rcaldw;2833781 said:
Have you ever thought about how things could have changed had history taken a different course? If you could go back in time, which of these decisions could have/would have had the biggest impact on Dallas Cowboys history, and where we would have ended up?
Here are the rules: You can only choose 1. And you have to give your reasons why you think it would have made the largest impact on Dallas Cowboys history.
Note: I'm sure that some of you could think of better candidates but someone had to do a list
1. In 1964, with the media speculating about Tom Landry's job, the owner made the decision to give coach a 10 year contract. What would have happened if Clint Murchison had fired Landry?
Now, remember.
Which one of these time machine moments would have impacted Cowboys history the most? You can only select one, and you have to give your reasons.
Based on your criteria the first one on the list would have had the greatest impact n the history of the Dallas Cowboys. That seems kind of obvious to me. Everything else would have been different had that one been changed (this would be true whatever one you choose to be the first one) because from that point on EVERYTHING else would have been different.
If we would have fired Landry, who would we have hired to replace him?
George Allen became a HC in 1966 maybe we would have given him a shot a year earlier. Same for Otto Graham. Maybe we would have brought in Bud Grant a couple of years before he actually became a HC.
The chances are though that we would have signed someone who would not have been a success.
The team in 1964 was Landry's team. The players were selected according to HIS criteria. He had a system that required certain body types, size, weight, etc. (RB comes to mind) as well as intelligence, particularly on defense. The players we had were brought in because they fit HIS mold. Another HC would not have the same system or set of criteria and would have worked at bringing in player that HE thought would fit HIS system.
I believe it would have delayed the success of the team yet another few years and if the HC was not successful early enough then he likely would have been replaced, setting us back yet again.
Character was also important to Landry and several of the players we had went on to define "America's Team", including Staubach. He was pretty quick to jettison guys like Duane Thomas or Hollywood Henderson when it became clear that they were not high character guys or team players.
We passed on some obvious talent in the 60s because they didn't fit Landry's style/ideal. On defense the players had to be able to fit into his "Flex" defense and not every talented player would fit it. They had to have a combination of intelligence, quickness, strength, discipline, and teamwork to be successful at it. It took a long time to put it all together but once he did it was AMAZING!
IMO the Cowboys would never have become "America's Team" without Tom Landry. He was the embodiment of that entire persona and everything that came from it. You don't get 20 consecutive winning seasons without Tom Landry. You don't get the heritage of winning, the expectation of winning without him. He was a fixture for nearly 30 years here and was the face of the Cowboys that entire time.
It's not many people you can recognize simply by the hat they wore. When I see that outline, it brings to mind everything the Cowboys have stood for throughout their history (whether that lived up to it or not is a different story of course).
Tom Landry IS the Dallas Cowboys. Remove him and we are just another football team.
:starspin :starspin :starspin :starspin :starspin
