with a nod to Raf in this morning's main post, this phrase has been rattling around in my head since before this today's 1st cup of coffee.

Dear Jerry,

Thank-you for the 90's. Well, the early and middle parts at least. Latter - not so much, but SF was going through the same salary cap hell we were. And you were the only owner of the last several that had the stones to address 'The Landry Problem.' Thought you were unfairly criticized for that. And the stories about the Royal Prince on the sidelines that upset Jimmy so much were as much a part of your charm, maybe even the marketing genius to expand on the Cowboy brand.

But now? I think you've confused The Brand with The Product. As far as results go - the Dallas Cowboys have been competitively irrelevant for this entire decade. That's some pretty tall cotton when you think about it. The 60's saw the birth of a team, a coach, a GM and an owner dynamic that would revolutionize several aspects of the game. The 70's brought us to those Championships we so desperately needed to validate the greatness we all saw. And even though we slipped in the 80's, we were near great for a while. And again, I can forgive you for the late 90's because each period of success is inevitably followed by a period of decline.

But now, you've wasted an entire decade. You told me Chan Gailey was the answer, then Campo, then Parcells and now Wade. Some of them didn't even know the question. You told me Quincy Bleepin Carter was the Man. Please. You let Troy Hambrick talk his way into Emmit's job. And you tried to tell me Vinny T, Eddie George, Meshawn and Zach Thomas weren't retreads. I bought into it the whole time. Then you tried to sell me flash over substance - and a collection of primma donnas, thugs and malcontents polluted our locker room.

Don't believe this team is making the playoffs. And even if we did, who do you think we're going to beat? The only consolation I take is from failure, comes change. I think we need an honest assessment of our player talent because I think we're giving way too much credit in several areas. Coaching? We all know our HC is a dead man walking, my questions are - how much change is coming, how much subsequent needs to be made and how long will that take? Wholesale change for the sake of change is not better, it's probably more disruptive, but how do we keep the parts we want, without offering opportunities for advancement?

I'l concede the Marketing genius and business acumen. But, the critical part now is how much you're willing to change- to stop the meddling, quit undermining your own coaches and cede some power to it's rightful place. Remember the definition of insanity...

Hurry up, I don't have that many more decades left.

<!--Session data-->

It occurred to me after the game - is the question, have we overestimated our talent? In assessing our 12 year period of playoff failure, only one constant emerges. I now realize we have bought into our Marketer-in-Chief's rhetoric time after time and really need a critical assessment of who we are.

Short and sweet, I think we've overestimated talent levels in the following areas:

• O-Line: Pick anyone
• O-Skill positions: MBII is simply not a featured back, but a closer. Felix-jury out, trend line not good, but has not had the impact we hoped nor what a Draft pick in that position should be. RW-chronic underachiever to date, doubt there is any debate on this
• D-Line/LB: Marcus Spears, but we kind of know this. B Carp-much worse, but we already know this. I'll add Bradie James because we just give up too many big/critical plays in his area. To an extent, I think he suffers in his attempted 'Leadership' role because his team mates know his play doesn't rise to the level of his rhetoric. Possibly why K Brooking has filled that void in so short a period of time.
• DB's - T New is maddeningly inconsistent and K Hamlin has spent entire games MIA.

How many other 'Championship' teams have so many questions/underachievers across their roster like this? About 4 on the starting Offensive and Defensive units apiece - over 1/3 of all Starters?

With a nod to Bill Clinton for authorship, 'It's the Talent, Stupid.'

One game does not make a season, but it sure can set the tone.Think for a minute of all the angst if DAL had lost yesterday with the Giants heading to town.

So a win is a win, even if it was stylistically challenged. Most importantly, by winning we avoid a lot of doubt and allow this team to form its identity without it. There's plenty of questions and we'll need some quick answers by SUN nite.

BTB, now my favorite place for DC info, has its own identity. Man, we are a neurotic bunch. I am typically texting 2 other die-hard fans and my son while watching and can't blog live. But how I enjoy reading the game threads, now so huge they are almost undigestable, afterward with the knowledge of what happened. It typically progresses from:

Yay - Let's go - Uh oh -  WTF to(inevitably he/they/we)suck. Back to Yay, - allright etc, etc.. Yesterday, the naysyaers would not give it up even when the game was decided. Hence the style issues that must be addressed.

Here's my $.02:

- So are we still a quick-strike O or methodical? Seems as long as Garrett/Romo are calling the shots, we already know the answer. But Romo's continuous refrain of 'we're taking what they give us,' looks accurate. Interested in the deeper analysis to see what TB was doing and what we exploited. I think this approach could explain our 'slow starts' on O - probing and assessing at the outset. I know all us armchair QB's prefer an aggressive approach, but we got plenty aggressive when the time was right

- ST play was downright refreshing, good to not fear the kick of a ball by either team in any direction(T New punt catching the exception). BTW - I can't see any rational Cowboy fan busting on Crayton for kicking a lose ball out of bounds, but there were several. Reduced Penalties are welcome as well, but still happen at critical times(negating an Int, and Flo's personal foul, which I still haven't seen). Remains to be seen if this is a sustainable trend.

- Defensive play and WP's response reminded me of the big comeback win in DET 2 years ago. Wade got crossed up schematically when DET ran and it took us most of the game to get some stops. Against TB, the combination of 3 quick strike TD's during Q 2-3 while the D figured out a way to stop the Bucs on 4 straight possessions broke the game open for us. Why are we not more flexible? Can't we defend more than 1 thing at a time?

- Newcomers. Looks like Buhler, Brookings, Sensi and Igor all contributed, pretty much in that order. I know Butler played, but didn't notice anything special . I even had a B Carp sighting(newcomer to regular play), but feel his contribution was more of a push than anything. Is the absence of a negative a positive?

As for the grand opening next week, I hope the media continues to put NY in the SB as the did with us at this time last year. I was not as impressed. A very exceptional defensive play-strip-recover-score really was the difference-maker. I am hopeful a much more familiar foe will restore some normalcy to what we didn't like this week, especially for our D.

My biggest concerns lie in injuries - especially Sensabaugh. Did Jenkins hurt his wrist/hand? And it looks like Romo just tweaked his ankle.

All in all this is going to be a good week, savoring a win maybe 1 more day and then a buildup to what will be a frenzy by game time. Like our Boys, one game, one series, one play at a time.

Something stuck me in the 5 Questions post about how a team as clearly flawed as SF can be forecast at 8-8 while most pundits have a talented DAL team at 9-7. The answer, of course, is the strength of each team's division - with the East generally conceded to be 'The Best Division in the NFL'(apologies to AFC South) and the West considered 'The Worst Division in the NFL.' It's basically a no-brainer that the Cowboys would win the West outright with a virtual sweep of Division foes - conceding a Road loss to AZ just to temper any charges of homerism.

The larger point is this - during Divisional realignment a couple of years back, JJ insisted the Cowboys stay in the East - traditional rivalries and history as the reasoning. But the real motivation is, as it should be for an owner - dollars. Simply - ratings, merchandise sales and interest will be highest if these are maintained. But does this stand up in reality? Do theCowboys/NFL really need this to ensure ratings? Competitively, are the Cowboys served best in this alignment, taking into account this is all cyclical. Doesn't winning = playoff seeding = success? Wouldn't that produce the same if not better, commercial results as being less competitive in a traditional alignment? Travel would be less burdensome (and 'Greener'). Certainly, late season weather would be less of a factor as well.

I hate the Giants, having gown up in NY. I despise the Redskins and went to college in DC. And I absolutely loathe Philly and basically have left town as soon as I could whenever I went there(except for visits to Bookbinders). But do I need those rivalries - not so sure anymore. What say you?

<!--Session data-->

Have heard  no reporting on either of these and am more than curious - both could have big impacts on our season:

1) Is TR's pinky OK?

He was not the same thrower after the injury than before, that much is clear and perfectly understandable. Also believe subsequent injuries - especially his back, had more impact in the final few games. However, there have been consistent reports over several sessions of off-target throws. Even the dreaded 'duck' was referenced if I recall correctly. As a former QB, I know if you can't grip the ball, you tend to 'push' it and that can result in some ugly throws

I haven't heard any mention of this by the media, coaching staff or Romo himself. Anyone ?

2) What kind of shape is M Holland in?

Both from a conditioning standpoint and recover from his injury (foot?). I believe the answer to our DEC swoon is some good old NFC East smash mouth football. What isn't discussed is that most teams passing stats decline late in the season - the cumulative effect of simply wearing down and cold/inclement weather, especially in the NorthEast.

I would think someone might make an observation as to simply how fat or out of shape he may or may not be. OLine depth is simply too important to go unmentioned.

Bonus question - do they put on pads for the upcoming mini-camps?