Daniel Houston Cheap Terrance Williams Jersey , who goes by @CowboysStats on Twitter, is a great source of analytics for all things Cowboys. One of the reasons he’s such a good source is he tends to analyze whatever dataalysis.This may sound like the logical thing to do, but I assure you, it is not. In today’s media environment of hot takes, black/white thinking, and clickrates, many folks form an opinion and then go looking for data to support that opinion.Which may be what prompted Houston to write this recent comment.When I read Houston’s take about “bad impressions” (or “preconceived opinions” as I might have phrased it) I was reminded of a book I once read by Jean-Francois Manzoni, a Professor for Leadership and Organizational Development in Lausanne, Switzerland. His book is titled “Set-up-to-Fail Syndrome: Overcoming the Undertow of Expectations” and describes a dynamic that essentially sets up perceived underperformers to fail. Back in 2011, I wrote about the Pygmalion Effect which explains how once an expectation is set, people will act in certain ways that are consistent with that expectation, causing the results of the expectation to become true - even if the initial expectation is based on a false premise.The Set-up-to-fail Syndrome is essentially the exact opposite of the Pygmalion effect.It describes a dynamic in which employees perceived to be mediocre or weak performers live down to the low expectations their managers have for them. Manzoni’s basic premise is that human beings apply labels to others all the time. A positive label in many ways is the equivalent to a get-out-of-jail free card: many mistakes will simply be overlooked or downplayed. A negative label requires an inordinate effort to overcome, if it can be overcome at all. The reason for this is that applying labels helps us make up our minds and form opinions faster without having to painstakingly analyze and evaluate all available facts. This is especially true when there is an information vacuum, such as the information vacuum in the relationship dynamic between fans or media members and players or coaches on a team. Because we don’t really know the players or coaches, we often default to labels that fit our preconceived opinions.“Dak Prescott can’t throw deep.” “Tyrone Crawford is overpaid.” “Kris Richard shouts a lot on the sidelines; ergo he must be a good leader and the next defensive coordinator.” “Garrett is a Princeton grad who often outsmarts himself, particularly in his playcalling. Also http://www.cowboyscheapauthenticstore.com/anthony-brown-jersey-cheap , he claps a lot.”“Jerry Jones is an oil-man so he cannot know anything about football”. I could go on and on, but you get the picture. These are labels that cling tighter than amermaid’s T-shirt and last longer than a white crayon. Let’s look at two labels a little more closely. “Dak Prescott doesn’t see open receivers downfield.” One of the newer narratives that have popped up this season is that Prescott regularly misses open receivers. And suddenly folks are seeing open receivers all over the place - but are these fine folks simply seeing what they want to see (or what the narrative dictates they have to see)? Perhaps you remember the following play from the game against the Jaguars:Here’s what Tony Romo had to say about that play:Tony Romo has had spectacular success as an announcer, but this is one play he simply got wrong. It is true that at the very end of the play, Elliott was indeed running towards the end zone without a defender in sight.But if “you’re going to look back at the tape” what you’ll see is that Dak Prescott was flushed out of the pocket by poor pass protection long before Elliott ran free as an unmarked receiver downfield. Here’s a screenshot from the exact play that shows Dak already up and running while Elliott has just barely cleared the linebackers. If you were looking for an open receiver, you would have found one on this play, just like Romo did. Doesn’t mean that the open receiver was an actual viable option on the play.None of this means that Prescott doesn’t miss open receivers. He does. Just like any other QB. It’s just that when you are expecting to see open receivers, you will see open receivers. “Defenses are loading the box because they don’t think Dak Prescott can beat them.”I recently saw a conversation about defenses not taking Dak Prescott seriously as a passer, which is why those defenses were regularly loading the box with “8, 9, sometimes 10 in the box to stop Zeke.”I don’t think I’ve ever seen a 10-man box outside of a goal line stand or perhaps a 4th-and-1 situation, but that’s beside the point. The issue here is the self-fulfilling nature of such labels. Once folks buy into such a label, they will begin to see what they want to see. So every time folks see a safety move down into the box, they’ll take it as further proof that defenses load the box against the Cowboys because they don’t think Prescott can beat them through the air.Never mind that that defenses load the box far less against Elliott than against many other running backs. NFL.com’s Next Gen Stats conveniently keep a tally of how often running backs run against 8+ defenders in the box. Turns out, Ezekiel Elliott faced loaded boxes on just 24% of his runs, which ranks him 20th among the 47 qualifying running backs with at least 40 attempts so far this year. This doesn’t mean that there aren’t situations where defenses do load the box more heavily against Elliott (perhaps on 1st-and-10), but those situations probably have more to do with the threat Elliott poses to defenses than with defenses not taking Prescott seriously as a passer. Because by that circuitous logic Youth Byron Jones Jersey , defenses would not be not taking guys like Ben Roethlisberger, Matthew Stafford, or Philip Rivers seriously either. These are just two examples of how subscribing to a given label can lead to all sorts of weird mental gymnastics folks go through to support a narrative. In another discussion I saw recently, folks were trying to differentiate between Prescott’s accurate and inaccurate completions in an effort to “prove” Prescott’s lack of accuracy. Analysis paralysis. Manzoni calls it labels, others call it prejudices, filters, or stereotypes. We use them all the time. They are a kind of mental shortcut which we often use to form judgments and make decisions. The downside is that these shortcuts usually involve focusing on just one aspect of a complex problem and ignoring others. My point here is simply to point out the pervasiveness of labeling, how quickly it happens, and how it can distort our view of what’s really going on, like when we try to see something through an out-of-focus lens: we’ll see something for sure, but are we sure we’re seeing the right thing?Subscribing to these labels inevitably leads you down a rabbit hole that ultimately results in the ignorant certainty that you’re right and people that don’t agree with you are stupid. It’s the cardinal sin of many self-styled “analysts”.Most of the labels I used in this post were negative labels associated with the Cowboys, which also exposes my own label: I generally view the Cowboys a little more favorably than many others do. But understanding your own use of labels and questioning their validity is the first step in making yourself a more knowledgeable fan. In sports, there is one sure-fire way of getting rid of negative labels: winning. Winning is a great deodorant. If the Cowboys string together a few wins and suddenly find themselves back in playoff contention, a lot of these negative labels will disappear and will be replaced by - you guessed it - positive labels.Doesn’t make those labels any better or more valid, but at least the mood around Cowboys Nation might improve a little. Jason Garret is rightly getting eviscerated today by pretty much everyone for his tepid handling of the final seconds of Sunday’s debilitating 20-17 defeat to the Washington Redskins. Our own R.J. Ochoa made the case for why Garrett should have been more aggressive. On the live broadcast former Cowboys’ quarterback Tony Romo went through the options available as the action unfolded. Fans were not impressed. I made my feelings known in my grades for the game:Jason Garrett going conservative and mismanaging end-of-game situations is nothing new. In fact, Garrett once mismanaged a game in the exact same manner back in 2011. 1. Dallas @ Arizona Cheap Demarcus Lawrence Jersey , Week 13, 2011Dallas went into Arizona in week 13, leading the NFC East with a 7-4 record. The game was tied at 13 late in the fourth quarter when Tony Romo led the team from the Cowboys 32 to the Cardinals 46. Thirty-one seconds remained when Romo then hit Dez Bryant for 15 yards to take the ball to the 31-yard line, but with the clock running. Dallas had two timeouts remaining. The obvious choice to make was to immediately call timeout to run at least a couple plays to get closer for a more manageable field goal. Garret instead chose to let the clock run down to eight seconds before having Romo spike the ball to set up a 49-yard field goal.He didn’t trust his quarterback, or his team, to make a play. Predictably, Dan Bailey missed the kick and the Cowboys lost in overtime. This video shows the clock ticking away those precious seconds. This started a four losses in five games end-of-season skid that saw them team finish 8-8 and miss an NFC East division title by one game. Garrett literally made the exact same mistake yesterday that he made back in 2011.2. Dallas @ Baltimore, Week 6, 2012Then we have a week six game at the Baltimore Ravens in 2012. The Cowboys trailed by eight when Romo led a late, 17-play drive for a four-yard touchdown to Dez Bryant with 36 seconds remaining. A two-point try failed leaving the Cowboys in a desperate onside kick situation. Miraculously, the Cowboys recovered the onside kick and took over at their 46 with 32 seconds remaining. Romo’s pass drew a pass interference call to move the ball to the Baltimore 34. A short completion to Dez Bryant moved the ball to the Ravens 34. There were 22 seconds on the clock and Dallas had one timeout remaining. Rather than trying to move closer for a more manageable field goal, Garrett chose to let the clock run down to eight seconds before having Romo spike the ball. The team was totally confused on what to do as the game clock ticked away. Predictably, Dan Bailey missed the 51-yard attempt. Dallas finished 8-8 and missed an NFC East division title by one game. It doesn’t take a mathematical genius to find a trend here. Jason Garrett has made the exact same decisions to eschew attempting any kind of play to avoid lengthy field goals, then watched his kicker miss the field goal on three different occasions. It’s mind-numbing.3. Dallas @ New England, Week 6, 2011And of course these aren’t the only ways Garrett has gone conservative and had it blow up in his face. Again in 2011 the Cowboys had a chance at victory in New England. The Cowboys led 16-13 after Garrett called for a safe (and unsuccessful) shovel pass on third-and-goal from the Patriots five-yard line Youth Jaylon Smith Jersey , resulting in a field goal. After a defensive stop Dallas then took over with 3:36 remaining. A couple first downs would have sealed the victory; even a single first down would have put New England in a desperate situation.Here’s the play-by-play in that situation:DeMarco Murray up the middle for -2 yards.DeMarco Murray right tackle for -1 yards. Tyron Smith false startTashard Choice right tackle 8 yardsMat McBriar puntThe Patriots were lining up ten men at the line of scrimmage but Garrett stubbornly ran the ball straight into the stacked box on first and second down, leaving them facing a 3rd-and-13. He didn’t trust his quarterback or his team to make a play. It doesn’t take much vision to imagine how the rest of the game turned out when Tom Brady took over with over two minutes remaining. The Cowboys lost 20-16. 4. Dallas vs Green Bay, Divisional Round, 2016Then we have the final seconds of the team’s heartbreaking 34-31 defeat to the Green Bay Packers in the divisional round of the 2016 season. I wrote about it extensively. Remember, Dallas had trailed 21-3 in the first half, leaving them with an 8% likelihood of winning. The Green Bay game was different in that Garrett’s issue wasn’t a lack of aggression, it was simply a failure to optimize the situation.5. Dallas @ Houston, Week 5, 2018And I doubt anyone has forgotten that two weeks ago Garrett again played it conservatively choosing to punt, rather than go for a fourth-and-one play in overtime against the Houston Texans. He didn’t trust his team to make a play. The end result - again - was a Cowboys’ defeat. A few things to note:Almost all the games were road games. Garrett seems to have no willingness, whatsoever, to be aggressive on the road. It has bitten him repeatedly and yet he continues to make the same predictable, conservative calls. Garrett repeatedly takes the ball out of his player’s hands. Every one of these instances are examples of Garrett not having faith in his players to execute properly and essentially “giving up” and settling for lengthy field goal attempts or punts.I wrote about the message this sends to your players following the Houston fiasco:Considering Jerry Jones’ love of risk, I can’t imagine he’s happy to have a team coached by a man with no stomach for risk-taking. Garrett is rightly getting roasted today. His tepid ways are likely going to see him somewhere else soon.