Am I Being Realistic

I am trying to figure out how the current Cowboys team is being put together and what identity they have. My PERSONAL thoughts are as follows:

1) Jimmy Johnson Blueprint

2) How Garrett has put together this team

My point with this exercise is to point out that Garrett learned how to put together a successful team while he played (more carried a clipboard and spent his time learning) under Johnson. And, it seems, that he is trying to apply what he learned there to today’s Cowboys.

I am in no way saying that the pieces he has are as great as what the Cowboys had in the early 90’s. Nor am I saying that he is anywhere near the HC that Johnson was. Just that he saw a plan that worked and it trying to duplicate that same plan today.

My question being, am I allowing my "hope" to color what I think I am seeing on the field and with the team?

Thoughts?

hstour said:

My question being, am I allowing my "hope" to color what I think I am seeing on the field and with the team

Click to expand...

Yes.

You really really really are.

I get being giddy. We have had several good wins.

But you are going overboard in assuming that there is a blueprint being followed.

hstour said:

I am trying to figure out how the current Cowboys team is being put together and what identity they have. My PERSONAL thoughts are as follows:

1) Jimmy Johnson Blueprint

a) Offense

i) OC that has a plan that works and can execute it
ii) Build an OL that can dominate, give the RB places to run & wear down a defense
iii) Have a RB that can get you 4 yards a carry
iv) Have a QB that can make the throws and make plays with his arm
v) Have an elite #1 WR
vi) Have an excellent complement WR to your #1
vii) Have a TE that can complement the WRs and provide you with possession catches that move the chains​

b) Defense

i) DC that has a plan and can execute it
ii) Have 8 DL players that can rotate in without a significant drop off in talent to keep them fresh
iii) Have LBs and DBs that can be opportunistic and can create turnovers
iv) All the defense has to have speed and swarm to the ball
v) All the defense has to have a high motor
(1) Does not quit till the whistle
vi) Tackle Tackle Tackle (wrap up the ball carrier and gang tackle)​

2) How Garrett has put together this team

a) Offense

i) OC – Might be promising, but yet to be determined
ii) OL – Check
iii) RB – Check
iv) QB – Check
v) Elite WR – Check
vi) Compliment WR(s) – Check
vii) TE – Check​

b) Defense

i) DC – Check
ii) DL – In process. Marinelli has a plan but probably doesn’t have all the players he needs. But, if Brent comes back in Nov and Lawrence comes back after week 8 (and is the player worth his draft status) then that is 2 more pieces that possibly can upgrade the rotation.
iii) LBs and DBs opportunistic (that is a Marinelli principle) and they started to show in the NO game that they could play that way (+3 TO margin)
iv) Speed – Check (Marinelli prefers speed over size)
v) High Motor – Yet to be determined
vi) Tackling – Still needs some work, today’s NFL is into the big shoulder hit. The Cowboys are very good at exemplifying that attitude. Especially when the DBs come up in support.​

My point with this exercise is to point out that Garrett learned how to put together a successful team while he played (more carried a clipboard and spent his time learning) under Johnson. And, it seems, that he is trying to apply what he learned there to today’s Cowboys.

I am in no way saying that the pieces he has are as great as what the Cowboys had in the early 90’s. Nor am I saying that he is anywhere near the HC that Johnson was. Just that he saw a plan that worked and it trying to duplicate that same plan today.

My question being, am I allowing my "hope" to color what I think I am seeing on the field and with the team?

Thoughts?

Click to expand...

Maybe.

I feel like you might have been excitedly twisting your nipples while typing this out.

Carp said:

I feel like you might have been excitedly twisting your nipples while typing this out.

Click to expand...

Last night was pretty cool.

boozeman said:

Yes.

You really really really are.

I get being giddy. We have had several good wins.

But you are going overboard in assuming that there is a blueprint being followed.

Click to expand...

But on a different board, I actually posted based on "Harry" saying he was wrong in his 3-13 prediction:

Harry, I wouldn't be to quick to admit defeat. If they go back to spotting teams 10 - 21 points in the first quarter, then they may well turn out to be a 6-10 team. While not as bad as your predictions, it's not far off.

I'm not sure where this team is going either. They have shown the ability to be very good for a half in 3 games. This last one was the only one they put two good halves together. Need to see more of that before I think they are anything more than 8-8.

Too much inconsistency for me to commit yet, even though I see positive signs.


I try to be very realistic. And this is not something that is based on just the NO game. But it is something that I have watched happen over the last 3 years as this team has gone from one of the oldest (and highest cap strapped) teams to one of the youngest. All the while, never falling into the total dumps. As a matter of fact, they have maintained an 8-8 record with a chance to play for the playoffs in week 17 of the season.

Too early.

I enjoyed last night and walked into work with a cheshire smile that had my co-workers instantly groaning.

But I don't take last night's game as an indication for anything more than 1 game.

pdom said:

Too early.

I enjoyed last night and walked into work with a cheshire smile that had my co-workers instantly groaning.

But I don't take last night's game as an indication for anything more than 1 game.

Click to expand...

Agree. I guess the question is what does it mean in the long run.

Honestly, if this team had not spotted SF 7 points on the 3rd play of the game, then the Cowboys would be 4-0 going into week 5. But they did which is why I have doubts about the team. They could be 10-6 or 11-5, but if they continue to make mistakes, they will be 6-10 or 5-11.

hstour said:

But on a different board, I actually posted based on "Harry" saying he was wrong in his 3-13 prediction:

Harry, I wouldn't be to quick to admit defeat. If they go back to spotting teams 10 - 21 points in the first quarter, then they may well turn out to be a 6-10 team. While not as bad as your predictions, it's not far off.

I'm not sure where this team is going either. They have shown the ability to be very good for a half in 3 games. This last one was the only one they put two good halves together. Need to see more of that before I think they are anything more than 8-8.

Too much inconsistency for me to commit yet, even though I see positive signs.


I try to be very realistic. And this is not something that is based on just the NO game. But it is something that I have watched happen over the last 3 years as this team has gone from one of the oldest (and highest cap strapped) teams to one of the youngest. All the while, never falling into the total dumps. As a matter of fact, they have maintained an 8-8 record with a chance to play for the playoffs in week 17 of the season.

Click to expand...

I think we are on the right track in some ways.

We are getting younger. We are not holding onto overpriced talent hoping their "window" isn't shut.

The 8-8 of the last few years was more milking the remnants.

Garrett has to show this year he is really getting through to these guys.

I may be wrong, but sorry. I don't see what is being built here.

I see a team that actually is doing what it should do (run the effing ball to protect a bad D) and has been a little less injured.

boozeman said:

I think we are on the right track in some ways.

We are getting younger. We are not holding onto overpriced talent hoping their "window" isn't shut.

The 8-8 of the last few years was more milking the remnants.

Garrett has to show this year he is really getting through to these guys.

I may be wrong, but sorry. I don't see what is being built here.

I see a team that actually is doing what it should do (run the effing ball to protect a bad D) and has been a little less injured.

Click to expand...

Totally agree,except for the "milking the remnants." You can't just remove something that is good and not put something back and expect to stay the same. So what was put back at least has to have some value.

But the interesting thing I find is that in this "passing league where the QB is the only way to win a SB," the Cowboys seem to be doing it the old school way with running the football and using that to set up the pass.

I think its too early to completely homer out. But, I was pretty impressed with the O last night. Linehan has been able to effectively use the weapons this team has had for a couple years, whereas Garrett couldn't.

Whats sad is I believe in the end, the fact that there are really no outstanding playmakers on D will be the thing that derails yet another season.

I give Jerry credit for getting a big, dominating OL in place and he gets credit for Murray and the WR core. But he went balls out for the O side of the ball, and tried to cheap out on D.

Dallas needed a couple playmakers on D for them to really have a chance at doing something.

That was my thought. The comparison that I tried to show demonstrates that the questions still remain on the defense. But what if a draft or two addresses those issues?

The plan was to build for the long term, could a couple of defensive draft hits move that plan forward?

A question, not what I think will happen.

I do think Garrett had a general plan in mind in terms of wanting to rebuild the OL and bring numbers on the front 7, but alot of that was also brought about by necessity. The OL was a complete cluster a few years ago and we had no choice but to revamp it, not to take anything away from the fact that it was beautifully rebuilt though.

The depth on the front 7 was brought about even more by necessity and not choice though. Last year we went into the season with a bunch of high priced vets and little to no depth, we also did nothing to bring in any young talent like most of us wanted. We know what happened last year and the fact that we are cap-strapped meant we had to get rid of Ware and let Hatcher go, and we really had no choice but to bring in a large number of cheap guys and hope that a heavy rotation would work.

Now, does that mean that is the plan going forward? One can only hope.

And I do think we have a very strong foundation on offense moving forward with the OL, Dez and Williams. We will need a new QB in a few years and RB will have to be addressed since we all know RB's don't have that longevity anymore, but I'm not too concerned about that since with our OL I think it will be easy to find productive RB's.

Defensively, we have to rebuild like we did with the OL. We need talent at every level of the defense. Guys like Lawrence and Crawford could be decent building blocks moving forward but we obviously need to keep adding to it, and in numbers. If we attack the front 7, and namely the DL, like we did the OL, we will have a pretty nice foundation on both sides of the ball in place for the next QB. Sadly I think we screwed around for too many years and wasted Romo's prime, we finally built him an OL/running game but we won't be able to rebuild the defense up to that level in the time that he has left.

Another important note is the defensive system, if we can maintain some consistency on the coaching staff and develop guys like Coleman and Bishop as depth while using premium resources to restock we will certainly have something.

I'd put the rose colored glasses back in the drawer until this team can show some consistency. Less than stellar showing against the Niners, a decent win against The Titans, a squeaker against the Rams who aren't very good and one good all around game against The Saints. When we're playing like they did Sunday night, which I enjoyed the hell out of, on an ongoing basis, I might start to homer out a bit but not before then.

Agree with the sentiment that there isn't necessarily a blueprint being followed. I do like the emphasis that's been put on the OL in the draft recently but we're still throwing a lot of shat against the wall and hoping something sticks.

hstour said:

That was my thought. The comparison that I tried to show demonstrates that the questions still remain on the defense. But what if a draft or two addresses those issues?

The plan was to build for the long term, could a couple of defensive draft hits move that plan forward?

A question, not what I think will happen.

Click to expand...

Who will be the QB in a year or two?

Seems like they could have followed the "blueprint" more last season by running the ball but chose not to for some reason.

I have a feeling we're getting sucked.

And not in a good way.

Clay_Allison said:

Who will be the QB in a year or two?

Click to expand...

In a year, by necessity it will still be Romo. It costs too much to cut him. After next year, it costs $1.5M to cut him and after 2016 you actually gain $11M in cap space. So Romo for the next two, but it must be addressed in that time span. I'd spend a mid to late round on a QB next year and move to a higher pick in 2016 up to a first rounder in 2017 if you don't hit on anything.

I think Simpleton is right with next year's draft, you have to attack the front 7 on defense next year with your first 3 picks at the very least.

The only reason we are running the ball more is because of Linehan. Garrett showed multiple seasons he had no interest in it and Callahan was the same last year. These guys weren't going to just pull a 180 on their playcall styles. Thankfully someone else has that duty now.

WINTER IS COMING

pdom said:

WINTER IS COMING

Click to expand...

The voice of Mr. Sunshine.