Leadership, Heart, and Chemistry...

[jday]

Thanks, btw, to everyone who has contributed to this thread. I spent the majority of the season exclusively on the Cowboys-forum, prior to finding this site and here is the big difference. I posted this to there site and despite 27 views, I did not get 1 response. Generally, if the contribution is over 50 words, they won't even bother reading it. And even if they do, very seldom do they respond. It's not a critique. There is nothing wrong with that. But I, as the previous may suggest, like to debate and I do so long-winded, so-to-speak. That being said, thanks for arguing and doing so intelligently. For the most part, I think we are all on the same page, we are just in different stages of accepting the tragedy that was this season.

 

[jday]

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."

I agree with what Staubach said. And nowhere did he mention a lack of leadership, heart, or chemistry. Thanks for helping me prove my point.

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

Okay. I stand corrected. So what did Darren Woodson say that contradicts my feelings?

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

If you remember, the first game we played the Eagles, that was a very close game. It's not like the Eagles were just another team. They came to play. I wouldn't term the loss of talent as an issue, but if you want me to point fingers, Romo was injured, the Eagles plan was executed to perfection in exploiting every possible weakness, I've already mentioned momentum, and the other slew of players playing injured, and the many other factors that played a role in their demise. So while it may seem I am trying to "minimalize" the intangibles, I am actually saying that these intangibles are a small part of the many issues. I am further stating that there have been teams who have overcame these issues and won Super Bowls, despite these issues existence.

I just feel that far too much credit is being given to the intangibles, as ammunition for those who still feel they were right about the Cowboys overall talent and entitlement to that "what was not to be" Super Bowl run.

I read that last statement and I can see that it might be a little confusing, so let me try and explain this better. There are those who are using these infamous intangibles as a crutch to limp through the offseason or as a bandaid to cover the deep cut this disappointing season caused; in other words, the lazy approach to explain away the issue. And then there are those who are using these intangibles as an excuse for why their initial assessment of this team was right despite their failure to succeed; the conceited method of argument. And then there are those who are listening and reading the combination of the previous two and using these intangibles just to make themselves seem smart; the insecure/lazy method of argument. And what I'm saying is, there is more to this puzzle. And regardless of what category you represent, even if you represent one I didn't mention, if you really want to talk Cowboys, we've got time, let's dig deeper. Believe me, there is more to it than the popular belief.

 

[28 Joker]

The head coach isn't a leader. He can't assert himself when it concerns the locker room (Terrell Owens' drama) or something as small as managing field position in a tight, defensive football game. When things got rocky, he couldn't lead.

Terrell Owens attempted to label Jason Witten as a "rat". Many followed him.

Greg Ellis isn't a leader. He's part of the problem. Owens is a leader all right. He divides locker rooms and attempts to lay the blame for his poor play on other people. He attempts to discredit his offensive coordinator and quarterback on national televison. Players like Micheal Irvin united his team. Matt Mosley called Owens the "most toxic player in the NFL". What other teams would even have him now? (maybe the Raiders)

I agree with what Todd Haley said about Owens. He told Jerry Jones that he would never win anything while Owens was on his team. The clock is ticking.

9-7
31-3
9-7


Until Tony Romo becomes the sole, dominant leader of the offense and ranks above Owens on the team, this team will go no where. I don't know if Romo has it in him. If he doesn't put Owens in his place, Romo will go down in flames. Owens didn't play like a # 1 WR last season, and if he continues to get # 1 WR treatment, Romo and the Cowboys will suffer the consequences.

 

[jday]

The head coach isn't a leader. He can't assert himself when it concerns the locker room (Terrell Owens' drama) or something as small as managing field position in a tight, defensive football game. When things got rocky, he couldn't lead.

So, you were on the sideline and in the locker room to assess this for yourself, or are you like most people, relying on the media for your belief?

Terrell Owens attempted to label Jason Witten as a "rat". Many followed him.

Are you a ball boy for the franchise or a personal trainer? I don't even recall the media sighting that claim. T.O. may have had his own personal beliefs on who Ed Werder was sighting as an anonymous source, but T.O. never went public with who he thought it was; nor did anyone else. The only ones who speculated on that was the media. And like most things, they fed a feeding frenzy with misinformation.

Greg Ellis isn't a leader. He's part of the problem. Owens is a leader all right. He divides locker rooms and attempts to lay the blame for his poor play on other people. He attempts to discredit his offensive coordinator and quarterback on national televison. Players like Micheal Irvin united his team. Matt Mosley called Owens the "most toxic player in the NFL". What other teams would even have him now? (maybe the Raiders)

First of all, as I've already said, I do take issue with all this being made public; these issues are team issues and should stay that way. However, Terrell Owens didn't say anything about Jason Garrett's offensive approach that Romo, Crayton, other defenses we faced didn't confirm. Everyone, including fans, were complaining about the same things T.O. was complaining about, for the most part. His offense was extremely predictable, which was made obvious be an extremely dismal showing in those final 3 games. But because it's T.O., the media crucified him for it, to make themselves right from when they said bringing T.O. to this team would be a disaster. If it doesn't become a disaster, they will manufacture one. Were it not for the media constantly baiting T.O. into opening his mouth about his frustrations, we probably wouldn't even be having this conversation right now.

I'm not sure why your bringing Ellis into this because I don't remember him ever being an issue this year. Sure, he has been known to be a complainer in past seasons, but this year he was a church mouse.

I agree with what Todd Haley said about Owens. He told Jerry Jones that he would never win anything while Owens was on his team. The clock is ticking.

These types of claimes I think are hilarious. When you say anything are you referring to any game or just the Super Bowl. Because to make Todd Haley right our win/loss ratio would have to be 0 - 16. This team went 13 - 3 the year before, primarily due to Owens efforts. Defenses took him out of the equation this year by placing a Safety over top. With the weapons this offense has, that should have been an advantage, but they never seemed to return to their 2007 form; particularly Romo.

Until Tony Romo becomes the sole, dominant leader of the offense and ranks above Owens on the team, this team will go no where. I don't know if Romo has it in him. If he doesn't put Owens in his place, Romo will go down in flames. Owens didn't play like a # 1 WR last season, and if he continues to get # 1 WR treatment, Romo and the Cowboys will suffer the consequences.

What does that mean, really? It sounds nice, don't get me wrong. But I don't see that being a fix-all for the Cowboys problems. Their issue extend beyond the metaphysical. There's execution, focus, tackling, game planning, game management, football mechanics in every position, that in my opinion, should be the Cowboys biggest concerns in terms of how they played this season. This asking players and coaches to become like our perceived notion of the stars of old is like your wife asking you to be more like the men in her romance novels; it's not gonna happen! And, furthermore, I don't think it's necessary. The history of Super Bowl quarterbacks more than proves that.

 

[Doomsay]

41gy#

The head coach isn't a leader. He can't assert himself when it concerns the locker room (Terrell Owens' drama) or something as small as managing field position in a tight, defensive football game. When things got rocky, he couldn't lead.

jday

So, you were on the sideline and in the locker room to assess this for yourself, or are you like most people, relying on the media for your belief?

You don't need to be in the locker room to see that Wade can't assert himself with this team. He never has as a HC and he never will (nobody will ever elevate him to HC again). This is who Wade is, there has been ample evidence of him coddling this team, no evidence of him getting tough. Again he snuck out the back door when he had his first opportunity to get tough with the 2009 squad at the end of December.

 

[jday]

You don't need to be in the locker room to see that Wade can't assert himself with this team. He never has as a HC and he never will (nobody will ever elevate him to HC again). This is who Wade is, there has been ample evidence of him coddling this team, no evidence of him getting tough. Again he snuck out the back door when he had his first opportunity to get tough with the 2009 squad at the end of December.

Another drama-induced contribution from the media. We don't know if he said anything or not. Personally, I wouldn't be suprised if he thought, given the nature of that loss, that he wouldn't be the coach going forward. I'm sure, if he did in fact leave without a word, he was probably preparing to be dismissed. I mean, just out of curiosity, what would any of you say to a team that performed as badly as the Cowboy's did in that joke of a game against the Eagles? I think I as a coach would have been rendered speechless, and wouldn't even know where to begin criticizing.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Another drama-induced contribution from the media. We don't know if he said anything or not. Personally, I wouldn't be suprised if he thought, given the nature of that loss, that he wouldn't be the coach going forward. I'm sure, if he did in fact leave without a word, he was probably preparing to be dismissed. I mean, just out of curiosity, what would any of you say to a team that performed as badly as the Cowboy's did in that joke of a game against the Eagles? I think I as a coach would have been rendered speechless, and wouldn't even know where to begin criticizing.

That. Also, how much impact would a speech have made at that point? The season was literally over and yes he probabaly did believe that his tenure as Cowboys head coach was over. Everybody else believed it too. Sitting ducks aren't very inspirational, especially when there's no foreseeable tomorrow.

 

[jday]

That. Also, how much impact would a speech have made at that point? The season was literally over and yes he probabaly did believe that his tenure as Cowboys head coach was over. Everybody else believed it too. Sitting ducks aren't very inspirational, especially when there's no foreseeable tomorrow.

That's all I'm saying...

Unlike any other team in the history of the game, everything that comes out of this organization is under a magnifying glass. The issues that result form this are two fold: 1. The media doesn't leave a stone unturned looking for dirt. 2. The slightest issue is going to be expounded into a huge ordeal. I mean, honestly, to measure Wade's ability to coach throwing that out as a reason why he can't is just a little ridiculous, if you think about it!

 

[Doomsay]

Another drama-induced contribution from the media. We don't know if he said anything or not. Personally, I wouldn't be suprised if he thought, given the nature of that loss, that he wouldn't be the coach going forward. I'm sure, if he did in fact leave without a word, he was probably preparing to be dismissed. I mean, just out of curiosity, what would any of you say to a team that performed as badly as the Cowboy's did in that joke of a game against the Eagles? I think I as a coach would have been rendered speechless, and wouldn't even know where to begin criticizing.

Hah, the media again! Too bad this is a fact - Bradie James confirmed it. We do know that he said nothing to the troops and just vanished. He was re-confirmed as HC by Jerry prior to that, and Wade had already given his get "tough speech" to the press. The tougher the situation, the greater the need to address it. Instead, he just left / went on vacation...sound familiar?

 

[Doomsay]

That's all I'm saying...

Unlike any other team in the history of the game, everything that comes out of this organization is under a magnifying glass. The issues that result form this are two fold: 1. The media doesn't leave a stone unturned looking for dirt. 2. The slightest issue is going to be expounded into a huge ordeal. I mean, honestly, to measure Wade's ability to coach throwing that out as a reason why he can't is just a little ridiculous, if you think about it!

New York, Philly Boston are just as bad. The media excuse is a cop-out, and in our circumstance, the added pressure is to be expected given our vainglorious GM's pimping of his image above the needs of the coaches, players and team.

 

[Vtwin]

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.

No, "talented" and "better" are not synonomous. Sports history is full of examples of guys outreaching their given talent with hard work and commitment, aka heart. Likewise there are example of guys who wasted their given talent simply due to lack of effort.

All of these things were on the radar of anyone who's been paying attention. Franlky they really don't have a thing to do with this discussion. In fact, because of these obstacles the intangibles of leadership, heart and chemistry are even more important. A focused, team goal oriented locker room would not let the Pacman thing disrupt them. A little leadership from the coaches
and maybe Tony would have been "coached up" into being himself and not trying to emulate Brady. Brad Johnson did not play against Pittsburgh, Baltimore or the Eagles. We did take a hit at RB but we also found out something about Choice. I wonder what may have happened it the LOUSY special teams play had been addressed much earlier? Maybe nothing, maybe something. We'll never now because of the wishy washy "leadership" coming from coaches and management. Inspite of all those obstacles this team could have gotten into the playoffs with just one win against the three teams mentioned and they failed miserably and saying all the wrong things in the process.

I'm not saying that Romo makes a speech every day and the team strolls to the Super Bowl. I am saying that this team clearly is drifting without a rudder and maybe had someone taking the tiller they could have got that one more win and made the playoffs and who knows what happens after that. This team has the players to compete with anyone in the league.

As far as how the Cowboys stack up against Pittsburgh: As bad as our O-line played, Pitt's was their achilles heel all season. Somehow they managed to get it done as a team when it counted. I'd take Romo over Ben any day. How about you? I'd take our receivers over Pitt's any day. How about you? I'd take our TE over Pitt's any day. How about you? D-Line? Pretty close. LB's? Slight edge to Pitt but again, not by much. Safety" Ok, you got me here. CB's we compete very well here also.

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.

The defenders seem to have an obligation to completely seperate the tangibles from the intangibles. Every team in the final four also had simliar tangible issues to the Cowboys. All the "should have knowns" you mention are valid points. That does not make the other side, the intangibles" any less valid. I've never played pro sports but I have been involved in many situations in sports in family in business where a group of people had to accomplish a goal in a structured setting. I can't imagine anyone with similiar experiences not understanding how important these three intangibles are. Sure, sometimes it just clicks. Often though, someone has to exert themselves as a leader and get everyone else in line behind them. I would have to ignore three decades + of personal experience to not believe that.

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!"

Of course, these intangibles are only one piece of the puzzle. They cannot be expected to overcome the loss of the franchise QB when playing a very good team. Although they most certainly can help. Again though, the point is with everything on the line this team seemed to come apart. It's not even so much that they lost but how they lost and even more, how they responded. I am completely baffled by your assertion that it is just as well they didn't get in because they wouldn't have gone anywhere. How do you know that? I will say again, even with the tangible problems this team had they were just as well equipped to win the ring as any other team in the playoffs.

I'n other posts you question people statements by saying something like:

"how do you know? Were you in the locker room or are you just repeating the media spin"

I think I have to ask you the same thing about some of the statements you are presenting as fact.

 

[Vtwin]

What does that mean, really? It sounds nice, don't get me wrong. But I don't see that being a fix-all for the Cowboys problems. Their issue extend beyond the metaphysical. There's execution, focus, tackling, game planning, game management, football mechanics in every position, that in my opinion, should be the Cowboys biggest concerns in terms of how they played this season. This asking players and coaches to become like our perceived notion of the stars of old is like your wife asking you to be more like the men in her romance novels; it's not gonna happen! And, furthermore, I don't think it's necessary. The history of Super Bowl quarterbacks more than proves that.

Exactly.

I wonder how things would have turned out if the coaches and the core group in the room took the initiative to address these issues in the beginning?

Coaches could have done more to hold guys accountable. The core group could have done the same while setting the example of working hard in practice and in the weight room and in film study or wherever else they can set an example.

When things start spilling out of the room someone needs to feel compelled to nip it in the bud.

You mention the "perceived" notion of the stars.

Well, those stars won three rings and the attitude and heart of many of those stars is on record so there is nothing perceived about it.

I do hear what you are saying about this teams problems vs the expectations. I do think you severely underestimate the value of these intangibles. A team may not need them much when things are good but when they do need them and they arent' there things are not going to be good.

The 2008 Dallas Cowboys are a case in point.

 

[jday]

No, "talented" and "better" are not synonomous. Sports history is full of examples of guys outreaching their given talent with hard work and commitment, aka heart. Likewise there are example of guys who wasted their given talent simply due to lack of effort.

All of these things were on the radar of anyone who's been paying attention. Franlky they really don't have a thing to do with this discussion. In fact, because of these obstacles the intangibles of leadership, heart and chemistry are even more important. A focused, team goal oriented locker room would not let the Pacman thing disrupt them. A little leadership from the coaches
and maybe Tony would have been "coached up" into being himself and not trying to emulate Brady. Brad Johnson did not play against Pittsburgh, Baltimore or the Eagles. We did take a hit at RB but we also found out something about Choice. I wonder what may have happened it the LOUSY special teams play had been addressed much earlier? Maybe nothing, maybe something. We'll never now because of the wishy washy "leadership" coming from coaches and management. Inspite of all those obstacles this team could have gotten into the playoffs with just one win against the three teams mentioned and they failed miserably and saying all the wrong things in the process.

I'm not saying that Romo makes a speech every day and the team strolls to the Super Bowl. I am saying that this team clearly is drifting without a rudder and maybe had someone taking the tiller they could have got that one more win and made the playoffs and who knows what happens after that. This team has the players to compete with anyone in the league.

As far as how the Cowboys stack up against Pittsburgh: As bad as our O-line played, Pitt's was their achilles heel all season. Somehow they managed to get it done as a team when it counted. I'd take Romo over Ben any day. How about you? I'd take our receivers over Pitt's any day. How about you? I'd take our TE over Pitt's any day. How about you? D-Line? Pretty close. LB's? Slight edge to Pitt but again, not by much. Safety" Ok, you got me here. CB's we compete very well here also.

In terms of your difference between the descriptions of "talent" and "better," I can see your point. I can't say I would prefer to have the players the Steelers have over the current Cowboys roster, but, then again, my opinion is biased. I am a fan of the Cowboy's and those deemed worthy to don the star. Nevertheless, that doesn't make the Cowboy's more talented or better than the Steelers or any other team for that matter. And the final score of the Dallas vs. Pittsburgh game and the results of the Super Bowl would contradict the assertion.

The defenders seem to have an obligation to completely seperate the tangibles from the intangibles. Every team in the final four also had simliar tangible issues to the Cowboys. All the "should have knowns" you mention are valid points. That does not make the other side, the intangibles" any less valid. I've never played pro sports but I have been involved in many situations in sports in family in business where a group of people had to accomplish a goal in a structured setting. I can't imagine anyone with similiar experiences not understanding how important these three intangibles are. Sure, sometimes it just clicks. Often though, someone has to exert themselves as a leader and get everyone else in line behind them. I would have to ignore three decades + of personal experience to not believe that.

It is not my intention to make readers believe that the tangibles out-weigh the intangibles. However, I don't feel that the intangibles carry as much weight as the media would have us to believe. It is my opinion that the media has an ulterior motive to write and say what sells and an agenda to make what they have wrote and said right! With those variables in mind, this cross they have placed on various members of the team, in particular T.O., is typically due to that same reporter being one of the original individuals saying what a bad idea the T.O. was acquisition was. Now, not only do they sell more papers by printing his name in a headline, but they also get the added benefit of making themselves right. The same is true of the Pacman debacle, Wade Phillips being made head coach, the tyranny of Jerry Jones, and the inconsiderate postgame comments of Tony Romo.

But make no mistake, I'm not taking sides here. I realize there is a certain degree of truth to every remedy necessary to fix the Cowboy's. I'm just not ready to accept the idea that there is only one rememdy that fixes all that ails the Cowboy's as a whole.

Of course, these intangibles are only one piece of the puzzle. They cannot be expected to overcome the loss of the franchise QB when playing a very good team. Although they most certainly can help. Again though, the point is with everything on the line this team seemed to come apart. It's not even so much that they lost but how they lost and even more, how they responded. I am completely baffled by your assertion that it is just as well they didn't get in because they wouldn't have gone anywhere. How do you know that? I will say again, even with the tangible problems this team had they were just as well equipped to win the ring as any other team in the playoffs.

I'n other posts you question people statements by saying something like:

"how do you know? Were you in the locker room or are you just repeating the media spin"

I think I have to ask you the same thing about some of the statements you are presenting as fact.

First, be specific. What items have I presented as fact are questionable? The fact that Romo wouldn't have played in the 1st round game? That was a fact! Rather they win or lose is prefaced with the word "likely" which means I'm saying the chances are we would lose, but I'm not resolute in that belief. If there's something else, please let me know, and I will reword or argue my side.

I will not argue that the Cowboy's were just as deserving of a Super Bowl run as any other team, in terms of talent. When this team fires on all cylinders, I'm not sure there's a team that can stop them. But that really isn't the point of this thread, is it? I don't think anyone disputes what this team is capable of. The question is in the cure. How do you fix a team that in composition is sound? It's a complicated question. However, the media presents solutions on a 1st grade level to reach a universal audience adhering to the aforementioned agenda: sell papers and maintain integrity.

My belief is the answer is not as simple as fixing the intangibles. The solution is not 1-fold or even 3-fold. And, as I have also argued, I don't think the intangibles are as big of problem as the media would like for us to think it is. They make it big to show how it could cause what is a big issue. But the big issue extends well beyond the understanding of the average football watcher. How does a team with so much talent become so disappointing?

Well, you can begin your explanation with the intangibles, but don't end it there. That's very misleading. You can throw in injuries, but obvously it doesn't stop there either. You can sight all the "should-have-knowns," but, to be honest, that doesn't quite capture all the blame either. You can point out that the team on the other side of the field wants to win too. You can look at the age of certain players. You can point at the mindset of these players in each game. You can point at the gameplan that was devised versus the gameplan that was made to contradict it by the opposing coaches. You can look at the plays called. And many times, when all of the previous things were as they should be, the difference between a win and loss was because that one player who didn't make that one tackle, or the one block, or the one catch, or that one throw....

And, in the end, through 16 games all these different variables are thrown together to produce two teams who won when it counted the most. And then they, if that path is continued, play between 2 - 3 games more to reach the Super Bowl. And if all the variables line up for them again, they walk away with a shiny ring. That's football.

Now that I'm blue in the face, I'll say it again for good measure, to say that leadership, heart, and chemistry are the big reasons this team fell short is, with all the abovementioned variables considered, is way too simple of an explanation. Sure, it's something to look at. But fixing those elements, doesn't guarantee the Cowboys win a Super Bowl or even a Play Off game for that matter. There's far more to it...that's all I'm saying.

 

[jday]

Exactly.

I wonder how things would have turned out if the coaches and the core group in the room took the initiative to address these issues in the beginning?

So it is your assumption that they did not address these issues early on? Are you saying that had they done so, the proof would have been in the pudding, right? I don't think so. Of course they addressed these issues! Addressing it is not a resolute fix. No amout of leadership, heart, or chemistry fixes execution. They are two different elements entirely. They may help, but when Curtis missed the block that led to McBriar's injury, Hamlin missed those tackles that lead to the loss to Baltimore, and Romo injured his finger while trying to recover that fumbled ball in Arizona, no amount of leadership, heart, or chemistry would have prevented those bad plays from happening.

You mention the "perceived" notion of the stars.

Well, those stars won three rings and the attitude and heart of many of those stars is on record so there is nothing perceived about it.

So your recollection of that early 90's teams represent that standard of leadership, heart, and chemistry? Are you kidding? The issues on that team are also well documented. The difference between Michael Irvin of that team and T.O. of this team is how the media decides to feed us our perceptions. Irvin campaigned for the ball on a regular. The only difference between then and now is the issues the media was privy to. And I'll admit that is my biggest issue with the Cowboy's right now. How much they feed the media! But do the research. The locker room of the 90's was divided, there was plenty of fights breaking out in the lockerroom, and there was plenty of players whose heart wasn't consistent with what many of you term necessary for success.

I do hear what you are saying about this teams problems vs the expectations. I do think you severely underestimate the value of these intangibles. A team may not need them much when things are good but when they do need them and they arent' there things are not going to be good.

The 2008 Dallas Cowboys are a case in point.

The 2008 Cowboys are a case study for many things...but again the intangibles theory is the simple solution that at the end of the day is just words. I still fail to see how these intangibles are the fuel and motor of execution. I'm sure they help, but like a car engine, there are a lot of parts necessary for it to run. Same is true of a football team.

 

[Doomsay]

Now that I'm blue in the face, I'll say it again for good measure, to say that leadership, heart, and chemistry are the big reasons this team fell short is, with all the abovementioned variables considered, is way too simple of an explanation. Sure, it's something to look at. But fixing those elements, doesn't guarantee the Cowboys win a Super Bowl or even a Play Off game for that matter. There's far more to it...that's all I'm saying.

But not fixing these things does guarantee that they won't. A point which you don't seem to understand. Part of that calculus is hiring a real coach that has authority and some autonomy from Jerry. Doesn't have to be a Bill clone, but it can't be Wade equiped with some higher fines or a " " demerit marking system.

Not a single x-player that has spoken out has said that the coaching and interpersonal status of the Cowboys is "great or fine or adequate, it's just that these Cowboys need more talent". In fact, if we didn't have so much talent, nobody would bother talking about us, it's the fact that we are squandering deep playoff potential with Wade and Jerry that kills everybody, especially those who are in a position to know.

 

[jday]

But not fixing these things does guarantee that they won't. A point which you don't seem to understand. Part of that calculus is hiring a real coach that has authority and some autonomy from Jerry. Doesn't have to be a Bill clone, but it can't be Wade equiped with some higher fines or a " " demerit marking system.

Believe me; I see what you are saying. Initially, I was disappointed that Wade was fired at the end of the season. On the other hand, outside of Jimmy Johnson and the former Steelers coach, whose name escapes me currently, there isn't anybody I would want to replace him with.

But to say that Wade is completely incapable of turning this thing around, as though he is predisposed to not winning a Play Off or Super Bowl game is, for the lack of a better description, very narrowminded. Granted, his track record suggest certain struggles in that area, but the nature of his becoming the Head Coach in previous situations isn't exactly conducive to success.

Not a single x-player that has spoken out has said that the coaching and interpersonal status of the Cowboys is "great or fine or adequate, it's just that these Cowboys need more talent". In fact, if we didn't have so much talent, nobody would bother talking about us, it's the fact that we are squandering deep playoff potential with Wade and Jerry that kills everybody, especially those who are in a position to know.

When did I argue a lack of talent was the reasons for this team failures in 08? I've already acknowledged that when every positions is playing to their ability, there is not a team around that wouldn't struggle against them. While leadership, heart, and chemistry may contribute to the overall execution and players playing to their abilities, it doesn't account for everything that this team needs...

 

[Vtwin]

Now that I'm blue in the face, I'll say it again for good measure, to say that leadership, heart, and chemistry are the big reasons this team fell short is, with all the abovementioned variables considered, is way too simple of an explanation. Sure, it's something to look at. But fixing those elements, doesn't guarantee the Cowboys win a Super Bowl or even a Play Off game for that matter. There's far more to it...that's all I'm saying.

The thing you are missing is that no one is saying is that these intangibles are "the big" reason.

I am saying (and I believe many agree) that the intangibles are A reason for concern.

Yes, there are other issues that NEED attention. I believe that the intangibles are ONE of the issues that NEED attention.

Said another way: Even if the intangibles were "fixed" to my satisfaction this offseason there is no garauntee that we go to the SB without attention to the tangible issues you bring up. However, if the intangibles are not fixed this team will implode at the first sign of adversity no matter who the backup QB is or how much improved the o-line is, or how much rest Barber gets in the first half.

The intangibles are like the air in the cars tires. The car will start and run ok when the tires are under-inflated by half. Air them up to spec and that car will perform much better. Every time.

 

[jday]

The thing you are missing is that no one is saying is that these intangibles are "the big" reason.

I am saying (and I believe many agree) that the intangibles are A reason for concern.

Yes, there are other issues that NEED attention. I believe that the intangibles are ONE of the issues that NEED attention.

Said another way: Even if the intangibles were "fixed" to my satisfaction this offseason there is no garauntee that we go to the SB without attention to the tangible issues you bring up. However, if the intangibles are not fixed this team will implode at the first sign of adversity no matter who the backup QB is or how much improved the o-line is, or how much rest Barber gets in the first half.

The intangibles are like the air in the cars tires. The car will start and run ok when the tires are under-inflated by half. Air them up to spec and that car will perform much better. Every time.

Okay. I can agree to that. But if that is your stance, then this thread was not intended for you, which begs the question why are you arguing with me?

:insane: :shoot6:

 

[Vtwin]

So your recollection of that early 90's teams represent that standard of leadership, heart, and chemistry? Are you kidding? The issues on that team are also well documented. The difference between Michael Irvin of that team and T.O. of this team is how the media decides to feed us our perceptions. Irvin campaigned for the ball on a regular. The only difference between then and now is the issues the media was privy to. And I'll admit that is my biggest issue with the Cowboy's right now. How much they feed the media! But do the research. The locker room of the 90's was divided, there was plenty of fights breaking out in the lockerroom, and there was plenty of players whose heart wasn't consistent with what many of you term necessary for success.

Geeze dude, Where did I say the "standard"?

Now it's been a few years but I do not remember anywhere near the amount of crap coming out of the locker room then as compared to now.

Leadership and heart doesn't meant you sit around and sing kumbaya and have a team hug to start every practice. Guy's can fight every day in the room. That can actually be a sign of the heart and fire needed! Haven't you ever worked very well with someone that you didn't like much at all? I have. I usualy don't end up like them any better but I usually gain a respect for them.

The leadership and chemistry comes when you step on the practice or game field and leave all that crap in the room.

The fact that that team was able to keep itself together for two years after the Switzer circus came to town is testament to the leadership, heart and chemistry on that team.

Comparing Irvin to Owens from an attitude perspective is certainly not soemthing I would do. Aikman and Romo, 180 degrees apart as far as attitude goes. Those guys clearly wanted it more then this team does.

At least to me.

 

[Vtwin]

Okay. I can agree to that. But if that is your stance, then this thread was not intended for you, which begs the question why are you arguing with me?

:insane: :shoot6:

Because you're arguing with me. :laugh2: