Spagnola: the truth behind Emmitt-less losses *MERGE*

jazzcat22 said:
But the basis is, they lost without Emmitt in there and Lassic was the RB, so therefore it was his fault.
That is like today, Dak makes a pass, but the WR failed to catch it and it was intercepted though the pass was on target. Therefore Dak gets blamed.
That is the way I took it.
Click to expand...
I disagree. There's a difference between blame and inadequacy. Blame assumes that you had the ability to do better but didn't. Inadequacy assumes you just didn't have the talent or ability to do what is required.
I don't blame Lassic for the loss because he didn't have the ability or talent to play up to Emmitt's expectation.
If a person can't swim so he refuses to save a drowning swimmer, I don't BLAME the person who didn't jump into the water to rescue the drowning victim.
If a life guard refuses to save a drowning swimmer and the swimmer drowns, I do BLAME the life guard because he has the ability to intervene but didn't.

Moreover, quarterbacks are different and are held to a different standard.
 
Jimmy actually took the blame in a video I saw on the 93 team, he said he prepared the team for the season as if Emmitt would be there, and didnt do a good job of preparing them when he actually held out.
 
A 2 game sample isn't enough to prove much of anything.

However, the big dropoff was apparent because Emmit's backup was trash.
 
Spin of the future. Future spin? Using the past?

I smell excuses being manufactured before they’re known to be needed.

If the team wins without Zeke the FO looks smart but if the team flounders they have to have something other than Zeke’s absence to blame. This store is just a foundation for such a narrative.

Just in case.
 
tyke1doe said:
I disagree. There's a difference between blame and inadequacy. Blame assumes that you had the ability to do better but didn't. Inadequacy assumes you just didn't have the talent or ability to do what is required.
I don't blame Lassic for the loss because he didn't have the ability or talent to play up to Emmitt's expectation.
If a person can't swim so he refuses to save a drowning swimmer, I don't BLAME the person who didn't jump into the water to rescue the drowning victim.
If a life guard refuses to save a drowning swimmer and the swimmer drowns, I do BLAME the life guard because he has the ability to intervene but didn't.

Moreover, quarterbacks are different and are held to a different standard.
Click to expand...

In the psychological word, yes, but in the NFL fandom world, no. :laugh:
 
jazzcat22 said:
Mickey explains in his own way about the 2 losses without Emmitt in 1993.
He makes some good points. But I am sure there is counter explanations as well.
Basically he is saying if Zeke is not playing to start the season. Do not blame Pollard, as Lassic was blamed in 1993. If they lose games.

https://www.dallascowboys.com/news/spagnola-the-truth-behind-emmitt-less-losses
Click to expand...

Somehow the blame rested on rookie running back Derrick Lassic, a fourth-round pick from Alabama, for not being able to pick up the NFL rushing champ’s slack.​

Fumbling the ball five times, losing four.​

Typical Mickey. "We" lost four fumbles. Losing 4 fumbles *is* probably why you lose a game. but Mickey leaves out just how many of those fumbles came from Lassic.

Any word on just who of the "we" who committed those fumbles in the first game? Pro Football Reference has limited stats for games that old, and doesn't show who break out fumbles.

Without knowing that, you can't know how much of the loss to assign to Lassic.

Second game, 19 carries, 52 yards. That's sorry. Also, there were 4 fumbles, 2 lost, one by Lassic. So clearly Lassic played a big part in that loss.

Finally, even if all 4 fumbles in the first game were from Lassic, my holdout memories aren't about blaming Lassic at all, but blaming Jerry and Emmitt.

and if the Cowboys should get off to a sluggish start, don’t go blaming, uh, the running back drafted in the fourth round 26 years after Lassic in 1993 – Tony Pollard.

Okay?​

Clueless Spags gonna clueless. If Pollard blows, I don't think anyone is planning on blaming him. The blame goes to Jerry and the holdout RB. Just like last time.

Okay?

(Spags has a formula to end every article with some annoying wrap up sentence. At least this one was concise.)
 
Jake said:
“We can’t win with this rookie.” - Charles Haley
Click to expand...

That's not the same thing as blaming "this rookie", and I think it was clear that Haley wasn't blaming Lassic. He was blaming Jerry for not getting Emmitt on the field.

It's fair to say that winning with Hayden as 1T was an uphill battle. But I at least have never blamed Hayden. He outplayed his contract. I blame Jerry/Garrett/Marinelli for not spending more resource to DT.

Same with Heath playing in the box SS. He's bad at it. He's an over the top FS. Not his fault the team keeps failing to get anyone better. And I don't blame him for missing one of his extra points either. I give him credit for making the other two.
 
Jake said:
"NFL’s No. 1 defense from 1992, with basically the same starting lineup, giving up 35 points, the No. 1 rushing defense from 1992 giving up 116 yards on 21 carries and two touchdowns to Washington running back Brian Mitchell. Fumbling the ball five times, losing four. The defense allowing the Commanders to drive after cutting their lead to 21-13 a robust 99 yards for the put-away touchdown. Yet, Lassic rushing for 75 yards on 16 carries was the reason they lost?"

Fans haven't changed. Even today they'd be blaming the offense for not scoring 36 rather than the defense for allowing 35.
Click to expand...

When the offense gives up four fumbles, it doesn't just hurt their ability to score, it hurts the defense's ability to defend.
 
For all the "I saw the game" guys, any of you with a better memory than me on who committed our 4 fumbles?

Anyone got a source assigning the fumbles? Not at Pro Football Reference.
 
RodeoJake said:
I read that. It's odd. My feeling was Lassic sucked. Could be losing tainted my view of his performance.
Click to expand...

Lassic was a good back stuck in the predicament of having to replace a great one on a defending Super Bowl team.

If Lassic didn't blow out his knee in 1994 he would have been a great complement to Emmitt for a long time, in my opinion.
 
CT Dal Fan said:
Lassic was a good back stuck in the predicament of having to replace a great one on a defending Super Bowl team.

If Lassic didn't blow out his knee in 1994 he would have been a great complement to Emmitt for a long time, in my opinion.
Click to expand...

Right, he really was not a bad RB, not great, but not bad. Just bad in the eyes of the fans as he had to live up to the expectations of being Emmitt from the fans for those 2 games.
 
jazzcat22 said:
Right, he really was not a bad RB, not great, but not bad. Just bad in the eyes of the fans as he had to live up to the expectations of being Emmitt from the fans for those 2 games.
Click to expand...

Agree. And I don't think Tony Pollard has to worry about the same thing....yet. The Cowboys aren't defending a Super Bowl this time and more fans are turning on Zeke with every passing day.

But if this lasts into the season and the Cowboys lose; Pollard could get the Lassic treatment really fast.
 
tyke1doe said:
Nothing wrong with your perspective. Jerry drafted a backup running back in Lassic. That was the Cowboys strategy back then, i.e., to draft backups.:rolleyes: Lassic was AWFUL. I don't recall anyone "blaming" him. He wasn't expected to perform 1/6 of Emmitt's output.
Click to expand...
That was my first thought, I don't remember anyone blaming him. I was 19 and no internet, but the fans I knew and talked to didn't blame him
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Staff online

Members online

... and 19 more.
Total: 7,773 (members: 119, guests: 7,654)
Robots: 1,488

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
474,632
Messages
14,548,898
Members
24,212
Latest member
JerryJonesSupporter
Back
Top