Are The Dallas Cowboys a Team On The Decline?

[GimmeTheBall!]

Overall, definitely not on the decline.

Stagnant? Yes, very much so.

 

[Ratmatt]

Silva is not a fan. I can live with that just fine.

He's not supposed to be a fan.

 

[George]

Not on decline. We just don't improve.

 

[Idgit]

He's not supposed to be a fan.

That probably works out for him, then. Not everybody's going to like us or like our prospects for the upcoming season. They're certainly entitled to their opinions.

 

[TwoDeep3]

To answer the OPs question, let's take out the second gunman on the grassy knoll theories of this being a New York periodical and the author hates this team. CZ grades on the curve when it comes to the Cowboys, but for this exercise we'll just look at the team dispassionately.

Looking at this from a national point of view and not strictly this site, the article has a point.

Certainly you can point to the DBs and suggest they are moving up and not down. But the centerpieces that seem to have the most pronounced effect on the defensive backs is safety, and this team has been lacking since Darren Woodson retired.

Romo is another point of contention. He is 33-years old. And while that may be young in quarterback years, not one person on this board knows when the erosion of his talent will commence.

And if you look past this site, and to the nation, you will see a temperament about Romo that he is not as good as "we" think.

I work with a group of nearly fifty Cowboy fans and I am considered a Romo Homer.

If that doesn't put this in perspective, I don't know what does.

The offensive line is a question mark, mostly because this is the off season. Some upgrades look to have been put in place, but the over all still could be a muddled mess that cannot open holes for the run game or block in the passing game.

Romo could still be running for his life, and that speaks to Romo's longevity if he continues being hammered by the defense.

The defensive line outside of Ware and maybe Spencer is aging or back-ups on most teams. They have not put consistent pressure on an opposing quarterback, and especially critical sacks at key times to rescue a win, or dominate the other team's passing game since the early nineties.

So for the offensive and defensive lines, it is almost status quo.

And I believe games are won in the trenches and this team has an affinity for ignoring those two areas, for the most part.

This group is essentially the same guys who couldn't get it done with one of the better tandems of corners in the league. So what has changed?

Scheme? Really? That is the magic beans that turns this defensive line into meat eaters? I am skeptical.

The Linebackers have two components which have shown the propensity to be hurt. When on the field they are a bright spot, but staying on the field is the question that has to be asked.

The WR core has a WR - Austin - who is oft injured, Dez, who seems to be figuring it out, but needs to take another major step this season, and walk-ons and rookies.

Austin is like the linebackers in that he can be a force - less so than when he got paid - but cannot stay on the field consistently.

Witten is getting long in the tooth, and at this juncture no one can say for sure if they have a suitable replacement - big order there.

The running game is predicated on the offensive line, and as yet I personally am not impressed with anything they have done. They made the same comments last year about a somewhat similar squad that failed every real test.

And again we have what I consider one of the better running backs in the league in Murray, but he cannot play a full season.

So is this team on the decline.

The question decline from the middle made me laugh, but there was truth there. All the hopes and prayers this is the year they turn it around is speculation and dreams until they show they can.

With the best player on the team at 33, and a core of players that could not get it done before, with some help - maybe - from the draft, what has changed from last year?

Or the year before?

All teams, for the most part, are in some type of decline. Even with the influx of new talent.

This team, with the three or four best players in their 30's suggests this team is at best treading water.

So for my money, I am still waiting and in a show me state that this team has changed course and figured out how to assemble a team that knows how to win and does so.

And that may be the tallest order of all. Knowing how to actually win.

 

[Doomsdayblitz]

I have been a FANatic of this team for 48 years. I've seen poor, mediocre, good, & great rosters. This roster is mediocre. They've gone 8-8 the last two seasons. You don't get any more mediocre than that. Plus, management addressed the weakest area, (offensive line), only once in the draft, and ignored right tackle altogether. Going into training camp, Doug Free & Jeremy Parnell are the best options at that position. Doesn't inspire confidence, does it? They also failed to address what everyone, (but them), considers a weak spot, & that's at DT. Ratliff is in decline & can't stay healthy, Lissemore is average at best, & Crawford is yet unproven. When you have questions in the trenches, and you fail to address them, you're asking for trouble.

 

[Eskimo]

I think part of the problem with the pessimist view of the team is they nearly completely discount anything that comes from our players with a recent history of some injury. This attitude isn't so pervasive on other teams as far as I can tell. Do Giants fans act like Hakeem Nicks' abilities should be ignored because he had foot problems last year?

Part of the issue is how much does past injury history affect future injury history. So does a broken elbow suggest future injuries (Bruce Carter)? Does one torn ACL suggest a majory propensity to injury? How about one broken ankle after a DL fell upon it (Murray) or a LB on a KOR (Dez)? So while I do agree all the injuries affecting the team are worrisome part of me also strongly believes it was just a run of bad luck outside of Miles' hamstrings which appear to be a chronic issue and Ware's neck which seems to get tweaked every year.

As far as I can tell we have 5 players over 30 who are important players on this team: Romo, Ware, Witten, Ratliff and Hatcher. Now when you look at those 5 I don't worry much about Romo's age so long as his arm is good and it looked fine last year. Hatcher has very little mileage on his body despite his age as he only started for 2 years of his life. Ratliff barely played last year so even if we got nothing from him it'd hardly cause any loss of performance from last year's team. Finally we have Witten who gets by more on guile, length, hands and understanding coverages then he does on athleticism and just came off a record year with 110 receptions so he doesn't appear to be in major decline. Finally we have Ware who needed surgery on his shoulder and rehab on his elbow but I still think the major issue there is his neck. I think the most important thing there is to just have someone play a bunch of snaps so he can rest more throughout the game and be fresh down the stretch. So yes we do have a few key older players but only 1 of them is a major concern for the upcoming year: Ratliff. I do realize that most will need to be replaced in the next 3-4 years but them moving on will also create cap space to help find their replacements so it is not the end of the world. The key one really in the modern NFL is Romo but I also think there is a good chance he plays 5 more years.

I really think a lot of this has been motivated by all the questions last season of the "closing window". To me the key is that you have to keep revitalizing the team with youth because his is a young man's game. I do see evidence that this team has taken an intelligent approach to player acquisition and they seem to be going better in regards to targeting who they want to extend, when they want to extend them and ensuring the Cowboys get good value for the money they spend.

I really can't say that I am all that worried about this roster's age outside of the DL where I think youth infusion is needed. On the plus side, we have Marinelli who is a bit of a genius at finding and developing DL and putting them in a system where they can be very successful. He has a long-term track record of sustained success in the NFL which suggests luck doesn't play much of a role in his units' success.

 

[CyberB0b]

Anquan boldins don't grow on trees. Neither do victor Cruz's. Niners and skins got away with it because of their running qbs. Pats are the other exception. Unless our defense is going to be that great.

Is that why Anquan has been traded away from 2 teams in 4 years, for basically peanuts?

 

[perrykemp]

Is that why Anquan has been traded away from 2 teams in 4 years, for basically peanuts?

In a nutshell, WRs just aren't a super-valued position. There difference between great WRs and good WRs isn't nearly a wide as let's say great QBs and good QBs.

It's been mentioned here on CZ more than a few times that there hasn't been a top 5 NFL WR on a Superbowl winning team since the 1999 Rams with Torry Holt.

Have a superstar WR just doesn't alter the equation much.

I'd argue the Packers have had the most dominant WR corp, on average, in the NFL over the past 5 years and they've basically had a collection of essentially #2 WRs... not a superstar among them.

 

[Eskimo]

I have been a FANatic of this team for 48 years. I've seen poor, mediocre, good, & great rosters. This roster is mediocre. They've gone 8-8 the last two seasons. You don't get any more mediocre than that. Plus, management addressed the weakest area, (offensive line), only once in the draft, and ignored right tackle altogether. Going into training camp, Doug Free & Jeremy Parnell are the best options at that position. Doesn't inspire confidence, does it? They also failed to address what everyone, (but them), considers a weak spot, & that's at DT. Ratliff is in decline & can't stay healthy, Lissemore is average at best, & Crawford is yet unproven. When you have questions in the trenches, and you fail to address them, you're asking for trouble.

As far as DT, I think Crawford has shown he can play in the league. We don't know what his development curve ultimately will be but he came from Canada so he doesn't have a youth spent playing football full-time. Then he went to Jr. College for a couple of years before finally coming to Boise State for a couple of years. All this suggests he has a lot of physical potential that hasn't been tapped and the fact that he is up from 280 to 300 pounds this offseason suggests he has made a quantum leap in strength but we'll need to see about the quickness and explosion.

The other thing at DT is you are completely ignoring Hatcher altogether. When you look at his metrics over the last 2 years he has probably been in the top 10 amongst 5-techs and 4-3 DTs overall.

At this point I look at anything we get from Ratliff as a bonus. I hope he can provide 30-40 good snaps a game in a rotation. I know at this point last offseason we were hearing about his foot problems. Perhaps having a year without playing or practicing much will help his body recover from all the abuse he took from 2007-2011 where he played about 90% of the snaps at NT. Regardless, even if he hardly plays at all it won't be much of a downgrade from what we got from him last year.

As for Lissemore, I think he has been miscast as an NT where he doesn't really have the mass to hold up there. He definitely has some ability to get up the field with a 1.70 10 yard dash, a 4.91 40 at 298 pounds. To me he probably has always been miscast as an NT and a 5-tech. At 6-3.5 he never had the ideal length and he isn't a great two-gapper. But I think he could do reasonably well as a 1-gapping DT if Marinelli can work on him with his hands because that is where I think he struggles more than anywhere else. I suspect that Marinelli will manage to get some production out of him.

 

[Idgit]

...As for Lissemore, I think he has been miscast as an NT where he doesn't really have the mass to hold up there. He definitely has some ability to get up the field with a 1.70 10 yard dash, a 4.91 40 at 298 pounds. To me he probably has always been miscast as an NT and a 5-tech. At 6-3.5 he never had the ideal length and he isn't a great two-gapper. But I think he could do reasonably well as a 1-gapping DT if Marinelli can work on him with his hands because that is where I think he struggles more than anywhere else. I suspect that Marinelli will manage to get some production out of him.

Lissemore was also apparently fairly hobbled late last season by a turned ankle, fwtw.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I have been a FANatic of this team for 48 years. I've seen poor, mediocre, good, & great rosters. This roster is mediocre. They've gone 8-8 the last two seasons. You don't get any more mediocre than that. Plus, management addressed the weakest area, (offensive line), only once in the draft, and ignored right tackle altogether. Going into training camp, Doug Free & Jeremy Parnell are the best options at that position. Doesn't inspire confidence, does it? They also failed to address what everyone, (but them), considers a weak spot, & that's at DT. Ratliff is in decline & can't stay healthy, Lissemore is average at best, & Crawford is yet unproven. When you have questions in the trenches, and you fail to address them, you're asking for trouble.

I never understood this line of thinking. "We have unproven guys at RT in Jeremy and on the DL in Wilbur and Crawford." The solution? Draft rookies at those positions who will be unproven.

How about we see if these guys can play?

 

[Idgit]

I never understood this line of thinking. "We have unproven guys at RT in Jeremy and on the DL in Wilbur and Crawford." The solution? Draft rookies at those positions who will be unproven.

How about we see if these guys can play?

Jermey.

Not being pedantic, I just like that his name is actually 'Jermey.'

I agree, play the young guys, get options where you can. Sign vets only as insurance or to fill glaring needs while you develop your options.