FWST Galloway: Excuses, revisionist history won't work for Dallas Cowboys

[WoodysGirl]

By Randy Galloway

rgalloway@star-telegram.com

This morning's column will be another ongoing attempt at keeping 'em honest during the off-season at Valley Ranch.

You can hold the thank-you cards and letters. Praise is not deserved here. I'm simply a lonely servant of the people, waging a one-man crusade against local football corruption and stupidity.

On today's agenda are two items:

(1) Excuses. (2) Revisionist history.

Let us review the facts.

Since the wrap-up of the Cowboys season, there has been an extensive campaign at Valley Ranch that centers on diverting the criticism aimed at head coach Jason Garrett and his handpicked defensive coordinator, Rob Ryan.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/21/3677624/excuses-revisionist-history-wont.html#storylink=cpy

[perrykemp]

He does an good job of debunking the somewhat popular misconception the Jerry Jones, the GM, had much to do with the building of the 90s dynasty Cowboys OTHER than the key fact that Jerry the GM hired Jimmy Johnson.

[bbgun]

He does an good job of debunking the somewhat popular misconception the Jerry Jones, the GM, had much to do with the building of the 90s dynasty Cowboys OTHER than the key fact that Jerry the GM hired Jimmy Johnson.

He was a former teammate of Jimmy's and Jimmy was the hottest coaching candidate on the market at that time. Ergo, it was a no-brainer to bring him to Dallas. If someone other than Jerry had bought the team, chances are good that Jimmy still could have landed in Big D.

[Risen Star]

He does an good job of debunking the somewhat popular misconception the Jerry Jones, the GM, had much to do with the building of the 90s dynasty Cowboys OTHER than the key fact that Jerry the GM hired Jimmy Johnson.

It's a complete fallacy. Any educated and fair fan of the team knows it's not true. I didn't need to read that article to convince me.

That's what's so insulting about Jerry. He'll flat out lie to you and expect you to believe it.

[Risen Star]

But we must quote this for truth....

Bottom line: Those Super Bowls were not won with Jerry calling the football shots. They were won because Jerry gave a football man total control of football.

[slomoxn]

I call shennanigans, it has been widely disputed on this very site by all the people who know that Jerry helped build those dynastys. Jimmy even confers in interviews YEARS after he is gone that Jerry was the mastermind behind the 90's Cowboys, well I am all for Jerry getting out of the way but we all know it won't happen. He still has all those great football minds telling him it is okay to trade away a first and a third for a receiver that will be a free agent in the offseason. Yep, builder of dynastys, maybe pompeii or something.

[JoeCorrado]

Sorry so wordy here:

Jerry has never given anybody "total" control over squat. Talk about revisionist history. Loses a lot of credibility with that comment right from the get go. JJ had control of traditional football operations to be sure, but he never had one iota of control over GM duties. "input" perhaps, but "control" - never. Brokering trades, for example. As for player contracts, that is something that most GM's outsource, till the numbers are presented to him, at which point- he (the GM) decides if that contract is offered to the players or if changes need to be made.

To make it easily understandable, and place it in context for the younger fans here- Jimmy had basically the same power and authority over football operations then, as Garrett has today. That actually represents just a tad more control in all honesty, than Bill Parcells had... considering the whole circus surrounding the, "The Player" stuff.

No COACH has ever had control over making trades. That is about as far out in left field as it could get. I would stress that Galloway makes a huge assumption by insinuating that King ever stated otherwise.

Jerry should not step into the head coaches traditional areas of control such as deciding who plays and who sits, what players are brought into the fold, and which are sent packing, who our FA, or draft day targets should be, schemes, practices, game plans, coaches, etc~ That much should be written in stone and placed on Jerry's desk as an immovable paper weight.

I believe Switzer was brought in as a figurehead coach alone. And that Jerry actually ran most aspects of the team. Too bad those seasons were not enough to satisfy his hunger. They obviously didn't and we as fans, have suffered for it.

Things continued pretty much unchanged right up to Parcells. At that time, Jerry gave up "most" control over football operations, but not all.

With Wade, he (Jerry) regressed and put his fingers all over things that he should have left to Wade Phillips. I believe his interference poisoned the atmosphere in the locker room against Wade. Players and other coaches knew who really ran the show when push came to shove- and it eventually blew up in Jerry's face. He would never admit to that, I am sure. But I am also sure that he understands it full well.

And now comes Garrett. I believe that for the first time since Johnson, the power is distributed as it should be. So long as Jerry sticks to negotiating contracts, taking care of the finances, and other traditional GM duties- this team will recover. Garrett is the right guy for the job, even Jerry knows it.

In fact, Jerry needs that truth engraved in stone for a paper weight as well. So he doesn't forget and start meddling where he shouldn't.

Originally Posted by Randy Galloway
Bottom line: Those Super Bowls were not won with Jerry calling the football shots. They were won because Jerry gave a football man total control of football.
I call BS... and I will call it Switzer. Well, two out of three, ain't bad. Right?

[28 Joker]

The Cowboys should have won the NFC East and hosted the Falcons and beat them.

The fact that the Giants are playing today is nothing short of an abomination.

If the Cowboys beat the Giants in Dallas, like they should have, the Giants and Eagles are sitting at home.

The Packers may be playing today, but the Giants sure wouldn't be.

[ScipioCowboy]

As Jerry now faces extreme heat, much more than even the usual, for his role as the Cowboys' king of football kings, he continues to advise everyone to look at his full body of work since 1989.


Jerry repeatedly counters the critics by saying his same iron hand has been in place for 23 seasons, meaning he was calling the football shots as the Dynasty Days team was built and the Super Bowls followed.

Read more here: http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/01/21/3677624/excuses-revisionist-history-wont.html#storylink=cpy#storylink=cpy


Interesting argument, but it begs the question:

Did Jerry consider Tom Landry's full body of work before firing him? Or did he just fire him due to the team's poor performance over the past few years of Landry's tenure?

I venture the latter is more likely. Landry's last fifteen years in Dallas were infinitely more successful than Jerry's most recent fifteen years.

[fgoodwin]

Talk about revisionist history. . . .

No COACH has ever had control over making trades. That is about as far out in left field as it could get. I would stress that Galloway makes a huge assumption by insinuating that King ever stated otherwise.

Before you call Galloway revisionist I invite you to read the full Peter King article written in 1990, which by definition means that King's article cannot be "revisionist". You and Galloway may differ on what King's article actually means, but at least read it first:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1136353/index.htm

"Although Cowboy owner Jerry Jones lists himself as president and general manager, he has such wide-ranging trust in Johnson that he allows his former college roommate to make almost all the football decisions—including trades—for the club."

Remember: those words were written in 1990 long before the JJs had their infamous falling out. If Jimmy says otherwise now, I have to wonder if the separation agreement that Jerry almost certainly made him sign may have anything to do with that?

[JoeCorrado]

Before you call Galloway revisionist I invite you to read the full Peter King article written in 1990, which by definition means that King's article cannot be "revisionist".

I did read it. No where does King ever say what Galloway states that he did. Try to remember as well, I had been a Cowboy's Fan long before that article was written and have my own memory to collaborate my own statements.

Never was JJ given cart-blanch over "all" football operations. Never.

[bbgun]

I did read it. No where does King ever say what Galloway states that he did. Try to remember as well, I had been a Cowboy's Fan long before that article was written and have my own memory to collaborate my own statements.

Never was JJ given cart-blanch over "all" football operations. Never.

Peter King said almost all. And King had one advantage you never had: talking to the principals directly.

[fgoodwin]

I did read it. No where does King ever say what Galloway states that he did. Try to remember as well, I had been a Cowboy's Fan long before that article was written and have my own memory to collaborate my own statements.

Never was JJ given cart-blanch over "all" football operations. Never.
No one ever said Jimmy had control over "all" football operations.

Here is what you said about Jimmy, Jerry and trades: "No COACH has ever had control over making trades. ... I would stress that Galloway makes a huge assumption by insinuating that King ever stated otherwise." You are saying that in 2012, almost two decades after Jimmy left (and you have your memory to rely on).

OTOH, here is what King wrote: "Although Cowboy owner Jerry Jones lists himself as president and general manager, he has such wide-ranging trust in Johnson that he allows his former college roommate to make almost all the football decisions—including trades—for the club." Again, he wrote that in 1990, not 18 years after Jimmy left. Galloway doesn't have to "insinuate" anything because King's words speak for themselves.

Did Jimmy pull the trigger on trades? Well we can believe you (who has zero inside knowledge of the situation) or we can believe Peter King, who DID (and does) have access to those who know. So unless you can explain away what King wrote, I think I'll go with his contemporaneous account, not an after-the-fact, unsupported opinion.

[yimyammer]

He was a former teammate of Jimmy's and Jimmy was the hottest coaching candidate on the market at that time. Ergo, it was a no-brainer to bring him to Dallas. If someone other than Jerry had bought the team, chances are good that Jimmy still could have landed in Big D.

Yep, even Tex Schram wanted to hire Jimmy but didn't have the heart to fire Landry

[Risen Star]

I did read it. No where does King ever say what Galloway states that he did. Try to remember as well, I had been a Cowboy's Fan long before that article was written and have my own memory to collaborate my own statements.

Never was JJ given cart-blanch over "all" football operations. Never.

And you are simply wrong. 100% wrong.

[fgoodwin]

Here's another somewhat contemporaneous account of Jimmy's authority over trades and drafting compared to Jerry's:
The day before the 1992 NFL draft, the Dallas brain-trust—Johnson, Jones and Ackles—formulated a trade to offer the Cleveland Browns. Late that day, after Jones had left the office, Cleveland coach Bill Belichick called back to say he would do the deal, and the Cowboys announced it. On draft day Jones came to the office upset that he hadn't been called when the deal was confirmed, and he asked to see Johnson. Their meeting droned on until, with only five minutes left before the start of the draft, Jones told Johnson, "You know the ESPN camera is in the draft room today. So whenever we're about to make a pick, you look at me, like we're talking about it." In other words, Make me look as if I'm a big player here, even though we all know I'm not making the picks.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1005069/index.htm

Again, this was written by Peter King in 1994 shortly after Jerry fired Jimmy. How can anybody read this inside account, directly from Jimmy, and believe that Jerry-the-GM had ANYTHING to do with who we drafted or who we traded for?

[bbgun]

I remember someone (credible) writing that Jerry pushed for the Haley trade over Jimmy's objections. So while Jimmy did most of the wheeling and dealing, Jerry didn't just rubber-stamp whatever Jimmy wanted to do.

[fgoodwin]

This is from Yahoo Jan 7, 2012:

SC: So, you were the de facto general manager when the Cowboys were rebuilt.

JJ: Yeah - that's how we worked it, and that's what was in my contract with Jerry; that I would be in charge of all personnel decisions, all draft decisions, and my coaching staff.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-Shutdown-Corner-Interview-Jimmy-Johnson?urn=nfl,263449

So we have Peter King, Randy Galloway AND Jimmy Johnson saying Jimmy was in charge. In addition to Jerry's atrocious performance as a GM over the last 15 years without the benefit of having Jimmy around, how much more evidence does any rational person need to have to be convinced that Jimmy, not Jerry, was in control during the glory years?

[fgoodwin]

I remember someone (credible) writing that Jerry pushed for the Haley trade over Jimmy's objections. So while Jimmy did most of the wheeling and dealing, Jerry didn't just rubber-stamp whatever Jimmy wanted to do.
Agreed and if what you wrote is true I give Jerry credit for it because having Haley really helped.

[ManicDepressiveMan]

All you need to look at is how our drafts went to absolute crap after Jimmy left to know who was really in charge of personnel. And instead of taking advantage of teams in trades, we started getting the shaft.....after Jimmy left.

It is that simple.

Really.

[Juke99]

I couldn't care less whether Jimmy had total control or not

It's 16 years ago and this franchise hasn't had a SNIFF of a championship since

'Nuff said

the fact that a discussion about what happened and who gets credit for 16 years ago says all you need to know.

[slomoxn]

This is from Yahoo Jan 7, 2012:

SC: So, you were the de facto general manager when the Cowboys were rebuilt.


JJ: Yeah - that's how we worked it, and that's what was in my contract with Jerry; that I would be in charge of all personnel decisions, all draft decisions, and my coaching staff.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/The-Shutdown-Corner-Interview-Jimmy-Johnson?urn=nfl,263449

So we have Peter King, Randy Galloway AND Jimmy Johnson saying Jimmy was in charge. In addition to Jerry's atrocious performance as a GM over the last 15 years without the benefit of having Jimmy around, how much more evidence does any rational person need to have to be convinced that Jimmy, not Jerry, was in control during the glory years?

My friend, on this board you will need a whole lot more proof than that. We need someone that was in the room when this all went down because no matter how it is spun (is that a word?) those that love Jerry will defend him being a good GM until the day he/they die. I think Jerry has had a hand in running this team... Right into the ground.

At this point I don't even care for him as an owner because haveing the ultimate say so the owner refuses to relieve the GM of his duties that he has clearly shown are beyond his capabilities. The owner is supposed to look out for the best interest of his team and WANTING to win has no place when there is an element preventing that from happening. With all of the pieces that have been changed in the last 15 years you would think he would get it but it is clear that his ego is the owner of the team and Jerry is the GM.

I feel sorry for Ware, Witten, Romo and even the new studs like Lee and Jenkins. Their careers will languish here under this GM unless they can get a trade out of here. I know some will not like this post but ask yourselves a question, when was the last time a star player wanted to come to Dallas to persue a superbowl? The word is out about this organization, if your a middle of the road player you can get paid but if your looking for a ring this isn't the place to be and I believe agents let their players know that Jerry's environment is not healthy for winning.

[ScipioCowboy]

I couldn't care less whether Jimmy had total control or not

It's 16 years ago and this franchise hasn't had a SNIFF of a championship since

'Nuff said

the fact that a discussion about what happened and who gets credit for 16 years ago says all you need to know.

It really is that simple.

[JoeCorrado]

It really is that simple.

Agreed. Man, it is going to be a long, long, long off season. :confused:

[fgoodwin]

I couldn't care less whether Jimmy had total control or not

It's 16 years ago and this franchise hasn't had a SNIFF of a championship since

'Nuff said

the fact that a discussion about what happened and who gets credit for 16 years ago says all you need to know.
The reason ancient history is relevant to the present is because Jerry is under the delusion that he ran things back then, that HE is responsible for those three Super Bowls and because he hasn't changed his style so winning another one is still possible. As long as Jerry continues to believe that, this franchise is doomed to a future of mediocrity.

[Risen Star]

The reason ancient history is relevant to the present is because Jerry is under the delusion that he ran things back then, that HE is responsible for those three Super Bowls and because he hasn't changed his style so winning another one is still possible. As long as Jerry continues to believe that, this franchise is doomed to a future of mediocrity.

Jerry doesn't really believe that. He wants you to believe that.

[fgoodwin]

Jerry doesn't really believe that. He wants you to believe that.
He's certainly convinced several in this thread of that.

[Risen Star]

He's certainly convinced several in this thread of that.

A lot of fans will believe what they want to believe.

And then you have teenagers who don't know any better.

[Juke99]

The reason ancient history is relevant to the present is because Jerry is under the delusion that he ran things back then, that HE is responsible for those three Super Bowls and because he hasn't changed his style so winning another one is still possible. As long as Jerry continues to believe that, this franchise is doomed to a future of mediocrity.

It's typical Jerry spin and diversion. It's not at all relevant. If someone who is interviewing him every grew a pair (as the would here in NY) and said "Uh, Jerry....that was 16 years ago....since then x amount of different teams have been in the Super Bowl...X amount of teams have been to the NFC Championship game...x amount of teams have won more than 1 playoff game....it's irrelevant what you did 16 years ago. In business, things evolve...Toyota doesn't make the same cars, in the same way, they did 16 years ago"

It's irrelevant....and as the departed Bill Parcells said, anyone who believes it IS relevant, got sucked....

[JoeCorrado]

A lot of fans will believe what they want to believe.

And then you have teenagers who don't know any better.

:bow: Truth.

Those who were fans then and old enough to understand, do. The rest simply have to go with what they hear.

One thing is certain- we do have three rings from the Jerry Jones era. So he obviously did something right. The disagreement is whether what he did was stay out of the way, by design- AFTER he hired Johnson. Or if we were successful in spite of his interference and he just happened to hit a few good seasons in a row. Beginners luck, eh?

It really doesn't matter which you believe, so long as we all understand that the very top of the food chain for the Dallas Cowboys has been Jerry Jones since the day he bought the team. That cannot be argued against in any rational manner.

[ScipioCowboy]

It's typical Jerry spin and diversion. It's not at all relevant. If someone who is interviewing him every grew a pair (as the would here in NY) and said "Uh, Jerry....that was 16 years ago....since then x amount of different teams have been in the Super Bowl...X amount of teams have been to the NFC Championship game...x amount of teams have won more than 1 playoff game....it's irrelevant what you did 16 years ago. In business, things evolve...Toyota doesn't make the same cars, in the same way, they did 16 years ago"

It's irrelevant....and as the departed Bill Parcells said, anyone who believes it IS relevant, got sucked....

I want some brave reporter to ask, "Mr. Jones, what had Tom Landry accomplished in the 16 years before you fired him?"

[fgoodwin]

It's irrelevant....and as the departed Bill Parcells said, anyone who believes it IS relevant, got sucked....
Like I said, the reason it's relevant is because Jerry still believes it.

I agree with others who say it doesn't matter what WE believe -- the only opinion that counts is Jerry's. Meaning the team and fans are doomed.

[bbgun]

:bow: Truth.

Those who were fans then and old enough to understand, do. The rest simply have to go with what they hear.

One thing is certain- we do have three rings from the Jerry Jones era. So he obviously did something right. The disagreement is whether what he did was stay out of the way, by design- AFTER he hired Johnson. Or if we were successful in spite of his interference and he just happened to hit a few good seasons in a row. Beginners luck, eh?

It really doesn't matter which you believe, so long as we all understand that the very top of the food chain for the Dallas Cowboys has been Jerry Jones since the day he bought the team. That cannot be argued against in any rational manner.

:confused:

Yes, we all know he's been the owner since 1989. I've yet to see anyone argue otherwise. What we don't know is how much he had to do with the glory days beyond hiring his old friend. If I hired a contractor to build a new kitchen, I would not take credit for said kitchen after it was completed.

[JoeCorrado]

I want some brave reporter to ask, "Mr. Jones, what had Tom Landry accomplished in the 16 years before you fired him?"

Little enough that a good portion of this board would have been among the "The game has passed him by, bunch." who were calling for him to retire, or be replaced even before Jerry bought the club.

Why not state the truth; Would you have been one of those? Be honest.

I know that I was NOT. I was a Landry Fan till the day he passed away, and I still am, in fact.

How about you? Were you a fan then? Do you remember what the writers were saying about Tom Landry then? The same writers you want to give credit for knowing all things.

:confused:

Yes, we all know he's been the owner since 1989. I've yet to see anyone argue otherwise. What we don't know is how much he had to do with the glory days beyond hiring his old friend. If I hired a contractor to build a new kitchen, I would not take credit for said kitchen after it was completed.

Neither would I. I would tell the world what a great decision I had made in hiring the right man for the job, and leave it at that.

Kind of odd that Jerry can't just do that. Unless he truly knows for a fact that he was also the guy to design the kitchen, order the materials, and keep a close eye on the contractor who from time to time needed more specific guidance in what was desired.

I was never in any meetings, and neither were the writers who want to declare their own speculation as being fact.

Done with the thread. Everybody have a great day.

[slomoxn]

Little enough that a good portion of this board would have been among the "The game has passed him by, bunch." who were calling for him to retire, or be replaced even before Jerry bought the club.

Why not state the truth; Would you have been one of those? Be honest.

I know that I was NOT. I was a Landry Fan till the day he passed away, and I still am, in fact.

How about you? Were you a fan then? Do you remember what the writers were saying about Tom Landry then? The same writers you want to give credit for knowing all things.
I was and still a a fan then and I was one of the people wanting Mr. Landry to retire but not the way it happened. I remember where I was when it happened, on board the USS Carl Vinson in the Indian Ocean when I found out some guy named Jerry Jones just bought the Cowboys and fired Tom Landry. I hated Jerry for the next two or three years.... Then they won a superbowl and I got over it. Still, I wanted Landry gone but not like that, it could have been handled with some class, but we wonder why this same guy won't get out of the way.

[Juke99]

and this is why Jerry is the marketing spinmeister that he is.....we have people discussing what level of success he deserves for what happened almost two decades ago

It's nothing more than a diversion tactic by Jerry.....and people bit.

And on and on and on it goes....

Sure do wish I could excuse 16 years of crap performance on my job by pointing out what I did in 1995.

[ScipioCowboy]

Little enough that a good portion of this board would have been among the "The game has passed him by, bunch." who were calling for him to retire, or be replaced even before Jerry bought the club.

Why not state the truth; Would you have been one of those? Be honest.

I know that I was NOT. I was a Landry Fan till the day he passed away, and I still am, in fact.

How about you? Were you a fan then? Do you remember what the writers were saying about Tom Landry then? The same writers you want to give credit for knowing all things.


Straw man.

Jerry absolutely made the right decision in firing Landry. I've never argued otherwise. Consequently, that's not the point.

Jerry fired Landry due to his lack of success in his final few years in Dallas. All of the accolades that Landry had earned throughout his epic career--his sterling and storied reputation as an innovator and one of the fathers of the modern game--did not save his job. Jerry looked at them, and said, "Sorry, Tom. You're not cutting it now, and this is a what have you done for me lately league."

So forgive me if I find it highly disingenuous when someone suggests that Jerry deserves a mulligan for successes that occurred a decade and a half ago.

Over his last 16 years in Dallas, Coach Landry could boast a Super Bowl victory, two NFC Championships, five NFC Championship game appearances, and numerous playoff victories. During his past 16 years, Jerry Jones has one wildcard playoff victory.

I don't begrudge the firing of Landry. I want Jerry to hold himself to the same standard that he held Landry.

[JoeCorrado]

Straw man.

Fact. One that you apparently dislike.

Jerry absolutely made the right decision in firing Landry. I've never argued otherwise. Consequently, that's not the point.

Then why bring it up? Which YOU did.

I want some brave reporter to ask, "Mr. Jones, what had Tom Landry accomplished in the 16 years before you fired him?"

You bring it up, then run away. It's all good.

Sorry to be inconvenient like that. You'll just have to learn to live with it, or be more careful in your arguments/critiques. ;)

[JoeCorrado]

... I wanted Landry gone but not like that, it could have been handled with some class, but we wonder why this same guy won't get out of the way.

I agree. The very first move that Jerry made when he bought the team was disrespectful to the face of the franchise. The man who brought us from nothing to World Champions, and earned us the title of America's Team.

It was a public relations disaster that many held against him... till the Super Bowls started racking up. But even the SB wins can't erase the heartache I felt the day that Landry was fired. Is was surreal.

I still cannot think of the Cowboys without also recalling Tom Landry. The two are synonymous for me. Always will be.

And it is silly to believe that Jerry will fire himself. He will go as Landry should have- he will fade away and the transition will appear seamless.

[JoeCorrado]

Oops. For crying out loud. Marking the thread as read- please, somebody slap me if I post in here again.

:insane:

[Risen Star]

Sure do wish I could excuse 16 years of crap performance on my job by pointing out what I did in 1995.

Especially when you didn't really do it.

[Risen Star]

:bow: Truth.

Those who were fans then and old enough to understand, do. The rest simply have to go with what they hear.

One thing is certain- we do have three rings from the Jerry Jones era. So he obviously did something right. The disagreement is whether what he did was stay out of the way, by design- AFTER he hired Johnson. Or if we were successful in spite of his interference and he just happened to hit a few good seasons in a row. Beginners luck, eh?

It really doesn't matter which you believe, so long as we all understand that the very top of the food chain for the Dallas Cowboys has been Jerry Jones since the day he bought the team. That cannot be argued against in any rational manner.

I'm confused by this response. It's like you're agreeing with something I didn't say.

Let me be clear. When the Cowboys built that dynasty the team was not run like it is today. This is the reason Jerry got "miserable" during those years. He wasn't spinning around in the GM chair making personnel decisions. He was left pleading with the architect of those teams to show him some attention when the cameras are on.

The notion that we've won the way we are currently operating is the biggest line of crap Jerry's ever tried to sell our fans. It's a boldface lie and he knows it. If it was the way it used to be he'd be getting miserable again.

He's real comfortable with Jason Garrett. Wade Phillips, Barry Switzer, Chan Gailey and Dave Campo too.

He was not comfortable with Jimmy Johnson or Bill Parcells.

There's a reason and anybody with the slightest clue of what's been going on the last 25 years knows exactly what that reason is.

[Royal Laegotti]

Jimmy had it in his contract that he had control of all personnel decisions.

[ScipioCowboy]

Fact. One that you apparently dislike.


Then why bring it up? Which YOU did.

I brought it up because it was relevant and then I proceeded to explain why it was relevant.


You bring it up, then run away. It's all good.

Sorry to be inconvenient like that. You'll just have to learn to live with it, or be more careful in your arguments/critiques. ;)Bring it up and run away? How so?

Actually, before you answer that question, answer this one: Are you just picking out random phrases and then hoping they somehow apply to the discussion we're having?

In my humble opinion, referencing an event (the Landry firing) and then explaining the reasoning behind that reference (http://cowboyszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4390840&postcount=37) hardly qualifies as "running away." It seems to be quite the opposite, actually.

Either way, the validity of your argument here was contingent upon your assumption that I opposed the Landry firing. Unfortunately for you, your assumption was unfounded and ultimately wrong; ergo, your entire point was invalidated.

[fgoodwin]

Oops. For crying out loud. Marking the thread as read- please, somebody slap me if I post in here again.

:insane:
It's OK Joe. I think we may be more alike than different. I'm 57 and I've been following the Cowboys since the mid-60s. I've seen them at their worst (3-13, 1-15) and at their best.

Count me as one of those in the late 80s who also thought Landry should step aside; I wasn't real happy how Jerry did it but as owner it was his prerogative, just as it is his prerogative to run this team anyway he sees fit.

What bothers me about Jerry isn't so much his claim to have made all the decisions back in 1989-1993. It's this: even if I agree with everything he claims, how can it possibly be that his ability as a GM has gotten so much worse over time? Don't people normally learn to do their job better and more effectively the longer they do it?

In Jerry's case (if we take him at his word), he was a fantastic GM right out of the box, but sometime after 1995 he forgot how to build a championship team.

I mean seriously, does that story pass the smell test for you?

Honestly, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or any other Cowboy fan. I'm just scratching my head. Jerry claims he made all the decisions all along, and that he's doing things the same away today as he did back in 1989-1993.

It just doesn't add up.

[jobberone]

It's OK Joe. I think we may be more alike than different. I'm 57 and I've been following the Cowboys since the mid-60s. I've seen them at their worst (3-13, 1-15) and at their best.

Count me as one of those in the late 80s who also thought Landry should step aside; I wasn't real happy how Jerry did it but as owner it was his prerogative, just as it is his prerogative to run this team anyway he sees fit.

What bothers me about Jerry isn't so much his claim to have made all the decisions back in 1989-1993. It's this: even if I agree with everything he claims, how can it possibly be that his ability as a GM has gotten so much worse over time? Don't people normally learn to do their job better and more effectively the longer they do it?

In Jerry's case (if we take him at his word), he was a fantastic GM right out of the box, but sometime after 1995 he forgot how to build a championship team.

I mean seriously, does that story pass the smell test for you?

Honestly, I'm not trying to pick a fight with you or any other Cowboy fan. I'm just scratching my head. Jerry claims he made all the decisions all along, and that he's doing things the same away today as he did back in 1989-1993.

It just doesn't add up.

Jerry has to get some credit for the early 90s. He was mostly responsible for bringing Haley here and basically was responsible for Deion. That helped us a lot IMO although it's hard to say we wouldn't have won without them.

OTOH, you can't erase the last 16 years.

I will say Jerry has improved and the organization may take off. I certainly hope so. My opinion is if Jerry can't win with Garrett then he needs to take his medicine and let Stephen run the club for the most part. I won't hold my breath but I'll hope for the best and prepare for the worse.

[Dave_in-NC]

Jerry has to get some credit for the early 90s. He was mostly responsible for bringing Haley here and basically was responsible for Deion. That helped us a lot IMO although it's hard to say we wouldn't have won without them.

OTOH, you can't erase the last 16 years.

I will say Jerry has improved and the organization may take off. I certainly hope so. My opinion is if Jerry can't win with Garrett then he needs to take his medicine and let Stephen run the club for the most part. I won't hold my breath but I'll hope for the best and prepare for the worse.

How??

[SilverStarCowboy]

Interesting argument, but it begs the question:

Did Jerry consider Tom Landry's full body of work before firing him? Or did he just fire him due to the team's poor performance over the past few years of Landry's tenure?

I venture the latter is more likely. Landry's last fifteen years in Dallas were infinitely more successful than Jerry's most recent fifteen years.


Wanting to take a pot shot at Jerry but nothing drives it home like it needs to.

Tom Landry is a Football God.

[Davis-JD]

I'm confused by this response. It's like you're agreeing with something I didn't say.

Let me be clear. When the Cowboys built that dynasty the team was not run like it is today. This is the reason Jerry got "miserable" during those years. He wasn't spinning around in the GM chair making personnel decisions. He was left pleading with the architect of those teams to show him some attention when the cameras are on.

The notion that we've won the way we are currently operating is the biggest line of crap Jerry's ever tried to sell our fans. It's a boldface lie and he knows it. If it was the way it used to be he'd be getting miserable again.

He's real comfortable with Jason Garrett. Wade Phillips, Barry Switzer, Chan Gailey and Dave Campo too.

He was not comfortable with Jimmy Johnson or Bill Parcells.

There's a reason and anybody with the slightest clue of what's been going on the last 25 years knows exactly what that reason is.

Jimmy Johnson ran the whole football show when he was there. He even negotiated the players contracts for two years. Jimmy Johnson picked the players, made all the trades, and ran all of football operations the entire time he was with Dallas.

Jerry Jones did nothing except write the checks that Jimmy told him to write.

Jimmy did so well that Jones became jealous and demanded the spotlight and attention that Jimmy got. Jimmy was not surrendering control of football operations to Jerry Jones because he knew that he would end up with losing teams, so he resigned.

Jones gave Switzer the job because he knew the team was still awesome, and he wanted Jimmy to have to share the "only coach to win a National college championship/Superbowl too" title with someone else.

It was done purely from spite, to take something away from Jimmy that Jimmy earned.

That is the kind of egotistical jerk we have for an owner in Dallas. A prima dona p***k who dooms us to mediocrity as long as he is present. There is no way around losing with Jerry Jones involved in the team. He does not have what it takes to win.

[Risen Star]

That is the kind of egotistical jerk we have for an owner in Dallas. A prima dona p***k who dooms us to mediocrity as long as he is present. There is no way around losing with Jerry Jones involved in the team. He does not have what it takes to win.

Oh, I think we can still win but it'll take another situation where Jerry hands off to a head coach he must respect and goes along with the ride.

And that head coach must be a good talent evaluator.

We basically have to work around the GM to win here. It's not easy to do and we shouldn't have to do it.

[InmanRoshi]

I actually think the office structure isn't that much different today than it was in 1989. The difference is we don't have Jimmy Johnson as the head coach de facto GM making the decisions as the lone "football guy" in the room. I assure you Garrett would not want a "real GM" brought in as it would very much take away how much say he has in personnel matters currently. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Garrett doesn't have his own contractual writing that prevents a "real" GM being brought in.

[Risen Star]

I actually think the office structure isn't that much different today than it was in 1989. The difference is we don't have Jimmy Johnson as the head coach de facto GM making the decisions as the lone "football guy" in the room. I assure you Garrett would not want a "real GM" brought in as it would very much take away how much say he has in personnel matters currently. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Garrett doesn't have his own contractual writing that prevents a "real" GM being brought in.

All I can do is laugh at this.

[fgoodwin]

OK, let's give Jerry his due.

I give him 100% of the credit for building those three championship teams in the 90s. He says he hasn't changed a thing about the way he runs things. He built three championship teams in his first seven seasons as GM, but in his last fifteen (doing things exactly the same way), he hasn't been able to build another one.

Why?

[SilverStarCowboy]

OK, let's give Jerry his due.

I give him 100% of the credit for building those three championship teams in the 90s. He says he hasn't changed a thing about the way he runs things. He built three championship teams in his first seven seasons as GM, but in his last fifteen (doing things exactly the same way), he hasn't been able to build another one.

Why?

Jerry fired Jimmy to take the credit in the first place, when everyone in Dallas absolutely knew who made that team.


Why hasn't Jerry Jones been able to build a good team, because he never has done so in the first place.

[fgoodwin]

Jerry fired Jimmy to take the credit in the first place, when everyone in Dallas absolutely knew who made that team.

Why hasn't Jerry Jones been able to build a good team, because he never has done so in the first place.
Well, according to the Pollyannas on this forum, only Chicken-Littles and us trolls believe that.

It's gotta be somebody's else's fault. I'd like to hear a Jerry-apologist answer the question.