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

[jterrell]

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

ROFL. I can never tell if this is schtick or just poor logic.

Did you bother to even look at the starter list for that article?
Nate Livings. James Hanna, Will Allen.
The simply truth is no one knew how Marinelli was employing our DL.
It was guesses or trial moves.
Initially most thought Ratliff was a 3T and Crawford was a SDE.
Then nope, Ratliff is a 1T. Hatcher a 3T with Ben Bass RIGHT on his heels.

Allen was beaten out by Wilcox then released.
Hanna played a small portion of plays to the point we went out and got a full back.

Only a complete moron thinks a 2nd year 3rd round pick who was a rotational player as a rookie has little to no value.
You know who else wasn't on that list? Orlando Scandrick.
Again the 22 starter nonsense is too limited to scope to mean much of anything.

Did Livings being out hurt us? Did that hurt us more than Crawford?
What about Will Allen? IF he had torn up a knee that's just as bad as Crawford right?

The metric is stupid. STUPID. POINTLESS towards anything.

BUT THE MOST HILARIOUS THING OF ALL...Quoting an article that claims to negate Crawford AFTER HE WAS INJURED.
That article was July 25th... he was injured on the 22nd and ruled out for the season by the 23rd.

 

[Coy]

ROFL. I can never tell if this is schtick or just poor logic.

Did you bother to even look at the starter list for that article?
Nate Livings. James Hanna, Will Allen.
The simply truth is no one knew how Marinelli was employing our DL.
It was guesses or trial moves.
Initially most thought Ratliff was a 3T and Crawford was a SDE.
Then nope, Ratliff is a 1T. Hatcher a 3T with Ben Bass RIGHT on his heels.

Allen was beaten out by Wilcox then released.
Hanna played a small portion of plays to the point we went out and got a full back.

Only a complete moron thinks a 2nd year 3rd round pick who was a rotational player as a rookie has little to no value.
You know who else wasn't on that list? Orlando Scandrick.
Again the 22 starter nonsense is too limited to scope to mean much of anything.

Did Livings being out hurt us? Did that hurt us more than Crawford?
What about Will Allen? IF he had torn up a knee that's just as bad as Crawford right?

The metric is stupid. STUPID. POINTLESS towards anything.

BUT THE MOST HILARIOUS THING OF ALL...Quoting an article that claims to negate Crawford AFTER HE WAS INJURED.
That article was July 25th... he was injured on the 22nd and ruled out for the season by the 23rd.

LOL, so saying how many teams lost starters due to injury is stupid and pointless, OK, it might not be perfect but it gives you a real good idea of what teams were hurt the most by injuries, if you can´t see that then don´t. And Crawford in your eyes would have taken the spot of Ware, Hatcher or Spencer?? haha now that´s funny.
You just don´t get it, and missed the whole point of the article, because you keep on arguing over the same thing, did livings start week 1? Did Crawford start week 1? If your answer is NO then they ARE NOT CONSIDERED FOR THE SOLE PUPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE, Thank you.
By the way here are a couple of links before July 25th (one on July 17th) in case you want to read them.


http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2013/7/17/4532540/dallas-cowboys-starting-roster-training-camp-oxnard-travis-frederick-sean-lee-demarcus-ware


http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sports/dallas-cowboys/headlines/20130326-photos-if-2013-season-started-today-here-s-cowboys-projected-starters.ece?ssimg=938127#ssTop938138

Basically everyone in the world who follows Cowboys football expected to have those 4 as starters on the dline pre or post injury to Crawford, well except you of course.

End of discussion.

 

[Screw The Hall]

Anyone who can watch that Green Bay game and then sit across from me with a straight face and tell me Jason Garrett has a clue what he is doing probably has some land I need to buy in the everglades.

 

[jterrell]

LOL, so saying how many teams lost starters due to injury is stupid and pointless, OK, it might not be perfect but it gives you a real good idea of what teams were hurt the most by injuries, if you can´t see that then don´t. And Crawford in your eyes would have taken the spot of Ware, Hatcher or Spencer?? haha now that´s funny.
You just don´t get it, and missed the whole point of the article, because you keep on arguing over the same thing, did livings start week 1? Did Crawford start week 1? If your answer is NO then they ARE NOT CONSIDERED FOR THE SOLE PUPOSE OF THIS ARTICLE, Thank you.
By the way here are a couple of links before July 25th (one on July 17th) in case you want to read them.


http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2013/7/17/4532540/dallas-cowboys-starting-roster-training-camp-oxnard-travis-frederick-sean-lee-demarcus-ware


http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sports/dallas-cowboys/headlines/20130326-photos-if-2013-season-started-today-here-s-cowboys-projected-starters.ece?ssimg=938127#ssTop938138

Basically everyone in the world who follows Cowboys football expected to have those 4 as starters on the dline pre or post injury to Crawford, well except you of course.

End of discussion.

good lord you are slow.
tyrone crawford could not have started week 1 because he was injured for the season in july.

and again those projected starter lists are terrible.
the bottom has matt johnson and phil costa.
it has dewayne harris as WR3.
all the lists prove is that the lists are useless.
which again proves the point... these projections are meaningless and thus a meaningless way to discuss injuries.
they are wild arsed guesses.
no one had seen kiffen and marinelli deploy these guys.

it is you are clearly not able to logically follow that some fake "projected" starter missing games games is completely different and in no way equivalent to a true Pro Bowl caliber player that defines a team missing time.
the method here does just that.

and yes there was plenty of discussion about tyrone crawford possibly starting over hatcher.. or starting at SDE if we did not re-sign spencer.
he was the young DL everyone wanted us to so badly draft except he had a year's experience.
and for people who actually watch cowboys games they'd notice a very heavy rotation on the dl.
a guy like crawford was going to play major snaps by anyone with a brain's estimation.

would seattle not have been hurt with michael bennett being out all year?
you know their sack leader who doesnt start for them?
what about if bennett and avril had been out?
they could have missed 32 and for this metricthey mean nothing....

the flaw isnt hard to identify.

 

[Coy]

good lord you are slow.
tyrone crawford could not have started week 1 because he was injured for the season in july.

and again those projected starter lists are terrible.
the bottom has matt johnson and phil costa.
it has dewayne harris as WR3.
all the lists prove is that the lists are useless.
which again proves the point... these projections are meaningless and thus a meaningless way to discuss injuries.
they are wild arsed guesses.
no one had seen kiffen and marinelli deploy these guys.

it is you are clearly not able to logically follow that some fake "projected" starter missing games games is completely different and in no way equivalent to a true Pro Bowl caliber player that defines a team missing time.
the method here does just that.

and yes there was plenty of discussion about tyrone crawford possibly starting over hatcher.. or starting at SDE if we did not re-sign spencer.
he was the young DL everyone wanted us to so badly draft except he had a year's experience.
and for people who actually watch cowboys games they'd notice a very heavy rotation on the dl.
a guy like crawford was going to play major snaps by anyone with a brain's estimation.

would seattle not have been hurt with michael bennett being out all year?
you know their sack leader who doesnt start for them?
what about if bennett and avril had been out?
they could have missed 32 and for this metricthey mean nothing....

the flaw isnt hard to identify.

Hahahaha, my god you just don't get it, you already started with insults and I'd rather not take that route, so let's leave it here, a very intelligant man once told me, you can change dumb by teaching, you can change ugly with plastic surgery but you can't ever ever ever change stubbornness.

 

[Redball Express]

Well, you have to be fair. Belichick, McCarthy and Payton are not in training and are all experienced head coaches.

Wait, that does not excuse Pagano making the playoffs the last two seasons.

Well, fiddlesticks.

The injury excuse is a hard one to use and it is shocking that anyone who thinks about things logically would.

In order for you to assume it is not Garrett, you have to then assume it is the horrible GM who did not give him the talent.

You absolutely cannot have a valid argument to support that without pointing to one, the other, or both.

Well..

I take an overall slant that our players just don't want it bad enough.

This has been going on since the Parcells era and more.

We populate our team with too many lower rung players that are not from top programs so they just flat line in games with pressure.

We don't beat teams with winning records and we don't beat teams with something on the line.

Which means that the composition of the team is just poor.

The character of the team is poor.

The coaching of the team is poor.

The ownership for all its riches..is poor.

Now what?

 

[jterrell]

Hahahaha, my god you just don't get it, you already started with insults and I'd rather not take that route, so let's leave it here, a very intelligant man once told me, you can change dumb by teaching, you can change ugly with plastic surgery but you can't ever ever ever change stubbornness.

get what? that you are yet to make a salient point in the thread? that you misspelled intelligent in a sentence about being dumb? that you ignored every fact in the thread to post drivel?

the metric is bad. there is a ton of evidence as to why the metric is bad.

whether you think injuries should be discounted completely or not it is clear using "expected" starters as the totality for measuring injuries is stupid.

why stupid? because there are non-starters who are REALLY valuable.
there are starters who are marginally valuable.
there are guys who are projected to start yet lose jobs and there are guys who would have made pro bowls had they simply been healthy and on the field.
only a complete donkey weighs all starters the same value to their teams.

 

[Coy]

get what? that you are yet to make a salient point in the thread? that you misspelled intelligent in a sentence about being dumb? that you ignored every fact in the thread to post drivel?

the metric is bad. there is a ton of evidence as to why the metric is bad.

whether you think injuries should be discounted completely or not it is clear using "expected" starters as the totality for measuring injuries is stupid.

why stupid? because there are non-starters who are REALLY valuable.
there are starters who are marginally valuable.
there are guys who are projected to start yet lose jobs and there are guys who would have made pro bowls had they simply been healthy and on the field.
only a complete donkey weighs all starters the same value to their teams.

Bet you'd love to have that donkey's salary.