Discussion in 'Drama Zone' started by BrAinPaiNt, Jan 31, 2014.
Think you're misreading indications some more, Beast.
Actually, no, this thread was about the play callers and not the scheme, as we haven't changed the scheme.
Also, your argument about being pass-happy being a bad thing is a weak argument, too, but that's for another dozen or so threads here later in the offseason. Right now we're just talking about measuring offensive consistency by the number of primary play callers rather than by the offensive coordinator or the system of the offensively-minded HC, for some reason.
Law of averages. They will get it right at some point.
If you took the time to do a simple root cause analysis on why this group doesn't live up to expectations you'd probably come to Risen's fifty million posts on what the real problem is.
Feel free to call me out on any argument you care to. That's what the board's for.
The particular post from me that you pointed out was in relation to an opinion that was completely unsupported by an actual argument. By that I mean it was only emotion and did not make a logical point. You may have agreed with that emotion, and that's certainly your prerogative.
You're misreading my attitude towards posters with opinions that differ from my own. There are lots pessimistic takes on CZ that are supported by smart arguments. And some of my favorite posters here are really negative. There are also positive posters here I hardly agree with at all. I'm not one to pile on a negative post, or tear down a positive one, because I think that runs counter to the purpose many people come to CZ for in the first place. I don't want this place to be somewhere people go to complain about their favorite teams. I'd much rather it be a place we go to to enjoy the team, or to be critical of it when things aren't going well. Criticism and complaint are not the same things, though.
And I *do* take issue with people believing entirely negative things about the Cowboys for really indefensible reasons. That's not the same thing as saying a blue sky is pink. If you believe something strongly, and you're comfortable bashing the team or the organization here in the forums, you should be able to back up your opinion with an actual reason or argument. I don't think that's exactly setting expectations too high for a thread. If it is, you're free to dislike the response you're going to get from me. And, if I cross a guideline boundary, report the post.
And yes, we're all just voicing opinions, and mine isn't any more special than anyone else's in that regard. I'd never suggest otherwise.
In any event, this thread is not about me, and I'm not going to let it become about me beyond this single response. Feel free to reply, or handle it by PM, but from here on out, I'm only going to address the argument from the OP. You get the last word.
For several weeks/months people have been speculating as to why Jerry will not get rid of JG. They use the reasoning that he wants Jason to succeed because:
1. He's the future of the Cowboys and he (Jerry) is doing everything he can to help him succeed.
2. He is a member of the "family".
3. He remembers his "mistake" of firing Gailey too early and is determined not to repeat it.
4. If Jason succeeds it will be a vindication that Jerry is "a real FOOTBALL GUY" because he hired him.
5. Etc. (make up your own).
IMHO, these are wrong. I believe Jerry's main reasons for not getting rid of JG (or any other coaches for that matter) boil down to 2 things:
1. Coaching has no effect (none, nada, zip) on how a team plays and its eventual record. Witness his drunken comments when Jimmy left about "500 coaches could win a Super Bowl with this team".
2. Since coaching is so unimportant (in his alcohol soaked mind), there is no way on God's green earth he is going to pay 2 people to do the same "useless" job. If he fired anyone with a contract and replaced them that is what he would have to do. By the same token if he fired them and didn't replace them he would be giving them "free money" (again, in his delusional mind).
What Jerry will do is what he is good at and has always done. While this coaching staff is here (primarily because of contracts), he will trumpet that he believes in them and they will get the job done and he is a "FOOTBALL GUY" because he is doing everything he possibly can to help them win. After they fail (and their contracts expire), he will clean house and declare (as a "FOOTBALL GUY") that he realizes that the prior staff didn't work out but he (Jerry the "FOOTBALL GUY") is now going to hire a great head coach (and hire his staff for him) that will carry "us" all to the promised land. Then he will sell the next puppet as long and as hard as he can.
As the old saying goes, "the more things change the more they stay the same".
I really don't think our coordinators or assistant coaches are that much better or worse than other teams. Sure we could do better, but we could do worse as well.
However our head Coach and GM are not as good as a lot of other teams.
Everyone knows the third time's the charm.
[quote="Idgit, post: 5434878, member: 1273
And I *do* take issue with people believing entirely negative things about the Cowboys for really indefensible reasons. That's not the same thing as saying a blue sky is pink. If you believe something strongly, and you're comfortable bashing the team or the organization here in the forums, you should be able to back up your opinion with an actual reason or argument.
And yes, we're all just voicing opinions, and mine isn't any more special than anyone else's in that regard. I'd never suggest otherwise.[/quote]
You may not suggest otherwise but who are you, or anyone here, to suggest that they can determine what is 'an indefensible reason' or 'an actual reason or argument'.
It appears that the majority of posts you characterize thusly are those that disagree with your own points of view.
So much change it's blatantly obvious that either:
A) Garrett isn't the final say on things and has no power.
B) Garrett has no sense of direction and changes course every year.
No power or no direction. Owns the podium during the post game though so that's cool.
Problem is, they didn't really change anything last year from what Garrett actually controlled.. the things they did change, like running packages with the zone-blocking scheme and a couple different formations, like the drag route to Dez, were actually beneficial.
Garrett has been here since 2007. Let that sink in for awhile.......
You don't like the offense during that time?
Not much. What about you?
I've said the offense was a problem for years. Finally, this year they broke thru. I don't see it as a major problem but they still need to improve the O. The D will be the problematic unit this year unless we are very fortunate.
It's been a problem since the end of 2007. It has spit, skipped and sputtered for the most part since. Some years have been worse than others. Some better. This last year was good but still not what we want.
I've been unhappy with the pass defense the entire time, so it's harder for me to judge. The OTs went to pot in 2009, and had to be replaced, too, and that was time consuming. Overall, though, we've been pretty effective throwing the ball, and, since I don't worry over the running game stuff too much, it's been the bottom-feeding inability to stop the other guys' that's bothered me.
Well, there are plans and then there are plans, bringing to mind my favorite clip from my favorite show.