Cowboy06
Professional Positive Naysayer
- Messages
- 1,444
- Reaction score
- 585
Some time back, I offended some by saying I wanted some starters pushed off this roster. Not because I don't like them, but because I haven't seen the lift I want to see as a Cowboys fan. Mind you, what I know about the overall game of football couldn't fill shot glass compared to those that have spent their lives in football. However, I look at what many would consider the greats and I see a common thread...competition at all positions. Good, nor great is sufficient.
See:https://hbr.org/1993/01/to-build-a-winning-team-an-interview-with-head-coach-bill-walsh
Per Bill Walsh "The other example is the injury factor. Some teams come unraveled when a star player gets injured. With the 49ers, an injury often served to arouse the team to play harder. Again, my approach was to talk about it openly. I would make the point that reserve players always had to be prepared, and that when they got the chance, they should actually improve on the performance of the injured player. Again, I used historical examples from warfare. For instance, in the Civil War, the best trained people, the front line and even generals, were often the first to fall. Often it was the reserves who would achieve victory. So when our reserves took the field, they were conditioned to feel this way and they knew what was expected. They would feel much more positive about going into the game."
You could say that the game has changed, but I contend that the game is still simple: Block, tackle, and protect the ball. Why do we as fans have the fear of our favorites from being replaced? If a starter is replaced does that not mean you team is better save for injuries or salary cap replacements?
Is second place good enough? How long must you see a good player play before you realize that they don't have "it"? How long will you say they need a better OL, DL, better WRs, or a better running game? Does Brady always have the best, what about Rodgers? Did Seattle really have that much better of a defense or were they simply more than the sum of their parts? See:http://www.vincelombardi.com/number-one.html
So, I hope that all positions have competition. I want to see all starters striving for more. I miss the Jimmy Johnson years where all starters had some notion that good enough wasn't good enough. How many times have we said of late that some players appear fat or other of shape? Where is the asthma field when you need it? See: .
Am I not suggesting that Jason Garrett is not a good coach, but does he make players the best they can be? Is that what we expect from our coaches? How much is left up to the players? What is the philosophy of the coach? Is he playing checkers or chess? Is competition about the current play or the series of plays during the game that result in victory. Does Garrett have plan? I certainly hope so. See Landry's approach:
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20069811,00.html
"Landry explains that he is so absorbed in strategy during a game he has no time to react. "If you see me showing emotion, then I'm not doing my job." Under the Landry system, that job is to call every Cowboy play, sending them into the huddle with substitutes. Like a chess master, his mind is racing so far ahead of the action that Landry is barely aware of what's happening on the field at any given moment."
Perhaps Mr. Garrett would do well to stop with the clapping and back slapping? Well perhaps that has NOTHING to do with competition.
So let me ask you all this... If Romo, Witten, even Zeke aren't the best players, would you be upset if others start and play? I want all good players to be pushed off the roster so that better players get on the field. That doesn't mean I don't want Romo, Witten or Zeke. I just want them always improve because that means more happy Sundays this year.
So do you want competition or the status quo?
See:https://hbr.org/1993/01/to-build-a-winning-team-an-interview-with-head-coach-bill-walsh
Per Bill Walsh "The other example is the injury factor. Some teams come unraveled when a star player gets injured. With the 49ers, an injury often served to arouse the team to play harder. Again, my approach was to talk about it openly. I would make the point that reserve players always had to be prepared, and that when they got the chance, they should actually improve on the performance of the injured player. Again, I used historical examples from warfare. For instance, in the Civil War, the best trained people, the front line and even generals, were often the first to fall. Often it was the reserves who would achieve victory. So when our reserves took the field, they were conditioned to feel this way and they knew what was expected. They would feel much more positive about going into the game."
You could say that the game has changed, but I contend that the game is still simple: Block, tackle, and protect the ball. Why do we as fans have the fear of our favorites from being replaced? If a starter is replaced does that not mean you team is better save for injuries or salary cap replacements?
Is second place good enough? How long must you see a good player play before you realize that they don't have "it"? How long will you say they need a better OL, DL, better WRs, or a better running game? Does Brady always have the best, what about Rodgers? Did Seattle really have that much better of a defense or were they simply more than the sum of their parts? See:http://www.vincelombardi.com/number-one.html
So, I hope that all positions have competition. I want to see all starters striving for more. I miss the Jimmy Johnson years where all starters had some notion that good enough wasn't good enough. How many times have we said of late that some players appear fat or other of shape? Where is the asthma field when you need it? See: .
Am I not suggesting that Jason Garrett is not a good coach, but does he make players the best they can be? Is that what we expect from our coaches? How much is left up to the players? What is the philosophy of the coach? Is he playing checkers or chess? Is competition about the current play or the series of plays during the game that result in victory. Does Garrett have plan? I certainly hope so. See Landry's approach:
http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20069811,00.html
"Landry explains that he is so absorbed in strategy during a game he has no time to react. "If you see me showing emotion, then I'm not doing my job." Under the Landry system, that job is to call every Cowboy play, sending them into the huddle with substitutes. Like a chess master, his mind is racing so far ahead of the action that Landry is barely aware of what's happening on the field at any given moment."
Perhaps Mr. Garrett would do well to stop with the clapping and back slapping? Well perhaps that has NOTHING to do with competition.
So let me ask you all this... If Romo, Witten, even Zeke aren't the best players, would you be upset if others start and play? I want all good players to be pushed off the roster so that better players get on the field. That doesn't mean I don't want Romo, Witten or Zeke. I just want them always improve because that means more happy Sundays this year.
So do you want competition or the status quo?
...yeah, it will be great....that time is boring, though this time is too, just not nearly as bad....
