Tom Curran on Cowboys locker room

[irvin4evs]

And Tom Coughlin wasn't?

 

[jterrell]

The dominoes games etc. is a symbol of a locker room that just does not get it. We saw a little of this kind of childishness last year when we saw video of Stanback play-wrestling with a teammate while Colombo and McQuistin sat back and were amused the week before the divisional playoff game. If having a loose locker room was associated with a team that won, nobody would care. This is a symptom. Dominoes are not bad. A childish bunch of players who are not professional and mature is. Again, it would not be an issue if we won. So, until we do, these symptoms of a poorly controlled team will continue to be noticed and reported.

Imagine if it were a classroom. If you know in advance that they have poor test scores and you walk in and see a bunch of immaturity, what would you think? Shake your head and say boys will be boys? If so, congratulations. You probably have a lot in common with our laid back head coach.

Or it could be called a symbol of a locker room where teammates actually like to hang out with each other.

Guys staying the locker room and hanging out is generally regarded as a good thing.

Players hated Staubach because he didn't hang out with them at all. Same for Danny White. I love Staubach but camaraderie isn't earned being apart form team mates.

 

[jterrell]

Great post.

I agree with absolutely everything you said.

Of course you do, even though it's not true.

The 1992/1993 Dallas Cowboys were the best collection of talent in the history of the NFL. They didn't just have leaders they had the very best players.

That tends to be why you win games. If you look back at those years we lost when Emmitt was out, we lost when Mike was out and those guys just happened to not be out much. When they were all that leadership and chemistry meant jack crap.

We had many of those same leaders as the team was falling apart but what we didn't have was Mike Irvin on the field. We didn't have a dominate OL any longer even though we had the same players starting we were robbed of youth and all backups.

Again if you win you did it right, if not you suck. It is just basic common sense and all the rest is just chatter.

Jimmy Johnsaon coached elsewhere and got no where. Bill Parcells has had what 4 stops after New york now without winning another Super Bowl.


BP is a whole lot more effective when he has the best outside linebacker in the history of the game. And for all this talk of discipline BP won titles with LT doing coke and "visiting" with multiple strippers the night before games.

Anyone really believe all this hogwash that gets bandied about??? The 90's Cowboys were a ridiculously hard partying team that used various drugs, hung out non-stop in strip clubs and generally conducted themselves however the heck they felt like. And they went to work and still won. Why? Because they were better than everyone else.

 

[jterrell]

The scouting department and the organizational philosophy regarding the draft was completely overhauled thanks to Coach Parcells. That is all part of how he did right the ship. For all practical purposes, this was his greatest contribution from his tenure, but it is lost on so many people it is remarkable.

He reeducated Jones on how important trusting the scouts was. If anything there was once again healthy dialogue and not the Jerry and Larry show that was an unmitigated disaster. He pushed for the current system when Ireland was installed and Jones carried the model over by entrusting Ciskowski with very much the same responsibilities and level of trust.

I have never stated BP didn't contribute here. I like BP and prefer his methods. But I am man enough to realize that is a personal preference and has no link to actually winning Super Bowls. Teams of all kinds have and will continue to win games.

Calling teams weak-willed is just stupid. Were they weak-willed under BP when they folded like a tent in December?

Jimmy was the man responsible for Jerry trusting coaches over scouts yet amazingly that worked to win 3 Super Bowls. Now BP overhauled the scouting areas and we trust scouts more and that seems to work as well. But whose to say the right coaches being used as a reference wouldn't still work.

Again both ways have won.

BP did do a lot of good here and we needed him to make tough decisions. But his "style" got the exact same results as Camp Cupcake.

 

[Alexander]

Anyone really believe all this hogwash that gets bandied about??? The 90's Cowboys were a ridiculously hard partying team that used various drugs, hung out non-stop in strip clubs and generally conducted themselves however the heck they felt like. And they went to work and still won. Why? Because they were better than everyone else.

Nice deft way you completely avoided the point of my post, which was about leadership. You know, that silly thing that our owner dismisses but we have been missing for years.

Yes, the talent then was overwhelming. This talent is fairly good as well. This team lacks that additional intangible. And it has been lacking since the day Johnson left and the day Michael Irvin collapsed on the Veterans Stadium Astroturf.

 

[jterrell]

Nice deft way you completely avoided the point of my post, which was about leadership. You know, that silly thing that our owner dismisses but we have been missing for years.

Yes, the talent then was overwhelming. This talent is fairly good as well. This team lacks that additional intangible. And it has been lacking since the day Johnson left and the day Michael Irvin collapsed on the Veterans Stadium Astroturf.

Nothing deft about it.
I addressed it directly, you just choose to read what you want.

The 1992/1993 Dallas Cowboys were the best collection of talent in the history of the NFL. They didn't just have leaders they had the very best players.

That tends to be why you win games. If you look back at those years we lost when Emmitt was out, we lost when Mike was out and those guys just happened to not be out much. When they were all that leadership and chemistry meant jack crap.

 

[jterrell]

BTW if you have a Marine platoon in Afghanistan right now and in their spare time they play domino's together does that means they are the reason we are not dominating that war???

When arguments fail to make sense in any other context usually they just fail to make sense period.

 

[DallasEast]

If the alpha male were the critical variable then we'd have a full roster of guys with obsessive work ethics. We don't. The only guys matching Owens' example are guys like Witten and Ware: the best players on the team.

Can we agree that Tony Dungy would be an acceptable goal for Wade? What would that really consist of?

I think Wade should first and foremost implement a strict anti-media rule in the team. Make it a closed house. The only other thing I can think of is tougher practices and training camps. Stop giving days off to guys just because they did pretty good last week.

Is that really something Wade can't do? Not in my opinion. It only requires a change of routine, not personality. Whether he has the guts to do these things is another matter, though.

There is a misuse of terminology here. Being an alpha male does not influence those around him to become "exactly like him". It means that those around the alpha male defer to his leadership.

Regardless of any successful team's makeup, the alpha male will always be identified as the head coach. It does not mean that any players under the head coach are any less strong-willed than the head coach. It only means that the players defer or submit to the leadership of their head coach.

Usually, rosters which defer most to their head coach are the most cohesive. More cohesiveness = stronger team identity and stronger team identity = greater attention from all players and coaches towards obtaining projected team goals.

The movie Highlander contains one of the all-time best quotes:

"There can only be one."

As far as the term alpha male is concerned, that is definitely not the case in Dallas.

 

[Alexander]

Nothing deft about it.
I addressed it directly, you just choose to read what you want.

The 1992/1993 Dallas Cowboys were the best collection of talent in the history of the NFL. They didn't just have leaders they had the very best players.

That tends to be why you win games. If you look back at those years we lost when Emmitt was out, we lost when Mike was out and those guys just happened to not be out much. When they were all that leadership and chemistry meant jack crap.

So wait a minute. Per you, it is just talent. You bounced back and forth and ended up with that conclusion.

So why didn't we win more in 2008? If everything else is "jack crap", why do the more successful teams have these types of leaders in place? How can teams with rookies, backups and pine riders overcome the things that crippled this team? Normally a leader does come from your most talented players. That's part of the whole process. Some imbecile that isn't talented is not going to be able to carry the leadership banner. And in a manner of speaking, we have had some pretty subpar blends of the two. Our "leaders" are not elite players and in fact, some would be fortunate to be called "very good". We had it with Irvin, Aikman and so on. Irvin was not the most talented WR of his generation, but I guarantee you nobody worked harder or wanted it more. That made him elite. Troy Aikman was far from the most complete QB of his era, but he was a true leader. The blend made him elite. Talent alone with poor character does not cut it. That is precisely what this team has issues with.

If it comes down to more talent or a little less talent and more leadership, I'll take the latter. We added more "talent" with Roy Williams. I did not see that helping us march and down the field. All I saw was a talent player loafing around with pretty much the rest of a passionless team at Lincoln Field. Jerry Jones severely miscalculated with several of his high profile additions over the last few years as all three lacked the character intangibles. They were not leaders, they were ego-driven players who thought of themselves first.

It also amazes me that you believe your hypothesis is correct, despite nearly every ex-Cowboy from that era acknowledging the fact that it was the combination of leadership and talent that those teams had and this one lacks.

 

[jterrell]

So wait a minute. Per you, it is just talent. You bounced back and forth and ended up with that conclusion.

So why didn't we win more in 2008? If everything else is "jack crap", why do the more successful teams have these types of leaders in place? How can teams with rookies, backups and pine riders overcome the things that crippled this team? Normally a leader does come from your most talented players. That's part of the whole process. Some imbecile that isn't talented is not going to be able to carry the leadership banner. And in a manner of speaking, we have had some pretty subpar blends of the two. Our "leaders" are not elite players and in fact, some would be fortunate to be called "very good". We had it with Irvin, Aikman and so on. Irvin was not the most talented WR of his generation, but I guarantee you nobody worked harder or wanted it more. That made him elite. Troy Aikman was far from the most complete QB of his era, but he was a true leader. The blend made him elite. Talent alone with poor character does not cut it. That is precisely what this team has issues with.

If it comes down to more talent or a little less talent and more leadership, I'll take the latter. We added more "talent" with Roy Williams. I did not see that helping us march and down the field. All I saw was a talent player loafing around with pretty much the rest of a passionless team at Lincoln Field. Jerry Jones severely miscalculated with several of his high profile additions over the last few years as all three lacked the character intangibles. They were not leaders, they were ego-driven players who thought of themselves first.

It also amazes me that you believe your hypothesis is correct, despite nearly every ex-Cowboy from that era acknowledging the fact that it was the combination of leadership and talent that those teams had and this one lacks.

I haven't bounced back and forth at all.
I have said all along talent is the first criterion.

Everyone gets nostalgic but Mike Irvin wasn't really being a great leader when he stabbed a teammate in the neck. Aikman and Deion hate each other and did so while playing together. Nice leadership there....

When you win you get the glory, can be called a great leader et al, you lose and are soft, you suck and should go off and die. That's just how the sheep view things.

When this team was 13-1 or whatever it was who exactly was crying about leadership??? Lose a few games including the one that counted and now you suck. Where was the Giants leadership when they lost at home to Philly??
Dallas got rolled by the Eagles but at least it was in turdville surrounded by all the roaches and rats with every drunked iggle fan singing that gawdafwul song the entire game. Was Plaxico the big leader because he was the one who was out???

Did the Pats lack leaders every time they didn't win a Super Bowl or simply sprout them the years they did? Think they'd rather have more leaders next year or Tom Brady's play-making back?

 

[Alexander]

When this team was 13-1 or whatever it was who exactly was crying about leadership???

Leadership was a problem last year as well. Winning does not solve the problems. It masks them. Losing exposes the slimy underbelly and should illustrate the issues if someone has half a brain.

Case in point, our collapse down the stretch. Same as always. This team sits around wandering cluelessly at the end of each year wondering what happened because they all thought talent was what it took. Now Jerry Jones seems to think continuity was the issue. But he missed the boat there too because there were teams this season that turned over large chunks of their roster from last season (including the staff), suffered more injuries than we did and somehow, they managed to win. They get it. We still don't.

Lose a few games including the one that counted and now you suck. Where was the Giants leadership when they lost at home to Philly??

A close loss to a division rival is not the same as a syndrome that repeats itself over and over, year after year for over a decade.

Did the Pats lack leaders every time they didn't win a Super Bowl or simply sprout them the years they did? Think they'd rather have more leaders next year or Tom Brady's play-making back?

They had eleven wins this year without Brady because they had the leadership in place. They did not unravel like a cheap suit and start backbiting at the first sign of adversity. If they had our special brand of leadership up there, they would have lost the majority of the games after the opener. Our QB missed three games and it suddenly is a huge issue. Players start whining about their receptions, the structure of the offense and so on. There is no player leadership, there is no leadership from the staff and their is no leadership from the very pinnacle of the organization.

You keep talking about the talent as the sole source of leadership, it is not just that. It comes from the head coach, the ownership, the GM and that trickles down in that they find like minded players. The Patriots survived and nearly made the postseason because of it. They have consistently lost talent year and year and found ways to overcome it. There is a reason why when their "talent" goes to other teams that for some strange reason that "talent" ceases to produce any longer (Deion Branch and Charlie Weis are two classic examples).

It is the same reason why some of our "talent" that came from what you claim was the greatest talent ever (Alvin Harper, Larry Brown, Jimmie Jones, Dixon Edwards) all failed to have that all-world talent shine through elsewhere. You have to have the blend of both talent and the leadership to focus it. Otherwise, you have pretty much what we have now, a collection of individuals and you better get used to the results instead of hoping that someone just gets it one day.