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

[Doomsday101]

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.

Jerry dad was not a rich man. What Jerry made was Jerry doing.

 

[CCBoy]

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.

Oh, Jerry knows football as well. Polar opposites may work for a simple approach to analyzing a franchise and success labels...but that isn't the specifics. To say Jerry had family money as did Murchison, just isn't close to the picture.

Myself, I believe in giving credit to where it's earned...and far, far above being an bumbling and ignorant fool, which is inherited by some fans now...Jerry has been both a strong and positive force for the Cowboys. Yea, HE did a lot of positive things...as well as player acquisitions. Standards for business has evolved, and no, not just everybody else being smart and with ability.

Jerry has at least earned this fan's respect...and he has earned it as well.

I won't be found around the 'ol burn barrel, sipping on Ripple, and tossing darts at a Jerry picture...

 

[Doomsday101]

Oh, Jerry knows football as well. Polar opposites may work for a simple approach to analyzing a franchise and success labels...but that isn't the specifics. To say Jerry had family money as did Murchison, just isn't close to the picture.

Myself, I believe in giving credit to where it's earned...and far, far above being an bumbling and ignorant fool, which is inherited by some fans now...Jerry has been both a strong and positive force for the Cowboys. Yea, HE did a lot of positive things...as well as player acquisitions. Standards for business has evolved, and no, not just everybody else being smart and with ability.

Jerry has at least earned this fan's respect...and he has earned it as well.

I won't be found around the 'ol burn barrel, sipping on Ripple, and tossing darts at a Jerry picture...

I don't excuse Jerry, he took the role of GM and along with that title comes the responsibility for winning and losing. What I don't like is the mindless blame games, where if a player bust or does not work out well that was all Jerry but as soon as a player makes it and is a star player well Jerry had nothing to do with it. In 2014 I heard it was all Stephen Jones and he had taken control and now after 2015 season again it is Jerry. It is like Jerry taking the heat for Larry Lacewell when the reality was it was Jimmy Johnson who hired Larry Lacewell who was very close friends with Jimmy and was even the best man at Jimmy wedding. Their relationship fell apart when Jimmy was offered the HC job with the Dolphins and Lacewell declined to leave Dallas and go to Miami. However for many fans Lacewell was Jerry hire and fault the reality is not as cut and dried as some like to portray. Again I am not giving Jerry some out, he is the GM of the Cowboys any failure falls directly on him.

 

[CCBoy]

I don't excuse Jerry, he took the role of GM and along with that title comes the responsibility for winning and losing. What I don't like is the mindless blame games, where if a player bust or does not work out well that was all Jerry but as soon as a player makes it and is a star player well Jerry had nothing to do with it. In 2014 I heard it was all Stephen Jones and he had taken control and now after 2015 season again it is Jerry. It is like Jerry taking the heat for Larry Lacewell when the reality was it was Jimmy Johnson who hired Larry Lacewell who was very close friends with Jimmy and was even the best man at Jimmy wedding. Their relationship fell apart when Jimmy was offered the HC job with the Dolphins and Lacewell declined to leave Dallas and go to Miami. However for many fans Lacewell was Jerry hire and fault the reality is not as cut and dried as some like to portray. Again I am not giving Jerry some out, he is the GM of the Cowboys any failure falls directly on him.

And the coming together of the Dallas team under Jimmy Johnson, could well be attributed to a last resort Norv Turner, following the son of Shula...David Shula. He was so inept as the Offensive Coordinator position, he almost lost Troy Aikman completely.

Norv was a last minute addition to the staff, and built an offense around Troy Aikman and handled him as a person.

Norv and Dave Wannestedt are what held the team together and forged an offense and defense. Without those two, Jimmy would have been a bust...as he alienated players and forced the situation when Emmitt Smith held out until he received top league pay. Incidentally, Troy's contract was not signed until all the way in December.

It was all Jimmy's way, despite insulting some players and giving some rewards to other plays...blatantly. And in flights home, even following wins.

Much more to the storyline than hero worship...

 

[Doomsday101]

And the coming together of the Dallas team under Jimmy Johnson, could well be attributed to a last resort Norv Turner, following the son of Shula...David Shula. He was so inept as the Offensive Coordinator position, he almost lost Troy Aikman completely.

Norv was a last minute addition to the staff, and built an offense around Troy Aikman and handled him as a person.

Norv and Dave Wannestedt are what held the team together and forged an offense and defense. Without those two, Jimmy would have been a bust...as he alienated players and forced the situation when Emmitt Smith held out until he received top league pay. Incidentally, Troy's contract was not signed until all the way in December.

It was all Jimmy's way, despite insulting some players and giving some rewards to other plays...blatantly. And in flights home, even following wins.

Much more to the storyline than hero worship...

I agree. I will also say I was a big fan of Jimmy. He knew the buttons to push on each player, he knew that for an example he could not come down on a guy like Lett they was he may on Newton because Lett personality he would have lost him instead Jimmy was firm but also was less strict with Lett. It is easy to say you treat all players the same but the reality is not all players respond the same way and so knowing how to deal and control the player is critical and Jimmy could do that.

 

[CCBoy]

I agree. I will also say I was a big fan of Jimmy. He knew the buttons to push on each player, he knew that for an example he could not come down on a guy like Lett they was he may on Newton because Lett personality he would have lost him instead Jimmy was firm but also was less strict with Lett. It is easy to say you treat all players the same but the reality is not all players respond the same way and so knowing how to deal and control the player is critical and Jimmy could do that.

Oh, Jimmy could push buttons...and his teams learned intensity. It took tempering by others, and Wannestedt and Turner to make the X's and O's to work and the team together. But in the final stroke, Jimmy went out of his way to push the wrong button, Jerry. Jerry's pride wouldn't co-exist with out right insult. To this fan...so be it. Integrity then, can not be rebought.

 

[Doomsday101]

Oh, Jimmy could push buttons...and his teams learned intensity. It took tempering by others, and Wannestedt and Turner to make the X's and O's to work and the team together. But in the final stroke, Jimmy went out of his way to push the wrong button, Jerry. Jerry's pride wouldn't co-exist with out right insult. To this fan...so be it. Integrity then, can not be rebought.

True. Jimmy and Jerry both have super ego and together it worked great however 2 egos like that will clash sooner or later. Jimmy snubbing Jerry at the owners meeting was a slap in the face jerry was not going to put up with, then of course Jerry 500 coach comment pretty much ended it. However I will say I think Jimmy was ready to go, I remember a lot of it started with questions of Jimmy being asked about becoming the HC of the newly formed Jacksonville team and Jimmy seemed to keep the door open on that idea and Jerry at that point insisted Jimmy was not going anywhere then came the Owners meeting.

 

[CCBoy]

True. Jimmy and Jerry both have super ego and together it worked great however 2 egos like that will clash sooner or later. Jimmy snubbing Jerry at the owners meeting was a slap in the face jerry was not going to put up with, then of course Jerry 500 coach comment pretty much ended it. However I will say I think Jimmy was ready to go, I remember a lot of it started with questions of Jimmy being asked about becoming the HC of the newly formed Jacksonville team and Jimmy seemed to keep the door open on that idea and Jerry at that point insisted Jimmy was not going anywhere then came the Owners meeting.

The week of the Super Bowl, Jimmy was actively asking to be both Head Coach and GM for New England?

He betrayed his own team at that point...he already had given them a rear mirror view.

Making fun of one's boss, is never a good idea...no matter the ego involved.

 

[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

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

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.[/quote]

Correct it's a team sport 1 individual doesn't make an entire time...it takes talent on all
spectrums to make the team run, so explain how we've had guys who may not have
been as talented as some of the others and managed to do so well??

 

[Califan007]

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.

I ignored it because the rest of your post was irrelevant to MY post lol...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I ignored it because the rest of your post was irrelevant to MY post lol...

I was discussing the standards of what is relevant to the discussion. It's inherently relevant.

You dodged. It's okay.

 

[Califan007]

I was discussing the standards of what is relevant to the discussion. It's inherently relevant.

You dodged. It's okay.

I'm not sure you even know what you were discussing lol...

Let's go to the tape:

You: "Does that have any relevance to the point being made."

Reality: it had every relevance to the point being made in the post I was responding to by the other poster.

You: "That they were better doesn't make it easier for the current squad to overcome."

Reality: That wasn't the point being made by the other poster...you know, the post I was specifically responding to. And for the record, the better team overcame those same obstacle at a ferociously better rate that the current team did. Actually, it's one reason being given for drafting Elliot at #4--the better the "triplets" talent the more likely you can overcome one of them missing games. Elliot is supposed to give the Cowboys a better chance to overcome missed time by Romo or Dez precisely because he is supposed to make the team better.


You: "The offense is built ismilarly to what they ran in the 90s. Personnel is different obviously but the analogs are just as obvious."

Reality: Sooo...are you now saying it IS relevant to the point being made? lol...Because if the current team not being "even close" to the 90s team is irrelevant--which you've now said twice it wasn't--then what difference does it make if they are "built similarly"? Which, by the way, many teams before and after the 90s Cowboys team have been "built similarly". It wasn't exactly a unique way of building an offense.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'm not sure you even know what you were discussing lol...

Let's go to the tape:

You: "Does that have any relevance to the point being made."

Reality: it had every relevance to the point being made in the post I was responding to by the other poster.

You: "That they were better doesn't make it easier for the current squad to overcome."

Reality: That wasn't the point being made by the other poster...you know, the post I was specifically responding to. And for the record, the better team overcame those same obstacle at a ferociously better rate that the current team did. Actually, it's one reason being given for drafting Elliot at #4--the better the "triplets" talent the more likely you can overcome one of them missing games. Elliot is supposed to give the Cowboys a better chance to overcome missed time by Romo or Dez precisely because he is supposed to make the team better.


You: "The offense is built ismilarly to what they ran in the 90s. Personnel is different obviously but the analogs are just as obvious."

Reality: Sooo...are you now saying it IS relevant to the point being made? lol...Because if the current team not being "even close" to the 90s team is irrelevant--which you've now said twice it wasn't--then what difference does it make if they are "built similarly"? Which, by the way, many teams before and after the 90s Cowboys team have been "built similarly". It wasn't exactly a unique way of building an offense.

You've been being coy about what you intend towards the OP. I get very clearly that your thesis is that the team isn't near as talented so that invalidates the entire discussion. You don't justify the position in the least; you should take your own medicine.

Do I really need to explain why two teams built around three major skill position players and an OL would have similar problems regarding overcoming injuries to skill positions? Do I really need to talk about how teams rosters work and the nature of replacement players?

The reality is you are comparing losing Murray, Bryant, and Romo which is what happened in 2015 and those 90s teams losing a lesser amount of players. You also don't compare the 90s teams to a baseline of their healthy performance. Most people don't have a clue about normalization so its not a big deal but it makes your analysis wrong nonetheless.

 

[Califan007]

You've been being coy about what you intend towards the OP. I get very clearly that your thesis is that the team isn't near as talented so that invalidates the entire discussion. You don't justify the position in the least; you should take your own medicine.

Do I really need to explain why two teams built around three major skill position players and an OL would have similar problems regarding overcoming injuries to skill positions? Do I really need to talk about how teams rosters work and the nature of replacement players?

The reality is you are comparing losing Murray, Bryant, and Romo which is what happened in 2015 and those 90s teams losing a lesser amount of players. You also don't compare the 90s teams to a baseline of their healthy performance. Most people don't have a clue about normalization so its not a big deal but it makes your analysis wrong nonetheless.

Who the hell are you responding to? lol...

1) "You've been being coy about what you intend towards the OP."...Nope, not coy about anything. You took my single-sentence post--a short question asked to someone else--and have both read waaaay too much into it AND now are arguing against this imagined version of my post.

2) "I get very clearly that your thesis is that the team isn't near as talented so that invalidates the entire discussion."...Wrong lol. Wrong, wrong, wrong, one million percent wrong. I said that the only way the article makes a lick of sense is if the article writer believes the current team isn't close to the 90s team in terms of talent. So if anything it could be said that I feel the perceived discrepancy in talent between the two teams actually validates the entire discussion. Did you pick up on that at all? I could re-quote my earlier comment if you want.

But in terms of my post you responded to, I was asking another poster a simple question in order to find out if he himself feels what he was conveying by questioning how anyone could think this team isn't "close" to the Cowboys teams of the 90s. You'd do yourself well to stop reading between the lines and stick to the words that are actually on your screen lol...

3) "You don't justify the position in the least; you should take your own medicine."...That's because it's not my position lol!!...Why would I try to justify a position that I don't hold, especially if that position actually contradicts the points I was making?...Holy cow.

4) "Do I really need to explain why two teams built around three major skill position players and an OL would have similar problems regarding overcoming injuries to skill positions? Do I really need to talk about how teams rosters work and the nature of replacement players?"...What you need to do is first try and understand what I'm actually posting before hitting the "Post Reply" button lol...that would be a great start.

5) "The reality is you are comparing losing Murray, Bryant, and Romo which is what happened in 2015 and those 90s teams losing a lesser amount of players."...I am not comparing either team. I asked another poster if HE thought they were similar. Jeebus lol...I did point out in my last post that the team that was considered to be better (both by--I assume--the article writer and by pretty much most observers) overcame the loss of a "triplet" better than the current team did. Maybe that confused you.

6) "You also don't compare the 90s teams to a baseline of their healthy performance. "---That's because I'm not comparing the teams lol...Are you sure you're meaning to respond to me? I did point out that the article writer did a ****** job of comparing win/loss stats between the two teams, and then gave the correct, accurate stats. Maybe that confused you. Because you really do seem confused, which makes the arrogant tone in your posts just that much more amusing lol...

7) " Most people don't have a clue about normalization so its not a big deal but it makes your analysis wrong nonetheless."---You can't even read my single-sentence post and comprehend it with any accuracy lol...I would be a bit more careful taking a condescending tone to anyone else. And what is my "analysis" that I got wrong?

 

[CCBoy]

Oh, the dynasty team of the 90's was challenged in many games in the course of those seasons.The team succeeded at a playoff level of play...but the points of what affects a team's play, still isn't lost, nor the fact that success at the playoff levels forged a team identity as well. If not for Dez Bryant being cheated and an entry game into the NFC Championship game denied, well, this more recent team might have evolved as well. There is talent and comparable quality that can be applied to a view...and not that far off. Unless one presents more than a favored view example as well.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

6)That's because I'm not comparing the teams lol...Are you sure you're meaning to respond to me? I did point out that the article writer did a ****ty job of comparing win/loss stats between the two teams, and then gave the correct, accurate stats. Maybe that confused you. Because you really do seem confused, which makes the arrogant tone in your posts just that much more amusing lol...

Still being coy as to your position. Negation is easy. You remind me of scientologists.

Below is one example of you comparing the teams

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...

The above is what I was addressing regarding normalization. Your ridiculing of me like I don't understand so you can blanket dismiss me was cute though.

Again it was Murray, Bryant, and Romo that were out as opposed to 1 of the various Triplets in the other case. Comparing apples to apples helps.

 

[Califan007]

Still being coy as to your position. Negation is easy. You remind me of scientologists.

Below is one example of you comparing the teams



The above is what I was addressing regarding normalization. Your ridiculing of me like I don't understand so you can blanket dismiss me was cute though.

Again it was Murray, Bryant, and Romo that were out as opposed to 1 of the various Triplets in the other case. Comparing apples to apples helps.

Man, you keep giving great examples of what I mean by "not understanding my posts" lol...it's appreciated but unnecessary.

Case in point (and I'm writing this for everyone else, not for you...you'll either never get it or you will but won't admit it): you think what I wrote above was me "comparing" the 90s Cowboys to the current Cowboys.

What was it I said earlier?...Oh, yeah...Wrong lol. Wrong, wrong, wrong, one million percent wrong.

What I was doing--which I think most here understood--was giving an example of how the article writer was disingenuous with the stats he presented.

The article writer was the one comparing the two teams when at least one "triplet" was missing and used the wildly generic and completely worthless phrase "loss more than they won" in place of actual stats to do so. But he ONLY did it when comparing how each team did in terms of missing at least one of the "triplets". When both teams had all three "triplets" playing he gave actual numeric stats instead of useless twaddle like "lost more than they won". So I gave the actual stats behind "loss more than they won" to show why I thought he did it that way. It was a critique of his analysis, not a comparison between teams, The article writer was doing that on his own, and he sucked eggs lol...

Seriously, go back and read the rest of the thread--I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't read it yet, because if you had and you still don't get it...hoo, boy.

Read post #39 by ChildsPlay...he responded to an earlier post of mine and understands what I'm saying 1,000%. All you're doing is anchoring down on your flawed perception of what I was saying...not a good look lol.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Man, you keep giving great examples of what I mean by "not understanding my posts" lol...it's appreciated but unnecessary.

Case in point (and I'm writing this for everyone else, not for you...you'll either never get it or you will but won't admit it): you think what I wrote above was me "comparing" the 90s Cowboys to the current Cowboys.

What was it I said earlier?...Oh, yeah...Wrong lol. Wrong, wrong, wrong, one million percent wrong.

What I was doing--which I think most here understood--was giving an example of how the article writer was disingenuous with the stats he presented.

The article writer was the one comparing the two teams when at least one "triplet" was missing and used the wildly generic and completely worthless phrase "loss more than they won" in place of actual stats to do so. But he ONLY did it when comparing how each team did in terms of missing at least one of the "triplets". When both teams had all three "triplets" playing he gave actual numeric stats instead of useless twaddle like "lost more than they won". So I gave the actual stats behind "loss more than they won" to show why I thought he did it that way. It was a critique of his analysis, not a comparison between teams, The article writer was doing that on his own, and he sucked eggs lol...

Seriously, go back and read the rest of the thread--I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you haven't read it yet, because if you had and you still don't get it...hoo, boy.

Read post #39 by ChildsPlay...he responded to an earlier post of mine and understands what I'm saying 1,000%. All you're doing is anchoring down on your flawed perception of what I was saying...not a good look lol.

The author was quoting ESPN or whoever it was that had the special on Irvin. Your trying to read more into is gratuitous nonsense based on nothing. It remains factual.

You said you didn't compare between the teams. My previous post has you quoted comparing the two teams. Youre demonstrably telling untruths. Deal with it.

I did read the rest of the thread. How about you address what I am saying about normalization in terms of number of players missed.