Time Machine

[rcaldw]

It'd be much easier to make sure that the parents of Vince Lombardi or Art Rooney never meet.

lol. Now that is a good one. Thus the Packers and Steelers lose their history. Ah, but not that simple. For you still have the Deadskins, the 49ers the Beagles and the Giants to deal with.

 

[Tovya]

You know, the biggest move of all may have involved something more indirect. I've often thought, after stock piling all that talent in the early 90's why Jerry Jones didn't fight AGAINST the salary cap, and free agency and all that stuff?

I think its because he thought he could go on outsmarting everyone. In reality, it served to change football for all time, and if we had been able to play by the same rules as previous decades, and kept most of our talent base, we may have won 5-7 championships in the 90's.

Oh, I couldn't agree more. I've always said that the league changes in free agency and the cap were what really destroyed the Cowboys run. We started losing guys like Tony Casillas, and what not who were the core of our defense.

Of course, it allowed us to sign guys like Deion too, but I think we'd have been better off without the changes still (also SF wouldn't have landed Deion for the '94 season)... oh the possibilities were endless.

 

[rcaldw]

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

I have to admit Thumper that I thought you would eventually weigh in on this, and I was really looking forward to your take on it. I think you made your case beautifully.

 

[THUMPER]

Top 3 QB's taken in 2001 - Michael Vick, Drew Brees, Quincy Carter (Who took that guy?)
Top 3 QB's taken in 2002 - David Carr, Joey Harrington, Patrick Ramsey
Top 3 QB's taken in 2003 - Carson Palmer (but does Moss stay patient until 2003?), Byron Leftwich, Kyle Boller

Out of 9 QBs only 2 were any good, Brees and Palmer. That's pretty sad.

 

[bbgun]

lol. Now that is a good one. Thus the Packers and Steelers lose their history. Ah, but not that simple. For you still have the Deadskins, the 49ers the Beagles and the Giants to deal with.

True, but the consolation prize is that we're the team of the '60s and/or '70s, meaning a ****load more trophies. But not "Lombardi" trophies, seeing as how he never existed.

 

[THUMPER]

I have to admit Thumper that I thought you would eventually weigh in on this, and I was really looking forward to your take on it. I think you made your case beautifully.

Thanks. To me, all of the other ones would have had a domino effect one way or the other but this one would toss the entire board over.

 

[rcaldw]

True, but the consolation prize is that we're the team of the '60s and/or '70s, meaning a ****load more trophies. But not "Lombardi" trophies, seeing as how he never existed.

Hehe, you DESERVE your Cowboyszone award my friend.

 

[Four]

 

[rcaldw]

Thanks. To me, all of the other ones would have had a domino effect one way or the other but this one would toss the entire board over.

Out of curiosity though. How close do you think Landry really was with just sticking with Morton? And if Roger stays on the bench in 71 and the team doesn't win the Super Bowl that year, what becomes of the team?

 

[rcaldw]

Hehe, you DESERVE your Cowboyszone award my friend.

Sorry, just saw you were the first runner up.

 

[bbgun]

Sorry, just saw you were the first runner up.

Don't remind me. I still have a shot at "Best Hygiene," though.

 

[DFWJC]

I'm surprised that the team's decision to pass on drafting Randy Moss isn't on the list.

I think that move has had a significant impact on the franchise for years.

-----------

 

[THUMPER]

Don't remind me. I still have a shot at "Best Hygiene," though.

I seriously doubt that! D

 

[THUMPER]

Out of curiosity though. How close do you think Landry really was with just sticking with Morton? And if Roger stays on the bench in 71 and the team doesn't win the Super Bowl that year, what becomes of the team?

I think Landry recognized Morton's weaknesses, which were readily apparent to me at least, and liked what Staubach brought to the table. If Roger would have been more disciplined then I think Landry would have gone to him sooner.

Morton had a strong arm and would stick to the play that Landry sent in but he lacked accuracy and the ability to make plays when things broke down.

Staubach had a good arm and was more accurate and could make plays on the move but had a tendency to improvise or change the play that was sent in and Landry didn't like that, not at all! I think Landry really liked Roger and couldn't wait to get him on the field but not until he was ready.

If he would have stuck with Morton then I don't believe we would have even gotten to the SB in 1971 and he would have made the change the following season. He might have looked to draft or trade for a QB that fit the mold better but off the top of my head I don't know who that would have been.

1972 was a terrible draft for QBs with Brian Sipe being the ONLY one with any kind of success in the NFL so if he had gone into the draft looking for a QB we would have been sorely disappointed.

We could have waited another year and picked up Dan Fouts in the 1973 draft (64th pick, 3rd round) or we could have traded up for Bert Jones (he was the #2 pick). Or maybe Ron Jaworski or Joe Ferguson, but those guys were nowhere near Staubach's level.

Personally, I wish we would have made the switch to Roger a year earlier, in 1970, and believe that if we had we would have won the SB that year but I think Landry had not yet realized Morton's limitations at that point yet.

There was a reason why he was willing to swap Staubach and Morton in and out and it was because he favored Roger but liked how Morton would run the play as called. If Roger would have been less improvisational then he would probably have been the starter earlier. He was a unique talent that doesn't come along very often and Landry knew it but he still had to fit and play the system/style that Landry ran. Once he did it was AWESOME!

 

[rcaldw]

I think Landry recognized Morton's weaknesses, which were readily apparent to me at least, and liked what Staubach brought to the table. If Roger would have been more disciplined then I think Landry would have gone to him sooner.

Morton had a strong arm and would stick to the play that Landry sent in but he lacked accuracy and the ability to make plays when things broke down.

Staubach had a good arm and was more accurate and could make plays on the move but had a tendency to improvise or change the play that was sent in and Landry didn't like that, not at all! I think Landry really liked Roger and couldn't wait to get him on the field but not until he was ready.

If he would have stuck with Morton then I don't believe we would have even gotten to the SB in 1971 and he would have made the change the following season. He might have looked to draft or trade for a QB that fit the mold better but off the top of my head I don't know who that would have been.

1972 was a terrible draft for QBs with Brian Sipe being the ONLY one with any kind of success in the NFL so if he had gone into the draft looking for a QB we would have been sorely disappointed.

We could have waited another year and picked up Dan Fouts in the 1973 draft (64th pick, 3rd round) or we could have traded up for Bert Jones (he was the #2 pick). Or maybe Ron Jaworski or Joe Ferguson, but those guys were nowhere near Staubach's level.

Personally, I wish we would have made the switch to Roger a year earlier, in 1970, and believe that if we had we would have won the SB that year but I think Landry had not yet realized Morton's limitations at that point yet.

There was a reason why he was willing to swap Staubach and Morton in and out and it was because he favored Roger but liked how Morton would run the play as called. If Roger would have been less improvisational then he would probably have been the starter earlier. He was a unique talent that doesn't come along very often and Landry knew it but he still had to fit and play the system/style that Landry ran. Once he did it was AWESOME!

Roger was my original favorite player on the Cowboys. 1971 was a wonderful season for me. My favorite team finally got their championship and my favorite player was probably the main reason why.

 

[sonnyboy]

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?

2. In 1971 Tom Landry was so confused about what to do at QB that he actually alternated Roger Staubach and Craig Morton at QB in a game lost to the Chicago Bears. The next week he named Staubach as the starter, the Cowboys didn't lose another game that season, and Staubach's career was launched. What would have happened to the Cowboys had Landry selected Morton?

3. In 1981 the Dallas Cowboys lost the heartbreaking NFC Championship game in San Francisco, a game famous for what is now simply known as "The Catch." This was a year after losing the Conference championship game to Philadelphia and then the 1982 season would end in a Conference Championship loss to the Commanders. How would White's career and Cowboys history have changed had the Cowboys won the 1981 NFC Championship game in SF?

4. In 1989 Jerry Jones purchased the Cowboys, Jimmy Johnson was hired, and we know the rest of the story. What if Jerry Jones never bought the Dallas Cowboys and Tom Landry had continued as head coach?

5. In 1989 Herschel Walker was traded to the Minnesota Vikings for a boatload of future draft picks. We know how those picks were used and what resulted in the 90's. What if the Cowboys had never traded Walker?

6. In 1988 the Dallas Cowboys lost, the Green Bay Packers won, and Dallas ended up with the first pick of the 1989 draft. Troy Aikman was the first selection overall and we know how that turned out. What if Aikman had never been selected by the Cowboys? And consider the outcome of this from another angle. Do the Cowboys trade Hershel Walker if they don't have the franchise QB in place?

7. In 1990 Emmitt Smith fell into the Cowboys lap in the NFL draft. There was actually some discussion, I believe, about taking LB James Francis from Baylor. What if Francis had fallen to Dallas and Emmitt Smith was never a Dallas Cowboy?

8. In 1994 Jimmy Johnson departed the Dallas Cowboys and Barry Switzer became the new head coach. Dallas advanced to the 94 Conference Championship game, but lost to the 49ers. They won their 3rd Super Bowl title in 1995, but that was the end of the Dynasty of the 90's. What is the history of the Dallas Cowboys if Jimmy Johnson and Jerry Jones had worked out their troubles in 1994 and Jimmy stayed?

9. In 1998 Randy Moss enters the NFL draft and falls like a rock due to concerns about character and off the field incidents. The Cowboys pass, along with others, and then have to watch as the Minnesota Vikings have a fantastic season and Randy Moss personally scorches them head to head. What happens if Dallas takes Moss in 1998?

10. In 2004 debate rages about two Cowboys QB's. Drew Henson and Tony Romo. Romo won out, and now the picture is clear. We have a real QB. This one looks into the future, if it should be selected by you, but how would Cowboys history have been impacted had Romo been released and Henson retained?

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.

Why did you include so many moments that went the right way for us?

Why would anyone want to go back and change one of them?

Does anyone here wish we didn't draft Aikman and Smith or regret trading Walker?

I'm going to break your rules and discuss 2 crtitical points in history that could be easily changed.

I'm not interested in going back in time and dictating the outcome of some game. I'd like to go back and just make a few suttle changes that could yield the desired result.

All I need to be is a forceful voice in someones ear at a couple key moments.

History Point #1 - Dallas in SF for the 1981 NFC Championship Game. I just want to be a voice in Landry's ear after Pearson long reception to set us up with 1st and 10 at the Niners 48 with 30 plus seconds left and I beleive 2 timeouts.
15 yards away from Septien's range. You guys remember how clutch he was at that time. One of the alltime best.
We had plenty of time and 2 timeouts! The next play White drops back to pass, sack, fumble, end of game.

Dorsett had been killing the Niners all game. I want to be that voice in Landry's ear to make him call a RUN TO DORSETT ON THE NEXT PLAY.
Then call a timeout.

Come back for the next play and RUN DORSETT AGAIN! Then call another timeout.

At this point we'd have 15-18 secs left and no timeouts. I'm confident that back to back runs by Dorsett against a nickle D in two passing situations would have yield us 15 yards or more.

If those two Dorsett runs didn't put us in FG range, so be it. Let White throw on 3rd down to move the sticks and or move us into FG range.


History Point #2 - I want to be the voice in Romo's ear to MAKE SURE ALL THE BALLS FOR FGs HAVE BEEN RUBBED DOWN like they're supposed to be. Check each one before the snap just to be sure they haven't been sprayed with blanking silicone. And request a replacement if neccessary.
I've seen that FG muff a hundred times and each time the ball looks slicker. I dare anyone to show me a highlight of any NFL play WHERE THE BALL LOOKS AS SLICK AS THAT ONE DID.

 

[rcaldw]

Why did you include so many moments that went the right way for us?

Why would anyone want to go back and change one of them?

Does anyone here wish we didn't draft Aikman and Smith or regret trading Walker?

I'm going to break your rules and discuss 2 crtitical points in history that could be easily changed.

I'm not interested in going back in time and dictating the outcome of some game. I'd like to go back and just make a few suttle changes that could yield the desired result.

All I need to be is a forceful voice in someones ear at a couple key moments.

History Point #1 - Dallas in SF for the 1981 NFC Championship Game. I just want to be a voice in Landry's ear after Pearson long reception to set us up with 1st and 10 at the Niners 48 with 30 plus seconds left and I beleive 2 timeouts.
15 yards away from Septien's range. You guys remember how clutch he was at that time. One of the alltime best.
We had plenty of time and 2 timeouts! The next play White drops back to pass, sack, fumble, end of game.

Dorsett had been killing the Niners all game. I want to be that voice in Landry's ear to make him call a RUN TO DORSETT ON THE NEXT PLAY.
Then call a timeout.

Come back for the next play and RUN DORSETT AGAIN! Then call another timeout.

At this point we'd have 15-18 secs left and no timeouts. I'm confident that back to back runs by Dorsett against a nickle D in two passing situations would have yield us 15 yards or more.

If those two Dorsett runs didn't put us in FG range, so be it. Let White throw on 3rd down to move the sticks and or move us into FG range.


History Point #2 - I want to be the voice in Romo's ear to MAKE SURE ALL THE BALLS FOR FGs HAVE BEEN RUBBED DOWN like they're supposed to be. Check each one before the snap just to be sure they haven't been sprayed with blanking silicone. And request a replacement if neccessary.
I've seen that FG muff a hundred times and each time the ball looks slicker. I dare anyone to show me a highlight of any NFL play WHERE THE BALL LOOKS AS SLICK AS THAT ONE DID.

You rule breaker! You would probably wish for more wishes too!

Actually, good points all the way around. But in terms of that 81 NFC Championship game, I just wish I could make the DB that grabbed Drew Pearson by the collar on the play just prior to Danny's fumble whiff. If he doesn't get Drew by the collar, the Dallas Cowboys probably get a FG at the absolute worst, and more likely get a TD on that play and we go to the Super Bowl.