Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by AMERICAS_FAN, Oct 4, 2012.
Just since it hasn't been mentioned.....ASTHMA FIELD!!!!!!!
Babe frikkin Laufenberg was the QB for those games. Are you ****** serious?? And 1990 was Emmitt's rook season and he was the only pro bowler on the Cowboys. In fact, Emmitt was the first of the Triplets to make a pro bowl. Aikman was definitely a leader on those championship teams and no denying his intangibles but the Cowboys won with Beurlein, Kosar and Jason bloody Garrett at QB. Leader does not equal most important player. Emmitt was not just the rushing leader during the Cowboys most dominant seasons, he also scored the most TDs.
Emmitt was absolutely crucial to those 90's dynasty teams. Even a moron could see that.
The white vs. black thing was definitely one of the reasons for the players siding with Emmitt. It was not the MAIN reason.
But Haley's eruption at Jerry came directly after two straight losses to start the 1993 season. One of those losses was to the Bills, who they had embarassed in the SB months before. Haley also tosses Derrick Lassic (an African American) under the bus stating that "we can't win with this rook - sign Emmitt".
The MAIN reason the team supported Emmitt (not always the most popular guy in the locker room), was because this team wanted to win, they HUNGERED to win. This team was led by guys completely ravenous about winning - Haley, Irvin, Aikman, Emmitt, etc. This hunger was innate in many of the leaders on that 90's dynasty teams but Jimmy absolutely fueled and enflamed it. Jimmy was hunger incarnate and he was going to grind Emmitt into the dust to do it. Emmitt proved more than capable.
I'm entertained by the narrative. To your post above, this is what the "Emmitt was the whole team" guys always do. They explain away the evidence that doesn't fit the narrative. Let's see. When Aikman goes down and Dallas promptly loses out of the season, it was an inadequate backup.
When Emmitt holds out and they lose 2 games, it wasn't a backup Sherman Williams, who was playing his first 2 NFL games, could catch a cold before he could pick up a blitz, and who was out of the league altogether in short order. Nah, that had nothing to do with it. It was ALL Emmitt.
Btw, Dallas was ahead in week 3 against Arizona before Emmitt ever made his entrance into that game.
Also, btw, Buffalo was a Super Bowl team in week 2, and Dallas would have won that game if the kicker hadn't missed FG's in that game.
But again, that doesn't fit the narrative.
I can also point you to games Dallas won handily after Emmitt exited the game early.
Was Smith CRUCIAL, ESSENTIAL to Dallas winning? Absolutely. All 3 were (I would add 4 with Novacek).
Dallas won games without Aikman but they don't win Super Bowls without him. Period.
QB's are more important than running backs when everything is equal. Everyone who knows a thing about football knows that. We had a first ballot HOF QB. The very running back you are talking about says Aikman was the unquestioned leader of the offense. I've heard him say it with my own ears and you probably have too, and hated it.
But keep telling the story.
The triplets were major gears in the machine --no doubt---BUT the question is what would Jimmy do.
Posted from Cowboyszone.com App for Android
he always gets credit for "sending a message" but outside of curvin richards, who he cut in a fit of rage, not a methodical move, who else did he cut to make a statement?
do you remember me kansas city???
He cut Roper for falling asleep in a meeting, right?
I think a better question might be if Jimmy was here what could he do. This a totally different NFL then Jimmy had to deal with. Salary cap, old players contracts being guaranteed after 1st game, rules dictating practices etc... Not to mention the entitlement attitude of players is getting worse every year. Personally other then a few low level cuts there is not a lot he can do. You have the right kind of players in place that will police their own. The endless argument about Jimmy and Jerry and coaches not coming here is worn out and old. Can JG put enough players on this team that they will want to play with the same intensity as other teams ....We should know in a couple of years. But we are not there yet, Jimmy or no Jimmy.
LOL. Aikman WAS the unquestioned leader on offense, perhaps of the entire team. That is not in question. That was never in question. But keep trying to mince words to distract from your stance. But as great as Aikman was, Cowboys could win without him. The OL performed differently with Emmitt in the lineup, and they all admit to it. The whole team played differently with Emmitt in the lineup. Indisputable.
And Emmitt's back up in '93 was Derrick Lassic, not Sherman Williams. Perhaps your stance is predicated on your weak recollection.
Getting back to the point of the OP, Jimmy Johnson would have gone balllistic right now, on the sidelines, in practice, through the media and you can bet there would have been a message cut by now. I don't think Felix would have been cut but another returner would be in his place. Johnson values speed, but he also places a premium on execution and discipline during games. If Irvin was one time in danger of being traded, and Herschel was given up for picks, then you can bet Bryant would be sweating it right now if Jimmy was on board.
Ah yes, Derrick Lassic. Yea, that changes it entirely
Carry on with the homespun narrative. Makes life fun!
Apparently they couldn't win without Aikman in 90, huh? But they had Emmitt... go figure.
And boy didn't the Cowboys win post Michael Irvin, when they had Aikman AND Emmitt? And didn't they win a lot post Jay Novacek, when they had Aikman, Irvin AND Emmitt? And didn't they win a lot with just Emmitt?
Hmmm... maybe it was more than one guy. I think so.
By the way... how many games did Emmitt NOT start in the 90's? Makes for a small sample size doesn't it?
If the only sample size we had of Aikman missing games would have been 1990, I could be telling the same story you are telling today couldn't I?
Btw, I noticed you didn't comment on the statistic that muted an earlier point you made... Chris Warren during his time in Dallas 4.4 yards per carry, Emmitt, same time period, 4.2.
I'm not arguing for a moment that Warren was Emmitt's equal. What I'm saying is that the whole... Emmitt made the offensive line stuff is silly.
Emmitt made the line and the line made Emmitt. Emmitt made Aikman and Aikman made Emmitt. They both made Michael Irvin and Novacek, and those guys made them. It's called FOOTBALL.
What would Jimmy do?
Overdose on a bottle of Extenze and stab Jerry with a shiv made by rubbing his comb against a concrete floor. I would contribute to his bail fund.
Jimmy would do the same thing he did before. When something important needed to be done, he would make the call and do it. If Jerry was 3 steps behind because he was on another gin/hooker binge or what ever, that was fine.
The fact the you have to filter football personal matters through a non-football guy is what is broken in Dallas. Parcells said that as he left...."You will never know I was here". Jerry is a tool about football.
If Jimmy was coach and could choose between the players on his last SB team and the current roster, he might take Romo, Witten, Lee and Ware. The rest of the current Boy's would not make his squad regardless of the apparent upgrade in size, fitness and athleticism in modern NFL players...
I think he would do a couple of things:
I think he would let Garrett be his offensive coordinator and play to Garrets strengths as a play caller and in a few critical situations would direct the exact play to be called or demand a run or pass be called. Garrett's strengths would be utilized and his deficiencies wouldn't really matter.
I think he would bring a lot more visible passion to the team, and would instill a confidence that has been missing since he left. He was great at balancing confidence and swagger with a healthy fear that hasn't existed at any time since he left.
He would let Ryan do his thing, but also occasionally dictate the theory of the defense in crucial times based on the flow of the game. This would include how soon to go into the prevent defense, when to all out blitz etc.
I think his mere presence and stature would tighten up the ship in a way that Garrett cannot at this point without actually getting out the axe and cutting someone. If his stature were not enough, I think he would make an example out of someone.
I also think behind the scenes he would be challenging a guy like Ware saying ... why is it that you ONLY get 20 sacks in a year. I don't know why you don't average two sacks per game.
I think you are way off on this. I think there is a lot more talent on this roster than anyone gives them credit for. The problem is lack of talent on the offensive and defensive lines.
Carr, Claiborne, Miles, (possibly Dez) Tyson Smith, are probably all players that would be starters. The Cowboys never really had a dominant receiver other than Michael Irvin. The rest were just afterthoughts. I'm not a Spencer fan, but I'm not sure he and Carter both wouldn't have been starters on those SB teams. We weren't that dominant at linebacker in those days. We seemed to plug and play linebackers. Ratliff would be a dominant player as well in a 4-3 defense, but is a liability as a NG in the 3-4 against the run.
Jimmy was more interested in performance than (sheer) talent. Claiborne, maybe. Tyson possibly as a bench guy for now. I am less convinced of the utility of the other guys that you list.
whoa, the Cowboys could win without Aikman? You think he was expendable? Really??
Its funny how the QB is the most important position on any team and on this site it means nothing... QB's suck because they had good teams, etc... ITs mind boggling to me