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

[darthseinfeld]

For sure, hide in plain view...

I thought you blocked me?

You made such a huge fuss about it before

 

[darthseinfeld]

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.

Did I say anything other then you blocking me?

No

 

[Califan007]

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.

http://img.***BLOCKED***/albums/v282/justmebyron/07170116_n.jpg

 

[CCBoy]

http://img.***BLOCKED***/albums/v282/justmebyron/07170116_n.jpg

Success...no football talk again.

 

[Califan007]

Did I say anything other then you blocking me?

No

That's a good point...I didn't say anything about how good or bad I think the Cowboys will be this year, either. I said the article writer must be feeling that the Cowboys right now (or at least last year) are significantly inferior to the 90s team because it's the only way his write-up makes sense lol...but I never chimed in with my own views in any of my posts.

 

[CCBoy]

That's a good point...I didn't say anything about how good or bad I think the Cowboys will be this year, either. I said the article writer must be feeling that the Cowboys right now (or at least last year) are significantly inferior to the 90s team because it's the only way his write-up makes sense lol...but I never chimed in with my own views in any of my posts.

It should be noted that the Dallas D actually handled the turnovers by their own offense rather well.


Salty Defenses in 2015 after a Turnover by their OFF: STL, DAL, SEA, CAR, KC, NYG, CLE and NYJ. Yes the Browns DEF is stingy after TOs

— Andy Guyader (@aguyader17) June 29, 2016

 

[CCBoy]

Did I say anything other then you blocking me?

No

I give...but rest a case.

 

[boyzjunkie]

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...

mettle, mettle

Sorry, ~GiGGle~No. Really. I'm sorry.

 

[Garrettop]

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

"These Cowboys" hardly have anyone left from 5 years ago, much less 20. Completely ignorant statement.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

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

"These Cowboys" are not responsible for what happened 20 years ago.

They are responsible for what they do while on this team now.

 

[CCBoy]

mettle, mettle

Sorry, ~GiGGle~No. Really. I'm sorry.

Come back, with some football talk...anyone at a dinner show can be a critic.

 

[Dodger12]

What authority states that, exactly?

Anyone with half a brain, frankly. The NFL today is no where near the product it was in that era. The product is watered down which is why you see run of the mill, back-up QB's throwing for 300 yards and winning games.

In addition, the writer needs to do some homework. Steve Beuerlein went 4 and 0 in the regular season in 91 and won a playoff game. He also came in relief after Aikman got hurt in week 13 and threw the game winning TD pass to Irvin. Jason Garrett even went 2 and 0 in his starts.

No one was saying we should have won out when Romo went down last year. But it wasn't asking too much for two veteran back-up QB's to keep us in the playoff hunt, go .500 until Romo got back or even win at least one game and just look somewhat competent. The team looked putrid.

The writer did absolutely no homework. None. He just heard a "stat" and ran with it.

 

[Califan007]

Anyone with half a brain, frankly. The NFL today is no where near the product it was in that era. The product is watered down which is why you see run of the mill, back-up QB's throwing for 300 yards and winning games.

In addition, the writer needs to do some homework. Steve Beuerlein went 4 and 0 in the regular season in 91 and won a playoff game. He also came in relief after Aikman got hurt in week 13 and threw the game winning TD pass to Irvin. Jason Garrett even went 2 and 0 in his starts.

No one was saying we should have won out when Romo went down last year. But it wasn't asking too much for two veteran back-up QB's to keep us in the playoff hunt, go .500 until Romo got back or even win at least one game and just look somewhat competent. The team looked putrid.

The writer did absolutely no homework. None. He just heard a "stat" and ran with it.

Actually I'm guessing he really did do his homework, because he puts some quality spin on how he presents those stats.

He gives winning percentages for when all of the "triplets" played in a game, but when one of either Aikman, Irvin or Smith didn't play, he only says the Cowboys "lost more than they won". No winning percentage given. I'm guessing that's because he knew that if he presented the winning percentage stat for the 90s Cowboys when missing a "triplet" it would sink his argument.

For the record, the 90s Cowboys went 18-22 when either Aikman, Irvin or Smith did not play. That's a 45% winning percentage.

The 2015 Cowboys went 1-11 when either Romo or Dez did not play. That's an 8% winning percentage.

So, yeah, better to just say the 90s Cowboys team "lost more than they won" lol...

 

[ElGatoGrande]

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.

this statement was close to being a perfect and then you ruined it with the use of two periods at the end why

 

[CCBoy]

this statement was close to being a perfect and then you ruined it with the use of two periods at the end why

Depends on framing efforts. Both Wade Phillips and Jason Garrett teams had a 12 win season, while coaching.

And Phillips now has a Super Bowl ring as a DC.

 

[cowboyblue22]

he has a superbowl with Denver they run him out of Dallas garrett has had one winning season while here so right now his record says he is a 500 coach.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

Depends on framing efforts. Both Wade Phillips and Jason Garrett teams had a 12 win season, while coaching.

And Phillips now has a Super Bowl ring as a DC.

sorry to clarify my comment was strictly about the punctuation it was pristine and then it got ruined with that period he added another perfectly good run on shot to hell.

 

[jrumann59]

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.

same could be said about the NFC East the last 10 years.

 

[Kevinicus]

"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.

The article also jumps from "when one or more were not playing" to "if just one were missing" as if they are the same things. For all we know (from the article), the team could be 5-0 with only one missing, 2-2 with 2 missing, and 1-12 with all 3 missing. Combined, that's 8-14 (well below .500), but it would be misleading to then say "if only one was not playing they couldn't win half their games." To really make a valid point, the article needs to break down the records with one, two, and 3 missing, and also indicate which of the players were missing.

An article earlier this year from ESPN pointed out the Cowboys record with either Romo or Dez missing compared to when they both played. It made a misleading argument that both players were major factors in the records, when the one constant was pretty much Romo, with Dez really having no impact on the record.

 

[DandyDon52]

I think too much credit for success was given to the triplets.
That team, was a "team" and had many players that made a difference in winning or losing.
I just watched 14 of the 16 1992 games, and there were times the triplets did nothing of merit, and other players helped
win the games.
When one group did poorly the other groups or players would step up and do things to help win the games.
There were several games where the other team took emmit and or Irvin out of the game, but other players stepped up, novachek,Moose,and harper.

They threw a lot of passes to moose, he was a factor in several wins.
One game emmitt was shut down running, but they started passing to him, catch and run, so he was a factor doing that instead of running.
Special teams, also made a impact in some games.

They were good as a team, players and coaches.
They had one bad game, the first game with philly, and lost 31-7 I think, and all 3 triplets played Troy had like 4 int's emmitt was held to small amount
of yards , and irvin shut down or controlled, They did move the ball but the turnovers stopped some of the drives.


I think the team we have now has a good offense, but the defense and special teams are avg to below avg, where as the 92 team
Was very good in all 3.
That year Dallas was # 1 in defense, and ST were ranked high, and of course the offense was good too.
And then the coaches I think were better too.

So CC with this team, I think losing a top player hurts this team way more than it would the 92 team.
And this team Romo is just the most important player for the offense, without him it drops to below avg, and I think that is on JG
and his staff.( and also the jones boys) They were not properly prepared for not having tony at QB.

About the other receivers, it is hard to judge, because with no Tony, it is hard to say how loss of Dez would affect them.
Had just Dez been hurt, I think the offense would have done ok, but when tony went out that was it.

As long as weedon had been here, and he has a good arm, so he should have been able to step in and win at least 50 % of games.
The fact he lost all games, showed the coaches were not prepared for not having tony, or that they suck and tony just makes
them look good.