Dallas Cowboys: Where is Fun Bobby?
Do you remember the episode of Friends in which the show introduced “Fun Bobby?” Bobby made people laugh, he created a uniquely energetic atmosphere and, quite simply, things were more exciting when Bobby was around. The problem: Bobby’s “fun” personality was a result of a drinking problem.
The seven generic white “friends” decided that they needed to do something. The group banded together and eventually helped Bobby quit drinking. The problem: Bobby was no longer “fun.” Without alcohol, Bobby was just another guy with very little to offer (and please ignore the indirect “why you should drink” message).
Cowboys’ fans – say hello to “No Fun Tony.”
That’s right; you got what you asked for. Since taking over as the starter, Romo has been one of the most explosive playmakers in the NFL. But instead of recognizing Romo’s unique ability to make plays that no other quarterback could make, the fans just wanted to talk about turnovers.
Every time the Cowboys lost, Dallas sports-talk was littered with “Jeds from Garland” telling the world that, “This team just cain’t win with a guy like Romo who dun goes and throws them interceptions!”
Well Jed, you got what you wanted. Romo is no longer fun to watch. He no longer consistently makes amazing plays. The constant and seemingly never-ending chirping about turnovers finally got to Tony (or Garrett) – and a below-average offense is the result.
How did San Diego score their first touchdown? Philip Rivers took a shot down the field – Dallas interfered on the play – and San Diego was given the ball at the 2-yard-line. Sounds pretty simple.
Romo no longer takes shots down the field. He doesn’t look for the big play (at least not in big games). If Romo avoids trouble in the pocket, he isn’t looking downfield; he is looking for his check-down receiver. In other words, you have turned one of the NFL’s most unique weapons into Kyle Orton.
Congratulations.
The fans that united to collectively whine and complain about Romo’s “carelessness” with the ball now have the opportunity to watch this Dallas team scratch and crawl to score 17 points. When Romo was clicking on all cylinders, 17 points was a decent total for one quarter. Romo hasn’t turned the ball over in December and Dallas is 0-2. He currently has the lowest turnover ratio of his career – and yet the offense has become less productive. But hey, that’s what everyone wanted, right?
Romo is a natural-born playmaker. Did his creativity and willingness to take chances occasionally lead to mistakes? Of course it did. But when Romo was playing free and loose, his positive impact on the offense far outweighed his occasional mishap.
Do you remember the youthful exuberance that used to surround Tony? Can you recall how electric Texas Stadium became when Romo stepped onto the field? Now, none of that happens. The fans aren’t excited, the players look disinterested and Romo himself doesn’t look confident. Two years ago, if you had told me that Romo would not exude confidence when he stepped on the field, I would have called you Sarah Palin crazy!
Early on in his career, Romo’s ability to make big plays defined him as a quarterback – and I can’t help but think that this coaching staff (with help from constant criticism by the fans/media) has simply taken that risk-taking mentality away from him. Though Romo has connected on 14 big plays (40+ yards) this season, only three of them have come during meaningful times in meaningful games (2 against Philadelphia; 1 against Green Bay). A more detailed breakdown follows:
• Week 2: Loss to the Giants 33-31 (0 big plays)
• Week 4: Loss at the Broncos 17-10 (1 big play less than 2:00 remaining)
• Week 10: Loss at the Packers 17-7 (1 big play)
• Week 13: Loss at the Giants 31-24 (0 big plays)
• Week 14: Loss to the Chargers 20-17 (0 big plays)
This team doesn’t make big plays against quality teams. Against Oakland and Seattle, Dallas receivers will break a tackle and create a big play. But in close games against decent teams, Dallas simply doesn’t take many (if any) shots down the field.
And no, T.O. isn’t the difference. T.O. played in Dallas last year and, outside of the San Francisco game, the team didn’t connect on many explosive plays. This isn’t a personnel issue – this is a mentality issue. Romo no longer appears to have the playmaker mentality. He doesn’t strike fear into opposing defense and he isn’t walking with the same swagger that he used to own. He simply looks like just another guy.
I don’t know about you, but I want “Fun Bobby” back!
Showing posts with label Dallas Cowboys. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Dallas Cowboys. Show all posts
Monday, December 14, 2009
Friday, May 1, 2009
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
NFL Draft Ramblings
Has technology ruined the NFL Draft?
Do you remember watching the NFL Draft with anticipation? If you were like me, you would be parked on the couch, with beer in hand, and watch as though you were related to the players involved. When the Cowboys’ pick drew near, and as the commissioner walked toward the podium, a thousand thoughts crossed your mind:
You were on the edge of your seat as the commissioner proclaimed, “With the 13th pick in the 200_ draft, the Dallas Cowboys select…” A wave of emotions accompanied the announcement – usually leading to the three W’s:
“What?...Who?...Why?”
For me, this entire process has changed – and I blame technology. ESPN has surrounded every player with cameras and microphones to provide fans with an “inside look” into the goings on at the draft. I don’t like it.
I don’t like seeing Mark Sanchez celebrating with his family and throwing a Jets cap on before the pick is announced. It is simply anticlimactic. There is no more anticipation. There is no more “shhhhing” your buddies as the commissioner begins to speak. Instead, fans see guys like Sanchez put a Jets hat on minutes before the pick is announced. It’s not good television. It’s not exciting. It’s a buzzkill.
ESPN has been so focused on finding new ways to provide a behind-the-scenes perspective that they have forgotten that fans enjoy the mystery of the draft. The former mystique of each team’s thought process created an energetic anticipation surrounding each pick. Fans enjoyed not knowing what was going to happen next.
Showing the result of the pick before the announcement is like seeing the secrets of a magic trick before the magician performs. It is like announcing the winner of American Idol before the contestants sing (did I just drop an American Idol reference into an NFL Draft piece? That’s either very cool…or very sad).
OK, my soapbox just crumbled – but you get my point. Behind-the-scenes at the draft sucks.
Draft Quickies
#1: Who attends the NFL Draft? Seriously…I need to know. Unless you are: 1) a player; 2) a family member of a player; 3) an agent…what are you doing at the draft? I mean, from what I can tell, there is nothing to do. You just sit in your seat, drink a beer or twelve and await the one moment that is actually relevant to your team.
I’m not saying that it’s boring – it’s just that if I had a choice between attending 8 hours of an NFL Draft and watching women’s bowling with my grandmother – it would be a tough decision. Spending eight hours of boredom awaiting a 10-second payoff is too reminiscent of college dating for my blood.
#2: After the Jets ingeniously moved up to take Mark Sanchez, the camera panned to a section of Jets’ fans shaking their head while yelling, “NO! STUPID PICK!”
Seriously? I understand: they were Jets’ fans, so that has to be taken into account. They had probably been drinking since 7 that morning, but protesting…vehemently protesting that pick? Really? I would think that, even a sloshed New Yorker would have trouble disagreeing with that move.
Do you remember watching the NFL Draft with anticipation? If you were like me, you would be parked on the couch, with beer in hand, and watch as though you were related to the players involved. When the Cowboys’ pick drew near, and as the commissioner walked toward the podium, a thousand thoughts crossed your mind:
Would they take the running back or go with the dominant outside linebacker?
Should they take advantage of the highly-rated cornerback falling into their lap or did his off-the-field problems scare them away?
Could they trade down and acquire additional picks for next year?
You were on the edge of your seat as the commissioner proclaimed, “With the 13th pick in the 200_ draft, the Dallas Cowboys select…” A wave of emotions accompanied the announcement – usually leading to the three W’s:
“What?...Who?...Why?”
For me, this entire process has changed – and I blame technology. ESPN has surrounded every player with cameras and microphones to provide fans with an “inside look” into the goings on at the draft. I don’t like it.
I don’t like seeing Mark Sanchez celebrating with his family and throwing a Jets cap on before the pick is announced. It is simply anticlimactic. There is no more anticipation. There is no more “shhhhing” your buddies as the commissioner begins to speak. Instead, fans see guys like Sanchez put a Jets hat on minutes before the pick is announced. It’s not good television. It’s not exciting. It’s a buzzkill.
ESPN has been so focused on finding new ways to provide a behind-the-scenes perspective that they have forgotten that fans enjoy the mystery of the draft. The former mystique of each team’s thought process created an energetic anticipation surrounding each pick. Fans enjoyed not knowing what was going to happen next.
Showing the result of the pick before the announcement is like seeing the secrets of a magic trick before the magician performs. It is like announcing the winner of American Idol before the contestants sing (did I just drop an American Idol reference into an NFL Draft piece? That’s either very cool…or very sad).
OK, my soapbox just crumbled – but you get my point. Behind-the-scenes at the draft sucks.
Draft Quickies
#1: Who attends the NFL Draft? Seriously…I need to know. Unless you are: 1) a player; 2) a family member of a player; 3) an agent…what are you doing at the draft? I mean, from what I can tell, there is nothing to do. You just sit in your seat, drink a beer or twelve and await the one moment that is actually relevant to your team.
I’m not saying that it’s boring – it’s just that if I had a choice between attending 8 hours of an NFL Draft and watching women’s bowling with my grandmother – it would be a tough decision. Spending eight hours of boredom awaiting a 10-second payoff is too reminiscent of college dating for my blood.
#2: After the Jets ingeniously moved up to take Mark Sanchez, the camera panned to a section of Jets’ fans shaking their head while yelling, “NO! STUPID PICK!”
Seriously? I understand: they were Jets’ fans, so that has to be taken into account. They had probably been drinking since 7 that morning, but protesting…vehemently protesting that pick? Really? I would think that, even a sloshed New Yorker would have trouble disagreeing with that move.
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Newman Strikes Back
Terrance Newman is mad. Newman did not appreciate the criticism that he received for his recent comments made here, and on Tuesday, he called Ben and Skin on 105.3 The FAN to voice his displeasure.
To summarize, Newman basically said that the media "twisted his words" and continue to make "something out of nothing."
During the conversation, bloggers were labeled as "haters," and not that I disagree, but I did take offense. I consider myself a "non-lover," rather than a "hater!" I just try to call things like I see them.
For instance, Newman indicated that bloggers were simply "taking his comments out of context." Here is a quote from Newman's original conversation:
I am not that bright, I admit that, but I cannot understand how that could be taken out of context. Newman specifically said that having a public relationship with Jessica Simpson "took away from him being a successful quarterback."
Is that what he meant? I don't know...but that is what he said. I don't think that Newman intentionally called out Romo. I do not believe that he had any malicious intent.
But to me - that's not the issue. The issue remains how Newman - and the entire Cowboys team - handles criticism. Newman made a few questionable statements during his original interview. Apparently, many misinterpreted his comments because he did not clearly convey his message.
But as usual - he refuses to take responsibility.
Yes it is! You can easily apologize for it. It's really simple...you just do it.
Not to pile on the often-used quote, but: "Adversity doesn't build character - it reveals character."
Every time a Cowboy faces adversity, he immediately puts on the "it's not my fault" mask. Rarely, if ever, does one of the guys come out and say, "You know what? I messed up. I should have done this or done that." It's always, "That wasn't my fault. You don't know the coverages we were in, you don't know the routes we were supposed to run, you don't know the scheme that we were working with, etc..."
It just becomes a beating after a while. Realistically, most "haters" in the media would simply like to see the Cowboys to adopt the Keith Brooking philosophy:
Like I said here, I'm not sure that he is going to fit in well around here.
To summarize, Newman basically said that the media "twisted his words" and continue to make "something out of nothing."
During the conversation, bloggers were labeled as "haters," and not that I disagree, but I did take offense. I consider myself a "non-lover," rather than a "hater!" I just try to call things like I see them.
For instance, Newman indicated that bloggers were simply "taking his comments out of context." Here is a quote from Newman's original conversation:
"Being a first-year starter, then you have the limelight with his girlfriend and situations of that nature. It's going to take away from him being a quarterback, being a successful quarterback."
I am not that bright, I admit that, but I cannot understand how that could be taken out of context. Newman specifically said that having a public relationship with Jessica Simpson "took away from him being a successful quarterback."
Is that what he meant? I don't know...but that is what he said. I don't think that Newman intentionally called out Romo. I do not believe that he had any malicious intent.
But to me - that's not the issue. The issue remains how Newman - and the entire Cowboys team - handles criticism. Newman made a few questionable statements during his original interview. Apparently, many misinterpreted his comments because he did not clearly convey his message.
But as usual - he refuses to take responsibility.
"It's not a lack of judgment and it's nothing that I can apologize about...People took it out of context and don't understand what I was talking about."
Yes it is! You can easily apologize for it. It's really simple...you just do it.
Not to pile on the often-used quote, but: "Adversity doesn't build character - it reveals character."
Every time a Cowboy faces adversity, he immediately puts on the "it's not my fault" mask. Rarely, if ever, does one of the guys come out and say, "You know what? I messed up. I should have done this or done that." It's always, "That wasn't my fault. You don't know the coverages we were in, you don't know the routes we were supposed to run, you don't know the scheme that we were working with, etc..."
It just becomes a beating after a while. Realistically, most "haters" in the media would simply like to see the Cowboys to adopt the Keith Brooking philosophy:
"Take the blame and give all the credit. That's the key."
Like I said here, I'm not sure that he is going to fit in well around here.
Monday, March 16, 2009
Terrance Newman...Please Shut Up!
Terrance Newman, a suddenly prominent voice in the Cowboys' locker room, is at it again. This time, he talked with Joe Trahan at WFAA about Jessica Simpson's impact on Tony Romo:
I'm glad to see that someone is here to pick up the slack after T.O.'s departure. But seriously, shouldn't Newman follow the whole "don't throw stones in a glass house" rule? Doesn't he understand that stupid comments like these prop him up as a target moving forward?
If I had been conducting this interview - I would have enjoyed following his statements with these questions:
To me, it appears that Newman has been affected by a little "Josh Howard-itis." For clarification - Josh Howard-itis occurs when a decent player is selected for their first All-Star (Pro-Bowl) game. At that point, said player begins to believe that he is much better than he really is.
Look, Newman is a good cornerback...but he is paid like a great cornerback. Terrance Newman is not great. He is also a player that has been unable to stay on the field over the last two seasons.
This team has a very difficult time with personal accountability. If Newman wants to discuss the team, I wish that he would begin with: "I need to get better. I was drafted as a playmaking cornerback - I need to actually start making plays. I need to focus on how I can improve to help the team."
Instead, during a 10-minute interview, Newman talked about:
Romo needing to focus on being the quarterback
Clicks in the locker room
Players bickering at one another
Coaches being accountable
Other guys not complaining in public
Coaches not holding players accountable
Romo needing to be a more vocal leader
Never, during the entire discussion, did Newman suggest that he needed to improve. Really - that's all that needed to be said.
"I think that with the situation Tony was in, I think that kind of maybe hurt him a little bit - being a first-year starter, then you have the limelight with his girlfriend and situations of that nature. It's going to take away from him being a quarterback, being a successful quarterback.
I think that once he inherited the starting quarterback job and his relationship got into the national media attention, I think that that was something that definitely hurt and took away from Tony Romo being a great quarterback."
I'm glad to see that someone is here to pick up the slack after T.O.'s departure. But seriously, shouldn't Newman follow the whole "don't throw stones in a glass house" rule? Doesn't he understand that stupid comments like these prop him up as a target moving forward?
If I had been conducting this interview - I would have enjoyed following his statements with these questions:
Terrance, do you believe that you should be the team spokesperson, given that you have essentially missed 11 games during the last two years?
Terrance, can you justify being one of the highest-paid cornerbacks in the NFL despite only making one Pro-Bowl during your career?
Terrance, can you justify being one of the highest-paid cornerbacks in the NFL despite never amassing more than 4 interceptions in a year?
Terrance, how would you address the accusation that, since receiving your new contract, you no longer are willing to play through pain?
To me, it appears that Newman has been affected by a little "Josh Howard-itis." For clarification - Josh Howard-itis occurs when a decent player is selected for their first All-Star (Pro-Bowl) game. At that point, said player begins to believe that he is much better than he really is.
Look, Newman is a good cornerback...but he is paid like a great cornerback. Terrance Newman is not great. He is also a player that has been unable to stay on the field over the last two seasons.
This team has a very difficult time with personal accountability. If Newman wants to discuss the team, I wish that he would begin with: "I need to get better. I was drafted as a playmaking cornerback - I need to actually start making plays. I need to focus on how I can improve to help the team."
Instead, during a 10-minute interview, Newman talked about:
Romo needing to focus on being the quarterback
Clicks in the locker room
Players bickering at one another
Coaches being accountable
Other guys not complaining in public
Coaches not holding players accountable
Romo needing to be a more vocal leader
Never, during the entire discussion, did Newman suggest that he needed to improve. Really - that's all that needed to be said.
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Is T.O. David Copperfield?
Have you ever watched a magician like David Copperfield perform? The first time you see the act - it's pretty cool. He stands in an empty auditorium - when suddenly, with a flash of light, an elephant appears! After seeing if for the first time, you couldn't fully understand how he pulled it off, but you knew that he wasn't being completely truthful.
The next time you saw the same trick, you knew where to look and you saw the elephant standing behind the fake paneling. The decoy flash happened on the left side of the stage - the paneling was removed on the right side - revealing the elephant. Mystery solved.
That brings us to T.O.
Like a magician, Owens is up to his same old tricks:
He was treated unfairly while in Dallas.
He wasn't the problem - he did his job (and he will tell you all about it).
He is being wrongly labeled as a "cancer" within the locker room.
He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Amazingly, since he was cut, I have heard numerous fans actually support Owens:
(Side Note: This guy has to be David Copperfield in disguise, right? I mean - he has to be. How else could he convince thousands of fans to ignore what they have seen? How else could he force fans to focus on his contributions while completely ignoring the sideshow? Who else could get others to agree that he has been the victim three different times with three different organizations?)
Do you understand the problem with the “he is just highly competitive” theory? T.O. complains after wins. After Dallas beat Washington in Week 11, Owens had this to say:
Yes – Owens is competitive – but that competitiveness remains focused on himself and his numbers. Competitors focus on winning. T.O. focuses on T.O. – and then winning.
I don't deny that T.O. wears his emotions on his sleeve. I agree that he expresses his frustration when things go bad. My issue lies within Owens' definition of "bad." T.O. considers individual numbers as priority number one - and winning as number two. That's why he has no problem complaining after victories...because in his mind - if he didn't get his numbers - it wasn't a victory. Owens is not the only athlete that focuses exclusively on his numbers, but he is one of the few athletes that isn't smart enough to realize when to complain about individual statistics.
(Note to Terrell: after a win isn't a good time.)
Here is another popular argument for the beleaguered wide-receiver:
Well - I guess 30 other teams didn't agree.
Why didn't some of the contenders snatch Owens up? Did the Giants make a run at him? Did Carolina have any interest? What about Indianapolis? New England? Jacksonville? Pittsburgh? The Jets?
This amazingly talented receiver was "wrongly" blamed by the Cowboys' organization and Dallas media but Buffalo was the only team willing to take a flier on the guy? A "number one" receiver that "hasn't lost a step" who constantly "commands double-teams" couldn't even muster a multi-year deal? His only option was to play for a non-contender in a non-media market for a team that gets absolutely no national exposure on a one-year deal?
Just like with David Copperfield: if you can't see the elephant in the room - you aren't looking hard enough.
The next time you saw the same trick, you knew where to look and you saw the elephant standing behind the fake paneling. The decoy flash happened on the left side of the stage - the paneling was removed on the right side - revealing the elephant. Mystery solved.
That brings us to T.O.
"I was the fall guy for some of the things that happened during that season but those guys in that locker room, they know that whatever is being reported out there right now is very, very inaccurate."
- Mr. Accountability
Like a magician, Owens is up to his same old tricks:
He was treated unfairly while in Dallas.
He wasn't the problem - he did his job (and he will tell you all about it).
He is being wrongly labeled as a "cancer" within the locker room.
He was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Amazingly, since he was cut, I have heard numerous fans actually support Owens:
"T.O. worked harder than anyone on the team. He is just so competitive that sometimes he gets frustrated. I'm glad - I want my players to get frustrated when things aren't going well."
(Side Note: This guy has to be David Copperfield in disguise, right? I mean - he has to be. How else could he convince thousands of fans to ignore what they have seen? How else could he force fans to focus on his contributions while completely ignoring the sideshow? Who else could get others to agree that he has been the victim three different times with three different organizations?)
Do you understand the problem with the “he is just highly competitive” theory? T.O. complains after wins. After Dallas beat Washington in Week 11, Owens had this to say:
“When I get my hands on the ball, things happen. I can’t throw it and catch it. It’s not that I can’t play. It’s the system of which I’m in.”
Yes – Owens is competitive – but that competitiveness remains focused on himself and his numbers. Competitors focus on winning. T.O. focuses on T.O. – and then winning.
I don't deny that T.O. wears his emotions on his sleeve. I agree that he expresses his frustration when things go bad. My issue lies within Owens' definition of "bad." T.O. considers individual numbers as priority number one - and winning as number two. That's why he has no problem complaining after victories...because in his mind - if he didn't get his numbers - it wasn't a victory. Owens is not the only athlete that focuses exclusively on his numbers, but he is one of the few athletes that isn't smart enough to realize when to complain about individual statistics.
(Note to Terrell: after a win isn't a good time.)
Here is another popular argument for the beleaguered wide-receiver:
"Owens on-field talent outweighs any type of distraction that he may or may not create."
Well - I guess 30 other teams didn't agree.
Why didn't some of the contenders snatch Owens up? Did the Giants make a run at him? Did Carolina have any interest? What about Indianapolis? New England? Jacksonville? Pittsburgh? The Jets?
This amazingly talented receiver was "wrongly" blamed by the Cowboys' organization and Dallas media but Buffalo was the only team willing to take a flier on the guy? A "number one" receiver that "hasn't lost a step" who constantly "commands double-teams" couldn't even muster a multi-year deal? His only option was to play for a non-contender in a non-media market for a team that gets absolutely no national exposure on a one-year deal?
Just like with David Copperfield: if you can't see the elephant in the room - you aren't looking hard enough.
Monday, March 9, 2009
Senility Will Have to Wait...
Jerry Jones did the unthinkable. Yep - he cut Terrell Owens. For most teams and General Managers, cutting T.O. seems like a logical step in the right direction. Jerry Jones is not like "most" General Managers.
He might as well have created the "any publicity is good publicity" belief system. Publicity is like a bug-zapper...and Jerry is like a bug. He sees the light - and despite the fact that his buddies are all laying lifeless near the zapper's base - Jerry just can't help himself. Throughout his career, Jerry has refused to give in...until recently.
That's right, folks. Put up your Al Davis jumpsuits because senility will have to wait another day. Jerry surprisingly went against his risk-taker intuition and sacrificed the spotlight in an effort to improve on-the-field performance. Crazy idea.
Was T.O. the only Dallas problem? Of course not. But isn't one broken leg better than two (unless...oh never mind, let's just keep this simple).
Jerry listened to the smart people that he has surrounded himself with and made the right call. It couldn't have been easy - but Jerry - I'm proud of you.
He might as well have created the "any publicity is good publicity" belief system. Publicity is like a bug-zapper...and Jerry is like a bug. He sees the light - and despite the fact that his buddies are all laying lifeless near the zapper's base - Jerry just can't help himself. Throughout his career, Jerry has refused to give in...until recently.
That's right, folks. Put up your Al Davis jumpsuits because senility will have to wait another day. Jerry surprisingly went against his risk-taker intuition and sacrificed the spotlight in an effort to improve on-the-field performance. Crazy idea.
Was T.O. the only Dallas problem? Of course not. But isn't one broken leg better than two (unless...oh never mind, let's just keep this simple).
Jerry listened to the smart people that he has surrounded himself with and made the right call. It couldn't have been easy - but Jerry - I'm proud of you.
Monday, March 2, 2009
Keith Brooking Needs to Learn the Rules
Over the weekend - in addition to Jon Kitna - the Dallas Cowboys signed Linebacker Keith Brooking. Brooking is - by all accounts - a really good guy and a great teammate. During a recent interview, Brooking encapsulated his playing philosophy by stating:
"Take the blame and give all the credit. That's the key...That's the great thing about football. If it's not for the other 10 guys you're not going to have success."
My first thought: this guy simply will not fit in with the Cowboys organization. Think I'm wrong? Compare Brooking's comments to those made by Dallas players over the last twelve months:
Terrell Owens
"Everybody recognized that I wasn't really getting the ball in the first half," Owens said. "I'm pretty sure everybody watching the game recognized it, people in the stands recognized it. I think my team recognized it."
“There were opportunities throughout the whole game. You just can’t pinpoint that last drive. I ran my routes according to what was called and just came up short.”
"I'm doing what's asked of me - I'm running my routes - it's not like I'm not open."
"If Garrett is smart enough to know what types of plays made me successful in the past, he will go back to those plays and those types of formations."
"For me to have had the numbers that I have had - and not getting the ball - it is discouraging."
"I can't throw it and catch it."
"When you look at the film there were plays when the receivers were open and these were things that needed to be addressed amongst us on the offense."
“There needs to be some changes in regard to getting some guys involved, putting guys in position to win. It all starts with the guys calling the plays.”
Roy Williams (the Safety):
"I'm not playing the position I played in my first three years when Mike Zimmer was here and we ran a 4-3. OK?"
Roy Williams (Wide Receiver):
"If the coordinator wanted to get the ball to me, he could. And the same thing with the quarterback."
"As Ray Lewis said after he got done playing us, we had the easiest offense to figure out."
"But, like I said, I'm a coachable wide receiver. I'll run what I'm supposed to run. And I'll continue to have the cornerbacks ask me, 'Why do they got you running this same thing over and over again?'"
Tony Romo:
“They exposed something we do fundamentally offensively.”
“Scheme is a major part of it that the normal fan or writer doesn't understand...That's why I think some games, it's easy to say, ‘Well, he didn't play good.' A lot of it is scheme.”
Terrance Newman:
"When coaches make mistakes around here, there's nothing said about it. They just go and try to diffuse it, and try to put that blame on somebody else, rather than owning up to it."
Sorry Keith, but there are more "monogamous" Playboy girls than there are "accountable" Dallas Cowboys.
If you want to be part of the Cowboys organization, you need to learn the ground rules:
1. Nothing is ever your fault. Ever.
2. Blame the scheme - no one can prove you wrong (see both Roy Williams, T.O., Romo).
3. Try to "recruit" others to join you in your complaining.
4. "Team guys" don't create winning teams - winning teams create "team guys."
5. Do not EVER handle an issue in-house. Use the media.
6. If you aren't playing well, know that the coaches must be using you improperly.
7. Understand that talent, and talent alone, wins championships.
8. Any publicity is good publicity.
9. Make sure that everyone knows that you did "your job."
10. Take all the credit - give all the blame.
"Take the blame and give all the credit. That's the key...That's the great thing about football. If it's not for the other 10 guys you're not going to have success."
My first thought: this guy simply will not fit in with the Cowboys organization. Think I'm wrong? Compare Brooking's comments to those made by Dallas players over the last twelve months:
Terrell Owens
"Everybody recognized that I wasn't really getting the ball in the first half," Owens said. "I'm pretty sure everybody watching the game recognized it, people in the stands recognized it. I think my team recognized it."
“There were opportunities throughout the whole game. You just can’t pinpoint that last drive. I ran my routes according to what was called and just came up short.”
"I'm doing what's asked of me - I'm running my routes - it's not like I'm not open."
"If Garrett is smart enough to know what types of plays made me successful in the past, he will go back to those plays and those types of formations."
"For me to have had the numbers that I have had - and not getting the ball - it is discouraging."
"I can't throw it and catch it."
"When you look at the film there were plays when the receivers were open and these were things that needed to be addressed amongst us on the offense."
“There needs to be some changes in regard to getting some guys involved, putting guys in position to win. It all starts with the guys calling the plays.”
Roy Williams (the Safety):
"I'm not playing the position I played in my first three years when Mike Zimmer was here and we ran a 4-3. OK?"
Roy Williams (Wide Receiver):
"If the coordinator wanted to get the ball to me, he could. And the same thing with the quarterback."
"As Ray Lewis said after he got done playing us, we had the easiest offense to figure out."
"But, like I said, I'm a coachable wide receiver. I'll run what I'm supposed to run. And I'll continue to have the cornerbacks ask me, 'Why do they got you running this same thing over and over again?'"
Tony Romo:
“They exposed something we do fundamentally offensively.”
“Scheme is a major part of it that the normal fan or writer doesn't understand...That's why I think some games, it's easy to say, ‘Well, he didn't play good.' A lot of it is scheme.”
Terrance Newman:
"When coaches make mistakes around here, there's nothing said about it. They just go and try to diffuse it, and try to put that blame on somebody else, rather than owning up to it."
Sorry Keith, but there are more "monogamous" Playboy girls than there are "accountable" Dallas Cowboys.
If you want to be part of the Cowboys organization, you need to learn the ground rules:
1. Nothing is ever your fault. Ever.
2. Blame the scheme - no one can prove you wrong (see both Roy Williams, T.O., Romo).
3. Try to "recruit" others to join you in your complaining.
4. "Team guys" don't create winning teams - winning teams create "team guys."
5. Do not EVER handle an issue in-house. Use the media.
6. If you aren't playing well, know that the coaches must be using you improperly.
7. Understand that talent, and talent alone, wins championships.
8. Any publicity is good publicity.
9. Make sure that everyone knows that you did "your job."
10. Take all the credit - give all the blame.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
WFAA: Is Michael Moore Reporting?
Twenty years ago, Jerry Jones purchased the Dallas Cowboys. WFAA, the Dallas ABC affiliate, has created a week-long segment depicting the current state of "America's Team."
All reporters are taught to properly gather evidence, assess the collected information and then let the research lead you to a conclusion.
For this specific Cowboys’ series, Brett Shipp, a WFAA reporter, decided to go the Michael Moore route instead. In other words, rather than letting the evidence speak for itself, he created an opinionated conclusion and worked backwards from there.
Shipp's conclusion: Cowboy fans are turning on the franchise, and specifically, Jerry Jones.
He started the project by formulating his conclusion...and then spent time trying to create an argument that supported that belief. Not exactly reporting 101.
Shipp attempted to "summarize" his findings when he spoke with The Ticket this morning. During that conversation, Shipp stated:
Those are pretty strong statements. Shipp must have some very telling data supporting that belief, right? Below are the published WFAA findings:
So...Shipp's comments were based on the 24% of polled individuals? Really? I'm not a statistical genius, but I think that a 72% approval-rating seems quite good. Maybe it could be higher, but if I were paid to "report the findings," I wouldn't feel comfortable reporting that "Cowboy fans are turning on their team," at least not based on these poll results. Hell, Obama’s approval rating recently dipped below 60%.
Interested in another contradictory nugget? In 2008, the Dallas Cowboys sold more merchandise than any other NFL team...again.
The sky is falling on Jerry Jones – but luckily – people are buying Dallas Cowboy umbrellas to protect themselves!
Just wait - it gets funnier.
Shipp continued this morning by proclaiming that:
Again - very strong statement. Apparently, "most" loyal Cowboy fans are so turned off by the new stadium that they are just walking away from the organization. Surely Shipp has some strong evidence to support that claim. From the WFAA website:
C’mon, Shipp…help a brotha out! Honestly, I'm expecting Ashton Kutcher to rip off his Brett-Shipp-mask screaming, "you just got PUNKED!"
Ok, ok...I need to take a deep breath. I'll be right back.
(...walking around...breathing...listening to Enya to calm down)
Ok, I'm back. Where were we? Oh, that's right - Brett Shipp is insane! Seriously, he's lost it! Just to summarize/paraphrase:
Brett Shipp: "Cowboy fans are turning on the Cowboy franchise."
Poll Results: 72% polled still feel favorable towards the team.
Miscellaneous: Cowboys sold more merchandise in 2008 than any other NFL franchise.
(head spinning)
Brett Shipp: "Most loyal fans are refusing to get 'on-board' with the new stadium."
Poll Results: 65% polled feel that the stadium will be good for fans.
Miscellaneous: Please see WFAA poll results.
(my head just exploded)
Here are the complete WFAA results:
Pretty amazing stuff. Another interesting note: they only polled 400 people in the metroplex. 400! DFW has a population near the $6 million mark. I'm not sure how any logical person could arrive at any solid conclusions after polling just .001% of the targeted population.
I don’t believe that logic is Shipp's strong-point...and I actually have evidence to support it!
All reporters are taught to properly gather evidence, assess the collected information and then let the research lead you to a conclusion.
For this specific Cowboys’ series, Brett Shipp, a WFAA reporter, decided to go the Michael Moore route instead. In other words, rather than letting the evidence speak for itself, he created an opinionated conclusion and worked backwards from there.
Shipp's conclusion: Cowboy fans are turning on the franchise, and specifically, Jerry Jones.
He started the project by formulating his conclusion...and then spent time trying to create an argument that supported that belief. Not exactly reporting 101.
Shipp attempted to "summarize" his findings when he spoke with The Ticket this morning. During that conversation, Shipp stated:
“Dallas Cowboy fans no longer believe that this is 'America's Team.' People who supported Jerry Jones in the past are now turning on him.”
Those are pretty strong statements. Shipp must have some very telling data supporting that belief, right? Below are the published WFAA findings:
Overall, do you have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of the Dallas Cowboys?
72% Favorable
24% Unfavorable
So...Shipp's comments were based on the 24% of polled individuals? Really? I'm not a statistical genius, but I think that a 72% approval-rating seems quite good. Maybe it could be higher, but if I were paid to "report the findings," I wouldn't feel comfortable reporting that "Cowboy fans are turning on their team," at least not based on these poll results. Hell, Obama’s approval rating recently dipped below 60%.
Interested in another contradictory nugget? In 2008, the Dallas Cowboys sold more merchandise than any other NFL team...again.
The sky is falling on Jerry Jones – but luckily – people are buying Dallas Cowboy umbrellas to protect themselves!
Just wait - it gets funnier.
Shipp continued this morning by proclaiming that:
"Most loyal Cowboy fans think that 'Jerry crossed the line' with his new stadium. Most fans that have been lifelong followers are not renewing their season tickets."
Again - very strong statement. Apparently, "most" loyal Cowboy fans are so turned off by the new stadium that they are just walking away from the organization. Surely Shipp has some strong evidence to support that claim. From the WFAA website:
Will the Stadium be good or bad for the fans?
65% Good
29% Bad
C’mon, Shipp…help a brotha out! Honestly, I'm expecting Ashton Kutcher to rip off his Brett-Shipp-mask screaming, "you just got PUNKED!"
Ok, ok...I need to take a deep breath. I'll be right back.
(...walking around...breathing...listening to Enya to calm down)
Ok, I'm back. Where were we? Oh, that's right - Brett Shipp is insane! Seriously, he's lost it! Just to summarize/paraphrase:
Brett Shipp: "Cowboy fans are turning on the Cowboy franchise."
Poll Results: 72% polled still feel favorable towards the team.
Miscellaneous: Cowboys sold more merchandise in 2008 than any other NFL franchise.
(head spinning)
Brett Shipp: "Most loyal fans are refusing to get 'on-board' with the new stadium."
Poll Results: 65% polled feel that the stadium will be good for fans.
Miscellaneous: Please see WFAA poll results.
(my head just exploded)
Here are the complete WFAA results:
Pretty amazing stuff. Another interesting note: they only polled 400 people in the metroplex. 400! DFW has a population near the $6 million mark. I'm not sure how any logical person could arrive at any solid conclusions after polling just .001% of the targeted population.
I don’t believe that logic is Shipp's strong-point...and I actually have evidence to support it!
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Do or Die (Literally)
Do or Die (Literally)
As the Mavericks continued their domination over subpar teams last night, I decided to watch one of the coolest shows on tv: Live Wire on the NFL Network. If you haven't checked it out, you should.
The NFL Network "wires" players before the game to record their verbal exchanges before, during and after each contest. Last night's show highlighted guys like Leon Washington and Jay Cutler talking in the huddle, before the play, etc...
As I watched the hour-long presentation, something really resonated with me:every single team had loud, emotional pre-game speeches. It was generally in the mold of:
"This is our house! This is what he have been working for all year! We are not going to let these guys take this away from us!"
Whatever the specific message, it was clear: every team did it. Every team got together, jumped around and got pumped before the game. During the game, every team had guys that were encouraging their teammates while on the sideline. Every team had a few guys yelling up and down the roster at critical points of the game.
And in every game, one of the teams lost.
I know, I couldn't believe it either. How did it happen?
How, after hearing the amazingly original and inspiring, "This is OUR house" speeches, did 50% of the teams lose?
How, after seeing a teammate proclaim that it is "our time" did the guys not pull together to secure a victory? Were they not listening? After all, it was "their" time!
At first, I could not figure it out. I mean, if I learned that someone was coming into my house and was going to steal my dream, I would be pissed. To quote A Night at the Roxbury, "You can't take away our dreams...because we're like sleeping when we have them!"
And secondly, how dare he come into my house to steal my dreams. No way I would let that happen.
But as I continued to watch, I began to understand just how half of the teams in question had lost. You see, the Tennessee Titans had proclaimed their playoff game as "their time" in "their house." There was just one problem: Ray Lewis stood on the opposing sideline.
Lewis is like the Anthony Robbins of NFL pre-game speeches. On this day, not only did Ray-Ray produce his infamous "crazy eyes" during his speech, he also directly refuted the previous Titans' claim by telling his teammates that "this is our time."
I don't know who awards teams with the "our time" label, but there appeared to be a mix-up. Tennessee thought that it was "their time" and also proclaimed the field to be "their house." Lewis simply shouted that it was "our time." The Titans appeared to have the advantage, two to one:
Breakdown
"Our House" + "Our Time" > "Our Time"
But in the end, Baltimore won the game. After re-watching the episode, I found the loophole that Baltimore's Lewis had exposed.
Yes, the Titans did state that it was "their time" and "their house;" however, Lewis used his wild-card. You see, Ray Lewis was accused of murder in 2000. As a result, his speech carried much more significance: if you did not follow Ray's lead, there was a chance that you could be shot. Based on the new information:
New Breakdown
"Our Time" + "Our House" < "Our Time" + stated-by-a-guy-formerly-accused-of-murder
Taking this specific case-study into consideration, I have created a few rules for the relationship between motivational talks and winning:
1) You must give a motivational talk before and during each game (every team did so)
2) If you motivate your team throughout the game, you have a 50% chance of winning
3) The number of pre-game claims that you make directly translates into wins
* Unless the opposing claim is made by a former murder-suspect...in which case, the opposing claim cannot be defeated (fear of being murdered > wanting to win)
To sum up (back to reality), every single team in the NFL has a guy or two that gives pre-game speeches. Every single team in the NFL has a guy or two that walks up and down the sideline "motivating" his teammates. Despite all of the efforts to motivate and energize their teammates, 50% of the "motivators" lose each week.
The game is about execution, not motivation. Teams that execute at a high level win games. Teams that don't, lose.
As the Mavericks continued their domination over subpar teams last night, I decided to watch one of the coolest shows on tv: Live Wire on the NFL Network. If you haven't checked it out, you should.
The NFL Network "wires" players before the game to record their verbal exchanges before, during and after each contest. Last night's show highlighted guys like Leon Washington and Jay Cutler talking in the huddle, before the play, etc...
As I watched the hour-long presentation, something really resonated with me:every single team had loud, emotional pre-game speeches. It was generally in the mold of:
"This is our house! This is what he have been working for all year! We are not going to let these guys take this away from us!"
Whatever the specific message, it was clear: every team did it. Every team got together, jumped around and got pumped before the game. During the game, every team had guys that were encouraging their teammates while on the sideline. Every team had a few guys yelling up and down the roster at critical points of the game.
And in every game, one of the teams lost.
I know, I couldn't believe it either. How did it happen?
How, after hearing the amazingly original and inspiring, "This is OUR house" speeches, did 50% of the teams lose?
How, after seeing a teammate proclaim that it is "our time" did the guys not pull together to secure a victory? Were they not listening? After all, it was "their" time!
At first, I could not figure it out. I mean, if I learned that someone was coming into my house and was going to steal my dream, I would be pissed. To quote A Night at the Roxbury, "You can't take away our dreams...because we're like sleeping when we have them!"
And secondly, how dare he come into my house to steal my dreams. No way I would let that happen.
But as I continued to watch, I began to understand just how half of the teams in question had lost. You see, the Tennessee Titans had proclaimed their playoff game as "their time" in "their house." There was just one problem: Ray Lewis stood on the opposing sideline.
Lewis is like the Anthony Robbins of NFL pre-game speeches. On this day, not only did Ray-Ray produce his infamous "crazy eyes" during his speech, he also directly refuted the previous Titans' claim by telling his teammates that "this is our time."
I don't know who awards teams with the "our time" label, but there appeared to be a mix-up. Tennessee thought that it was "their time" and also proclaimed the field to be "their house." Lewis simply shouted that it was "our time." The Titans appeared to have the advantage, two to one:
Breakdown
"Our House" + "Our Time" > "Our Time"
But in the end, Baltimore won the game. After re-watching the episode, I found the loophole that Baltimore's Lewis had exposed.
Yes, the Titans did state that it was "their time" and "their house;" however, Lewis used his wild-card. You see, Ray Lewis was accused of murder in 2000. As a result, his speech carried much more significance: if you did not follow Ray's lead, there was a chance that you could be shot. Based on the new information:
New Breakdown
"Our Time" + "Our House" < "Our Time" + stated-by-a-guy-formerly-accused-of-murder
Taking this specific case-study into consideration, I have created a few rules for the relationship between motivational talks and winning:
1) You must give a motivational talk before and during each game (every team did so)
2) If you motivate your team throughout the game, you have a 50% chance of winning
3) The number of pre-game claims that you make directly translates into wins
* Unless the opposing claim is made by a former murder-suspect...in which case, the opposing claim cannot be defeated (fear of being murdered > wanting to win)
To sum up (back to reality), every single team in the NFL has a guy or two that gives pre-game speeches. Every single team in the NFL has a guy or two that walks up and down the sideline "motivating" his teammates. Despite all of the efforts to motivate and energize their teammates, 50% of the "motivators" lose each week.
The game is about execution, not motivation. Teams that execute at a high level win games. Teams that don't, lose.
Monday, February 9, 2009
Chicken or the Egg
Dallas Sports Keg
Tony Romo spoke with Babe Laufenberg on Sunday evening. He discussed a multitude of items including T.O. and Jessica Simpson. The meat of the interview though, focused on leadership. Romo is now getting grilled for a few of his answers.
Romo said:
Would I like to see Romo become that fiery on-field general? Sure. Unfortuantely, that's just not how the world works. People lead in different ways and there are many ways for one to achieve successful leadership.
Many people seem to think that a fiery-player = good-leader.
Let me ask you this: would you rather have Jake Delhomme as your quarterback?
If you want fiery, he is your man. Delhomme is known for his on-field tantrums, his willingness to call guys out in the middle of the game and for wearing his heart on his sleeve. He must be what a team needs if they want to win big games.
How did that work out during the playoffs this year? Let's see - he was really fiery, but more in the sense of going-down-in-flames. He threw five interceptions in Carolina's first playoff game this year, resulting in a 33-13 loss. Was he not "fiery" enough? Did he not hold others accountable? Or did he simply play poorly?
Was Romo a poor leader when he led the team to a 13-3 record in 2007?
Was he a poor leader when played through an injured back to beat the defending Super Bowl champion New York Giants in December of this year?
Was Romo not "fiery" enough to motivate the Cowboys' defense as they allowed Baltimore to rush for 180+ yards within the last five minutes of the Ravens' game?
Leadership comes from on-the-field results. It doesn't come from a guy getting in someone's face after a dropped pass. It doesn't come from throwing your helmet when you walk to the sideline.
It comes from winning, plain and simple. Romo has not won in the playoffs, and hence, is not considered a good leader. He has been labeled as a guy that "can't win the big game."
Do you know who else supposedly "could not win the big game?” Steve Young, Roger Staubach, John Elway and Peyton Manning. They were all considered good players that couldn't win the games that counted most - until they did. Suddenly, they transformed into some of the game’s greatest leaders.
Romo will be considered a leader when, and only when, he wins in the playoffs. He will suddenly go from a good quarterback to a great leader. When Romo says that leadership "comes from winning," he is absolutely right. In 2009, if Romo becomes a boisterous player seen yelling at guys on the sideline…but the Cowboys don’t make the playoffs, no one will then consider Tony a great leader.
You don't hear about Jake Delhomme's leadership abilities when he is throwing 5 interceptions in a playoff game, you hear about it when the Panthers win. You didn't hear about Peyton Manning's fiery leadership abilities when he was losing his first three playoff games - you heard about his propensity to lose his composure while cracking under pressure. Zach Thomas was a great leader in Miami – when they were good. In Dallas, when the team missed the playoffs, suddenly Thomas’ leadership qualities were a no-show. Did he forget how to lead?
Even as recently as last year, Eli Manning was thought to be incapable to leading a team. In midseason, most New York media questioned why the Giants drafted Eli over Ben Roethlisberger or Philip Rivers. Inexplicably, the Giants won the Super Bowl and Eli was then considered a great leader. So what did he do? He must have yelled at his offensive linemen while on the sideline, right? Surely he grabbed Plaxico by the facemask and laid down the law.
Nope: his persona remained the same. His "dumb-face" and droop-shoulders still made consistent appearances throughout the playoffs. What did he change? His on-field performance. He made smart decisions. He didn't turn the ball over. He won.
When Romo and the Cowboys win in the playoffs, there will be no more talk of Romo's inability to lead. His "impartial" attitude will transition to "cool under pressure." His on-field presence will transform from a guy that “doesn’t care” to a quarterback who simply "leads by example.”
Even Al “a few fries short of a happy meal” Davis knows how Romo can become a good leader:
“Just win, baby!”
Tony Romo spoke with Babe Laufenberg on Sunday evening. He discussed a multitude of items including T.O. and Jessica Simpson. The meat of the interview though, focused on leadership. Romo is now getting grilled for a few of his answers.
Romo said:
"You wanna know why Michael Jordan was a great leader? He won six NBA championships. Then, all of a sudden, when he gets in people's faces, he's a great leader...A great leader is someone who wins, and you figure out how to win. Some people, it's getting in people's faces. Some people, it's being positive. Other people, it's walking the line and doing it the right way."People want Romo to be fiery. They want to see him yelling at his teammates on the sideline. Fans want him to grab T.O. by the facemask when he runs the wrong route. In other words, they want him to be the stereotypical, Brian Dawkins I’m-all-up-in-your-grill type of leader.
Would I like to see Romo become that fiery on-field general? Sure. Unfortuantely, that's just not how the world works. People lead in different ways and there are many ways for one to achieve successful leadership.
Many people seem to think that a fiery-player = good-leader.
Let me ask you this: would you rather have Jake Delhomme as your quarterback?
If you want fiery, he is your man. Delhomme is known for his on-field tantrums, his willingness to call guys out in the middle of the game and for wearing his heart on his sleeve. He must be what a team needs if they want to win big games.
How did that work out during the playoffs this year? Let's see - he was really fiery, but more in the sense of going-down-in-flames. He threw five interceptions in Carolina's first playoff game this year, resulting in a 33-13 loss. Was he not "fiery" enough? Did he not hold others accountable? Or did he simply play poorly?
Was Romo a poor leader when he led the team to a 13-3 record in 2007?
Was he a poor leader when played through an injured back to beat the defending Super Bowl champion New York Giants in December of this year?
Was Romo not "fiery" enough to motivate the Cowboys' defense as they allowed Baltimore to rush for 180+ yards within the last five minutes of the Ravens' game?
Leadership comes from on-the-field results. It doesn't come from a guy getting in someone's face after a dropped pass. It doesn't come from throwing your helmet when you walk to the sideline.
It comes from winning, plain and simple. Romo has not won in the playoffs, and hence, is not considered a good leader. He has been labeled as a guy that "can't win the big game."
Do you know who else supposedly "could not win the big game?” Steve Young, Roger Staubach, John Elway and Peyton Manning. They were all considered good players that couldn't win the games that counted most - until they did. Suddenly, they transformed into some of the game’s greatest leaders.
Romo will be considered a leader when, and only when, he wins in the playoffs. He will suddenly go from a good quarterback to a great leader. When Romo says that leadership "comes from winning," he is absolutely right. In 2009, if Romo becomes a boisterous player seen yelling at guys on the sideline…but the Cowboys don’t make the playoffs, no one will then consider Tony a great leader.
You don't hear about Jake Delhomme's leadership abilities when he is throwing 5 interceptions in a playoff game, you hear about it when the Panthers win. You didn't hear about Peyton Manning's fiery leadership abilities when he was losing his first three playoff games - you heard about his propensity to lose his composure while cracking under pressure. Zach Thomas was a great leader in Miami – when they were good. In Dallas, when the team missed the playoffs, suddenly Thomas’ leadership qualities were a no-show. Did he forget how to lead?
Even as recently as last year, Eli Manning was thought to be incapable to leading a team. In midseason, most New York media questioned why the Giants drafted Eli over Ben Roethlisberger or Philip Rivers. Inexplicably, the Giants won the Super Bowl and Eli was then considered a great leader. So what did he do? He must have yelled at his offensive linemen while on the sideline, right? Surely he grabbed Plaxico by the facemask and laid down the law.
Nope: his persona remained the same. His "dumb-face" and droop-shoulders still made consistent appearances throughout the playoffs. What did he change? His on-field performance. He made smart decisions. He didn't turn the ball over. He won.
When Romo and the Cowboys win in the playoffs, there will be no more talk of Romo's inability to lead. His "impartial" attitude will transition to "cool under pressure." His on-field presence will transform from a guy that “doesn’t care” to a quarterback who simply "leads by example.”
Even Al “a few fries short of a happy meal” Davis knows how Romo can become a good leader:
“Just win, baby!”
Friday, February 6, 2009
Eight is Less Than Nine
The number eight has some significance. There are eight planets in the solar system (now that Pluto is no longer considered a planet). Spiders have eight legs. Octopus...es have eight tentacles. There are Seven Wonders of the World...and that's just one less than eight!
Ok, maybe eight is not the most significant number out there. It's definitely no 7 or 4, but for Cowboys' fans, the number eight should carry extensive significance. Since Dallas lost to Philadelphia, knocking them out of the playoffs, a grass-root movement has begun within the fan-base. The message: Tony Romo sucks!
When I see some random blog suggesting that Dallas will "never win with Romo" or hear a radio personality proclaim that "Romo will never win the big game," I usually just ignore it. But over the last few weeks, it appears that the movement is picking up steam.
Nick Eatman, of the Dallas Cowboys official website, had this recent snippet:
Since Aikman retired ten years ago, and before Romo, the Cowboys started eight different quarterbacks. Eight. And of those eight, how many made the pro-bowl? Zero? How many led the team to the playoffs? One (Quincy Carter...during one flukish year). Here are the eight guys that started in between Aikman and Romo:
Randall Cunningham
Quincy Carter
Clint Stoerner
Ryan Leaf
Chad Hutchinson
Vinny Testaverde
Drew Henson
Drew Bledsoe
Look at that list again. Look at it hard. After seeing that pathetic group of guys no longer in the league, are we still on-board with bashing Romo? Have we all forgotten just how bad it feels to enter a game knowing that the quarterback has absolutely no chance of winning a game?
Seriously, we used to play the "Q-Car" drinking game: every time he missed a wide-open receiver, we had to take a shot. If you ever watched Quincy Carter play, you know that we rarely made it to the second-half before passing out!
With Vinny, the game was a little different: we had to guess which defensive lineman would sack him before each play. If I got it right, my buddies had to drink. Again, with Sloth Testaverde out there, just about any defensive lineman was a safe call.
Romo is the best quarterback that the Cowboys have had in a decade, but many are ready to move on to the next guy? What the hell is wrong with you people? Did you forget about this?
Cowboys' Record before Romo (since Aikman): 40-55 (.421 win%)
Cowboys' Record with Romo as the starter: 27-14 (.658 win%)
Has Romo won the "big playoff game" during his first 2.5 years as a starter? No, he hasn't. But guess what? Peyton Manning played in 112 games before winning his first playoff game. 112! But you are ready to write Romo off after 41?
Manning lost his first three playoff games. During those games, he averaged a QB-Rating of 58. Romo, in his first two playoff games, averaged QB-Rating was 77.
Manning compiled a 26-24 record (.520 win%) during his first three years (including playoffs).
Romo has compiled a 27-14 record (.658 win%) during his first three years (including playoffs).
But let's turn the page on Romo...or better yet, let's just close the book. Obviously, if you don't have immediate success in the playoffs, you will never succeed in the playoffs.
In two-and-a-half years as the Cowboys' starting quarterback, Romo has been selected for two Pro-Bowls. The eight guys before him? Zero.
Romo has led the Cowboys to the playoffs in back-to-back seasons for the first time in more than a decade.
Romo has produced a Top-7 QB Rating in each of his three seasons. The previous eight quarterbacks? They ranked 26th in the NFL.
If you want to write off a guy that has been, unequivocally, the best Cowboys' quarterback since Aikman, knock yourself out. If you want to run a guy off after he has taken a losing franchise to three winning seasons in a row, go for it. But I actually enjoy watching a quarterback who can complete passes to open receivers. I like entering a game knowing that our quarterback is easily one of the best ten QBs in the league. I enjoy actually seeing the team in big games, something that was rarely the case before he arrived.
Just remember, without Romo, eight might have been nine.
Ok, maybe eight is not the most significant number out there. It's definitely no 7 or 4, but for Cowboys' fans, the number eight should carry extensive significance. Since Dallas lost to Philadelphia, knocking them out of the playoffs, a grass-root movement has begun within the fan-base. The message: Tony Romo sucks!
When I see some random blog suggesting that Dallas will "never win with Romo" or hear a radio personality proclaim that "Romo will never win the big game," I usually just ignore it. But over the last few weeks, it appears that the movement is picking up steam.
Nick Eatman, of the Dallas Cowboys official website, had this recent snippet:
"The Cowboys are not in the playoffs because their quarterback isn't the savior we thought he was."Cedric Golden of the Austin-American Statesman wrote this:
"Romo's actions the last two seasons suggest he isn't the type capable of putting a team on his back and carrying it to a Super Bowl...Romo's not Aikman. Not even close. "The mention of Aikman brings us back to the eight. We aren't talking about Aikman's uniform number. Do you know the "eight" that we are referencing? Don't worry, it does not appear that many others do either.
Since Aikman retired ten years ago, and before Romo, the Cowboys started eight different quarterbacks. Eight. And of those eight, how many made the pro-bowl? Zero? How many led the team to the playoffs? One (Quincy Carter...during one flukish year). Here are the eight guys that started in between Aikman and Romo:
Randall Cunningham
Quincy Carter
Clint Stoerner
Ryan Leaf
Chad Hutchinson
Vinny Testaverde
Drew Henson
Drew Bledsoe
Look at that list again. Look at it hard. After seeing that pathetic group of guys no longer in the league, are we still on-board with bashing Romo? Have we all forgotten just how bad it feels to enter a game knowing that the quarterback has absolutely no chance of winning a game?
Seriously, we used to play the "Q-Car" drinking game: every time he missed a wide-open receiver, we had to take a shot. If you ever watched Quincy Carter play, you know that we rarely made it to the second-half before passing out!
With Vinny, the game was a little different: we had to guess which defensive lineman would sack him before each play. If I got it right, my buddies had to drink. Again, with Sloth Testaverde out there, just about any defensive lineman was a safe call.
Romo is the best quarterback that the Cowboys have had in a decade, but many are ready to move on to the next guy? What the hell is wrong with you people? Did you forget about this?
Cowboys' Record before Romo (since Aikman): 40-55 (.421 win%)
Cowboys' Record with Romo as the starter: 27-14 (.658 win%)
Has Romo won the "big playoff game" during his first 2.5 years as a starter? No, he hasn't. But guess what? Peyton Manning played in 112 games before winning his first playoff game. 112! But you are ready to write Romo off after 41?
Manning lost his first three playoff games. During those games, he averaged a QB-Rating of 58. Romo, in his first two playoff games, averaged QB-Rating was 77.
Manning compiled a 26-24 record (.520 win%) during his first three years (including playoffs).
Romo has compiled a 27-14 record (.658 win%) during his first three years (including playoffs).
But let's turn the page on Romo...or better yet, let's just close the book. Obviously, if you don't have immediate success in the playoffs, you will never succeed in the playoffs.
In two-and-a-half years as the Cowboys' starting quarterback, Romo has been selected for two Pro-Bowls. The eight guys before him? Zero.
Romo has led the Cowboys to the playoffs in back-to-back seasons for the first time in more than a decade.
Romo has produced a Top-7 QB Rating in each of his three seasons. The previous eight quarterbacks? They ranked 26th in the NFL.
If you want to write off a guy that has been, unequivocally, the best Cowboys' quarterback since Aikman, knock yourself out. If you want to run a guy off after he has taken a losing franchise to three winning seasons in a row, go for it. But I actually enjoy watching a quarterback who can complete passes to open receivers. I like entering a game knowing that our quarterback is easily one of the best ten QBs in the league. I enjoy actually seeing the team in big games, something that was rarely the case before he arrived.
Just remember, without Romo, eight might have been nine.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Greg Ellis - Poor Man's TO
Greg Ellis is at it again. In an exclusive interview with Ben and Skin on 105.3 The FAN, Ellis provided a verbal expose on contradiction.
His Role:
Ellis wants to play every down, not solely in passing situations. He indicated that he was unhappy about the fact that Anthony Spencer generally played on 1st and 2nd down...allowing Ellis to enter the game only on 3rd down plays. He also mentioned that when in the game, he was often asked to drop in coverage rather than rush the passer.
So he did not play on every down, and when in the game, he was not put in the position to make an impact on the game.
Contradiction:
From the age of 23 to 32, Greg Ellis started 133 games. He was the primary pass-rushing option for the Cowboy defense. During those 133 starts, Ellis totaled 56.5 sacks.
During his prime years, in which Ellis was used "properly" as a full-time player focused on rushing the quarterback, he averaged .45 sacks each game. His season high was nine sacks, in 2004.
During the Wade Phillips era, the 32-33 year-old Ellis has been used as a 3rd-down specialist in 29 games. In those 29 games, Ellis has totaled 20.5 sacks.
During his later years, in which Ellis was used "improperly" as a part-time player in passing situations, he averaged .71 sacks each game. His season high was 12.5 sacks, in 2007.
Breakdown:
Prime Years (age 23-31) as a full-time player
124 Games
56.5 Sacks
.45 Sacks/Game
Veteran Years (age 32-33) as a part-time player
29 Games
20.5 Sacks
.71 Sacks/Game
NFL players typically slow down as they approach their mid-30's. Ellis, on the other hand, has increased his productivity during that time. But yet, he feels that he has been used "improperly?" He set his career mark last year by registering 12.5 sacks, 3.5 more than his previous high, but he wasn't positioned to be successful. Really?
In 2008, while being asked to "drop into coverage" on many of his plays, Ellis registered his third highest sack total of his career. But Ellis isn't happy about his role? I don't get it.
Team chemistry:
Ellis indicated that the 2008 Cowboys did not feature good team chemistry. He said that the team consisted of a collection of talent but that each person was not pulling in the same direction. He said that distractions prevented the team from gelling together.
Contradiction:
Greg, when you say that guys were "pulling in different directions," do you mean like when an aging player complains about the way that he is being used, despite the fact that he is coming off of the two most productive seasons of his career? Would that be an example of guys not pulling in the same direction?
Pot, meet kettle. On one hand, Ellis proclaims that the team needs to focus on working towards a common goal, but on the other, he continues to complain about his role on the team.
Guys like Ellis and Owens just don't get it. They are all for team...as long as the team does things their way. Sure, anyone can be a team player when things are going your way, but how do they respond when something goes against them? Ellis and Owens respond by complaining. They don't say that they will have to find a way to be more productive on each opportunity, they just project the blame on others.
And sorry, but for Ellis and Owens, it is not team-first, personal-second...it's personal-first, second, third...team-fourth. Ellis complained immediately after the 2007 season, the season in which Dallas went 13-3, about his lack of playing time.
Owens complained after the second Redskin game in 2008, a game in which Dallas won, about his lack of touches.
Seriously, Ellis is not a bad guy, by all accounts, but Dallas needs someone that can simply call it like it is. They need someone on the staff that can sit a player down and explain the facts to them:
"Greg, you set your career high with 12.5 sacks in 2007...in this system. You made your only Pro Bowl appearance...in this system. You totaled your third-highest sack total of your career in 2008...in this system. We are getting more out of your ability than anyone has up to this point in your career. Period."
Ellis is right about one thing, this team lacks chemistry. Hopefully someone will help him understand that he is part of the problem, not the solution.
His Role:
Ellis wants to play every down, not solely in passing situations. He indicated that he was unhappy about the fact that Anthony Spencer generally played on 1st and 2nd down...allowing Ellis to enter the game only on 3rd down plays. He also mentioned that when in the game, he was often asked to drop in coverage rather than rush the passer.
So he did not play on every down, and when in the game, he was not put in the position to make an impact on the game.
Contradiction:
From the age of 23 to 32, Greg Ellis started 133 games. He was the primary pass-rushing option for the Cowboy defense. During those 133 starts, Ellis totaled 56.5 sacks.
During his prime years, in which Ellis was used "properly" as a full-time player focused on rushing the quarterback, he averaged .45 sacks each game. His season high was nine sacks, in 2004.
During the Wade Phillips era, the 32-33 year-old Ellis has been used as a 3rd-down specialist in 29 games. In those 29 games, Ellis has totaled 20.5 sacks.
During his later years, in which Ellis was used "improperly" as a part-time player in passing situations, he averaged .71 sacks each game. His season high was 12.5 sacks, in 2007.
Breakdown:
Prime Years (age 23-31) as a full-time player
124 Games
56.5 Sacks
.45 Sacks/Game
Veteran Years (age 32-33) as a part-time player
29 Games
20.5 Sacks
.71 Sacks/Game
NFL players typically slow down as they approach their mid-30's. Ellis, on the other hand, has increased his productivity during that time. But yet, he feels that he has been used "improperly?" He set his career mark last year by registering 12.5 sacks, 3.5 more than his previous high, but he wasn't positioned to be successful. Really?
In 2008, while being asked to "drop into coverage" on many of his plays, Ellis registered his third highest sack total of his career. But Ellis isn't happy about his role? I don't get it.
Team chemistry:
Ellis indicated that the 2008 Cowboys did not feature good team chemistry. He said that the team consisted of a collection of talent but that each person was not pulling in the same direction. He said that distractions prevented the team from gelling together.
Contradiction:
Greg, when you say that guys were "pulling in different directions," do you mean like when an aging player complains about the way that he is being used, despite the fact that he is coming off of the two most productive seasons of his career? Would that be an example of guys not pulling in the same direction?
Pot, meet kettle. On one hand, Ellis proclaims that the team needs to focus on working towards a common goal, but on the other, he continues to complain about his role on the team.
Guys like Ellis and Owens just don't get it. They are all for team...as long as the team does things their way. Sure, anyone can be a team player when things are going your way, but how do they respond when something goes against them? Ellis and Owens respond by complaining. They don't say that they will have to find a way to be more productive on each opportunity, they just project the blame on others.
And sorry, but for Ellis and Owens, it is not team-first, personal-second...it's personal-first, second, third...team-fourth. Ellis complained immediately after the 2007 season, the season in which Dallas went 13-3, about his lack of playing time.
Owens complained after the second Redskin game in 2008, a game in which Dallas won, about his lack of touches.
Seriously, Ellis is not a bad guy, by all accounts, but Dallas needs someone that can simply call it like it is. They need someone on the staff that can sit a player down and explain the facts to them:
"Greg, you set your career high with 12.5 sacks in 2007...in this system. You made your only Pro Bowl appearance...in this system. You totaled your third-highest sack total of your career in 2008...in this system. We are getting more out of your ability than anyone has up to this point in your career. Period."
Ellis is right about one thing, this team lacks chemistry. Hopefully someone will help him understand that he is part of the problem, not the solution.
Friday, January 23, 2009
Inside the Numbers: The T.O. Myth
When reports surfaced earlier this week suggesting that the Cowboys may cut ties with polarizing receiver, Terrell Owens, Dallas sports conversations heated up. Just like the locker-room, fans are split: those for T.O. and those against T.O.
While both arguments hold some water, they both generally focus on the divisiveness of Owens along the lines of:
Against…."He has a history of destroying organizations..."
For………"T.O. has changed...don't judge him on his past."
Just for a second, let's ignore the fact that Owens has more baggage than Del Griffin in Planes, Trains and Automobiles. Let's simply focus our attention on T.O.'s on-field production.
Fans like KB the Cowboy Homer, a frequent caller on the Ben and Skin show, continue to promote that Owens remains an elite receiver. KB has actually perpetuated several T.O. "myths" that need to be debunked:
Myth #1: Owens' year-end stats prove that he is a top-flight receiver.
Let's take a look:
69 catches (22nd in the NFL)
1052 yards (12th...)
65 yards/game (14th...)
15 yards/catch (15th...)
4.2 yards after catch (48th...)
10 Touchdowns (6th...)
Pretty solid numbers and the stats suggest that he might be the 15th-20th best receiver in football. Unfortunately for ‘sit-ups-in-my-driveway,’ simply looking at year-end numbers doesn't tell the whole story.
Owens had zero 100-yard games through the first 10 games of the season. The "elite" receiver did not even broach the 90-yard mark during that period. Throughout the season, T.O. struggled as each Cowboy opponent pressed him at the line of scrimmage. When did that change? In week 11, when the San Francisco 49ers decided that they were going to play a soft cover-2. Their conservative game-plan allowed Dallas receivers to gain a free release off of the line of scrimmage and provided Owens with space to work.
In that game, Owens caught 7 passes for 213 yards. This was one of two 100-yard receiving games for T.O. during 2008. One of two. In other words, this game was a fluke. The 49ers were the ONLY team that chose not to press Owens at the line of scrimmage. T.O. took advantage. While it was fun to watch, that was not the T.O. that we saw all year. It was the exception...the deviation from the norm...the oddity.
Let's look at Owens' numbers if you remove the 49er-anomaly. For statistical balance, I also excluded his worst statistical performance (2 catches, 17 yards at Green Bay). In other words, throw out his best, throw out his worst and let’s see what we get:
14 games
60 catches
822 yards
59 yards/game (27th in the NFL)
13.7 yards/catch (31st...)
9 Touchdowns
So, in 14 of the 16 games, T.O. amassed a very average 57 yards/game. He averaged 13.7 yards/catch. Mediocrity at its best. Which statistics do you believe reflect the "real" Owens? The one game in which the defense backed off? Or the other 15 games in which Owens looked extremely ordinary?
Myth #1...debunked.
Myth #2: As a big-play guy, T.O. consistently threatens opponents with his ability to "break out."
The explosive big-play threat, Owens, totaled six 100-yard games in 2007. In 2008, he produced two. In other words, in 14 games this year, T.O. did not eclipse the century mark in receiving yards. Here is brief list of guys that posted more 100-yard games than Owens:
Andre Johnson (8), Steve Smith (8), Larry Fitzgerald (7), Roddy White (7), Calvin Johnson (5), Greg Jennings (5), Randy Moss (4), Reggie Wayne (4)
I know what you are thinking: 'those are all top-level receivers. There aren't many people that can replicate what guys like Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson bring to the table.' While you are correct, some continue to claim that Owens is an elite receiver...so I thought it might be interesting to compare him to actual top-flight guys.
But then I decided to lower my standards a bit - Owens is 35 - so I created this list of players that also had more 100-yard games during 2008:
Wes Welker (4), Lance Moore (3), Anquan Boldin (3), Brandon Marshall (3), Steve Breaston (3), Eddie Royal (3), Marques Colston (3)
Again, I know what you are thinking: 'OK but those guys all play in pass-happy systems. Of course guys like Welker and Marshall will amass extensive yardage.'
- So I created this list of guys that play with unproven quarterbacks and/or in a normal offensive-system, and included their number of 100-yard games:
Antonio Bryant (6), Lee Evans (4), Bernard Berrian (4), Hines Ward (4), Vincent Jackson (3), Santana Moss (3), Braylon Edwards (3), Dwayne Bowe (2), Desmond Mason (2), Isaac Bruce (2), Donald Driver (2), Justin Gage (2), Matt Jones (2), Desean Jackson (2), TJ Houshmandzadeh (2), Mark Clayton (2) and Dennis Northcutt (2)
This seriously made me laugh out loud. T.O. complains about Romo, the 8th-highest rated quarterback in the NFL, and the guys listed above are matching Owens' production with quarterbacks like: Jeff Garcia, Gus Frerotte, Trent Edwards, Jason Campbell, Tyler Thigpen, Joe Flacco, Kerry Collins, Ryan Fitzpatrick and David Garrard.
If only T.O. could play with Ryan Fitzpatrick, he would be great again! Sorry T.O., it's just not that hard to find guys that can produce a couple 100-yard games each season. They are all over the place.
Myth #2...debunked.
It all boils down to this: T.O. had one great game in 2008, a game in which the defense decided to play a soft cover-2. In the other 15 games, Owens was extremely ordinary. Sorry, but “elite” receivers don’t produce two 100-yard games. “Elite” receivers don’t lead the league in drops. At this point in his career, T.O. is much closer to Isaac Bruce and Derrick Mason than Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson…but don’t expect KB the Cowboy Homer to agree.
While both arguments hold some water, they both generally focus on the divisiveness of Owens along the lines of:
Against…."He has a history of destroying organizations..."
For………"T.O. has changed...don't judge him on his past."
Just for a second, let's ignore the fact that Owens has more baggage than Del Griffin in Planes, Trains and Automobiles. Let's simply focus our attention on T.O.'s on-field production.
Fans like KB the Cowboy Homer, a frequent caller on the Ben and Skin show, continue to promote that Owens remains an elite receiver. KB has actually perpetuated several T.O. "myths" that need to be debunked:
Myth #1: Owens' year-end stats prove that he is a top-flight receiver.
Let's take a look:
69 catches (22nd in the NFL)
1052 yards (12th...)
65 yards/game (14th...)
15 yards/catch (15th...)
4.2 yards after catch (48th...)
10 Touchdowns (6th...)
Pretty solid numbers and the stats suggest that he might be the 15th-20th best receiver in football. Unfortunately for ‘sit-ups-in-my-driveway,’ simply looking at year-end numbers doesn't tell the whole story.
Owens had zero 100-yard games through the first 10 games of the season. The "elite" receiver did not even broach the 90-yard mark during that period. Throughout the season, T.O. struggled as each Cowboy opponent pressed him at the line of scrimmage. When did that change? In week 11, when the San Francisco 49ers decided that they were going to play a soft cover-2. Their conservative game-plan allowed Dallas receivers to gain a free release off of the line of scrimmage and provided Owens with space to work.
In that game, Owens caught 7 passes for 213 yards. This was one of two 100-yard receiving games for T.O. during 2008. One of two. In other words, this game was a fluke. The 49ers were the ONLY team that chose not to press Owens at the line of scrimmage. T.O. took advantage. While it was fun to watch, that was not the T.O. that we saw all year. It was the exception...the deviation from the norm...the oddity.
Let's look at Owens' numbers if you remove the 49er-anomaly. For statistical balance, I also excluded his worst statistical performance (2 catches, 17 yards at Green Bay). In other words, throw out his best, throw out his worst and let’s see what we get:
14 games
60 catches
822 yards
59 yards/game (27th in the NFL)
13.7 yards/catch (31st...)
9 Touchdowns
So, in 14 of the 16 games, T.O. amassed a very average 57 yards/game. He averaged 13.7 yards/catch. Mediocrity at its best. Which statistics do you believe reflect the "real" Owens? The one game in which the defense backed off? Or the other 15 games in which Owens looked extremely ordinary?
Myth #1...debunked.
Myth #2: As a big-play guy, T.O. consistently threatens opponents with his ability to "break out."
The explosive big-play threat, Owens, totaled six 100-yard games in 2007. In 2008, he produced two. In other words, in 14 games this year, T.O. did not eclipse the century mark in receiving yards. Here is brief list of guys that posted more 100-yard games than Owens:
Andre Johnson (8), Steve Smith (8), Larry Fitzgerald (7), Roddy White (7), Calvin Johnson (5), Greg Jennings (5), Randy Moss (4), Reggie Wayne (4)
I know what you are thinking: 'those are all top-level receivers. There aren't many people that can replicate what guys like Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson bring to the table.' While you are correct, some continue to claim that Owens is an elite receiver...so I thought it might be interesting to compare him to actual top-flight guys.
But then I decided to lower my standards a bit - Owens is 35 - so I created this list of players that also had more 100-yard games during 2008:
Wes Welker (4), Lance Moore (3), Anquan Boldin (3), Brandon Marshall (3), Steve Breaston (3), Eddie Royal (3), Marques Colston (3)
Again, I know what you are thinking: 'OK but those guys all play in pass-happy systems. Of course guys like Welker and Marshall will amass extensive yardage.'
- So I created this list of guys that play with unproven quarterbacks and/or in a normal offensive-system, and included their number of 100-yard games:
Antonio Bryant (6), Lee Evans (4), Bernard Berrian (4), Hines Ward (4), Vincent Jackson (3), Santana Moss (3), Braylon Edwards (3), Dwayne Bowe (2), Desmond Mason (2), Isaac Bruce (2), Donald Driver (2), Justin Gage (2), Matt Jones (2), Desean Jackson (2), TJ Houshmandzadeh (2), Mark Clayton (2) and Dennis Northcutt (2)
This seriously made me laugh out loud. T.O. complains about Romo, the 8th-highest rated quarterback in the NFL, and the guys listed above are matching Owens' production with quarterbacks like: Jeff Garcia, Gus Frerotte, Trent Edwards, Jason Campbell, Tyler Thigpen, Joe Flacco, Kerry Collins, Ryan Fitzpatrick and David Garrard.
If only T.O. could play with Ryan Fitzpatrick, he would be great again! Sorry T.O., it's just not that hard to find guys that can produce a couple 100-yard games each season. They are all over the place.
Myth #2...debunked.
It all boils down to this: T.O. had one great game in 2008, a game in which the defense decided to play a soft cover-2. In the other 15 games, Owens was extremely ordinary. Sorry, but “elite” receivers don’t produce two 100-yard games. “Elite” receivers don’t lead the league in drops. At this point in his career, T.O. is much closer to Isaac Bruce and Derrick Mason than Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson…but don’t expect KB the Cowboy Homer to agree.
Monday, January 19, 2009
Cowboys' Coaching Conundrum
After ending the season on a down note, Jerry Jones emphatically defended his head coach, Wade Phillips. Jones preached stability and consistency. He said that Wade "deserved" another chance, considering that 2008 was marred with injuries to Romo, Felix Jones, Terrance Newman, Anthony Spencer, Jason Witten and a slew of others.
All of this happened in 2008. Since then, these coaches have officially become available:
Mike Holmgren - 13 playoff wins; 1 Super Bowl appearance; .542 playoff winning pct.
Mike Shanahan - 8 playoff wins; 2 Super Bowls; .615 playoff winning pct.
Tony Dungy - 7 playoff wins; 1 Super Bowl; .538 playoff winning pct.
Jon Gruden - 5 playoff wins; 1 Super Bowl; .556 playoff winning pct.
Bill Cowher - 12 playoff wins; 1 Super Bowl (2 appearances); .571 playoff winning pct.
At age 61, Wade Phillips has zero playoff wins. ZERO. His winning percentage sits at a crisp .000
On December 28th, when I heard Jerry indicate that Wade was coming back, like most Cowboys fans...I threw up in my mouth a little bit. But being the optimist that I am, I tried to justify the move. The best argument that I could muster was that there really weren't very many good options out there.
I wasn't sold on Garrett after the season he had produced. Haslett? Mangini? Picking between those guys was like deciding whether to attend a Jonas Brothers concert or committing suicide. Neither was a great option...but at least suicide would end quickly!
So, at the time, Jerry really didn't have many good options to choose from. That has changed; Holmgren, Shanahan, Dungy, Gruden and Cowher?! Has there ever been an offseason featuring five Super-Bowl-winning coaches? Not that I can remember.
And while some may suggest that these guys won't work for Jerry Jones, I would disagree. If there is one thing that you can say about Jerry, it's this: he gets what he wants. Like Richard from Tommy Boy said, "he could sell a ketchup popsicle to a lady in white gloves." If Jerry wants one of those guys, chances are, he gets him.
The question remains, what does Jerry want? Is he willing to release some of his power as GM and allow a proven coach to have input on player personnel decisions? Does he want to add some additional excitement to the franchise as they head into Jerry World? Or, does he feel that he inadvertently sabotaged Wade by bringing guys like Pacman on-board? Does Wade deserve a third and deciding season?
I have no idea what Jerry is thinking right now, but I do know one thing: Jerry's decision today is much more difficult than it was on December 28th.
All of this happened in 2008. Since then, these coaches have officially become available:
Mike Holmgren - 13 playoff wins; 1 Super Bowl appearance; .542 playoff winning pct.
Mike Shanahan - 8 playoff wins; 2 Super Bowls; .615 playoff winning pct.
Tony Dungy - 7 playoff wins; 1 Super Bowl; .538 playoff winning pct.
Jon Gruden - 5 playoff wins; 1 Super Bowl; .556 playoff winning pct.
Bill Cowher - 12 playoff wins; 1 Super Bowl (2 appearances); .571 playoff winning pct.
At age 61, Wade Phillips has zero playoff wins. ZERO. His winning percentage sits at a crisp .000
On December 28th, when I heard Jerry indicate that Wade was coming back, like most Cowboys fans...I threw up in my mouth a little bit. But being the optimist that I am, I tried to justify the move. The best argument that I could muster was that there really weren't very many good options out there.
I wasn't sold on Garrett after the season he had produced. Haslett? Mangini? Picking between those guys was like deciding whether to attend a Jonas Brothers concert or committing suicide. Neither was a great option...but at least suicide would end quickly!
So, at the time, Jerry really didn't have many good options to choose from. That has changed; Holmgren, Shanahan, Dungy, Gruden and Cowher?! Has there ever been an offseason featuring five Super-Bowl-winning coaches? Not that I can remember.
And while some may suggest that these guys won't work for Jerry Jones, I would disagree. If there is one thing that you can say about Jerry, it's this: he gets what he wants. Like Richard from Tommy Boy said, "he could sell a ketchup popsicle to a lady in white gloves." If Jerry wants one of those guys, chances are, he gets him.
The question remains, what does Jerry want? Is he willing to release some of his power as GM and allow a proven coach to have input on player personnel decisions? Does he want to add some additional excitement to the franchise as they head into Jerry World? Or, does he feel that he inadvertently sabotaged Wade by bringing guys like Pacman on-board? Does Wade deserve a third and deciding season?
I have no idea what Jerry is thinking right now, but I do know one thing: Jerry's decision today is much more difficult than it was on December 28th.
Friday, January 16, 2009
TO, Roommates and Other Ramblings
As was reported by Ed Werder, the Dallas Cowboys will soon consider the option of cutting ties with enigmatic wide-receiver, Terrell Owens. I have to give TO his props though: he has taken his divisive abilities to a whole new level. It appears that the presence of TO has divided not only the locker room, but also has affected the front-office (Stephen Jones - against TO; Jerry Jones - for TO) and the media.
Hell, I despise TO...and even I'm a little torn on the issue. When the Cowboys first signed Owens, it reminded me of a situation I was faced with in college.
I had a college buddy named Chuck. Chuck was the type of guy that could make anything interesting: he was always the life of the party and people were attracted to him. There was never a dull moment around Chuck.
But there was a downside: Chuck was never considered the most responsible friend. In other words, you didn't want to rely on him to pick you up from the airport. He wasn't the guy that you wanted to put in charge of walking your dogs when you were out of town. He was what he was: a fun guy to hang out with.
When moving to new apartments, we decided to allow Chuck to become a new roommate. We justified it by telling ourselves that, with the extra person, we could afford a nicer place, we would have more spending cash and Chuck would really bring a level of excitement to the dwelling. We made it make sense.
At first it worked out great; we had a few parties, it was fun to be around the guy and the extra cash came in handy. But then a few problems crept up. Chuck wasn't great at doing dishes. Chuck's room was littered with week-old chimichangas stuck to plates and cups who's remnants had created their own ecosystem. He was loud at night, he didn't pay his portion of the bills on time and he never recognized that Tuesday night wasn't really the time for a party.
Having a nicer place was cool and so was having a little extra spending dough. But at some point, I wanted to be able to have a normal dinner with my girlfriend without being interrupted by an half-naked Chuck armed with a sombrero and a bong asking me if I had seen his lighter!
Plus, he never went to class so he was always there. Always. I became incresingly annoyed when driving home because I knew that Chuck would be lounging on the couch watching my tv. I knew that the kitchen would be a disaster. I knew the trash would be overflowing. And I knew that, no matter what I said to him, he wasn't going to change. He was Chuck.
It just was no longer worth it.
My girlfriend and I moved out. We got a smaller place, it wasn't as nice, it wasn't as big, the pool wasn't as appealing. But it was just ours. No trashed kitchens. No fights about what show to watch. No sitting in bed debating whether or not to go kick his ass for playing guitar at three in the morning. It was nice.
And while I wouldn't trade that experience, because it gave me some really great stories, it was simply time for us to mature. We probably missed out on some crazy parties, but avoiding those distractions allowed us to focus on school.
And while the Cowboys new 'house' will not be as big or shiny without TO, what good is a nice, big house if you can't enjoy it? Without TO, the Cowboys will be able to focus...and that's a good thing.
Hell, I despise TO...and even I'm a little torn on the issue. When the Cowboys first signed Owens, it reminded me of a situation I was faced with in college.
I had a college buddy named Chuck. Chuck was the type of guy that could make anything interesting: he was always the life of the party and people were attracted to him. There was never a dull moment around Chuck.
But there was a downside: Chuck was never considered the most responsible friend. In other words, you didn't want to rely on him to pick you up from the airport. He wasn't the guy that you wanted to put in charge of walking your dogs when you were out of town. He was what he was: a fun guy to hang out with.
When moving to new apartments, we decided to allow Chuck to become a new roommate. We justified it by telling ourselves that, with the extra person, we could afford a nicer place, we would have more spending cash and Chuck would really bring a level of excitement to the dwelling. We made it make sense.
At first it worked out great; we had a few parties, it was fun to be around the guy and the extra cash came in handy. But then a few problems crept up. Chuck wasn't great at doing dishes. Chuck's room was littered with week-old chimichangas stuck to plates and cups who's remnants had created their own ecosystem. He was loud at night, he didn't pay his portion of the bills on time and he never recognized that Tuesday night wasn't really the time for a party.
Having a nicer place was cool and so was having a little extra spending dough. But at some point, I wanted to be able to have a normal dinner with my girlfriend without being interrupted by an half-naked Chuck armed with a sombrero and a bong asking me if I had seen his lighter!
Plus, he never went to class so he was always there. Always. I became incresingly annoyed when driving home because I knew that Chuck would be lounging on the couch watching my tv. I knew that the kitchen would be a disaster. I knew the trash would be overflowing. And I knew that, no matter what I said to him, he wasn't going to change. He was Chuck.
It just was no longer worth it.
My girlfriend and I moved out. We got a smaller place, it wasn't as nice, it wasn't as big, the pool wasn't as appealing. But it was just ours. No trashed kitchens. No fights about what show to watch. No sitting in bed debating whether or not to go kick his ass for playing guitar at three in the morning. It was nice.
And while I wouldn't trade that experience, because it gave me some really great stories, it was simply time for us to mature. We probably missed out on some crazy parties, but avoiding those distractions allowed us to focus on school.
And while the Cowboys new 'house' will not be as big or shiny without TO, what good is a nice, big house if you can't enjoy it? Without TO, the Cowboys will be able to focus...and that's a good thing.
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Top 5 Reasons Why Dallas Cut Pacman
#5: Fans were actually looking forward to Patrick Crayton punt-returns...
#4: Instead of the protecting Pacman from others, the security-detail focused on protecting themselves from Pacman...
#3: The Cowboys could handle one arranged shooting, but two...well that crossed the line.
#2: Even Jerry Jones thought that Pacman rambled when speaking...
...and the #1 reason why Dallas cut Pacman:
Jerry realized that Pacman's "hitman" nickname was not a reflection of his tackling ability...
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
A Little Perspective
Fans tend to see the world as it pertains to their team, their players, their expectations. Many Cowboy fans feel that championship-caliber teams don't lose to teams like the Rams. People continue to suggest that "championship" teams don't lose games that they should win.
Just to add some perspective, I have compiled a list depicting many hideous losses experienced by current playoff teams:
New York Giants
Lost to Cleveland 14-35
Went to OT with Cincinnati
Philadelphia Eagles
Tied with Cincinnati 13-13
Lost to Washington (who had nothing to play for) 3-10
Arizona
Lost to New York Jets 35-56
Lost to Philadelphia 20-48
Lost to New England 13-44
Carolina Panthers
Lost to Tampa Bay 3-27
Minnesota Vikings
Lost to Chicago 41-48
Baltimore Ravens
Lost to Indianapolis 3-31
Lost to New York Giants 10-30
Indianapolis Colts
Lost to Chicago 13-29
Lost to Green Bay 14-34
Miami Dolphins
Lost to Arizona 10-31
Lost to New England 28-48
Pittsburgh Steelers
Lost to Philadelphia 6-15
San Diego Chargers
Lost to Buffalo 14-23
Lost to New Orleans 32-37
Tennessee Titans
Lost to New York Jets 13-34
Yes, the Cowboys have problems. And yes, they need to improve in many areas, but there is a reason why the Giants were destroyed by a horrible Browns team. There is a reason why the Eagles tied the Bengals. There is a reason why only one of the current NFC playoff teams made the tournament last year (Giants).
The reason: parity.
Now that talent level is somewhat equal (sorry Lions), football has become all about execution. The Cowboys do not need an infusion of talent, they need improved execution. How does that happen? Coaching change? Coordinator change? Continuity?
Only time will tell, but Dallas fans need to face the fact that the Cowboys are now just "one of the teams" in the NFL. Having an owner committed to winning no longer allows Dallas to overpay for free-agents. Jerry can no longer have a better backup unit than other team's starters.
America's Team is now just one team in America.
Just to add some perspective, I have compiled a list depicting many hideous losses experienced by current playoff teams:
New York Giants
Lost to Cleveland 14-35
Went to OT with Cincinnati
Philadelphia Eagles
Tied with Cincinnati 13-13
Lost to Washington (who had nothing to play for) 3-10
Arizona
Lost to New York Jets 35-56
Lost to Philadelphia 20-48
Lost to New England 13-44
Carolina Panthers
Lost to Tampa Bay 3-27
Minnesota Vikings
Lost to Chicago 41-48
Baltimore Ravens
Lost to Indianapolis 3-31
Lost to New York Giants 10-30
Indianapolis Colts
Lost to Chicago 13-29
Lost to Green Bay 14-34
Miami Dolphins
Lost to Arizona 10-31
Lost to New England 28-48
Pittsburgh Steelers
Lost to Philadelphia 6-15
San Diego Chargers
Lost to Buffalo 14-23
Lost to New Orleans 32-37
Tennessee Titans
Lost to New York Jets 13-34
Yes, the Cowboys have problems. And yes, they need to improve in many areas, but there is a reason why the Giants were destroyed by a horrible Browns team. There is a reason why the Eagles tied the Bengals. There is a reason why only one of the current NFC playoff teams made the tournament last year (Giants).
The reason: parity.
Now that talent level is somewhat equal (sorry Lions), football has become all about execution. The Cowboys do not need an infusion of talent, they need improved execution. How does that happen? Coaching change? Coordinator change? Continuity?
Only time will tell, but Dallas fans need to face the fact that the Cowboys are now just "one of the teams" in the NFL. Having an owner committed to winning no longer allows Dallas to overpay for free-agents. Jerry can no longer have a better backup unit than other team's starters.
America's Team is now just one team in America.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Valley Ranch Exclusive: Cowboys Year in Review
Valley Ranch Exclusive: Cowboys Year in Review
After allowing the season finale to digest, Jerry Jones decided that he needed to meet with Wade Phillips for his annual performance review. The Dallas Sports Keg was able to obtain an exclusive transcript of that conversation:
Jerry: Wade, I appreciate you meeting with me here in Valley Ranch. I apologize for interrupting your off-season slow-walk training, but I felt that we needed to discuss what went wrong this year.
Wade: Well, you said that something went wrong, I never said that. That's what you said.
Jerry: I consider getting beaten by 38 in the final game of the season as an indication that "something went wrong."
Wade: Sure the Eagles beat us on the scoreboard, but we won the 4th quarter 3-0 and we had more passing yards than they did. So if you really think about it, we won two out of three!
Jerry: What about Roy Williams? I traded for another 1st round player to provide this offense with an explosive option opposite TO and you didn't do anything with him. What the hell, Wade?
Wade: Well Jerry, that's kind of a funny story. You see, we already had one Roy Williams on the team...but he is a safety, not a wide-receiver. We didn't realize it until we reviewed the tapes last week, but apparently Jason [Garrett] and I had accidentally added the defensive Roy Williams to our offensive packages instead of the really tall one.
Jerry: That's just unacceptable. And let's discuss these "changes" that you have vowed to make. What types of changes will you be implementing?
Wade: I have heard several people say that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but I ain't a dog so I have never understood that phrase. Plus, in dog years, I think that I'm only like four years-old, so I still have plenty of time to change.
Jerry: Enough, Wade, our fans want to know what changes you are going to make.
Wade: In 2009, I'm going to be a different man. I'm switching from a box of powdered donuts for my morning breakfast to a box of glazed donuts. You see Jerry, I would get powdered-sugar all over my play-sheets and that led to several in-game mistakes. Remember when we ran the option against the Ravens at the most critical point of our season?
Jerry: Unfortunately, I do.
Wade: That was actually supposed to be "option #2" which would have been a quarterback sneak. But the powdered-sugar covered the "#2" part of the play-sheet...so I figured that the genius, that's what I call Jason, must have designed a new option play. It didn't work, but it sure was fun to watch...wasn't it Jerry?
Jerry: No, it wasn't. Actually, I can't think of many things that were fun to watch this year. I can't do this anymore right now. Mike Shannahan is in town and we are meeting for lunch. We can resume this next week.
After allowing the season finale to digest, Jerry Jones decided that he needed to meet with Wade Phillips for his annual performance review. The Dallas Sports Keg was able to obtain an exclusive transcript of that conversation:
Jerry: Wade, I appreciate you meeting with me here in Valley Ranch. I apologize for interrupting your off-season slow-walk training, but I felt that we needed to discuss what went wrong this year.
Wade: Well, you said that something went wrong, I never said that. That's what you said.
Jerry: I consider getting beaten by 38 in the final game of the season as an indication that "something went wrong."
Wade: Sure the Eagles beat us on the scoreboard, but we won the 4th quarter 3-0 and we had more passing yards than they did. So if you really think about it, we won two out of three!
Jerry: What about Roy Williams? I traded for another 1st round player to provide this offense with an explosive option opposite TO and you didn't do anything with him. What the hell, Wade?
Wade: Well Jerry, that's kind of a funny story. You see, we already had one Roy Williams on the team...but he is a safety, not a wide-receiver. We didn't realize it until we reviewed the tapes last week, but apparently Jason [Garrett] and I had accidentally added the defensive Roy Williams to our offensive packages instead of the really tall one.
Jerry: That's just unacceptable. And let's discuss these "changes" that you have vowed to make. What types of changes will you be implementing?
Wade: I have heard several people say that you can't teach an old dog new tricks, but I ain't a dog so I have never understood that phrase. Plus, in dog years, I think that I'm only like four years-old, so I still have plenty of time to change.
Jerry: Enough, Wade, our fans want to know what changes you are going to make.
Wade: In 2009, I'm going to be a different man. I'm switching from a box of powdered donuts for my morning breakfast to a box of glazed donuts. You see Jerry, I would get powdered-sugar all over my play-sheets and that led to several in-game mistakes. Remember when we ran the option against the Ravens at the most critical point of our season?
Jerry: Unfortunately, I do.
Wade: That was actually supposed to be "option #2" which would have been a quarterback sneak. But the powdered-sugar covered the "#2" part of the play-sheet...so I figured that the genius, that's what I call Jason, must have designed a new option play. It didn't work, but it sure was fun to watch...wasn't it Jerry?
Jerry: No, it wasn't. Actually, I can't think of many things that were fun to watch this year. I can't do this anymore right now. Mike Shannahan is in town and we are meeting for lunch. We can resume this next week.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Romo Needs Some Flag-Football
"I'm embarrassed. I really am. I am really embarrassed."
- Jerry Jones
"I wake up tomorrow and I keep living. If losing a game in a sporting event is the worst thing that happens to me, I've lived a pretty good life."
- Tony Romo
Does anyone else see anything wrong with those comments? So the quarterback of "America's Team" is so distraught by a season-ending loss...that he says that "much worse" has happened to him? That he is going to "keep on living?" That's it? No "I'm pissed! I apologize because I let a lot of fans down. I let my teammates down. I let me city down. I let myself down." None of that?
Instead, Jerry Jones has to be the person that comes out and says that he is "embarrassed" by the performance. Jerry wasn't playing. He wasn't calling plays. And yet, Jerry appears to be the only Cowboy pissed off and utterly embarrassed about the 44-6 loss in Philadelphia. That's a problem.
Look, my friends and I almost break into tears after losing a regular-season flag-football game. It doesn't even have to be the playoffs!! We will then spend the next 3-4 hours dissecting exactly what went wrong. Seriously, we can barely sleep that night...and we are talking about freaking FLAG-FOOTBALL!!!!! What is on the line for us? Nothing significant. But we still can't handle a loss because...well, because we hate losing...at ANYTHING.
Why do I get the feeling that, if Romo were there, after losing he would have been the first in line at the "handshake" line, would have joked with a few of the opponents and then asked us "who is down for a slurpy?!"
I'm sorry, but I don't want my quarterback feeling as though football is merely a game. My buddies and I lose sleep over flag-football contests and Romo, after losing a play-in game to his arch-rivals in the NFL, can only muster "I've had worse things happen to me."
I am not denying that there is something wrong with my friends and I, but there is also something not quite right about Romo. Great NFL quarterbacks don't suffer that kind of defeat and simply shrug it off. Great NFL quarterbacks don't turn the ball over three times in the most critical game of the season and say that they will simply "keep on living." They just don't.
If Peyton Manning throws three interceptions in a loss to San Diego, do you think he will be quoted as saying, "Well, I am going to just keep living and need to get ready to complete a few more hilarious commercials"...? Of course not.
I defend Romo in almost every possible scenario, but it's difficult to defend a guy that appears to take losses much better than the majority of fans do. And while I am holding on to hope that he spends the next six months on football, I have no doubt that we will soon see Tony and Jessica as judges on an upcoming version of MTV's "Skanks vs Sluts" or the new show "America's Got Talent...But We Can't Find It."
- Jerry Jones
"I wake up tomorrow and I keep living. If losing a game in a sporting event is the worst thing that happens to me, I've lived a pretty good life."
- Tony Romo
Does anyone else see anything wrong with those comments? So the quarterback of "America's Team" is so distraught by a season-ending loss...that he says that "much worse" has happened to him? That he is going to "keep on living?" That's it? No "I'm pissed! I apologize because I let a lot of fans down. I let my teammates down. I let me city down. I let myself down." None of that?
Instead, Jerry Jones has to be the person that comes out and says that he is "embarrassed" by the performance. Jerry wasn't playing. He wasn't calling plays. And yet, Jerry appears to be the only Cowboy pissed off and utterly embarrassed about the 44-6 loss in Philadelphia. That's a problem.
Look, my friends and I almost break into tears after losing a regular-season flag-football game. It doesn't even have to be the playoffs!! We will then spend the next 3-4 hours dissecting exactly what went wrong. Seriously, we can barely sleep that night...and we are talking about freaking FLAG-FOOTBALL!!!!! What is on the line for us? Nothing significant. But we still can't handle a loss because...well, because we hate losing...at ANYTHING.
Why do I get the feeling that, if Romo were there, after losing he would have been the first in line at the "handshake" line, would have joked with a few of the opponents and then asked us "who is down for a slurpy?!"
I'm sorry, but I don't want my quarterback feeling as though football is merely a game. My buddies and I lose sleep over flag-football contests and Romo, after losing a play-in game to his arch-rivals in the NFL, can only muster "I've had worse things happen to me."
I am not denying that there is something wrong with my friends and I, but there is also something not quite right about Romo. Great NFL quarterbacks don't suffer that kind of defeat and simply shrug it off. Great NFL quarterbacks don't turn the ball over three times in the most critical game of the season and say that they will simply "keep on living." They just don't.
If Peyton Manning throws three interceptions in a loss to San Diego, do you think he will be quoted as saying, "Well, I am going to just keep living and need to get ready to complete a few more hilarious commercials"...? Of course not.
I defend Romo in almost every possible scenario, but it's difficult to defend a guy that appears to take losses much better than the majority of fans do. And while I am holding on to hope that he spends the next six months on football, I have no doubt that we will soon see Tony and Jessica as judges on an upcoming version of MTV's "Skanks vs Sluts" or the new show "America's Got Talent...But We Can't Find It."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)