Skip Bayless, The End of the Landry Era, etc.
Giri Mandyam
On the local public TV station, a show called "Power Plays" was shown
last Wednesday, and the main topic of the show was the demise of the
Landry regime and the re-birth of the the Cowboys. As usual, "Cowboy
Mystique" was a term used quite often, a term which as a Cowboys
fan I always hated, since it seemed to imply that the Cowboys won
quite often because of Divine Intervention rather than talent.
Well, for some reason the show centered around Skip Bayless' analysis
of the Pokes. He seemd to claim that Landry was sort of a dupe, a
puppet that con-artists Shramm and Murchison had set up as a figure-
head to sell the Cowboys to the staid, conservative, Southern fans.
While his assesment of Schramm may have been accurate, Landry was
anything but a dupe IMO. He was an innovative coach who deserves
credit for the Cowboys' success. Furthermore, Bayless
seems to blame Landry for the team's demise, yet never mention's
Mr. Gil Brandt, who provided the 'Boys with 10 years of lousy
drafts. Do the names Larry Bethea (r.i.p.), Rod Hill, Billy Cannon Jr.,
Howard Richards, Danny Noonan, and Mike Sherrard ring any bells?
All 1st round busts, courtesy of Mr. Brandt. After his '77 draft
(Tony Dorsett, Tony Hill, Glenn Carano, etc.) the Cowboys never
again had a good draft under Brandt.
Bayless hates the old Cowboys regime, and he hates the new one now as
well. Right after he left the Dallas Morning News, the DMN got
Blackie Sherrod from the Times Herald. If you could consider this
a trade, the DMN got a better deal than the Cowboys in the Walker trade,
since Sherrod is twice the man and twice the sportswriter that Bayless
is. I don't think I will read Bayless' book after seeing this show.
Any comments?
Glenn Dirtbag Tanner
>Bayless hates the old Cowboys regime, and he hates the new one now as
>well. Right after he left the Dallas Morning News, the DMN got
>Blackie Sherrod from the Times Herald. If you could consider this
>a trade, the DMN got a better deal than the Cowboys in the Walker trade,
>since Sherrod is twice the man and twice the sportswriter that Bayless
>is. I don't think I will read Bayless' book after seeing this show.
>Any comments?
I really wonder whether Skip Bayless really has any strong feelings
about the Cowboys past or present. He was an out-of-work journalist,
saw that tabloid journalism was becoming popular, and put 2 and 2
together and figured out that he could gain noteriety and $'s by
making a living out of bashing the Cowboys. He was right, and the
Cowboys' success has allowed him to take his act national.
GT
Darren Hambrick
Mandyam) wrote:
>
> Bayless hates the old Cowboys regime, and he hates the new one now as
> well.
Yes he does.
I just don't take the guy seriously. I remember him picking
the Bills to win the Super Bowl this year. It wasn't enough
for him to pick them. He had to go into how the Cowboys had
been visiting all the topless bars in Atlanta all week, etc.
He then went on to point out that the Bills really had their
heads together, and that they were going to 'steal' this game
from the Cowboys. No do you really think this was an honest
opinion? I think it was just wishful thinkin' for ol' Skip.
What he should do is hope the Cowboys stay on top for a long
time, because he's making good money doing nothing but bad-
mouthing them.
Skip's a jerk.
Go Cowboys!!!
Darren
The ACME sales rep
> drafts. Do the names Larry Bethea (r.i.p.), Rod Hill, Billy Cannon Jr.,
> Howard Richards, Danny Noonan, and Mike Sherrard ring any bells?
It is not fair to say Sherrard was a bust. He played well
before his multiple leg fractures. He was released by the Boys
because they gave up on waiting for him to be healthy. The
49ers picked him up and he played well. He also played VERY
well for the Giants this year before his injry - he was the
only deep threat they had. When he went out, the Giants lost a
lot from their offense.
--
*** Kenneth Kirschner *** Gravitation cannot be held ***
*** kj...@virginia.edu *** responsble for people falling in ***
*** 1819 JPA#402 *** love. ***
*** 293-2374 *** -Albert Einstein ***
Rob Stone
: While his assesment of Schramm may have been accurate, Landry was
: anything but a dupe IMO. He was an innovative coach who deserves
: credit for the Cowboys' success. Furthermore, Bayless
: seems to blame Landry for the team's demise, yet never mention's
: Mr. Gil Brandt, who provided the 'Boys with 10 years of lousy
: drafts. Do the names Larry Bethea (r.i.p.), Rod Hill, Billy Cannon Jr.,
: Howard Richards, Danny Noonan, and Mike Sherrard ring any bells?
: All 1st round busts, courtesy of Mr. Brandt. After his '77 draft
: (Tony Dorsett, Tony Hill, Glenn Carano, etc.) the Cowboys never
: again had a good draft under Brandt.
After reading Bayless'book "God's Coach" or something like that, I also
came to the conclusion that Bayless is a useless reporter. Landry was
a great coach full of innovation and excitement (his teams, not his
personality). The "demise" of the Cowboys was NOT the fault of Tom
Landry. Perhaps it was partly due to Brandt's bad draft choices, or
the dislike of making trades. I kind of think it had more to do with
expectations put on inexperienced leaders like Pelleur. During the '88
season when Dallas was 3-13, they could easily have been 13-3, but for
a few costly mistakes when the game was on the line. Tom Landry could
not complete a touchdown pass, make a tackle or not hold a def. lineman.
I know JJ blamed the Cowboys' failures on a "slow"team, but I think that
within Landry's system experience and smarts played more of a vital part
than speed. He didn't have the players that he was accustomed to having
and was trying to make the adjustments and rebuild. If Landry had been
the coach in '89 (and that would have been his last year) there is no
way in hell that Dallas would have finished 1-15. They would have been
AT LEAST 8-8 and maybe better.
Arthur Hlavaty
: While his assesment of Schramm may have been accurate, Landry was
: anything but a dupe IMO. He was an innovative coach who deserves
: credit for the Cowboys' success. Furthermore, Bayless
: seems to blame Landry for the team's demise, yet never mention's
: Mr. Gil Brandt, who provided the 'Boys with 10 years of lousy
: drafts. Do the names Larry Bethea (r.i.p.), Rod Hill, Billy Cannon Jr.,
: Howard Richards, Danny Noonan, and Mike Sherrard ring any bells?
: All 1st round busts, courtesy of Mr. Brandt. After his '77 draft
: (Tony Dorsett, Tony Hill, Glenn Carano, etc.) the Cowboys never
: again had a good draft under Brandt.
Sherrard is an excellent receiver on those rare occasions when his leg is
not broken.
: Bayless hates the old Cowboys regime, and he hates the new one now as
: well.
And thus obviously he cannot be all bad.
--
Arthur D. Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
"The Mason's face is ajar."--Firesign Theater
Gary Bourque
In article <dah-1202...@128.96.83.123>, d...@efp.sos.com (Darren Hambrick) writes:
> In article <2jgtt4...@lynx.unm.edu>, gman...@witch.eece.unm.edu (Giri
> Mandyam) wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Bayless hates the old Cowboys regime, and he hates the new one now as
> > well.
>
>
> Yes he does.
>
I think he respects them. I don't think he hates them. Bayless just
looks for controversy and when he can't find it he invents it. He is
a good writer though.
>
> I just don't take the guy seriously. I remember him picking
> the Bills to win the Super Bowl this year.
>
Skip really is a Cowboy fan or he wouldn't write about them all the time.
Its just his style to stir things up.
>
> Skip's a jerk.
>
Well, its tough to argue with that.
>
> Go Cowboys!!!
>
Not tough to argue with that.
--
* Gary Bourque * "A government that is big enough to give you all
* * you want is big enough to take it all away."
* gbou...@austin.ibm.com *
* * - Barry Goldwater -
Brent Smith
: In article <2jgtt4...@lynx.unm.edu>, gman...@witch.eece.unm.edu (Giri
: Mandyam) wrote:
: Yes he does.
: Skip's a jerk.
No argument here. On his new gig at the new all-sports station in town,
he said (after the SB) that one of the reasons that the Cowboys won was
because he had picked Buffalo, and that that inspired the Cowboys to win.
Sheeeeeesh! The man will say whatever it takes, in his opinion, to draw
an audience. He is not a journalist in any sense of the word, more on the
level of Geraldo or Morton Downey.
--
*************************************************************************
* Brent Smith - American by birth, Swedish by marriage... *
* and happy about both (I hope she's listening!). *
* swe...@netcom.com COWBOYS in '9x!!! <pick any number> *
*************************************************************************
Gary Bourque
In article <1994Feb13.1...@lclark.edu>, rst...@lclark.edu (Rob Stone) writes:
>
> If Landry had been
> the coach in '89 (and that would have been his last year) there is no
> way in hell that Dallas would have finished 1-15. They would have been
> AT LEAST 8-8 and maybe better.
>
Yeah, but would they have won the Super Bowl three years later and repeated
four years later? I highly doubt. Let's face it. By 1988 football had
passed Tom Landry by. What kills me about all these "Landry Lovers' who came
out of the woodwork when Jerry Jones fired him is the year before practically
everyone who followed the Cowboys was hoping Tom Landry would retire. Heck,
Tex Schramm was hoping he'd retire. He just wasn't getting the job done.
In fact, the whole organization was way down the hill. Schramm was wasting
money hand over fist. Gil Brandt, who never learned the difference between
a tight end and a slotback was wasting draft choices. Tom Landry who wouldn't
turn the offense over to an offensive coordinator, continued to call goal
line plays at mid-field and formations that didn't exist and to hang onto
the obsolete "Flex" defense.
I've got all the respect in the world for Tom Landry, but it is my firm
conviction that if Jerry Jones had not bought the team and if Tom Landry
were still the coach, Dallas would be no more than a mediocre team now.
Russell Fett
I agree totally. Skip Bayless is a loser who brings attention to himself by making unsubstantiated moronic statements just to stir up some controversy. I like the idea of having a 24 hour sports radio station (1310 AM in DFW) but with Skip as the leadoff hitter it loses a lot of merit with me. I can't wait for the day when Skip and Chuck Cooperstein are run out of town(again!). Give me Randy Galloway or Norm Hitzges anyday.
Do you get the idea that I don't like Skip?
Russ
Ronnie Townsend
>
>In article <1994Feb13.1...@lclark.edu>, rst...@lclark.edu (Rob Stone) writes:
>
>>
>> If Landry had been
>> the coach in '89 (and that would have been his last year) there is no
>> way in hell that Dallas would have finished 1-15. They would have been
>> AT LEAST 8-8 and maybe better.
>>
>
>Yeah, but would they have won the Super Bowl three years later and repeated
>four years later? I highly doubt. Let's face it. By 1988 football had
>passed Tom Landry by. What kills me about all these "Landry Lovers' who came
>out of the woodwork when Jerry Jones fired him is the year before practically
>everyone who followed the Cowboys was hoping Tom Landry would retire. Heck,
>Tex Schramm was hoping he'd retire. He just wasn't getting the job done.
>In fact, the whole organization was way down the hill. Schramm was wasting
>money hand over fist. Gil Brandt, who never learned the difference between
>a tight end and a slotback was wasting draft choices. Tom Landry who wouldn't
>turn the offense over to an offensive coordinator, continued to call goal
>line plays at mid-field and formations that didn't exist and to hang onto
>the obsolete "Flex" defense.
>
>I've got all the respect in the world for Tom Landry, but it is my firm
>conviction that if Jerry Jones had not bought the team and if Tom Landry
>were still the coach, Dallas would be no more than a mediocre team now.
Gary, a lot of what you say may be true but I have to respectfully disagree
with you here... Landry is directly responsible for some of the best players
on the current Dallas roster... Most of the offensive line talent was
acquired by Landry to be a big steam-shovel to block for Herschel and to
protect the Qb of the future he planned to draft... a kid named Troy Aikman.
He also drafted Michael Irvin. He was too slow to dump some of the old guard
and I'm not going to hold that against him... I personally don't admire teams
like the Niners who dump great players like so many pieces of meat... I'm
almost glad to see them struggling now after what they did to Roger Craig,
Ronnie Lott and finally, Joe Montana... Not that I think they should have
kept any of these guys beyond their years of productivity, but I think having
Roger Craig around as a third down back and Rickey Watters' relief would be
a tremendous boost to their team as well as giving them another 2nd round
pick that they would have been able to use on a quick defensive player instead
of Amp Lee.... Now I like Amp Lee, but At this stage in their careers, I would
take Roger Craig as the backup over Amp.... Tom Landry brought more innovations
to the NFL than any other coach I can think of... These claims that football
had passed him by are laughable.. the only thing that had took him down was
the burden of generally drafting late in the first round for 25 odd years...
Still, the acquisition of Nate Newton, Herschel Walker, Mike Irvin, Stepnoski,
Tuinei and Gesek coupled with the well chronicled intent to draft Troy Aikman
all indicated to me that this was a man who knew talent and would win once he
got enough of it on his team... As has been pointed out here on the net,
Russell Maryland came as a result of a trade rather than the 1-15 season so
it stands to reason that even had they gone 7-9 the year after they got Aikman,
they still were on the right track to regain their glory... I willsay though
that I don't think Landry's teams would ever have won 2 Super Bowls in a row...
Johnson made very careful use of emotion and other motivational tools to keep
the team keyed to a fever pitch on the drive for the second championship...
Landry never did much with emotion, preferring to keep the team on an even
keel... consequently, the Cowboys at least once a year failed to show up for
a game and got blown out... That being the case, I think even if they had
gotten one Super Bowl win under Landry, they would not have been able to draw
on the emotion of the adversity they endured to push for the second... They
would also never have traded Herschel so they would not have Emmitt and whomever
Emmitt was playing for would have knocked them off this year! :-) Hey we
Florida boyz have to stick together!!! and Hushel is first and foremost.....
A Georgia Bulldog!!!!!
--
Ronnie T.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Systems Engineer Specialist
Amdahl Open Systems Technical Support
Ashu Rege
Ronnie Townsend <ron...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
[deleted]
>He also drafted Michael Irvin. He was too slow to dump some of the old guard
>and I'm not going to hold that against him... I personally don't admire teams
>like the Niners who dump great players like so many pieces of meat... I'm
>almost glad to see them struggling now after what they did to Roger Craig,
Lessee : 1990 - Superbowl, 1991 - NFC Championship game, 92 - 10-6 ...
anyway you get the idea. Yup, them Niners are sure struggling a lot.
>Ronnie Lott and finally, Joe Montana... Not that I think they should have
>kept any of these guys beyond their years of productivity, but I think having
>Roger Craig around as a third down back and Rickey Watters' relief would be
>a tremendous boost to their team as well as giving them another 2nd round
Huh, if Craig is so good now or even two years ago how come nobody
really wants him. The guy didn't get playing time in Minnesota
_after_ Terry Allen went down.
>pick that they would have been able to use on a quick defensive player instead
>of Amp Lee.... Now I like Amp Lee, but At this stage in their careers, I would
>take Roger Craig as the backup over Amp....
And the Packers were stupid enough to try to trade for Amp Lee.
(Not to mention the odd choice of picking an aging veteran as backup
over a promising younger running back).
The Niners success over the last decade and a half has been predicated
on moving in younger players whenever they can replace an older one.
But it doesn't mean they've all been treated like so much meat. Quite a
few of them work in some capacity for the Niners; there's even talk
of hiring Lott as the secondary coach. Not to mention how well Eddie
D treated these guys.
Ashu Rege
Giri Mandyam
>After reading Bayless'book "God's Coach" or something like that, I also
>came to the conclusion that Bayless is a useless reporter. Landry was
>a great coach full of innovation and excitement (his teams, not his
>personality). The "demise" of the Cowboys was NOT the fault of Tom
>Landry. Perhaps it was partly due to Brandt's bad draft choices, or
>the dislike of making trades.
Yes, Brandt hated to make trades. But in 1988, this team was an aged
team; Randy White, Ed Jones, and Tom Rafferty had all played in
Supe X, and they were still starting. Brandt had really blown many
drafts, and in 1987-88 the Cowboys really paid for it. I think Brandt
had expected every draft to be another "Dirty Dozen"; he also still assumed
all his "projects" like Drew Pearson would pan out. One year, he wasted
a draft pick on Carl Lewis, thinking he could make a football player
out of him! His Billy Cannon Jr. pick might have been the worst first
round pick in the NFL for the entire decade (at least Rod Hill actually
played in a few games for the 'Boys).
>I kind of think it had more to do with expectations put on inexperienced
>leaders like Pelleur. During the '88 season when Dallas was 3-13, they
>could easily have been 13-3, but for a few costly mistakes when the game
>was on the line. Tom Landry could not complete a touchdown pass, make a
>tackle or not hold a def. lineman. I know JJ blamed the Cowboys' failures
>on a "slow"team, but I think that within Landry's system experience and
>smarts played more of a vital part than speed.
Pelleur had been in the league a few years by the time '88 rolled around.
He had even led the 'Boys to victory in 1985 in the NFC East deciding
game against the G-Men. He simply was not the leader Aikman is now.
I agree that the 1988 3-13 team may have been the best 3-win team of the
decade, but the team was still too old to really be contenders. They had
some heartbreaking losses (remember that Cleveland loss in which the game-
tying FG was called back because of a bogus tripping penalty on Randy
White?) that year, but they were blown out a few times too (e.g.
the Minnesota game in which Sweeney started). Because of the lack
fo talent infusion from proper drafting during the previous ten years,
rookies like Irvin and Norton looked like fishes out of water, while
the league had caught up with older guys like Jones and White. JJ is
in a better position than Landry ever was in the sense that he has
a lot more input into personnel decisions.
>He didn't have the players that he was accustomed to having
>and was trying to make the adjustments and rebuild. If Landry had been
>the coach in '89 (and that would have been his last year) there is no
>way in hell that Dallas would have finished 1-15. They would have been
>AT LEAST 8-8 and maybe better.
Yes, and it would have been nice to see Landry contribute one more
major innovation to the game before he stepped aside. Let us see
some of his contributions:
1. Inventor of the 4-3 defense, while an assistant with the
G-Men in the late '50's.
2. Inventor of the Flex Defense, one of the most complex
defenses ever to be employed.
3. Developed the shotgun offense, something that ironically
practically every team but the Cowboys still uses from time
to time.
Some dupe, huh? Bayless is either a shameless opportunist taking
advantage of a poorly-informed public, or he is just one of the poorest
sportswriters in the country.
-Giri Mandyam
Floyd Goodrich
>Yes, and it would have been nice to see Landry contribute one more
>major innovation to the game before he stepped aside. Let us see
>some of his contributions:
> 1. Inventor of the 4-3 defense, while an assistant with the
> G-Men in the late '50's.
> 2. Inventor of the Flex Defense, one of the most complex
> defenses ever to be employed.
> 3. Developed the shotgun offense, something that ironically
> practically every team but the Cowboys still uses from time
> to time.
#1 happened in the mid-late 50s. #2 happened in the early-mid 60s. #3 was
instituted in 1975 after being out of favor since about 1960 or so. But what
had Landry done in the previous 10 years or so? I think it's far from the
truth to say the game had passed him by (winning the division in 85 with that
team was a study in the art of coaching), but his innovative days were no
longer ahead of him.
>Some dupe, huh? Bayless is either a shameless opportunist taking
>advantage of a poorly-informed public, or he is just one of the poorest
>sportswriters in the country.
Bayless cashes in on making assinine controversial statements. The fact that
we are talking about them shows that he is successful. I can't ever remember
him saying, "That's right, everyobody knows X." He's always said, "Everybody
believes X, so I'll crush that with semi-legitimate (at best) arguments."
Floyd Goodrich
flo...@cayman.amd.com
Ronnie Townsend
>In article <1994Feb14....@uts.amdahl.com>,
>Ronnie Townsend <ron...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
>
> [deleted]
> >He also drafted Michael Irvin. He was too slow to dump some of the old guard
> >and I'm not going to hold that against him... I personally don't admire teams
> >like the Niners who dump great players like so many pieces of meat... I'm
> >almost glad to see them struggling now after what they did to Roger Craig,
>
> Lessee : 1990 - Superbowl, 1991 - NFC Championship game, 92 - 10-6 ...
> anyway you get the idea. Yup, them Niners are sure struggling a lot.
They are struggling the same way Dallas was in the early 80's... they make
the NFC Championship on a regular basis... and lose... They are at a crossroads
with a lot of veterans who are north of 30 but still good and they are
trying to infuse young talent without falling down too far... And they have
no real shot at returning to the NFL elite without a blockbuster trade or
falling far enought to pick in the top 5 of the draft for a couple of years..
You can deny that the Niners have problems all you want... but *they* won't...
>
> >Ronnie Lott and finally, Joe Montana... Not that I think they should have
> >kept any of these guys beyond their years of productivity, but I think having
> >Roger Craig around as a third down back and Rickey Watters' relief would be
> >a tremendous boost to their team as well as giving them another 2nd round
>
> Huh, if Craig is so good now or even two years ago how come nobody
> really wants him. The guy didn't get playing time in Minnesota
> _after_ Terry Allen went down.
Gee if he sucked so bad howcum he didn't get cut like so many other talented
young backs? His only real problem is that as a 10 year vet he commands
mondo-salary dude...
>
>>pick that they would have been able to use on a quick defensive player instead
>>of Amp Lee.... Now I like Amp Lee, but At this stage in their careers, I would
>>take Roger Craig as the backup over Amp....
>
> And the Packers were stupid enough to try to trade for Amp Lee.
> (Not to mention the odd choice of picking an aging veteran as backup
> over a promising younger running back).
>
Easy, if I keep Craig I don't have to draft Amp Lee to back up Watters and that
#2 could be used to shore up my defense... get a clue!
> The Niners success over the last decade and a half has been predicated
> on moving in younger players whenever they can replace an older one.
> But it doesn't mean they've all been treated like so much meat. Quite a
> few of them work in some capacity for the Niners; there's even talk
> of hiring Lott as the secondary coach. Not to mention how well Eddie
> D treated these guys.
The problem is that the Niners are starting a downslide and need to do
something about it.... Losing Lott and Craig and Haley and Montana has not
helped the team... keep those guys around and maybe they have one more ring
for the team... if just getting to the playoffs was enough there wouldn't be
all this outcry for changes around the Bay Area... The Niners are headed for
a fall if they don't do something ...quick... Rice and Taylor are 31 and there
is no talented understudy waiting to replace them... The o-line is about to
lose its anchor in Guy MacIntyre... The defense is young and only time will
tell if they'll ever be any good... The linebacking is poor and without Fagan,
Holt, Haley and Carter the overall talent level is down on the line... way
down... The Niners will be able to score in bunches on just about anybody
for the next coupld of years but if the defense don't improve... A LOT!!! They
will become Air Coryell North....
NRS
You are right.Except any team with a Bill Walsh style
offense. In fact I don't remember a *single* play from Favre
at GB,under the gun.
>Some dupe, huh? Bayless is either a shameless opportunist taking
>advantage of a poorly-informed public, or he is just one of the poorest
>sportswriters in the country.
>
>-Giri Mandyam
___________________________________________________________
N.Ramasubramanian
Grad Student - Marquette University
E-mail : 5912ra...@vms.csd.mu.edu
Phone : 414 - 288 - 1716 (Off.) 414 - 933 - 9698 (Res.)
Insert Standard Disclaimers.
___________________________________________________________
Rob Stone
: four years later? I highly doubt. Let's face it. By 1988 football had
: passed Tom Landry by.
I don't know if they would have gone to the SB 4 years later. Landry wouyld
have retired and, perhaps, JJ would have ben hired in 1990. But to say
that the game had passed Landry by is a total misunderstanding. With all
due respect GAry, you are full of it if you really believe that.
Gary Bourque
In article <CL9zp...@dvorak.amd.com>, flo...@cayman.amd.com (Floyd Goodrich) writes:
>
> #1 happened in the mid-late 50s. #2 happened in the early-mid 60s. #3 was
> instituted in 1975 after being out of favor since about 1960 or so. But what
> had Landry done in the previous 10 years or so? I think it's far from the
> truth to say the game had passed him by (winning the division in 85 with that
> team was a study in the art of coaching), but his innovative days were no
> longer ahead of him.
>
I'm the one who started the "game passed Landry by" comment. Let me
make it a little clearer what I meant. I think Tom Landry had become
too set in his ways and too proud of his innovations to adapt to the
evolving defenses and offenses in the NFL. One blunt example was the
trademark way the Dallas offensive line would crouch, then stand up, then
go into their stances upon coming up to the line of scrimmage. Landry
initially put this in to obscure the shifting in the backfield to help
confuse the defense. But, over time, this posed no problem to opposing
defenses and Dallas stopped doing it one season. But, the next season
they began to do it again. Why? Because Landry thought it looked good,
I guess. But, all it served to do was help tire out the his own offensive
linemen.
Another example was Landry's clinging to the concept of small, quick
offensive lineman, long after the Joe Gibbs' Hogs revolution.
Yet another example was Landry's insistence on calling the offensive
plays, eschewing an offensive coordinator, even though it was well
known that he tended to become scatter-brained at gametime and call
the wrong formations and so forth. Don Meredith regularly had to call
off Landry's plays and most of Roger Staubach's famous comebacks were
ad libbed as well. Landry just was not good a delagating, one of
Jimmy Johnson's strengths, and he got worse as he got older.
Bud Sloan
> Yet another example was Landry's insistence on calling the offensive
> plays, eschewing an offensive coordinator, even though it was well
> known that he tended to become scatter-brained at gametime and call
> the wrong formations and so forth. Don Meredith regularly had to call
> off Landry's plays and most of Roger Staubach's famous comebacks were
> ad libbed as well. Landry just was not good a delagating, one of
> Jimmy Johnson's strengths, and he got worse as he got older.
You make several good points regarding how the Cowboys evolved, and failed
to. However, correct me if I am wrong, and I am certain a lot of people
will, wasn't Dan Reeves the offensive coordinator for several years until
he went to the Broncos as their head coach. Then, shortly, if not
immediately, thereafter Paul Hackett was brought in from the Niners to
"bring outside blood" into a somewhat stagnant offense, which promptly
proceeded to get more stagnant.
True, Landry did call the plays during much of his tenure, and quite
effectively I might add. I don't think he was the first head coach to do
it though; Paul Brown maybe? At any rate, to say that he eschewed an
offensive coordinator would not be totally accurate.
#####################################################################
### Bud Sloan ###
### North American Escalation Team ###
### Hewlett-Packard Company ###
### Bellevue, Wa 98006 ###
### e-mail: bu...@hp10cux0.nsr.hp.com ###
#####################################################################
Arthur Hlavaty
Lynn. Unofrtunately, he was GM of the Vikings at the time.
Gary Bourque
In article <2jrotj$m...@hpscit.sc.hp.com>, bu...@hp10cux0.nsr.hp.com (Bud Sloan) writes:
>
> You make several good points regarding how the Cowboys evolved, and failed
> to. However, correct me if I am wrong, and I am certain a lot of people
> will, wasn't Dan Reeves the offensive coordinator for several years until
> he went to the Broncos as their head coach. Then, shortly, if not
> immediately, thereafter Paul Hackett was brought in from the Niners to
> "bring outside blood" into a somewhat stagnant offense, which promptly
> proceeded to get more stagnant.
>
> True, Landry did call the plays during much of his tenure, and quite
> effectively I might add. I don't think he was the first head coach to do
> it though; Paul Brown maybe? At any rate, to say that he eschewed an
> offensive coordinator would not be totally accurate.
>
I meant that Landry would not let the offensive coordinator call the
plays. Yes, Dallas did have offensive coordinators. Schramm brought
in Paul Hackett to groom him to take over when Landry retired. But,
Landry had problems with giving Hackett much authority and had
philosophical differences with him. Landry suprised everyone by not
retiring around 86-87 or so and Hackett became impatient and left.
Ashu Rege
Ronnie Townsend <ron...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
>In article <2jpsmc$9...@agate.berkeley.edu>
re...@bongo.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Ashu Rege) writes:
>>In article <1994Feb14....@uts.amdahl.com>,
>>Ronnie Townsend <ron...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
>>
>> [deleted]
>>
>> anyway you get the idea. Yup, them Niners are sure struggling a lot.
>
>They are struggling the same way Dallas was in the early 80's... they make
>the NFC Championship on a regular basis... and lose... They are at a
crossroads
>with a lot of veterans who are north of 30 but still good and they are
>trying to infuse young talent without falling down too far... And they have
>no real shot at returning to the NFL elite without a blockbuster trade or
>falling far enought to pick in the top 5 of the draft for a couple of years..
>You can deny that the Niners have problems all you want... but *they* won't.
If you define elite as teams that make it to the Superbowl, you are right,
they haven't made it there for 4 years. Nobody's denying they have
problems but it has nothing to do with Roger Craig. Or Montana for
that matter.
>>
>> >Ronnie Lott and finally, Joe Montana... Not that I think they should have
>> >kept any of these guys beyond their years of productivity, but I think
having
>>>Roger Craig around as a third down back and Rickey Watters' relief would be
>> >a tremendous boost to their team as well as giving them another 2nd round
>>
>> Huh, if Craig is so good now or even two years ago how come nobody
>> really wants him. The guy didn't get playing time in Minnesota
>> _after_ Terry Allen went down.
>
>Gee if he sucked so bad howcum he didn't get cut like so many other talented
>young backs? His only real problem is that as a 10 year vet he commands
>mondo-salary dude...
Any team would rather keep a Watters or a Lee over Craig at this point.
Inspite of how good you claim he is, he was let go by the Raiders who
haven't had a decent running game in a while (especially given that
Marcus Allen was in the doghouse). The Vikings RB situation was perhaps
even worse. They needed a backup to Allen, and picked up Craig. And even
when Terry Allen went down, Robert Smith got more playing time. Once
they get back Allen and a decent backup, I won't be surprised if they
let Craig go.
>>
>>>pick that they would have been able to use on a quick defensive player
instead
>>>of Amp Lee.... Now I like Amp Lee, but At this stage in their careers, I
would
>>>take Roger Craig as the backup over Amp....
>>
>> And the Packers were stupid enough to try to trade for Amp Lee.
>> (Not to mention the odd choice of picking an aging veteran as backup
>> over a promising younger running back).
>>
>
>Easy, if I keep Craig I don't have to draft Amp Lee to back up Watters and
that
>#2 could be used to shore up my defense... get a clue!
Huh ? First off, the Niners drafted Lee because they didn't have a
running game. Watters was unproven. And Craig was on his last legs.
Even now, Watters has been injured each season and missed several
games. Lee has come in and performed quite well. If you keep Craig
you have a running back who's mediocre at best. I can't believe
I'm arguing with anyone over the merits of keeping Craig. There
are virtually none. Craig was not the consistent back of his youth
even in the 88 and 89 seasons. By 1990, it was clear that he was
washed-up. Incidentally, Craig was available to the Niners and
wanted to play there after the 91 season. But those idiots who
run the team didn't pick him up. But they didn't know what you do,
I guess.
Secondly, the Niners have lots of players who "shore up" their
defense. They don't need yet another shore-up type player. They
need a star in the front 7. What are the chances of getting
one with a low 2nd-round pick ?
>> The Niners success over the last decade and a half has been predicated
>> on moving in younger players whenever they can replace an older one.
>> But it doesn't mean they've all been treated like so much meat. Quite a
>> few of them work in some capacity for the Niners; there's even talk
>> of hiring Lott as the secondary coach. Not to mention how well Eddie
>> D treated these guys.
>
>The problem is that the Niners are starting a downslide and need to do
>something about it.... Losing Lott and Craig and Haley and Montana has not
>helped the team... keep those guys around and maybe they have one more ring
>for the team... if just getting to the playoffs was enough there wouldn't be
>all this outcry for changes around the Bay Area... The Niners are headed for
>a fall if they don't do something ...quick... Rice and Taylor are 31 and
there
>is no talented understudy waiting to replace them... The o-line is about to
>lose its anchor in Guy MacIntyre... The defense is young and only time will
>tell if they'll ever be any good... The linebacking is poor and without Fagan
>Holt, Haley and Carter the overall talent level is down on the line... way
>down... The Niners will be able to score in bunches on just about anybody
>for the next coupld of years but if the defense don't improve... A LOT!!!
They >will become Air Coryell North....
>Ronnie T.
The Niners have problems, but they have nothing to with Craig or the
running game or the offense. Losing Haley has hurt them, but they traded
him for other reasons. Lott's departure made a hole in the leadership on
defense and he did have 1 more good season left in him. But neither
Montana nor Craig could have made a difference.
The Niners have been "on a downslide" for a while now. How a team
which is about to collapse to 5-11 seasons keeps getting to the
NFC Championship game just about every season is really baffling.
Ashu Rege
Ronnie Townsend
>
>In article <CL9zp...@dvorak.amd.com>, flo...@cayman.amd.com (Floyd Goodrich) writes:
>>
>make it a little clearer what I meant. I think Tom Landry had become
>too set in his ways and too proud of his innovations to adapt to the
>evolving defenses and offenses in the NFL. One blunt example was the
>trademark way the Dallas offensive line would crouch, then stand up, then
>go into their stances upon coming up to the line of scrimmage. Landry
>initially put this in to obscure the shifting in the backfield to help
>confuse the defense. But, over time, this posed no problem to opposing
>defenses and Dallas stopped doing it one season. But, the next season
>they began to do it again. Why? Because Landry thought it looked good,
>I guess. But, all it served to do was help tire out the his own offensive
>linemen.
>
>Another example was Landry's clinging to the concept of small, quick
>offensive lineman, long after the Joe Gibbs' Hogs revolution.
That's a funny statement considering Tuinei, Gesek and Newton were all
behemoths acquired by Landry...
>
>Yet another example was Landry's insistence on calling the offensive
>plays, eschewing an offensive coordinator, even though it was well
>known that he tended to become scatter-brained at gametime and call
>the wrong formations and so forth. Don Meredith regularly had to call
>off Landry's plays and most of Roger Staubach's famous comebacks were
>ad libbed as well. Landry just was not good a delagating, one of
>Jimmy Johnson's strengths, and he got worse as he got older.
>
It's really neat how you know all this about Meredith calling off Landry's
plays and Roger ad libbing all those comebacks... How'd you get into all
those huddles?
Ronnie Townsend
>In article <1994Feb15.1...@uts.amdahl.com>,
>Ronnie Townsend <ron...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
> >In article <2jpsmc$9...@agate.berkeley.edu>
> re...@bongo.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Ashu Rege) writes:
> >>In article <1994Feb14....@uts.amdahl.com>,
> >>Ronnie Townsend <ron...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> [deleted]
> >You can deny that the Niners have problems all you want... but *they* won't.
>
> If you define elite as teams that make it to the Superbowl, you are right,
> they haven't made it there for 4 years. Nobody's denying they have
> problems but it has nothing to do with Roger Craig. Or Montana for
> that matter.
That's your opinion, I have mine... I think we can agree to disagree here...
>
> >>
> >> >Ronnie Lott and finally, Joe Montana... Not that I think they should have
> >> >kept any of these guys beyond their years of productivity, but I think
> having
> >>>Roger Craig around as a third down back and Rickey Watters' relief would be
> >> >a tremendous boost to their team as well as giving them another 2nd round
> >>
> >> Huh, if Craig is so good now or even two years ago how come nobody
> >> really wants him. The guy didn't get playing time in Minnesota
> >> _after_ Terry Allen went down.
> >
> >Gee if he sucked so bad howcum he didn't get cut like so many other talented
> >young backs? His only real problem is that as a 10 year vet he commands
> >mondo-salary dude...
>
> Any team would rather keep a Watters or a Lee over Craig at this point.
> Inspite of how good you claim he is, he was let go by the Raiders who
> haven't had a decent running game in a while (especially given that
> Marcus Allen was in the doghouse). The Vikings RB situation was perhaps
> even worse. They needed a backup to Allen, and picked up Craig. And even
> when Terry Allen went down, Robert Smith got more playing time. Once
> they get back Allen and a decent backup, I won't be surprised if they
> let Craig go.
Excuse me? Hello? McFly? wake up and smell what you're shoveling here...
I am not advocating Craig as an every-down back... At 33 he clearly can't do
that anymore but he's one of those players who plays the game with every ounce
he's got and is a good influence on those around him... Smith and Allen are
both young thoroughbreds and should get the lion's share of the PT, Craig is
the receiving specialist who will also pick up the blitz and keep the QB alive
and little things like that .... There's more to playing running back than
totin the mail, Ashu...
> >>
> >>>pick that they would have been able to use on a quick defensive player
> instead
> >>>of Amp Lee.... Now I like Amp Lee, but At this stage in their careers, I
> would
> >>>take Roger Craig as the backup over Amp....
> >>
> >> And the Packers were stupid enough to try to trade for Amp Lee.
> >> (Not to mention the odd choice of picking an aging veteran as backup
> >> over a promising younger running back).
> >>
> >
> >Easy, if I keep Craig I don't have to draft Amp Lee to back up Watters and
> that
> >#2 could be used to shore up my defense... get a clue!
>
> Huh ? First off, the Niners drafted Lee because they didn't have a
> running game. Watters was unproven. And Craig was on his last legs.
> Even now, Watters has been injured each season and missed several
> games. Lee has come in and performed quite well. If you keep Craig
> you have a running back who's mediocre at best. I can't believe
> I'm arguing with anyone over the merits of keeping Craig. There
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Very badly at that!
> are virtually none. Craig was not the consistent back of his youth
> even in the 88 and 89 seasons. By 1990, it was clear that he was
> washed-up. Incidentally, Craig was available to the Niners and
> wanted to play there after the 91 season. But those idiots who
> run the team didn't pick him up. But they didn't know what you do,
> I guess.
Huh? Craig left on plan B after the '90 season... He spent '91 with the
Raiders and the last two seasons in Minnesota... What's your point.. for
the last two years the Niners have had Watters and Lee... why would they
pick up Craig when he would be earning more than the two of them combined...
>
> Secondly, the Niners have lots of players who "shore up" their
> defense. They don't need yet another shore-up type player. They
> need a star in the front 7. What are the chances of getting
> one with a low 2nd-round pick ?
You idiot!!! What round was Seth Joyner drafted in? How about Ken Norton?
Clyde Simmons? Sam Mills? The pro-bowl is littered with players who were
taken in rounds OTHER than the first...
Again, your opinion... don't try to peddle it as fact... Even if we believe
Craig and Montana were "through" when the Niners dumped them then they still
have little problems like losing Haley, Lott and Holt for which they don't
appear to have an answer... or are you going to continue to ignore that...
>
> The Niners have been "on a downslide" for a while now. How a team
> which is about to collapse to 5-11 seasons keeps getting to the
> NFC Championship game just about every season is really baffling.
Must be the weak division they play in.... Just ask the Cowboys from the
early 80's how much getting to the NFC championship means to them and how long
it took for them to fall from that perch... When they fall, it will be hard
and I hope you're ready for the SHIT you're gonna have to take when they
do.... I ate a lot for backing the Cowboys through the hard years... Now I'm
getting my revenge!!!
Dale McCray
|>
|> >
|> > [...]
|> >
|>
|> [...]
|>
|> True, Landry did call the plays during much of his tenure, and quite
|> effectively I might add. I don't think he was the first head coach to do
|> it though; Paul Brown maybe? At any rate, to say that he eschewed an
|> offensive coordinator would not be totally accurate.
|>
I credit Bill Walsh for making it the standard. Hell no, I **BLAME**
him for it. Until their success, QBs had to be mentally tough enough
to do it all. Even though St. Joe was certainly smart enough to have
called his own plays, now he and every modern era QB has that strike
against him when compared to the oldtimers.
--
I saw dyslexic, but I'm K.O. now.
mcc...@crchh608.BNR.CA
Ashu Rege
Ronnie Townsend <ron...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
>In article <2jtki8$9...@agate.berkeley.edu>
re...@bongo.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Ashu Rege) writes:
>>In article <1994Feb15.1...@uts.amdahl.com>,
>>Ronnie Townsend <ron...@uts.amdahl.com> wrote:
>> >In article <2jpsmc$9...@agate.berkeley.edu>
>> re...@bongo.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Ashu Rege) writes:
>> >>In article <1994Feb14....@uts.amdahl.com>,
>>
>> they haven't made it there for 4 years. Nobody's denying they have
>> problems but it has nothing to do with Roger Craig. Or Montana for
>> that matter.
>
>That's your opinion, I have mine... I think we can agree to disagree
here...
Care to define elite ?
Gee, thanks for enlightening me about what it means to play running
back. Let me guess, you're now going to tell us about how well you did
at Pop Warner playing every position.
Try to read what you said first - you wanted Craig as a replacement
for Amp Lee. Now, you change your story to 3rd-down receiving specialist.
Huh ? Huh ? Huh-huh ?? Lee is _not_ being used as a 3rd-down specialist.
He's the backup guy who starts as _the_ back when Watters goes down.
Seen any 49er football lately ?
Sure, Craig has a great work ethic. So do you, I would guess. Doesn't
mean teams are going to banging on your door to be their backup
running back.
> >>
> >>>pick that they would have been able to use on a quick defensive player
> instead
> >>>of Amp Lee.... Now I like Amp Lee, but At this stage in their careers, I
> would
> >>>take Roger Craig as the backup over Amp....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Your words not mine.
>> >
>>>Easy, if I keep Craig I don't have to draft Amp Lee to back up Watters
and that
>> >#2 could be used to shore up my defense... get a clue!
>>
>> Huh ? First off, the Niners drafted Lee because they didn't have a
>> running game. Watters was unproven. And Craig was on his last legs.
>> Even now, Watters has been injured each season and missed several
>> games. Lee has come in and performed quite well. If you keep Craig
>> you have a running back who's mediocre at best. I can't believe
>> I'm arguing with anyone over the merits of keeping Craig. There
>^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>Very badly at that!
This is rich coming from someone whose sentences run into each
other, whose posts seem to have been written in some kind of
free-association trance and whose arguments have the cogency
of a 6 year old on drugs.
>>
>> Secondly, the Niners have lots of players who "shore up" their
>> defense. They don't need yet another shore-up type player. They
>> need a star in the front 7. What are the chances of getting
>> one with a low 2nd-round pick ?
>
>You idiot!!! What round was Seth Joyner drafted in? How about Ken Norton?
>Clyde Simmons? Sam Mills? The pro-bowl is littered with players who were
>taken in rounds OTHER than the first...
Thanks for determining my IQ. Now, let's figure out yours : I said
"what are the CHANCES of getting a star with a low 2nd-round pick"
Translated it means, how many low 2nd-round picks have become stars in
this league out of all those picked at that level in the draft ? 50 % ?
75 % ? 10 % ? What are the CHANCES that one draft pick will make a
difference ?
>>
>> The Niners have problems, but they have nothing to with Craig or the
>> running game or the offense. Losing Haley has hurt them, but they traded
>> him for other reasons. Lott's departure made a hole in the leadership on
>> defense and he did have 1 more good season left in him. But neither
>> Montana nor Craig could have made a difference.
>
>Again, your opinion... don't try to peddle it as fact... Even if we believe
>Craig and Montana were "through" when the Niners dumped them then they still
>have little problems like losing Haley, Lott and Holt for which they don't
>appear to have an answer... or are you going to continue to ignore that...
It is my opinion certainly, but don't put words in my mouth. If you
can read, you might notice that I did say that losing Haley and Lott
did make a difference, especially Haley.
>>
>> The Niners have been "on a downslide" for a while now. How a team
>> which is about to collapse to 5-11 seasons keeps getting to the
>> NFC Championship game just about every season is really baffling.
>
>Must be the weak division they play in.... Just ask the Cowboys from the
>early 80's how much getting to the NFC championship means to them and how
long
>it took for them to fall from that perch... When they fall, it will be hard
>and I hope you're ready for the SHIT you're gonna have to take when they
>do.... I ate a lot for backing the Cowboys through the hard years... Now I'm
>getting my revenge!!!
>--
>Ronnie T.
Oh, another then-frustrated Cowboy fan crawling out of the woodwork.
I guess I have to excuse your sophomoric rantings.
Ashu Rege
P.S. So, are you going to "prove" you know what you're talking about
by pointing to that Chuck Howley jersey in your closet ?
Giri Mandyam
>It is not fair to say Sherrard was a bust. He played well
>before his multiple leg fractures. He was released by the Boys
>because they gave up on waiting for him to be healthy. The
>49ers picked him up and he played well. He also played VERY
>well for the Giants this year before his injry - he was the
>only deep threat they had. When he went out, the Giants lost a
>lot from their offense.
Since I have raised enough eyebrows by calling Sherrard a bust, I
guess I will explain myself to all the fans who disagree.
Sherrard had a very good rookie season in 1986. That was it for
Sherrard in a Cowboys uniform. He broke his leg in that training camp
scrimmage against the Raiders in a non-contact injury (please, please
correct me if I am wrong about this). Then he broke his leg the
following year running on the beach. He played well as a backup for
the Niners, and then when he was starting for the Giants last
season, he again succumbed to injury before half the season was
played. I am sorry, but no matter how much determination and
guts a person has, some people just do not have the physical make-
up to play pro football, and Sherrard seems to be one of those
people. The Cowboys should have learned their lesson from the
disastrous Billy Cannon Jr. pick in 1984, and done their homework
on Sherrard before wasting a #1 pick on him. If you think his
career in general has lived up to the expectations the Cowboys had
for him when they drafted him in 1986, then you have very low
standards. The Pokes expected him to be another Drew Pearson, and
even if they had not released him, there is no way he would have
been able to be the everyday reciever that Irvin is right now.
-Giri Mandyam