jday
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 9,321
- Reaction score
- 13,284
Years ago I was told a story of an experiment conducted by scientist in California. They placed 6 monkeys in an enclosed habitat. In the center of this habitat, they placed a ladder and within monkey-reach of the top of the latter was a single banana. Every time a monkey would endeavor to climb the latter and get the banana, the other monkeys would get sprayed with cold water. Eventually the monkeys figured out that when a monkey went for the banana, the others would get sprayed, so the monkeys as a collective would attack any monkey that dared make an attempt to ascend the latter for the banana. Overtime, it became accepted as policy that the ladder and by extension the banana were forbidden, and the monkey’s gave the ladder a wide-berth in their monkey business.
This is where it gets interesting. The scientist then removed a monkey, and replaced it with a new monkey. Naturally the new monkey headed directly for the ladder and banana only to get attacked by all the original monkeys. He too, learned over time that the ladder and banana are forbidden. Once again, they removed an original monkey and added a new monkey. Not surprisingly, the original monkeys attacked the new monkey as it approached the ladder…however, the scientist were shocked to see that the monkey who had never been sprayed also joined in on the attack, despite never being conditioned himself to care rather or not another monkey approaches the ladder. Based on his experience and conditioning, he only knew he shouldn’t approach the ladder. And yet, despite the lack of the perceived necessary habituation, he was just as enraged as the others that the new monkey would dare approach the ladder.
The scientist kept replacing original monkeys with new monkeys who had never been sprayed until none of the original monkeys were left. And yet, the policy to leave the ladder and banana alone was upheld as if the original monkeys were still there.
Why?
Because that’s how they’ve always done things.
In life, at your job, and in sports, therein is an extremely useful lesson: Just because that is the way we have always done things doesn’t mean that today there doesn’t exist a better way…a more efficient and effective way to accomplish a task. Change is the only constant in life and yet despite all the change we see around us as a community, we humans struggle to change with it. We find a way that works and we stick with it until it no longer works. And we attack anyone who would challenge the way we have always done things…just like the monkeys. This phenomenon is perhaps the most obvious in the blog world, where questions that challenge status quo are met with harsh critique and unnecessary insults, regardless of the logic behind the question.
For instance, let’s for a moment consider an asinine idea that was recently voiced on 105.3 The Fan in jest...and yet when I mulled over the idea I did have to stop and ask myself, ‘why not?’ I couldn’t tell you who the host was that introduced the idea, but essentially he suggested the Cowboys could solve the quarterback controversy by allowing Dak to move the ball to the redzone and then let Romo take over around the 20 to push the ball into the endzone once he is healthy again.
I know, crazy right? But is it…is it really all that crazy of an idea? It would limit Romo’s exposure to getting injured again and likely prolong his career. It would likely assist in the development of Dak moreso than what sitting on a sideline would do. And I don’t see that offense being divided by the idea…provided it actually works.
Some might say that Dak would complain about his lack of opportunity to score…which is possible. But his alternative is to stand on the sideline and hold a clipboard. Given that choice, do you still think he would care?
Some might say Romo wouldn’t like it; that it would put an asterisk by any success he had with that plan implemented. I honestly don’t think he would care all that much if it actually worked. Romo simply wants to win a ring any way he can at this point in his career…especially now that father time is laying on the doorbell of his subconscious mind.
But, as I mentioned before, the key to the whole idea being accepted by the team as a whole is rather or not it works. So then the question is now, why wouldn’t it work? Before you answer that question, you must relieve yourself of all your preconceived notions about the idea and dismiss the fact that it has never worked aided with the understanding that it has rarely been tried.
I know that previous attempts of allowing 2 QB’s run the huddle within the same game have failed and failed miserably, but can anyone remember the last time that was truly attempted with 2 QB’s capable of moving the ball? Perhaps there is more recent data we can look at, but the last time I know of was before I was born in 1971. Craig Morton was the incumbent starter and Roger Staubach was the 10th round future draft pick in the 1964 draft by the Dallas Cowboys who was finally able to join the team in 1969 following a stint in the Air Force. More on that debacle from good ole Wikipedia.org:
In 1971, Morton began the season as the starter, but after a loss to the New Orleans Saints, Staubach assumed the role. However, in a game against the Chicago Bears in the seventh week of that season, coach Tom Landry alternated Staubach and Morton on each play, sending in the quarterbacks with the play call from the sideline. Dallas gained almost 500 yards of offense but committed seven turnovers that led to a 23–19 loss to a mediocre Bears squad that dropped the Cowboys to 4–3 for the season, two games behind the Washington Commanders in the NFC East race.
Staubach assumed the full-time quarterbacking duties in a week eight victory over the St. Louis Cardinals and led the Cowboys to 10 consecutive victories, including their first Super Bowl victory, 24–3 over the Miami Dolphins in Super Bowl VI in January 1972. He was named the game's MVP, completing 12 out of 19 passes for 119 yards and two touchdowns and rushing for 18 yards.
Not since then, to my knowledge, has a team attempted alternating QB’s. Sure, QB’s have been replaced in-game, but rarely do they ever return once benched. Clearly, the idea of having Romo and Dak attempt something similar would create quite a stir in the football watching world and would meet criticism at every turn…once again, unless it worked, which returns us back to the question at hand: Why can it not work? What fact could you offer that would completely shut down the idea aside from your own preconceived notions and understanding that you have accepted from years of watching football.
Please dispense with the typical cliché’s of “too many chiefs, not enough Indians” or “the quarterback needs to get into the flow of the game.” Often times those are devices used by players to shift blame from themselves to the coaches and to be honest I really don’t buy it. You either win your individual battle on a given play or you don’t.
At this point in Romo’s career, the less heavy-lifting at the position he has to do the better. The less condensed defense in the Redzone Dak has to see for the moment, the better. Obviously, his comfort level there will need to improve over time, but it’s not exactly necessary to rush him on that aspect of the job. Furthermore, this is not to suggest that Dak struggles in the redzone. I honestly think the coaching staff has been playing it safe in the redzone with Dak to ensure they come away with points in any way they can, be it Touchdown or Field Goal. The point is, with Romo they don’t have to play it safe. They can let him loose. And given the comfort level that Romo has developed with his receivers, I suspect Romo could very well make that aspect of the job look easy…and if that is all they ask Romo to do, so much the better.
Again, I’m not attempting to sell anyone on this idea. I’m merely pointing out that to quickly dismiss it and chastise the idea simply because it flies in the face of convention would be the equivalent of attacking unsuspecting monkeys for going after a banana because that’s the way it has always been.
Thoughts?
This is where it gets interesting. The scientist then removed a monkey, and replaced it with a new monkey. Naturally the new monkey headed directly for the ladder and banana only to get attacked by all the original monkeys. He too, learned over time that the ladder and banana are forbidden. Once again, they removed an original monkey and added a new monkey. Not surprisingly, the original monkeys attacked the new monkey as it approached the ladder…however, the scientist were shocked to see that the monkey who had never been sprayed also joined in on the attack, despite never being conditioned himself to care rather or not another monkey approaches the ladder. Based on his experience and conditioning, he only knew he shouldn’t approach the ladder. And yet, despite the lack of the perceived necessary habituation, he was just as enraged as the others that the new monkey would dare approach the ladder.
The scientist kept replacing original monkeys with new monkeys who had never been sprayed until none of the original monkeys were left. And yet, the policy to leave the ladder and banana alone was upheld as if the original monkeys were still there.
Why?
Because that’s how they’ve always done things.
In life, at your job, and in sports, therein is an extremely useful lesson: Just because that is the way we have always done things doesn’t mean that today there doesn’t exist a better way…a more efficient and effective way to accomplish a task. Change is the only constant in life and yet despite all the change we see around us as a community, we humans struggle to change with it. We find a way that works and we stick with it until it no longer works. And we attack anyone who would challenge the way we have always done things…just like the monkeys. This phenomenon is perhaps the most obvious in the blog world, where questions that challenge status quo are met with harsh critique and unnecessary insults, regardless of the logic behind the question.
For instance, let’s for a moment consider an asinine idea that was recently voiced on 105.3 The Fan in jest...and yet when I mulled over the idea I did have to stop and ask myself, ‘why not?’ I couldn’t tell you who the host was that introduced the idea, but essentially he suggested the Cowboys could solve the quarterback controversy by allowing Dak to move the ball to the redzone and then let Romo take over around the 20 to push the ball into the endzone once he is healthy again.
I know, crazy right? But is it…is it really all that crazy of an idea? It would limit Romo’s exposure to getting injured again and likely prolong his career. It would likely assist in the development of Dak moreso than what sitting on a sideline would do. And I don’t see that offense being divided by the idea…provided it actually works.
Some might say that Dak would complain about his lack of opportunity to score…which is possible. But his alternative is to stand on the sideline and hold a clipboard. Given that choice, do you still think he would care?
Some might say Romo wouldn’t like it; that it would put an asterisk by any success he had with that plan implemented. I honestly don’t think he would care all that much if it actually worked. Romo simply wants to win a ring any way he can at this point in his career…especially now that father time is laying on the doorbell of his subconscious mind.
But, as I mentioned before, the key to the whole idea being accepted by the team as a whole is rather or not it works. So then the question is now, why wouldn’t it work? Before you answer that question, you must relieve yourself of all your preconceived notions about the idea and dismiss the fact that it has never worked aided with the understanding that it has rarely been tried.
I know that previous attempts of allowing 2 QB’s run the huddle within the same game have failed and failed miserably, but can anyone remember the last time that was truly attempted with 2 QB’s capable of moving the ball? Perhaps there is more recent data we can look at, but the last time I know of was before I was born in 1971. Craig Morton was the incumbent starter and Roger Staubach was the 10th round future draft pick in the 1964 draft by the Dallas Cowboys who was finally able to join the team in 1969 following a stint in the Air Force. More on that debacle from good ole Wikipedia.org:
In 1971, Morton began the season as the starter, but after a loss to the New Orleans Saints, Staubach assumed the role. However, in a game against the Chicago Bears in the seventh week of that season, coach Tom Landry alternated Staubach and Morton on each play, sending in the quarterbacks with the play call from the sideline. Dallas gained almost 500 yards of offense but committed seven turnovers that led to a 23–19 loss to a mediocre Bears squad that dropped the Cowboys to 4–3 for the season, two games behind the Washington Commanders in the NFC East race.
Staubach assumed the full-time quarterbacking duties in a week eight victory over the St. Louis Cardinals and led the Cowboys to 10 consecutive victories, including their first Super Bowl victory, 24–3 over the Miami Dolphins in Super Bowl VI in January 1972. He was named the game's MVP, completing 12 out of 19 passes for 119 yards and two touchdowns and rushing for 18 yards.
Not since then, to my knowledge, has a team attempted alternating QB’s. Sure, QB’s have been replaced in-game, but rarely do they ever return once benched. Clearly, the idea of having Romo and Dak attempt something similar would create quite a stir in the football watching world and would meet criticism at every turn…once again, unless it worked, which returns us back to the question at hand: Why can it not work? What fact could you offer that would completely shut down the idea aside from your own preconceived notions and understanding that you have accepted from years of watching football.
Please dispense with the typical cliché’s of “too many chiefs, not enough Indians” or “the quarterback needs to get into the flow of the game.” Often times those are devices used by players to shift blame from themselves to the coaches and to be honest I really don’t buy it. You either win your individual battle on a given play or you don’t.
At this point in Romo’s career, the less heavy-lifting at the position he has to do the better. The less condensed defense in the Redzone Dak has to see for the moment, the better. Obviously, his comfort level there will need to improve over time, but it’s not exactly necessary to rush him on that aspect of the job. Furthermore, this is not to suggest that Dak struggles in the redzone. I honestly think the coaching staff has been playing it safe in the redzone with Dak to ensure they come away with points in any way they can, be it Touchdown or Field Goal. The point is, with Romo they don’t have to play it safe. They can let him loose. And given the comfort level that Romo has developed with his receivers, I suspect Romo could very well make that aspect of the job look easy…and if that is all they ask Romo to do, so much the better.
Again, I’m not attempting to sell anyone on this idea. I’m merely pointing out that to quickly dismiss it and chastise the idea simply because it flies in the face of convention would be the equivalent of attacking unsuspecting monkeys for going after a banana because that’s the way it has always been.
Thoughts?
