Leadership, Heart, and Chemistry...

[jday]

Here's a link to a semi-Cowboys related article I just read, which struck a chord that I will eloborate on once you've read the following excerpt.

http://www.nfl.com/combine/story?id=09000d5d80ec172d&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true

"I knew I had to make an impression, and when we had a meeting at minicamp, Bill Parcells said the only way most of us were going to make it was on special teams," Ratliff said. "I didn't stop and look at the roster numbers or how deep we were on the defensive line. I looked at the special-teams depth chart.
"I had small goals: To make the team, to find my role on special teams and then be active on game days. I also made sure I knew everything. My techniques were solid, and I hustled in drills. In drills, I always ran back to the huddle, and nobody else really did, and the coaches liked that because everybody else started doing it.
"I knew my playbook, too. I didn't make a lot of mental errors. I always looked back and said that some of the guys who went to the combine and played in those all-star games and did a lot of that other stuff might have forgotten about the little things that got them invited there. I didn't forget. I worked harder because I didn't get what they did."
Added Smith: "When I made the Pro Bowl, of course I wanted to go around and puff my chest out and say to a lot of people, 'You didn't want to give me a chance, and now look.' But that's not who I am. I just went about being me, and I tried to stay humble. You don't want to make people feel stupid. They know they messed up.
"I really wouldn't change things. It's who made me what I am. It's how I got to the best situation. The way I got here, more than anything else, made me respect the process, the game and made me want it even more."

Much has been made of the lack of leadership, heart and chemistry within the Cowboys team, but the more I read about it, the more I believe that these words are catch phrases to explain away the pain of loss. It as though we don't want to accept the fact that this team just wasn't ready to make that plunge and, despite popular opinion, this season's failure was the result of a team (coaches included) effort or lack thereof. That having been said, what do these words "Leadership," Heart," and "Chemistry" really mean?

No leaders? Clearly, there are leaders on this team. Ware, Hamlin, Ratliff, Z. Thomas, Barber, T.O., G. Ellis, K. Davis, just to name a few, are all regarded as leaders. Be it by example or vocally, these players set a standard. Honestly, how many leaders does a team need to be successful? If you look at Baltimore, there is only one true alpha dog known as the infamous Ray Lewis. He is the heart and soul of that team. So perhaps it's that there are too many chief's and not enough indians on this team. That I would be more inclined to believe, but even still, I'm not ready to pigeon-hole that as the reason for the Cowboys decline.

No heart? I know all about heart on a personal level. I was in the Army Infantry. And though I never saw battle, there were plenty of several mile runs and marches on very little sleep that I had to complete to teach me all about digging deep inside myself to accomplish something that my mind kept telling me I couldn't. And when I look back on that time, I can see that players who even make it to the NFL most likely have endured similar circumstances. So while I cannot say this team has heart, I can say they, at least, know what having heart is all about. Therefore, if every player on this team has had to use their heart to get them through those tough situations just to make it to the NFL level, describing a team on a whole as "Heartless" is illogical. Can anyone name an instance where a loss came as a result of this team being heartless without the presence of a more viable reason?

No Chemistry? As we are told at a very young age, sometimes you have to work with people you don't like; that's a part of life. You may not agree with your co-worker, but that is no excuse for your performance to suffer. Can any of you honestly say you have successfully justified your failures in life by pinning the blame on how well you got along with someone else? My guess is going to be that no one can say they have been able to do that. So why, then, should a football team be any different? On the surface, it may seem like the teams that are winning are one big happy family. But the reality is, it is so easy to get along with others when your team is winning. The team cohesion, in most cases, is a result of the winning, not the other way around.

The Cowboys had to endure quite a few hardships and injuries to get as far as they did. I could point fingers at alot of issues, but none of those issues are the result of one person, one deficiency, or one popluar catch phrase.

I guess my point is, it's easy to throw these media-induced words around in conversation and look like you know something. It's easy to throw Wade, Jerry Jones, and Jason Garrett under the bus. It's easy to peg T.O. as a cancer. But the truth is, that really is the easy explanation, that, IMHO, falls far of the mark. There are far too many variables out there that determine the outcome of a season, and with parity being added to the equation, with scenarios like another 9-7 team representing the NFC in the Super Bowl, words like "Leadership," "Heart," and "Chemistry" begin to lose their meaning from overuse.

 

[Idgit]

Great post, great quotes, jday.

 

[adbutcher]

Here's a link to a semi-Cowboys related article I just read, which struck a chord that I will eloborate on once you've read the following excerpt.

http://www.nfl.com/combine/story?id=09000d5d80ec172d&template=with-video-with-comments&confirm=true



Much has been made of the lack of leadership, heart and chemistry within the Cowboys team, but the more I read about it, the more I believe that these words are catch phrases to explain away the pain of loss. It as though we don't want to accept the fact that this team just wasn't ready to make that plunge and, despite popular opinion, this season's failure was the result of a team (coaches included) effort or lack thereof. That having been said, what do these words "Leadership," Heart," and "Chemistry" really mean?

No leaders? Clearly, there are leaders on this team. Ware, Hamlin, Ratliff, Z. Thomas, Barber, T.O., G. Ellis, K. Davis, just to name a few, are all regarded as leaders. Be it by example or vocally, these players set a standard. Honestly, how many leaders does a team need to be successful? If you look at Baltimore, there is only one true alpha dog known as the infamous Ray Lewis. He is the heart and soul of that team. So perhaps it's that there are too many chief's and not enough indians on this team. That I would be more inclined to believe, but even still, I'm not ready to pigeon-hole that as the reason for the Cowboys decline.

No heart? I know all about heart on a personal level. I was in the Army Infantry. And though I never saw battle, there were plenty of several mile runs and marches on very little sleep that I had to complete to teach me all about digging deep inside myself to accomplish something that my mind kept telling me I couldn't. And when I look back on that time, I can see that players who even make it to the NFL most likely have endured similar circumstances. So while I cannot say this team has heart, I can say they, at least, know what having heart is all about. Therefore, if every player on this team is had to use their heart to get them through those tough situations just to make it to the NFL level, describing a team on a whole as "Heartless" is illogical. Can anyone name an instance where a loss came as a result of this team being heartless without the presence of a more viable reason?

No Chemistry? As we are told at a very young age, sometimes you have to work with people you don't like; that's a part of life. You may not agree with your co-worker, but that is no excuse for your performance to suffer. Can any of you honestly say you have successfully justified your failures in life by pinning the blame on how well you got along with someone else? My guess is going to be that no one can say they have being able to do that. So why, then, should a football team be any different? On the surface, it may seem like the teams that are winning are one big happy family. But the reality is, it is so easy to get along with others when your team is winning. The team cohesion, in most cases, is a result of the winning, not the other way around.

The Cowboys had to endure quite a few hardships and injuries to get as far as they did. I could point fingers at alot of issues, but none of those issues are the result of one person, one deficiency, or one popluar catch phrase.

I guess my point is, it's easy to throw these media-induced words around in conversation and look like you know something. It's easy to throw Wade, Jerry Jones, and Jason Garrett under the bus. It's easy to peg T.O. as a cancer. But the truth is, that really is the easy explanation, that, IMHO, falls far of the mark. There are far too many variables out there that determine the outcome of a season, and with parity being added to the equation, with scenarios like another 9-7 team representing the NFC in the Super Bowl, words like "Leadership," "Heart," and "Chemistry" begin to lose their meaning from overuse.

Bravo sir! Great post in its entirety.

 

[jday]

Great post, great quotes, jday.

Bravo sir! Great post in its entirety.

Thanks for reading...

 

[adbutcher]

Thanks for reading...

De nada, just post more.

 

[CIWhitefish]

Awesome post. It's easy to paint the team with a broad brush, and lazy if you ask me.

 

[Doomsay]

I agree with you that the elements of character and unity are difficult to discern in an contemporary professional team, but many of the Cowboys' shortcomings are obvious.

Leadership
Wade doesn't have any due to: His facilitating and weak personal character and Jerry's constant undermining of his position. Players don't fear or respect him and it's obvious that he doesn't have the fortitude to change the situation - he slid out of Valley ranch w/o addressing the team in December and has done nothing but support Jerry's ridiculous actions since the end of the season.

While we have many players that lead by example, it would appear that none have become true team leaders in a vocal sense - big difference, just ask any of the early '90's players.

Heart
Hard to describe - players giving up on tackles, blocks and routes (which I saw a lot of) seems heartless. Their loss to the Eagles seemed "Heartless" to me they just sort of gave up and began to yell at each other.

Chemistry
Sorry, this is the easiest one. I've never seen so many internal battles go public on a Cowboys team. Chemistry doesn't mean that players have to like each other, it does mean that they have to work together for a common goal, not whine publicly on the sidelines or criticize each other and coaches in the press.

Any number of respectable x-Cowboys from the distant and not-too-distant past have shared these concerns regarding this team's makeup. While not in the immediate locker room, I'm sure that they can read the tea-leaves better than anybody, and they see this dysfunctional organization for what it has become.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Chemistry
Sorry, this is the easiest one. I've never seen so many internal battles go public on a Cowboys team. Chemistry doesn't mean that players have to like each other, it does mean that they have to work together for a common goal, not whine publicly on the sidelines or criticize each other and coaches in the press.

As much as I criticize BP (I think he's overrated), I must admit that there were no "snitches" under his watch. And we have basically the same players.

 

[DallasEast]

"Success is the sum of small efforts, repeated day in and day out... "
- Robert Collier

Great teams succeed where lesser teams fail by taking care of the small details over the course of an entire season. Tackling. Execution. Fundamentals. Consistency. Accuracy. Flexibility. All are small details. Likewise, so are dedication and focus. There is always room to work on other small details such as chemistry, etc.

To be the best, teams must work on perfecting everything, no matter how large or small. Avoiding or dismissing parts of its overall strategy will only leave a team questioning why it fell short of its goals and wanting more.

Matching all the pieces of a puzzle together makes a picture whole. Omit a piece and your mosaic is incomplete. Poor or even good teams are full of holes. Great teams have very few holes or none at all.

The media and fans alike question why this or that happened to the 2008 Dallas Cowboys. Some topics are discussed far more often than they should. Is that fair? Possibly not. Should topics be discussed far less or not at all? That depends. If a detail, no matter how small, has been addressed to leave zero doubt, the answer is yes. If not, the answer is no.

However, it is forever how a team itself addresses the small details which matters most of all. Coaches. Players. Front office. How each person corrects and/or improves upon elements which are controllable allows the team as a whole to endure and succeed in the face of the small things which are not uncontrollable (i.e. injuries). How someone avoids or not acknowledge that which can be made better does the exact opposite.

Here's to the success of the 2009 Dallas Cowboys. May they all attempt to be on the same page and confront every issue, both large and small, head on and decisively. Being proactive about the small things matters most... before they can grow large and potentially blow unrealized success completely out of the water.

 

[Vtwin]

Leadership, heart and chemistry didn't become buzzwords for no reason. Likewise, those words aren't being used in many discussions about the Cowboys for no reason.

Parity has only made these intangibles more important then ever. Position by position are the Steelers a better team then the Cowboys? When the Cowboys had the Steelers (and their playoff future) in the palm of their hands what did they do?

Same could be said about the Arizona game or the Baltimore game or the Eagles debacle. Which one of those teams is more talented then the Cowboys?

What was it that allowed these four teams to snatch what should have been victories from the Cowboys? Could it possibly have been that they simply wanted it more as a team? Could it have been because they were LEAD to believe that if they played hard for four quarters they could win?

All the CRAP that came out of the locker room in the final weeks is an example of an attitude that reflects any of these three characteristics?

It's probably not as bad as the most vocal would have us believe but to not acknowledge that there is a void that needs to be filled is looking through blue colored glasses.

Where there is smoke there is fire.

 

[jday]

Leadership
Wade doesn't have any due to: His facilitating and weak personal character and Jerry's constant undermining of his position. Players don't fear or respect him and it's obvious that he doesn't have the fortitude to change the situation - he slid out of Valley ranch w/o addressing the team in December and has done nothing but support Jerry's ridiculous actions since the end of the season.

While we have many players that lead by example, it would appear that none have become true team leaders in a vocal sense - big difference, just ask any of the early '90's players.

The unfortunate part of this perspective is the source: the media. If there is anything that we should have learned from the season, the media, inclusive of every writer from Spagnolia to ESPN, is going to write what sells. The hot item ticket of this year was drama. For example, Jerry Jones made a rather harmless comment about his thinking that Marion Barber would play; further stating that, according to the training staff, he could have played. This, for some reason, turned into a headline monster stating that Jerry Jones was calling Marion Barber a wuss. To me, this was neither said nor implied, but the damage was done none the less.

As far as former team mates, it's hard to term their stances as credible, as the ones I'm sure you are referring to are now also members of the media. Do not think for a second that these former players won't sell out their former team for ratings.

Heart
Hard to describe - players giving up on tackles, blocks and routes (which I saw a lot of) seems heartless. Their loss to the Eagles seemed "Heartless" to me they just sort of gave up and began to yell at each other.

Yes, but there were other forces at work. The Eagles had the momentum coming into the game stemming from the unlikely happening with the two losses placing them in play off contention, homefield advantage, and many balls that just seemed to bounce their way.

Chemistry
Sorry, this is the easiest one. I've never seen so many internal battles go public on a Cowboys team. Chemistry doesn't mean that players have to like each other, it does mean that they have to work together for a common goal, not whine publicly on the sidelines or criticize each other and coaches in the press.

I'll agree that making many of the problem's public was an issue, but I find it hard to believe that these issue's are new. Every locker room has it problems and clashing of ego's; that doesn't mean that the team will be any less successful come game day. From what I have read (and I read alot), the type of internal arguments these players were having aren't uncommon.

 

[jday]

"Success is the sum of small efforts, repeated day in and day out... "
- Robert Collier

Great teams succeed where lesser teams fail by taking care of the small details over the course of an entire season. Tackling. Execution. Fundamentals. Consistency. Accuracy. Flexibility. All are small details. Likewise, so are dedication and focus. There is always room to work on other small details such as chemistry, etc.

To be the best, teams must work on perfecting everything, no matter how large or small. Avoiding or dismissing parts of its overall strategy will only leave a team questioning why it fell short of its goals and wanting more.

Matching all the pieces of a puzzle together makes a picture whole. Omit a piece and your mosaic is incomplete. Poor or even good teams are full of holes. Great teams have very few holes or none at all.

The media and fans alike question why this or that happened to the 2008 Dallas Cowboys. Some topics are discussed far more often than they should. Is that fair? Possibly not. Should topics be discussed far less or not at all? That depends. If a detail, no matter how small, has been addressed to leave zero doubt, the answer is yes. If not, the answer is no.

However, it is forever how a team itself addresses the small details which matters most of all. Coaches. Players. Front office. How each person corrects and/or improves upon elements which are controllable allows the team as a whole to endure and succeed in the face of the small things which are not uncontrollable (i.e. injuries). How someone avoids or not acknowledge that which can be made better does the exact opposite.

Here's to the success of the 2009 Dallas Cowboys. May they all attempt to be on the same page and confront every issue, both large and small, head on and decisively. Being proactive about the small things matters most... before they can grow large and potentially blow unrealized success completely out of the water.

Well said.

 

[adbutcher]

The unfortunate part of this perspective is the source: the media. If there is anything that we should have learned from the season, the media, inclusive of every writer from Spagnolia to ESPN, is going to write what sells. The hot item ticket of this year was drama. For example, Jerry Jones made a rather harmless comment about his thinking that Marion Barber would play; further stating that, according to the training staff, he could have played. This, for some reason, turned into a headline monster stating that Jerry Jones was calling Marion Barber a wuss. To me, this was neither said nor implied, but the damage was done none the less.

As far as former team mates, it's hard to term their stances as credible, as the ones I'm sure you are referring to are now also members of the media. Do not think for a second that these former players won't sell out their former team for ratings.



Yes, but there were other forces at work. The Eagles had the momentum coming into the game stemming from the unlikely happening with the two losses placing them in play off contention, homefield advantage, and many balls that just seemed to bounce their way.



I'll agree that making many of the problem's public was an issue, but I find it hard to believe that these issue's are new. Every locker room has it problems and clashing of ego's; that doesn't mean that the team will be any less successful come game day. From what I have read (and I read alot), the type of internal arguments these players were having aren't uncommon.

Bingo, and they won't go away even if TO is no longer on the team. From office cliques to locker room cliques human frailties will always prevail. Yet we some how overcome them to succeed.

 

[adbutcher]

"Success is the sum of small efforts, repeated day in and day out... "
- Robert Collier

Great teams succeed where lesser teams fail by taking care of the small details over the course of an entire season. Tackling. Execution. Fundamentals. Consistency. Accuracy. Flexibility. All are small details. Likewise, so are dedication and focus. There is always room to work on other small details such as chemistry, etc.

To be the best, teams must work on perfecting everything, no matter how large or small. Avoiding or dismissing parts of its overall strategy will only leave a team questioning why it fell short of its goals and wanting more.

Matching all the pieces of a puzzle together makes a picture whole. Omit a piece and your mosaic is incomplete. Poor or even good teams are full of holes. Great teams have very few holes or none at all.

The media and fans alike question why this or that happened to the 2008 Dallas Cowboys. Some topics are discussed far more often than they should. Is that fair? Possibly not. Should topics be discussed far less or not at all? That depends. If a detail, no matter how small, has been addressed to leave zero doubt, the answer is yes. If not, the answer is no.

However, it is forever how a team itself addresses the small details which matters most of all. Coaches. Players. Front office. How each person corrects and/or improves upon elements which are controllable allows the team as a whole to endure and succeed in the face of the small things which are not uncontrollable (i.e. injuries). How someone avoids or not acknowledge that which can be made better does the exact opposite.

Here's to the success of the 2009 Dallas Cowboys. May they all attempt to be on the same page and confront every issue, both large and small, head on and decisively. Being proactive about the small things matters most... before they can grow large and potentially blow unrealized success completely out of the water.

Another great post, thanks.

 

[jday]

Leadership, heart and chemistry didn't become buzzwords for no reason. Likewise, those words aren't being used in many discussions about the Cowboys for no reason.

Parity has only made these intangibles more important then ever. Position by position are the Steelers a better team then the Cowboys? When the Cowboys had the Steelers (and their playoff future) in the palm of their hands what did they do?

Same could be said about the Arizona game or the Baltimore game or the Eagles debacle. Which one of those teams is more talented then the Cowboys?

What was it that allowed these four teams to snatch what should have been victories from the Cowboys? Could it possibly have been that they simply wanted it more as a team? Could it have been because they were LEAD to believe that if they played hard for four quarters they could win?

All the CRAP that came out of the locker room in the final weeks is an example of an attitude that reflects any of these three characteristics?

It's probably not as bad as the most vocal would have us believe but to not acknowledge that there is a void that needs to be filled is looking through blue colored glasses.

Where there is smoke there is fire.

There is only one hole in your argument: Your premise assumes the Cowboy's are a more talented team than the Cardinals, Eagles, Ravens, and Steelers. But by what measure did you come to this conclusion? Was it the Cowboy's 2007 win/loss record, which could have just as easily been 9-7 given the number of close games? Is it the record breaking 13 Pro Bowlers we sent, which featured 3 players from an OL that was improved solely by the play of Romo and Roy Williams whom I think we can all agree did not deserve to go? Or did you just rob your assessment from all the mediots terming the Cowboys as the paper champions earlier in the year?

If ever there was a year where a collective of fans was set up for a big disappointment it was this year. I cannot think of a more disappointing year...and this is in large part to all the different elements that came together to set us up for an epic failure in our perspective. The obvious is the aforementioned 07 win/loss ratio, the 13 pro bowlers, and the media's take on it, which in large part only considered the first two elements. Then there was this being the final year of Texas Stadium. Add to that what looked to be (and was actually) a very successful offseason, and many of us were ready to bet everything we had on the Cowboys success this year.

But there were signs out there of issues that we ignored because we wanted so badly to believe our team was great. And now that we have been proven wrong, we would rather pin the blame to intangible elements to assuage away the idea that we allowed ourselves to be setup for a big disappointment.

Granted, a lack of leadership, heart, and chemistry may have played a part in the ultimate failures. But, honestly, if this team was completely devoid of those traits, IMHO, the win/loss record would have been much worse.

 

[Doomsay]

The unfortunate part of this perspective is the source: the media. ...... for some reason, turned into a headline monster stating that Jerry Jones was calling Marion Barber a wuss. To me, this was neither said nor implied, but the damage was done none the less..

Blame the media? Without Jerry and the players providing ample content, they wouldn't have much to work with. Example, NE: During the whole spygate thing the current team remained united and closed to the media. Who knows what Jerry was implying with those stupid comments RE Barber? Clearly he should have just shut up, he's so incoherent at times that I'm sure things get perverted in the media, but that's mostly Mr. I have to have my own radio show's fault.

As far as former team mates, it's hard to term their stances as credible, as the ones I'm sure you are referring to are now also members of the media. Do not think for a second that these former players won't sell out their former team for ratings..

Yeah, like Staubach and Woodson? What sellouts those guys are.

Yes, but there were other forces at work. The Eagles had the momentum coming into the game stemming from the unlikely happening with the two losses placing them in play off contention, homefield advantage, and many balls that just seemed to bounce their way.

Yeah, we had nothing to play for, like living up to our Super Bowl hype or wanting to avenge out pathetic unprecedented top seed 1st round failure in the playoffs last year, or the fact that we beat the Eagles in the first meeting of the season, or that we wanted to get the ugly disgraceful loss of the last game at sacred Texas stadium in front of past Cowboy heroes off our conscience.

I'll agree that making many of the problem's public was an issue, but I find it hard to believe that these issue's are new. Every locker room has it problems and clashing of ego's; that doesn't mean that the team will be any less successful come game day. From what I have read (and I read alot), the type of internal arguments these players were having aren't uncommon.

I'm glad you read a lot, because you probably noticed that this level of public dissention is not common on championship teams. No successful NFL team ***** and backstabs this much publicly. You can't blame the media for this leaderless circus that has developed since Bill left. Again, Bill wasn't my favorite game day coach, but he got these guys going in a positive direction and kept a lid on damaging public outbursts despite having to deal with TO.

Given the choice, I'd take talent over chemistry because you can bring in a coach to fix the latter. That can't happen under Wade - he's proved that over history, it probably won't happen until Jerry is gone or he has an unlikely epiphany that allows real football people to run and coach this team.

 

[Vtwin]

There is only one hole in your argument: Your premise assumes the Cowboy's are a more talented team than the Cardinals, Eagles, Ravens, and Steelers. But by what measure did you come to this conclusion? Was it the Cowboy's 2007 win/loss record, which could have just as easily been 9-7 given the number of close games? Is it the record breaking 13 Pro Bowlers we sent, which featured 3 players from an OL that was improved solely by the play of Romo and Roy Williams whom I think we can all agree did not deserve to go? Or did you just rob your assessment from all the mediots terming the Cowboys as the paper champions earlier in the year?

Well, I didn't say that they were more talented. I didn't even use the word "talent". I ask again; position by position are the Steelers a better team then the Cowboys? My opinion is, no. They showed fire and heart and earned that victory as a team by winning it at the end when it mattered. Conversly, Dallas had the game won and lost in the end. Numerous times! With their playoff lives on the line!

My theorys come from observation and from trying to sift through the layers of crap the media shoves at us. I never take some self described journalist's opinion as gospel without applying my own filters to it first. Last years success has little to do with my opinions on this teams talent level. They got all the breaks last year, facing very little adversity. The difference between 13-3 and 9-7 is not that great in this league as is proved every year.

If ever there was a year where a collective of fans was set up for a big disappointment it was this year. I cannot think of a more disappointing year...and this is in large part to all the different elements that came together to set us up for an epic failure in our perspective. The obvious is the aforementioned 07 win/loss ratio, the 13 pro bowlers, and the media's take on it, which in large part only considered the first two elements. Then there was this being the final year of Texas Stadium. Add to that what looked to be (and was actually) a very successful offseason, and many of us were ready to bet everything we had on the Cowboys success this year.

I agree completely. I really didn't expect an undefeated season. However, who here didn't expect a playoff birth and a real chance at the ring? Yea, Tony went down and that suddenly became harder to accomplish. But then Tony was back and the Cowboys had several chances to win the ONE game they needed to get in the playoffs. They couldn't do it. I did not expect that. I especially didn't expect these games to be lost as they were.

But there were signs out there of issues that we ignored because we wanted so badly to believe our team was great. And now that we have been proven wrong, we would rather pin the blame to intangible elements to assuage away the idea that we allowed ourselves to be setup for a big disappointment.

Yes and no. I'm not sure how you can speak for anyone but yourself as far as as who ignored what goes. Did you really think the Cowboys were going to screw up the Eagles game as bad as they did? The team that walked on to the field to play the Eagles at the very least matched the skill at just about every position but got their butts handed to them. Just because you choose to ignore the affect the intangibles can have doesn't mean they have no affect.

Granted, a lack of leadership, heart, and chemistry may have played a part in the ultimate failures. But, honestly, if this team was completely devoid of those traits, IMHO, the win/loss record would have been much worse.

I don't understand. You are agreeing that these intangibles may have played a part but say that they are not that important and not a significant problem?

Since you agree that the lack of leadership, chemistry and heart "may have played a part in the ultimate failures" then it stands to reason that if this team had the required dose of these intangibles then they would have won the ONE MORE GAME needed to get in the tournament.

I'd have to say that makes them pretty darn important.

 

[jday]

Blame the media? Without Jerry and the players providing ample content, they wouldn't have much to work with. Example, NE: During the whole spygate thing the current team remained united and closed to the media. Who knows what Jerry was implying with those stupid comments RE Barber? Clearly he should have just shut up, he's so incoherent at times that I'm sure things get perverted in the media, but that's mostly Mr. I have to have my own radio show's fault.

Honestly, I believe there are few quotes that have made it through the media filter capturing the orginal intent. I don't take anything that is said or written by the media, particularly when it pertains the Cowboys, seriously. It is a strange phenomenon. Most teams hometown media that I've read from are far more kind in their representation of their team. But the Cowboy's, unfortunatley, have amassed a fairly large following and therefore have invited some pretty skewed press, particularly from those whose predictions were made wrong by this teams performance.

On the other hand, I too hate Jerry Jones perspective that any press is good press. That I couldn't disagree with more.

Yeah, like Staubach and Woodson? What sellouts those guys are.

What has Roger said to support that all the Cowboys issues stem from the aforementioned issues? As far as Rod Woodson, the former Steeler, who is an admitted Cowboy hater, I'm going to have to label his opinion as biased. Call me crazy...

Yeah, we had nothing to play for, like living up to our Super Bowl hype or wanting to avenge out pathetic unprecedented top seed 1st round failure in the playoffs last year, or the fact that we beat the Eagles in the first meeting of the season, or that we wanted to get the ugly disgraceful loss of the last game at sacred Texas stadium in front of past Cowboy heroes off our conscience.

I didn't say the Cowboys didn't have anything play for. But from the moment that we kicked the opening kick off out of bounds, the team just didn't have a spark to rival that of the intensity the Eagles brought.

I'm glad you read a lot, because you probably noticed that this level of public dissention is not common on championship teams. No successful NFL team ***** and backstabs this much publicly. You can't blame the media for this leaderless circus that has developed since Bill left. Again, Bill wasn't my favorite game day coach, but he got these guys going in a positive direction and kept a lid on damaging public outbursts despite having to deal with TO.

Given the choice, I'd take talent over chemistry because you can bring in a coach to fix the latter. That can't happen under Wade - he's proved that over history, it probably won't happen until Jerry is gone or he has an unlikely epiphany that allows real football people to run and coach this team.

I agree with most of what you are saying here. First, I agree that in terms of control Bill was a great coach, but sucked at calling plays and making adjustments. I pick talent over chemistry too, but I don't think Wade is a lost cause. Rules backed by stiff fines can police a team to respect policy, each other, and the power of the media. He can be his same cup cake self. And I also agree that will entail Jerry relinquishing more power to his coach to coach.

But as my thread suggested, the issues with this team extend well beyond the cliched-to-death intangibles like leadership, heart, and chemistry. Yes, they could be a part of the problem, but, in essense, are a mere fraction of the whole issue.

 

[jday]

Well, I didn't say that they were more talented. I didn't even use the word "talent". I ask again; position by position are the Steelers a better team then the Cowboys? My opinion is, no. They showed fire and heart and earned that victory as a team by winning it at the end when it mattered. Conversly, Dallas had the game won and lost in the end. Numerous times! With their playoff lives on the line!

My theorys come from observation and from trying to sift through the layers of crap the media shoves at us. I never take some self described journalist's opinion as gospel without applying my own filters to it first. Last years success has little to do with my opinions on this teams talent level. They got all the breaks last year, facing very little adversity. The difference between 13-3 and 9-7 is not that great in this league as is proved every year.

Semantics. Rather you say they are more talented or more better, it all pretty much means the same thing: You thought the Cowboys, position by position, was the better team and still lost. I think, if you take a close look, you should have known our OL sucked. You should have known Romo made Jason Garrett look great due to his ability to create after the plays called were busted. You should have known Romo trying to emulate Tom Brady was a horrible idea. You should have known that T.O.'s hands are suspect. You should have known Roy Williams doesn't run great routes and wouldn't be on the same page as Romo in this season. You should have known how fragile our QB situation was with Bad "I mean Brad" Johnson as our back up. You should have known Pacman Jones was under a microscope that could very well place our season in jeopardy should he be suspended again. You should have known that Marion Barber was better as a back up RB because of the frequent rest he received sitting on the bench in 07. You should have known the loss of Tony Sparano was a significant loss to Jason Garretts arsenol of genius. You should have known Special Teams, that element that essentially lost us the Cardinals game, would still be an issue. You should have known that this team wasn't as good as the preseason packaging suggested it would be. If your filter did not discern that much, I suggest you get your money back, because you got ripped off.

I agree completely. I really didn't expect an undefeated season. However, who here didn't expect a playoff birth and a real chance at the ring? Yea, Tony went down and that suddenly became harder to accomplish. But then Tony was back and the Cowboys had several chances to win the ONE game they needed to get in the playoffs. They couldn't do it. I did not expect that. I especially didn't expect these games to be lost as they were.

I'm with you. My expectations were shattered, as well. It wasn't until I accepted the end of the Cowboys season and started researching all that happened that I started to gain a little clarity in the matter. And like you, I sifted through all the BS and began constructing my own soul-stroking reasons, only come to the conclusion that due to the aforementioned "Should-have-knowns," I was wrong, the media was wrong, and so were so many other people trying to tie all of whats wrong with the Cowboys to these intangible invisible issues that plague most any team, rather they win or lose.

Yes and no. I'm not sure how you can speak for anyone but yourself as far as as who ignored what goes. Did you really think the Cowboys were going to screw up the Eagles game as bad as they did? The team that walked on to the field to play the Eagles at the very least matched the skill at just about every position but got their butts handed to them. Just because you choose to ignore the affect the intangibles can have doesn't mean they have no affect.

First, I'm not ignoring the affect of these intangibles. I admit they may have an effect. I think the purpose of this thread is indeliberately being twisted everso slightly. I acknowledge that these factors may have an effect. But games were won and lost harboring the same degree of issues. So while you argue "well, if these weren't an issue, we would have won one more game that would have put us in a play offs" I could counter with, "there are games that are lost even when the leadership, heart, and chemistry is at it's best." And then I would most likely cap that off with a "and just as a reminder, even if we would have won the one game needed to get into the play offs, we would have likely lost in the first round, since Romo would have to be replaced by Johnson or Bolinger, due to injury!"

 

[Doomsay]

What has Roger said to support that all the Cowboys issues stem from the aforementioned issues?

Staubach: Distractions doomed Cowboys' season

TAMPA -- Hall of Fame quarterback Roger Staubach said today the Cowboys' off-field drama damaged the team during its slide out of playoff contention.

"I feel there's a lot of stuff that goes on in the locker room that should stay in the locker room," said Staubach, who appeared at the Super Bowl media center to promote next year's final game in Dallas. "And that's a shame because I think the distractions have really hurt the team."

The Cowboys devolved into what seemed like a daily soap opera with receiver Terrell Owens leading a cadre of wideouts unhappy with quarterback Tony Romo. Owens even met with offensive coordinator Jason Garrett about it.

Staubach said receivers were angry with him during his career (1969-1979), but that the frustration didn't leave the locker room.

"You can do that in a way that you're still a team player," Staubaugh said. "You don't go get the rest of the receivers and go meet with the coach. None of that ever happened."

Among other Cowboys items Staubach touched on:

-- He said team owner Jerry Jones does not consult with him on football matters. And he said despite the late-season collapse and the 44-6 loss at Philadelphia in Week 17, the Cowboys can still be contenders next season. "I mean it's still a heck of a football team," he said. "It's not like we're the Detroit Lions. We were 13-3 last year. It can get turned around."

-- Staubach said former Cowboys quarterback Troy Aikman was right to criticize Romo for his vacation to Cabo during the team's January 2008 playoff bye week. Aikman said earlier this month that Romo "hasn't fully grasped what being the Cowboys quarterback is all about."

"Troy was right about that," Staubach said. "I would have said the same thing.

"To take three days off and forget about the season ... it's a momentum thing and you don't do that. ... All of that publicity and all of that Cabo stuff, going into the next week it's a distraction. But that's kind of a maturing process to go through all that."

-- Still, Staubach said he's very confident that Romo is the right person to lead the Cowboys on the field. "There are certain quarterbacks that no matter how bad they play, you know and feel that they're going to figure it out," Staubach said. "And I have not felt that way about a Dallas Cowboys quarterback since Troy Aikman. And I do feel that way about Romo."

As far as Rod Woodson, the former Steeler, who is an admitted Cowboy hater, I'm going to have to label his opinion as biased. Call me crazy...

Pretty sure Darren Woodson was a Cowboy (since I was reffering to x-team mates), and a great one at that.

I didn't say the Cowboys didn't have anything play for. But from the moment that we kicked the opening kick off out of bounds, the team just didn't have a spark to rival that of the intensity the Eagles brought.

Is this because of a sudden loss of talent, or was it due to those other intangibles that you seem to want to minimalize?

I pick talent over chemistry too, but I don't think Wade is a lost cause. Rules backed by stiff fines can police a team to respect policy, each other, and the power of the media. He can be his same cup cake self. And I also agree that will entail Jerry relinquishing more power to his coach to coach.

He can't even face his team, much less discipline them. This guy is a joke as a leader. It's obvious that since the autopilot got switched off sometime in late 2007, he's been just praying for a miracle offensive performance to bail him out every week. Under the leadership of a strong head coach, I think that he can be effective as a DC, but he's no leader and this team will continue to implode under him.