Myth? Jimmy alwys went with young players, Parcells always goes with veterans...

DipChit

New Member
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
0
AdamJT13 said:
Only four of our starters last Sunday were here before Parcells got here -- Larry Allen (Pro Bowl player), Roy Williams (Pro Bowl player), La'Roi Glover (former Pro Bowl player) .......

Thats because aside from Roy who might likely be a Cowboy forever, he didnt want to burn any bridges for when he takes guys like Allen, Glover and oh I dunno, maybe Al S. and Dan Campbell too, with him to a place like Baltimore when he takes over that job in 6 or 7 years. ;)
 

kingwhicker

BCRSA
Messages
3,290
Reaction score
0
Are you Bill Parcells? Unlike this turd of a team, that team actually finished the year strong, won a road playoff game against an 11-5 division champion in cold weather, and started something special. They very much were a Super Bowl contender-sure they lost to the 12-4 division champ Lions badly at the Silverdome, but don't you know Washington would've hated to see them make another visit to DC where they had earlier beat the eventual Super Bowl Champion and had lost to them early in the year by two points. They also beat the defending Super Bowl champion Giants, and eventual playoff teams Atlanta and NFC West Champion New Orleans and a 10-6 Eagles team in Philly. They were a good, up and coming team not a rotten from the core heap like the current refuse. The 1991 team didn't start out 7-3 by winning a bunch of close games against a pack of scrubs with the exception of an OT win over NYG, and a good road win against SD and then fall flat on their face when the meat of the schedule hit them.
 

InmanRoshi

Zone Scribe
Messages
18,334
Reaction score
90
They very much were a Super Bowl contender-sure they lost to the 12-4 division champ Lions badly at the Silverdome

... you left off the "by 32 points" part.

Nice job listing every single good team that the Cowboys beat that year. Becase this "refuse" teams has cake walked to 8-6 going through Giants (2x), Washington (2x), Seattle, San Diego, Kansas City Denver and now Carolina ... who really aren't playing for anything these days, are they?

You even gave the team credit for beating "the defending SB Chammpions" Giants, leaving off the fact that they were horrible in 91 and didn't make the playoffs. I guess this year's team should relish the fact that they've swept the "Defending NFC Champions", as though it were a big feather in their cap.
 

Alexander

What's it going to be then, eh?
Messages
62,482
Reaction score
67,294
InmanRoshi said:
... you left off the "by 32 points" part.

That is almost as bad as what we did at FedEx the other day.
 

wileedog

Well-Known Member
Messages
11,356
Reaction score
2,393
InmanRoshi said:
Probably played too conservatively using vanilla schemes as well.

If only they had been more prepared and came out more fiery.
 

JakeCamp12

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,302
Reaction score
275
Inman, thanks for doing that research. Maybe I am a fool, but I like what BP has done for this team since the horrible job Jones, Lacewell and Campo did. Building a successful team is not easy, but this team is clearly better than last year, and that is all one can ask. BP has made mistakes, which are causing problems today. But the guy is not perfect, and he seems to listen to his scouting department. Not every pick will work out, and Rogers so far has not. We don't know yet if Peterman will work out or not. Though to be honest, I am hoping Dre plays in place of Rivera, as I am interested in seeing if he has learned how to prepare to play guard again. Again Inman, thanks for the research, as I found it interesting.
 

goshan

Well-Known Member
Messages
2,656
Reaction score
888
I like stats but frankly, didn't really need them.
The offense is old. The defense isn't.

We have no 'near pro bowl' young offensive player on the team right now accept Witten.

That is a bleak picture. The o-line draft busts and the questions that now surround JJones true potential to be a top back have put the O side of the ball in a very poor position -- now and the next 2-3 years. A major overhaul is going to have to happen sooner or later.
 

TunaFan33

Benched
Messages
1,824
Reaction score
0
InmanRoshi said:
Its become a folk legend that Jimmy Johnosn always went with young players building for the future, while Bill Parcells always go with the vets and plays for 1 year. So I decided to compare the age of the starters on the teams for both coaches by their 3rd year in the league. NOTE: I'm not saying the 2005 Cowboys are as good as the 1991 Cowboys, or that they're going to win 3 Superbowls in the next 4 years. I'm just wanting to find out if there's any truth to the notion that Jimmy just threw young players out there and Parcells always goes with the veteran if given the opportunity.

Still, its interesting to see the numbers.

Starting Defense 1991

OFFENSE...


Position - Name - Year Experience
---------------------------------

LDE - Tony Tolbert - 3
DT - Russel Maryland - 1
DT - Tony Cassillas - 6
RDE - Jim Jeffcoat - 9
LB - Vinson Smith - 3
LB - Ken Norton - 4
LB - Jack Del Rio - 7
LCB - Larry Brown - 1
FS - Ray Horton - 9
SS - James Washington - 4


Avg mean year of experience per starter - 4.27
Avg median - 4.0
Starters with 3 years experience or less - 4
Rookies starting - 2 rookies

Dallas starters last Sunday

LDE - Spears - 1
NG - Glover - 10
RDE - Canty - 1
LOLB - Fujita - 4
MLB - Shanle - 3
MLB - James - 3
ROLB - Ware - 1
cB - Newman - 3
CB - Henry - 5
SS - Williams - 4
FS - Davis - 4


Avg mean year of experience per starter - 3.54
Avg median - 3
Starters with 3 years experience or less - 6
Rookies starting - 3


OFFENSE

QB - Aikman - 3
FB - Johnson - 3
RB - Emmitt - 2
WR - Irvin - 4
WR - Harper - 1
TE - Novacek - 7
LT - Tuinei - 7
LG - Newton - 6
C - Stepnoski - 3
RG - Gesek - 5
RT - Gogan - 5

Avg mean year of experience per starter - 4.18
Avg median - 4
Starters with 3 years experience or less - 5
Rookies starting - 1


Dallas starters last Sunday

QB - Bledsoe - 13
FB - Polite - 2
RB - Julius - 2
WR - Keyshawn - 10
WR - Glenn - 10
TE - Witten - 3
LT - Torrin Tucker - 3
LG - Larry Allen - 12
C - Johnson - 3
RG - Rivera - 10
RT - Pettiti - 1


Avg mean year of experience per starter - 6.27
Avg median age per starter - 3
Starters with 3 years experience or less - 6
Rookies starting - 1

The only area in which the 1991 team was younger was the mean average age of offense, where a handfull of old vets tipped the scales. However, the median age of the offense was younger in 2005.

If you want to look past the starters and get into the periphery players -- long snapper, nickelback, 3rd WR, kickers, punters ... specialty players who aren't starters but see a lot of snaps or play critical roles, the gap widens considerably. The Cowboys were particularly "seasoned" on the periphery players in 1991. You're comparing the experience of Kelvin Martin to Patrick Crayton. Bill Bates to Jacques Reeves. Mike saxon to Matt McBriar. Ladouceur to Dale Hellestrae. Alonzo Highsmith to Marion Barber.


Now, I know in advance that some people are going to say "Ellis is the true starter, not Canty." Fair enough, but Kelvin Martin started more games than rookie Harper in 1991. I still listed Harper as the starer.
In the case where a veteran and rookie shared the starting spot, I gave the edge to the rookie. Both teams benifited.


Now, this really is not a fair matchup. There is no way Bill Parcells should even be close. He has not had nearly the wealth of draft picks Jimmy had to stockpile his teams full of young players thanks to the Herchel Walker trade. Not only did he have the bounty of draft picks brought by the Herchel Walker trade, he had constantly drafted higher and had better draft position to draft higher quality players who could play right away. Jimmy had the #1 pick in each round his first two drafts. If you count the fact that supplemental pick spent on Walsh would have been the first pick in the draft, The Cowboys had the rights to the #1 pick in the draft all of Jimmy's first 3 years in Dallas ... Parcells has not had nearly anything close to the opportunities to add young talent that Jimmy was afforded. No coach in the history of hte NFL did, really.

Then the question of where free agency comes to play. If Jimmy had the opportunity to go out and get a veteran through free agency to fill a position like Parcells does, how much older would the 1991 roster have been? Jimmy certainly showed a penchant for adding older veteran through any means he had available ... Alonzo Highsmith and Charles Haley in trades, and all the veterans he brought in through Plan B Free agency. Meanwhile the Cowboys have not spent even close to the allocated cap space available to Parcells while he's been here to add veteran free agents. In cases where Dallas has added veteran talent for depth, such as Peerless Price, Parcells really didn't give him the time of day and prefered to go with the younger player like Crayton.


Now I know what the next response is ... But, but, but THE QUARTERBACK. We'll, Unfortunately for Parcells, he's never had the opportunity to sit with the #1 pick in the draft with a consensus #1 pick sitting there at the QB position. Would he take one if there was? His history with the Patriots says he would. And if the shoe were on the other foot, if Jimmy didn't have a #1 pick with a consensus #1 QB , would he d he stick with a veteran QB past his prime or would he go with any young QB no matter what and just stick him out there to see what he could do. His history in Miami says he goes with the vet.

Just for the sake of argument-the difference between Jimmy and Bill is that Jimmy's "guys" were his STAR PLAYERS. Frankly-I would think any coach's "guys" being their OLDER VETS is BETTER, don't y'all think?
 

ddh33

Active Member
Messages
4,934
Reaction score
2
This is why you are my favorite post, Inman. Always fair and interesting. Good stuff.

Isn't it funny how perceptions can get in the way of reality?
 

kingwhicker

BCRSA
Messages
3,290
Reaction score
0
pbthal said:
At least they made the playoffs and didnt fold down the stretch

Winner, winner chicken dinner!! THAT is the difference between the 1991 Cowboys and the current bunch- in fact they exceled down the stretch against a high level of competition-teams all vying for playoff spots and all but one finishing with at least 10 wins (Pittsburgh who finished 7-9). Also, I was ridiculed for including the defending champion Giants who endured a "horrible" 8-8 season (hmmm, wonder if the 2005 Cowboys go 8-8 the same person will consider their season horrible?). If you want to do a true comparison (not the age of the starters but a straight up real-world comparison) for the current squad, leave the 91 Cowboys out of it and look at the 1986 7-9 Cowboys, a team that puked its guts out down the stretch.

And just to let everyone know, the 1991 team from top to bottom WAS in fact younger than the current roster, and the 1992 team got even younger with the addition of rookie starters Robert Jones and Kevin Smith and reserve SS Darren Woodson:

1991- Average experience of entire roster (anyone who appeared in a game)- 55 different players, 217 total years= 3.9

2005- 59 different players (again, those who appeared in a game, even folks like Suisham that are no longer with the team and only played in a game or two), 263 total years= 4.5
 

silver

Well-Known Member
Messages
6,874
Reaction score
1,698
jimmy brought he ex-players from miami while bill brought his ex-players from the '98 jets. no way the '98 jets can compete in today's nfl.
 

DipChit

New Member
Messages
1,594
Reaction score
0
goshan said:
I like stats but frankly, didn't really need them.
The offense is old. The defense isn't.

We have no 'near pro bowl' young offensive player on the team right now accept Witten.

Yup, thats about the size of it. We thought we had another a year ago this time in JJ but we'll just have to see.

As an aside I always wonder about it when a team starts a certain number of rookies and people look at it like it must mean it was a great draft class or this or that.

Any team could start as many rookies as they want, any year. Not that they would, but they could.
 

Verdict

Well-Known Member
Messages
26,230
Reaction score
20,501
InmanRoshi said:
You're right, the 1991 Cowboys were an utterly dominant 2nd place in the division, 11-5 on a bad schedule, wildcard birth, getting blownout by the jauggernaut Lions by 32 points in the playoffs, Superbowl caliber team.

How dare I even suggest.

Again, divert the topic wherever you want. It still doesn't change the fact that everyone has bought into a wives tale.

Don't burden them with facts. Its a witch hunt I tell ya!!!
 
Top