Do teams have to hit bottom before reaching the top?

[dragon_mikal]

A friend of mine and I were talking about this the other day. He is a 49er fan and we were doing a little trash talking (hehehe) and he said something that stopped my laughing.

He told me the 49ers, even though they are horrible now, will be back on top before the Cowboys because of one reason and one reason only.

The 49ers have hit bottom while the Cowboys refuse to do the same. Jerry Jones and the Cowboys have a firm grasp on mediocrity. How do we escape it? It took one of the worst seasons in franchise history to catapult this team to greatness. The Eagles went 3-13 during Ray Rhodes final year, which prompted the hiring of Andy Reid and the drafting of McNabb. We all know how that turned out.

Did what my friend say actually have some merit? Does this team need to hit bottom before it can climb to the top?

Would it have been better for us to have gone 4-12 or 3-13 in Parcell's first year, rather than 10-6?

Would this team look much different? I think so. It's hard to talk about this, because I hate when we lose, but that 10-6 season set this team back another year or two. I firmly believe that Parcells was deceived, as were we, when that team made the playoffs.

We set ourselves up for disapointment.

So what do you think? Would you rather Jerry Jones continue to grasp at straws while trying to rebuild this team and still win? We are a rebuilding team that, at the same time, wants to go to the playoffs. Is this a realistic goal?

In some ways, I think so. Lord knows I'd rather us win every game, but for some reason I wonder what would have happened if we would have brought in a young coach set on rebuilding this team into a winner, instead of a coach set on winning now and building the team second.

I love what Parcells has done in the draft, especially the latest one, but without a franchise quarterback will we ever be a consistent winner?

I don't think so.

 

[Justis]

No that's bull. How many times have lousy teams hit bottom, and stayed there, how long have the bears, cards, bengals, browns, and Skins been bottom feeding off of early drafts and waisting em'. The old 'boys stayed a winning team for 20 years. This cycle stuff doesn't work, good teams are usually good, and bad teams stay bad.

 

[joseephuss]

5-11, 5-11, 5-11, 10-6 and 6-10

I think that pretty much indicates hitting the bottom.

The team has turned over a vast majority of the roster and has been able to do it with a lot of young talent. It would be nice to have a hot shot young QB in place, but not every team is that fortunate. Actually, I think most teams in the NFL are lacking a good QB. I am not a big Bledsoe guy, but the more games I watch, the less options I see out there.

McNabb was a good pick up for Philly. Look at who else was drafted that year. Tim Couch, Akili Smith, Daunte Culpepper and Cade McKnown. 2 out of 5 worked out.

 

[dragon_mikal]

I'm not saying that I agree with what he was saying.

We have a lot of young talent, true, and I'm greatful that Parcells is doing a great job at drafting...

But he just got me to thinking, that's all.

You can't compare the Cowboys of old to the Cowboys of now. There was no salary cap back then, and keeping a aquiring players was much easier. Not to mention that the NFL draft had a considerably higher amount of rounds in the draft.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, I guess it would depend on what one considers "hitting bottom" would be. For me, it would be consecutive 5-11 seasons. I do agree with the premise, over all, but I believe we have already bottomed out and are on the rise now.

I think think the 9rs have one significant advantage over us, right now. I think they drafted there franchise QB in Smith. Now, many would not agree with this so I would stipulate that this is my personel opinion only. Having said that, I think were much further along on both sides of the ball then are the 49rs.

 

[Owne4981]

Cowboys need to hire Bob Stoops and draft Matt Leinart

 

[Hiero]

I really gotta agree somewhat. Getting those top 5 or top 10 picks especially more than one year in a row, really can boost a team, or it can ruin them.
Like the cowboys in the 90's had, or compare to recently the Lions or Browns, who keep getting top 10 picks and they never get better. I really wish during those horrid campo years we had gotten at least one #1 pick or maybe top 3. two years in a row of top 3 picks can be a huge pickup(unless Jerrah is drafting the players in which case they'd definitely bust.) I can only imagine how much different our team would be with Byron Leftwich and Randy Moss, but shoulda coulda woulda.

 

[Hostile]

No that's bull. How many times have lousy teams hit bottom, and stayed there, how long have the bears, cards, bengals, browns, and Skins been bottom feeding off of early drafts and waisting em'. The old 'boys stayed a winning team for 20 years. This cycle stuff doesn't work, good teams are usually good, and bad teams stay bad.

You posted pretty much what I would say.

How long are the Cardinals on rock bottom before they hit the top?

There is no one way to scratch and claw to the top of the heap. Teams that are on top take turns off the top but organizations with solid football personnel usually get back to the top.

On the 49ers they used to have solid football people. I question that now.

The guys steering the ship matter every bit as much as the guys setting the sails. It is always about direction.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The answer to your question lies in this very astute quote from the great Jimmy Johnson, upon his retirement from the Dolphins as their HC..."the biggest obstacle to being great in this league, is being good."

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Ask the Lions, Bears, Cardinals, Saints and see what their answers are.

 

[SkinsHokieFan]

I disagree, that is just an ignorant comment (even though Jimmy Johnson did say it back in 1994 when he started at FOX when talking about Washington)

You draft talent, but I really think you need to draft and sign winners. Guys who were used to winning in college, and guys who have won in the NFL. You need coaches who were in places where winning was expected

Once losing and mediocrity creep in (Commanders 1993-till present) it is almost impossible to break out of it without some incredible personality to do it.

 

[DipChit]

Well obviously theres no absolute answer. On one hand we can say that it so happens the Dynasty teams of the 60's, 70's, 80's and 90's all started from rock bottom/scratch.. but then you have all the teams others have mentioned that have been to rock bottom and basically stayed that way.

Course then you have teams like the late 90's Broncos that didnt start from scratch to win back to back. Aside of course from Elway, they utilized guys like Terrell Davis, Shannon Sharpe, Rod Smith and Ed McCaffery which they didnt need high draft choices to get.

I think in pre free agency I'd just as soon have hit rock bottom and figured my chances were greater to get real good (with the proper front office) as opposed to going 8-8 to 10-6 all the time and never being able to draft marqee players. That befell alot of teams in that period.

Now since free agency tho it's almost just a crap shoot every year as to who's going to get to the show anyway save N.E. which has been incredible. But you also had reps like the Ravens, Giants, Titans, Falcons, Panthers, Bucs, Raiders, etc. all within just a few years. Not to mention that none of em even sniffed it the next year.

 

[Givincer]

Absolutely not we've had 3 straight years of being 5-11 then a 10-6 season then a 6-10 season we've had our drafts and if we can't draft well enough where we stand in the draft at 5-11 what would make you think we could've done it with a pick 3-4 picks higher? There is no logic to this argument that a team has to hit bottom there is no clear cut definiton of bottom. Sure you can move the definition of bottom around to make it more condusive to your argument but the fact is Dallas has had it's drafts where it was high enough to draft a good player to contribute to the team regardless of if they were #1 or #2

 

[Givincer]

Absolutely not we've had 3 straight years of being 5-11 then a 10-6 season then a 6-10 season we've had our drafts and if we can't draft well enough where we stand in the draft at 5-11 what would make you think we could've done it with a pick 3-4 picks higher? There is no logic to this argument that a team has to hit bottom there is no clear cut definiton of bottom. Sure you can move the definition of bottom around to make it more condusive to your argument but the fact is Dallas has had it's drafts where it was high enough to draft a good player to contribute to the team regardless of if they were #1 or #2. We've added the pieces to this team to make it succesful I believe in the last 3 years I honestly believe that. But it is no coincedence that the drafts Bill Parcells has been here have been much more succesful than the one's prior to his arrival post aikman smith irvin