are laying it on the line for your coach and are playing hard...then you are practicing hard, you are eliminating early mistakes..you are coming out and taking it to other teams and not CONSISTENTLY falling behind. How is that not hard to see? It's great that they didn't quit in the 4th. But why are they not showing that same urgency in the 1st 3 quarters? You can't just separate them. I just don't get excited about Garrett because of "trying hard in the 4th" when they aren't doing their jobs the other 3 quarters AND he is doing the other things you pointed out...time management issues, etc.

great posts in this thread by you taking certain posters to school who make it a habit to argue for the sake of arguing

Epitaph of the 2012 Dallas Cowboys

"They started slow and sloppy, but after giving it their all, finished as a still processing average team"

[TwoDeep3]

There was an argument raging on this site about a decade ago involving coaching versus players. Most cried about coaching until Parcels arrived. They were validated when the pot smoking Qwinthy Carter led a band of nobodies to the play-offs.

I still maintain this argument has an agenda, and the results of Parcels may have been more of someone kicking the team in the butt versus some great skill at coaching. They were afraid of him. After three years of Campo the poodle, a real coach that breathed fire and brimstone had a pronounced effect.

Now move forward to the Wade hiring and the arguments that ensued over his player's buddy demeanor and how some wanted a fire breather.

It was stated over and over that you don't need a fire breather to win, and Tony Dungy was offered up as the anecdotal evidence, because on a messageboard, if it ever happened once, it is the yardstick forever.

The problem with this team is leadership and talent. It is both.

The leadership starts at Jerry Jones. Now that is a huge no-no to bring that up. But this is the guy who sets the pace. He has created the corporate paradigm that suggests players can contact the GM which circumvents the head coach.

He's undercut every head coach he's had, including Parcels. I don't for a minute believe Parcels was okay with Terrell Owens. The mere fact that he would not call him by name and left the next off season after the Seattle loss suggests he had enough.

Now look at the head coaches. Garrett is just as bad as Wade in holding people's feet to the fire. While Jimmy is a sore spot with most because he actually is the proof that Jones couldn't pick a winner out of a two horse race, Johnson would never have let that defensive player who killed his friend on the field.

Johnson held people accountable. When has that happened here since? Parcels to a degree, but not during the six or seven years Garrett has been associated with this team.

The players have an entitlement attitude, and this is what Nate was speaking about. Deny it as you like but the proof is in the numbers. The only stats that count. Win/loss.

Now the big agenda why it is coaching is because of the cap. If it is the players, then you have to move them out and rebuild. That takes time and for fans time is an enemy.

The same mindset prevails if speaking about trading Romo now instead of him walking or you re-up him.

The prevalent theory tossed out is you don't have anyone in the wings so trading Tony isn't wise.

Now I am not advocating trading Romo. I am merely using this as an example. If trading him and stinking on ice for a season means having a top pick for a QB, then what is the real difference between that and 8-8?

You just come out of another disappointing season with a pick that can perhaps translate into a franchise quarterback.

So the notion that it is the players goes down real hard for some here. Because it is nigh impossible to retool without a three year commitment and a bunch of losing.

But the team is losing anyway because of the players we have. There are a handful who actually are winners, but not enough leaders to hold people to the Ox yolk and get the team working to win.

So the majority believe it is coaching alone.

Jones just exhibited his belief it was coaching and a great number of you signed off on that.

But until you change the mindset of the players, and put leaders on the field and in the coaching ranks that hold people accountable, this team will be what it is.

8-8.

[TwoDeep3]

Originally Posted by Idgit

I'm looking at it and saying Garrett has this team playing hard. Because he does.

I would be more inclined to think Romo has them playing hard. The team is behind, and Romo galvanizes the players on offense. This has a domino effect in that as they are making headway to get back into the game, the defense then picks up the pace.

Two things here.

1. This underscores the half-arsed play of the team before they "turn it on." Going through the motions with no motivation is indicative of the players getting behind.

To be sure some of it has to do with halftime adjustments. But then you have a team that totally ignored the blitzing patterns of the Redskins in a second half when it was come big or tuck tail and go home. So that isn't as important as the team ginning up and "turning it on."

2. The second aspect is not Garrett's gravitas or swagger that inspires the players as much as it is Romo. So a leader gets on someone's butt and suddenly they play better.

However, in all this there is one component that is over looked.

The schedule was easier in the second half. There were no big comebacks against the Bears, Giants, Ravens, Falcons and Redskins in the first game.
When facing a tougher defense, they hung with the Falcons, and to a degree with the ravens, but all else they failed miserably.

So this miracle finish did have roots in an easier schedule.

[jnday]

Originally Posted by jterrell

ROFL.

Bates is a terrible example. He was a dominant SEC player that started 4 years in college because he played with tremendous physicality and had college level athleticism. But when he got to the NFL he was a specialist and part-time player because he lacked NFL talent. He went undrafted.

He was a special teamer and nickel back. Even the pure ideal of attitude wasn't good enough to regularly start. He carved out an awesome 15 year career as a special teamer and back up.

A player can derail themselves with a bad attitude or max themselves out with a good attitude but you have to have talent to start with. And to make it in the NFL you need LOTS of talent.

By comparison the turd T.O. started over 200 NFL games and put up Hall of Fame numbers.

What would Bates have been without his attitude? He sure wouldn't have played in the NFL. There are tons of players that are not the fastest, strongest or biggest that have went on to hsve good careers due to the right attitude. That very attitude drove them to work harder and have good careers. They simply couldn't make it on talent alone, because they didn't have much to start with. Bates had a 15 year career. Not bad for a guy with nothing more than college level talent. Then you have guys with all the talent in the world and and they are average at best. Marty B. ring a bell?

[Idgit]

Originally Posted by TwoDeep3

I would be more inclined to think Romo has them playing hard. The team is behind, and Romo galvanizes the players on offense. This has a domino effect in that as they are making headway to get back into the game, the defense then picks up the pace.

Two things here.

1. This underscores the half-arsed play of the team before they "turn it on." Going through the motions with no motivation is indicative of the players getting behind.

To be sure some of it has to do with halftime adjustments. But then you have a team that totally ignored the blitzing patterns of the Redskins in a second half when it was come big or tuck tail and go home. So that isn't as important as the team ginning up and "turning it on."

2. The second aspect is not Garrett's gravitas or swagger that inspires the players as much as it is Romo. So a leader gets on someone's butt and suddenly they play better.

[View Full Quote]However, in all this there is one component that is over looked.

The schedule was easier in the second half. There were no big comebacks against the Bears, Giants, Ravens, Falcons and Redskins in the first game.
When facing a tougher defense, they hung with the Falcons, and to a degree with the ravens, but all else they failed miserably.

So this miracle finish did have roots in an easier schedule.

I'm sure it's a little of both. No doubt, Romo's got a lot of grit to his game, too, and he usually gets us in a position to win games at the end, even when we don't pull it out.

Knowing your fondness for the words of players, though, over message board gurus, can't we all agree that maybe Sean Lee says it best, in his quote from my sig? And that maybe it's the case that JG actually is a strong leader when it comes to getting the team to play together, and that his limitations are elsewhere? Remember, I'm not arguing that JG doesn't have his own limitations.

[GimmeTheBall!]

Originally Posted by SDCowboy85

To say this team could not have gotten 1-2 more wins is idiotic.

And they could have easily lost 2 or more games as well.
Nate, for once, is correct.

[jterrell]

Originally Posted by jnday

What would Bates have been without his attitude? He sure wouldn't have played in the NFL. There are tons of players that are not the fastest, strongest or biggest that have went on to hsve good careers due to the right attitude. That very attitude drove them to work harder and have good careers. They simply couldn't make it on talent alone, because they didn't have much to start with. Bates had a 15 year career. Not bad for a guy with nothing more than college level talent. Then you have guys with all the talent in the world and and they are average at best. Marty B. ring a bell?

I don't think we are saying opposite things so much as emphasizing different areas.

Marty B, btw, has more NFL starts than Bates had in 15 years even though MartyB played behind a Hall of Fame TE until last year. Hard to use him as an example because he has had a better NFL career than Bates even though he has far less mental fortitude and desire according to anyone with an opinion.

Felix Jones issue is attitude. You can't have great desire plus get fat and out of shape playing RB. Those two don't happen in concert.

But Sean Lee has great desire and attitude. And his getting hurt for playing perhaps too hard killed Dallas on defense. :Ranked top 3 with him and ranked 31st without him. Obviously other players were also hurt along the way but point is clear that this team lost a lot of talent. And losing talent hurts no matter the attitude.

Nate Newton has a personal world view that he wasn't a great OL but played with the proper desire and attitude. I get that. But I also get that Nate had a heck of a lot of talent too. He wasn't some spare. He was a big guy who had good technique. He started every game he played for a dozen years. He made Pro Bowls in half those dozen seasons.

I fully support Jg and his RKoG theory. I am not poo-pooing that at all. But end of the day you must add talent. So you start with talent and then you remove he attitude issues. You don't start with a good attitude and then start removing guys for lacking talent. Mother Teresa and MLK would have made terrible NFL athletes. T.O. was a certified draft steal.

[HoustonFrog]

Originally Posted by Idgit

LOL! My bad. I just skipped that part. I must have thought it was part of a sig or something.

The slow starts aren't a symptom of playing hard. Most of them were the result of the team not executing well early when the plays were scripted, or of turnovers and mistakes (Bears, Seahawks) early that put us in a hole. I don't dispute that that happened, at all. And it's on Garrett. It speaks to sloppiness, especially with the WR corps and with the OTs in pass protection early. And to our defense's inability to take the ball away from anybody. And those shortcomings definitely got us beat in those games where we couldn't make the adjustments and come all the way back.

Those are genuine problems on this team, and they definitely do go to the head coach to fix. That said, it's still the case that the team played hard in every game this season, and that goes on the HC, too.

We can leave it at this. I agree the 4th quarters are good to see. I am just trying to present that the other 3 quarters, where things are going awry say something too and that is where I have an issue...consistently seeming to come out of the gate unprepared or however we want to state it. Thanks for the good talk.