sonnybono3000:

There is no need for you to comeback.  It is as I just posted it. Player for Player a huge huge huge percentage of the Johnson picks from 1 - 4 were busts.  Those are just the facts.  Of course we got lucky on a 12th round pick here and a 9th round pick there, but if you attribute that to Johnsons eye and not the scouts...so be it.  But for the pick you EXPECT to play for you....1 - 4 MAJOR BUSTS.

  
 O HELL NO - I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU GET AWAY WITH THAT ONE -  Here is a list of the 1st 4 rounds of the 89' to 93' drafts when Jimmy was here.

   OK out of those 7 -  Two were busts Walsh and Weston and in Jerrys infinite wisdom traded Steve Wisniewski who had a great carear with the Raiders.

          So again 2of 7 were busts - thats a real HIGH PERCENTAGE-    (  Note sarcasim )

   3 players -  I dont know if there were any busts cause Wright was a decent # 3 WR .

      this one had 11 players and 5 were busts -  James Richards, and the four 4th rounders -  

    7 players - 2 busts - Brown and Myslinski.   AGAIN 2 OF 7 WERE BUSTS - WOW A REAL HIGH PERCENTAGE -  THIS IS WHAT YOUR SAYING ARE FACTS.

   5 players - two busts - Middeton and Lassic  -    I know your going to say - what about Stone -  Well he was a back-up with us he started a couple of games cause of injury - to make a long story short - the Giants signed him to a pretty good contract and we could not sign him cause of salery cap issues, - but he tuned out to be a good player.  

     So the totals are -  out of 33 players that we got 22 turned out to be good and 11 were busts. NOW HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT IS A

                " LARGE PERCENTAGE OF BUSTS "   I wanted to write this list so people can see that just cause YOU say something is a fact  it doesn't make it so. This way when people read your posts they know not to always believe it when you say something is a fact.  

           Maybe your problem is that you dont know what the word FACT means - Do yourself a favor and look it up. 

Lets play another fun game - to be fair to Jerry he didnt have a  1st round pick for four of the 9 years ( Between Jimmy and Bill )  Two of them he gave away 

  for Gallaway - good trade Jerry.  

    In the 9 years Jerry had 25  -    2nd and 3rd  rounders   -   we got 7 good players.  - so thats 18 busts.

  In the 5 years Jimmy was there -  he had  -    17  - 2nd and 3rd   rounders  -  we got 13 good players  -  so thats 4 busts.  

      Go to 4th rounders -  Jimmy had 2 of 8 turn out to be good   -     Jerry had 0 of 14 turn out to be good    did you get that ZERO. 

     Please look all this up yourself  at  :         http://www.databasefootball.com/draft/draftteam.htm?tm=DAL&lg=NFL

              I'm dying to see how your going to twist this around.   Well I think I wasted enough time with you - do yourself a favor and STOP using the word FACT - cause you really dont know how to use it .  Look at all the figures that I gave - the only "Facts" are the picks themselfs - when I say "2 of 7 were busts"  - that is an opinon - but one that I think most will agree, see the differance.

 so when you say :  " Player for Player a huge huge huge percentage of the Johnson picks from 1 - 4 were busts. Those are just the facts "  

     That is just false - so please learn to use the word facts correctly.  I'll let the people who read the facts determine if Jimmys' picks were huge busts,

 I think they could see for themselfs the differance in Jimmy and Jerrys picks. 

There is no need for you to comeback.  It is as I just posted it. Player for Player a huge huge huge percentage of the Johnson picks from 1 - 4 were busts.  Those are just the facts.  Of course we got lucky on a 12th round pick here and a 9th round pick there, but if you attribute that to Johnsons eye and not the scouts...so be it.  But for the pick you EXPECT to play for you....1 - 4 MAJOR BUSTS. 

  
 O HELL NO - I'M NOT GOING TO LET YOU GET AWAY WITH THAT ONE -  Here is a list of the 1st 4 rounds of the 89' to 93' drafts when Jimmy was here.

   OK out of those 7 -  Two were busts Walsh and Weston and in Jerrys infinite wisdom traded Wisniewski who had a great carear with the Raiders.

          So again 2of 7 were busts - thats a real HIGH PERCENTAGE-    (  Note sarcasim )

First of all Wisnewski was drafted FOR the Raiders in a deal for picks from day 1.  So with those VERY HIGH in each round picks ( the point that was made but ignored ) we came away with Aikman ( without JIMMY's input.

Walsh ( the 1st overall pick in the draft well LOST, which is a TRAVESTY of a BUST. Johnston with a 39 ( almost a first ) Step and Tolbert.  YES a fine draft.  Your point?  That's a 1st, 2nd and 4th players, and a 1st and 3rd BUSTs.  If you only have the 1st and 3rd you have squat. Again.....the multiple picks saved the day and Aikman was not Jimmy's pick, Walsh the bust was.

   3 players -  I dont know if there were any busts cause Wright was a decent # 3 WR .

Emmitt Smith was great.  Alexander Wright as the 26th player taken was a BUST!  and Jimmy Jones was a OK at best and had his best season as a rookie in an 8 year career on 3 teams.

      this one had 11 players and 5 were busts -  James Richards, and the four 4th rounders -  

OOOOOOOOOK...so 3 number 1 picks and the NUMBER 1 OVERALL PICK, and we come away with Maryland, Harper, and Pritchett, and you say this is a success?  Horrible? NO.  Success, I say not.

A Bust on yet another 3. But yet another 3 to take up the slack, again makes my points.  And with a 2 and a 3  we did OK with Myles and Edwards. But for the 37th player taken Edwards was OK.

1, 12, and 20 overall and this is a success.  Perhaps we have different opinions and expectations for the draft, but I would expect for a draft that was that ripe in points we would have done far far better.  Just an Idea of what those picks in a couple of drafts yeilded - go look up 1's 12's and 20's over history.

    7 players - 2 busts - Brown and Myslinski.   AGAIN 2 OF 7 WERE BUSTS - WOW A REAL HIGH PERCENTAGE -  THIS IS WHAT YOUR SAYING ARE FACTS.

Now this is funny.  Kevin Smith was a fine Cowboy. But if YOU say Robert Jones as the 24th player taken was a success ( again with a 1st round Pick ) we just will have to AGREE to DISAGREE. lol

Jimmy CUT Jimmy Smith who went on to have a Hall of Fame Career. lol   Again with a mulitple pick.

and James Brown and Myslinski were not good picks. So I see from 2 ones, 2 twos, 2 threes, and a 4, 3 Cowboy players and the entire bottom half of the draft Busts to go alone with half of the made picks not being Cowboys in the top 3 rounds.  You may think this is great drafting, I don't.  Again, if we don't have the multiple picks its a 50/50 shot that the guy even plays in the league.  Great?  I think not.

   5 players - two busts - Middeton and Lassic  -    I know your going to say - what about Stone -  Well he was a back-up with us he started a couple of games cause of injury - to make a long story short - the Giants signed him to a pretty good contract and we could not sign him cause of salery cap issues, - but he tuned out to be a good player.  

I agree on Stone. So this was a good draft.

     So the totals are -  out of 33 players that we got 22 turned out to be good and 11 were busts. NOW HOW CAN YOU SAY THAT IS A

                " LARGE PERCENTAGE OF BUSTS "   I wanted to write this list so people can see that just cause YOU say something is a fact  it doesn't make it so. This way when people read your posts they know not to always believe it when you say something is a fact.  

           Maybe your problem is that you dont know what the word FACT means - Do yourself a favor and look it up. 

I don't have 1 issue in the WORLD with people seeing the list.  You just did what I did before showing that with all those multiple picks it was POT LUCK that we did well.  And I still say what I said.....NO multiple picks orchestrated by Jerry and we may NEVER had hit on those picks. 

-  I count a 1st, 2nd and 3rd Blown picks in 89 of A VERY VERY HIGH NATURE

-  A number 26 pick BUST in 90 and a mediocre 3.

- 91 yielded players but look at the point value per the production with all those high picks. 3 1's!

- 92 was a good draft.

- 93 was a good draft

So if YOU say this was somehow Head and Shoulders above and Great Drafting by Jimmy, we simply DISAGREE.

Lets play another fun game - to be fair to Jerry he didnt have a  1st round pick for four of the 9 years ( Between Jimmy and Bill )  Two of them he gave away 

  for Gallaway - good trade Jerry.  

    In the 9 years Jerry had 25  -    2nd and 3rd  rounders   -   we got 7 good players.  - so thats 18 busts.

  In the 5 years Jimmy was there -  he had  -    17  - 2nd and 3rd   rounders  -  we got 13 good players  -  so thats 4 busts.  

      Go to 4th rounders -  Jimmy had 2 of 8 turn out to be good   -     Jerry had 0 of 14 turn out to be good    did you get that ZERO. 

Again your Characterizations of players being GOOD or not I do not agree with.  Secondly All one has to do is ADD UP the point values of the 1st through 4ths that Jimmy had vs Jerry and one MORE than sees Jimmy did not do Great things with the High Draft picks he had.   Secondly and more importantly you now even have ME saying JIMMY HAD.  The point of this discussion as was lay out Player by Player in the Post before this one tells the tell.  But as you say.....Lets play a game.....:

Jimmy had 25 picks in the 1st 3 rounds over 5 years and 17,500 draft points to spend.

     This group touts 7 pro bowl players. Troy Aikman, Jerrys pick included.

Post Jimmy...the next 5 years the team had 18 picks and 6,667 points to spend, almost 11,000 points less.

      This group touts 4 pro bowl players.

5 years further....14 picks and 7,365 points.

     This group touts 4 pro bowl players.

SO over a 10 year period of time and DOUBLE the draft years with 3500 less points to spend, the Cowboys produced 1 more pro bowl player than Jimmy's teams.

That was the point I was making and there is no other way to spin it.  If you have 17,500 draft points in 5 years YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO DO SUPER.  We did OK.

      I'm dying to see how your going to twist this around.   Well I think I wasted enough time with you - do yourself a favor and STOP using the word FACT - cause you really dont know how to use it .  Look at all the figures that I gave - the only "Facts" are the picks themselfs - when I say "2 of 7 were busts"  - that is an opinon - but one that I think most will agree, see the differance.  so when you say :  " Player for Player a huge huge huge percentage of the Johnson picks from 1 - 4 were busts. Those are just the facts "     That is just false - so please learn to use the word facts correctly.  I'll let the people who read the facts determine if Jimmys' picks were huge busts, I think they could see for themselfs the differance in Jimmy and Jerrys picks. 

       
Well YOU were DYING and now you are DONE.  I hope the FACTS - as they related to the argument of how well Jimmy did with what he had vs Jerry - which WAS in FACT what the argument actually WAS is pretty clear.  We won Super Bowls, so as is typical, Jimmy was heralded as a hero for his drafts. But when you go inside baseball he was an avg drafter at best. ( this fact was proven in Miami )  And when you go further inside, the team did not go that far off the path of picking players when you place it in the actual context of the values we had to work with and injuries that forced us to draft to NEED.

If you have 100,000 dollars you should have a better house, car and girl friend than if you have 33,000 dollars.  Draft value points are like dollars and the Cowboys of the early 80's were RICH and the Cowboys of the Late 90's were middle class, and only a right wing hack would expect that they should have the same results.

I stand by the fact that Jimmy had many busts.  Look at the HIGH nature of those picks and I don't see how any other conclusion could be come to. 

PS: you are delusional if you think anyone is paying attention to this back and forth between you and I.

 Am I the one confused???  What does the Draft by Jones vs Johnson have to do with the comparing of the Pat dynasty to the great dynasty of the Cowboys.

I think the differenceis that, for the most part, the Cowboy organization did it the old fashioned way,  hard work and better play, not with Hard work and better videos. 

CWBYon12/27/59:

 Am I the one confused???  What does the Draft by Jones vs Johnson have to do with the comparing of the Pat dynasty to the great dynasty of the Cowboys? I think the difference is that, for the most part, the Cowboy organization did it the old fashioned way,  hard work and better play, not with Hard work and better videos. 

 I'm with you on this one, CWBY.  The Draft stuff is interesting, but totally off the topic.

As for the Pats vs. Cowboys dynasty...  First, the Pats could have said they were the best team in any given year, had they not gotten their butts handed to them by the G-men. They could still claim a "perfect" regular season, although I still make mental note of the "video cheating" scandal, so there will always be an asterisk, so long as they have the same head coach. Second, the "decade" isn't over yet, so I think it's way too soon to crown any team for this particular decade.

And lastly, overall, to me...a TRUE dynasty is one that lasts a helluva lot longer than one decade. And that's where the Cowboys by far outshine the Patriots.  

I think G2 said it best:

G2:

The difference in my eyes is that Dallas has been great throughout the history of the NFL. There has been a handful of coaches that had success. After Bellycheat retires or is done humping Bradys leg , they will go back to their sucking traditions. Imo, they rule. In the late 60's they were good. Superbowl in 1970, Won the Superbowl in 1971, Playoffs in 1972 and 1973, Superbowl in 1975, Playoffs in 1976, Won the Superbowl in 1977, Superbowl in 1978, Playoffs in 1979, Playoffs in 1980, Playoofs in 1981, Playoffs in 1982, Playoffs 1983, Playoffs in 1985, Playoffs in 1991, Won the Superbowl in 1992, 1993, Playoffs in 1994, Won the Superbowl in 1995, Playoffs in 1996, Playoffs in 1998, Playoffs in 1999, Playoffs in 2003, Playoffs in 2006 and 2007.  The Patties have had ONE good decade, but it's not over. There's still a couple of years left for us to dominate in the 2000's.

Added to that are a few NFL Records that the Patriots are no where close to accomplishing:

• Longest streak of winning seasons: 20 straight...yes, that's STRAIGHT...winning seasons
• Most Playoff Appearances (28, which includes another league record of 55 postseason games, winning 32 of them)
• Most NFC Championship Appearances (14, winning more than half of them)
• Most Super Bowl Appearances (8) - That's at least 2 more than any other NFL team, and 3 more than the Pats.

And while we're on the subject of Super Bowls, consider this:

The greatest margin of any Dallas "loss" in the big game was a minor 4 points, while the greatest margin of "victory" was 35 (against a team that went to 4-straight Super Bowls).
The greatest margin of any Pats "loss" in the big game was 14 points, while their greatest margin of "victory" was only 3 points. 

When you look at all of that and then remember that the Patriots and Cowboys have been in the NFL for exactly the same number of years, it's obvious. There is no comparison. The true dynasty of the Dallas Cowboys is as clear and solid as the diamonds in the Super Bowl rings on Jerry Jones' hand.

 i for one can't even begin to fathom why anyone would even consider the Pat's dynasty in the same breath as the Cowboy's ,  our's span's 5 decades thier's hasnt even reached 1 decade no comparison in my eye's

pats cheated and we didnt end of story.......OR we both did and we didnt get caught which means we are better at cheating making us better so either way you look at it we win CASE CLOSED

No comparison. They cheated to win, we didn't.

 18 in CHOKE!