Staubach and the Doomsday D

[Diehardblues]

First, let me say that I have much respect for Roger Staubach. However, I was watching the 1977 NFC Championship Game and thought after he overthrew a short TD pass to Drew Pearson about how much his career might be different if Dallas didn't have the Doomsday Defense.

The Cowboys beat the Minnesota Vikings 23-6 to reach the Super Bowl, but turnovers and the defense were the main reason for the victory. Staubach had a few nice passes, and Dorsett and Newhouse had a few nice runs, but the defense hardly gave up anything and more than made up for it with the turnovers it forced (although the back-breaker came on special teams).

I know there are many who judge quarterbacks on winning and Super Bowls, but games like this just show how much of a team game football is. One missed TD throw might end up costing a team with a poor defense, but it didn't mar Staubach's career because the defense never really let the Vikings into the game.

Just thought I'd share that example. I'm not trying to diminish Staubach's accomplishments (you can find missed TD throws by other great QBs that didn't affect the result). I just think of other QBs who never got the benefit of having one big mistake be inconsequential.

Yes but remember Craig Morton had a Doomsday Defense but didn’t manage the Super Bowl as well giving up multiple turnovers losing 16-13 in SBV.

Staubachs greatness isn’t measure by winning Championships. That’s just for casual fans. Much like Landry’s greatness isn’t measured alone by winning championships.

Their greatness is consistently placing their teams in position to win championships.

 

[gimmesix]

I think the Rams not having a great QB really is what prevented them from getting a championship in the 70s.

A team then and now could appear in or even win a Superbowl with an average QB if they were strong in other areas. Everything has to fall just right for a season, but it is much more difficult to have yearly playoff success. A team with an average QB may make a deep run one year and then may not even make the playoffs the following season. Having a great QB on a strong team gives that team a better than decent chance every year. That doesn't mean they win a SB every season, but they will make a good run every year. That is what Dallas did with Staubach. If the Cowboys didn't have Staubach in the 70s, I don't think they have the same consistent playoff success. He needed a good defense and the defense needed a great QB.

Yes. I'm absolutely not trying to take anything away from Staubach. Dallas wouldn't have had the same success without him. All I'm pointing out is that even great QBs don't need everything placed on their shoulder to the point where every throw has to be perfect. ... And there needs to be some understanding that there are some QBs who showed the ability to achieve greatness, but were not afforded the opportunity because they did have to make every throw count.

 

[gimmesix]

Yes but remember Craig Morton had a Doomsday Defense but didn’t manage the Super Bowl as well giving up multiple turnovers losing 16-13 in SBV.

Staubachs greatness isn’t measure by winning Championships. That’s just for casual fans. Much like Landry’s greatness isn’t measured alone by winning championships.

Their greatness is consistently placing their teams in position to win championships.

Not taking anything away from Staubach, although I think some will see it that way. It is and has always been a team game. Roger's greatness (even though it would have still been there) would have been diminished in the public eye if he had not been on great teams or had a great coach like Landry. He would have become the QB who couldn't win a championship or couldn't carry his team through the playoffs, if they could even have gotten there.

We pin wins to quarterbacks' jerseys like it's some badge of honor they alone earned. You can go back and watch the '70s Cowboys or '90s Cowboys and easily see that's not the case. There's no denying Staubach's greatness, but if he had been on bad teams unable to achieve the kind of success Roger was a part of in Dallas, I have no doubt his greatness would have been questioned simply because it would not have had the wins to back it up.

Roger was a very important piece of the puzzle only because we had the rest of the pieces as well. Without those other pieces, throws like the pass in the end zone that he missed to Pearson would have become more of the focal point of his career because of the lack of wins. It's just hard to be considered great as a quarterback if your team is lousy.

 

[OmerV]

The fact a QB doesn't win games all by himself doesn't diminish how great a QB is. It's a team game, and just as there were games that the defense was a big difference maker, there were others where the chips were down and Staubach put the load on his back and led the team to victory.

 

[gimmesix]

Yes but remember Craig Morton had a Doomsday Defense but didn’t manage the Super Bowl as well giving up multiple turnovers losing 16-13 in SBV.

Staubachs greatness isn’t measure by winning Championships. That’s just for casual fans. Much like Landry’s greatness isn’t measured alone by winning championships.

Their greatness is consistently placing their teams in position to win championships.

I also think the fact that we could get to a Super Bowl without Staubach proves how much being on the right team makes a difference. The Cowboys reached the NFL Championship Game in 1966 and 1967, the conference playoffs the next two years and the Super Bowl in 1970 without Staubach. They were first in their division all five of those years. Adding Staubach (and a few other pieces as well) put us over the top, but the top was much more in reach for him than it has been for others.

It's similar to Aikman in the sense that when he was a rookie on a young, bad team. his team was 0-11 and some even wanted Steve Walsh to be the starting QB over him. Dallas built a team around him, had the right head coach and Aikman's a Hall of Famer. Would Walsh have faired as well if we had kept him instead? I absolutely don't believe he would, which is why Aikman deserves credit for his accomplishments. However, I seriously doubt Aikman would have been a Hall of Famer if he had been on a lesser team.

 

[CCBoy]

I don't disagree with this. I think Roger threw 23 passes. The other QB (name escapes) threw around 29. Lots of runs on first and second down, few downfield throws. QBs certainly weren't asked to do as much.

However, whether it's the 1970s Cowboys or the 1990s Cowboys, having defenses like we had makes it easier to overcome mistakes by the QB or even carry them when they have a bad game. Staubach and Aikman both were beneficiaries of great running games and great defenses. That doesn't mean that they didn't contribute or step up when they needed to, just that not every play by the QB was as critical as it was during Romo's time here and now Dak's as well.

I'm hoping we're getting to the point where our defense can keep that from always being the case. We had top-ranked defenses during those Super Bowl years. You can win without having them, but it certainly makes it easier on your QB when you do.

This is interesting for today's team:

This ranking should be very pleasing to Cowboys fans, as he had Dallas coming in second behind the Los Angeles Chargers with Joey Bosa, Melvin Ingram, and Derwin James.


2) DE DeMarcus Lawrence, LB Jaylon Smith and LB Leighton Vander Esch, Dallas Cowboys: Rod Marinelli and Kris Richard have put their stamp on the Cowboys’ defense with their lofty standard of play. The duo not only expects each and every defender to run to the ball with reckless abandon, but they demand that they do it while giving maximum effort on every snap. Lawrence is not only standard bearer on the defensive line with his non-stop motor and unremitting spirit, but he is a high-level performer boasting 25 sacks over the past two seasons. Smith and LVE match No. 90’s intensity with a wolfpack mentality that allows the young, energetic defense to flex on opponents through the unit’s collective speed, quickness and athleticism. With the Cowboys in position to potentially make a Super Bowl run sparked by their defense, we could see this unit vault to the top of the charts by the end of the season.

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/201...-of-the-best-defensive-triplets-in-the-league

 

[gimmesix]

The fact a QB doesn't win games all by himself doesn't diminish how great a QB is. It's a team game, and just as there were games that the defense was a big difference maker, there were others where the chips were down and Staubach put the load on his back and led the team to victory.

It shouldn't diminish how great a QB is, even if his greatness cannot make the team great. There are definitely times that Staubach stepped up, earning the nickname Captain Comeback, but some of those opportunities would not even have existed without those times when the defense was the difference maker.

For all we know, if the defense had played poorly against Minnesota, Staubach might have stepped up and carried the team, but having rewatched multiple big games from the 1970s, it's easy to see he was afforded mistakes that some other QBs can't make.

 

[OmerV]

It shouldn't diminish how great a QB is, even if his greatness cannot make the team great. There are definitely times that Staubach stepped up, earning the nickname Captain Comeback, but some of those opportunities would not even have existed without those times when the defense was the difference maker.

For all we know, if the defense had played poorly against Minnesota, Staubach might have stepped up and carried the team, but having rewatched multiple big games from the 1970s, it's easy to see he was afforded mistakes that some other QBs can't make.

Without question the defense was a big part of the success of the 1970's. I don't think any kind of sustained success like the Cowboys had (or Steelers, or 49ers in the 80's etc …) is possible with any team without there being strong contributions from across the team.

 

[gimmesix]

This is interesting for today's team:

This ranking should be very pleasing to Cowboys fans, as he had Dallas coming in second behind the Los Angeles Chargers with Joey Bosa, Melvin Ingram, and Derwin James.


2) DE DeMarcus Lawrence, LB Jaylon Smith and LB Leighton Vander Esch, Dallas Cowboys: Rod Marinelli and Kris Richard have put their stamp on the Cowboys’ defense with their lofty standard of play. The duo not only expects each and every defender to run to the ball with reckless abandon, but they demand that they do it while giving maximum effort on every snap. Lawrence is not only standard bearer on the defensive line with his non-stop motor and unremitting spirit, but he is a high-level performer boasting 25 sacks over the past two seasons. Smith and LVE match No. 90’s intensity with a wolfpack mentality that allows the young, energetic defense to flex on opponents through the unit’s collective speed, quickness and athleticism. With the Cowboys in position to potentially make a Super Bowl run sparked by their defense, we could see this unit vault to the top of the charts by the end of the season.

https://www.bloggingtheboys.com/201...-of-the-best-defensive-triplets-in-the-league

I have great hope that maybe this defense can step up and make it unnecessary for the quarterback to play flawless for the team to have a chance to win in the playoffs.

I do not know at this point where Dak is going to land as far as quarterback quality. I certainly have doubts about Garrett's offensive philosophy. But until the defense performs better, I'm hesitant to be overly critical of a missed throw or even poor offensive play-call when we're essentially having to ask the offense to play a near-perfect game.

 

[Doomsday101]

First, let me say that I have much respect for Roger Staubach. However, I was watching the 1977 NFC Championship Game and thought after he overthrew a short TD pass to Drew Pearson about how much his career might be different if Dallas didn't have the Doomsday Defense.

The Cowboys beat the Minnesota Vikings 23-6 to reach the Super Bowl, but turnovers and the defense were the main reason for the victory. Staubach had a few nice passes, and Dorsett and Newhouse had a few nice runs, but the defense hardly gave up anything and more than made up for it with the turnovers it forced (although the back-breaker came on special teams).

I know there are many who judge quarterbacks on winning and Super Bowls, but games like this just show how much of a team game football is. One missed TD throw might end up costing a team with a poor defense, but it didn't mar Staubach's career because the defense never really let the Vikings into the game.

Just thought I'd share that example. I'm not trying to diminish Staubach's accomplishments (you can find missed TD throws by other great QBs that didn't affect the result). I just think of other QBs who never got the benefit of having one big mistake be inconsequential.

I was a big fan of Roger but you don't get the nickname of Captain comeback if you are playing great all the time. He had games where he was less than great but Roger never stayed down and would constantly battle and more times than not would rally late to pull out big wins. Granted defense was a big part but as Charlie Waters would say if Roger is behind center you got to believe, defense knew if they could come up with some big stops that Roger would pull off the comeback

 

[gimmesix]

Without question the defense was a big part of the success of the 1970's. I don't think any kind of sustained success like the Cowboys had (or Steelers, or 49ers in the 80's etc …) is possible with any team without there being strong contributions from across the team.

You can even apply this to a team like the LA Rams last year. Jared Goff had a very good year last year. It was made great by being on a team where he only needed to be part of the reason for success. A strong running game played a part, smart coaching played a part and a strong defense played a part. That doesn't take away the need for the quarterback to contribute. A bad quarterback would have sunk LA's chances. However, there were better QBs out there who just weren't on as good of a team.

 

[gimmesix]

I was a big fan of Roger but you don't get the nickname of Captain comeback if you are playing great all the time. He had games where he was less than great but Roger never stayed down and would constantly battle and more times than not would rally late to pull out big wins. Granted defense was a big part but as Charlie Waters would say if Roger is behind center you got to believe, defense knew if they could come up with some big stops that Roger would pull off the comeback

That's a fair point on the Captain Comeback nickname. In a thread about Staubach, Aikman and Romo recently, I listed Staubach's greatness under clutch. Again, I don't want to diminish that. He was an awesome player.

The part of the Waters' paraphrase that I guess I'm emphasizing in this thread is the defense had to "come up with some big stops" for Rogers' greatness to shine. Can't be Captain Comeback if the defense can't stop the other team. Then, you're Captain Should Have Played Better Earlier in the Game, which is a long and awkward nickname.

 

[Doomsday101]

That's a fair point on the Captain Comeback nickname. In a thread about Staubach, Aikman and Romo recently, I listed Staubach's greatness under clutch. Again, I don't want to diminish that. He was an awesome player.

The part of the Waters' paraphrase that I guess I'm emphasizing in this thread is the defense had to "come up with some big stops" for Rogers' greatness to shine. Can't be Captain Comeback if the defense can't stop the other team. Then, you're Captain Should Have Played Better Earlier in the Game, which is a long and awkward nickname.

True Doomsday was a big part of the Cowboys success. I just recall when Waters was injured and he was in the broadcast booth one game, Cowboys were trailing in the game and Charlie just kept saying as long as Roger is out there you got to believe. That is the confidence that team had in him. No doubt defense mattered and I think it still does, if your defense can keep you in reach even on a day that offense is not clicking they provide the opportunity for the offense to comeback.

 

[eromeopolk]

First, let me say that I have much respect for Roger Staubach. However, I was watching the 1977 NFC Championship Game and thought after he overthrew a short TD pass to Drew Pearson about how much his career might be different if Dallas didn't have the Doomsday Defense.

The Cowboys beat the Minnesota Vikings 23-6 to reach the Super Bowl, but turnovers and the defense were the main reason for the victory. Staubach had a few nice passes, and Dorsett and Newhouse had a few nice runs, but the defense hardly gave up anything and more than made up for it with the turnovers it forced (although the back-breaker came on special teams).

I know there are many who judge quarterbacks on winning and Super Bowls, but games like this just show how much of a team game football is. One missed TD throw might end up costing a team with a poor defense, but it didn't mar Staubach's career because the defense never really let the Vikings into the game.

Just thought I'd share that example. I'm not trying to diminish Staubach's accomplishments (you can find missed TD throws by other great QBs that didn't affect the result). I just think of other QBs who never got the benefit of having one big mistake be inconsequential.

Staubach retired as the NFL all time passing leader. Staubach led 12 rookies to the Super Bowl and was 2-2 in Super Bowls responsible at QB for all of Tom Landry Super Bowl wins. So that is great QB play for the Cowboys during the 70's. He go both Doomsday I and Doomsday II Super Bowl Championships, and was a drop ball from Jackie Smith from a 3rd Super Bowl.

It that It takes 2 to make a thing go right.

 

[gimmesix]

True Doomsday was a big part of the Cowboys success. I just recall when Waters was injured and he was in the broadcast booth one game, Cowboys were trailing in the game and Charlie just kept saying as long as Roger is out there you got to believe. That is the confidence that team had in him. No doubt defense mattered and I think it still does, if your defense can keep you in reach even on a day that offense is not clicking they provide the opportunity for the offense to comeback.

Honestly, I know others don't feel this way, but I had the same feeling about Romo. I just never believed the defense could make a stop, even after Romo pulled off an incredible comeback. I think both players were similar in this regard, although Staubach definitely gets the edge because he got to do it in bigger games. I can imagine Staubach in that 2007 playoff game against the Giants making some of those same throws and ending up with the same exasperation when Crayton dropped a perfect pass and failed to go on his end zone route when he had single coverage. I can't say having Staubach wouldn't have made the game turn out differently (because I don't know that), I just hate that circumstances that may be out of the QB's control too often get heaped onto the QB.

I think of the Super Bowl XIII loss to Pittsburgh and how nobody blames Staubach for the dropped TD pass by Jackie Smith (although Staubach did). That's how it should be, although that drop bears far more blame that it should for that loss. But again, it's one of those cases where one bad play in a loss can get singled out while that same bad play in a win doesn't matter. That's understandable to an extent, but it really is a superficial way to look at a game.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

First, let me say that I have much respect for Roger Staubach. However, I was watching the 1977 NFC Championship Game and thought after he overthrew a short TD pass to Drew Pearson about how much his career might be different if Dallas didn't have the Doomsday Defense.

The Cowboys beat the Minnesota Vikings 23-6 to reach the Super Bowl, but turnovers and the defense were the main reason for the victory. Staubach had a few nice passes, and Dorsett and Newhouse had a few nice runs, but the defense hardly gave up anything and more than made up for it with the turnovers it forced (although the back-breaker came on special teams).

I know there are many who judge quarterbacks on winning and Super Bowls, but games like this just show how much of a team game football is. One missed TD throw might end up costing a team with a poor defense, but it didn't mar Staubach's career because the defense never really let the Vikings into the game.

Just thought I'd share that example. I'm not trying to diminish Staubach's accomplishments (you can find missed TD throws by other great QBs that didn't affect the result). I just think of other QBs who never got the benefit of having one big mistake be inconsequential.

Game was different then. A lot harder for any QB to sustain drives and actually score points. Not like today, today it's relatively easy to sustain a drive and score points. There is a reason that completion percentages in 1977 averaged just above 51% across the league and today, they average just shy of 65%, as of 2018. It's a different game now and Defenses in those days were allowed to actually play Defense. They weren't saddled with all kinds of rules that slanted the game to an Offensive Advantage, by design. You could actually hit a QB in those days and roughing was really not a thing you saw called. Game was just different and the Defense was actually a part of the actual outcome and not just a speed bump for effect, on the way to 7 points. TBH, I miss that style of Football. It was fun watch and to play.

 

[MichaelValentino]

First, let me say that I have much respect for Roger Staubach. However, I was watching the 1977 NFC Championship Game and thought after he overthrew a short TD pass to Drew Pearson about how much his career might be different if Dallas didn't have the Doomsday Defense.

The Cowboys beat the Minnesota Vikings 23-6 to reach the Super Bowl, but turnovers and the defense were the main reason for the victory. Staubach had a few nice passes, and Dorsett and Newhouse had a few nice runs, but the defense hardly gave up anything and more than made up for it with the turnovers it forced (although the back-breaker came on special teams).

I know there are many who judge quarterbacks on winning and Super Bowls, but games like this just show how much of a team game football is. One missed TD throw might end up costing a team with a poor defense, but it didn't mar Staubach's career because the defense never really let the Vikings into the game.

Just thought I'd share that example. I'm not trying to diminish Staubach's accomplishments (you can find missed TD throws by other great QBs that didn't affect the result). I just think of other QBs who never got the benefit of having one big mistake be inconsequential.

Interesting thread.

I see the OP's point. However, we can look at (even scrutinize) many former and current QBs in a similar fashion.

Look at Brady. His D held the explosive Rams offense to 17 pts in SB 36. Does he win that SB if the Rams put up 31? How about last year's SB and the 2nd half of SB 51 vs Atlanta? Over six quarters the Pats D gave up a grand total of 3 pts. In SB 49 vs Seattle, the NE D gave up 24 pts and stopped Seattle at the goal line late in the game. What would Brady's legacy be if his defense didn't step up in those games and his SB record would be 2-7 instead of 6-3?

Joe Montana's defense came up with a goal line stand at the end of the 1st half vs Cincy (SB 16) and allowed the 49ers to win 26-21. Seven years later, again vs. Cincy, the 49ers had 13 points late in the 4th. Montana was leading a drive and a Bengals DB dropped a sure INT. SF won 20-16, thanks in large measure to a defense that held the Bengals in check. What is Montana's legacy if he's 2-2 instead of 4-0 in the SB?

Bradshaw had a pedestrian game in SB 9 vs Minnesota, but the Steel Curtain dominated. The following year, he was 9 of 19 vs the Cowboys, but thanks to Swann's acrobatic catches and a smothering D that registered 7 sacks and shut down the Dallas running game in the 2nd half, the Steelers won SB X, 21-17. Doesn't Bradshaw owe his stellar SB record in large part to one of the best defensive units of all time?

Namath is in Canton, but the Jets D held the Colts, a powerful team at the time, to 7 pts in SB 3.

Bob Griese benefitted from the No Name Defense as it held Washington and Minnesota to a combined 7 pts in 8 quarters in winning BTB SBs. Griese also played with two HOF O-linemen to go with HOFers Larry Czonka and Paul Warfield. And he had a HOF coach too who wasn't too bad as I recall.

We could go on and on, back and forth. I agree with your premise in that even great QBs need solid, if not great, defenses to win consistently.

What would Dan Fouts have accomplished if he had the Steel Curtain or Doomsday or the 70s Vikings defenses to go with that explosive Chargers offense? How about Marino having the 85 Bears when he faced Montana's 49ers and was hammered by 22 pts?

Yes, Staubach benefitted from Doomsday. And, yes, he had some clunker games. But defenses were harder to throw against back then.

Consider this: Roger led the Cowboys to 51 combined points vs Miami and Denver in SBs 6 and 12. During the regular season, the 71 Dolphins gave up 14 pts or less in 12 of 14 games. The 77 Broncos gave up 14 points or less in 13 of 14 games. Roger led victories over two pretty good defensive units. And in the NFC playoffs, he faced some good defenses from Los Angeles and Minnesota on a regular basis.

His wins were not always pretty. But then again, the game was a lot different back then. In SBs 10 and 13 (10 especially), the Dallas WRs were getting physically beat up by the Pittsburgh defense. Roger didn't have guys running wide open, untouched beyond five yards, as we often see today.

 

[gimmesix]

Staubach retired as the NFL all time passing leader. Staubach led 12 rookies to the Super Bowl and was 2-2 in Super Bowls responsible at QB for all of Tom Landry Super Bowl wins. So that is great QB play for the Cowboys during the 70's. He go both Doomsday I and Doomsday II Super Bowl Championships, and was a drop ball from Jackie Smith from a 3rd Super Bowl.

It that It takes 2 to make a thing go right.

It's funny that I just mentioned the Smith drop. The focus gets put on that play, but there are other reasons we didn't win the Super Bowl that year. It was a big play so it's understandable that it gets singled out, but Dallas giving up a Super Bowl-record 318 yards passing and 4 TDs to Bradshaw was equally as important. We scored 31 points even with Smith's drop, so a slightly better defensive effort would have made it inconsequential.

As Landry said after the game, "Sure it was one turning point. If we get that touchdown, our players would have been hopping up and down, really fired up. But that didn't lose the football game for us."

Frankly, the poor interference call on Barnes bugged me more than the drop, but even with that, it was no excuse for the defense not stopping Franco Harris on a 22-yard TD run a few plays later. Then, Randy White tried to field a squib kick with a cast on his left hand and turned the ball over to Pittsburgh. A TD pass later and it was suddenly 35-17.

 

[gimmesix]

Game was different then. A lot harder for any QB to sustain drives and actually score points. Not like today, today it's relatively easy to sustain a drive and score points. There is a reason that completion percentages in 1977 averaged just above 51% across the league and today, they average just shy of 65%, as of 2018. It's a different game now and Defenses in those days were allowed to actually play Defense. They weren't saddled with all kinds of rules that slanted the game to an Offensive Advantage, by design. You could actually hit a QB in those days and roughing was really not a thing you saw called. Game was just different and the Defense was actually a part of the actual outcome and not just a speed bump for effect, on the way to 7 points. TBH, I miss that style of Football. It was fun watch and to play.

I do miss the style of play, and it's hard to truly speculate how certain players from the modern era would have fared with it, just as it's difficult to say how players from the '70s would fare today. I can offer my somewhat educated opinion, but that's about all. I just think that we often unfairly view QBs based on wins and losses, when in any era you want to look at, you can see that their success isn't solely dependent on them. The Hall of Fame for QBs seems to be just as much a reward for how good their team was as it is for how good they were.

 

[gimmesix]

Yes, Staubach benefitted from Doomsday. And, yes, he had some clunker games. But defenses were harder to throw against back then.

Consider this: Roger led the Cowboys to 51 combined points vs Miami and Denver in SBs 6 and 12. During the regular season, the 71 Dolphins gave up 14 pts or less in 12 of 14 games. The 77 Broncos gave up 14 points or less in 13 of 14 games. Roger led victories over two pretty good defensive units. And in the NFC playoffs, he faced some good defenses from Los Angeles and Minnesota on a regular basis.

His wins were not always pretty. But then again, the game was a lot different back then. In SBs 10 and 13 (10 especially), the Dallas WRs were getting physically beat up by the Pittsburgh defense. Roger didn't have guys running wide open, untouched beyond five yards, as we often see today.

And I don't want to give off the appearance that I believe just any other QB could have accomplished what Staubach did with the Cowboys. As great as the team was, it would be wrong to assume that. Could some of these other QBs who didn't play for as good of a team have had Super Bowl success with those Dallas teams? I think it's probable, but there's really so much that goes into a Super Bowl season that's it's impossible to say definitively.

I just pointed out the championship game that I was watching to show why we should be hesitant to judge QBs on winning and losing. Not saying it should be completely disregarded, but it should be given a lot less emphasis than it is.