News: The ‘90s Cowboys Struggled To Win When They Were Missing Any One Of Their Triplets

[CCBoy]

The ‘90s Cowboys Struggled To Win When They Were Missing Any One Of Their Triplets

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2016...d-to-win-aikman-irvin-emmitt-romo-dez-elliott


Its Fourth of July weekend and like most red-blooded Americans, I did what everyone did on Saturday and immersed myself in the Dallas Cowboys marathon that was on NFL Network all day. All Cowboys, all day – whose not going to love that? What’s more American than watching America’s Team from dusk ‘til dawn?
Okay, well maybe I didn’t camp out in front of the television for the entirety of the day (because I wanted to stay married), but the TV was on all day and I got some good Cowboys action for the day. While I was watching the "Michael Irvin: My Road To Canton" segment, I heard a stat that blew me away…

When one or more of the ‘90s Cowboys Triplets were not playing, the team lost more games than they won. When all three were in, they won more than 70% of their games.

That’s amazing. Everyone knows just how important those three Hall of Fame players were to the team back then, but I wouldn’t have guessed that if just one of them were missing, that the team would have a less than .500 record. With such a great defense to complement them, it seems like they would be able to pick up some of the slack. We all know about the 0-2 start to the 1993 season when Emmitt Smith was holding out. The Cowboys would go on a tear once Smith returned and would win their second straight Super Bowl.

So when I look at last year’s 4-12 performance, should it be that shocking? Most of us fans just feel that despite the injuries, the team should have been good enough to put a few more wins on the board. What is a realistic expectation when Tony Romo misses 12 games and Dez Bryant misses seven games?

While the 2015 version of the Cowboys didn’t have a clear running back to qualify as a triplet candidate, both Joseph Randle and Darren McFadden did a solid job when they were given the ball. If you count either one of those RBs as an eligible triplet candidate, here are some records:

When all three started the game, the Cowboys only lost one game (Carolina). They won two, beating the New York Giants in week 1 and Miami in week 11. That’s a 67% winning percentage...

 

[cowboyblue22]

you cant comparethese current cowboys to the 90's cowboys they are not even close to the same team

 

[CCBoy]

you cant comparethese current cowboys to the 90's cowboys they are not even close to the same team

What authority states that, exactly?

 

[Califan007]

"When one or more of the ‘90s Cowboys Triplets were not playing, the team lost more games than they won. When all three were in, they won more than 70% of their games."


"lost more than they won" is pretty vague...and can be significantly different than going 1-14 (or whatever the record is) when Romo isn't playing.

 

[cowboyblue22]

these cowboys have won a total of three playoff games in 20 yearsthose team won three superbowls in four years that team had several hall o f fame players these cowboys have one or maybe none

 

[CCBoy]

these cowboys have won a total of three playoff games in 20 yearsthose team won three superbowls in four years that team had several hall o f fame players these cowboys have one or maybe none

If cherry picking...did that dynasty run match Landry's 19 straight playoffs record?

C'mon. This is football, not Jeopardy...

 

[cowboyblue22]

no they did not all you can go on is a teams record this team record speaks for itself they are a three win playoff team middle of the road 500 overall record you record in football speaks for itself. until they become consistent winners they are what they are no more no less.

 

[CCBoy]

no they did not all you can go on is a teams record this team record speaks for itself they are a three win playoff team middle of the road 500 overall record you record in football speaks for itself. until they become consistent winners they are what they are no more no less.

Not a discussion here...only an agenda. Nevermind...

 

[Califan007]

What authority states that, exactly?

Do you think they're close to the same team?

 

[cowboyblue22]

no not even close

 

[Stash]

This guy sucks as a writer. His work brings the overall quality of Bloggng the Boys down.

 

[CCBoy]

Do you think they're close to the same team?

Pass the buck...and cling to a negative comparison to a different team?

The offense has the ability to be every inch as good as the 93-95 Dallas offense. Just for a start point.

This team could even pass some of the milestones of that dynasty. This current group on offense, could be just that good. But in a comparative view, not just hero worship, the other teams currently in the NFC East, just might be better in comparisons to then, as well.

The Cowboys defense is what is in question...but this and next season, will prove their metal out. As to playoffs, this current team is fully capable to be in the thick of that picture.

That part is in it's own right, not a ring taper's two decade ago, worship...

 

[CCBoy]

no not even close

Burn barrel glory...now bring out some comparative facts and prove this team can't equal....instead of beating what should be a chest. Looking for a medal or just a chest to pin it on?

Never mind, you are solely on the mission of a self supportive agenda...you go, 'fan.'

Didn't even grasp the reality of the stats presented, from the start....first, those were ALSO Cowboy teams...both during Landry and in the 90's.

Being reasonable, learn respect doesn't include dishing on a current team. Each season has to be played on IT'S OWN merits. Observe more than looking for heroes from a different era.

Those are respected...not used as rubber stamps over a current team.

Balance, not worship, is that important when at a quality level of play.

 

[cowboyblue22]

these team cant even figure out how to have two winning seasons in a row much or go to the playoffs two years in a row they are a 500 franchise on the road to nowhere.

 

[Califan007]

Pass the buck...and cling to a negative comparison to a different team?

The offense has the ability to be every inch as good as the 93-95 Dallas offense. Just for a start point.

This team could even pass some of the milestones of that dynasty. This current group on offense, could be just that good. But in a comparative view, not just hero worship, the other teams currently in the NFC East, just might be better in comparisons to then, as well.

The Cowboys defense is what is in question...but this and next season, will prove their metal out. As to playoffs, this current team is fully capable to be in the thick of that picture.

That part is in it's own right, not a ring taper's two decade ago, worship...

I don't know if you realize this or not, but the article you quoted and made a thread for is pretty much saying that the current team is in no way, shape or form close to the Cowboys team of the 90s. It's the only way this article makes a lick of sense lol...

Basically the writer's premise is this: if that Super Bowl-winning, HOF infused team of the 90s can't even have a winning season when just one of their "Triplets" is out of the game, how in the world would anyone expect this noticeably inferior team to do better than 4-12 when they missed one of their "triplets" for 3/4ths of the entire season?

But as someone already said above, the article is poorly written and manipulates (or "cherry picks" to use a phrase you're fond of using) the stats to make an overall point that misses the mark by a mile.

Now I don't expect you to respond to this in any way that won't require me using an online translator lol...but that's why I asked you the question I asked.

 

[CCBoy]

I don't know if you realize this or not, but the article you quoted and made a thread for is pretty much saying that the current team is in no way, shape or form close to the Cowboys team of the 90s. It's the only way this article makes a lick of sense lol...

Basically the writer's premise is this: if that Super Bowl-winning, HOF infused team of the 90s can't even have a winning season when just one of their "Triplets" is out of the game, how in the world would anyone expect this noticeably inferior team to do better than 4-12 when they missed one of their "triplets" for 3/4ths of the entire season?

But as someone already said above, the article is poorly written and manipulates (or "cherry picks" to use a phrase you're fond of using) the stats to make an overall point that misses the mark by a mile.

Now I don't expect you to respond to this in any way that won't require me using an online translator lol...but that's why I asked you the question I asked.

Learn reading comprehension and not restating for convenience...


so, here you go:

 

[Califan007]

Learn reading comprehension and not restating for convenience...

There's nothing about responding to you that's "convenient" lol...

 

[CCBoy]

There's nothing about responding to you that's "convenient" lol...

If one is looking for someone to buy into a conversation of the Cowboys are full of crap and how in the world will they find their way out of the paper sack over their heads, with a water hose and kitchen knife...find a preppie that will buy into the initial observation from the start.

 

[darthseinfeld]

I don't know if you realize this or not, but the article you quoted and made a thread for is pretty much saying that the current team is in no way, shape or form close to the Cowboys team of the 90s. It's the only way this article makes a lick of sense lol...

Basically the writer's premise is this: if that Super Bowl-winning, HOF infused team of the 90s can't even have a winning season when just one of their "Triplets" is out of the game, how in the world would anyone expect this noticeably inferior team to do better than 4-12 when they missed one of their "triplets" for 3/4ths of the entire season?

But as someone already said above, the article is poorly written and manipulates (or "cherry picks" to use a phrase you're fond of using) the stats to make an overall point that misses the mark by a mile.

Now I don't expect you to respond to this in any way that won't require me using an online translator lol...but that's why I asked you the question I asked.

If your lucky like me, he will block you

 

[CCBoy]

If your lucky like me, he will block you

For sure, hide in plain view...but do tell, beyond howling at the moon, explain why there is nothing but gloom associated with a look into the issues for success...realistically.