Skip to main content

The Dallas Cowboys' 26-Year Super Bowl Drought

After the Dallas Cowboys' 17-23 playoff loss against the San Francisco 49ers on Sunday, the sports world couldn't help but ask the question: What's the ultimate reason for the Cowboys' 26-year Super Bowl drought? The explanation is a bit nuanced, but the answer is fairly straightforward: team owner, president and general manager Jerry Jones. 

It doesn't take a forensics team to map out the events of the past twenty-six years. It wasn't Colonel Mustard with the candlestick or the lead pipe. It's actually much simpler than that: it was Jerry Jones who killed the Dallas Cowboys. 

Since the day that he fired the beloved Tom Landry, Jerry Jones has chased away every good coach who's entered the building, and he's singlehandedly compromised the identity and destroyed the culture of the organization. The firing of Tom Landry was just the beginning.




Today, the Dallas Cowboys are the Dallas Cowboys in name only. There's absolutely nothing left, in terms of culture and identity, of the Cowboys of old. I was a lifelong Dallas Cowboys fan, but I loved the Dallas Cowboys for their unique identity; that they created a culture around the likes of Tom Landry, Roger Staubach, Bob Lilly and Tex Schramm; that they once stood proud of this country and proud to be "America's Team". At this point, they might as well be called the Dallas Football Team. Soon enough, when the woke mob finally gets its way, that'll probably be the result anyway. 

For those interested in the recent history of the organization, they've had roughly four remarkable seasons since Super Bowl XXX: 2007, 2014, 2016, 2021. In 2007, the Cowboys had 13 Pro Bowlers; they went 13-3, and they defeated the New York Giants twice in the regular season, only to lose to them in the playoffs as the Giants went on to defeat the New England Patriots in Super Bowl XLII. That 2007 Dallas Cowboys team was certainly good enough to win the Super Bowl that year; they just fell short. 

The same can be said about the 2014 Cowboys, who suffered at the hands of the controversial "catch" by Dez Braynt near the end of regulation at Lambeau Field. In recent years, the NFL confessed that the referees made the wrong call, and that Dez Bryant indeed caught the football. It's possible that, had the referees made the correct call, the Cowboys would have gone on to score and win the game against Green Bay. Instead, they fell to the Packers 21-26. 

The 2016 season witnessed yet another controversy, but this time in the quarterback room. All Pro quarterback Tony Romo was slated as the team's starter but suffered a serious back injury in a preseason game against the Seattle Seahawks. Rookie Dak Prescott subsequently inherited one of the best offenses in the NFL, and the best surrounding cast ever inherited by a rookie quarterback in NFL history. The Cowboys finished the regular season with a 13-3 record, only to lose in the divisional round of the playoffs, once again to the Green Bay Packers. 

In hindsight, the 2016 Cowboys committed to the hot hand in rookie Dak Prescott, when they ought to have reinserted the proven veteran and All Pro Tony Romo at the quarterback position. Romo was a far more seasoned and proven passer, whereas Prescott lagged behind Romo in virtually every facet of his game. Prescott was demonstrably a poor passer during the 2016 campaign, whose success was largely attributable to rudimentary play calls to accommodate his inability and inexperience. Regrettably, this decision was partly responsible for the end of two great careers: those of Tony Romo and Dez Bryant. Throughout the 2016 season, Prescott's inabilities as a passer virtually neutralized Dez Bryant as an offensive weapon. Bryant thrived with his physicality in contested catch situations. 

Throughout the 2016 season, Prescott was unable to accurately place balls on target, and so Bryant suffered greatly as a result. A legitimate argument can be waged, as I do here, that Dez Bryant's departure from the Dallas Cowboys, and subsequently from the NFL, was attributable to the decision to start Dak Prescott over Tony Romo. While we will never know, it is quite possible that, with Tony Romo back at the helm down the stretch, the Dallas Cowboys would have been a viable contender for Super Bowl LI. 

While it is true that certain factors beyond their control have plagued the Dallas Cowboys since their last Super Bowl appearance twenty-six years ago, it's also true that the organization has enjoyed some limited success and, otherwise, made poor decisions which have condemned them to failure. The most important intangible within any organization, whether a business, a team or whatever, is leadership. Leadership sets the tone and fosters the culture of the team, and it is a combination of talent and culture (and a little bit of luck along the way) that wins championships. On each of the rare occasions that the Dallas Cowboys have enjoyed sound leadership from their head coaches, namely Tom Landry, Jimmy Johnson and Bill Parcells, the team owner Jerry Jones has chased them away. 

Since acquiring the Dallas Cowboys in 1989, Jerry Jones has longed to be more than just an owner; he's wanted to be the owner, the president, the general manager, and the head coach. He craves control throughout the entire organization, and he's refused to cede any of that control to anyone, even if that means sacrificing a promising Super Bowl run. Unsurprisingly, when Jones was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, he even confessed that he wouldn't give up that honor for anything, even if that meant another Super Bowl win. That should tell you everything you need to know about the guy. He doesn't care about the team; he cares only about himself. 

The annals of history demonstrate that good coaches will not tolerate these impositions; good coaches need to have control over team and personnel decisions, as they are responsible for using those tools to get the job done. The same is true for any technical professional: when the mechanic works on your vehicle, you stay out of the way and you let the man work, and you let him decide on the tools. 

An athletic organization is even more complicated, for the fact that people are the coach's tools, but in this case the tools are like gears that cooperate and interact with each other; with that in mind, they must be selected carefully, and they must be compatible with the others. The combination of these individuals and their personalities, whether conflicting or complementary, will decide the culture and, with it, the fate of the season. 

This is the reason that the Dallas Cowboys haven't reached the Super Bowl in twenty-six years. It's not simply because they've been unlucky, which they have. It's not simply that they've made poor decisions, which they have. It's that they're unlucky, they make poor decisions, and they have an owner who's involved in all of it. The Dallas Cowboys are not unlucky just because they've suffered key injuries and bad calls from the referees. They're not destined for failure just because they've made some poor decisions. They're unlucky and destined for failure precisely because they have an owner who consistently predetermines their fate. 

Championship teams succeed because of culture, and successful culture is the consequence of sound leadership. No organization can flourish in a competitive environment without either, and the second is indispensable to the first. So long as Jerry Jones is the owner of the Dallas Cowboys, they will continue their newfound tradition of disappointment and mediocrity. It's about time their fans walk away or otherwise get used to it.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would