Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki
Boy Jon when you start throwing out "ifs" like that it could change the dynamics of any question such as...
"If the south won the Civil War would you still think X?"
"If JFK hadn't been assassinated would you still think X?"
"If you hadn't seen the picture of Hos wearing a dress would you still think X?"
See what I mean?
But the fact is they did accomplish what they did.
Yes, the “if” does change the dynamic of the question but that is what its intent was. My question is do you consider him successful because he is bold or is it because he made a bold move and it paid off. Those are two very different reasons. It is easy to look back at it and say I would have supported it regardless but I doubt anyone would have. Being bold just for the nature of being bold is not always a positive thing.
Originally Posted by MichaelWinicki
And I can tell you from being a business consultant for many years and working with over 2,000 of them... and by just being someone that studies people... We end up losing far more by being unaggressive when the opportunity hits than we do by being overly aggressive. Man's (generally speaking) low tolerance for risk holds us back in so many areas. And that's why I applaud Jerry Jones. He's committed a lot of mistakes but it was due to over aggressiveness as opposed to say Bid Bidwell and the Browns whom I see as being very passive when it comes to this sport and no matter what bad decisions Jerry has made over the years I would still take the Cowboys over just about every organization in football.
Again, if we have a reasonable shot at TO that doesn't kill us cap wise-- I say go for it!
As a business consultant then you also know that you must plan for and realize the risks of the “what if”. Certainly it is easy to get mired in mediocrity if you allow fear of your actions to prevent any bold actions. However, simply being a risk taker does not equate to sound business strategy. Long term strategic planning by its very nature is designed to reduce the risks of actions taken.
The TO issue cannot be looked at with the only question being can he help us get to the Super Bowl. That is one of the questions that have to be asked but in all fairness to the organization you have to ask all of the tough questions and you have to consider both best and worst case scenarios. If, in your mind you feel that the best case scenario payoff exceeds the worst case scenario cost then the decision is a simple one to make. You sign him and bring him in. However, if you tend to believe like I do that the best case scenario reward is not equal to but less than the worst case scenario cost then you pass on TO. This argument is meaningless in that neither one of us have the ability to make this decision anyway. Our only control is whether or not we attend the games or buy the merchandise etc etc.
I agree with you that Jerry’s boldness has defined this team. I appreciate what he has done for the franchise. It took him bringing in Parcells and admitting that he didn’t know everything about football for me to finally quit questioning his every move.
You can make an argument against boldness using Al Davis and Bob Kraft as examples. Al Davis is certainly known as a bold owner yet his actions have not equated into titles. Bob Kraft on the other hand is much more passive and his success has rivaled Jerry’s. Just being bold isn’t enough. Your boldness has got to pay off or man’s low tolerance for risk will eventually catch up with you.
My point in all of this, and I apologize for taking this long to get to it is this: Jerry’s success is what drove his popularity. The fact that he took risks could have and has burned him in the past. While I concur that it is nice to see a guy willing to risk a lot to gain a lot, the risk itself isn’t the defining factor. It is ultimately the success or failure of the risk that will define the action, not the action itself.