The Ultimate Trade

[star-ving]

NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Jake]

Most NFL owners are already billionaires. Owning a team is like a hobby or fulfilling a fantasy. It’s not their main source of income like it is for Jerry.

Nonsense. When Jerry bought the Cowboys it was the highest price ever paid for an NFL franchise. Jerry didn't buy the Cowboys just to make money - he already knew how to do that.

He bought the Cowboys to play fantasy football at the highest level. He hated Jimmy because Jimmy got the credit for Jerry's championships. He's spent the last 22 years trying to convince the world (and himself) that he was the reason the Cowboys won them.

 

[KJJ]

I wonder how the Bills or Vikings fans feel, would they give up 3 of the 4 trips to just have 1 ring? I've never asked any but if that was me, just being in 4 was a hell of a ride.

Can’t speak for their fans but I’ve listened to many interviews with the players from both teams and everyone of them said they would give up all those trips to the Super Bowl just to have one SB win. Being in contention and coming up short every year would be as frustrating if not more frustrating than not being in contention at all. It has to be an awful feeling for fans to watch their team in countless big games never once being able to close the deal. I was miserable in the early 80s watching the Cowboys lose three straight NFC title games.

I felt no satisfaction whatsoever that they got to those games because they didn’t win. For me I want to know at least once in my life what it’s like to be the only one standing at the top of the mountain. Being in contention or being a bridesmaid every year isn’t going to do it for me. You and I dance to a very different drum. I’m just glad Jimmy Johnson never had your attitude, he didn’t just want to contend he wanted to win it all and the Cowboys did.

 

[Jake]

Super Bowl XII currently on NFLN...cracked me up how so many people thought the Broncos would win. Not only did the Cowboys beat them in the regular season, their QB was Craig Morton. There was no way they were going to win the biggest game.

 

[KJJ]

Super Bowl XII currently on NFLN...cracked me up how so many people thought the Broncos would win. Not only did the Cowboys beat them in the regular season, their QB was Craig Morton. There was no way they were going to win the biggest game.

I’m surprised the Cowboys won by only 17 points in that game with Denver having 8 turnovers. Don’t give me wrong the Cowboys had a terrific team that year but the 92 Cowboys would have put at least 45 points on Denver that day.

 

[JoeKing]

The Cowboys were my co-team, along with the Cards from 1960-68. The Ice Bowl pretty much made them my sole team because of how they played that game. One of the most inspirational performances I have ever witnessed.

From 1988-91, I lived in Harrisburg, PA. That was the time of Buddy Ball and the most venom filled Eagles fans fueled by his hatred of the Cowboys. I wore my colors during the 1-15 season.

I returned to Dallas in 92, just in time to see my team return to glory so yes, I was around for that and if you think living in PA for those 3 years won't galvanize your fandom, try it.

I am not arguing the financial success of the franchise but without Johnson, I do not think that springboard happens. And him having the hottest name in college coaching at that time, who is to say another owner of the Cowboys doesn't hire him and then doesn't get in an ego contest with with his employee? And without Parcells, the stayjum doesn't happen. Why do you think he hired the one HC that would bury him in the background?

Do not question my level of fandom because my disgust for this person is greater than my love of 3 rings. I can't even wait for him to go toes up because there's one behind him being groomed to be just like him.

You admit your disgust for Jerry is greater than your love for three Super Bowl Championship but we shouldn't dare question your level of fandom? What if I question your sanity?

 

[rpntex]

The bigger point in this rhetorical question is being so disgusted and frustrated that you’d even conjur up such a thought that normally we’d never even think of.

Here’s one that’s much easier. Has the Jerry era been greater to fans than the Landry era?

Some fans on the surface would say 3 Rings to 2.But that doesn’t tell the whole story. For those that it does I wouldn’t be interested in their opinion. I can only assume they didn’t live thru the Landry era which isn’t their fault .

I think the Landry era was better, and without question. At the present time, people are howling about how Garrett needs to reach the NFC title game or else he needs to be fired. Landry had Dallas is TEN of the first thirteen NFC title games. Sure, some of those loses were heartbreaking, but playing in the conference championship game 9 times in such a short time span is nothing short of greatness.

 

[CouchCoach]

You admit your disgust for Jerry is greater than your love for three Super Bowl Championship but we shouldn't dare question your level of fandom? What if I question your sanity?

SB's are not the end all for me. Not one of this rings ever did anything for me.

 

[Aviano90]

SB's are not the end all for me. Not one of this rings ever did anything for me.

Trying to wrap my head around this. Winning doesn’t do it for you. Ok, no big deal.

Most people have an issue with Jerry’s decisions which they feel prevent the team from winning. If winning doesn’t matter, why does his decisions matter?

If just competing is good enough, then Jerry has been good enough. While I don’t believe the team has been good enough to win it all, they have been good enough to compete. They just underperformed.

 

[Jake]

One point I left out in comparing which era was better for fans the Landry era or the Jerry era is how fan friendly Jerry has made things. Training camp has been night and day more fan friendly during the Jerry era than it was during the Landry era. I attended camps under Landry and Jerry and Jerry’s camps are much more enjoyable for fans. Everything Jerry has done from training camps to his stadium to his training facility is to make for a great fan experience. The teams performances certainly haven’t been nearly as consistent during the Jerry era as the Landry era but as I mentioned the Landry era didn’t have to deal with a salary cap and free agency.

The Landry era didn’t have to deal with the high-priced contracts we see today. Had free agency and the salary cap never arrived the Cowboys could have very easily won 5 championships during the 90s. Those teams were torn apart by free agency. Ken Norton and Alvin Harper who were key contributors to the Cowboys 92 and 93 Super Bowl wins weren’t even around during our 95 Super Bowl win. If it wasn’t for free agency and the salary cap the teams during the Jerry era wouldn’t have been as inconsistent as we’ve seen. We’ve lost some very good players over the years that we wanted to keep like Demarco Murray and DWare. Free agency and the salary cap hurts your depth which is something the Landry era had plenty of.

Landry's 20 straight winning seasons were remarkable in any era. You talk as though it was easy to win in those days and yet plenty of teams did not, just like today. Landry won with Meredith, Morton, Staubach, White and Gary Hogeboom. It wasn't like he had a great run with one future HOF QB, not much else.

 

[Diehardblues]

Trying to wrap my head around this. Winning doesn’t do it for you. Ok, no big deal.

Most people have an issue with Jerry’s decisions which they feel prevent the team from winning. If winning doesn’t matter, why does his decisions matter?

If just competing is good enough, then Jerry has been good enough. While I don’t believe the team has been good enough to win it all, they have been good enough to compete. They just underperformed.

Because most believe that Jerry’s insistence on remaining as GM and not bringing in more proven HC while staying out of their way not meddling is limiting or has stymied our chances of winning championships this era.

While he won those early with mostly Jimmy built teams Jerry’s ways have limited those possibilities since.

It could be argued that another owner could have enhanced greater possibilities and or potential to win more overall.

 

[Diehardblues]

Landry's 20 straight winning seasons were remarkable in any era. You talk as though it was easy to win in those days and yet plenty of teams did not, just like today. Landry won with Meredith, Morton, Staubach, White and Gary Hogeboom. It wasn't like he had a great run with one future HOF QB, not much else.

Good point.

As a matter of fact Landry is only HC in NFL history to take 4 different QB’s to a NFC championship appearance. And to boot over 3 decades.

 

[KJJ]

Landry's 20 straight winning seasons were remarkable in any era. You talk as though it was easy to win in those days and yet plenty of teams did not, just like today. Landry won with Meredith, Morton, Staubach, White and Gary Hogeboom. It wasn't like he had a great run with one future HOF QB, not much else.

I agree those 20 straight winning seasons were remarkable but we never got the most out of all those winning seasons. We should have won more than two championships with those teams. If you drafted well which the Cowboys did it was easier to stay consistent in those days because there was no free agency or salary cap to tear your team apart. Teams had great depth back in those days because they were able to hang on to players. The good teams had backups that could start for other teams. You didn’t have the huge contracts back then that you see today. There were several teams that were able to win consistently for a number of years during those days.

During the 70s you had the Cowboys, Vikings, Rams, Steelers who were always in contention. You had 4 teams the Dolphins, Cowboys, Vikings and Steelers that appeared in 3 or more SB’s during the 70s. The only team that shows that kind of consistency today is the Patriots. By the way Landry didn’t win crap with Gary Hogaboom. He got his only starts with the Cowboys in 84 and 85 when the team was heading in deep decline and went 6-6.

 

[Diehardblues]

If you drafted well which the Cowboys did it was easier to stay consistent in those days because there was no free agency or salary cap to tear your team apart. Teams had great depth back in those days because they were able to hang on to players. The good teams had backups that could start for other teams. You didn’t have the huge contracts back then that you see today. There were several teams that were able to win consistently for a number of years during those days. During the 70s you had the Cowboys, Vikings, Rams, Steelers who were always in contention.

You had 4 teams the Dolphins, Cowboys, Vikings and Steelers that appeared in 3 or more SB’s during the 70s. The only team that shows that kind of consistency today is the Patriots. By the way Landry didn’t win crap with Gary Hogaboom. He got his only starts with the Cowboys in 84 and 85 when the team was heading in deep decline and went 6-6.

I’d argue there’s been several teams with consistency this era.

Steelers with 3 SB appearances with Ben.
Packers with 8 straight playoff appearances and 2SB appearances.
Colts with Peyton had 12 straight playoff appearances and 2 SB’s.
Seahawks had 5 straight playoff appearances and 2SB.

Still need to draft well this era . You just cant retain your core talent for a decade needing to continue to draft well. So, it could be argued that the great coaches of that era who had great eyes for talent would have also done well this era.

 

[KJJ]

I’d argue there’s been several teams with consistency this era.

Steelers with 3 SB appearances with Ben.
Packers with 8 straight playoff appearances and 2SB appearances.
Colts with Peyton had 12 straight playoff appearances and 2 SB’s.
Seahawks had 5 straight playoff appearances and 2SB.

Still need to draft well this era . You just cant retain your core talent for a decade needing to continue to draft well. So, it could be argued that the great coaches of that era who had great eyes for talent would have also done well this era.

There’s been some consistency with a few teams due to great QB situations but not to the extent we saw during the 70s. The teams you listed prove it. You had three teams during the 70s appear in at least four Super Bowl’s. Like I mentioned the Dolphins appeared in three SB’s during that decade and are the only team to go undefeated. The Dolphins went to three straight Super Bowls during the 70s. The Steelers appeared in back to back Super Bowl’s twice in only a six year period.

The Cowboys appeared in five Super Bowl’s in 9 years. The Vikings appeared in four Super Bowl’s over 8 years. You don’t see that kind of consistency today. Those teams were able to hang onto their players until they declined. If you lost a starter you had a solid player to replace them. It’s hard to overcome injuries today to key players because of the lack of depth teams have. Free agency and the salary cap won’t allow it.

 

[JoeKing]

SB's are not the end all for me. Not one of this rings ever did anything for me.

In the NFL, SB's are what it's all about. The fact that you don't get that, explains everything.

 

[cern]

the value of good drafts cannot be denied. the value of great coaching, while scoffed at by some, cannot be denied. but just as important in the modern nfl is the ability to manipulate the salary cap. this has been one of jerry's undeniable weaknesses in the past. Stephen has got a much better understanding of this skill as he doesn't allow himself to become personally enamored by a player. in the game itself, there are offense, defense, and special teams. you must win 2 of the 3 to win a game. in the running of a franchise, there are players, coaching, and front office. we are weakest at the latter two. not enough to consistently win the game.

 

[Jake]

I agree those 20 straight winning seasons were remarkable but we never got the most out of all those winning seasons. We should have won more than two championships with those teams. If you drafted well which the Cowboys did it was easier to stay consistent in those days because there was no free agency or salary cap to tear your team apart. Teams had great depth back in those days because they were able to hang on to players. The good teams had backups that could start for other teams. You didn’t have the huge contracts back then that you see today. There were several teams that were able to win consistently for a number of years during those days.

During the 70s you had the Cowboys, Vikings, Rams, Steelers who were always in contention. You had 4 teams the Dolphins, Cowboys, Vikings and Steelers that appeared in 3 or more SB’s during the 70s. The only team that shows that kind of consistency today is the Patriots. By the way Landry didn’t win crap with Gary Hogaboom. He got his only starts with the Cowboys in 84 and 85 when the team was heading in deep decline and went 6-6.

Losing twice to Lombardi's Packers and twice to the 70s Pittsburgh Steroids - by one score each time - is no shame. Those were epic teams.

What still bugs me to this day is losing to the Browns in the '68 playoffs after crushing them in the season, and the biggest of all - Super Bowl V. Those 3 straight NFC title games losses in the 80s sucked too, although "the catch" stung me the most since it cost me a trip to the Super Bowl. Hate the Niners.

 

[KJJ]

Losing twice to Lombardi's Packers and twice to the 70s Pittsburgh Steroids - by one score each time - is no shame. Those were epic teams.

What still bugs me to this day is losing to the Browns in the '68 playoffs after crushing them in the season, and the biggest of all - Super Bowl V. Those 3 straight NFC title games losses in the 80s sucked too, although "the catch" stung me the most since it cost me a trip to the Super Bowl. Hate the Niners.

It was no epic shame to lose to those teams but they were games we could have won. The Packers and Steelers were more physical than us. Landry’s teams were finesse teams. They tried to outsmart the opponent and sometimes they outsmarted themselves which caused a lot of mental mistakes. Terry Bradshaw mentioned this in an interview once. Our teams in the 90s under Jimmy were very physical much like the Packers of the 60s and the Steelers of the 70s. We didn’t hide what we were going to do we made the opponent try to stop it and they couldn’t. They knew it would be Emmitt left and Emmitt right and Emmitt up the middle and they couldn’t do a damn thing about it. The 70s were great and the Cowboys had some terrific teams but our 90s teams were better. I became a Cowboys fan in 1972 but no decade thrilled me more than the early 90s because we built the type of teams that use to get the better of us in the 60s and 70s.

We were a punishing football team in the 90s that held no prisoners unlike Landry’s team that would show mercy by easing up once we had a game under control. I remember Aikman talking about a time they had an opponent down by 30 points and Jimmy told Troy to just keep scoring. I had a lot of respect for Landry but loved Jimmy. As good as our 70s teams were they wouldn’t have been able to hold up against our early 90s teams, they were too physical. I know some will take offense to that but I lived through both decades and I know the weaknesses that Landry’s teams had that cost them big games. Our 90s teams would’ve taken advantage of those weaknesses.

 

[cern]

moral victories are much overrated. you win or you lose.