Tony Romo does make that much of a difference

[Idgit]

The team was in every game except for the Patriots game, and even then it could be argued that they were in that one as well.

Except for a break here or there, Dallas would have had 2, 3,... maybe even 4 more wins. Even the Fox crew today (Howie Long I think) was saying that Dallas easily could have won several more.

It was a great group of QB's that Dallas faced with Romo out, and they still were right there at the end.

And we were missing more than just Romo during most of that stretch. Two OT losses and a 1-point loss to SEA.

0-7 is 0-7 from a standings standpoint, but not all losing teams are the same. Last season, we had 4 games decided by 3 points or less. We won 3 of them. 2013, we lost 5 games by a total of 8 points. The team is what it is. We're talented, but not talented enough to win with multiple pro-bowlers or all-pros on the bench.

 

[CATCH17]

And we were missing more than just Romo during most of that stretch. Two OT losses and a 1-point loss to SEA.

0-7 is 0-7 from a ratings standpoint, but not all losing teams are the same. Last season, we had 4 games decided by 3 points or less. We won 3 of them. 2013, we lost 5 games by a total of 8 points. The team is what it is. We're talented, but not talented enough to win with multiple pro-bowlers or all-pros on the bench.

And Garrett as a coach.

 

[LandryFan]

Does Tony make a difference? Of course it was like night and day, team had more confidence in general, seemed like they believed they could win. However, way too many penalties. That falls under coaching.

The officials were responsible for a few phantom penalties, the players were responsible for the rest. The coaches don't coach penalties. These are pro's, not high school players. It's on them to assert a little self discipline, on occasion.

 

[Risen Star]

The officials were responsible for a few phantom penalties, the players were responsible for the rest. The coaches don't coach penalties. These are pro's, not high school players. It's on them to assert a little self discipline, on occasion.

Last I checked penalties are being called at a historic rate this season. The most in NFL history. So it's not just the Cowboys getting a lot of flags.

I'm hoping the league addresses this in March.

 

[LandryFan]

Last I checked penalties are being called at a historic rate this season. The most in NFL history. So it's not just the Cowboys getting a lot of flags.

I'm hoping the league addresses this in March.

I wouldn't count on the league addressing anything...they'll be too busy being defensive and trying to justify everything they screw up. But yes, way too many penalties all the way around.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wouldn't count on the league addressing anything...they'll be too busy being defensive and trying to justify everything they screw up. But yes, way too many penalties all the way around.

That is NFL offices. During the year, the owners are playing out the season with their teams but come the offseason and behind closed doors they will hash this stuff out in the competition committee. That is Jerry Jones, Jeff Fisher and the like. The penalty totals are gaudy, its getting bad press and complaints about game quality.

If you look at the NFL penalty totals, it's cyclical. About every 11 years the penalty total crescendos and they adjust severely to reset the trend. It might not be this year but it is likely to come soon.

 

[Rockport]

This year he'll get the MVP if things play out the way I hope they do. You can't ignore going winless without a guy and lossless with him, that pretty much defines the most valuable player.

Romos been the team MVP since he became starter. Most people are just now starting to realize it.

 

[LandryFan]

That is NFL offices. During the year, the owners are playing out the season with their teams but come the offseason and behind closed doors they will hash this stuff out in the competition committee. That is Jerry Jones, Jeff Fisher and the like. The penalty totals are gaudy, its getting bad press and complaints about game quality.

If you look at the NFL penalty totals, it's cyclical. About every 11 years the penalty total crescendos and they adjust severely to reset the trend. It might not be this year but it is likely to come soon.

I won't hold my breath awaiting any common sense from them.

 

[cowboys1981]

Last I checked penalties are being called at a historic rate this season. The most in NFL history. So it's not just the Cowboys getting a lot of flags.

I'm hoping the league addresses this in March.

Dead on! Can't even react to a good play until I can confirm there's no flag. The struggle is real.

 

[Dodger12]

And we were missing more than just Romo during most of that stretch. Two OT losses and a 1-point loss to SEA.

0-7 is 0-7 from a standings standpoint, but not all losing teams are the same. Last season, we had 4 games decided by 3 points or less. We won 3 of them. 2013, we lost 5 games by a total of 8 points. The team is what it is. We're talented, but not talented enough to win with multiple pro-bowlers or all-pros on the bench.

In 2000, we lost 5 games by 6 points or less (1 by 1 point, 1 by 5 points, 1 by 3 points and 1 by 4 points). In 2001, 4 losses were decided by 5 points or less. In total, 7 losses were decided by 7 points or less (1 by 5 points, 1 by 4 points, 1 by 3 points and 1 by 2 points). In 2002, we had 5 losses of 6 points or less (2 by 4 points, 2 by 3 points and 1 by 2 points).

Welcome to today's NFL. This is why coaching, especially when you have a franchise QB, is at a premium. I'm sure you wouldn't excuse those seasons under Campo like you're doing now with Garrett.

 

[Idgit]

In 2000, we lost 5 games by 6 points or less (1 by 1 point, 1 by 5 points, 1 by 3 points and 1 by 4 points). In 2001, 4 losses were decided by 5 points or less. In total, 7 losses were decided by 7 points or less (1 by 5 points, 1 by 4 points, 1 by 3 points and 1 by 2 points). In 2002, we had 5 losses of 6 points or less (2 by 4 points, 2 by 3 points and 1 by 2 points).

Welcome to today's NFL. This is why coaching, especially when you have a franchise QB, is at a premium. I'm sure you wouldn't excuse those seasons under Campo like you're doing now with Garrett.

I would, actually. And I think you have a fair point. But the talent on those Campo teams was awful, and that's the primary reason we lost with those teams.

Then again, Campo also didn't show any of the capabilities Garrett has shown to put together and lead a team. So the problem in those years was two-fold. At least two fold. Bad team, inexperienced coach who wasn't very good at his job and didn't scale.

 

[Dodger12]

I would, actually. And I think you have a fair point. But the talent on those Campo teams was awful, and that's the primary reason we lost with those teams.

Then again, Campo also didn't show any of the capabilities Garrett has shown to put together and lead a team. So the problem in those years was two-fold. At least two fold. Bad team, inexperienced coach who wasn't very good at his job and didn't scale.

And therein lies the rub and the contradiction. If Campo's teams were awful and Garrett built a talented roster and is a "leader," I would fully expect him to win ONE game...just one which might make all the difference in the world at the end of the year when the East is so inept.

 

[Idgit]

And therein lies the rub and the contradiction. If Campo's teams were awful and Garrett built a talented roster and is a "leader," I would fully expect him to win ONE game...just one which might make all the difference in the world at the end of the year when the East is so inept.

Not at all. Because, as I said earlier, NFL teams lose games for a variety of reasons. Garrett's roster--as anybody who's been paying any sort of attention already knows--was compromised because of injury. Campo's stunk to begin with, was crippled by the advent of the salary cap, and didn't have anybody at the helm capable of assembling it properly.

You just need to see his players pantsing him on live TV to know what the issue was with Dave Campo's leadership. It's a far cry from the support that Garrett just got during this 7 game losing streak.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And therein lies the rub and the contradiction. If Campo's teams were awful and Garrett built a talented roster and is a "leader," I would fully expect him to win ONE game...just one which might make all the difference in the world at the end of the year when the East is so inept.

I'm sure you would love to bias out the rest of Garrett's career other than the losing streak and dance around on it's corpse in glee but that is not how things work.

Campo had 3 straight 5-11 seasons and was in every way worse than what Jason Garrett has accomplished to this point in his career. Evoking Campo's name in comparison is great for shock value. So far I have seen Jauron, Kotite and Campo out of the bad coach emotional grab bag but is little more than handwaving and yelling their names actually linking them to Garrett.

 

[Dodger12]

Not at all. Because, as I said earlier, NFL teams lose games for a variety of reasons. Garrett's roster--as anybody who's been paying any sort of attention already knows--was compromised because of injury. Campo's stunk to begin with, was crippled by the advent of the salary cap, and didn't have anybody at the helm capable of assembling it properly.

You just need to see his players pantsing him on live TV to know what the issue was with Dave Campo's leadership. It's a far cry from the support that Garrett just got during this 7 game losing streak.

In Campo's first game of his head coaching career, he lost his #1 WR in the first game of the season, as well as Aikman who suffered a concussion; he'd suffer several more during the season which led to his retirement. The we lost Rocket the last 6 games in 2000 to a torn ACL as well so the injury excuse doesn't hold a lot of water when Camp lost his franchise QB and #1 WR as well. In 2001, we suffered injuries at the QB position which led us to starting guys like Stoerner and Leaf. In 2002, we only got 5 games out of Larry Allen, 7 out of QC, 8 out of Dat Nguyen and 10 out of Woodson who also missed time in 2000.

But I don't hear the injury excuse for Campo. Only Red loses his #1 QB and #1 WR and gets a pass with a roster that you admit is more talented.

 

[SportsGuru80]

Hall of Fame player... I want him to win a Super Bowl baaaaaad!

 

[cajuncocoa]

Cool...but at the same time, don't put the rest of this season on Romo just because he came in. Romo just finished one game. He got banged up. His team won the game. The Panthers are going come in on Turkey day and make this defense look like a pee wee team. Wait for it....just sayin.

I will wait for it. I will wait for the game to be played before deciding the outcome, that is.

 

[Dodger12]

I'm sure you would love to bias out the rest of Garrett's career other than the losing streak and dance around on it's corpse in glee but that is not how things work.

Campo had 3 straight 5-11 seasons and was in every way worse than what Jason Garrett has accomplished to this point in his career. Evoking Campo's name in comparison is great for shock value. So far I have seen Jauron, Kotite and Campo out of the bad coach emotional grab bag but is little more than handwaving and yelling their names actually linking them to Garrett.

Easy tiger, I'm not sure I want to insult Campo by comparing him to Garrett....not yet anyway. And, by the way, I didn't invoke Campo in comparison to Garrett as much as I did in response to a comment made about close games we lost this year which was referenced in an earlier post. Don't get your red colored Garrett undies in a bunch.

 

[Idgit]

In Campo's first game of his head coaching career, he lost his #1 WR in the first game of the season, as well as Aikman who suffered a concussion; he'd suffer several more during the season which led to his retirement. The we lost Rocket the last 6 games in 2000 to a torn ACL as well so the injury excuse doesn't hold a lot of water when Camp lost his franchise QB and #1 WR as well. In 2001, we suffered injuries at the QB position which led us to starting guys like Stoerner and Leaf. In 2002, we only got 5 games out of Larry Allen, 7 out of QC, 8 out of Dat Nguyen and 10 out of Woodson who also missed time in 2000.

But I don't hear the injury excuse for Campo. Only Red loses his #1 QB and #1 WR and gets a pass with a roster that you admit is more talented.

I'm not debating that Campo's team wasn't personnel challenged at all. If it sucked to start with, and injuries made it worse, or it just was bad becasue of injury doesn't matter to me. I'm saying Campo's teams stunk because they lacked both personnel and a quality HC. And that Garrett's streak this year was because of personnel. Either the limitation of the players or the coach is sufficient to explain a losing streak. It doesn't have to be both.

 

[Dodger12]

I'm not debating that Campo's team wasn't personnel challenged at all. If it sucked to start with, and injuries made it worse, or it just was bad becasue of injury doesn't matter to me. I'm saying Campo's teams stunk because they lacked both personnel and a quality HC. And that Garrett's streak this year was because of personnel. Either the limitation of the players or the coach is sufficient to explain a losing streak. It doesn't have to be both.

Interesting. So you don't think if Campo had Aikman, Galloway and Rocket for the year that he may have finished better than 5 and 11 in 2000?