1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

News: Dmn: Taylor: Cut the conspiracy talk: Jason Garrett didn't get Wade fired

Discussion in 'News Zone' started by BrAinPaiNt, Nov 17, 2010.

  1. BrAinPaiNt

    BrAinPaiNt Brotherhood of the Beard Staff Member

    59,792 Messages
    2,861 Likes Received
    Jean Jacques Taylor

    Just when I thought I'd heard everything in 16 years of covering the Cowboys, here come the conspiracy theorists who have convinced themselves that Jason Garrett sabotaged Wade Phillips, so he could get the head coaching job himself.

    They point to the Cowboys' 13-point win over the Giants as evidence, because the game plan looked much more versatile and explosive than it did with Phillips as head coach.

    All of that, friends, is absurd.

    Absolutely, positively ridiculous.

    Read More http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcon...ies/111710dnspotaylorlettercol.239aa833b.html
  2. sago1

    sago1 Active Member

    7,789 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Haven't seen any conspiracy theorists on this board but maybe I've missed them. Just can't believe some people would even't think it, but then perhaps "think" is the problem. To use common sense to refute the theorists:

    Let's start with the defense: We all know Garrett had no influence/control whatever over the defense while Wade was here. So what made the defense play lot better in this game then in any game this season. Now Pasq.... gets some credit as the new DC but, judging by some defensive player comments, they giving lot of credit of Garrett.

    Now offensively: The biggest change was the improved play by the OL which at least protected Kitna but still need do better job in the running game. Doubt Garrett & HH waved a magic wand. Believe improvement came about because Cowboys worked in pads (Wednesday) for the first time this season; Players were also made accountability and our underperforming OL got the message; Kosier also returned from his injury which was a big help along with improved play on the right side of the OL.

    Discipline along the OL: I may be totally wrong on this but hear me out: Remember a few games ago when Davis was benched. Initially we heard Garrett but then were told it was HH, who benched Davis--putting Holland in his place at RG. Holland played well but gave way to Davis when he (Holland) got hurt. Almost first words out of Wade's mouth was that Davis would be starting the next game. On several occasions I expressed my dismay. Holland played better then Biggs, and if healthy, should have been given the opportunity to take Biggs job from him. But no, Wade made the decision (unless Jerry intervened) to return Biggs to the starting lineup. I thought it was a dumb move cause it ensured players understand no matter how poorly they played they wouldn't lose their jobs. Whatever, but do think rest of OL thought about that situation & with Garrett/Houck now in charge of the team, they all took the message that any of them could be replaced & would be if they didn't do their job.

    Finally I simply believe Garrett paid more attention to the many details which help teams win. It's tough to win in the NFL & we've been told many times that Wade wasn't interested in details. He also wasn't much interested in the offense & made no effort to intermix with them. That's in contract to Garrett who immediately started attending defensive meetings & daily talked to Pasq... about in/outs of defensive scheme which is totally opposite anything Wade ever did re offense.

    Also it was posted on this board in last few days that Ware (I think?) mentioned that in practices, where mistakes were made on offense, Romo wanted to immediately have the players correct those mistakes so they wouldn't happen in the games. Again, I think it was Ware who said Wade didn't want to do that so Romo wasn't allowed; presumably that meant Garrett wasn't allowed to either.

    Finally, Garrett had huge impact on offense but Wade's also lack of accountability, interests in details, etc. would have effected or caused poor play on both sides of the ball. I believe it lead to a general malaise on the team, particularly among the younger players, who often follow the lead of the vets. Also I remember reading within last day or so one of the younger defensive players commenting he had never attended a defensive meeting on the Saturday night before the game on Sunday. Apparently Garrett called for the meeting & such meetings would continue to be held nite before any game to go over plays, details, takeaways, etc.

    Most conspiracy theorists will ignore anything I've said they don't like & I've probably left lo of things out but I just think such a theory makes no sense to anyone who actually spends time thinking about the situation but is also familiar with what changes Garrett instituted & which many of us would have thought should have been done all along.
  3. pjjrfan

    pjjrfan New Member

    190 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Bottom line it was Wade's job to get these guys motivated and ready to win, if Garrett was a problem then Wade allowed it, if the offensive line and defensive lines underperformed Wade allowed it, if guys made mistakes and were nonchalant about it, Wade allowed it. If he ever laid out any expectations on the guys he didn't persue them, and the bottom fell out, which is Wade's fault. Of course the last two games under Wade was also an indictment of the players for just giving up and not even being professionals and giving their organization and the fans their money's worth.
  4. munkee

    munkee Member

    339 Messages
    15 Likes Received
    Umm. There have been a few post, but those were mostly tongue and cheek. Maybe JJT should actually read the posts on this board for his stories, rather than just reading the titles.

Share This Page