I miss that swagger TO brought

[tyke1doe]

I don't understand your point. There is no shame in losing. There is shame in quitting.

One team didn't quit and was in it against a top 3 team, the other (Dallas) made the Jags look like the 07 Patriots.

There is no pride, personal or collectively on the Cowboys.

But this thread is about T.O.'s swagger is it not?

We're not talking about the Cowboys quitting, which they did.

But let's examine this.

If the purpose of this thread is to point to T.O.'s swagger to somehow suggest if we had him on this team we would have swagger, how do you measure whether that swagger has any impact?

Well, you do that by examining wins. What's the point of, er, pointing to swagger if your team is still losing?

The Bengals are 2-6. The Bengals have been losing because they've become a T.O. team and not a Cedrick Benson team like they were last year when they won the division.

If T.O. were on this team, displaying his swagger, what makes anyone think we'd be in any better a situation than the 2-6 Bengals? Okay, maybe we would have one more win. Yippee.

That's my point. Swagger doesn't really matter if you're losing. The Cowboys and Bengals are losers. So I don't see how T.O. swagger has accomplished anything for the Bengals. If anything, his presence has gotten that team away from the offense it used to win last year.

Yes, T.O. is still a good player. But he alone aint doing anything for the Bengals.

 

[Kevinicus]

Yeah, you missed 2009 where we improved over 2008, his last year here.

2010 is a debacle. It wouldn't be any better with swollen head Owens. In fact, we'd be worse because the team would be divided again.

2009 was only better because the team lucked out with Austin (thank *** Williams got injured or 2009 would have been far worse than 2008), Romo didn't get hurt, they finally sucked it up at the end of the season. Aside from a few plays here and there it was almost the same type of year. If they could have put Austin and Owens out there, it probably would have been more successful. Of course with the "geniuses" we never would have found Austin.

 

[Baileyneverfailey]

Anybody who doesn't understand why teams keep letting Owens go, including the Cowboys, obviously just doesn't have a very good understanding of interpersonal working relationships, and what effects somebody who does the things TO does has on a team.

 

[Idgit]

This thread sucks.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I don't think there were that many folks who questioned rather he could actually still play at a high level.

There are a few.

Most didn't want him here anymore cause he can't keep his mouth shut, says the wrong things (even when its not his intention for them to come out the wrong way) and he's on the wrong side of 35.

Yes he's doing his thing still.

Yes he might still do it for another year or two.

But would you have rather had, honestly now, TO for 2-3 more seasons of production or Miles Austin and the potential of having him for another 8-10 years of production?

It's a no brainer for the long run at the WR for the Dallas Cowboys. Plus if you still had TO here, with Roy and Austin (maybe, he might have been moved if TO was still here) the you certainly wouldn't have Bryant.

Bryant and Austin is infinately better than TO and anyone for the present, and future, of this team.

 

[Hostile]

Anybody who doesn't understand why teams keep letting Owens go, including the Cowboys, obviously just doesn't have a very good understanding of interpersonal working relationships, and what effects somebody who does the things TO does has on a team.

No kidding.

We got lucky that the team came together after the cancer was removed.

 

[TheDude]

But this thread is about T.O.'s swagger is it not?

We're not talking about the Cowboys quitting, which they did.

But let's examine this.

If the purpose of this thread is to point to T.O.'s swagger to somehow suggest if we had him on this team we would have swagger, how do you measure whether that swagger has any impact?

Well, you do that by examining wins. What's the point of, er, pointing to swagger if your team is still losing?

The Bengals are 2-6. The Bengals have been losing because they've become a T.O. team and not a Cedrick Benson team like they were last year when they won the division.

If T.O. were on this team, displaying his swagger, what makes anyone think we'd be in any better a situation than the 2-6 Bengals? Okay, maybe we would have one more win. Yippee.

That's my point. Swagger doesn't really matter if you're losing. The Cowboys and Bengals are losers. So I don't see how T.O. swagger has accomplished anything for the Bengals. If anything, his presence has gotten that team away from the offense it used to win last year.

Yes, T.O. is still a good player. But he alone aint doing anything for the Bengals.

Football is not a a binary. Palmer is a shell of his former self, their defense is not having the year they had last year. Their CBs are not playing as well.

And they are ARE only 1 win ahead of this franchise. However, From a pride/swagger perspective - that team DID NOT quit. This one did.

The are NO players on the cowboys who inspire or try to get it turned around. At least TO was made and throwing expletives for losing. He caught balls in crunch time and took big hits and the team came within 14 yards of winning.

So yes I think SWAGGER/PRIDE does matter. You will NEVER see a Baltimore or Pitt team get ROLLED 3 straight weeks and refuse to tackle, etc,etc

I am not saying TO himself should still be here, but I would like to see Ware stand up a RB and rip the ball out w/ brute force, see Sensabugh level a WR, See Barberuse a stiff arm, etc.

Since Romo went out I think we have played 10+ quarters of
NY : 34-15
Jax : 35-17
GB : 45-7
114-39

I doubt you will find any other team in recent memory to do that. And that is the point of opining about swagger. I would rather get beat by 7 than 21 anyday

 

[TheDude]

Yeah, you missed 2009 where we improved over 2008, his last year here.

2010 is a debacle. It wouldn't be any better with swollen head Owens. In fact, we'd be worse because the team would be divided again.

Lets assume we win the Rams game in 2008. That 1 win makes the final Philly game irrelevant. Lets say we win the NYG game - that gives you the same record as 2010.

2009 you got Felix back and he took over at year end in additon to the D shutting people down the last 3 weeks in 2009 as opposed to allowing 2 80+ yard touchdowns to the ...RAVENS.

2008 was a failure from ROmo's injury (and some genius sticking with BJ) 1st. and 2nd the collapse of the D in critical spots and 3rd not having Felix all year. The beginning of 2008 was as expected until Washington and the 0 touches for Felix followed by Romos injury.

2009 was a good year in Dec, but starting at 2-2 and being handled by KC until austin cut loose was not planned - or Austin would have started from day 1.

Anyway, you'll see that 2008 was all about Chemistry and TO and 2009 was great.

Both ended in embarrassment.

 

[TheDude]

I don't think there were that many folks who questioned rather he could actually still play at a high level.

There are a few.

Most didn't want him here anymore cause he can't keep his mouth shut, says the wrong things (even when its not his intention for them to come out the wrong way) and he's on the wrong side of 35.

Yes he's doing his thing still.

Yes he might still do it for another year or two.

But would you have rather had, honestly now, TO for 2-3 more seasons of production or Miles Austin and the potential of having him for another 8-10 years of production?

It's a no brainer for the long run at the WR for the Dallas Cowboys. Plus if you still had TO here, with Roy and Austin (maybe, he might have been moved if TO was still here) the you certainly wouldn't have Bryant.

Bryant and Austin is infinately better than TO and anyone for the present, and future, of this team.

No there were many who said he couldn't do anything on the field.

And you may be correct about the last point, but Bryant wasn't even a discussion in 2008, so its a moot point. i think the WR corp is fine, so I don't miss him being here but 2 things P me off about that situation

1st, the panick that RW11 was needed for a King's ransom when i think Austin and Hurd could have provided just as valuable contributions at much less price. i hate the fact the 1st rounder in 2009 cost an OL or safety.

2nd, everyone bought into 1 thing being the scapegoat when there are fundamental problems with the organization starting with talent evaluation and personell usage. Those issues only exacerbated from the end of 08 through 09 and worse into 10

 

[TheDude]

No kidding.

We got lucky that the team came together after the cancer was removed.

By coming together, you mean 2-2 starting in 2009 with wins over powerhouses Tampa(3-13) and Carolina (8-8) and losses to NYG (opening Jerry's world) and Denver? Then in KC (4-12) was flat putting the wood to us when Austin finally gets his first start, and finally making up for the lack of production at WR. After that there was an increased role for Felix.

They came together sooo much after TO was gone they were a .500 team through 1/4 of the season and lost the home opener. Way to rally due to all that emotion from a non TO team....Selective memories

 

[Hostile]

Lets assume we win the Rams game in 2008. That 1 win makes the final Philly game irrelevant. Lets say we win the NYG game - that gives you the same record as 2010.

2009 you got Felix back and he took over at year end in additon to the D shutting people down the last 3 weeks in 2009 as opposed to allowing 2 80+ yard touchdowns to the ...RAVENS.

2008 was a failure from ROmo's injury (and some genius sticking with BJ) 1st. and 2nd the collapse of the D in critical spots and 3rd not having Felix all year. The beginning of 2008 was as expected until Washington and the 0 touches for Felix followed by Romos injury.

2009 was a good year in Dec, but starting at 2-2 and being handled by KC until austin cut loose was not planned - or Austin would have started from day 1.

Anyway, you'll see that 2008 was all about Chemistry and TO and 2009 was great.

Both ended in embarrassment.

I am no good at what if games at all, and I won't pretend to be. But I can usually at least understand the point someone is trying to make.

Winning the Giants game in 2008 gives us the same record as 2010? 1-7 in 2010.

 

[Hostile]

By coming together, you mean 2-2 starting in 2009 with wins over powerhouses Tampa(3-13) and Carolina (8-8) and losses to NYG (opening Jerry's world) and Denver? Then in KC (4-12) was flat putting the wood to us when Austin finally gets his first start, and finally making up for the lack of production at WR. After that there was an increased role for Felix.

They came together sooo much after TO was gone they were a .500 team through 1/4 of the season and lost the home opener. Way to rally due to all that emotion from a non TO team....Selective memories

I deem coming together to be a team full of guys who genuinely like, respected, and enjoyed playing together.

I happen to know for a fact that Tony Romo was relieved when TO was gone. Miles Austin too. There were plenty of others.

 

[TheDude]

I am no good at what if games at all, and I won't pretend to be. But I can usually at least understand the point someone is trying to make.

Winning the Giants game in 2008 gives us the same record as 2010? 1-7 in 2010.

No winning 2 of 3 while Romo was injured in 2008 would have gotten us to 10-6 and in the playoffs. Winning all 3 (assuming no injury which is relevent to compare to 2009) would give us 11-5 - same record as 2009

I understand "ifs", but to put 2009 on a pedastal that it was a banner year and compare it to "vast improvements to 2008" is disingenuous when you Romo is out for 3 games in 2008 and BJ couldn't beat the RAMS.

2009 and 2008 were not vastly different excluding the romo injury. Especially the last game of the year

 

[TheDude]

I deem coming together to be a team full of guys who genuinely like, respected, and enjoyed playing together.

I happen to know for a fact that Tony Romo was relieved when TO was gone. Miles Austin too. There were plenty of others.

I deem this team to be your huckleberry then, they seem to exhibit all the qualifications you espouse. Chemistry, love, and fluff is 1-7 going on 1-8 and likely to et beat by +20 3+ games in a row.

I could care less that TO isn't here, But it is laughable almost to physical injury that solely by ridding itself of TO vaulted the 2009 Cowboys to elite status, but where the excuse for 2010? Why did they decide to wait 4 games to "come together", Why did Garrett refuse to play/start Austin/Jones more in the first 4 games? Why did TO give up 2 80+ yard runs in 08 to the Ravens, Why did the defense wait until the last 3 weeks to basically pitch shuouts in 09 as opposed to the beginning when the relief of a sansTO team was fresh.

TO was a scapegoat. The team lives and dies by Romo being on the field. Thinking it was all TO set positive tangible decision making back 2 years. We though "We're OK" need depth in 2009. We thought, "we won a wildcard plyoff game last year - make changes - nope, we're good"

 

[Hostile]

I deem this team to be your huckleberry then, they seem to exhibit all the qualifications you espouse. Chemistry, love, and fluff is 1-7 going on 1-8 and likely to et beat by +20 3+ games in a row.

I could care less that TO isn't here, But it is laughable almost to physical injury that solely by ridding itself of TO vaulted the 2009 Cowboys to elite status, but where the excuse for 2010? Why did they decide to wait 4 games to "come together", Why did Garrett refuse to play/start Austin/Jones more in the first 4 games? Why did TO give up 2 80+ yard runs in 08 to the Ravens, Why did the defense wait until the last 3 weeks to basically pitch shuouts in 09 as opposed to the beginning when the relief of a sansTO team was fresh.

TO was a scapegoat. The team lives and dies by Romo being on the field. Thinking it was all TO set positive tangible decision making back 2 years. We though "We're OK" need depth in 2009. We thought, "we won a wildcard plyoff game last year - make changes - nope, we're good"

I love that part.

You're no daisy, you're no daisy at all. Poor soul, he was just too high strung.

 

[TheDude]

I love that part.

You're no daisy, you're no daisy at all. Poor soul, he was just too high strung.

Love that movie...I pulled out a Monty Python and Holy Grail in another thread...must be movie quote day

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

So he is a turd with swagger...he is still a turd and I am glad he and his ego are gone.

The turd was flushed by multiple teams and he will be flushed again sooner or later.

T.O. stands for Turd Overflow.

 

[DallasGirl50]

Glad he's gone. Pain in the arse!

 

[TellerMorrow34]

2009 was only better because the team lucked out with Austin (thank *** Williams got injured or 2009 would have been far worse than 2008), Romo didn't get hurt, they finally sucked it up at the end of the season. Aside from a few plays here and there it was almost the same type of year. If they could have put Austin and Owens out there, it probably would have been more successful. Of course with the "geniuses" we never would have found Austin.

Well you can forget about Austin being found, and having that break out last year if TO had been kept.

That would have meant when Roy went down it would have been TO and Crayton starting.

No Miles Austin in Dallas. He'd be doing his thing somewhere else.

There is absolutely no argument that can be made, no matter how much someone likes TO, that this team would have been better off for the present, and especially the future, if TO had been kept last year.

 

[stilltheguru]

lol funny guys