WI: Tom Landry Never Coached The Cowboys?

IOTL, when the Dallas Cowboys started play
in 1960 Tom Landry was their head coach, &
would stay in the job until 1989. What if-

The Cowboys, for whatever reason, had NOT
hired Landry in 1960 but someone else. What difference would it have made to the
Cowboy's subsequent history? Or- would it
have made little, if any, difference?(Skip
Bayless, in AMERICA'S TEAM, 1990, argues
it was Gil Brandt's incredible scouting, not
Landry, that was the biggest reason that the
Cowboys were so good for so long. Do you
football people out there agree?)
 
Last edited:
IOTL, when the Dallas Cowboys started play
in 1960 Tom Landry was their head coach, &
would stay in the job until 1989. What if-

The Cowboys, for whatever reason, had NOT
hired Landry in 1960 but someone else. What difference would it have made to the
Cowboy's subsequent history? Or- would it
have made little, if any, difference?(Skip
Bayless, in AMERICA'S TEAM, 1990, argues
it was Gil Brandt's incredible scouting, not
Landry, that was the biggest reason that the
Cowboys were so good for so long. Do you
football people out there agree?)

If Dallas didn't get Landry, it would have meant that Jim Lee Howell would have stepped down as coach of the Giants, and Landry would have been given his job.

If that happens, I don't think that the Cowboys have the same success. Landry was a special coach. His patience and temperament were perfect for an expansion team.
 
His patience and temperament were perfect for an expansion team
Same could be said of Coughlin and the Jags.

Without Landry the cowboys wouldn't be "America's team" despite only winning 2 Super Bowls he took them to 5. heck without Landry would they have drafted Staubach?

Imo Landry would have been hired by the gaints and would have led them to the Super Bowl. And thus making the 30 year dry period redundant in NYG history. In the other hand without the cowboys the vikings would have been the team of the NFC with green bay going through the post Lombardi drought and the cowboys not being in their way, IMO they would have been mediocre without Landry the viks could have won some rings.

In the end the biggest loser in this scenario would be football it self, without the cowboys the image of football would be radically different that I can't see a place without them as America's Team.
 
Last edited:
Assuming Landry is promoted to head coach of the Giants - and there's no reason he wouldn't be, the Giants were in the market for a new coach a year after Landry left the building - for starters, there's a good chance their run of three NFL championship appearances and losses turns into a 1-2 run (apologies to Landry, but no way are the Giants beating the Lombardi Packers).

Now, this has a number of knock-on effects on NFL history. For one, Allie Sherman. OTL, he went with the Giants as offensive coordinator with the expectation that he'd get the head-coaching job down the line; with Landry now lined up for succession, there's a good chance he'll go with Vince Lombardi's offer to become the Packers' offensive coordinator. And being Vince Lombardi's offensive coordinator will almost certainly do good things for his chances at an NFL head coaching job by 1962. Assuming the first Cowboys head coach fails utterly - and I can easily see that happening - Sherman's a good candidate for the job. Combined with Gil Brandt, I'd expect the Cowboys to become a respectable organization by the 1970s, though probably not to the point of the near-dynasty Landry created.

As for Landry and the Giants, beyond the early 60s, he'll probably avert the playoff drought the Giants suffered in between 1962 and Bill Parcells. Talent drain, owner feuding, and a potent run of AFC heavyweights probably means he won't do much more than that. The really interesting idea is if he doesn't trade away Fran Tarkenton back to the Vikings; I honestly don't see the Vikings making another three Super Bowls without him.

So the Cowboys and Vikings are both weaker than OTL, and the Giants aren't going to be good enough to quite compensate. With butterflies flapping their wings... keep an eye on the Rams. They were a very good team in the 70s OTL, one that couldn't get over the hump. Weakening the NFC's powerhouses will likely net them some more appearances, and maybe a win somewhere.
 


I think a lot of it is regression to the mean. In this graph, there are many more ways to be average and to be remarkable.

So, any significant change in the Cowboys, they are likely to be more middle-of-the-pack.

======================

This argument convinces me 70%! :p Think there's something to it, but it's not a complete slam dunk.
 
I also wonder how it shifts things if one of those 1970 or 1971 49ers slips through to a Super Bowl. This probably has the biggest implications for the Vikings, since they may get a few more Super Bowl cracks; a lot of Minnesota fans consider the 12-2 1975 team that lost on a (laughably poorly covered) Hail Mary from Staubach in the divisional round to be their best team of that decade.

From a perception standpoint, the Cowboys probably are not "America's Team", but that doesn't mean they won't be one of the most popular franchises. If you look at teams that made up the premerger NFL and have stayed in one market, most still have very stable fanbases. Even if they had stretches of sustained mediocrity, they'd probably have a following similar to the Bears.

1963 against the Bears seems like the most likely time for a Landry-led Giants Championship, those early 60s Packers were too good (the 61 packers were 1st in points scored and points allowed, 62 Packers were first in points scored and 2nd in points allowed) for OTL early 1960s aging Giants core to be considered favorites even with better coaching.
 
Without the Cowboys in the way? They have a shot. Hell, if they break through in 1970 they have a shot at beating the Colts. And without the Cowboys, maybe the Dolphins pull off the threepeat in '71, '72, and '73.
 
. . . 1963 against the Bears seems like the most likely time for a Landry-led Giants Championship, those early 60s Packers were too good (the 61 packers were 1st in points scored and points allowed, 62 Packers were first in points scored and 2nd in points allowed) . . .
Landry viewed him and Vince as opposite ends of the spectrum. Lombardi worked at perfectionizing the simple (the Packer power sweep!) whereas Landry ran a complex offense.

If Tom had stayed at New York and become their head coach, there would have been some great battles between the Giants and the Packers! :) And this was before wild card teams in the playoffs, which would have kind of made the division battles sweeter.
 
Landry viewed him and Vince as opposite ends of the spectrum. Lombardi worked at perfectionizing the simple (the Packer power sweep!) whereas Landry ran a complex offense.

If Tom had stayed at New York and become their head coach, there would have been some great battles between the Giants and the Packers! :) And this was before wild card teams in the playoffs, which would have kind of made the division battles sweeter.

It would have been too fun! In the Packers' America's Game Doc on Super Bowl I, Bill Curry mentioned that in the 1966 NFL Championship game, Lombardi figured the Cowboys would adjust pretty well to the power sweep and would spend their week preparing for adjustment after adjustment to stop the sweep, so they just threw the play out and opened up the offense through the air and running to the weak side without the extra TE in to block on the sweep.
 
Without his role model, Hank R. Hill would never have become the man he is today, and therefore the Hill Dynasty would never have been started.
 
It would have been too fun! In the Packers' America's Game Doc on Super Bowl I, Bill Curry mentioned that in the 1966 NFL Championship game, Lombardi figured the Cowboys would adjust pretty well to the power sweep and would spend their week preparing for adjustment after adjustment to stop the sweep, so they just threw the play out and opened up the offense through the air and running to the weak side without the extra TE in to block on the sweep.

Yes, Lombardi was not as stodgy as a lot of
people seem to think he was(in other words,
his teams could- & did- know how to put the
ball in the air).
 
Maybe Peter Gent would have wound up on
another team & instead we'd have gotten-
SOUTH GREEN BAY FORTY.
Gent was a basketball player at Michigan State. Gil Brandt was likely the only GM who would have drafted him. The Cowboys loved to draft 'sleepers'.
 
Gent was a basketball player at Michigan State. Gil Brandt was likely the only GM who would have drafted him. The Cowboys loved to draft 'sleepers'.

Good points. It's just that I don't want to
see Gent's novelistic career butterflied away.
Wait- I know- he catches on with an AFL
team( I think there were still two leagues
when Gent was starting out). I can see it
now- WEST OAKLAND FORTY. Only quest-
ion now is- who's gonna play Al Davis in the
movie?
 
Last edited:
James Woods stars as Al Davis. And I like Gent with the Raiders. He needed a successful, but semi-dysfunctional organization for that novel to work.
 
Giants Vs Steelers rivalry?

Parallelistic thoughts I know,

Dallas moves to Tennessee?

Dallas gets the expansion Texans?

Maybe the Giants win the Ice Bowl?
 
James Woods stars as Al Davis. And I like Gent with the Raiders. He needed a successful, but semi-dysfunctional organization for that novel to work.

What a GREAT idea GunsCarsGuitars! James
Woods would be a natural playing Honest Al-
in fact it seems like the role he was born to
play!
 
Top