Staubach and the Doomsday D

[ABQCOWBOY]

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.

I don't really look at it that way, to be honest. I mean, I agree that QBs get way too much credit and way too much blame but to me, the most fair way to judge a QB is to base it off Ls and Ws. For example, a guy like Aikman, who was truly one of the most gifted QBs I've ever seen, will never get credit for being a great passer because he doesn't have the stats. However, a guy like Marino, also one of the greatest passing QBs in the history of the game, truly talented passer, gets too much credit in that area and the fact that he never won a championship gets overlooked more then it should IMO. Two QBs, both extraordinary talents, one wanted to throw it up on every play and actually didn't value the run game nearly enough. The other with the talent to be able to put up the same kind of numbers but willing to forgo the stats, in exchange for a team concept and a running game that won himself championships. I see it both ways and I value the style of game that Troy played. I don't think it's wrong to judge QBs on wins and losses. I think it's as good a way to evaluate them as any, to be honest. As you say, too much is out of our control or even our knowledge of the situation. I'm OK with judging QBs in that manner because it's really the only thing you can look at and evaluate with some degree of perspective IMO.

 

[JD_KaPow]

These days the defense can give up 30 - or 40 - points and "fans" run to the internet to blame the QB for not putting 41 on the board. Defenses get a pass too often.

It's worse than that. There was a very large and vocal contingent on here blaming Romo when Dallas lost to Denver 51-48:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201310060dal.htm

 

[gimmesix]

I don't really look at it that way, to be honest. I mean, I agree that QBs get way too much credit and way too much blame but to me, the most fair way to judge a QB is to base it off Ls and Ws. For example, a guy like Aikman, who was truly one of the most gifted QBs I've ever seen, will never get credit for being a great passer because he doesn't have the stats. However, a guy like Marino, also one of the greatest passing QBs in the history of the game, truly talented passer, gets too much credit in that area and the fact that he never won a championship gets overlooked more then it should IMO. Two QBs, both extraordinary talents, one wanted to throw it up on every play and actually didn't value the run game nearly enough. The other with the talent to be able to put up the same kind of numbers but willing to forgo the stats, in exchange for a team concept and a running game that won himself championships. I see it both ways and I value the style of game that Troy played. I don't think it's wrong to judge QBs on wins and losses. I think it's as good a way to evaluate them as any, to be honest. As you say, too much is out of our control or even our knowledge of the situation. I'm OK with judging QBs in that manner because it's really the only thing you can look at and evaluate with some degree of perspective IMO.

I'm not sure I'm with you on that. Maybe if W's and L's are only seen as a small part of the equation, since they are reliant on much more than the QB's play. If you want to use them to give an edge to this QB being better than that QB, I can see it, but overall IMO level of play at the position is impossible to judge on record.

I always go back to Archie Manning: Terrible career record for a QB who deserved much more. You go in and break down his play, the reasons for the lack of success, etc., I can't say he would have achieved Staubach's level of success if he had been in Dallas, but I can easily say those Dallas teams were much better than any team he was ever on.

The problem is how do you judge those QBs? If you downgrade poor performances because they were on poor offenses, then how do you get a true picture? If you completely disregard losses, then do you take out their role in those losses? I think a comprehensive view is needed, but most of us don't have the time or desire to do that, so we judge them unfairly. Of course, i don't know anyway we can judge them completely fairly because we can never see what they would do in better (or sometimes worse) circumstances.

I just hate it when people say this QB or that QB wasn't very good because they never won a Super Bowl or didn't have enough wins. That can be given as part of the equation but should never be used as the full equation because again, one missed passed by Staubach might not equal defeat, but one by a QB on a lesser team can and often does. (The same can be said for one fumble by a running back, one blown pass interference call, etc., so there's a lot that has to be considered in W's and L's.)

 

[gimmesix]

It's worse than that. There was a very large and vocal contingent on here blaming Romo when Dallas lost to Denver 51-48:

https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/201310060dal.htm

That was definitely ridiculous.

 

[Reverend Conehead]

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.

Landry's defenses were a big reason why Staubach was able to be successful, and it doesn't take away from his greatness. People forget that in the 1975 playoff game, the famous "Hail Mary" one, the Vikings had the game won and had the ball with a 3rd and 2. One first down would have sealed the game for the Vikes. The Cowboys offense would not have gotten the ball back, and there would have been no Hail Mary. But our defense held them on that third and short yardage, giving us the ball back and the chance for a miracle. It's still an amazing accomplishment by Staubach, Pearson, and the offense, but the defense gave them that chance.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

I'm not sure I'm with you on that. Maybe if W's and L's are only seen as a small part of the equation, since they are reliant on much more than the QB's play. If you want to use them to give an edge to this QB being better than that QB, I can see it, but overall IMO level of play at the position is impossible to judge on record.

I always go back to Archie Manning: Terrible career record for a QB who deserved much more. You go in and break down his play, the reasons for the lack of success, etc., I can't say he would have achieved Staubach's level of success if he had been in Dallas, but I can easily say those Dallas teams were much better than any team he was ever on.

The problem is how do you judge those QBs? If you downgrade poor performances because they were on poor offenses, then how do you get a true picture? If you completely disregard losses, then do you take out their role in those losses? I think a comprehensive view is needed, but most of us don't have the time or desire to do that, so we judge them unfairly. Of course, i don't know anyway we can judge them completely fairly because we can never see what they would do in better (or sometimes worse) circumstances.

I just hate it when people say this QB or that QB wasn't very good because they never won a Super Bowl or didn't have enough wins. That can be given as part of the equation but should never be used as the full equation because again, one missed passed by Staubach might not equal defeat, but one by a QB on a lesser team can and often does. (The same can be said for one fumble by a running back, one blown pass interference call, etc., so there's a lot that has to be considered in W's and L's.)

I don't know that I've ever seen anybody suggest that only Wins and Loses are the sole criteria. However, and I think this is important, you talk to QBs who played in the NFL and they pretty much judge themselves on Ws and Ls. Hard to look at that and say it's wrong if that's the standard that they, themselves, are using as measure. Manning was a good QB but he, IMO, was not great. I mean, he didn't play on good teams but still, you look at his numbers, especially INTs and Manning's numbers are just bad. You can absolutely consider the quality of teams he played on but the driving force on INTs is pressure right? Look at the Sack Percentage of Roger and Archie. Roger 9.6 Sk% with 109 INTs vs 153 TDs. Archie 9.8 with 173 INTs vs 125 TDs. I think Archie was a good QB but he wasn't a HOF QB but that's just my opinion.

I will, however, say this. I would have much more sympathy for a player like Archie Manning, then I would a modern QB of today. In those days, players had a lot less leverage to change their situations, once they were drafted. Today, QBs can play out their rookie deals and decide to move on or play for the money. If you don't like your situation, players have the power to change things if they really want to.

 

[OmerV]

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.

True. but I wouldn't say Goff equates to Staubach in that regard because Staubach stood the test of time and repeatedly showed the ability to pull rabbits out of his hat when the team needed it most. That said, time will tell with Goff. Is he really much behind other QBs, or has he just not been around long enough to prove he belongs in the same conversation with others.

 

[JoeKing]

Landry's defenses were a big reason why Staubach was able to be successful, and it doesn't take away from his greatness. People forget that in the 1975 playoff game, the famous "Hail Mary" one, the Vikings had the game won and had the ball with a 3rd and 2. One first down would have sealed the game for the Vikes. The Cowboys offense would not have gotten the ball back, and there would have been no Hail Mary. But our defense held them on that third and short yardage, giving us the ball back and the chance for a miracle. It's still an amazing accomplishment by Staubach, Pearson, and the offense, but the defense gave them that chance.

I remember that game well. That was a great team win! Thanks for reminding me.

 

[gimmesix]

True. but I wouldn't say Goff equates to Staubach in that regard because Staubach stood the test of time and repeatedly showed the ability to pull rabbits out of his hat when the team needed it most. That said, time will tell with Goff. Is he really much behind other QBs, or has he just not been around long enough to prove he belongs in the same conversation with others.

Certainly not saying that Goff is anywhere close to Staubach's level.

A better example might be Eli Manning. He owns two Super Bowl rings. Give that to some quarterbacks and they would be worthy of the Hall of Fame. Anyone who thinks Eli is worthy is blinded by the two rings.

 

[OmerV]

Certainly not saying that Goff is anywhere close to Staubach's level.

A better example might be Eli Manning. He owns two Super Bowl rings. Give that to some quarterbacks and they would be worthy of the Hall of Fame. Anyone who thinks Eli is worthy is blinded by the two rings.

Eli is a lock for the HOF. He definitely has his flaws and always has had them, but it isn't just the rings that make him a strong candidate. He currently sits at #7 on the all time passing yardage list, and # 8 on the passing TD list. Those numbers alone would make him a strong candidate in the eyes of voters, so the rings just close the deal.