Game of "If but for"

[CATCH17]

Him calling the plays: May he called them as to what the team had, and that is a dearth of talent.
Beating defenses? Yeth, with the great O lines we have had in prior years.
As to being creative: I think he half been creative. Just that Lady Luck half not been on our side and the ball has not rolled favorably to us. I think he was plenty creative figuring out how DeMarco could run for 1,800 yards and Romo passing like a HOFer.

To blame all this on Garrett is absolutely incredible. Like I said: he half not thrown picks, he half not tried to arm tackle and I think he half given is best based on the limits we half had on defense and the slow coming together of this now-great offense. Oh, I supposed Garrett just inherited this great offense, right?
Ohhhhhhhhhh you make me so mad!!!!

Garrett wasn't the play caller last year and it was obvious because we actually made an effort to run the ball.

I'm sorry but the addition of Travis Martin didn't all of a sudden make us the best ground team in the league from the worst. We got rid of that crap play caller and it made a big improvement.

Creative? No.. You might find one play every other game that isn't just our guy beating their guy.


Also, I know this sounds crazy as Cowboy fans because we don't get to see it here, but their are several different ways to protect a bad oline and take pressure off of them.. ESPECIALLY with a great QB that is one of the best ever at buying time.

 

[CATCH17]

Holy moly, it must get tiring trying to continually chop the man down.

Good grief, what's the end game for you? Garrett gets fired? We win the SB in spite of him? We go 3-13 so you prove us all wrong?

As for the thread, but for Jimmy Smith's injury/illness, Jerry wouldn't have futilely chased the elusive 2nd WR and destroyed the team's future – for years – in doing so.

(That said, Jerry's turned things around the last few years, in spite of our no-good coach. 12-4…errr, how dare that terrible coach post such a record)

It's about time he did something.

Last year we stripped him as much of game day duties as possible and we were finally a good team.

 

[Phoenix]

For the record, "if but for" is to make it fun

I mean... come on grammatical police, work with me here

 

[Phoenix]

If but for that darn Charlie Waters / Cliff Harris All-Pro safety tandem, a certain Randy Hughes would have for sure have been at least a Pro Bowler. Bad timing on Randy's part.

 

[Phoenix]

Here's another one:

If but for the Tampa Bay Buccaneers wasting the #1 draft pick on Ricky Bell ( ), Dallas would never have traded up immediately to get the #2 pick to get the one and only Tony Dorsett!

 

[Nightman]

 

[dirtycallahan]

2fer
If not for not keeping sacks as an official stat until 1982 Harvey Martin would have the single season record instead of a gap tooth talk show host.

If not for steroids and bad officiating the stealers would have zero super bowl wins.

 

[Manster68]

2fer
If not for not keeping sacks as an official stat until 1982 Harvey Martin would have the single season record instead of a gap tooth talk show host.

If not for steroids and bad officiating the stealers would have zero super bowl wins.

Isn't it amazing how 3 of Harvey Martin's sacks just "disappeared?"

Through the rest of the 70s and 80s (even into the 90s), Harvey Martin was said to have had 23 sacks in 1977. Yet when Strahan had his season, 3 of them vanished.
Amazing how people like to rewrite the history books.

 

[Everson24]

If not for Doug Donely's dropped 3rd and 7 pass from Danny White, Joe Montana never gets to start the drive that led to "The Catch"

 

[daveferr33]

If but for my Dad raising me right, I would have been a Steeler fan.

 

[Galian Beast]

If but for trading down and passing on Steven Jackson the Cowboys win multiple super bowls.

 

[joseephuss]

If but for trading down and passing on Steven Jackson the Cowboys win multiple super bowls.

I truly doubt Jackson would have meant one SB victory much less multiple ones. It would have meant one less pick on defense, which possibly could have meant not having Ware on the team. It may have kept the transition from Bledsoe to Romo in 2006. Jackson being a better running back than what Dallas had at the time may have made Parcells decide to keep Bledsoe as the starter and Dallas wasn't winning anything with him at QB. Jackson was good, but he alone was not enough to improve the whole team. He would have also cost a lot to keep after his rookie deal as he signed a then record RB contract in 2008.

 

[Galian Beast]

I truly doubt Jackson would have meant one SB victory much less multiple ones. It would have meant one less pick on defense, which possibly could have meant not having Ware on the team. It may have kept the transition from Bledsoe to Romo in 2006. Jackson being a better running back than what Dallas had at the time may have made Parcells decide to keep Bledsoe as the starter and Dallas wasn't winning anything with him at QB. Jackson was good, but he alone was not enough to improve the whole team. He would have also cost a lot to keep after his rookie deal as he signed a then record RB contract in 2008.

Bledsoe was a disaster in 2006, a running back wouldn't have changed that.

And yes, Jackson would have given us a super bowl for many reasons.

1st, we drafted Ware over Spears, so the suggestion that we wouldn't have drafted him is a reach.

More importantly we wouldn't have spent numerous picks on running backs and could have spent them on defense or other areas of the offense, but ceteris paribus jackson delivers a super bowl.

 

[joseephuss]

Bledsoe was a disaster in 2006, a running back wouldn't have changed that.

And yes, Jackson would have given us a super bowl for many reasons.

1st, we drafted Ware over Spears, so the suggestion that we wouldn't have drafted him is a reach.

More importantly we wouldn't have spent numerous picks on running backs and could have spent them on defense or other areas of the offense, but ceteris paribus jackson delivers a super bowl.

I wasn't referring to Spears. If Jackson helps Dallas win just one more game in 2004 then they aren't in position to draft Ware in 2005 with the 11th pick.

Jackson is a good player, but he isn't a franchise changing running back. If he were then he would have played in more than 2 playoff games(both in his rookie season) during his career.

Picking Jackson would not have prevented Dallas from taking lower round running backs in Marion Barber, Tashard Choice or DeMarco Murray. They wouldn't have Julius Jones or Felix Jones. That doesn't equal numerous picks.

Jackson's presence would have guaranteed Dallas nothing.

 

[Galian Beast]

I wasn't referring to Spears. If Jackson helps Dallas win just one more game in 2004 then they aren't in position to draft Ware in 2005 with the 11th pick.

Jackson is a good player, but he isn't a franchise changing running back. If he were then he would have played in more than 2 playoff games(both in his rookie season) during his career.

Picking Jackson would not have prevented Dallas from taking lower round running backs in Marion Barber, Tashard Choice or DeMarco Murray. They wouldn't have Julius Jones or Felix Jones. That doesn't equal numerous picks.

Jackson's presence would have guaranteed Dallas nothing.

Teams win super bowls, but players can be missing pieces. False equivalence has become far too common online.

Look at how many running backs the Falcons drafted after drafting Jackson. When you have an everydown back like that, you aren't spending a lot of resources on his backup.

 

[joseephuss]

Teams win super bowls, but players can be missing pieces. False equivalence has become far too common online.

Look at how many running backs the Falcons drafted after drafting Jackson. When you have an everydown back like that, you aren't spending a lot of resources on his backup.

Dallas was lacking a lot of pieces. Jackson would not have been just a missing piece or final piece of a puzzle. They would still be lacking in other areas and possibly missing out on Ware would not have helped.

 

[Galian Beast]

Dallas was lacking a lot of pieces. Jackson would not have been just a missing piece or final piece of a puzzle. They would still be lacking in other areas and possibly missing out on Ware would not have helped.

Huge assumption there. Julius Jones was every bit as good as Jackson in 2004 if not better.

And going forward the biggest piece we were missing was running back, which is why we invested numerous picks towards one. Jackson would have put our offense over the top in 2007.

 

[joseephuss]

Huge assumption there. Julius Jones was every bit as good as Jackson in 2004 if not better.

And going forward the biggest piece we were missing was running back, which is why we invested numerous picks towards one. Jackson would have put our offense over the top in 2007.

Jackson was playing behind Marshall Faulk in 2004. If he played in Dallas he would have been the immediate starter easily beating out Eddie George who was only supposed to be a veteran back up anyway. If Jackson was as good as you imply he is then he would have been a 1 or 2 game difference maker at least. One single win in 2004 drops Dallas out of position to draft Ware in 2005. That is not a huge assumption. If he couldn't help that 2004 team go better than 6-10 then I definitely see him helping any later teams win Superbowls.

Julius Jones was supposed to be the day one starter in 2004, but missed a lot of time due to injury that season and only played in 8 games. Still he got more opportunities than Jackson did in St. Louis in 2004 because of Faulk still being with the Rams.

 

[bark]

what's a 'but for'?

Sitting

 

[Galian Beast]

Jackson was playing behind Marshall Faulk in 2004. If he played in Dallas he would have been the immediate starter easily beating out Eddie George who was only supposed to be a veteran back up anyway. If Jackson was as good as you imply he is then he would have been a 1 or 2 game difference maker at least. One single win in 2004 drops Dallas out of position to draft Ware in 2005. That is not a huge assumption. If he couldn't help that 2004 team go better than 6-10 then I definitely see him helping any later teams win Superbowls.

Julius Jones was supposed to be the day one starter in 2004, but missed a lot of time due to injury that season and only played in 8 games. Still he got more opportunities than Jackson did in St. Louis in 2004 because of Faulk still being with the Rams.

Julius Jones amazing in 2004. His performance quieted many of us who wanted Jackson. That being said, he didn't stay healthy or productive as Jackson would have. Hard to envision Jackson delivering more wins than Jones that year.