jday
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 9,321
- Reaction score
- 13,284
As I have intimated before, my childhood wasn’t the greatest; it wasn’t the worst either, by any stretch of the imagination. Compared to children across the world at large, my childhood was actually pretty sweet, all things considered. I’ve never starved or done without. I’ve never been homeless. My real dad left when I was a baby, but my surrogate-father was around from the age of 3 until present (35 + years). I’ve never spent time in prison or jail, save a weekend in a holding tank for unpaid non-moving violations…damn it feels good to be gangsta…
That said, if I had to choose an era as the worst time of my life, it would be the years occupied by fifth grade through my freshmen year in high school. During that time, I was a student at Kaufman ISD; a town I truly hate with every fiber of my being; I literally cringe at the prospect of even driving through that town, which visiting my older brother often times necessitates. If you live there, no offense intended, but there’s a really fantastic chance I hate you too; I’m nobody special, though, so don’t lose any sleep over it.
To be fair, it’s not all Kaufman’s fault; I was a weird kid. I did hate (and still do) country music in a town populated by country folk…so that may have had a little something to do with it. Part of the issue was the fact that I was homeschooled from 1st grade until half way through fifth grade and simply wasn’t as socially adjusted as my peers. I did not understand or distinguish the difference between someone playfully messing with me and someone maliciously insulting me. To me, it was all the same and as a result I had very few friends.
I’ve hashed all this out before, so I won’t bore you with further details of my misery. However, I will tell you that as a result of the various lose lose situations I found myself in throughout my formative years, I learned very quickly how to identify early and avoid these types of situations all together as an adult.
One such situation occurred in either my 7th or 8th grade year. Unfortunate for the context of this anecdote, I honestly forget how this situation came about. I only remember being in the situation and recognizing immediately that there was no winning my way out of the position I found myself in.
Somehow…someway…I pissed-off a Special Ed kid one morning in the cafeteria while waiting for the first bell. Again, I honestly don’t remember what it is exactly that I said or did, but at a guess, I may have unintentionally insulted his intelligence. I’m not certain of it, but that is usually what gets me in trouble with people and considering the nature of this kid, that stands to reason. Mind you, I don’t intentionally insult people’s intelligence; I just have a tendency to be inconsiderate towards the logic-challenged.
Regardless of what started the fray, the one thing I will never forget is the little voice in my head that made it abundantly clear I was not going to walk away from this situation a winner…no matter what I did, of that much, I was certain. You unquestionably cannot take the beating as a kid in junior high from a Special Ed student…that is tantamount to social suicide. By that same token, however, winning the fight might actually be worse. You may even be better off beating up a female versus a special ed kid. And all of this was especially obvious when you consider the method of fighting this particular kid employed.
If there is in fact reincarnation, at a guess I would say this kid was a bull in a former life.
No, not a Chicago Bull.
Not a Night Court bull.
A literal horn-having clown-goring Cowboy-bucking bull. Why? Because rather than throwing punches or shoves as is typical among children, he literally lowered his head and charged me. Not once. Not twice. But several times…over and over…as if, eventually, he thought, this would connect and make me regret whatever it is I did to incur his wrath.
Fortunately for me he never did connect. Much like the Torero (bullfighter) of Spain, I simply sidestepped his numerous charges allowing his momentum to carry him over several chairs each time in the hopes that the damage caused by that would discourage his further attempts. Like most details from this situation, I honestly don’t recall exactly how it ended or how many times he charged me, I just remember I did not throw a punch nor did he ever connect with his charging head. And as is true with the majority of situations I found myself in whilst trapped in Kaufman, I did not emerge a winner in the eyes of my peers.
Granted, as an adult, you might say choosing not to respond with violence was, in a sense, a win. I get that and I understood that then. The problem was junior high kids rarely if ever agree with that sentiment. They want to see action…never mind that the brand of action they were hoping for would result in my being treated like a social pariah…which I already was, but that obviously wouldn’t have helped my cause in any way.
The point is, given my peers at that time and the circumstances of that situation, from the moment Short Bus Bull decided he wanted to fight me, I was the loser….and I knew it…I recognized it…I accepted it. Have you ever been there?
I’m not asking you if you have ever found yourself staring down the barrel of a potential fight with a mentally-challenged student. I’m asking if you have ever realized too late that you are in a lose lose situation; a social equivalent of finding yourself buried to the waist in the middle of quicksand?
If you say “no,” I call bull on it.
Not a Chicago Bull.
Not a Night Court Bull.
But “bull” in the sense that I simply don’t believe you.
Why?
Because I see these lose lose situations constantly in Cowboys related conversations and it is ridiculously frustrating. Take for instance the narrative that the Cowboys defense sucks. It’s popular. It’s trending. It has its own hashtag. And the Cowboys can’t escape it no matter how much success they enjoy doing exactly what their coach (Marinelli) tells them to do.
Every fan that believes the Cowboys defense sucks, not one of them, in their pursuit of convincing the masses of their belief this offseason has left the game against the Packers in the playoffs out of the debate. That is the lynch pin of their entire argument against the Cowboys defense. For them, their entire case hinges on the strength of that loss, and more importantly, how the Cowboys ultimately lost: with less than 12 seconds left in regulation, following the game-tying heroics of one Dak Prescott, Aaron Rodgers connected with Jared Cook 35 yards down the field to setup the eventual game winning 51 yard Field Goal by Mason Crosby and narrowly escaped overtime against a Cowboys team primed to steal the win. If you really boil down their argument and reduce it to its basest element, that one play is what the Cowboys defense detractors point to without fail every time.
In response to that dreaded re-telling, every tree-hugging-hammered-on-the-koolaid-homer who supports the Cowboys defense, has a tendency to point out the missed blatant holding call/tackle of David Irving, while Aaron Rodgers proceeded to roll out of the pocket away from the pressure and complete the pass that would setup the game winning field goal. I’ve done it; recently, in fact.
The Cowboys defense negative-nancy or realist-richard (if you prefer) will then point out that missed calls happen all the time; sometimes there in your favor, sometimes there not, as was the case for the Cowboys in that particular game. Either way, to simply say we lost because of a missed call is not exactly accurate and in the words of the majority is simply a panzy-*** excuse. After all, the Cowboys were, I believe, the superior team in that matchup; they should never have been in that situation at the end to begin with….on paper, anyway, they should have won and done so convincingly.
Outside of the season-ending game against the Commanders, were a good portion of the starters sat, the Cowboys defense had not once surrendered 21 points to the opposition in the first half, as they did against the Packers in the playoffs. Where you point your finger to explain that first half meltdown is irrelevant; ultimately, the Cowboys defense suffered the lion-share of the blame and rightfully so. The Cowboys offense put up 31 points against the Packers, which is by far a winning score in the NFL more often than not. If you were to establish an average of winning scores throughout the year (or even over the 100 year lifetime of the NFL), 31 points is more than enough points amassed to win the majority of the time; it simply wasn’t that day considering the Packers 34 points.
So I completely understand the disappointment collectively held by Cowboys nation regarding the Cowboys defense for that specific game and that particular play. I was a pallbearer holding up a corner of that disappointment coffin and have already buried it along with all the other regrets we share from a year ago. I do not take issue with the defense-blame-game for that day. I do, however, take issue with using what was essentially one play involving a few players occupying a handful of seconds to define the entire defensive side of the ball for the whole season. That to me is asinine, ridiculous, and quite simply misguided. And yet that is exactly what the national and local media has done, making it a lose lose situation to attempt arguing otherwise.
If you do attempt to sale the nation on the fact that the Cowboys in all but a few games did exactly what they were coached to do, you are immediately dubbed a homer and all of your credibility is lost in the blink of an eye. Heck, all you have to do is suggest a defense of the defense in the title of your dissertation, and the detractors will start arguing with you before even reading the contents of the article….it’s amazing. They could care less what you point to, their eye-test screams otherwise and nothing you say, do or prove beyond a shadow of a doubt will change their perspective.
I point out this particular narrative, because I suspect this is going to be on the media spin-cycle for a while. Once a team has a reputation, such as for having a sucky defense or a non-existent passrush, it takes a very long time for that unit to reverse the tale. Much of this is simply the result of lazy reporting. While I would imagine most analyst and so-called experts understand that different defenses across the league scheme to do different things, they all tend to point to the same tired stats as the end-all be-all for determining a defenses value: QBR against, yards allowed, sack count, and turnover count.
Take, for instance, the chart circulating that provides the QB rating against the Cowboys defense throughout 2016. A good many of the QB’s the Cowboys faced enjoyed impressive stats in their meeting against the Cowboys defense. The Cowboys defense detractors absolutely love throwing this chart around; especially when justifying the allowed exodus of Brandon Carr, Morris Claiborne and Barry Church in Free Agency. To the beat of ring-tapping and chest-pounding, they even suggest that it shouldn’t be too hard for the Cowboys rookies to provide at least status quo compared to the performance of the secondary from a year ago.
While I’ll admit that is certainly possible, it is not at all likely. These rookies will struggle and struggle on a level that might even make you miss Carr/Clairborne/Church and company at times. But, as many who have been watching the game of football for a while will tell you, rookie growing pains are a necessary evil. Hopefully, by the end of the year, they’ll be seasoned enough for a deep run in the playoffs…but even that is clear cut unadulterated wishful thinking. But I veer too far from my point.
My ultimate point is that since the Cowboys defense does in fact run a bend don’t break defense and since that style by design allows short to intermediate passing and seeks to prevent the big play, QB’s having a high QB rating/passer rating should not be alarming in the least. The truth is, a Pop Warner QB could probably put up impressive numbers against the Cowboys defense, because predominantly what QB Rating and passer rating is looking at is completion percentage…and little else. Never mind if the pass doesn’t even go beyond the line of scrimmage…even screen plays look good in their final score, just so long as they completed the pass.
So how then could you possibly use QB rating as proof that the Cowboys defense sucks? If you consider that the Cowboys scheme could care less about short to intermediate completions (passes 15 yards or less), why would you decide their value as players based on that? That makes literally no sense whatsoever. And yet that is exactly what a good majority of the national/local media and Cowboys defense detractors in general do on a fairly regular and consistent basis.
To be clear, I am not in the least bit attempting to sell you on the idea that the Cowboys defense was great in 2016. That’s not my issue at all. I am simply pointing out that they were far from terrible. But, if you do still disagree, feel more than free to try and convince me otherwise; just don’t be surprised if I sidestep your argument all together hoping your metaphorical stumble over a bunch of chairs does enough damage to discourage further head-first charges.
Thoughts?
That said, if I had to choose an era as the worst time of my life, it would be the years occupied by fifth grade through my freshmen year in high school. During that time, I was a student at Kaufman ISD; a town I truly hate with every fiber of my being; I literally cringe at the prospect of even driving through that town, which visiting my older brother often times necessitates. If you live there, no offense intended, but there’s a really fantastic chance I hate you too; I’m nobody special, though, so don’t lose any sleep over it.
To be fair, it’s not all Kaufman’s fault; I was a weird kid. I did hate (and still do) country music in a town populated by country folk…so that may have had a little something to do with it. Part of the issue was the fact that I was homeschooled from 1st grade until half way through fifth grade and simply wasn’t as socially adjusted as my peers. I did not understand or distinguish the difference between someone playfully messing with me and someone maliciously insulting me. To me, it was all the same and as a result I had very few friends.
I’ve hashed all this out before, so I won’t bore you with further details of my misery. However, I will tell you that as a result of the various lose lose situations I found myself in throughout my formative years, I learned very quickly how to identify early and avoid these types of situations all together as an adult.
One such situation occurred in either my 7th or 8th grade year. Unfortunate for the context of this anecdote, I honestly forget how this situation came about. I only remember being in the situation and recognizing immediately that there was no winning my way out of the position I found myself in.
Somehow…someway…I pissed-off a Special Ed kid one morning in the cafeteria while waiting for the first bell. Again, I honestly don’t remember what it is exactly that I said or did, but at a guess, I may have unintentionally insulted his intelligence. I’m not certain of it, but that is usually what gets me in trouble with people and considering the nature of this kid, that stands to reason. Mind you, I don’t intentionally insult people’s intelligence; I just have a tendency to be inconsiderate towards the logic-challenged.
Regardless of what started the fray, the one thing I will never forget is the little voice in my head that made it abundantly clear I was not going to walk away from this situation a winner…no matter what I did, of that much, I was certain. You unquestionably cannot take the beating as a kid in junior high from a Special Ed student…that is tantamount to social suicide. By that same token, however, winning the fight might actually be worse. You may even be better off beating up a female versus a special ed kid. And all of this was especially obvious when you consider the method of fighting this particular kid employed.
If there is in fact reincarnation, at a guess I would say this kid was a bull in a former life.
No, not a Chicago Bull.
Not a Night Court bull.
A literal horn-having clown-goring Cowboy-bucking bull. Why? Because rather than throwing punches or shoves as is typical among children, he literally lowered his head and charged me. Not once. Not twice. But several times…over and over…as if, eventually, he thought, this would connect and make me regret whatever it is I did to incur his wrath.
Fortunately for me he never did connect. Much like the Torero (bullfighter) of Spain, I simply sidestepped his numerous charges allowing his momentum to carry him over several chairs each time in the hopes that the damage caused by that would discourage his further attempts. Like most details from this situation, I honestly don’t recall exactly how it ended or how many times he charged me, I just remember I did not throw a punch nor did he ever connect with his charging head. And as is true with the majority of situations I found myself in whilst trapped in Kaufman, I did not emerge a winner in the eyes of my peers.
Granted, as an adult, you might say choosing not to respond with violence was, in a sense, a win. I get that and I understood that then. The problem was junior high kids rarely if ever agree with that sentiment. They want to see action…never mind that the brand of action they were hoping for would result in my being treated like a social pariah…which I already was, but that obviously wouldn’t have helped my cause in any way.
The point is, given my peers at that time and the circumstances of that situation, from the moment Short Bus Bull decided he wanted to fight me, I was the loser….and I knew it…I recognized it…I accepted it. Have you ever been there?
I’m not asking you if you have ever found yourself staring down the barrel of a potential fight with a mentally-challenged student. I’m asking if you have ever realized too late that you are in a lose lose situation; a social equivalent of finding yourself buried to the waist in the middle of quicksand?
If you say “no,” I call bull on it.
Not a Chicago Bull.
Not a Night Court Bull.
But “bull” in the sense that I simply don’t believe you.
Why?
Because I see these lose lose situations constantly in Cowboys related conversations and it is ridiculously frustrating. Take for instance the narrative that the Cowboys defense sucks. It’s popular. It’s trending. It has its own hashtag. And the Cowboys can’t escape it no matter how much success they enjoy doing exactly what their coach (Marinelli) tells them to do.
Every fan that believes the Cowboys defense sucks, not one of them, in their pursuit of convincing the masses of their belief this offseason has left the game against the Packers in the playoffs out of the debate. That is the lynch pin of their entire argument against the Cowboys defense. For them, their entire case hinges on the strength of that loss, and more importantly, how the Cowboys ultimately lost: with less than 12 seconds left in regulation, following the game-tying heroics of one Dak Prescott, Aaron Rodgers connected with Jared Cook 35 yards down the field to setup the eventual game winning 51 yard Field Goal by Mason Crosby and narrowly escaped overtime against a Cowboys team primed to steal the win. If you really boil down their argument and reduce it to its basest element, that one play is what the Cowboys defense detractors point to without fail every time.
In response to that dreaded re-telling, every tree-hugging-hammered-on-the-koolaid-homer who supports the Cowboys defense, has a tendency to point out the missed blatant holding call/tackle of David Irving, while Aaron Rodgers proceeded to roll out of the pocket away from the pressure and complete the pass that would setup the game winning field goal. I’ve done it; recently, in fact.
The Cowboys defense negative-nancy or realist-richard (if you prefer) will then point out that missed calls happen all the time; sometimes there in your favor, sometimes there not, as was the case for the Cowboys in that particular game. Either way, to simply say we lost because of a missed call is not exactly accurate and in the words of the majority is simply a panzy-*** excuse. After all, the Cowboys were, I believe, the superior team in that matchup; they should never have been in that situation at the end to begin with….on paper, anyway, they should have won and done so convincingly.
Outside of the season-ending game against the Commanders, were a good portion of the starters sat, the Cowboys defense had not once surrendered 21 points to the opposition in the first half, as they did against the Packers in the playoffs. Where you point your finger to explain that first half meltdown is irrelevant; ultimately, the Cowboys defense suffered the lion-share of the blame and rightfully so. The Cowboys offense put up 31 points against the Packers, which is by far a winning score in the NFL more often than not. If you were to establish an average of winning scores throughout the year (or even over the 100 year lifetime of the NFL), 31 points is more than enough points amassed to win the majority of the time; it simply wasn’t that day considering the Packers 34 points.
So I completely understand the disappointment collectively held by Cowboys nation regarding the Cowboys defense for that specific game and that particular play. I was a pallbearer holding up a corner of that disappointment coffin and have already buried it along with all the other regrets we share from a year ago. I do not take issue with the defense-blame-game for that day. I do, however, take issue with using what was essentially one play involving a few players occupying a handful of seconds to define the entire defensive side of the ball for the whole season. That to me is asinine, ridiculous, and quite simply misguided. And yet that is exactly what the national and local media has done, making it a lose lose situation to attempt arguing otherwise.
If you do attempt to sale the nation on the fact that the Cowboys in all but a few games did exactly what they were coached to do, you are immediately dubbed a homer and all of your credibility is lost in the blink of an eye. Heck, all you have to do is suggest a defense of the defense in the title of your dissertation, and the detractors will start arguing with you before even reading the contents of the article….it’s amazing. They could care less what you point to, their eye-test screams otherwise and nothing you say, do or prove beyond a shadow of a doubt will change their perspective.
I point out this particular narrative, because I suspect this is going to be on the media spin-cycle for a while. Once a team has a reputation, such as for having a sucky defense or a non-existent passrush, it takes a very long time for that unit to reverse the tale. Much of this is simply the result of lazy reporting. While I would imagine most analyst and so-called experts understand that different defenses across the league scheme to do different things, they all tend to point to the same tired stats as the end-all be-all for determining a defenses value: QBR against, yards allowed, sack count, and turnover count.
Take, for instance, the chart circulating that provides the QB rating against the Cowboys defense throughout 2016. A good many of the QB’s the Cowboys faced enjoyed impressive stats in their meeting against the Cowboys defense. The Cowboys defense detractors absolutely love throwing this chart around; especially when justifying the allowed exodus of Brandon Carr, Morris Claiborne and Barry Church in Free Agency. To the beat of ring-tapping and chest-pounding, they even suggest that it shouldn’t be too hard for the Cowboys rookies to provide at least status quo compared to the performance of the secondary from a year ago.
While I’ll admit that is certainly possible, it is not at all likely. These rookies will struggle and struggle on a level that might even make you miss Carr/Clairborne/Church and company at times. But, as many who have been watching the game of football for a while will tell you, rookie growing pains are a necessary evil. Hopefully, by the end of the year, they’ll be seasoned enough for a deep run in the playoffs…but even that is clear cut unadulterated wishful thinking. But I veer too far from my point.
My ultimate point is that since the Cowboys defense does in fact run a bend don’t break defense and since that style by design allows short to intermediate passing and seeks to prevent the big play, QB’s having a high QB rating/passer rating should not be alarming in the least. The truth is, a Pop Warner QB could probably put up impressive numbers against the Cowboys defense, because predominantly what QB Rating and passer rating is looking at is completion percentage…and little else. Never mind if the pass doesn’t even go beyond the line of scrimmage…even screen plays look good in their final score, just so long as they completed the pass.
So how then could you possibly use QB rating as proof that the Cowboys defense sucks? If you consider that the Cowboys scheme could care less about short to intermediate completions (passes 15 yards or less), why would you decide their value as players based on that? That makes literally no sense whatsoever. And yet that is exactly what a good majority of the national/local media and Cowboys defense detractors in general do on a fairly regular and consistent basis.
To be clear, I am not in the least bit attempting to sell you on the idea that the Cowboys defense was great in 2016. That’s not my issue at all. I am simply pointing out that they were far from terrible. But, if you do still disagree, feel more than free to try and convince me otherwise; just don’t be surprised if I sidestep your argument all together hoping your metaphorical stumble over a bunch of chairs does enough damage to discourage further head-first charges.
Thoughts?
