Accountability should be a given, but not for Dallas Cowboys

Posted Thursday, Oct. 22, 2009 Comments   (0) Print Share Share Reprints
A

Have more to add? News tip? Tell us

By RANDY GALLOWAY

rgalloway@star-telegram.com

galloway Admittedly, when it comes to ranking the dumbest, most dysfunctional NFL football operations, our Valley Ranch contingent does not currently qualify as a major contender for No. 1.

Please, however, don’t mistake that as a compliment. It’s just that the league front-runners in doing-it-all-wrong have plunged so far off the deep end — as in Redskins, Raiders, and Browns — not even Jerry has a chance to catch-up.

Well, OK. Scratch that. Never say never on anything with Jerry.

But the Cowboys, of course, still have their ongoing, dim-bulb moments.

Why do they make this so difficult?

The most elementary process in any team concept, peewees to the pros, is to have some form of accountability from the top on down. Leadership matters, but leadership is a special process. It doesn’t just happen.

Accountability, however, is another thing. This requires nothing except an honest, up-front approach in all areas, and due to the nature of my work, I’d like to think that includes the media. Then again, let’s be realistic.

But within the confines of your own locker room, accountability should be a given. Players may ask and expect too much from the head coach, the coordinators, the position coaches, etc., but in the end, being honest with them is not exactly an unreasonable approach. Players want to know where they stand, even if they sometimes don’t want to hear the truth.

Around here, I know it’s not popular to defend Patrick Crayton, the receiver, who for a variety of reasons is not exactly a sympathetic figure with the fandom. And Crayton’s role last December in that locker room stupidity doesn’t qualify him as a team-first disciple.

But Crayton was a starter for the Cowboys, and as of Sunday against Atlanta he most definitely will not be a starter for the Cowboys, unless between now and then there’s an injury flare-up with, say, Roy Williams.

How in the name of Jimmy Johnson are you NOT capable of being honest, with no misunderstanding, when dealing with a Patrick Crayton? We aren’t exactly talking big-time here.

This week, Crayton had to announce himself that he was no longer the starter, and Miles Austin was, based on practice-field reps. Crayton also mentioned no one had told him about his demotion, and added, "it would have been real stand up" if that had happened.

Well, I hear otherwise. Hear that Crayton was told if Roy Williams was healthy, Roy would start. Crayton didn’t lie. There was no reason for that. But there was a misunderstanding. Why would there be a misunderstanding with Patrick?

Crayton’s comment set off a chain reaction of mumblings from Mr. Jones, who seemed confused, with a "uh …uh … uh … hmm … uh … there’s no need to," when asked why the change at receiver hadn’t even included Crayton being told.

Wade Phillips, our favorite whipping post on such things as a head coach providing leadership and accountability, fumbled through the question, saying at various times "I think ... I’m sure ... I know ..." Crayton was told. Wade, to put it kindly, came off as confused, the same as Jerry.

Looking for comments?

Join the discussion

The Star-Telegram is pleased to provide this opportunity for you to share your thoughts and observations about news topics. We enjoy lively debate on the issues of the day, but we ask that you refrain from using profanity, racist or hate speech, engaging in personal attacks or name-calling, posting advertising or external links or including remarks that are off topic. To post comments, you must be a registered user of Star-Telegram.com. Your username will show along with the comments you post. Thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts.