How did we get here?

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

This is the problem with having a few superstars and crappy depth. If the superstars play bad or are hurt, you have to play the crap.

Not really a problem is you have superior coaching.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

Goodness.

I'm in no way defending the front office and Garrett, and I know how frustrating it is to watch the Cowboys lose week after week, but let's be real --- take the starting QB and the team's best (non-QB) offensive skill position player off of almost any NFL team and that team is going to struggle.

No doubt. But even before, when we had both those players healthy... we struggled to get 8-8. That's coaching.

 

[Scot]

Not really a problem is you have superior coaching.

Exactly

look at the Pats. They have been a revolving door since Belechick got there. The only constant throughout their success has been Brady and Belechick. Lineman are rotated in and out, players come and go, that team is truly the definition of the "next man up" mentality

And they make it work with good scemes and good coaching

We have neither and it shows. Glaringly so this year with our injuries

I fucking hate the Pats. But I gotta give it to them. They always find a way to win regardless of who is on their roster! Kind of like Landry in the old days. He didn't give a shit about the player. As long as they executed his game plan. And for over 20 years he had winning seasons

 

[Doomsday]

How often does any team have BOTH their stud QB and WR go down early in the season nearly the same time? You talk as if this is a common occurance and it isn't.

No, I don't and never even thought that.

The 12-4 was because the playcalling was taken out of Garrett's hands period.

Running the ball and making it a feature of the offense was due to Tony's back issues, period. The success of it was due to a RB beasting it in his contract year.

We then let the beast leave and don't draft a replacement RB or sign any decent ones, because with a healthy Tony the plan was to go back to previous philosophy, and not really worry too much about having a dominating run game. It wasn't a priority, they said.

None of the above is either smart or stupid, it's merely exactly what happened.

 

[Scot]

Just read an article that said Gregory was only in for eight play against NYG because his high ankle sprain started acting up and hurting a little bit

He said that it's a little better now and that they don't expect him to be on a limited snap count against the Hawks

I hope he is healed up for the next game. Seattle and Wilson have the highest sack count in the NFL at I believe 28 times that he's been sacked. It looks like that trade for graham where they gave up their starting center is really hurting them this year.

Good news for us if Gregory is healthy. With him and Hardy in there we should be able to get to Wilson often. I hope to see at least five sacks. Especially considering he's been sacked 10 times in the last two weeks alone

 

[NoShame]

Goodness.

I'm in no way defending the front office and Garrett, and I know how frustrating it is to watch the Cowboys lose week after week, but let's be real --- take the starting QB and the team's best (non-QB) offensive skill position player off of almost any NFL team and that team is going to struggle.

Think about it this way:

Let's say that the Weeden/Cassel Cowboys, without Romo and without Dez, played:

1. The Atlanta Falcons without Matt Ryan and Julio Jones.
2. The New Orleans Saints without Drew Brees and C.J. Spiller.
3. The New England Patriots without Brady and Gronk.
4. The New York Giants without Eli Manning and, I guess, Beckham.

The Cowboys would have gone 3-1 in those games. At least.

Starting QBs and top-flight offensive threats matter more than ever in today's NFL.

I agree. I think it's fair to add not having Murray as well.

Not having 3 of your top performing offensive players from your 12-4 team is gonna hurt... A lot.

 

[NoShame]

Yes they do matter
But you should be able to still win without them

See the Steelers this year with a second and a third string QB coming in and still being able to win games

They still had Bell and Brown.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

You know it's bad when the fans start to do some soul searching.

 

[boozeman]

I believe if any other team out there experienced the same set backs to their equivalent star players that they would have ended up with more wins than we have. Simply due to better coaching or more depth at each key position

Belechick would be sitting at 4-2 right now or better

Our Coach is our main handicap

All I can say in response is that a decent coach steals a win versus the Falcons, Saints or Giants during this stretch.

Maybe two.

That is just a simple reality. It is not just Weeden. Weeden was out there because our incompetent coaches and talent evaluators had him there. Same management that thought Brad Johnson was a smart idea.

It is rare that a smart organization has years of 8-8 mediocrity, experiences a four game breakout and then decides that it is okay to break up that formula and just hope that everything else remains the same.

It is what we do. Experience a little success, get arrogant, get knocked down, claw back to respect, get arrogant again.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

No, I don't and never even thought that.

Alright then you inferred it. You referenced the injury bug and it staying away and regarded it as luck.

Running the ball and making it a feature of the offense was due to Tony's back issues, period. The success of it was due to a RB beasting it in his contract year.

We then let the beast leave and don't draft a replacement RB or sign any decent ones, because with a healthy Tony the plan was to go back to previous philosophy, and not really worry too much about having a dominating run game. It wasn't a priority, they said.

None of the above is either smart or stupid, it's merely exactly what happened.

His back was fine. Fully recovered from the prior season. So let me get this straight: the Cowboys on average ran the ball TWO EXTRA TIMES PER QUARTER, and that supposedly helped Romo's back? On average the prior year they ran the ball 5 times per quarter, compared to last year they ran the ball 7 times per quarter. Ok.

And because we ran the ball more, and is attributed to the success as you state... were and how then is that LUCK?

 

[Doomsday]

His back was fine. Fully recovered from the prior season.

WHAAAAAAT??? Romo's back was fine? It was far, far from fine! They lied about it all preseason but it became clear pretty quickly it was NOT fine, and they acknowledged it was NOT fine!

So let me get this straight: the Cowboys on average ran the ball TWO EXTRA TIMES PER QUARTER, and that supposedly helped Romo's back? On average the prior year they ran the ball 5 times per quarter, compared to last year they ran the ball 7 times per quarter. Ok.

And because we ran the ball more, and is attributed to the success as you state... were and how then is that LUCK?

You are taking my general statement that the season was mostly luck, (it was, just a fluke) then trying to say I was saying specifics, like the running game success, being luck. Where clearly I differentiate the two.

You don't understand this concept that boozeman, Hoofbite, bbgun and many others here do. Making the run a featured part of the offense wasn't some Epiphany, some sudden change in philosophy or some genius plan, it was necessity to try to limit Tony's exposure to hits. Later on in the season when his back was healthier, they threw more, making for the average you're referring to. The success of this was mostly due to a pretty good back beasting it for a new contract.

Then with Tony's health assumed better at the start of a new season, that beasting back became expendable and we didn't draft a replacement. BECAUSE WE NEVER PLANNED TO FEATURE THE RUN AGAIN THIS YEAR.

You referenced the injury bug and it staying away and regarded it as luck.

It's not mostly just dumb luck when you go through a whole season with very few injuries to key players?

Still can't get over you're believing Tony's back was "fine" when even Tony himself said it was not. It wasn't.