FWST Blog: Witten: Romo is a leader

[KJJ]

Every playoff team has the opportunity to win a Super Bowl, but not all are capable of it. You have to prove you can do something first to know if you are capable of it. To say the ’09 team was capable of winning a Super Bowl is speculation.

What exactly does a team that's never won a SB have to do "first" to prove they're capable of winning one?

The Cowboys proved they were capable of winning the SB in 07 by beating the team who ended up winning it twice that season.

In 09 the Cowboys proved they were capable of winning the SB by going into the Super Dome in New Orleans and beating the 13-0 Saints who went on to win it.

Any team that makes the playoffs is capable of winning the SB because it's the NFL and anything can happen on any given Sunday regardless of a teams record or what their past history is.

 

[KJJ]

The team that ends up winning the SB is usually the team who's QB is playing the best and isn't turning the ball over.

 

[DallasEast]

What exactly does a team that's never won a SB have to do "first" to prove they're capable of winning one?

The Cowboys proved they were capable of winning the SB in 07 by beating the team who ended up winning it twice that season.

In 09 the Cowboys proved they were capable of winning the SB by going into the Super Dome in New Orleans and beating the 13-0 Saints who went on to win it.

Any team that makes the playoffs is capable of winning the SB because it's the NFL and anything can happen on any given Sunday regardless of a teams record or what their past history is.

What level of probability would you have placed upon the 2010 Seattle Seahawks for accomplishing that goal?

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Every playoff team has the opportunity to win a Super Bowl, but not all are capable of it. You have to prove you can do something first to know if you are capable of it. To say the ’09 team was capable of winning a Super Bowl is speculation.

All it takes is everything coming together, but again once you make the postseason, any team is capable of putting everything together, getting a couple breaks, and winning it all.

 

[KJJ]

What level of probability would you have placed upon the 2010 Seattle Seahawks for accomplishing that goal?

Very little probably but what level of probability would you have placed on the 2007 NY Giants winning the SB and knocking the Cowboys off in the process after the Cowboys dominated them that season?

What was the probability that Eli Manning would only turn the ball over once in the playoffs and SB after suffering 27 turnovers during that season?

 

[KJJ]

What level of probability would you have placed upon the 2010 Seattle Seahawks for accomplishing that goal?

By the way what probability did you place on Seattle knocking off the defending SB champion Saints in the Wild Card round last season?

 

[Everlastingxxx]

All it takes is everything coming together, but again once you make the postseason, any team is capable of putting everything together, getting a couple breaks, and winning it all.

I am questioning why a past team in a past season that failed to do something is still looked at as capable of doing it? Didn’t they prove they were not capable? Being capable of something has to include both physical and mental aspects.

Back to my original point about Ryan that you questioned. I believe Rex will be able to bring a physical and mental toughness that the ’07 and ’09 defenses lacked.

 

[DallasEast]

Very little probably but what level of probability would you have placed on the 2007 NY Giants winning the SB and knocking the Cowboys off in the process after the Cowboys dominated them that season?

Much more than the Seahawks accomplishing the same goal last season.

What was the probability that Eli Manning would only turn the ball over once in the playoffs and SB after suffering 27 turnovers during that season?

If one were to take into account that in the regular season, Eli Manning was:

• 5-1 in games he attempted 30 or less passes and
• 5-5 in games he attempted 31 or greater passes

--and Tom Coughlin was successful in keeping his offense to less than 30 passing attempts versus Tampa Bay and Dallas in the wild card and divisional rounds that postseason?

Pretty good.

If anyone had the some inkling that the Green Bay Packers defense would allow Manning to throw the ball 40 times, prevent him from throwing a touchdown and still lose at home?

Pretty good.

And if everyone's crystal ball could have projected that David Tyree could have made one of the most improbable 4th down, critical drive saving, clutch catches when the title game was on the line?

Pretty good.

The old saying, "There is no 'I' in 'T-E-A-M'" ain't no fluke.

 

[DallasEast]

By the way what probability did you place on Seattle knocking off the defending SB champion Saints in the Wild Card round last season?

Low. And far lower than the probability placed upon the 2007 Giants beating the unbeaten Patriots after they had almost put an L in New England's loss column during the regular season.

 

[KJJ]

I am questioning why a past team in a past season that failed to do something is still looked at as capable of doing it?

They proved they were capable of winning the SB in both 07 and 09 by beating the two teams that ended up winning it those years. You don't have to win the SB to be "capable" of winning it.

The Cowboys were capable of winning the SB both years especially in 07 where they won 13 games and had more pro bowlers than both the Packers and Steelers had combined last season.

All a team has to have to be "capable" is the talent. The rest comes down to desire and the ability to play your best when it matters most. That's where the Cowboys have been lacking.

 

[KJJ]

Much more than the Seahawks accomplishing the same goal last season.If one were to take into account that in the regular season, Eli Manning was:

• 5-1 in games he attempted 30 or less passes and
• 5-5 in games he attempted 31 or greater passes

--and Tom Coughlin was successful in keeping his offense to less than 30 passing attempts versus Tampa Bay and Dallas in the wild card and divisional rounds that postseason?

Pretty good.

If anyone had the some inkling that the Green Bay Packers defense would allow Manning to throw the ball 40 times, prevent him from throwing a touchdown and still lose at home?

Pretty good.

And if everyone's crystal ball could have projected that David Tyree could have made one of the most improbable 4th down, critical drive saving, clutch catches when the title game was on the line?

Pretty good.

The old saying, "There is no 'I' in 'T-E-A-M'" ain't no fluke.

The odds on the Giants winning the SB in 07 the way the Cowboys and Pats were playing was highly unlikely. There were several teams including the Packers that looked stronger than the Giants that season.

The Giants lost to the Cowboys twice and to the Pats in the season finale. In week 12 of that season Eli tossed 4 int's 3 of which were returned for TD's. The Giants lost the game 41-17 and the "B" word was starting to be mentioned in the same breath with Eli.

The Giants were 4-4 the final 8 games of the 07 season. They had to go on the road to Tampa, Dallas and Green Bay in the playoffs to reach the SB so you can spin it anyway you like but the probability of them winning it all that year was extremely slim.

It showed that any team that makes the playoffs is capable.

 

[KJJ]

Low. And far lower than the probability placed upon the 2007 Giants beating the unbeaten Patriots after they had almost put an L in New England's loss column during the regular season.

It was extremely low but Seattle advanced against the defending SB champions. You can't take any NFL team for granted regardless of their record once the playoffs start.

Once you say they don't have a chance that just motivates them to prove everyone wrong.

 

[DallasEast]

The odds on the Giants winning the SB in 07 the way the Cowboys and Pats were playing was highly unlikely. There were several teams including the Packers that looked stronger than the Giants that season.

The Giants lost to the Cowboys twice and to the Pats in the season finale. In week 12 of that season Eli tossed 4 int's 3 of which were returned for TD's. The Giants lost the game 41-17 and the "B" word was starting to be mentioned in the same breath with Eli.

The Giants were 4-4 the final 8 games of the 07 season. They had to go on the road to Tampa, Dallas and Green Bay in the playoffs to reach the SB so you can spin it anyway you like but the probability of them winning it all that year was extremely slim.

It showed that any team that makes the playoffs is capable.

Spin

Each point clearly highlights how the odds would have played out in hindsight. That is all we have now: h-i-n-d-s-i-g-h-t. Or some of us do, at least.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

They proved they were capable of winning the SB in both 07 and 09 by beating the two teams that ended up winning it those years. You don't have to win the SB to be "capable" of winning it.

The Cowboys were capable of winning the SB both years especially in 07 where they won 13 games and had more pro bowlers than both the Packers and Steelers had combined last season.

All a team has to have to be "capable" is the talent. The rest comes down to desire and the ability to play your best when it matters most. That's where the Cowboys have been lacking.

Winning a Super Bowl is not a one game deal. You have to win a number of games against tough opponents and sometimes in harsh environments.

Imagine a hiker wanting to climb Mount Everest for the first time. He has the talent and tools needed. You could say he is “capable” of getting to the top. He begins his trip only to fail only 1/4 of the way up. He comes back down. Would you say looking back that he was capable of getting to the top? He lacked something. How can you prove differently when the results tell a different story?

Note: I am not claiming a team is capable or not. I am claiming you don’t exactly know unless they accomplish the goal.

 

[birdwells1]

The odds on the Giants winning the SB in 07 the way the Cowboys and Pats were playing was highly unlikely. There were several teams including the Packers that looked stronger than the Giants that season.

The Giants lost to the Cowboys twice and to the Pats in the season finale. In week 12 of that season Eli tossed 4 int's 3 of which were returned for TD's. The Giants lost the game 41-17 and the "B" word was starting to be mentioned in the same breath with Eli.

The Giants were 4-4 the final 8 games of the 07 season. They had to go on the road to Tampa, Dallas and Green Bay in the playoffs to reach the SB so you can spin it anyway you like but the probability of them winning it all that year was extremely slim.

It showed that any team that makes the playoffs is capable.

KJJ keep fighting the fight man I love your posts.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Leader in what context?

According to the American military of the last century?

According to American corporate business of the last 40 years?

How about according to American politics in the 18th century? nineteenth century?

Leadership according to the Platonic ideal?

Leadership according to Asian culture of the middle of the first millennium?

Leadership according to Machiavelli?

What of Marx's concept of a leader?

This notion that leadership is a true or false concept is a bad one.

 

[KJJ]

Winning a Super Bowl is not a one game deal. You have to win a number of games against tough opponents and sometimes in harsh environments.

That's what the Cowboys did in 07 they beat the eventual SB champions twice once on the road and beat a 10-1 Packer team that ended up making it to the NFC title game. The Cowboys won the East going away and were the #1 seed. They won 13 games that season and positioned themselves better than any team in the conference.

No year proved the point I made more about how the Cowboys win battles but lose wars like that season did.

Imagine a hiker wanting to climb Mount Everest for the first time. He has the talent and tools needed. You could say he is “capable” of getting to the top. He begins his trip only to fail only 1/4 of the way up. He comes back down.

Attempting to scale Mt Everest and attempting to win a SB are two different things. In football there's always next year that's not always the case with Everest. If a hiker fails 1/4 of the way up Everest they usually come down the hard way you should have used another mountain as an example. :laugh2:

Mountain climbing and skydiving aren't usually sports where if you fail you simply dust yourself off and try again.

There's been hikers who've scaled Everest several times only fall to their deaths during another attempt. There's something called "human error" and no one is immune to it.

Being capable doesn't mean you're always going to succeed each and every time.

Just because you fail at something you've never accomplished before doesn't mean you're not capable. When you get to a certain level in any sport it means you're capable.

The Saints went 8-8 the year prior to winning their first SB so what did they do to show they were capable of winning the SB heading into the 09 season?

The Packers hadn't won a SB in 14 years and Aaron Rodgers had only been a starting QB for 3 seasons. Prior to Rodgers SB win last season he'd only played in one playoff game and lost.

You said You have to prove you can do something first to know if you are capable of it. To say the ’09 team was capable of winning a Super Bowl is speculation.

So what did the Packers and Aaron Rodgers do first to show they were capable of winning the SB?

Note: I am not claiming a team is capable or not. I am claiming you don’t exactly know unless they accomplish the goal.

A team doesn't have to accomplish the goal to know they're capable they just have to show the potential during the regular season against good teams. Winning important games during the regular season shows a team is capable.

The Packers were one of the SB favorites heading into last season based on the potential Rodgers and his team have shown. They looked like a team that was capable based off their talent and the skill Rodgers had been showing the past 2 seasons.

Being capable has a lot to do with a teams QB any team that has a top flight QB is usually capable of winning a SB.

 

[KJJ]

Spin

Each point clearly highlights how the odds would have played out in hindsight. That is all we have now: h-i-n-d-s-i-g-h-t. Or some of us do, at least.

The odds for any team winning the SB isn't as good as you might think. The point I'm making is any team that makes the playoffs is capable. It's do or die once the playoffs start and what a team did the previous 16 weeks doesn't matter.

What were the odds the Cowboys who most were picking to go to the SB last season would end up 6-10 missing the playoffs?

What were the odds the 1999 Rams would win the SB with an unknown QB after going 4-12 the year before?

In the NFL a team can turn things around in one season if they get a QB that can play a real high level.

 

[jswalker1981]

Leader in what context?

According to the American military of the last century?

According to American corporate business of the last 40 years?

How about according to American politics in the 18th century? nineteenth century?

Leadership according to the Platonic ideal?

Leadership according to Asian culture of the middle of the first millennium?

Leadership according to Machiavelli?

What of Marx's concept of a leader?

This notion that leadership is a true or false concept is a bad one.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

That's what the Cowboys did in 07 they beat the eventual SB champions twice once on the road and beat a 10-1 Packer team that ended up making it to the NFC title game. The Cowboys won the East going away and were the #1 seed. They won 13 games that season and positioned themselves better than any team in the conference.

The Cowboys also lost to the Patriots in the regular season. That’s who they would have faced in the Super Bowl.

What i am finding odd is you are implying that the regular season holds just as much value as the post season. If that is the case, why are you very critical of Romo’s post season failures while negating his regular season success?

Attempting to scale Mt Everest and attempting to win a SB are two different things. In football there's always next year that's not always the case with Everest. If a hiker fails 1/4 of the way up Everest they usually come down the hard way you should have used another mountain as an example. :laugh2:

Mountain climbing and skydiving aren't usually sports where if you fail you simply dust yourself off and try again.

There's been hikers who've scaled Everest several times only fall to their deaths during another attempt. There's something called "human error" and no one is immune to it.

I thought the analogy worked ok to make a point.

Being capable doesn't mean you're always going to succeed each and every time.

I agree. Never made that claim.

Just because you fail at something you've never accomplished before doesn't mean you're not capable.

The flip side is to say you failed at something you've never accomplished before therefore you are capable?

When you get to a certain level in any sport it means you're capable.

Yes. Once you get to that level. The Cowboys are capable of winning a playoff game. We know that now.

A team doesn't have to accomplish the goal to know they're capable they just have to show the potential during the regular season against good teams. Winning important games during the regular season shows a team is capable.

Potential is a word i would be ok with using. ‘09 Cowboys team had the potential to win the Super Bowl.

The Packers were one of the SB favorites heading into last season based on the potential Rodgers and his team have shown. They looked like a team that was capable based off their talent and the skill Rodgers had been showing the past 2 seasons.

Being capable has a lot to do with a teams QB any team that has a top flight QB is usually capable of winning a SB.

Packers had the potential and then later proved they were very much capable.