Who is the most irreplaceable player in Cowboy's history?

[Tovya]

"irreplaceable" PLAYER
not "irreplaceable" UNIT.


Point taken.

Of course, but that's the point I'm making... Emmitt thrived because Emmitt had the greatest o-line in history. So Emmitt wasn't the most irreplaceable... Aikman was no different of course, he would have had a half dozen more concussions without those guys, but he actually was more of a leader than Smith.

Emmitt did great things because he had talent, but he put up amazing numbers because of the o-line, and wouldn't even had come close to the record books without his boys up front making the holes.

 

[rcaldw]

Good argument. But it was over before Irvin went down. We just didnt know it then. It was like the clock struck midnight half way through SBXXX and we escaped with SB win anyways. Whew!




Aikman, minus Emmitt for the first two game of the season = we stunk. Aikman was a major cog in that 3 spoked wheel.

The idea that we stunk because Emmitt wasn't there is baloney.

1. We opened on the road against the Commanders who were the Super Bowl Champion in 1991 (just 2 seasons before).
2. We played Buffalo in week two who had been to the Super Bowl in 90,91, and 92. They also had a major point to prove after the drubbing we gave them in the Super Bowl the season before.

We played a guy who had never seen a down of NFL football in the place of Smith. Derrick Lassic. Yes, THE Derrick Lassic.

3. We were ahead 17-0 in week three when Smith made his entrance.

4. I'm still convinced the team was more bothered by the whole contract mess in 1993 than simply being without Emmitt on the field. There was somewhat of a racial divide in the locker room over that and guys felt like Emmitt deserved his money. (Which he did, without debate)

Listen, I wouldn't trade Emmitt Smith for any of the backs of the 90's, including Barry Sanders. Smith was OUR guy, and PERFECT for what we did.

I just hate the oversimplified explanations that always disrespect Aikman.

 

[BrassCowboy]

Anyone who says that the RB position is more important than the QB position in the NFL flies in the face, literally, of almost every knowledgeable NFL type in existence. And I'm not saying that to insult you, I'm just saying it because it is true. You hear coaches, gm's, former players, just about everyone say, it is about the QB position.

no, i don't take it as an insult cuz I stated it was my opinion, or atleast i implied it.

I will take a well grinded out balanced game over a ST. Louis Rams pass happy offensive game ANY day of the week. That we had in our SB years in the 90's.

 

[Pukindog]

Staubach.

 

[rcaldw]

no, i don't take it as an insult cuz I stated it was my opinion, or atleast i implied it.

I will take a well grinded out balanced game over a ST. Louis Rams pass happy offensive game ANY day of the week. That we had in our SB years in the 90's.

Actually the Cowboys were not just a grind it out team in the 90's. They always had a very balanced run-pass ratio, and more times than not used the pass to get out to leads and then ran you to death with Smith while the clock ticked away. Against those Cowboys teams it was pick your poison, you can die slow or die quickly, your choice.

I agree with you on the pass happy approach, but that doesn't mean that a balanced team relies only on the RB. It is the threat of the pass that opens up running lanes, and vice versa.

 

[bbgun]

The idea that we stunk because Emmitt wasn't there is baloney.

1. We opened on the road against the Commanders who were the Super Bowl Champion in 1991 (just 2 seasons before).

True, we were totally blown out, and Emmitt's presence probably would not have changed the final outcome.

2. We played Buffalo in week two who had been to the Super Bowl in 90,91, and 92. They also had a major point to prove after the drubbing we gave them in the Super Bowl the season before.

We played a guy who had never seen a down of NFL football in the place of Smith. Derrick Lassic. Yes, THE Derrick Lassic.

This is where I disagree. Unlike the Skins game, it was a nailbiter 'til the very end, and Lassic was responsible for a very damaging turnover in Dallas territory which led to a cheap Buffalo FG. I gotta think Emmitt would have been the difference in this matchup. The upside? It was Lin Elliot's last game.

 

[BrassCowboy]

Actually the Cowboys were not just a grind it out team in the 90's. They always had a very balanced run-pass ratio, and more times than not used the pass to get out to leads and then ran you to death with Smith while the clock ticked away. Against those Cowboys teams it was pick your poison, you can die slow or die quickly, your choice.

I agree with you on the pass happy approach, but that doesn't mean that a balanced team relies only on the RB. It is the threat of the pass that opens up running lanes, and vice versa.

well i agree with that. that is the balanced approach a team should thrive for

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

Mick's a big Emmitt fan (and that is fine).

Whew! I am glad that is fine.

I am actually just as BIG A FAN of Aikman than Emmitt. I have many times defended him when people post "he is just a system QB" nonsense.

I just hate the oversimplified explanations that always disrespect Aikman.

Oversimplified? Did you read the thread topic? :laugh2:
Again, see above for Aikman.

 

[rcaldw]

Whew! I am glad that is fine.

I am actually just as BIG A FAN of Aikman than Emmitt. I have many times defended him when people post "he is just a system QB" nonsense.




Oversimplified? Did you read the thread topic? :laugh2:
Again, see above for Aikman.

My bad Mick if I misunderstood you. And what I meant by fine, is I'm not critical of that, heck, I'm a big Aikman fan.

And I don't mean that YOU oversimplify the issue, I simply mean that I think the start to 1993 has been oversimplified by many. It was like the perfect storm.

1. A difficult schedule to start
2. Smith not being paid properly which not only aggravated him but a large portion of the locker room
3. An absolute novice that backed him up - and not even a very good novice at that

So that, IN MY OPINION, it is way oversimplified to say, Emmitt missed so we lost.

Especially when I can point to PLAYOFF games where Emmitt was all but absent due to injury and we blew people out. The 1994 win over the Packers in the playoffs is exhibit A.

 

[rcaldw]

True, we were totally blown out, and Emmitt's presence probably would not have changed the final outcome.



This is where I disagree. Unlike the Skins game, it was a nailbiter 'til the very end, and Lassic was responsible for a very damaging turnover in Dallas territory which led to a cheap Buffalo FG. I gotta think Emmitt would have been the difference in this matchup. The upside? It was Lin Elliot's last game.

I agree BB, I don't think we disagree on your last point at all. I firmly believe that Emmitt would have made the difference in that game. What I'm saying is that people act as if we couldn't have won games without Emmitt NO MATTER WHO WAS FILLING IN FOR HIM.

Man, do I disagree with that. I think the Cowboys really scrimped when it came to backups for Emmitt over the years, vs. the money they paid to backup Aikman, and that is a big part of the reason why we were able to keep winning when Aikman would be out vs. Emmitt. The backups, other than Garrett, and he played very sparingly, were incomparable.

Aikman - Beurelein (Starter with Oakland before Dallas - starter with more than one team after Dallas)
- Bernie Kosar - a STAR, pro bowler, with Cleveland, took his team to two AFC Championship games.
- Wade Wilson - Starter with the Vikings took his team to an NFC Championship game
- Rodney Peete - Starter with the Lions prior to Dallas and started some for other teams afterward.

Smith - Derrick Lassic, Ricky something, the arena league guy, Blair Thomas - started a little while for the Jets but was a bust by all accounts, and then later on got a pretty good backup in Chris Warren.

 

[LittleBoyBlue]

My bad Mick if I misunderstood you. And what I meant by fine, is I'm not critical of that, heck, I'm a big Aikman fan.

And I don't mean that YOU oversimplify the issue, I simply mean that I think the start to 1993 has been oversimplified by many. It was like the perfect storm.

1. A difficult schedule to start
2. Smith not being paid properly which not only aggravated him but a large portion of the locker room
3. An absolute novice that backed him up - and not even a very good novice at that

So that, IN MY OPINION, it is way oversimplified to say, Emmitt missed so we lost.

Especially when I can point to PLAYOFF games where Emmitt was all but absent due to injury and we blew people out. The 1994 win over the Packers in the playoffs is exhibit A.

No problemo

Its just crazy how we go 0-2 without then 12-2 with. I met Emmitt in the Bahamas back in 2000?(I think that was the year). What a little dude, I darn near tackled him. LMAO

 

[Rampage]

 

[The30YardSlant]

Herschel Walker (Trade). No single player has done as much to turn our team into a dynasty. Dallas used Minny's picks for Emmitt and Darren Woodson.

This :starspin

 

[rcaldw]

No problemo

Its just crazy how we go 0-2 without then 12-2 with. I met Emmitt in the Bahamas back in 2000?(I think that was the year). What a little dude, I darn near tackled him. LMAO

I agree. But think about what his return meant.

1. The locker room atmosphere immediately turns positive (which I think explains the 17-0 lead even before he returned to the field in game 3. That and the fact they were playing the stinking Cardinals)

2. No more rookie in pass blocking schemes

3. The best running back in football back on the field

I'm not AT ALL discounting #22's importance to that team. I'm saying it was MAGNIFIED by the little attention given to an adequate backup by JJ back in those days.

It's like any other field of work. If you take the best technology guy in an office and he is out a few days and you replace him with an ok technology guy, the office suffers, perhaps, but it isn't disaster. If you replace him with a guy who doesn't know how to check email, and you have anything out of the ordinary take place, you have a crisis.

The best technology guy is valuable either way, but when you replace him with a novice his value is magnified.

I would suggest that the Cowboys always made sure they had the ok technology guy to replace Aikman with, but opted for the "don't know how to check email" guy to try and replace the best running back in football with.

It just didn't work.

 

[BAT]

I agree. But think about what his return meant.

1. The locker room atmosphere immediately turns positive (which I think explains the 17-0 lead even before he returned to the field in game 3. That and the fact they were playing the stinking Cardinals)

This is an underrated aspect of Emmitt's contribution. The TEAM played much more confidently w/him in the game. That was evident after the Buffalo loss when Haley went beserk in the locker room demanding that Jerry sign him & bring him back to the team immediately.

 

[Doomsday101]

This is an underrated aspect of Emmitt's contribution. The TEAM played much more confidently w/him in the game. That was evident after the Buffalo loss when Haley went beserk in the locker room demanding that Jerry sign him & bring him back to the team immediately.

I agree. Emmitt was the work horse and when he was out of the lineup no one else seems to be able to step up behind the same O-line Emmitt had.

 

[BlueStar II]

In no particular order, here are a few that I can think of right off the top of my head.....

Emmitt
Staubach
Lilly
Randy White
Irvin

no doubt there are others as well, but for the moment, that's all I'll add to the list.

 

[BlueStar II]

In no particular order, here are a few that I can think of right off the top of my head.....

Emmitt
Staubach
Lilly
Randy White
Irvin

no doubt there are others as well, but for the moment, that's all I'll add to the list.

:starspin In regards to Irvin, obviously, I was speaking of his on the field contributions.

 

[dougonthebench]

Staubach. (player). However,the most important person in Cowboys history is Tom Landry.IMO

 

[Doomsday101]

Staubach. (player). However,the most important person in Cowboys history is Tom Landry.IMO

I agree Coach Landry was the foundation of this franchise