I'm really going to milk this time where we aren't sure how good the Cowboys are for all it's worth aren't I?
In a semi-coherent/mostly-drunken post I put together Saturday evening I briefly mentioned how even though the 2009 Cowboys exceed the 2010 team in talent and experience, the 2010 Pokes seem to fit together in a more sensible manner, creating a whole greater than the sum of it's parts. To quote myself:
Every player's specialty seems to fit a specific need, and we aren't having to force talent onto the field in areas it doesn't fit. From the way Hunter, Randle, and Smith all complement each other's unique running styles, to the starting LBs unique specialties (Lemon is the leader, Thomas is the versatility, and Gent is the rock) that mesh, without overlapping too much, and create a solid unit... this is a team where it feels like the whole is so much greater than the sum of its parts, and every players role serves to make their teammates better.
(Wow.. that is the first time I have ever quoted myself... I will have to start doing that more... it is so freeing and arrogant.)
Click the jump for a stat comparison.
|Per game stats through 3 games
This was one of those times it was beneficial to get drunk and put thoughts to html editor as I never would have considered that this team may be better than the 2009 team unless I was drinking. Other things I wouldn't have considered if I hadn't been drinking on Saturday include: What that asshole over there thinks he is looking at, if that flower pot can hold an entire bladder-full of urine, and whether a Tony's pizza will cook correctly if you set the oven to broil (spoiler: it doesn't). But back to the original thought... could this team be better than the 2009 team?
Sure the 2009 team had the hype coming into the season, and finished with 9 wins in spite of a rash of injury and suspension issues.... but we went through an entire season feeling like we never really saw that team play the way it could. It was a team with a lot of great players who didn't quite fit together correctly to form a great team, and thus, never performed to expectations.
The 2010 team is just the opposite... no big expectations coming into the season and no individual talents getting national attention, but the unit as a whole meshes in a way last years team never seemed to be able to do. Every position is manned by someone who possesses the exact skill set needed to combine well with his teammates around him, and we have seen this team execute at close to perfection for most of the season (a few turnovers vs Troy aside).
Looking at the side-by-side stats through 3 games, the defenses are about equal, while the 2010 offense blows the doors off the 2009 team. Of course the 118th ranked SOS has something to do with that, but do we think the 2009 team would have looked this good with this schedule? And to reverse the question, could the 2010 team have fared better against Georgia, Houston, and Rice than the 2009 team did? What do you think? Vote in the poll and/or leave a comment.
And yes, this discussion is completely hypothetical, and frivolous, and we will know a lot more about how good this team is in 4 days... but part of the point of this site (there is a point to this?) is representing the fan view of things, and personally one of my favorite parts of being a fan is having a few beers with fellow fans and discussing the hypothetical and the frivolous... then having a few more beers and pissing in a flower pot.