2017 Random Cowboys Stuff Thread...

[townsend]

I seriously doubt it. We were tenth in the NFL in third down conversion rate. I guess it all depends on what he considers third and "long." I feel like on third and 15 for example our coaches had a pretty damn conservative game plan. I mean we usually ran a shit RB screen at that point last year. So then you have to ask yourself how you rate "success" or failure on third and long situations. Are you counting a QB throwing a pick as just as equally bad as a QB throwing for 10 yards on a third and 15?

I wonder if they ignored his runs on 3rd down to move the chains too.

 

[Smitty]

Since 2000, sure. For a long time there post Switzer, we had a good record.

Our problems have really jumped up in the last five or six years or so.

Do you have any evidence to back that statement up?

 

[Smitty]

Mike Francesa just said that Dak was the worst 3rd and long QB in the league last year. can anyone confirm?

I doubt it is true but I bet he's a lot lower than some would expect.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Do you have any evidence to back that statement up?

It's mostly off just memory. But what about that tweet recently about us having the most suspensions since 2010?

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/the-cowboys-and-the-ravens-lead-the-nfl-in-drug-related-suspensions/

 

[Smitty]

It's mostly off just memory. But what about that tweet recently about us having the most suspensions since 2010?

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/the-cowboys-and-the-ravens-lead-the-nfl-in-drug-related-suspensions/

Like half the suspensions and waaaaay more than half the total games missed (like 50 out of 70 total if memory serves me correct) were from exactly two players: Randy Gregory and Rolando McClain. Add in the third player contributing to our negative image, Greg Hardy, and you have the vast, vast bulk of our problems with those three guys.

I mean, you can't take them out of the equation when crunching raw numbers, but I would dismiss pretty summarily anyone who argued that those three guys are somehow representative of the overall culture or chemistry situation in Dallas. All three were desperation acquisitions for a team thinking it was a piece or two away on defense from a Super Bowl, and two of them were purged pretty quickly -- Hardy after one season and McClain after two.

Gregory is a different story as the team realizes the guy has demons and seems committed to try and rehabilitate him but is certainly not letting him poison the atmosphere.

If you take those three guys out of the equation we are no more than average or probably in fact well below average. So while you kinda can't take them out -- it's still not an argument that the team is running amok or that the situation is out of control. There were three very calculated risks that were handled quickly and efficiently once they became problems.

The rest of the stuff -- Carroll, Whitehead, Lewis, Irving, Wilson... is mostly par for the course around the league in terms of nature and frequency.

 

[data]

Just like Gregory, McClain and Hardy were calculated risks because we were desperate, the same goes for Carroll, Lewis, Whitehead, Irvin and Wilson.

We were desperate to have someone run the Jet Sweep (Whitehead), desperate to have a CB replace our defectors (Lewis and Carroll), desperate for pass rush due to Gregory being unavailable (Irving) and desperate for depth due to suspended McClain (Wilson).

The way I look at it, we really have the highest score in the league, possibly NFL history over a seven year period, with zero games suspended and zero arrests. Kudos, Garrett and staff.

 

[Smitty]

Just like Gregory, McClain and Hardy were calculated risks because we were desperate, the same goes for Carroll, Lewis, Whitehead, Irvin and Wilson.

We were desperate to have someone run the Jet Sweep (Whitehead), desperate to have a CB replace our defectors (Lewis and Carroll), desperate for pass rush due to Gregory being unavailable (Irving) and desperate for depth due to suspended McClain (Wilson).

The way I look at it, we really have the highest score in the league, possibly NFL history over a seven year period, with zero games suspended and zero arrests. Kudos, Garrett and staff.

You have the worst sarcasm ever. It's never even particularly insightful.

 

[data]

You have the worst sarcasm ever. It's never even particularly insightful.

I thought yours was sarcasm and a commendable effort, I shall say.

 

[Smitty]

Anyway, it's missing the point, which is, the raw numbers seem to indicate runaway suspension totals and therefore a team that is out of control.

In reality, any portion of our suspension total that is above the mean is attributable to three guys who are no longer in the locker room or having any effect on the club. So how could those raw numbers be used to complain that team management can't control its players? The worst offenders are all removed. What's left and tolerated on the team is the same that all teams tolerate relatively speaking.

What it really says is that we have a higher tolerance for taking chances on these guys, not that we tolerate more trouble out of them if the gambles backfire. Come on, like any other team in the league would cut Orlando Scandrick or David Irving if it happened to them. Please. MAYBE some team would cut Wilson, but definitely not most.

 

[data]

https://www.google.com/amp/people.com/human-interest/modern-familys-eric-stonestreet-and-cowboys-qb-dak-prescott-team-up-to-fight-cancer-and-honor-their-moms/amp/

 

[peplaw06]

Anyway, it's missing the point, which is, the raw numbers seem to indicate runaway suspension totals and therefore a team that is out of control.

In reality, any portion of our suspension total that is above the mean is attributable to three guys who are no longer in the locker room or having any effect on the club. So how could those raw numbers be used to complain that team management can't control its players? The worst offenders are all removed. What's left and tolerated on the team is the same that all teams tolerate relatively speaking.

What it really says is that we have a higher tolerance for taking chances on these guys, not that we tolerate more trouble out of them if the gambles backfire. Come on, like any other team in the league would cut Orlando Scandrick or David Irving if it happened to them. Please. MAYBE some team would cut Wilson, but definitely not most.

There is no aruging the raw numbers show runaway suspension totals.

You can spin it to try to defend the team's actions or whatever, but the numbers don't lie here.

And it's not like the team made any sort of statement with Hardy or McClain by simply letting their contracts run out. Gregory is still employed by the team. WGAF if he's allowed to be in the locker room or not? The gambles have absolutely backfired on these three guys, and yeah, the Cowboys tolerated (or are tolerating) it longer than they should have on all three.

 

[Smitty]

Yeah, no one is saying that the numbers are lying, just that they don't mean much in terms of the discipline level of this current team roster, relative to every other team in the league. That's not spin, it's just logic. What on earth does the suspension of Rolando McClain for 30 of the suspension games by himself (out of our 70 total) say about the staff's control over the team today? Absolutely nothing; McClain never poisoned our locker room. He wasn't demonstrative of a lack of control because at all times they knew exactly what he was; a risk they were willing to take so long as it didn't affect others.

What it means is that they took more chances on guys like Hardy, McClain, and Gregory, and because those guys couldn't get it together, they are gone.

The point here is that you have some, even on this board, saying "look at the Wilson arrest, look at the Irving suspension. These individual anecdotes, plus the raw suspension numbers, prove that the Cowboys aren't discliplined/the staff doesn't have control."

No, it doesn't prove that. What it proves is that they took three chances on players most other teams wouldn't have given chances too. Those players aren't here, so they cannot be used to indicate lack of control because the fact that they are gone in fact does indicate control. And the remaining anecdotes are things all or most teams would tolerate in terms of nature and frequency.

So the only real valid complaint is that the Cowboys may be suffering because they have a tendency to bring in and rely on players who end up being salary cap dead weights because they aren't on the field and the team misses a few extra expected contribution starts. However given our records of 12-4 and 13-3 in recent years I'd say it's not too big a problem.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Sounds to me like you kind of were saying the numbers were lying earlier when you claimed if you just took a couple of outliers away we were about average.

Now you're saying the numbers are legit, but the bad characters haven't hurt so they don't matter.

Personally, I'd be fine if they'd just admit they've taken on more questionable characters lately because they thought their ability made it worth the risk. It's the constant disingenuous preaching of "RKG" and "character" that gets old.

 

[Cotton]

Sounds to me like you kind of were saying the numbers were lying earlier when you claimed if you just took a couple of outliers away we were about average.

Now you're saying the numbers are legit, but the bad characters haven't hurt so they don't matter.

Personally, I'd be fine if they'd just admit they've taken on more questionable characters lately because they thought their ability made it worth the risk. It's the constant disingenuous preaching of "RKG" and "character" that gets old.

Hell, Jerry admits to taking risks all the time, likening them to the oil industry. They fess up to the risks.... they just don't give a shit what the fans think about them. That should piss you off more than the RKG stuff. It's definitely more of a slap to the face.

 

[data]

So the only real valid complaint is that the Cowboys may be suffering because they have a tendency to bring in and rely on players who end up being salary cap dead weights because they aren't on the field and the team misses a few extra expected contribution starts.

50 games = a few. This is insightful sarcasm at its finest. Bravo.

However given our records of 12-4 and 13-3 in recent years I'd say it's not too big a problem.

Everyone complains about our shitty defense, but, likewise we went 12-4 and 13-3 in recent years with them, so I'd say it's not too big of a problem.

You lose a little here with players you're banking on to provide QB pressure (Hardy, Gregory, Lawrence) unable to get their shit together to prevent Aaron Rodgers that extra second to convert, lose a little with unnecessary penalties or missed tackles or inferior play by substitute players on-field struggling with suspensions/injuries, lose a little with a spiked play, lose a little with three 2nd round TE busts and (insert Al Pacino voice) it's the difference between winning and failure to advance to the NFCC with single score losses to the Packers and Giants.

 

[bbgun]

Sounds to me like you kind of were saying the numbers were lying earlier when you claimed if you just took a couple of outliers away we were about average.

Now you're saying the numbers are legit, but the bad characters haven't hurt so they don't matter.

Personally, I'd be fine if they'd just admit they've taken on more questionable characters lately because they thought their ability made it worth the risk. It's the constant disingenuous preaching of "RKG" and "character" that gets old.

McClain hasn't formally been released yet. That's all you need to know.

 

[Smitty]

Sounds to me like you kind of were saying the numbers were lying earlier when you claimed if you just took a couple of outliers away we were about average.

Now you're saying the numbers are legit, but the bad characters haven't hurt so they don't matter.

Personally, I'd be fine if they'd just admit they've taken on more questionable characters lately because they thought their ability made it worth the risk. It's the constant disingenuous preaching of "RKG" and "character" that gets old.

Well I guess that's exactly my point. They've been willing to take the risk on a couple high risk, high reward types, and as is usually the case with high risk, high reward, the gambles came up snake eyes. I don't find it particularly disingenuous when they make the "RKG" mantra a focal point the majority of the time... they definitely place a high value on high character guys, team captains, and team leaders. Guys like Byron Jones, Awuzie, etc. It's only been untrue with a handful of exceptions. You can't say the team is lying about having RKGs just because they don't cut Scandrick or Irving.

And even if they are being disingenuous, who cares? They don't have an obligation to be honest with the media; and that's really what it's about. The media wants answers and Ah-Ha soundbytes they can use in scathing articles. The fans support most of these moves; or was I wrong in remembering the support for drafting Gregory and signing Hardy on this board? Cause it was like fucking unanimous here.

What would give anyone reason for concern is if these gambles were having a negative effect. As far as "lack of control," I see none, these anecdotes do not demonstrate it at all. The Scandrick/Irving/etc examples are all par for the course league wide. The Hardy/McClain/Gregory ones were minimal if at all, and all have been removed (Well, not Gregory, but like I said, the team is clearly trying to rehabilitate him and his addiction issues. Didn't Jones compare him to a puppy once?).

The bigger net negative I can see is the loss of expected starts/snaps. You have a player going into the season or in training camp, counting against your salary cap and max roster size, and then can't use him come game time. This is a pretty minor loss, though, because it's not like we signed Greg Hardy instead of Jason Pierre Paul or Justin Houston that offseason... Hardy took the roster spot and cap space of probably an undrafted free agent... it was Hardy or no one, essentially. Same with McClain, we didn't choose him over another talented LB, we chose him over having no one. So when he was gone, it's hard to say we were "missing out" on quality starts. We could have avoided the whole incident by not signing him... and still getting zero quality starts from some nobody.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Well I guess that's exactly my point. They've been willing to take the risk on a couple high risk, high reward types,

A couple?

Again, it's not "wrong" to roll the dice on high upside players who have character flaws. We all know that can work if they hit. Just don't constantly tell us that finding "right kind of guys" with "great character" is some foundational philosophy of your team when you're doing almost the exact opposite.

But hey, if you don't mind a snake oil salesman lying to you, then no wonder it's all good. I find it kind of offensive.

 

[Smitty]

A couple?

What's funny about that? Gregory, Hardy, McClain.

It's not exactly a huge amount. Am I missing some?

Irving, Lewis, Scandrick, Carroll, etc, do not rise to the level of high risk guys.

Again, it's not "wrong" to roll the dice on high upside players who have character flaws. We all know that can work if they hit. Just don't constantly tell us that finding "right kind of guys" with "great character" is some foundational philosophy of your team when you're doing almost the exact opposite.

I don't agree that rolling the dice on Gregory, Hardy and McClain is the "exact opposite" when they do obviously award bonus points in the draft process to high character guys frequently... again... Jones, Awuzie, etc.

But hey, if you don't mind a snake oil salesman lying to you, then no wonder it's all good. I find it kind of offensive.

I guess I'm just not stupid enough to think or expect everything that is said at a press conference to be 100% true. In fact, I expect and support the team to be deceitful through the media. I also supported the signing of Hardy and the drafting of Gregory, so for me to sit here and pretend like I had a problem with it would be hypocritical. By the way... so did almost everyone on this board.

But I also recognize they have a core of pretty strong character guys. Witten, Prescott, Tyron Smith, Travis Frederick, Zack Martin, Sean Lee, Byron Jones... Carr was a high character guy too. Those guys are their best, highest paid players. Dez is a guy who is more of a handful, but he eats, drinks, sleeps competitive football and wants to win, so I think that puts him in the RKG camp too. So I fail to see how placing a priority on making a core of these high character guys means that when they do take a few risks, this makes them liars. Especially when I would have signed off on those risks as well.

And as I said elsewhere, even if it did make them liars, who gives a shit? As long as it doesn't have an effect in their locker room or on the field, I wouldn't even care if they are liars. What is your expectation that would make you feel offended?

 

[data]

Well I guess that's exactly my point. They've been willing to take the risk on a couple high risk, high reward types, and as is usually the case with high risk, high reward, the gambles came up snake eyes.

Funny enough, I'm on your side and okay with signing calculated risks and the negative repercussions not being an indicator of bad culture/losing a team. The danger is when you depend on these risks to be your primary contributor instead of a Plan B to something more solid. When it comes to pass rusher, we traded up for Demarcus Lawrence/Anthony Spencer, developed our own guy David Irving and took a good calculated risk on Hardy. Good game plan to get our pass rusher yet we rolled snake eyes on all of them. Frustrating. In the end, though, our failures enabled Aaron Rodgers to eliminate us twice in the playoffs - gimpy legged 2014 and w/o a RB & Jordy Nelson 2016. One sack from any of the aforementioned and we're going to the NFCC...maybe it's deserved karma for being unappreciative bitches while we had a HOFer in Ware.

Conversely, we've relied on nothing but risks post-Aikman (Henson, Hutch, Leaf) for a franchise QB and somehow struck lightning in a bottle twice with an undrafted FA and a 4th rounder.