Cowboys 24 Eagles 0

[Dodger12]

I think it highlights how little Garrett and the Jones boys understand about building a team. You can't have a team of superstars. Crayton was never a star but fulfilled a role. Parcells was great at identifying and using those gritty role players. Remember how much he agonized over the active 45?

Now the team will keep a guy like Andre Holmes around because he might be a star even though he fills no role week to week. I'm sure they kept Ogletree around for years simply due to their perceived upside

Absolutely. And BP would tell a guy like Crayton or Keith Davis that they could have a long career in the NFL if they just knew their role and stuck to it. There was no one left to keep these guys in check after BP left

I always liked guys like Crayton and Romo because they earned their way onto the roster and it sent a message to the team. They didn't make it because they had superior athletic ability like Stanback or Billy (freaking) Davis, for example.

 

[Midswat]

Harper was lazy. He had no business being the #1 option on a team. Especially not on a bad Tampa Bay team.

If Harper had a work ethic, he could've been incredible. I remember reading Irvin say that Harper was dripping with natural talent, but he had no desire to be great.

 

[Texas Ace]

[video=youtube;3Jh-XlmfGLk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jh-XlmfGLk[/video]

:sad

 

[Irving Cowboy]

I totally lost my shit and even sprained my ankle from jumping around so much.

:fern

Sounds familiar.

 

[Texas Ace]

:fern

Sounds familiar.

You sonofabitch.

 

[Midswat]

He loved that ankle.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

I never understood getting rid of Crayton. The guy was reportedly a hard worker who earned his way into the lineup, had good hands, could play the #2, was a decent return guy and Romo trusted him. And we kept Sam Hurd, OTree and Manuel Johnson instead. I understand he may have taken a liking to TO but we seem to undervalue those role players who will never be stars but are solid.

You answered your own question. He liked TO and Garrett thought he was against him, so Garrett flexed his nuts and had him sent packing. Kevin Ogletree was going to be better and more a team player.

Never mind that Ogletree was a ****** who couldn't run a route or even remember where to line up - he was with John at Virginia!

But yeah, anytime I watch games from about 2006 to 2009, I notice that Crayton really stands out. He was never great but he was dependable and tough and had some, well, swagger to him. So he didn't care for Garrett 100%... So what. Shouldn't have mattered because he produced.

 

[superpunk]

The bigger problem with the TO crew was that they seemed to have a problem with Romo, as well.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

But looking back on that, that seemed to be way overblown. For a while there Crayton was on this radio show every Saturday and he was complimentary of Romo. Now Garrett, he'd drop some hints that he wasn't as big a fan because he acted like a robot and distanced himself from the players unlike Bill who made an effort to at least ask some things about their personal life.

And besides, even if he had some little problem with Romo, why not just tell the guy straight out to STFU, he isn't going anywhere so he might as well play? Parcells had guys like Keyshawn who had a big mouth, not always complimentary of everything. But he knew not everyone has to be a no-personality choir boy as long as they played hard and weren't a complete lunatic.

 

[SixisBetter]

think it highlights how little Garrett and the Jones boys understand about building a team.

The farther we get from the serendipity of hiring Johnson,the more we realize Jones' imcompetence.
Jones is great at improving his net worth,horrible at anything football related.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

The ability to step up in the pocket makes all the difference in the world. Consequently, if Federick and Leary can start, they could make all the difference in the world.

 

[dbair1967]

We were playing each other the next week regardless. Only difference was, the winner of the week 17 game won the division and got to host the wild card game.
.

Both of us finished 11-5 after we won. Had we lost, Philly would have been 12-4 and tied with the Vikings for the 2nd best record in the NFC, but Philly would have had a better conference record, making them the #2 and Minnesota the #3. We'd have been the 6th seed with a loss and played at Minnesota.

Or do your sources indicate otherwise?

 

[Texas Ace]

Both of us finished 11-5 after we won. Had we lost, Philly would have been 12-4 and tied with the Vikings for the 2nd best record in the NFC, but Philly would have had a better conference record, making them the #2 and Minnesota the #3. We'd have been the 6th seed with a loss and played at Minnesota.

Or do your sources indicate otherwise?

You are correct.

That is exactly why I thought the notion of the Eagles losing on purpose was nonsense.

The Eagles would have secured a bye week and a game at home had they beat us that day, so this idea that they purposely gave all that up just to intentionally play us again the next week was about a stupid a theory as I've heard in my life as a fan.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

Pretty sad, that Iggles team that we punked that year would've already wrapped up this division the last couple years.

 

[Omegasupreme]

The bigger problem with the TO crew was that they seemed to have a problem with Romo, as well.

Something like that. Garrett Romo Witten were an exclusive club. Remember that Steeler game where the last play was this bizarre ankle throw to Witten despite Owens being open? Owens complained, and rightly so because Dallas had a good chance in that game and the big genius finish play that Dallas desperately needed was just play number 2 based on coverage that the Steelers had already seen several times that game. I think the reality was that Garrett would send in some idiotic pass play, Romo would try to make sense of how it could possibly work, and then when he was stuck, he would find Witten.

Happens enough, might make one feel excluded.

 

[junk]

I've been thinking about this thread all day. As if I couldn't already name a dozen things that the Cowboys do wrong, I do think there is something to be said about the team's inability to identify and properly value role players.

Part of this is obviously Jerry. He's all flash and no substance, so no surprise there.

Part is Garrett. Compare him to a guy like Parcells who worked his way up through the college ranks where you had to find role guys because you didn't have any options. He understands how to do that. I'm not sure Garrett even had enough seasoning to understand what goes into putting together your game day 45 to address offense, defense and specials. That is part of the reason why I have little to no hope for Escobar this year. He struggles to find roles for players on offense.

Then last is the valuing of role players. Parcells always churned the bottom of that roster to find role players. Dallas pays role players like McCray and Scandrick more money than they're worth.