In January I wrote a pretty dismal post about the 2011 Cowboys and how, without a significant change in the culture of the organization, Dallas fans should not get their deep postseason hopes up. As far as I can tell, such a change has not taken place. Even so, as I sit here 12 hours before the NFL season kicks off, I have picked the Cowboys to win the NFC East. My reasoning is quite simple, and is not a decision I would fight to the death for. The Cowboys tend to make the playoffs about every other year. That's about it. They should have made it last year and didn't. I expect this to be a season where they maybe shouldn't and do. I picked them as division champs instead of a wild card purely because I'm not completely sold on any NFC East team. The Giants didn't even look like a Super Bowl-caliber team until they actually got there. The Eagles came on strong late last season, but have been very up-and-down since acquiring Michael Vick - a man who has trouble staying healthy. On paper the Redskins should be improved, their most notable addition this season is rookie quarterback Robert Griffin III, but I don't see them as a last-to-first kind of team.
So there's my brief intro to the 2012 Cowboys season (following an off-season in which I followed pretty much NO football goings on whatsoever). Every year my wife and I make predictions about the coming season and score them in our own way. At the end of the year a prize waits for the highest scorer. Here are my wife's and my entirely un-expert predictions for all 8 NFL division winners, all 4 wild card playoff makers, both conference champs, Super Bowl champs, and Super Bowl MVP (with brief comments on my picks -- I'm not qualified to analyze hers!).
AFC NORTH
Her: Pittsburgh Steelers
Me: Baltimore Ravens
I suspect the Ravens offense is finally catching up to its defense, which could be scary for Big Ben's Steelers.
AFC SOUTH
Her: Tennessee Titans
Me: Houston Texans
The Colts shouldn't be in the running, even with the acquisition of Andrew Luck. This might be a Tennessee/Houston toss-up.
AFC EAST
Her: New England Patriots
Me: New England Patriots
They usually win this division. Buffalo seems shaky. Miami always seems shaky. The Jets are an inconsistent circus. Give me Brady & the Pats.
AFC WEST
Her: Denver Broncos
Me: Denver Broncos
It wasn't until considering all four AFC West teams that my wife and I decided it's just a bad division. Might as well root for our city's Broncos and its new hero, Peyton Manning.
AFC WILDCARDS
Her: Houston Texans, Baltimore Ravens
Me: Pittsburgh Steelers, San Diego Chargers
Don't really know why.
NFC NORTH
Her: Green Bay Packers
Me: Green Bay Packers
15-1 last season, with tons of injuries. Don't see any other North teams making a serious challenge.
NFC SOUTH
Her: Atlanta Falcons
Me: Atlanta Falcons
Tough call between the Falcons & Saints, but the suspensions and issues with the Saints over the off season tilts it toward the birds.
NFC EAST
Her: Philadelphia Eagles (we're still on speaking terms... barely)
Me: Dallas Cowboys
What can I say? I'm an optimist even when I know I shouldn't be.
NFC WEST
Her: San Francisco 49ers
Me: San Francisco 49ers
In a weak division, the '9ers are the only strong team.
NFC WILDCARDS
Her: New York Giants, Dallas Cowboys
Me: New Orleans Saints, Detroit Lions
Can't believe I don't have two NFC East teams in the playoffs.
AFC CHAMPS
Her: New England Patriots
Me: Denver Broncos
Go big or go home, I guess
NFC CHAMPS
Her: Green Bay Packers
Me: Green Bay Packers
SUPER BOWL CHAMPS & MVP
Her: Green Bay, Aaron Rodgers
Me: Green Bay, Aaron Rogers
If he does that stupid discount double-check move I'll definitely groan, though.
Wednesday, September 5, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Colin Cowherd is right about Romo
Last night Cowboys receiver Dez Bryant was arrested and charged with misdemeanor domestic violence. This morning on his radio show Colin Cowherd used the event as an opportunity to talk about Tony Romo. Here's the brief version of his argument:
No, Romo is not as good a quarterback as Eli Manning, but he's much closer than most people think. At first glance Manning looks leaps and bounds better, with his two Super Bowl rings, while Romo struggles to make the playoffs each year and only has one postseason win in his career. But what we must consider is that Manning plays for a well-run organization with excellent ownership, excellent management, an excellent coach, and almost always has a level-headed and talented supporting cast. Romo, on the other hand, has to overcome a smart but arrogant and overreaching owner, and no real GM to speak of. He's had to put up with three years of the T.O. show, four years of incompetent marshmallow-man coach Wade Phillips, and his supporting cast, while often talented, almost always has ridiculously stupid and immature off-field issues, as this latest Dez Bryant debacle illustrates.
Cowherd is spot on in this case. I agree that Romo's no Eli, but he is better than most of the country thinks he is. If he had even a half-decent organization around him he'd have more than one playoff win, and likely a Super Bowl ring.
No, Romo is not as good a quarterback as Eli Manning, but he's much closer than most people think. At first glance Manning looks leaps and bounds better, with his two Super Bowl rings, while Romo struggles to make the playoffs each year and only has one postseason win in his career. But what we must consider is that Manning plays for a well-run organization with excellent ownership, excellent management, an excellent coach, and almost always has a level-headed and talented supporting cast. Romo, on the other hand, has to overcome a smart but arrogant and overreaching owner, and no real GM to speak of. He's had to put up with three years of the T.O. show, four years of incompetent marshmallow-man coach Wade Phillips, and his supporting cast, while often talented, almost always has ridiculously stupid and immature off-field issues, as this latest Dez Bryant debacle illustrates.
Cowherd is spot on in this case. I agree that Romo's no Eli, but he is better than most of the country thinks he is. If he had even a half-decent organization around him he'd have more than one playoff win, and likely a Super Bowl ring.
Thursday, May 3, 2012
One player away from greatness?
In last week's NFL draft the Cowboys traded up in the first round to select cornerback Morris Claiborne with the #6 pick. This was the only pick the Cowboys made in the draft that has made any real splash. It seems that almost everyone has an extreme view of this transaction. Analysts either love the pick because Claiborne was by far the best shut-down corner in the draft, and it's an area Dallas definitely needed to improve from last season. Others think they traded away too much for one good player when they have many positions they must reinforce to be contenders this season. So the overarching question being asked is, "Are the Cowboys one player away?" If Claiborne is really all they need to take a big step forward, then they will almost definitely make the playoffs this season (they were only a win over the eventual Super Bowl champions away from making them last season).
In light of all of this, I have to point you back to the THIS post I wrote when the Cowboys' season ended in January. Everyone who spends the offseason analyzing the NFL seems to have forgotten that the entire team's culture has been nosediving for years. So are they one player away? Not at all. Talent has never been the question of this team. I'm fine with the pick, as it seems that Claiborne is indeed a very good corner (and I spent a good chunk of last season being irritated with the ease with which other teams passed against the Cowboys). But, do I think he will push them over some kind of hump and help them get deep into the playoffs? I don't see how he can. Read my previous post. There is no evidence that the culture has made any positive changes, so I'll stick with what I said then. Until that happens, there's no real reason for optimism with this team. As someone who has began every NFL season for his 28 years with optimism about his team, this is tough for me to write, but that doesn't make it any less true.
So when you hear the analysts telling you the ways Dallas has improved their weak spots this offseason, listen closely. If they're not telling you how the front office has changed its approach and philosophy, then don't get your hopes up. They'll probably win a number of games. They could make the playoffs and even win the division. Still, don't be fooled.
In light of all of this, I have to point you back to the THIS post I wrote when the Cowboys' season ended in January. Everyone who spends the offseason analyzing the NFL seems to have forgotten that the entire team's culture has been nosediving for years. So are they one player away? Not at all. Talent has never been the question of this team. I'm fine with the pick, as it seems that Claiborne is indeed a very good corner (and I spent a good chunk of last season being irritated with the ease with which other teams passed against the Cowboys). But, do I think he will push them over some kind of hump and help them get deep into the playoffs? I don't see how he can. Read my previous post. There is no evidence that the culture has made any positive changes, so I'll stick with what I said then. Until that happens, there's no real reason for optimism with this team. As someone who has began every NFL season for his 28 years with optimism about his team, this is tough for me to write, but that doesn't make it any less true.
So when you hear the analysts telling you the ways Dallas has improved their weak spots this offseason, listen closely. If they're not telling you how the front office has changed its approach and philosophy, then don't get your hopes up. They'll probably win a number of games. They could make the playoffs and even win the division. Still, don't be fooled.
Thursday, April 26, 2012
Drafting
Two posts in one day! You're welcome.
Today is the beginning of the 2012 NFL draft. The draft seems to get bigger and more popular every year, but I grow less and less interested every year. Here are the simple reasons why: None of us will know how well our teams did for three years. What's the biggest deal this season? Andrew Luck, who's sure to be a first-year starter and a very good long-term quarterback. The next biggest deal? Robert Griffin III, who's expected to be almost as good (if not better) than Luck. But where's the drama? We already know when and by whom those two guys will be taken. So, should I really be on the edge of my seat tonight? It's almost like a presidential inauguration without the speech. The guy's already been elected, this just makes it official.
Everyone and their brother now does a mock draft every year. What's funny to me is that no one's ever completely right. Ever. Even guys like Mel Kiper and Todd McShay who make millions are basically (as I've said before) glorified weathermen. In fact, they're worse than weathermen, because whether they're right or wrong doesn't actually matter in the slightest. I remember a couple of years ago when the official draft edition of Sports Illustrated came out. Between the time their official mock draft was written and the time the magazine showed up in mailboxes, the team with the #1 pick had agreed to a deal with the guy they were going to choose... and it wasn't who SI thought they were going to choose! They got the #1 pick wrong! And once that happens, the wheels come off the wagon, because it changes absolutely everything about what teams 2-32 do with their 1st round picks.
So, I just don't get into it. I don't watch a lot of college football. I don't care who Kiper thinks the 2nd and 3rd best offensive tackles in the draft are, and whether my team goes with a lineman or a safety, I'm not going to care until they show me they can play well in the NFL. I don't have cable and will not be watching the draft. My football curiosity might cause me to look up the names of the guys taken in the first round tonight, but other than Luck & Griffin, I won't have really heard of very many of them, and I definitely won't care which team chose whom.
Today is the beginning of the 2012 NFL draft. The draft seems to get bigger and more popular every year, but I grow less and less interested every year. Here are the simple reasons why: None of us will know how well our teams did for three years. What's the biggest deal this season? Andrew Luck, who's sure to be a first-year starter and a very good long-term quarterback. The next biggest deal? Robert Griffin III, who's expected to be almost as good (if not better) than Luck. But where's the drama? We already know when and by whom those two guys will be taken. So, should I really be on the edge of my seat tonight? It's almost like a presidential inauguration without the speech. The guy's already been elected, this just makes it official.
Everyone and their brother now does a mock draft every year. What's funny to me is that no one's ever completely right. Ever. Even guys like Mel Kiper and Todd McShay who make millions are basically (as I've said before) glorified weathermen. In fact, they're worse than weathermen, because whether they're right or wrong doesn't actually matter in the slightest. I remember a couple of years ago when the official draft edition of Sports Illustrated came out. Between the time their official mock draft was written and the time the magazine showed up in mailboxes, the team with the #1 pick had agreed to a deal with the guy they were going to choose... and it wasn't who SI thought they were going to choose! They got the #1 pick wrong! And once that happens, the wheels come off the wagon, because it changes absolutely everything about what teams 2-32 do with their 1st round picks.
So, I just don't get into it. I don't watch a lot of college football. I don't care who Kiper thinks the 2nd and 3rd best offensive tackles in the draft are, and whether my team goes with a lineman or a safety, I'm not going to care until they show me they can play well in the NFL. I don't have cable and will not be watching the draft. My football curiosity might cause me to look up the names of the guys taken in the first round tonight, but other than Luck & Griffin, I won't have really heard of very many of them, and I definitely won't care which team chose whom.
Scheduling. Sorta.
A couple of weeks ago, the NFL announced the full schedule for the 2012 season. I've read five or six different football fans who have posted on various social media something about their feelings toward the opponents their team will face this year. None of them said anything about when their team is playing someone, or if they have a particularly difficult stretch.
This leads me to believe that these fans I've come across think that it isn't until April that we can know who our team's opponents will be for the following season, and that's just patently false. I can tell you 14 of the Cowboys' 16 opponents for every season in the future (or at least for as long as the current scheduling format remains the same). The second that any given regular season ends, I can tell you the last 2 opponents for the following year. That means that the only new information we received a couple of weeks ago was the dates that our teams would play, and on what tv station. If you truly need that information now (i.e., if you are scheduling your November Sunday afternoons and you have to plan around your team), then you have a weird life.
So here's the basics of how you can know who your team will play in seasons to come without having to wait for the league to announce it in April:
1. Each team plays the other 3 teams in its own division twice (one home, one away each). 6 games
2. Each team plays the 4 teams in another division within its conference on a rotating basis. Last season the NFC East played the NFC West. This season they'll play the NFC South. In 2013 they'll play the NFC North. In 2014 the rotation begins again, and they'll play the NFC West. Pretty easy. Two of these games will be home, and 2 will be away (which I think is determined primarily on where they played the last time they faced these teams). 4 games
3. Each team plays the 4 teams in a division from the opposing conference on a rotating basis. Last season the NFC East played the AFC East. This season they'll play the AFC North. In 2013 they'll play the AFC West, and in 2014 they'll play the AFC South before rotating back to the AFC East in 2015. Two of these will be home, 2 will be away. 4 games.
And that's 14 games. So we know 14 of the 16 teams Dallas will face in 2013, 2014, 2015 and beyond until they change the format. But what about the last two opponents?
The final two opponents are determined by final regular season standings. Each team will play the teams from the two other divisions they do not face within their conference who finished in the same divisional spot as them the previous year. I'll simplify. Last season the Cowboys finished 3rd in the NFC East. Other 3rd place teams in the NFC were the Bears (North), Panthers (South) and Seahawks (West). Since the Cowboys play the NFC South this season, they're already playing the Panthers. The final two opponents they'll face are therefore the Bears and the Seahawks.
All this to say, if you're truly an NFL fan, there's no reason to get all excited about the release of the schedule in April, because you already know who your team's playing. The only interesting part is how the level of difficulty in schedule is impacted by when they play (when they get their bye, if they have a string of away games, or a string of especially tough games after the weather gets cold, etc.).
This leads me to believe that these fans I've come across think that it isn't until April that we can know who our team's opponents will be for the following season, and that's just patently false. I can tell you 14 of the Cowboys' 16 opponents for every season in the future (or at least for as long as the current scheduling format remains the same). The second that any given regular season ends, I can tell you the last 2 opponents for the following year. That means that the only new information we received a couple of weeks ago was the dates that our teams would play, and on what tv station. If you truly need that information now (i.e., if you are scheduling your November Sunday afternoons and you have to plan around your team), then you have a weird life.
So here's the basics of how you can know who your team will play in seasons to come without having to wait for the league to announce it in April:
1. Each team plays the other 3 teams in its own division twice (one home, one away each). 6 games
2. Each team plays the 4 teams in another division within its conference on a rotating basis. Last season the NFC East played the NFC West. This season they'll play the NFC South. In 2013 they'll play the NFC North. In 2014 the rotation begins again, and they'll play the NFC West. Pretty easy. Two of these games will be home, and 2 will be away (which I think is determined primarily on where they played the last time they faced these teams). 4 games
3. Each team plays the 4 teams in a division from the opposing conference on a rotating basis. Last season the NFC East played the AFC East. This season they'll play the AFC North. In 2013 they'll play the AFC West, and in 2014 they'll play the AFC South before rotating back to the AFC East in 2015. Two of these will be home, 2 will be away. 4 games.
And that's 14 games. So we know 14 of the 16 teams Dallas will face in 2013, 2014, 2015 and beyond until they change the format. But what about the last two opponents?
The final two opponents are determined by final regular season standings. Each team will play the teams from the two other divisions they do not face within their conference who finished in the same divisional spot as them the previous year. I'll simplify. Last season the Cowboys finished 3rd in the NFC East. Other 3rd place teams in the NFC were the Bears (North), Panthers (South) and Seahawks (West). Since the Cowboys play the NFC South this season, they're already playing the Panthers. The final two opponents they'll face are therefore the Bears and the Seahawks.
All this to say, if you're truly an NFL fan, there's no reason to get all excited about the release of the schedule in April, because you already know who your team's playing. The only interesting part is how the level of difficulty in schedule is impacted by when they play (when they get their bye, if they have a string of away games, or a string of especially tough games after the weather gets cold, etc.).
Monday, January 9, 2012
To the "experts:" Suck it up & admit you were wrong
I enjoy listening to sports radio. I often have Mike & Mike on the TV in the morning while I'm getting myself ready for the day. If it's later in the morning, I watch or listen to Colin Cowherd. In the car throughout the day I often listen to bits of Dan Patrick, Scott Van Pelt, and Doug Gottlieb.
I used to listen to this stuff and pretty much take it all in, and often agree with most of what I heard. Radio guys have a way of expressing their opinions well, and they can be quite persuasive. Over time, however, I've become much more critical, as I constantly hear inconsistencies and illogical conclusions.
For the last week, the biggest story line in most of these shows has been one apparently indisputable fact: The Steelers would absolutely smoke the Broncos. They're bigger, they're more physical, they have a defense that will shut Tebow down. They have Big Ben as their quarterback, and they will definitely win by three touchdowns.
I just didn't see it. It would seem that not one of these experts had watched Pittsburgh play for the last month. Big Ben has a terrible injury to his ankle that most players wouldn't go onto the field with. He's literally hobbling around like an 80 year old with a broken hip. The Steeler offense scored 9 points last week against Cleveland. Cleveland! I understood the Steelers being favored, but by multiple touchdowns? Didn't make sense to me.
Well, in case you live under a rock, the Broncos beat the Steelers yesterday, and they did it by scoring 29 points. They did it by passing the ball (which Tebow can't do, especially against one of the better pass defenses in the league).
And what am I hearing today? "Yeah, but the Steelers are a shell of themselves. They're banged up. Roethlisberger can't move like he normally can... yada yada yada." None of those things were surprises (Ben's been injured for weeks), but they didn't stop you from talking ad nauseum about how far superior the Steelers were to the Broncos.
I'm not saying the Broncos are a Super Bowl contender, I'm just trying to point out that I also didn't see Pittsburgh as "the team to beat" in the AFC, though it seems like everyone else thought they were. And "experts" should be more honest.
I used to listen to this stuff and pretty much take it all in, and often agree with most of what I heard. Radio guys have a way of expressing their opinions well, and they can be quite persuasive. Over time, however, I've become much more critical, as I constantly hear inconsistencies and illogical conclusions.
For the last week, the biggest story line in most of these shows has been one apparently indisputable fact: The Steelers would absolutely smoke the Broncos. They're bigger, they're more physical, they have a defense that will shut Tebow down. They have Big Ben as their quarterback, and they will definitely win by three touchdowns.
I just didn't see it. It would seem that not one of these experts had watched Pittsburgh play for the last month. Big Ben has a terrible injury to his ankle that most players wouldn't go onto the field with. He's literally hobbling around like an 80 year old with a broken hip. The Steeler offense scored 9 points last week against Cleveland. Cleveland! I understood the Steelers being favored, but by multiple touchdowns? Didn't make sense to me.
Well, in case you live under a rock, the Broncos beat the Steelers yesterday, and they did it by scoring 29 points. They did it by passing the ball (which Tebow can't do, especially against one of the better pass defenses in the league).
And what am I hearing today? "Yeah, but the Steelers are a shell of themselves. They're banged up. Roethlisberger can't move like he normally can... yada yada yada." None of those things were surprises (Ben's been injured for weeks), but they didn't stop you from talking ad nauseum about how far superior the Steelers were to the Broncos.
I'm not saying the Broncos are a Super Bowl contender, I'm just trying to point out that I also didn't see Pittsburgh as "the team to beat" in the AFC, though it seems like everyone else thought they were. And "experts" should be more honest.
Monday, January 2, 2012
This was a much worse season than you think
The Cowboys finished the season third in their division, with their only division wins coming against the fairly awful Redskins (in one of those games, the 'Boys did not score a touchdown, and the other required overtime). The Cowboys gave away big late-game leads to the Jets, Lions and Giants. They lost games they should have won to the Patriots and the Cardinals.
For years the Cowboys have been listed among the league's most talented. For decades they've been the most-watched team in football. Of the seven highest-rated Sunday Night Football games (in the 6-year history of NBC's broadcast), the Cowboys have played in six, including the three highest. It's clear that Dallas does not have to succeed to remain popular. And unfortunately, the culture of Jerry Jones's squad reflects that sentiment perfectly.
Good teams take the talent they have and win games. The Cowboys, for 15 years in a row now, take the talent they have and sell tickets.
I'm not sure I have a silver bullet for fixing the problem, because it's system-wide. It starts with Jerry, and it infects everything below him. His jewel-encrusted stadium, his front-office staff, his coaches, and his players.
I don't think a season and a half is enough to provide a fair assessment of Jason Garrett. Even if it is, I wouldn't think he should be fired for his performance. But I wonder if the organization needs to clean house and start over.
The defense isn't entirely (or even primarily) Rob Ryan's fault. The defense showed flashes of brilliance. And I don't know if there's anything Ryan can do about a professional football player, Abram Elam, wrapping up Ahmad Bradshaw in the backfield for a certain loss, but instead somehow letting him go and run for a touchdown instead. I don't hold Ryan responsible for a 9-year veteran, Terence Newman, being neutralized once runners discovered they simply have to jump in the air to avoid him. I'm not convinced his game plans were always successful (see Eagles 34, Cowboys 7), but when they were, his personnel simply couldn't execute.
This season was worse than you think because even a little bit of mental toughness would have led to 12 or 13 wins, and instead we saw only 8. Tony Romo had a pre-season attitude that made it clear he was ready to take the next step in his career. He was more focused, more mature, and more ready than he's ever been for a season. He had a great year, but he almost single-handedly gave away two games (Jets, Lions)*. Demarcus Ware was in the hunt for most of the year not only to lead the league in sacks, but to break Michael Strahan's single-season sack record, but he mostly disappeared late in the season.
Usually when a team misses the playoffs, they look over the season and coaches determine where they need to get better, how to improve through the draft and through free agency, and how to develop the team toward a more successful next year. The Cowboys have been trying that formula for years. There are trouble spots that need to be addressed for sure, but the Cowboys trouble is not that they need to get more talented. They need to become mentally tougher. They need an intensity and a winning instinct that simply isn't there. How else can you explain completely laying down to a hated division rival like the Eagles twice in one season? How can you explain acting like a win over the Patriots is unnecessary? And how can you explain giving up 21 points in the first half in a game that, practically speaking, is a playoff game, while scoring absolutely zero?
The answer for the Dallas Cowboys cannot be to do what you're supposed to do in the offseason. There needs to be some serious soul-searching. I'm well aware of the explosive abilities and amazing talent of many players on this team, but it has become clear that there is no reason for optimism as a fan. Until the culture of the Cowboys organization takes a dramatic turn, we will not see an impressive ending to any Dallas season.
*Romo's one of the last on my personal list of who's to blame for the crappy bits of this season, so don't think I'm calling him the goat. I do think his mental mistakes in big points of certain games illustrate the cultural problems described in this post.
For years the Cowboys have been listed among the league's most talented. For decades they've been the most-watched team in football. Of the seven highest-rated Sunday Night Football games (in the 6-year history of NBC's broadcast), the Cowboys have played in six, including the three highest. It's clear that Dallas does not have to succeed to remain popular. And unfortunately, the culture of Jerry Jones's squad reflects that sentiment perfectly.
Good teams take the talent they have and win games. The Cowboys, for 15 years in a row now, take the talent they have and sell tickets.
I'm not sure I have a silver bullet for fixing the problem, because it's system-wide. It starts with Jerry, and it infects everything below him. His jewel-encrusted stadium, his front-office staff, his coaches, and his players.
I don't think a season and a half is enough to provide a fair assessment of Jason Garrett. Even if it is, I wouldn't think he should be fired for his performance. But I wonder if the organization needs to clean house and start over.
The defense isn't entirely (or even primarily) Rob Ryan's fault. The defense showed flashes of brilliance. And I don't know if there's anything Ryan can do about a professional football player, Abram Elam, wrapping up Ahmad Bradshaw in the backfield for a certain loss, but instead somehow letting him go and run for a touchdown instead. I don't hold Ryan responsible for a 9-year veteran, Terence Newman, being neutralized once runners discovered they simply have to jump in the air to avoid him. I'm not convinced his game plans were always successful (see Eagles 34, Cowboys 7), but when they were, his personnel simply couldn't execute.
This season was worse than you think because even a little bit of mental toughness would have led to 12 or 13 wins, and instead we saw only 8. Tony Romo had a pre-season attitude that made it clear he was ready to take the next step in his career. He was more focused, more mature, and more ready than he's ever been for a season. He had a great year, but he almost single-handedly gave away two games (Jets, Lions)*. Demarcus Ware was in the hunt for most of the year not only to lead the league in sacks, but to break Michael Strahan's single-season sack record, but he mostly disappeared late in the season.
Usually when a team misses the playoffs, they look over the season and coaches determine where they need to get better, how to improve through the draft and through free agency, and how to develop the team toward a more successful next year. The Cowboys have been trying that formula for years. There are trouble spots that need to be addressed for sure, but the Cowboys trouble is not that they need to get more talented. They need to become mentally tougher. They need an intensity and a winning instinct that simply isn't there. How else can you explain completely laying down to a hated division rival like the Eagles twice in one season? How can you explain acting like a win over the Patriots is unnecessary? And how can you explain giving up 21 points in the first half in a game that, practically speaking, is a playoff game, while scoring absolutely zero?
The answer for the Dallas Cowboys cannot be to do what you're supposed to do in the offseason. There needs to be some serious soul-searching. I'm well aware of the explosive abilities and amazing talent of many players on this team, but it has become clear that there is no reason for optimism as a fan. Until the culture of the Cowboys organization takes a dramatic turn, we will not see an impressive ending to any Dallas season.
*Romo's one of the last on my personal list of who's to blame for the crappy bits of this season, so don't think I'm calling him the goat. I do think his mental mistakes in big points of certain games illustrate the cultural problems described in this post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)