BIGDen's Take On The Cowboys

[kiheikiwi]

I abhor questions and statements that imply one should go find another team or quit watching because they don't live up to one's expectations or because a fan has the audacity to express criticism about their team.

People continue to watch and root for the Cowboys because they are their team regardless. If anything, sticking with a team when they're not performing as one would hope is what being a "true" fan is all about, imo.

If someones son or daughter got on drugs or committed some atrocious crime, no one could rationally say, "why don't you just find another child?"

A loving parent (or devoted fan) can't because regardless of what that child (team) does or doesn't do or how much they frustrate you, they're still your kids (team). So in this case, the Cowboys will always be a "true" Cowboys fans team, regardless of the circumstances. Venting one's frustrations doesn't change that and I think a lot of the half empty perspectives are merely fans venting and attempting to commiserate with other fans that feel the same way.

I don't begrudge anyone who sees the glass half full or half empty, they're both fans in my book.

Great post man, why more people don't get this is beyond me ! Again, great post !

 

[Idgit]

I abhor questions and statements that imply one should go find another team or quit watching because they don't live up to one's expectations or because a fan has the audacity to express criticism about their team...

I do, too. Though, in this case, in fairness to jjktkk, he didn't imply that anybody should be a fan of another team. He asked 'why bother watching them' if they make you miserable. I think that's a fair question, actually (and one which you subsequently answered). It doesn't make one any less of a fan if following the team isn't fun for them, but it should be ok to ask them why they choose to spend their time doing something they expect is going to make them unhappy.

I know there are a ton of fans in this boat, and I'm not criticizing them just for being in the boat, but I do admit that I don't understand it much, either.

 

[Idgit]

Great post man, why more people don't get this is beyond me ! Again, great post !

It was a good reply. To which I'd then ask: is this the way you'd respond to a wayward child? By getting angry and cynical and treating it with disdain? That doesn't make much sense to me, either. Personally, I'd start with acknowledging the issues, and then start focussing on the small steps towards making things better. Carefully not deluding myself about the situation, but always focussing on what more can be done.

Kind of like whats implied in the OP. Or in every single Jason Garrett press conference.

 

[Nightman]

If you can't admit the team is making better picks then you are being intentionally obtuse. Everyone knows the post Aikman, Dave Campo era sucked. Like others have said the 17 year cut off is arbitrary, make it 20 and we have 3 SBs. Considering you have 3.4% chance of winning the SB any given year, a 30% rate is outstanding. It's been 10 years since the Pats won a SB.

I like the current make-up of the team. I was pissed at Romo and Ware after the Commander game, but I'm over it and those guys are the key guys to lead the core of young players. Injuries decimated the team last year, but the players also have to play 60 minute games. They can beat anyone in the league, but seem to play to the level of the opponent instead of forcing the action. Hopefully Garrett was learned his lessons and put the right staff together.

The Eagles had a lot playoff wins the last decade, but came up short. I wouldn't trade our team for theirs right now and it's not even close. I live in between a lot Commanders, Eagles and Ravens fans and I expect the vitriol from them, but the level of anger from our own fans is off the charts.

 

[Eskimo]

I do, too. Though, in this case, in fairness to jjktkk, he didn't imply that anybody should be a fan of another team. He asked 'why bother watching them' if they make you miserable. I think that's a fair question, actually (and one which you subsequently answered). It doesn't make one any less of a fan if following the team isn't fun for them, but it should be ok to ask them why they choose to spend their time doing something they expect is going to make them unhappy.

I know there are a ton of fans in this boat, and I'm not criticizing them just for being in the boat, but I do admit that I don't understand it much, either.

When I was younger in my 20s I would be pretty unhappy if the Cowboys lose. Now that I've hit my 40s I like to see them win and may be a bit upset during the game when they are losing but when the game is over I am not really upset anymore. I may be analytical about it and not like what we did on the field but I am not really sad or mad about it. I mostly just watch now because I love to watch football and the Cowboys have a special place in my heart for some reason. I love to see them play well but mostly I just love to see them play. When they play poorly I just take it in stride and hope for better days in the future.

Football is definitely a smaller part of my life now but I still love to see a good Cowboys game win or lose. Last year I think I saw a lot of really good football games and only count the Seattle and Bears games as low quality games when we were pounded and just out of it. I would have loved the playoffs but I still very much enjoyed the season of football I got to watch and can't wait to see another one. Hopefully one when we are healthier and after another good draft and some development of an up and coming younger core of players.

 

[Eskimo]

Great post as always. Your final paragraph sums it up perfectly.

I too get tired of all the doom and gloomers complaining we don't have a chance.

We have some quality players on this roster and I like our chances to do some damage this year.

We just need to keep drafting better and learn a bit better on how to manage the cap but I see elements of both with recent decisions. As much as I hate tagging Spencer, at least we aren't giving him Ware money and we are only guarateeing one year of pay at age 29. Chances are next year with a more typical Spencer year we'll be able to sign him for $5M per year if we are still interested in him. The shine really comes off once a player hits 30 and is not an elite QB.

 

[Doomsay]

So 16 years is the number by which all franchises are measured? Why not just go back a few more years and brag about our 3 Super Bowls in the 90s? The point is that we have been competitive (not great and certainly no fan is satisfied) in recent years and what happened in 2000 is as irrelevent as what happened in 1995.

The significance of the 16 or 17 year delineation is that it marks the effective beginning of the Jerry-in-charge of football operations era. Jimmy left just prior to this of course, but nobody really questions the fact that the talent and system that he built let the team stay on auto pilot for a few good years until Jerry's influence started to erode what Jimmy had created.

 

[LittleD]

I too get tired of all the doom and gloomers complaining we don't have a chance.

We have some quality players on this roster and I like our chances to do some damage this year.

We just need to keep drafting better and learn a bit better on how to manage the cap but I see elements of both with recent decisions. As much as I hate tagging Spencer, at least we aren't giving him Ware money and we are only guarateeing one year of pay at age 29. Chances are next year with a more typical Spencer year we'll be able to sign him for $5M per year if we are still interested in him. The shine really comes off once a player hits 30 and is not an elite QB.

The cowboys from 1960 to 1993 were more like the Patriots than you know. They had a tough minded head coach who ran the team his way much like Belicheat. The Patriots today are much like the old cowboy teams that I used to watch. Belicheat tells players to accept the Patriot way or walk... That comes to contracts too. He offers fair market value and if you take it you're on the team else hit the bricks and play for another team. JJ now operates the Cowboys much like the Commanders. Just trying to buy some sizzle & flash to sell tickets while the glue that makes a team tick is 5 & dime. I'm afraid that the Cowboy way we used to know from the 1960's - 1990's is dead and gone and only the bones are left to bleach. But opinions vary and I hope you are right that someday we might overcome ownership.

Oh, by the way....Garrett is a protege of Norv Turner who never got to a SB without Jimmy....That tough minded coach.

 

[Nightman]

The significance of the 16 or 17 year delineation is that it marks the effective beginning of the Jerry-in-charge of football operations era. Jimmy left just prior to this of course, but nobody really questions the fact that the talent and system that he built let the team stay on auto pilot for a few good years until Jerry's influence started to erode what Jimmy had created.

It wasn't all just the genius of Jimmy Johnson. Someone hired him. Plus he was tuned into all those college players because him and his staff had probably either recruited or played against all the top guys at Miami. His magic obviously wore off at the Dolphins, so what happened?

Injuries, FA and the salary cap were a big part of the demise of the Cowboys. Losing Johnson hurt and Jones' ego didn't help. We could've gone without the Campo and Gailey eras for sure, but a decline was coming either way. It's hard to find 3 HOFs that get to spend 10 years together.

 

[Hoofbite]

One thing I think is lost when looking at other teams who may or may not have been all that great but ended up winning the Superbowl is the fact that those teams all played far better in the playoffs than they had at nearly any other point in the season.

Across the board improvement when playing against the best teams in the league for an entire month? That in itself is a bit much to ask from any team.

Sure, it can happen. More often than not it doesn't.

 

[Doomsay]

It wasn't all just the genius of Jimmy Johnson. Someone hired him. Plus he was tuned into all those college players because him and his staff had probably either recruited or played against all the top guys at Miami. His magic obviously wore off at the Dolphins, so what happened?

Injuries, FA and the salary cap were a big part of the demise of the Cowboys. Losing Johnson hurt and Jones' ego didn't help. We could've gone without the Campo and Gailey eras for sure, but a decline was coming either way. It's hard to find 3 HOFs that get to spend 10 years together.

It wasn't all Jimmy, of course. But the combination of his departure and the ascendancy of Jones in football operations did initiate the decline of the team. Jerry's mismanagement of the franchise has been the key factor in the team's poor performance over the last decade and a half, which is why the 16 or 17 year period is referenced. There was a sea change in the way this team was constituted and run after Jimmy left with a brief interregnum in the Parcell's era.

 

[BIGDen]

One thing I think is lost when looking at other teams who may or may not have been all that great but ended up winning the Superbowl is the fact that those teams all played far better in the playoffs than they had at nearly any other point in the season.

Across the board improvement when playing against the best teams in the league for an entire month? That in itself is a bit much to ask from any team.

Sure, it can happen. More often than not it doesn't.

That is frequently true, but quite a few times in recent years some huge bounces/breaks have helped these good (but definitely not great) teams along the way. If Crayton doesn't implode in '07, the Giants are done. If Kyle Williams doesn't implode in 2011, the Giants go home. A Denver safety made a huge boneheaded play against Baltimore last year or Balt was done. The Giants fumble 3x in the SB in 2011 and lost possession ZERO times - how often does that happen? If Favre didn't throw that moronic pass across his body against the Saints in '09, the Saints were likely done. Those teams that won those SBs obviously did some good things along the way, but most of them required some very good fortune or they would've been sitting at home with no hardware to show for their efforts.

All I'm saying is that we no longer see the Cowboys of the 90s or Steelers of the 70s type teams. Those teams were great during the season and showed it in the postseason. Nowadays, the key is to get in and upsets happen frequently. The top seeded team is knocked off by a decent team quite often. The reason is that even the best teams these day are not that great and have holes. Parity gives 8 to 10 win teams plenty of hope.

 

[DFWJC]

The significance of the 16 or 17 year delineation is that it marks the effective beginning of the Jerry-in-charge of football operations era. Jimmy left just prior to this of course, but nobody really questions the fact that the talent and system that he built let the team stay on auto pilot for a few good years until Jerry's influence started to erode what Jimmy had created.

Salary cap changed things too after Jimmy.

 

[cowboyvic]

The significance of the 16 or 17 year delineation is that it marks the effective beginning of the Jerry-in-charge of football operations era. Jimmy left just prior to this of course, but nobody really questions the fact that the talent and system that he built let the team stay on auto pilot for a few good years until Jerry's influence started to erode what Jimmy had created.

Could not have said it better myself. BINGO!

 

[Hoofbite]

That is frequently true, but quite a few times in recent years some huge bounces/breaks have helped these good (but definitely not great) teams along the way. If Crayton doesn't implode in '07, the Giants are done. If Kyle Williams doesn't implode in 2011, the Giants go home. A Denver safety made a huge boneheaded play against Baltimore last year or Balt was done. The Giants fumble 3x in the SB in 2011 and lost possession ZERO times - how often does that happen? If Favre didn't throw that moronic pass across his body against the Saints in '09, the Saints were likely done. Those teams that won those SBs obviously did some good things along the way, but most of them required some very good fortune or they would've been sitting at home with no hardware to show for their efforts.

The Broncos wouldn't have been in that game without two giant special teams scores. How often does that happen? PR and KR for a TD in a single game by the same team?

I don't know how often stuff like that happens but then again I don't keep track of these sorts of things. It's football, if these sorts of things didn't happen the game wouldn't be nearly as interesting as it is. Furthermore, if they didn't happen then there'd be less hope for teams across the league.

These things do happen. If a blown whistle doesn't stop a play against the Bucs, you can add 7 points to their score against Dallas in a game that ended 16-10. If AJ Green doesn't drop an inordinate amount of passes, Dallas likely doesn't win that game. If Dez gets his hand inbounds, Dallas wins against the Giants.

These things happen every week across the league. You could probably "if" your way into any outcome of any game.

All I'm saying is that we no longer see the Cowboys of the 90s or Steelers of the 70s type teams. Those teams were great during the season and showed it in the postseason. Nowadays, the key is to get in and upsets happen frequently. The top seeded team is knocked off by a decent team quite often. The reason is that even the best teams these day are not that great and have holes. Parity gives 8 to 10 win teams plenty of hope.

Sure, parity might give hope but that's nothing without improved play over the stretch. If you have hope and continue on your .500 ways, you probably won't get the job done.

If you're 8-8 going into the playoffs and you don't step your game up, you're probably gonna get a swift exit. The Ravens this year and the Giants from last year both stepped their games up.

That's the point I was trying to make. Parity might give teams a better shot but they still have to go out there and get the job done and odds are a team that was 8-8 isn't as likely to do it when compared to 12 win, or even 10 win teams.

 

[BIGDen]

The Broncos wouldn't have been in that game without two giant special teams scores. How often does that happen? PR and KR for a TD in a single game by the same team?

I don't know how often stuff like that happens but then again I don't keep track of these sorts of things. It's football, if these sorts of things didn't happen the game wouldn't be nearly as interesting as it is. Furthermore, if they didn't happen then there'd be less hope for teams across the league.

These things do happen. If a blown whistle doesn't stop a play against the Bucs, you can add 7 points to their score against Dallas in a game that ended 16-10. If AJ Green doesn't drop an inordinate amount of passes, Dallas likely doesn't win that game. If Dez gets his hand inbounds, Dallas wins against the Giants.

These things happen every week across the league. You could probably "if" your way into any outcome of any game.



Sure, parity might give hope but that's nothing without improved play over the stretch. If you have hope and continue on your .500 ways, you probably won't get the job done.

If you're 8-8 going into the playoffs and you don't step your game up, you're probably gonna get a swift exit. The Ravens this year and the Giants from last year both stepped their games up.

That's the point I was trying to make. Parity might give teams a better shot but they still have to go out there and get the job done and odds are a team that was 8-8 isn't as likely to do it when compared to 12 win, or even 10 win teams.

To be honest, I didn't watch that Ravens/Broncos game. Everyone just kept talking about the boneheaded play by the safety that gave the game away. My other examples were to point out that those SB teams weren't necessarily so good for the whole playoff stretch. The Giants were outplayed by the Niners in that championship game but a backup punt returner singlehandedly gave the Giants the game with a couple of mindblowing gaffes. A couple of big plays and bounces have helped many recent SB winners regardless of the fact they they were just good and not great or special.