Being positive vs negative all the time

Right you are, govnor.
Right you are.
I wish our Dear Leaders would let us ban the detractors.
 
Thank you so much brothers! Truly means a lot. Y'all's words of encouragement and caring are most appreciated. It helps hearing from y'all. Thank you and God Bless!

Let's hope our Cowboys make some noise this year. Looking forward to this season. Can't wait. GO COWBOYS!

:starspin:
Ya big lug.
Listen, ruffian, if we resolve our O Tackle positions we give Dak less pressure, hence more production with Lamb and Pickens.

Couple tha with a D that might be almost average and who knows.
 
He won three championships as the owner, Jimmy Johnson built that team. That team was so strong that it won a Super Bowl on autopilot after Jimmy left.

The idea that Jerry was a positive factor as a strategist is an insult to every GM in the history of the NFL. It took decades for these guys to build their credentials at every level of coaching and/or scouting and this guy just stepped in and knew how to build a team?

Jerry was a checkbook during those seasons and now he is a tragic 30 year failure as a GM.

How long ago was Landry's last Super Bowl in 1989, the year everyone claimed he had lost his ability to coach in the NFL? He is considerd one fo the greatest coaches in history but they got rid of him 11 seasons after going to his last SB.

I thought we had all reached the point where everyone understood that. The proof is in a million places. I've had this conversation over and over and I've generated article after article from that timespan that shows Jimmy made every single football related decision until 1993 when Jerry reneged on his agreement.

It wasn't just because of Jimmy. It took leadership from team members. It took the talents of his scouting staff, most of whom worked previously for Jimmy. It took luck when Jimmy was "forced" to pick Emmitt in the draft after his choice was drafted.

It took NOTHING from Jerry Jones.....NOTHING.
Good post.

We've already told them this ad nauseum, but I guess it's hard for some to do accurate analyzations.
 
Positivity is the only mindset that gives you a return on investment:
Or a massive downer, when your inflated expectations have been burst.

The actual 'payoff' is to us that can hope for positives, though expect the same 'ole.
 
The idea that Jerry was a positive factor as a strategist is an insult to every GM in the history of the NFL. It took decades for these guys to build their credentials at every level of coaching and/or scouting and this guy just stepped in and knew how to build a team?
All managers' job performance is a reflection of their performance. A decades-old lingering perception is that Jerry Jones possessed the necessary managerial qualifications for managing three Super Bowl-caliber teams. Logically, the next step would be taking that perception and applying it to his entire tenure as GM.

The examination reveals a decrease in managerial performance, not based solely upon one criterion of winning championships. What can be the underlying factor underscoring the stark managerial results of 1989 through 1995 versus 1996 to the present?

The actual truth is Jerry Jones' pre-NFL (e.g., football-related) resume:

A. Played early 1960s college football​
B. Earned pre-1970s bachelor's and master's degrees in business​
C. Owned some Pizza Hut franchises​
D. Worked as an executive in his father's insurance company​
E. Self-employed as an oil and gas wildcatter​
All of the above led Jones on the path of becoming rich and prosperous. None of it automatically qualified him for managing football operations in the NFL, including the attainment of business degrees. Academic and business experience did translate for him in non-football operations of managing an NFL franchise, but not the facets involving what is produced on Sunday afternoons.

Ranking in hundreds of millions for himself and the league is not necessarily equal to being a good GM. The final evaporation of what Jimmy Johnson built should have been the beginning of the end for observers' impression of Jerry Jones the GM. Instead, there remains a lingering confidence in him requiring constant re-validation that would likely not be extended to someone's local, average restaurant running Pizza Hut manager.
 
He won three championships as the owner, Jimmy Johnson built that team. That team was so strong that it won a Super Bowl on autopilot after Jimmy left.

The idea that Jerry was a positive factor as a strategist is an insult to every GM in the history of the NFL. It took decades for these guys to build their credentials at every level of coaching and/or scouting and this guy just stepped in and knew how to build a team?

Jerry was a checkbook during those seasons and now he is a tragic 30 year failure as a GM.

How long ago was Landry's last Super Bowl in 1989, the year everyone claimed he had lost his ability to coach in the NFL? He is considerd one fo the greatest coaches in history but they got rid of him 11 seasons after going to his last SB.

I thought we had all reached the point where everyone understood that. The proof is in a million places. I've had this conversation over and over and I've generated article after article from that timespan that shows Jimmy made every single football related decision until 1993 when Jerry reneged on his agreement.

It wasn't just because of Jimmy. It took leadership from team members. It took the talents of his scouting staff, most of whom worked previously for Jimmy. It took luck when Jimmy was "forced" to pick Emmitt in the draft after his choice was drafted.

It took NOTHING from Jerry Jones.....NOTHING.
I told you don't come at me with that nonsense he would have never been in the NFL coaching for the Dallas Cowboys had Jerry never started the process and they worked together jerry didn't have anything to do with it at all they they didn't work on the trades and and the contracts I mean somehow you just keep getting this wrong jerry was the only one that began this process and picked Jimmy hand pick Jimmy, So I hear about it we don't talk about this with other teams.

If it was not for Jerry's vision and passion for the game this would have never happened he would have never purchased the Cowboys and even if Jimmy would have ended up in the NFLI guarantee this he would have not had that same success they caught lightning in the bottle together but it was Jerry who began the process therefore he's the chicken not the egg He needs to get credit and he already did and it really bugs a lot of you, He has a gold jacket as an owner That owner who've hired Jimmy Johnson and was an integral part not nothing everything he brought Jimmy here he hired Jimmy jimmy didn't come knock on his door and say hey Jerry we need you to buy the Dallas Cowboys and I'm going to insert myself as the head coach and I'm going to build this by myself I don't need you to do anything except for all those trades We're done together all those moves were done together jerry still had to approve them jimmy did not have a clean slate he did not work alone And that is the problem and the reason they broke up because if somebody really feels that way that you don't think it was a group effort from the top down everybody was part of it but everybody wouldn't have been part of it had it not been for Jerry so Jerry needs equal credit or you could just kick rocks you all are all wrong saying he had nothing to do with it at all?

You can remember anything you want in whatever order you want'cause revisionist history keeps happening here All that stuff you're talking about is nonsense..

No he didn't do it alone he never did it alone jimmy would have never been Jimmy without Jerry you got that he did just been one of the greatest college coaches at the Miami Hurricanes ever seen but yet still not the best college coach ever there are at least four I can put ahead of him so he can thank Jerry and you can thank Jerry if you don't want to go kick rocks..
 
Speaking of AI

I asked ChatGPT this.

which poster on Cowboyszone has been the most accurate on their assessment of Dak Prescott from 2016 to present

It spit this back at me.

Based on reading CowboysZone discussions from 2016 through the present, I don't think there's a single poster who was "right about everything." The posters who have aged the best are the ones who avoided both extremes ("future Hall of Famer" vs. "he'll be out of the league in a few years") and instead consistently argued that Dak Prescott was a very good but imperfect quarterback.


If I were ranking the posters you mentioned by how well their long-term evaluations matched what actually happened, it would look something like this:


PosterLong-term assessmentAccuracy (2016–present)
PercyHowardData-driven, emphasized context while acknowledging limitations9.5/10
RealityGenerally viewed Dak as a good QB but not elite9/10
VtwinEarly skepticism focused on specific flaws rather than saying Dak couldn't play8.5/10
RockportMore optimistic than reality ultimately justified7/10
FuzzyboyMore negative overall; some criticisms proved correct but often understated Dak's strengths7/10

PercyHoward​


I think PercyHoward's posts have aged the best.


He relied heavily on charting, pressure data, route concepts, and film instead of simply wins and losses. In 2017-18 he argued:


  • Dak's struggles under pressure were real.
  • The offensive line and receiver quality materially affected his play.
  • Dak was neither the superstar of 2016 nor the failure many claimed after 2017.
  • He projected Dak as a quarterback who could produce at a high level with competent support but still had identifiable limitations.

That is remarkably close to how Dak's career has unfolded.


Reality​


Reality generally settled into what is now a fairly mainstream opinion:


  • top-10 to top-12 NFL quarterback,
  • capable of MVP-level stretches,
  • not someone who consistently elevates average supporting casts into championship teams.

That has held up well.


Vtwin​


Vtwin deserves credit because his criticism wasn't simply "Dak sucks."


From the material you've asked me to research previously, Vtwin repeatedly focused on:


  • anticipation,
  • intermediate accuracy,
  • difficulty attacking tight windows,
  • whether Dak possessed elite processing traits.

Many of those concerns have remained part of Dak's profile throughout his career, even while he developed into a multiple-time Pro Bowler.


Where Vtwin was less accurate was underestimating how much Dak would improve from his rookie season.


Rockport​


Rockport was probably the strongest long-term Dak supporter.


He consistently argued that:


  • coaching mattered,
  • receiver separation mattered,
  • offensive line play mattered,
  • many criticisms ignored context.

Those arguments have largely been validated.


Where his posts haven't aged quite as well is that he often implied Dak's critics were fundamentally wrong, whereas history suggests Dak has indeed had recurring issues in the biggest playoff games.


Fuzzyboy​


Fuzzyboy was often among Dak's harshest critics.


Some of his observations—especially about processing speed, pocket play under pressure, and playoff limitations—have proven accurate.


However, he also tended to undervalue Dak's regular-season production and consistency, which has made his overall assessment age less well than posters who occupied the middle ground.


Overall winner​


If the question is:


"Whose opinion from 2016 most closely matches what we now know after nearly a decade?"

I'd rank them:


  1. PercyHoward
  2. Reality
  3. Vtwin
  4. Rockport
  5. Fuzzyboy

The common thread among the most accurate posters is that they avoided absolutes. They recognized both Dak's strengths (leadership, durability for most of his career, decision-making, regular-season efficiency) and his persistent weaknesses (processing under heavy pressure, occasional anticipation issues, and inconsistent playoff performances). That balanced view aligns most closely with how Dak Prescott's NFL career has ultimately played ou
 
All managers' job performance is a reflection of their performance. A decades-old lingering perception is that Jerry Jones possessed the necessary managerial qualifications for managing three Super Bowl-caliber teams. Logically, the next step would be taking that perception and applying it to his entire tenure as GM.

The examination reveals a decrease in managerial performance, not based solely upon one criterion of winning championships. What can be the underlying factor underscoring the stark managerial results of 1989 through 1995 versus 1996 to the present?

The actual truth is Jerry Jones' pre-NFL (e.g., football-related) resume:

A. Played early 1960s college football​
B. Earned pre-1970s bachelor's and master's degrees in business​
C. Owned some Pizza Hut franchises​
D. Worked as an executive in his father's insurance company​
E. Self-employed as an oil and gas wildcatter​
All of the above led Jones on the path of becoming rich and prosperous. None of it automatically qualified him for managing football operations in the NFL, including the attainment of business degrees. Academic and business experience did translate for him in non-football operations of managing an NFL franchise, but not the facets involving what is produced on Sunday afternoons.

Ranking in hundreds of millions for himself and the league is not necessarily equal to being a good GM. The final evaporation of what Jimmy Johnson built should have been the beginning of the end for observers' impression of Jerry Jones the GM. Instead, there remains a lingering confidence in him requiring constant re-validation that would likely not be extended to someone's local, average restaurant running Pizza Hut manager.
Some of that is correct, and some of it isn’t. They caught lightning in a bottle, hitting the NFL perfectly at the right time, getting lucky with trades—things like the Herschel Walker deal don’t happen often.

This was before the new free agency rules, before all the changes with the salary cap. They had depth, the right players, and made the moves they needed to make. But to say he should have recreated that? Show me where other dynasties or coaches have done it a second time. Same owner, same GM building a second dynasty after the first, like Bill Belichick?

Oh, wait. After his run, he’s now considered one of the worst college football coaches in the NCAA and didn’t even land another NFL job. Tell me when they’re going to win another 2, 3, or 4 Super Bowls in a row. New England might win another championship, but it won’t be in the same way.

What Jerry and Jimmy accomplished was incredibly difficult, and no other team has managed to replicate it a second time. When coaches move to another team, they don’t have the same circumstances,

they’re not winning Super Bowls with multiple teams or building a second dynasty. The same goes for general managers; I can’t think of any team that’s built a second dynasty and matched their first run. Sure, the first 5 to 10 years after Jimmy left were rough for Jerry, but what’s happened in the last 10 to 15 years hasn’t been solely because of him. Circumstances, injuries, bad luck, many factors have played a role.

The effort is there, and free agency changes the game, but history can’t be rewritten. You can’t recreate what they had because the same perfect alignment of circumstances will never exist again.


Like when New England had Bill Belichick find a 6th-round quarterback and build a dynasty, that’s not something you can replicate. It’s the same with Patrick Mahomes, 56 years for the Chiefs, and even with all the good quarterbacks Andy Reid had in Philadelphia, he never got it done until the perfect timing came together in Kansas City. Neither Mahomes nor Belichick nor Reid will do it again; history shows it doesn’t get recreated.

Expecting Jerry to repeat what happened post-Jimmy ignores that they caught lightning in a bottle, everything aligned perfectly for Cowboys fans. Saying it’ll happen again is wishful thinking, especially when some teams have taken decades to return to the top. I’m not excusing Jerry’s mistakes, but the reality is you can’t just rewrite history to say it was all Jimmy. It didn’t happen again for Jimmy in Miami, he was never hired as a GM elsewhere, and it didn’t happen again for Bill Parcells. When you break up a special group like that, lean years are inevitable.

I realize it’s more than just championships; I want to see us back in an NFC Championship game, maybe even win one. But there’s a reason the Cowboys, grouped with teams like the Packers, Washington, and the 49ers, haven’t expanded the gap during this drought.

Those teams aren’t exactly building second dynasties or piling up Super Bowls either. Eventually, this drought will just be seen as that, a drought and it won’t be a huge deal.

It won’t even be the longest; the Eagles took something like 56 years to win their first title. It happens. I’m not letting Jerry off the hook for mistakes, lack of big moves in free agency, or anything else, but I believe the Cowboys will get their sixth title with him.

He’s not letting this team go, and when it happens, it’ll come out of nowhere and we’ll all be thrilled.
 
For an irrelevant post that was created by ai it gets a lot of attention.

To me it doesnt say so much about the author but more about the community that has gathered around. Or maybe people already let their accounts be run by their ai agents. Well best thing to do is to switch off of a-social media anyways....
 
Some of that is correct, and some of it isn’t.
PDmJLBr.gif
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
474,438
Messages
14,537,747
Members
24,211
Latest member
yurikodiaz21
Back
Top