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

[Doomsday101]

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

You can compare the fact that when any of the 3 were missing the team struggled. Last season Dallas lost Murray in FA, they lost Romo to injury and Dez for much of the season due to injury. Now take the 90's team take Aikman, Emmitt and Irvin out of the lineup and try to win. It would not happen.

 

[DandyDon52]

In the 92 season dallas had it easy, as they played 6 teams with rookie bkup QB's
But those rookies in some cases did much better than weedon did last year, or cassel too.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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

Does that have any relevance to the point being made. That they were better doesn't make it easier for the current squad to overcome. The offense is built ismilarly to what they ran in the 90s. Personnel is different obviously but the analogs are just as obvious.

 

[DandyDon52]

You can compare the fact that when any of the 3 were missing the team struggled. Last season Dallas lost Murray in FA, they lost Romo to injury and Dez for much of the season due to injury. Now take the 90's team take Aikman, Emmitt and Irvin out of the lineup and try to win. It would not happen.

Well they could win about 50% of games, our current team only won 1 of 12.
I dont think anyone expected dallas to win more than 50 % without having tony.
Dallas won less than 10 % of their games , and they had plenty of time to replace murray.

Had Jimmy lost Emmit, and had the draft and offseason to replace him, he would have had a good back when the season rolled around.

I think any team is hurt a lot by loss of a starting QB that is good, and also any team should be able to roll along without their top WR.

Therefore last season the big loss was tony, not dez or murray. Then the loss of Tony made the other losses even worse.
If weedon had a healthy dez, and they had kept murray, it would have been different , with a greater chance of winning.

But the FO didnt keep murray, and they didnt sign dez early enough for him to go to camps, which he needed to be there at start of ota's
So those 2 things are on the FO, and they approved weedon, and got cassel in a panic, and of course they hired or approved the
whole coaching staff, so that aspect is on the FO too.

 

[Califan007]

Does that have any relevance to the point being made. That they were better doesn't make it easier for the current squad to overcome. The offense is built ismilarly to what they ran in the 90s. Personnel is different obviously but the analogs are just as obvious.

It's ridiculously relevant to that poster's point being made in the post I quoted.

Someone said the current Cowboys team isn't close to the Cowboys team of the 90s. The other guy basically said what authority is that conclusion based on. I responded to that guy.

 

[Califan007]

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.

Part in bold is absolutely correct. (the rest is, too, by the way lol)...From what I remember looking at the stats, the Cowboys were 2-0 in games where Bryant was out but Romo still played/started. I'm too lazy to look it up and see if my memory was correct lol...

 

[Doomsday101]

Well they could win about 50% of games, our current team only won 1 of 12.
I dont think anyone expected dallas to win more than 50 % without having tony.
Dallas won less than 10 % of their games , and they had plenty of time to replace murray.

Had Jimmy lost Emmit, and had the draft and offseason to replace him, he would have had a good back when the season rolled around.

I think any team is hurt a lot by loss of a starting QB that is good, and also any team should be able to roll along without their top WR.

Therefore last season the big loss was tony, not dez or murray. Then the loss of Tony made the other losses even worse.
If weedon had a healthy dez, and they had kept murray, it would have been different , with a greater chance of winning.

But the FO didnt keep murray, and they didnt sign dez early enough for him to go to camps, which he needed to be there at start of ota's
So those 2 things are on the FO, and they approved weedon, and got cassel in a panic, and of course they hired or approved the
whole coaching staff, so that aspect is on the FO too.

why they never proved that. Without Emmitt in the lineup Dallas was not winning period. Now take Aikman and Irvin out we are not going to win. It is easy for fans to sit there and act like you don't need your star QB or your #1 WR or the NFL leading rusher and you should win. BS this is not Madden and I don't know of any teams losing the top 3 players on offense and are out there winning games.

By the way Jimmy lost Emmitt for 2 games to start a season and lost both of them and then is up their at the podium speechless while Haley is losing it in the locker room. Once Emmitt returned things turned around quickly but there was no replacement for Smith, the JAGS behind him were not going to have near the impact and in a sport where games are normally decided by a handful of plays having top players in your lineup is critical

 

[TX Cowboy]

Rotflmao Jimmy had so much depth on his roster he...easily could have made 3-4 equally great
teams just off that alone, So not sure what this sports writer is on? but he sure as hell doesn't
know a thing about just how good the 90's Boys really were

 

[Doomsday101]

Rotflmao Jimmy had so much depth on his roster he...easily could have made 3-4 equally great
teams just off that alone, So not sure what this sports writer is on? but he sure as hell doesn't
know a thing about just how good the 90's Boys really were

They were good but Jimmy was not winning games that Emmitt was out of the lineup. Yes we had depth but QB? who was the WR? Harper? he was not close to being a #1 You take those 3 out of the lineup and we were not going to win. I love Jimmy but he was not overly successful in Miami it is about the players on your team and losing your 3 top offensive weapons can kill any team out there.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's ridiculously relevant to that poster's point being made in the post I quoted.

Someone said the current Cowboys team isn't close to the Cowboys team of the 90s. The other guy basically said what authority is that conclusion based on. I responded to that guy.

You ignored the rest of my post. I said it was irrelevant but I then talked about the actual teams.

Focus on the run and offense. Recall 1992 and the no name defense? Acquiring Triplets for offense. Tremendous OL.

It's still besides the point regardless who brought it up.

 

[plasticman]

The difference between being good and being great is the ability to seize opportunity.

The Cowboys of the 70's did well with the opportunities presented. They went to the playoffs 9 times that decade. They reached the NFC championship game 6 times. They went to the Super Bowl 5 times. They won twice.

The team of the 90's reached the playoffs 8 times. They went to the NFC Championship game 4 times. They went to the Super Bowl 3 times. They won 3 times.

This current team over the past ten years have gone to the playoffs 4 times. There was another 4 years in which they would have gone had they won game #16. Each time, they failed to do so.They have never made it past the divisional rounds.

They had their chances. They were clearly the best team in 2007 when they lost to the eventual champions Giants, who were fading when they beat the Cowboys in December. They were a serious contender in 2009 when they ended their season by shutting out theirs last two opponents, both division rivals, before losing to the Vikings in an injury plagued game. They had an opportunity in 2014 but failed by a single play.

There have been many opinions on why these Cowboys never could quite get to the next step. Some say it was Romo, some the defense or the referees. Some say coaching. Whatever the case, they had their chances and didn't get there.

So, you might say this current team has comparable talent to the team of the 90's but they have been missing something. It may be chemistry, perseverence, or character. It may even be choking, I don't know. But' whatever it is, that is the difference between this team and the 90's team.

This difference is huge. It is glaring. It is right there in the results.

As for the triplets:

Fron 1990 to 1996 the Cowboys were 11-6 without Aikman. Steve Burealein, Rodney Peete, Bernie Kesar, and Jason Garrett won for the Cowboys. 1997 to 1999 were not winning years for any Cowboys due to the erosion of the team created by the salary cap, free agency and Jerry Jones's incompetence.

During the 90's Emmitt Smith literally never missed a game due to injury. He missed two due to a contract hold out and two game #16's when the Cowboys held him out because they had clinched everything they could. The Cowboys went 0-4 but, seriously, those two game #16's were missing a lot of starters. Nobody should conclude that they couldn't win without Emmitt although I would have to say it would have been difficult considering the quality of Smith's backups.

Michael Irvin, like Smith, played in just about every game when he came back from his injury in 1989 right up to his career ending injury in 1999 with the exception of the first 5 games of the 1996 season. They went 2-3. Yes, Aikman was pretty miserable without Irvin but one loss was by a point to the Colts, another was three points to the Bills, it wasn't like they couldnt win without Irvin.

To summarize, nobody should feel comfortable with this claim because there simply isn't enough data to support it. Those triplets weren't fragile superstars, they were tough warriors who only missed games due to management decisions or were unable to stand up.

Lately, the triplets have been a musical chairs of injuries. Murray, Bryant, and Romo have missed
a combined 47 games as Cowboys from 2010 to 2015 which means that the Cowboys were without one of the three of their designated starters almost 50% of the time.

 

[noshame]

They beat the Giants due to the Giants inexplicable stupidity bypassing the ball when they could have run out the clock.

They beat the Dolphins because let's face it the Dolphins were horrible and our defense decided to actually show up. I mean really what did Romo actually do in the Dolphins game?

 

[TX Cowboy]

They were good but Jimmy was not winning games that Emmitt was out of the lineup. Yes we had depth but QB? who was the WR? Harper? he was not close to being a #1 You take those 3 out of the lineup and we were not going to win. I love Jimmy but he was not overly successful in Miami it is about the players on your team and losing your 3 top offensive weapons can kill any team out there.

Harper didn't need to be a #1 in order to be an impact, neither did Pete or Garrett, Martin and Gant...
Dallas could exchange anyone at anytime and still be as talented as if the starters were still on the
field. Of course it's easy to forget the game when Aikman was knocked out against Green Bay
and managed to win it for us, The same way a no name rookie came in for an injured Roger
Staubach on Thanksgiving of 74 and rallied to beat the Commanders

 

[Doomsday101]

Harper didn't need to be a #1 in order to be an impact, neither did Pete or Garrett, Martin and Gant...
Dallas could exchange anyone at anytime and still be as talented as if the starters were still on the
field. Of course it's easy to forget the game when Aikman was knocked out against Green Bay
and managed to win it for us, The same way a no name rookie came in for an injured Roger
Staubach on Thanksgiving of 74 and rallied to beat the Commanders

Dallas had a losing record when Emmitt was out of the line up that is 1 person yet results were we lost. Last season Dallas lost the 3 top players of the offense a Pro Bowl QB, a Pro Bowl WR and the NFL leading rusher if you don't think that has a major impact on any team then so be it but I know if you take the top weapons off any team they are not going to win not even the 90's team

Everything you just posted involved 1 player Roger or Troy or Rodgers not the QB, WR and RB that is a lot to overcome. You may be able to win playing Madden but your not winning in the NFL without real star talent, backups are not going to do it

 

[TX Cowboy]

Dallas had a losing record when Emmitt was out of the line up that is 1 person yet results were we lost. Last season Dallas lost the 3 top players of the offense a Pro Bowl QB, a Pro Bowl WR and the NFL leading rusher if you don't think that has a major impact on any team then so be it but I know if you take the top weapons off any team they are not going to win not even the 90's team

0-2 dude, 0-2 not the end of the world by any means! Aggie was the back up to Emmitt but that isn't the reason
they had the losing record to start that year, The impact of Emmitt being snubbed by Jerruh is the reason they
began that season horrible, It sent the message to the 'idiot' that Emmitt was very much part of the team that
won their first title since Landry's Cowboys did it! That he deserved to be compensated for his role in winning
the title...I am not suggesting they threw those games on purpose to make a formal protest, However you knew
they missed him but it doesn't mean they couldn't have won without him either

Everything you just posted involved 1 player Roger or Troy or Rodgers not the QB, WR and RB that is a lot to overcome. You may be able to win playing Madden but your not winning in the NFL without real star talent, backups are not going to do it

You are painting a broad comparison of how the team reacts now, compared to how they overcame the odds
and won even if 1 'talented' player was out due to injury, Jason Garrett had one hell of a game against the
Packers at Texas Stadium to get the (W) Longley a no name rookie is called off the bench in a critical game
against the Commanders because Diron Talbert knocks Roger out the game. Rallying Dallas to comeback and
win the game.. Larry Brown another classic example an off the bench player who eventually became a
starter and managed to be a super bowl MVP, So how do you explain these phenomenons? OH well they
weren't real our back ups sucked and those things didn't really happen

got news for you they did happen!!! the only reason we didn't see a lot of the other guys off the
bench? is due to the fact! our starters managed to stay healthy thanks in good part to the trainers
we had, But Landry and Jimmy knew what their roster consisted of, I trust their prudent judgement
on this which gives them way more credibility than you right now[/quote]

 

[Doomsday101]

0-2 dude, 0-2 not the end of the world by any means! Aggie was the back up to Emmitt but that isn't the reason
they had the losing record to start that year, The impact of Emmitt being snubbed by Jerruh is the reason they
began that season horrible, It sent the message to the 'idiot' that Emmitt was very much part of the team that
won their first title since Landry's Cowboys did it! That he deserved to be compensated for his role in winning
the title...I am not suggesting they threw those games on purpose to make a formal protest, However you knew
they missed him but it doesn't mean they couldn't have won without him either



You are painting a broad comparison of how the team reacts now, compared to how they overcame the odds
and won even if 1 'talented' player was out due to injury, Jason Garrett had one hell of a game against the
Packers at Texas Stadium to get the (W) Longley a no name rookie is called off the bench in a critical game
against the Commanders because Diron Talbert knocks Roger out the game. Rallying Dallas to comeback and
win the game.. Larry Brown another classic example an off the bench player who eventually became a
starter and managed to be a super bowl MVP, So how do you explain these phenomenons? OH well they
weren't real our back ups sucked and those things didn't really happen

got news for you they did happen!!! the only reason we didn't see a lot of the other guys off the
bench? is due to the fact! our starters managed to stay healthy thanks in good part to the trainers
we had, But Landry and Jimmy knew what their roster consisted of, I trust their prudent judgement
on this which gives them way more credibility than you right now

[/quote]

I have been a fan since 65 I know the history of the Cowboys. We are not talking 1 player we are talking 3. Roger was out was Drew Pearson? NO he was not. When Garrett started the game vs the Packers was Irvin out of the lineup as well or Emmitt? NO. We lost 3 of the top players not only on the team but in the NFL that is major and will have impact and I got new for you if you take the 3 top offensive weapons, QB, WR and RB and take them off any team that team will struggle to win games.

 

[cowboyblue22]

the teams of landry and Johnson had great players at lots of different positions and really good depth the team of the last 10 years has had one maybe two great players the rest are average at best and depth is not very good also the coaching from today does not compare with those coaches not even close one difference if you listen to the interviews with those older players and teams they knew they were going to win the team of today hopes they can win.

 

[Stash]

The difference between being good and being great is the ability to seize opportunity.

The Cowboys of the 70's did well with the opportunities presented. They went to the playoffs 9 times that decade. They reached the NFC championship game 6 times. They went to the Super Bowl 5 times. They won twice.

The team of the 90's reached the playoffs 8 times. They went to the NFC Championship game 4 times. They went to the Super Bowl 3 times. They won 3 times.

This current team over the past ten years have gone to the playoffs 4 times. There was another 4 years in which they would have gone had they won game #16. Each time, they failed to do so.They have never made it past the divisional rounds.

They had their chances. They were clearly the best team in 2007 when they lost to the eventual champions Giants, who were fading when they beat the Cowboys in December. They were a serious contender in 2009 when they ended their season by shutting out theirs last two opponents, both division rivals, before losing to the Vikings in an injury plagued game. They had an opportunity in 2014 but failed by a single play.

There have been many opinions on why these Cowboys never could quite get to the next step. Some say it was Romo, some the defense or the referees. Some say coaching. Whatever the case, they had their chances and didn't get there.

So, you might say this current team has comparable talent to the team of the 90's but they have been missing something. It may be chemistry, perseverence, or character. It may even be choking, I don't know. But' whatever it is, that is the difference between this team and the 90's team.

This difference is huge. It is glaring. It is right there in the results.

As for the triplets:

Fron 1990 to 1996 the Cowboys were 11-6 without Aikman. Steve Burealein, Rodney Peete, Bernie Kesar, and Jason Garrett won for the Cowboys. 1997 to 1999 were not winning years for any Cowboys due to the erosion of the team created by the salary cap, free agency and Jerry Jones's incompetence.

During the 90's Emmitt Smith literally never missed a game due to injury. He missed two due to a contract hold out and two game #16's when the Cowboys held him out because they had clinched everything they could. The Cowboys went 0-4 but, seriously, those two game #16's were missing a lot of starters. Nobody should conclude that they couldn't win without Emmitt although I would have to say it would have been difficult considering the quality of Smith's backups.

Michael Irvin, like Smith, played in just about every game when he came back from his injury in 1989 right up to his career ending injury in 1999 with the exception of the first 5 games of the 1996 season. They went 2-3. Yes, Aikman was pretty miserable without Irvin but one loss was by a point to the Colts, another was three points to the Bills, it wasn't like they couldnt win without Irvin.

To summarize, nobody should feel comfortable with this claim because there simply isn't enough data to support it. Those triplets weren't fragile superstars, they were tough warriors who only missed games due to management decisions or were unable to stand up.

Lately, the triplets have been a musical chairs of injuries. Murray, Bryant, and Romo have missed
a combined 47 games as Cowboys from 2010 to 2015 which means that the Cowboys were without one of the three of their designated starters almost 50% of the time.

Thanks for doing the research to actually support or disprove the claim made. A shame that the original 'author' failed to do so before making his failed claims.

As I've said before, some of the writers at Blogging the Boys are pretty good. This guy isn't one of them.

 

[CCBoy]

Just to put back into perspective for some fans, no, Jerry wasn't an idiot. Cash flows back then, was a whole lot different than market make-up now. Jerry had to bend nails and straighten them back up, when the team first started out. It took shrewdness and gamble for the team to overcome the red ledger entries that the franchise had when Jerry took control. Then, it was a huge financial gamble that Jerry took...and won the battle. Poke fun vainly, but was a real architect for regrowing the Cowboys. At least give the man earned respect. I don't care how one trips out on blame games...

 

[plasticman]

Just to put back into perspective for some fans, no, Jerry wasn't an idiot. Cash flows back then, was a whole lot different than market make-up now. Jerry had to bend nails and straighten them back up, when the team first started out. It took shrewdness and gamble for the team to overcome the red ledger entries that the franchise had when Jerry took control. Then, it was a huge financial gamble that Jerry took...and won the battle. Poke fun vainly, but was a real architect for regrowing the Cowboys. At least give the man earned respect. I don't care how one trips out on blame games...

It took money and that was the only thing Jerry Jones was good for, thanks to his family fortune. Some may say he was also good for being Jimmy Johnson's roommate in college but the truth is, Jimmy went with the team willing to give him the most power.

Jimmy had the credentials, expertise, and drive to build that team and Jerry had the wallet. He has since attempted to revise history and claim his self-assigned title of GM made him the archirect. That is beyond hysterical, it is absurd.

As far as clearing the debt and increasing profit, what does that trophy look like? Im a sports fan, not a business fan.