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...#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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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....

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Randy Galloway

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...#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]

Originally Posted by JoeCorrado

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/vau...6353/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]

Originally Posted by fgoodwin

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]

Originally Posted by JoeCorrado

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]

Originally Posted by JoeCorrado

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]

Originally Posted by bbgun

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]

Originally Posted by JoeCorrado

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.