Common myths and misconceptions about the Dallas Cowboys

Bigdog

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,711
Reaction score
11,356
I watched “The Catch” game in its entirety about 10 years ago and I swear I was in an alternate universe because it looked liked Dallas was going to easily march down the field and score to beat the 49ers even after the catch, and then the fumbled snap happened.....
Correct. The Cowboys were marching down the field and had the ball at the Niners 48 yard line when the Danny White fumble happened I believe with about :54 left on the clock. Many believe that if that the Cowboys did not fumble the ball, Septien would have kicked a game winning field goal since he was an accurate kicker. We know that did not happen and the Cowboys loss 28-27.
 

buybuydandavis

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,771
Reaction score
20,847
  • There is a common belief that if Jimmy Johnson had continued staying on with the Cowboys in the 1990s, that Dallas might have won 4 or 5 Super Bowls, Belichick-style. But the players themselves said (in the Pearlman book, Boys will be Boys) that they had grown weary of Jimmy's overbearing style and that was starting to hurt rather than help. Having Jimmy stay at the helm might have helped in drafting and signing talent, but his coaching style may very well have backfired and worsened things beyond 1993. Also, the salary cap was coming along as well.
Jimmy went out on a two season SB Champion streak. That's called "hurt so good".

Anyone think a JJ coached team goes down 21-0 against SF? Not me.
 

JD_KaPow

jimnabby
Messages
11,035
Reaction score
10,803
The reason the Niners went three-and-out was because they knew they were sitting on a two-score lead and could play conservative. If the Cowboys had cut their lead to just 38-35, their playcalling would have been different. The events that followed afterwards would have been different as well.
They also went three-and-out on the drive before the no-call. And punted on the drive before that. Yes, the events would have been different, but that play was immense.
 

buybuydandavis

Well-Known Member
Messages
23,771
Reaction score
20,847
  • This one is going to piss a lot of you off- If Dallas gives Romo his job back in 2016 they win the Super Bowl- Dak had the locker room won and Romo would have been back in November. No way he could have stayed healthy for 8-10 consecutive games.

I think the number of people who believe that are few and far between. A much greater number believe that we could have made a better run playing Tony.

Note that if Tony breaks again, you go back to Dak. Tony's frailty isn't a reason to prefer Dak. There wasn't much downside to putting Tony back in. He had played his best ball, by far, in 2014. MVP level play. If he could play near that, he's the guy you want in.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,961
Reaction score
64,422
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
  • There is a common belief that if Jimmy Johnson had continued staying on with the Cowboys in the 1990s, that Dallas might have won 4 or 5 Super Bowls, Belichick-style. But the players themselves said (in the Pearlman book, Boys will be Boys) that they had grown weary of Jimmy's overbearing style and that was starting to hurt rather than help. Having Jimmy stay at the helm might have helped in drafting and signing talent, but his coaching style may very well have backfired and worsened things beyond 1993. Also, the salary cap was coming along as well.
  • Deion's pass interference on Irvin hurt the Cowboys in the 1994 title game, but it came when the Cowboys were trailing by a full ten points. Even if Dallas scores a touchdown, it would still have to get the ball back, and score again. Many Cowboys fans talk about that incident as if the interference no-call were the sole deciding difference in victory and defeat that day. It was merely the first out of several things that would have all had to consecutively go Dallas' way for victory that day.
  • "The Catch" in the 1981 title game did not take place in the game's waning seconds; it took place with around a full minute of time still remaining.
  • When Jerry Jones fired Tom Landry, it came at a time when the majority of people in Dallas-Fort Worth were already fed up with Landry and wanted him fired (61% of poll respondents, if I recall correctly.) It was not a case of Jerry flouting public opinion and firing a coach who was still wanted by the fans; most DFW-ers wanted Landry gone.
  • Bonus one: I am not sure, maybe someone could correct me on this one, but - is it true that the Cowboys did not, in fact, guarantee Randy Moss that they were going to draft him in 1998, and that it was more his wrong expectations than an actual broken promise by Dallas?

The players partied but always had Jimmy's voice in the back of their mind and they gave themselves some limits because of it.

Once Jimmy was gone it's like a 17 year old when the parents go out of town.

Erik Williams probably would not have been as out of control which cased him to have the car wreck.

The Cowboys win the 94 NFC Championship with a healthy Erik Williams.

EW was the best player on the team in 92 and 93. Maybe the best in the league at any position. The players from back then will agree with that and many have said it.

The best move would have been for Jimmy to coach two more years. If not for Jerry's ego, Jimmy could have moved to GM-only after 95 and hire a new HC because the players would have eventually burned out on his coaching style.

The cap did start in 94 and players like Haley and Novacek had back injuries that accelerated their decline; however, Jimmy's style was to replace veterans with draft picks on a routine basis anyway. The vast majority of the 92 and 93 players would have been on their rookie contracts with the current rules. Jimmy could have kept a strong team for the next several years when Aikman, Irvin and Emmitt were all healthy.

Before blaming Jerry, it should be noted that Jimmy wouldn't have been here in the 1st place if not for Jerry.
 

xwalker

Well-Known Member
Messages
56,961
Reaction score
64,422
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
  • There is a common belief that if Jimmy Johnson had continued staying on with the Cowboys in the 1990s, that Dallas might have won 4 or 5 Super Bowls, Belichick-style. But the players themselves said (in the Pearlman book, Boys will be Boys) that they had grown weary of Jimmy's overbearing style and that was starting to hurt rather than help. Having Jimmy stay at the helm might have helped in drafting and signing talent, but his coaching style may very well have backfired and worsened things beyond 1993. Also, the salary cap was coming along as well.
  • Deion's pass interference on Irvin hurt the Cowboys in the 1994 title game, but it came when the Cowboys were trailing by a full ten points. Even if Dallas scores a touchdown, it would still have to get the ball back, and score again. Many Cowboys fans talk about that incident as if the interference no-call were the sole deciding difference in victory and defeat that day. It was merely the first out of several things that would have all had to consecutively go Dallas' way for victory that day.
  • "The Catch" in the 1981 title game did not take place in the game's waning seconds; it took place with around a full minute of time still remaining.
  • When Jerry Jones fired Tom Landry, it came at a time when the majority of people in Dallas-Fort Worth were already fed up with Landry and wanted him fired (61% of poll respondents, if I recall correctly.) It was not a case of Jerry flouting public opinion and firing a coach who was still wanted by the fans; most DFW-ers wanted Landry gone.
  • Bonus one: I am not sure, maybe someone could correct me on this one, but - is it true that the Cowboys did not, in fact, guarantee Randy Moss that they were going to draft him in 1998, and that it was more his wrong expectations than an actual broken promise by Dallas?

I loved it when Jerry bought the team and moved on from Landry; however, I only knew one other Cowboys fan that didn't completely hate it. The fans and media were up in arms and hated Jerry. Many people from back then still have not gotten over it.
 

ArtClink

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,408
Reaction score
3,535
If Dez's catch in Green Bay was not overturned, we win. The catch occurred with just under 5 min left to play. The greatest 2-min drill QB of all time (or in top 5) had just under 5 min to drive Green Bay far enough to get a FG which would have won it. I would like to have seen what would have happened but our defense wilted immediately and it didn't matter.

The myth is Dez's catch occurred with seconds left to play.

My issue with the play call is Romo audibles out of the called play to throw the bomb on 4th and 2. We had one of the top RBs and the top O-Line and Romo opts to try a very low percentage pass play.
 

408Cowboy

Well-Known Member
Messages
4,785
Reaction score
6,219
If Dez's catch in Green Bay was not overturned, we win. The catch occurred with just under 5 min left to play. The greatest 2-min drill QB of all time (or in top 5) had just under 5 min to drive Green Bay far enough to get a FG which would have won it. I would like to have seen what would have happened but our defense wilted immediately and it didn't matter.

The myth is Dez's catch occurred with seconds left to play.

My issue with the play call is Romo audibles out of the called play to throw the bomb on 4th and 2. We had one of the top RBs and the top O-Line and Romo opts to try a very low percentage pass play.
He also had an easy pass to Beasley to keep the drive alive.
 

IndianaCowboys1994

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,082
Reaction score
1,044
I actually think the bigger play was Murray's fumble. If that hadn't happened we most likely don't see Romo try and be the hero.
That play was brutal. Would have been 21-10 and the freaking dagger. Bailey missed FG too. That play call on 4th and 2 was awful. I remember yelling "no no no yes yes yes ah **** they're going to overturn it"
 

Red Dragon

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,395
Reaction score
3,773
Wish I would have joined this site sooner. You guys make the offseason fun! I'm going post 2001 (when I became a die-hard fan)
  • If Bill Parcells coaches in 2007, Dallas wins the Super Bowl-they were basically the same as the 2006 team. Game had passed Bill. I think Julius Jones made a comment about how happy he was that Parcells left.
  • Dallas is a playoff team in 2010 if Tony Romo doesn't get hurt- I think Dallas had one win at the time. They actually got better as the season went on.
  • If Dez "catches the ball" Dallas wins and ends up beating the Seahawks en route to the Super Bowl- There was still plenty of time left in that game for Rodgers and the Packers.
  • This one is going to piss a lot of you off- If Dallas gives Romo his job back in 2016 they win the Super Bowl- Dak had the locker room won and Romo would have been back in November. No way he could have stayed healthy for 8-10 consecutive games.
  • The Cowboys are a playoff team in 2017 if Zeke doesn't get suspended- They were 6-4 with Zeke and 3-3 without him. I think at best they would be 10-6. They would have lost the tiebreaker for the 6 seed to the Falcons, who they lost to and were also 10-6...no way Dallas wins that Falcons game with Zeke. It was bad all around.
Here is a fact though: If Parcells doesn't cut Quincy Carter there is probably no Tony Romo, the third greatest QB in franchise history and the one who made us relevant despite a poor roster 2011-2013.


Parcells was only really good in his first year, 2003. After that it was one blown lead or wasted opportunity after another.
 

Red Dragon

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,395
Reaction score
3,773
That play was brutal. Would have been 21-10 and the freaking dagger.

I don't think a mere 11-point lead, against Aaron Rodgers, with nearly an entire half of football still to play, at Lambeau, could remotely be considered a "dagger."

If 28-10 or 35-10, maybe. But 21-10 is not even remotely close.
 

Bobhaze

Staff member
Messages
16,539
Reaction score
63,403
CowboysZone ULTIMATE Fan
Oh that sucks. Peyton Manning would have got the first down, but that's one of the many differences between elite QBs and Romo.
When Parcells was here, he often ragged on Romo to not take so many unnecessary risks. Romo made many great plays but IMO, he missed too many easy plays trying to play hero ball. The 4th and 2 play Dez “no catch” was a good example. He had that 5 yard wide open option to Beasley.
 

IndianaCowboys1994

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,082
Reaction score
1,044
I don't think a mere 11-point lead, against Aaron Rodgers, with nearly an entire half of football still to play, at Lambeau, could remotely be considered a "dagger."

If 28-10 or 35-10, maybe. But 21-10 is not even remotely close.
I think that would have given Dallas all the momentum back...remember, Bailey misses a 50yd field goal that would put them up 17-7...instead Rodgers throws a 30 yd pass to our friend Randall Cobb that set up a FG to cut the lead to 4. Murray fumble was right after halftime. Green Bay got three points out of that turnover. 90% sure Dallas wins that game if Murray scores. Game still hurts 4 and a half years later. Dallas should have won that game by ten.
 

Red Dragon

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,395
Reaction score
3,773
I think that would have given Dallas all the momentum back...remember, Bailey misses a 50yd field goal that would put them up 17-7...instead Rodgers throws a 30 yd pass to our friend Randall Cobb that set up a FG to cut the lead to 4. Murray fumble was right after halftime. Green Bay got three points out of that turnover. 90% sure Dallas wins that game if Murray scores. Game still hurts 4 and a half years later. Dallas should have won that game by ten.


This will just have to be an agree-to-disagree issue. The Cowboys had blown leads of 24, 14, points, etc. in that era. (They had also overcome 14-, 23-point deficits, too.) An 11-point lead over ARod with still half a game to go gives me no sense of security. Bear in mind that Green Bay did in fact still go on to score two touchdowns in that game later on anyway.
 

Flamma

Well-Known Member
Messages
22,074
Reaction score
18,860
I don't think a mere 11-point lead, against Aaron Rodgers, with nearly an entire half of football still to play, at Lambeau, could remotely be considered a "dagger."

If 28-10 or 35-10, maybe. But 21-10 is not even remotely close.

You could be right because there was plenty of time left. But that fumble came at the worst time in the game. It's the reason I also think we lost the game.

After the Cowboys went down 7-0 they started to take control of the game. Up 14-10 with the ball and rolling. It's what they did all season long in their wins. That fumble at mid field was the turning point in that game. It gave GB back the momentum they had lost prematurely. I think if Dallas goes up 21-10 nothing stops that machine. But like you said, GB still had plenty of time, it just would have been a much tougher uphill battle for GB. A game they barely pulled out with the fumble.
 
Top