A Not-Much-To-Report-About Report
By Matt Cordon (kh). Filed in Blog and Forum Roundup, Dallas Cowboys News in Brief |
We all know what’s coming up, and we all seem to know what questions about the Cowboys need to be answered (Question Waiting for Answers will have to wait until tomorrow). This week has becoming a bit mind-numbing while thinking about this game. A few people have continued to argue that it was good that Dallas lost to Detroit (?!) and that the “tournament” is when everything really gets going. I don’t quite agree.
It won’t be a bad thing to have lost if Dallas learns anything from it. If it is a matter of “here we go again” should we get down early or start making mistakes, then we are probably going right out of the playoffs. On the other hand, if this is indeed a “new season,” then perhaps anything can happen.
I do happen to agree that it is good that we don’t have to play a division rival in the first round, but I don’t think it is good to have lost in order to ensure that we play at Seattle. Momentum typically means something. A few people want to keep bringing up Pittsburgh from 2005 as an example of how wide open the so-called tournament is. That is misleading, for the Steelers have had success over the past decade and entered the 2005 playoffs with a four consecutive wins, including a 41-0 pounding of the Browns in next-to-last game that year. They got a big boost by beating the Bengals in the first game, and we know the rest. The situation with Pittsburgh is entirely different than what we have here, with Dallas losing in the manner that is has.
I haven’t done a comprehensive study, but the closest comparison I can remember would be a couple of teams from the 2004 playoffs. The Jets entered the playoffs that season at 10-6 and had lost three of its four final games, though all three losses were to playoff teams (New England, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis), and the lone win during that stretch came against yet another playoff team (Seattle). The Jets beat the Chargers in overtime in the first round, then lost in overtime to the Steelers in the second round.
Similar situation in St. Louis that year. The Rams finished 8-8 and faced Seattle (9-7) at Seattle. The Rams had lost two of its last four and five of its last nine, while Seattle had won three of its final four. St. Louis came out on top before getting blown out by Atlanta.
None of this necessarily means anything, but if Dallas makes a true run, it will most certainly be unusual. If we want to have realistic hopes, it will be that Dallas wins at least one game.
————
From Blogging the Boys about the need for the running game, notwithstanding the fact that the Seattle secondary is beat up:
All week, I’ve been pushing the idea that Dallas needs to return to the run game, even though the Seahawks’ secondary is so banged up. Playoff games on the road are tough enough, but when you add in the possible weather conditions, having a solid running game can cure a lot of ills. If you can successfully run the ball, you keep the Dallas defense on the sidelines and you take some pressure off Tony Romo and lessen the possibility for mistakes.
————
A couple of items from Mick’s Shots about third downs:
Now there seems to be this mystery hovering over why the Cowboys have allowed teams to convert 55 percent of their third downs over the past five games, and at a 43.9-percent rate for the entire season, ranking them tied for 27th in the league. This will clear that up: Only two teams are giving more than an average of 5.95 yards on first down. That would be Cincinnati (6.06) and, yep, Seattle (6.24). When opponents are gaining nearly six yards every first down, how hard is it to pick up the last few on third down.
Speaking of third downs, in the past two games with the Cowboys in their nickel defense, opponents have completed 22 of 28 passes for 307 yards and three touchdowns. Ye-ouch.
————
Somehow I got started on a defend-Barry-Switzer streak today. I’ve lost this one every time for the past 10 years! Bar-rah… help me out here!
[L]ook at the players Dallas lost before the Super Bowl year in 1995: Mark Stepnoski, Alvin Harper, Kevin Gogan, John Gesek, Ray Donaldson (Stepnoski’s replacement in 1995), Jim Jeffcoat, Ken Norton, James Washington, Kevin Smith (injured that season). And then in 1996: Charles Haley, Jay Novacek. Moreover, during the 1994 playoffs, Emmitt played with a bum hamstring that severely limited his ability.
I absolutely hated it when Jimmy left, but let’s be real: do you really think Jimmy could have overcome the defections in those season and been so much better. He would have been better than Switzer’s 12-4 records in 1994 and 1995 when he wasn’t in 1993? He would have overcome Emmitt’s injury in the 1994 playoffs even though the team never proved it could win without Emmitt when he was coach? He would have prevented Michael Irvin from fumbling and Troy Aikman from throwing the interception at the start of the 1994 NFC Championship? And if not, he would have found a way to do better than to cut the final margin of victory to 38-28 after the team was down 21-0 only a few minutes into the first quarter? He would have done better than win a Super Bowl in 1995? He would have overcome Irvin’s 1996 suspension and Emmitt’s rapid decline in 1996 and 1997? He would have overcome the loss of Novacek and Haley in 1996? What I’ve always thought was that perhaps if Jimmy was still coaching in 1994, he could have milked that team for all it was worth and pulled out a third title in a row, but the team would not have won Super Bowl XXX had it won the year before.
Switzer doesn’t deserve credit for building the franchise to where it was when he came on board, and I am not saying that Switzer is the coach that Jimmy was. But Barry was right about one thing: coaches get too much credit for winning and too much blame for losing. Those who think that Jimmy was such a god of coaching that he would have won four or five or six or seven Super Bowls in a row didn’t pay any attention to what he did (and didn’t) do with the Dolphins, and really don’t look very closely at what the Cowboys did from 1994 to 1997.
————
And just a personal note: I am one lousy bowler. My average has dropped from 181 in September to 168, and go out tonight (after a two week break) and bowl: 113, 160, 161. Just lousy.
