Gosselin: Injuries are no excuse for another mediocre Dallas Cowboys season

[Fansince64]

Yes , I have an agenda...it is anti-football ignorance. I get plenty of material to work with around here.

The greatest majority of said material comes from your own posts.


Monte Sliger

 

[Coy]

What about Crawford? Bet not.

Well, to be fair Crawford was not a starter and even if he were we really don't know what we've missed from him, he only has one season under his belt in which he played 16 games and had 16 tackles.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

He still was never going to be the player that they believed he would be. The fact they went with about as nondescript defensive tackle like Hayden all season is more of an indictment on our ability to evaluate the roster than it is about an injury. Kiffin, Jones, and whomever else thought it was a smart idea to count on Ratliff to be what this system needed blew it. Without question.

It wasn't just Ratliff.

And keep in mind Ratliff passed his physical, pulls a hammy within 24 hours and is essentially lost for the season (even though we didn't know it at the time).

Then within 24 hours of that odd occurrence, Crawford tears his Achilles and is lost for the season.

No Cowboy fan, no matter how pessimistic could have predicted that.

No one expected Ratliff to be the Ratliff of 2009, but to expect him to throw a hissy fit and not ever play again while pocketing $18 mil?

And then you have Bass, who many thought was having a good camp ends up on IR. That's 3 DT's who weren't going to contribute at all this season.

Any team is going to reach the bottom of the barrel after going through 3 DT's.

Now I won't argue the point that a DT should have been considered in round 2 instead of the TE, but I've posted before on who was available at that point and none of the guys selected by other teams around that spot were a world-beater this season.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Well, to be fair Crawford was not a starter and even if he were we really don't know what we've missed from him, he only has one season under his belt in which he played 16 games and had 16 tackles.

But he did show promise last year and he did have a better "pedigree" than Bass or the ultimate starter Hayden. And I think it would be a safe bet in assuming that Crawford wouldn't have ended up being the 2nd worst DT in the NFL.

 

[silver]

We totally overvalued our returning starters. Ware and Ratliff were coming off injuries and both had 8 seasons of NFL mileage on them. Also we never replaced Brent who was as integral part of the rotation in 2013. Same with Butler who was a rotational guy and was never replaced. And to top to all off we traded away Lissemore who couldn't be worse than Hayden. A clear indictment on the front office that can't evaluate talent to save their lives.

 

[Alexander]

It wasn't just Ratliff.

And keep in mind Ratliff passed his physical, pulls a hammy within 24 hours and is essentially lost for the season (even though we didn't know it at the time).

I do not even believe the hamstring was the issue. We mishandled everything about Ratliff. We mishandled his injury. We misevaluated his worth even if healthy. It was a crucial mistake considering the role he was going to have to fill and what was going be expected of him. We counted on an injured player already deep into a downward spiral. An epic miss.

Then within 24 hours of that odd occurrence, Crawford tears his Achilles and is lost for the season.

No Cowboy fan, no matter how pessimistic could have predicted that.

Crawford going out was not a lot different than losing a rookie DL for the year. The gravity of expectations we established for him and Ratliff were simply too high.

I have never seen a marginal 3rd round choice get injured in his second camp and have the injury described by management as "devastating".

It was "devastating" because they were expecting, no, counting on him being an impact player with very little true production to base that on.

We put all of our eggs in these two baskets. We did not draft a DL. We did not even sign bodies in undrafted free agency. We had Hayden on a futures contract. That was a poor plan and it blew up.

It is what an organization that lacks foresight is going to do. It is going to leave itself exposed to "bad luck". Seems to happen every season and when it is a trend, it is no longer luck.

No one expected Ratliff to be the Ratliff of 2009, but to expect him to throw a hissy fit and not ever play again while pocketing $18 mil?

Perhaps him angrily confronting the owner and GM, as well as a DUI, should have been a clue that perhaps he was not exactly the right personality to be counting on as such an important piece of the puzzle. Sorry, I will not give Jones any benefit of the doubt here. There is a lot more to that story that still has not seen the light of day.

And then you have Bass, who many thought was having a good camp ends up on IR. That's 3 DT's who weren't going to contribute at all this season.

Any team is going to reach the bottom of the barrel after going through 3 DT's.

Even some undrafted free agents could have helped. We did not prepare. We actually brought in more players to kick and punt to be camp bodies than defensive lineman prior to the onset of camp. When you are going from a three man line to a four man line, how much sense does that make? How they could have established from Kiffin watching film for a few months if they had the right mixture to even run the system? The DL is so important in the Tampa 2 and we completely and deliberately chose to cross our fingers that everyone would not only transition into it quickly, but fit seamlessly.

Now I won't argue the point that a DT should have been considered in round 2 instead of the TE, but I've posted before on who was available at that point and none of the guys selected by other teams around that spot were a world-beater this season.

It could have been a consideration everywhere in the draft when going from 3-4 to a 4-3 that needed good play inside and more speed. I am pretty certain that players like Bennie Logan, Akeem Spence, Josh Boyd and Jordan Hill could have helped.

I just hope it was a lesson learned. The injuries will happen, and you need think about it happening again and again under this CBA. The entire league had to deal with it and the ones that could not or would not, had issues.

 

[Miller]

Yes , I have an agenda...it is anti-football ignorance. I get plenty of material to work with around here.

Says the guy whose Detroit argument was shredded with facts but skipped it to continue name calling. That's called trolling on message boards and is the agenda of someone needing attention in most cases. Make real arguments not far of statements shrouded as fact. I'll stop giving you your attention fix. Officially on ignore

 

[jobberone]

We totally overvalued our returning starters. Ware and Ratliff were coming off injuries and both had 8 seasons of NFL mileage on them. Also we never replaced Brent who was as integral part of the rotation in 2013. Same with Butler who was a rotational guy and was never replaced. And to top to all off we traded away Lissemore who couldn't be worse than Hayden. A clear indictment on the front office that can't evaluate talent to save their lives.

That's a valid point. Maybe they and a few here including myself were too optimistic about the DL. I still say you couldn't predict that Crawford and Bass would go down. And you have so much in Ratliff and Ware that you really have to go with what you have. They probably should have, in retrospect, drafted a DL in the 2nd or 3rd. But remember the offense had failed the club the year preceding the draft and many years off and on since the end of 2007. So you can't find too much fault in the predraft decision to go the way they did. Then you have to think about who would they have drafted. Drafting for need has been readily criticized here and rightfully so up to a point.

 

[Zimmy Lives]

That's a valid point. Maybe they and a few here including myself were too optimistic about the DL. I still say you couldn't predict that Crawford and Bass would go down. And you have so much in Ratliff and Ware that you really have to go with what you have. They probably should have, in retrospect, drafted a DL in the 2nd or 3rd. But remember the offense had failed the club the year preceding the draft and many years off and on since the end of 2007. So you can't find too much fault in the predraft decision to go the way they did. Then you have to think about who would they have drafted. Drafting for need has been readily criticized here and rightfully so up to a point.

IMO, this is what hurt the most.

Crawford, though unproven, had loads of upside. The kid was going to be a key rotational guy if not a starter. Bass, while a relative unknown, has one thing you cannot teach: a quick first step. Both guys were going to be huge contributors to what was a questionable old d-line. I expected (as posted before the 2013 draft) the four grandpas to break down at some point during the season but the injuries to Bass and Crawford were totally unexpected.

 

[jobberone]

IMO, this is what hurt the most.

Crawford, though unproven, had loads of upside. The kid was going to be a key rotational guy if not a starter. Bass, while a relative unknown, has one thing you cannot teach: a quick first step. Both guys were going to be huge contributors to what was a questionable old d-line. I expected (as posted before the 2013 draft) the four grandpas to break down at some point during the season but the injuries to Bass and Crawford were totally unexpected.

On the nosey.

 

[Kevinicus]

Well, to be fair Crawford was not a starter and even if he were we really don't know what we've missed from him, he only has one season under his belt in which he played 16 games and had 16 tackles.

With Spencer and Ratliff out, he was a starter, and Bass too. I still think it's hard to criticize depth when the depth is injured. Then you are talking about guys off the street that nobody, including Jerry & co., wanted.

 

[Coy]

But he did show promise last year and he did have a better "pedigree" than Bass or the ultimate starter Hayden. And I think it would be a safe bet in assuming that Crawford wouldn't have ended up being the 2nd worst DT in the NFL.

I agree but then again we are assuming, we also assumed Carter was going to be a heck of a player this year.

 

[Coy]

With Spencer and Ratliff out, he was a starter, and Bass too. I still think it's hard to criticize depth when the depth is injured. Then you are talking about guys off the street that nobody, including Jerry & co., wanted.

I´m not criticizing, I actually think that Crawford will be good but it is what it is, he played 16 games as a rookie and had 16 tackles, we were assuming he was going to have a big impact on this team but some acted like we were missing too tall Jones, this Defense was bad with or without him.

 

[jterrell]

The reason why the article is full of crap has little to do with the Cowboys and everything to do with Goose and his overall methodology.

By using a chosen missed starts by expected starter stat as the guideline it makes the article useless.

Expected starter is a moving target. Others who have used better methodology have found direct correlations between health and success which of course is only logical given this is a salary cap driven league. When you have lots of salary not playing due to injury you essentially lose the very resource with which you build teams.

A health related metric would include far more than missed starts and weight guys salary, guys coming off pro bowls, guys that were high draft picks and other factors to be more meaningful. 16 games missed by a 25th ranked punter equals 16 games missed by a franchise QB in this metric... anyone wanna defend that?

Not every player you lose is equal which makes this illogical and just goofy.

Goose publishes this drivel every year.
It's always been off and always been lazy.

The fact his editorialization is always so off just makes it even worse.

 

[jterrell]

I´m not criticizing, I actually think that Crawford will be good but it is what it is, he played 16 games as a rookie and had 16 tackles, we were assuming he was going to have a big impact on this team but some acted like we were missing too tall Jones, this Defense was bad with or without him.

Sounds like you are arguing against your own points here.

Crawford was a R3 second year guy who was expected to play either SDE or 3T.
He is an unknown beyond obviously having good measurables.

So we really can't say his impact is either large or small.

Which means we can;t know he wasn't large loss.

I can say with a fair degree of certainty that if Crawford was healthy and everything else played out as is, he starts a lot of games, if not all 16.
So if the criterion is starts missed he should count in some form.

An example outside the team comes from GB. Bryan Bulaga played in 9 games in 2012 and played RT and played rather poorly. He was flip-flopped int he off-season as he is a former high pick and they like his upside. But he never started a game at LT. Yet he counts 16 missed starts in this metric. While Crawford counts ZERO.

 

[Miller]

The reason why the article is full of crap has little to do with the Cowboys and everything to do with Goose and his overall methodology.

By using a chosen missed starts by expected starter stat as the guideline it makes the article useless.

Expected starter is a moving target. Others who have used better methodology have found direct correlations between health and success which of course is only logical given this is a salary cap driven league. When you have lots of salary not playing due to injury you essentially lose the very resource with which you build teams.

A health related metric would include far more than missed starts and weight guys salary, guys coming off pro bowls, guys that were high draft picks and other factors to be more meaningful. 16 games missed by a 25th ranked punter equals 16 games missed by a franchise QB in this metric... anyone wanna defend that?

Not every player you lose is equal which makes this illogical and just goofy.

Goose publishes this drivel every year.
It's always been off and always been lazy.

The fact his editorialization is always so off just makes it even worse.

This seems more like an agenda on Goose. He mentioned total injuries this year. He named key starters from each team to compare. I mean we have talked about what the Patriots went through all season. What bothers me more than anything is that people blame injuries and depth and don't talk about Jerry or Garrett(since he allegedly has say so, according to his fans), drafted for depth on the Dline or elsewhere on D. The O was mostly intact and still had red zone issues. They even used top picks on TE and WR instead of Dline. Overall there is always an excuse despite years and years of the same stuff. Somehow these other teams just don't have our luck (roll eyes). I'm not saying you're playing the blame game but that is a lot of what goes around here and no matter the metric it always goes back to the top.

 

[jterrell]

This seems more like an agenda on Goose. He mentioned total injuries this year. He named key starters from each team to compare. I mean we have talked about what the Patriots went through all season. What bothers me more than anything is that people blame injuries and depth and don't talk about Jerry or Garrett(since he allegedly has say so, according to his fans), drafted for depth on the Dline or elsewhere on D. The O was mostly intact and still had red zone issues. They even used top picks on TE and WR instead of Dline. Overall there is always an excuse despite years and years of the same stuff. Somehow these other teams just don't have our luck (roll eyes). I'm not saying you're playing the blame game but that is a lot of what goes around here and no matter the metric it always goes back to the top.

To some extent what you say has merit.
Dallas was FAR< FAR< FAR improved in red zone offense though so that one's a no go.

But yes, we chose where we drafted. Drafting Escobar looks silly right now but only time will tell if it was.
Witten isn't playing forever and you don't always get guys into starting spots year 1.
Hall of Fame caliber guys can sit year 1.
I tap breaks when people throw up arms over that Escobar pick because he looks suspiciously like a guy who can actually start 7 years in this league to me.

To me the key grade for Garrett comes in as a B-. He was FAR better in game mgmt.
Now he had been dreadful so this far better made him about league average IMHO.
And the play-calling was at times refreshing and other times maddening.
That doesn't appear to be Garrett in 2013. He obviously failed previously in that role.
But he has been good I think in team building overall.
We've steered away from knuckleheads and players have been almost choir boys.
We have played hard almost to a man.
Outside a game a season then team has shown tons of fight and want to.
Just not enough can do.

I get the overall desire to see someone pay for another 8-8 season.

I am just all in all not sure a single head coach hired this off-season is really better than Garrett.

Lovie is the most appealing guy but he is running the same 10 year old defense we are questioning.
I'd almost rather maintain status quo and suck it up.
If it fails again in 2014 we clean house and hire a new head coach who then hires his own entire staff.

But again what you say has some merit.
It just doesn't apply much to this article.

 

[Coy]

Sounds like you are arguing against your own points here.

Crawford was a R3 second year guy who was expected to play either SDE or 3T.
He is an unknown beyond obviously having good measurables.

So we really can&#039;t say his impact is either large or small.

Which means we can;t know he wasn&#039;t large loss.

I can say with a fair degree of certainty that if Crawford was healthy and everything else played out as is, he starts a lot of games, if not all 16.
So if the criterion is starts missed he should count in some form.

An example outside the team comes from GB. Bryan Bulaga played in 9 games in 2012 and played RT and played rather poorly. He was flip-flopped int he off-season as he is a former high pick and they like his upside. But he never started a game at LT. Yet he counts 16 missed starts in this metric. While Crawford counts ZERO.

You are making assumptions, that´s exactly what I am saying, I´m just pointing out that us missing Crawford wasn´t that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Our starters in training camp were supposed to be Ware, Hatcher, Ratliff and Spencer.
He wasn´t supposed to be a starter, I think we can agree on that, that´s why I believe he wasn´t considered in this particular article.
Now to your point, he could´ve started many games having a big impact but then again he could´ve not started any games while having minimal impact, you never know, it´s all assumptions, right or wrong, this article was about projected starters, because to do a list of every NFL team with projected starters and projected players who could become starters and have huge impact would be very difficut because once again they are all assumptions. He didn´t take Crawford into account but I bet you could find the same situation with other players from the other 31 teams.

 

[jterrell]

You are making assumptions, that´s exactly what I am saying, I´m just pointing out that us missing Crawford wasn´t that big of a deal in the grand scheme of things. Our starters in training camp were supposed to be Ware, Hatcher, Ratliff and Spencer.
He wasn´t supposed to be a starter, I think we can agree on that, that´s why I believe he wasn´t considered in this particular article.
Now to your point, he could´ve started many games having a big impact but then again he could´ve not started any games while having minimal impact, you never know, it´s all assumptions, right or wrong, this article was about projected starters, because to do a list of every NFL team with projected starters and projected players who could become starters and have huge impact would be very difficut because once again they are all assumptions. He didn´t take Crawford into account but I bet you could find the same situation with other players from the other 31 teams.

That's not really true.
No one was 100% sure where Hatcher or Crawford fit on this DL except that both would play a lot and everyone knew Ratliff wasn't a full-time player.
Hatcher wasn't seen as some 11 sack guy. He had been a rotational player.
Most intelligent best guesses had Crawford play passing downs at 3T and move outside to DE on some running downs.

Hatcher and Crawford are both former 3-4 DE taken in round 3.

There really was little difference between them entering 2013 except Crawford represented more upside.

Crawford was considered our 3rd best DE and 3rd best DT AT WORST.

Pretending he was some minor loss is goofy.

 

[Coy]

That&#039;s not really true.
No one was 100% sure where Hatcher or Crawford fit on this DL except that both would play a lot and everyone knew Ratliff wasn&#039;t a full-time player.
Hatcher wasn&#039;t seen as some 11 sack guy. He had been a rotational player.
Most intelligent best guesses had Crawford play passing downs at 3T and move outside to DE on some running downs.

Hatcher and Crawford are both former 3-4 DE taken in round 3.

There really was little difference between them entering 2013 except Crawford represented more upside.

Crawford was considered our 3rd best DE and 3rd best DT AT WORST.

Pretending he was some minor loss is goofy.

Pretending the loss of Crawford to be important in the grand scheme of things to our Defense is even goofier.


I think 95% of the fans would agree with this article from blogging the boys (it is not official of course), about our projected starters the day training camp started, once again that is the basic point of the article, the loss of starters playing week one (I’m showing this list because it´s the start of training camp and Crawford was healthy). Like I said I agree that throughout the season things change and maybe Crawford would have been a pro bowler but you cannot assume that for the basis of this article (because he could have done that with every other team as well) , you never know who will end up starting at each position but on week one you have a pretty good idea who the 22 starters will be throughout the season if they all stay healthy, then again something can happen like what we went through with Williams ending up as a starter instead of Austin, he missed 5 games and they are surely on our list of starting players missing games but you and I know he wasn´t the starter, it goes both ways.

Plain and simple, from the 22 starters per team in week one, how many lost games because of injury, on that basis alone, there are teams in the playoffs with more injuries than the Cowboys, that´s the only purpose of this article, everything else is just pure speculation. If you agree with that or not is a total different discussion but to disregard the article because a player not projected to be a starter got hurt and could have been a starter in week 2 and beyond and wasn´t on the list is kind of ridiculous imo.


http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2013...-have-they-restocked-their-roster-with-enough

For now though, let´s look at the 22 players most likely earmarked as starters for the Cowboys.

Offense Defense
Pos Player Pos Player
LWR Dez Bryant LDE Anthony Spencer
RWR Miles Austin DT Jay Ratliff
LT Tyron Smith DT Jason Hatcher
LG Nate Livings RDE DeMarcus Ware
CG Travis Frederick WILL Bruce Carter
RG Mackenzy Bernadeau MIKE Sean Lee
RT Doug Free SAM Justin Durant
TE Jason Witten LCB Brandon Carr
TE James Hanna SS Will Allen
QB Tony Romo FS Barry Church
RB DeMarco Murray RCB Morris Claiborne