- Messages
- 2,329
- Reaction score
- 11
, not quite amigo, I think they're a good team, not 90's dominate but capable of beating anyone. I actually think they're quite capable of winning it all but they're not so good that they can't be beat. The point I made above was about why the team seems to historically come up small when they have a host of advantages we can point to in advance on paper and whether I'm just conveniently remembering the times it went bad but forgetting the times things went well. Hopefully those advantages showup this weekend and result in a W.
Not historically, but in the Jason Garrett era, a solid collection of talent and momentum is meaningless. He has entirely insulated himself this post-season by saying that the "past or future do not matter" but just do your best in the now. Yup. Sounds about right. Zeke runs for 12 yards against Minnesota then immediately gets taken out of the game for a 5 WR. No thinking about avoiding the stupid of the past and no need to gameplan sequences of logical strategies for the future.
What an idiot.
At some point some historian is going to analyze this year in Garrett's tenure and discover the following:
The ironic thing about this year is the unconventional plays that Garrett was opposed to designing and calling are causing victories, the conventional coaching practice of running the ball to control, preserve and solidify a lead is causing victories, and the less the team is exposed to the failing elements of Garrett's Laissez-Faire play design and Neo-Luddite coaching (only wants the Coryell pass system and thinks that no other more modern schemes will work) the more chances the team has to win.