Without Dez Bryant, the Dallas Cowboys wouldn't have a chance.

[MissouriCowboy]

Without Dez Bryant, the Dallas Cowboys wouldn't have a chance.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12...#storylink=cpy

A very merry, or whatever you choose to celebrate, holiday to you all today.

Finding greater meaning in pro football these days can sometimes be a painful, and often fruitless, task but on this day I give you...Dez Bryant?

Seriously.

He has earned it.

The lesson in Dez is to never forget the rule of Tom Landry: We are always better to wait a bit before making a final call on anything.

About six months ago, Dez was sitting by his mother in the law offices of Mr. Royce West trying to explain a domestic dispute. Around that time the consensus was Dez is a man-child who will never learn. And, he isn't worth the headache because the production would never intersect with the potential. That Jerry Jones should never have pulled rank to draft this kid.

On this Christmas Day, it is nearly impossible to envision the Dallas Cowboys going into the final game of the regular season against the Redskins with a chance to win the NFC East without Dez.

Their best chance may be Dez.

(BTW -- A serious shoutout to Twitter follower, @CarlAllDay, who called Dez's progress months and months ago. Nicely played.)


Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/12...#storylink=cpy

[Stryker44]

Witten actually scares me more than Dez for the type of game I believe Sunday night will be. We haven't given up many big plays at home lately - what I fear most are the 3rd down conversions and long demoralizing drives...and Witten always seems to be around to convert on those.

[Clove]

I get the feeling you really really like Dez Bryant. This is like your 4th thread on him this week. Great article.

[The Quest for Six]

Murray and Witten are more important than Dez, Witten helps the running game with his blocking, moves the chains and keeps drives alive.....Murray helps the running game and brings balance in the offense

you sound like you have a crush on Dez, Dez isn't the end all be all YET!!! Has a long way to go before he's elite....doesn't grasp the playbook...so the organization had to limit the routes he runs....three years and still doesn't grasp the playbook is inexcuseable as far as I'm concerned..

[Boyzmamacita]

Originally Posted by Clove

I get the feeling you really really like Dez Bryant. This is like your 4th thread on him this week. Great article.

I think everybody really, really likes Dez right now. I know I do.

[Boyzmamacita]

Originally Posted by The Quest for Six

Murray and Witten are more important than Dez, Witten helps the running game with his blocking, moves the chains and keeps drives alive.....Murray helps the running game and brings balance in the offense

you sound like you have a crush on Dez, Dez isn't the end all be all YET!!! Has a long way to go before he's elite....doesn't grasp the playbook...so the organization had to limit the routes he runs....three years and still doesn't grasp the playbook is inexcuseable as far as I'm concerned..

What games have you been watching lately? You gotta give Dez his props right now.

[Risen Star]

Originally Posted by The Quest for Six

Murray and Witten are more important than Dez, Witten helps the running game with his blocking, moves the chains and keeps drives alive.....Murray helps the running game and brings balance in the offense

We are 31st in the league in rushing yards per game.

What in God's name are you talking about?

[Future]

Originally Posted by The Quest for Six

Murray and Witten are more important than Dez, Witten helps the running game with his blocking, moves the chains and keeps drives alive.

Neither one of them sees any room on the field without Dez. He commands a double team every play. Without him, teams will consistently put 8 or 9 in the box and bracket Witten.

Dez is an explosive playmaker...there aren't 5 guys better at it in the league than him. More polished receivers, sure, but not gamebreakers. You take Dez away from this offense and we struggle to score 17 a game, regardless of how many times DeMarco and Witten get the ball.

[Doomsday101]

Originally Posted by The Quest for Six

Murray and Witten are more important than Dez, Witten helps the running game with his blocking, moves the chains and keeps drives alive.....Murray helps the running game and brings balance in the offense

you sound like you have a crush on Dez, Dez isn't the end all be all YET!!! Has a long way to go before he's elite....doesn't grasp the playbook...so the organization had to limit the routes he runs....three years and still doesn't grasp the playbook is inexcuseable as far as I'm concerned..

Dez has come a long way since early in the season. He does have a better understanding of the offense than he has had before. He is 2nd in the NFL in TD catches and has moved up the board steady. Getting after guy when he was messing up is understandable, staying on him even after he has shown he does get it and has been putting up big time numbers in consecutive games is nothing but agenda driven complaints.

Dez deserves the credit because he has gone out and did what he needed to do.

[perrykemp]

Originally Posted by Future

Dez is an explosive playmaker...there aren't 5 guys better at it in the league than him. More polished receivers, sure, but not gamebreakers. You take Dez away from this offense and we struggle to score 17 a game, regardless of how many times DeMarco and Witten get the ball.

Agreed.

Interesting thing is having a top 1-3 ranked superstar WR type has absolutely no correlation to winning superbowls.

You have to go back almost 12-13 years to find a team that had an established top top 1 - 3 i the NFL WR who won a superbowl -- Torry Holt with the Rams.

Not sure what it means, but I think it's interesting.

[Future]

Originally Posted by perrykemp

Agreed.

Interesting thing is having a top 1-3 ranked superstar WR type has absolutely no correlation to winning superbowls.

You have to go back almost 12-13 years to find a team that had an established top 1-3 WR who won a superbowl -- Torry Holt with the Rams.

Not sure what it means, but I think it's interesting.

That is interesting...

The teams that have won recently - NO, GB, NYG, and NE - have all had very good receiving corps though. Maybe they didn't have one guy, but they were getting that production from the whole group.

[perrykemp]

Originally Posted by Future

That is interesting...

The teams that have won recently - NO, GB, NYG, and NE - have all had very good receiving corps though. Maybe they didn't have one guy, but they were getting that production from the whole group.

Exactly. None of those teams had or evidently needed anything close to a superstar WR.

IMHO, what it means is that, while it's sure fun to have a mega superstar WR, there may be a correlation to teams that have those kinds of guys not winning superbowl because the teams become so dependent on that WR for success.

It might also mean that while WRs are exciting to watch, the difference between good WRs (of which there are tons in the NFL) and great ones (of which there are few) just doesn't mean much as compared to other positions.

[Future]

Originally Posted by perrykemp

Exactly. None of them had or evidently needed anything close to a superstar WR.

IMHO, what it means is that, while it's sure fun to have a mega superstar WR, there may be a correlation to teams that have those kinds of guys not winning superbowl because the teams become so dependent on that WR for success.

It might also mean that while WRs are exciting to watch, the difference between good WRs (of which there are tons in the NFL) and great ones (of which there are few) just doesn't mean much as compared to other positions.

I think that might be stretching it. There have certainly been dynasties with dominant receivers, but its more relevant to quarterback play imo. They have the ability to make receiving corps look better than they actually are so you can win with average guys.

I think all of these teams that I mentioned that have won recently do have star quality receivers, but there are also other great ones. Saints have Colston, Pats have Welker, Giants have Cruz/Nicks who are both great, and GB has Jennings who is just about as good as anyone. Just because there isn't one star on a WR corps, doesn't mean they aren't great talents.

[perrykemp]

Originally Posted by Future

I think all of these teams that I mentioned that have won recently do have star quality receivers, but there are also other great ones. Saints have Colston, Pats have Welker, Giants have Cruz/Nicks who are both great, and GB has Jennings who is just about as good as anyone. Just because there isn't one star on a WR corps, doesn't mean they aren't great talents.

I agree with you that all those team had WRs were were established top 5-10 WRs in the NFL. I just find it interesting that none of them had a true Superstar WR -- top 2-3 at their position.

When I look back at the history books, I have to go back to 1999 to find one -- Torry Holt.

It may just be a big coincidence -- it probably is. But a notable one.

[Risen Star]

Originally Posted by perrykemp

I agree with you that all those team had WRs were were established top 5-10 WRs in the NFL. I just find it interesting that none of them had a true Superstar WR -- top 2-3 at their position.

When I look back at the history books, I have to go back to 1999 to find one -- Torry Holt.

It may just be a big coincidence -- it probably is. But a notable one.

I think it's just a case of severely limiting the teams that qualify. You're talking about 3 teams max. The odds of one of the 3 winning a Super Bowl over the last 10 years are probably pretty long.

When's the last time one of the top 2 or 3 RBs in the league won a Super Bowl? You'd probably have to go all the way back to that same Rams team with Marshall Faulk.