Breer: The Difference in Dallas

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,759
Thu Jun. 16, 2016

The Difference in Dallas

by Albert Breer

By the time it was over, Greg Hardy had come to define all that went awry during the Cowboys’ lost 2015 season.

Stephen Jones gets how that looks to the general public. The Cowboys chief operating officer understands things didn’t work out with Hardy, who was involved in a domestic violence case before Dallas signed him in 2015. But as Jones sees it, the chicken here was the losing, the egg was the chaos that Hardy helped fuel, and the optics of the result won’t change much in the way the team does business.

“We’ve taken risks,” Jones said Wednesday. “It was a huge risk to take (Charles) Haley back (in the ’90s). Haley was a cancer on the Niners, and that’s why they gave him to us for next to nothing. Dez (Bryant) was a risk. Dez was a Top 5 pick that fell because he was a risk. And in the end, you win on some, you lose on some. That’s a little piece of how you succeed in business. You have to take chances.”

In this week’s Inside The NFL Notebook, we’ll check in with Blake Bortles; the next (potential) playmaker in Pittsburgh; where the head-trauma subject is going next; and how the Eagles have locked up their core.

We start back at Valley Ranch, where the Cowboys now look to better capitalize on another season on the back nine of Tony Romo’s prime—one year after 4-12, two after 12-4, and three removed from three straight 8-8s.

Hardy’s gone now. According to those inside the building, there’s been a sense of renewal. New leadership has emerged. Talent is still there in key places.

But Jones has been around long enough to know the fragility of these things, which is why he’s not overcome with regret. If you win, the good feelings of an undefeated spring stick. If you lose, good luck.

“If when Haley was here, we didn’t do as well, he’d have been a distraction,” Jones said. “When the season withers away like last year did, things start to show up that otherwise might not if things are positive.”

Tony Romo is healthy after missing all but four games for Dallas in 2015. The Cowboys went 3-1 in games Romo started last season.

Accordingly, Jones won’t buy the notion that simply cutting Hardy out of the picture makes it 2014 again.

In fact, he doesn’t see Hardy as the bellwether for last year at all, the way some (even in his building) do. Dallas knew the decision to sign Hardy could go either way from the start—evidenced by the team protecting itself six ways from Sunday on Hardy’s one-year deal. The way everything else crumbled, to Jones, was worse.

“To me, the most disappointing thing was when Tony was out (collarbone) for seven games, we couldn’t find a way to win two or three of them,” he said. “Jason (Garrett) has focused on it, (offensive coordinator) Scott Linehan focused on it. If Tony misses six or seven games again, how do we win two or three football games? Were we competitive? Yes, but we didn’t finish those games.

“So if Tony were to go down for two or three weeks, we hope now we can salvage some games.”

Which is where prized rookie running back Ezekiel Elliott comes into the picture.

“It’s one reason why we invested in Ezekiel,” Jones concedes about the No. 4 overall pick out of Ohio State. “You look at it, and if you can help with your run game, you can do some things offensively that take pressure off the quarterback. That can help. We won without Tony before. (Jon) Kitna and (Kyle) Orton won games. It’s not like it’s something we haven’t done. Can you win them all? No. Can you win a championship without Tony? Probably not.

“But Zeke gives us a much better chance.”

If it seems like we’re all over the place here, that works to explain how all over the place the Cowboys’ problems were last season. Romo’s injury was compounded by Dez Bryant’s injury (foot), which made it easier for opponents to gang up on the running game, and negate the strength of the team—its offensive line. Then, the losses started piling up.

Hardy got off to a solid start, but according to those in the building, the Deadspin story that included graphic photos of his former girlfriend’s bruises sent the already less-then-stable star into a tailspin. He was drinking a lot. His behavior became more erratic. And with the team losing, the atmosphere at work wasn’t getting better, which only worsened the problem.

Now, if the Cowboys accomplish the objective here—as Jones says, “We’ve got to find a way play better without Tony”—what will it mean?


A few things. One, it’ll mean the team is asking less of Romo as he gets older, the way, say, Denver asked less of Peyton Manning as his skills started to wane. Two, it could mean keeping alive one of the seasons Romo does have left if he were to miss a month or two. Three, it keeps with the vision of maximizing the window of opportunity that Romo gives the Cowboys.

“We did it with Troy (Aikman), when we traded big picks for (Joey) Galloway,” Jones said. “You put things in place around the quarterback when he’s in his prime. Ezekiel is a lot of that. He helps long-term, but he has a chance to help us right away. You do look for opportunities, it’s no different than last year, when we took a chance on Hardy. If you don’t have a quarterback in his prime, it’s a question if you’d do that.”

So once again, even with some on-field question to answer (yes, pass rush is one), the Cowboys are all-in.

But that changes nothing. When asked about the good feeling around the team this spring, Jones responds quickly. “I think we had the same healthy atmosphere at this time last year.”

What would really make a difference? A few more wins.
 

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,759
I hate to break it to Goof Son, but Orton never won a game as a starter for the Cowboys.
 

lostxn

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
7,874
I hate to break it to Goof Son, but Orton never won a game as a starter for the Cowboys.
Ah - but he put us in position to win. Before throwing the game-losing interception of course...
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Comparing Ezekiel to the trade for Joey Galloway. Jesus we really should have just taken a goddamn QB.
 

lostxn

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
7,874
Comparing Ezekiel to the trade for Joey Galloway. Jesus we really should have just taken a goddamn QB.
Well the best two went before us. Did you want to trade up? Then we tried and failed to overpay and get Lynch. Just SOL when it came to getting a QB. I think you really can't blame the braintrust for this one.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
We definitely need a QB of the future, but when you have one still for the next 2 or 3 years you can't mortgage the farm to find his replacement. We aren't in desperation mode yet.

I'd have been in favor of taking one of the top 2 had they fallen to us; I'd have been flipping-tables mad had we given up a rams or eagles style deal. I'd have been almost as mad had we given up what it took to get lynch. I'd have been ok with a CHEAP trade up for cook or lynch.

You can't make a desperate move for a QB when you already have one.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
You can't make a desperate move for a QB when you already have one.
You shouldn't make desperation moves to win one for that QB either. Hearing them talk about Ezekiel like he was that type of move is scary. That's exactly what Joey Galloway was and we saw how that turned out. If you know your QB is on his last leg, you should probably be desperate for a new QB, not for a weapon to help him get his one last shot at a superbowl! It's just a scary thought that we invest in guys based on the thought of Romo being here and yet we really have no idea if he will make it through another season or not.
 

Chocolate Lab

Mere Commoner
Joined
Oct 2, 2014
Messages
19,859
“We’ve taken risks,” Jones said Wednesday. “It was a huge risk to take (Charles) Haley back (in the ’90s). Haley was a cancer on the Niners, and that’s why they gave him to us for next to nothing. Dez (Bryant) was a risk. Dez was a Top 5 pick that fell because he was a risk. And in the end, you win on some, you lose on some. That’s a little piece of how you succeed in business. You have to take chances.”
My God, he sounds more like his daddy every year.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,933
You shouldn't make desperation moves to win one for that QB either. Hearing them talk about Ezekiel like he was that type of move is scary. That's exactly what Joey Galloway was and we saw how that turned out. If you know your QB is on his last leg, you should probably be desperate for a new QB, not for a weapon to help him get his one last shot at a superbowl! It's just a scary thought that we invest in guys based on the thought of Romo being here and yet we really have no idea if he will make it through another season or not.
Elliott is far more than just a complimentary piece to Romo. Does Elliott not get to play with the next QB or something?
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Elliott is far more than just a complimentary piece to Romo. Does Elliott not get to play with the next QB or something?
He does, just like Galloway got to play with the next QB. The biggest problem is you're ignoring that next QB part, and worrying about a complimentary piece instead. With the short shelf life of a RB or a veteran WR that is concerning.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
He does, just like Galloway got to play with the next QB. The biggest problem is you're ignoring that next QB part, and worrying about a complimentary piece instead. With the short shelf life of a RB or a veteran WR that is concerning.
I don't think they are ignoring it. It's just that it would be unwise to give up the farm for one when you already have one for the near future, because you don't know if one will fall in your lap in the next couple years.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,486
Also, Galloway cost multiple firsts, whereas Elliott was simply arguably the best player on the board when we drafted.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,418
We definitely need a QB of the future, but when you have one still for the next 2 or 3 years you can't mortgage the farm to find his replacement. We aren't in desperation mode yet.

I'd have been in favor of taking one of the top 2 had they fallen to us; I'd have been flipping-tables mad had we given up a rams or eagles style deal. I'd have been almost as mad had we given up what it took to get lynch. I'd have been ok with a CHEAP trade up for cook or lynch.

You can't make a desperate move for a QB when you already have one.
Definitely agree with this.

If Goff or Wentz were there at 4 we had to take them, no question, but there is no way I would give up an entire draft to move up for either of those guys.

Then once Bosa went at 3 our options were basically Elliott, Ramsey, Buckner or trade down. I would've been perfectly fine trading down for a guy like Rankins but that didn't seem to materialize. My opinion on Ramsey is well known and shared by most on this board, I did not want to take a "versatile, hybrid" DB who showed limited to poor ball skills in college and then pigeon-hole him into being a Cover-3 CB who sticks to 1/3rd of the field all game. Buckner is a little trickier because I did like him but he was most definitely not the edge rusher most think we need so badly. He would've been a very solid strong-side DE who could have teamed nicely with Crawford as an interior rusher in nickel/dime, but he was not a seamless fit, especially not at DE, and his best position is probably as a 3-4 DE. On top of that we got a guy in Collins who looks to be a very good interior rusher himself later in the draft, and probably more of a schematic fit.

Even taking Romo out of the equation a guy like Elliott could really have an impact on our next "franchise" QB, assuming we go hard after a top prospect in about 3 years, but you can't just ignore the reality that Romo is our QB right now and we have a chance to win it all if he stays healthy.

Elliott will impact winning for the 2016 Cowboys more than Ramsey or Buckner and you could argue that he was the BPA, even if the position itself doesn't fit the draft selection. This was not a case of over-spending in order to try to maximize whatever "window" was left like when we blew up 2 drafts for Galloway, Elliott would've been gone by 8 at the latest and our only other two real options at 4 were somewhat questionable fits.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,465
Also, Galloway cost multiple firsts, whereas Elliott was simply arguably the best player on the board when we drafted.
Galloway was 2 first round picks.

Probably the equivalent of the 5th pick in the draft when it's all said and done right?
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,418
I don't think they are ignoring it. It's just that it would be unwise to give up the farm for one when you already have one for the near future, because you don't know if one will fall in your lap in the next couple years.
They definitely aren't ignoring it and I actually like the strategy they took.

They did extensive work on Goff, Wentz and Lynch, and seemed prepared to take any of the 3. Two teams paid massive prices to move up for the first 2, then we tried to move up for Lynch but it didn't work out. After that we didn't overreact and reach for a guy like Cook or Prescott at the top of the 3rd and instead waited until almost the 5th to take a developmental QB who most thought would go a round or two earlier.

Surprisingly I think the front office has a pretty clear view of our QB situation. My only concern is that they overvalue Prescott as the years go on but I don't think that will be the case considering the minimal investment and the fact that they moved on from McGee so quickly not too long ago.
 

Simpleton

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
17,418
Galloway was 2 first round picks.

Probably the equivalent of the 5th pick in the draft when it's all said and done right?
Maybe as far as the value chart but in reality giving up your 1st in back to back drafts has much more of an impact because you aren't picking until about 45-50+ two years in a row. It has a ripple effect on two separate drafts. And all that for a guy who was going on 29 and had never made a Pro Bowl.

Not exactly the same situation as drafting a 20 year old RB who was universally considered a top 5-10 prospect, and who many thought may have been the best RB prospect since Peterson.
 

mcnuttz

Senior Junior Mod
Staff member
Joined
Apr 8, 2013
Messages
15,667
He does, just like Galloway got to play with the next QB. The biggest problem is you're ignoring that next QB part, and worrying about a complimentary piece instead. With the short shelf life of a RB or a veteran WR that is concerning.
Trading for Galloway crippled their chances at trading up for a QB in the future.

They still have all their resources needed if the opportunity to trade up is there.
 

NoDak

Hotlinking' sonofabitch
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,933
He does, just like Galloway got to play with the next QB. The biggest problem is you're ignoring that next QB part, and worrying about a complimentary piece instead. With the short shelf life of a RB or a veteran WR that is concerning.
I don't think we ignored it. I have no doubt if the Eagles hadn't gave up the farm, Wentz would be a Cowboy today. We should be happy we didn't try a trade like that. Further proof that we weren't ignoring the position was that we tried to move up for Lynch. Again, be happy we didn't accept a brutal rape just to say we got one.

Aside from Wentz and Goff, who we had absolutely NO chance at, who else was an impact player that you would rather have had over Elliott?
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,732
I don't think we ignored it. I have no doubt if the Eagles hadn't gave up the farm, Wentz would be a Cowboy today. We should be happy we didn't try a trade like that. Further proof that we weren't ignoring the position was that we tried to move up for Lynch. Again, be happy we didn't accept a brutal rape just to say we got one.

Aside from Wentz and Goff, who we had absolutely NO chance at, who else was an impact player that you would rather have had over Elliott?
I completely agree. It's very encouraging. Not only that we didn't get raped in a trade, also that we seem to finally value the position at that level.
 
Top Bottom