This is rich. You go from "drought years" of 77 to 92 to try and prove a point, then to the "final Landry years" and now you go to the inception of the franchise. In 1960 we went winless and didn't participate in the draft. In 1961 we went 4 - 9 - 1. In 1962 we went 5 - 8 - 1. One an argue we were steadily improving for an expansion team that didn't even participate in the draft it's first year. What criteria do you use when you claim some sort of improvement during Garrett's tenure here? Some abstract idea that players don't quit or we're drafting better, even though it doesn't show up in wins and losses? People try hard to convince themselves by claiming how Garrett carries himself like Landry, Garrett gives nice press conferences (which he doesn't, by the way), Garret went to Princeton, Garrett is the next Payton, etc. It gets real old, real quick. Bottom line, we've never had a drought in the history of this franchise even remotely similar to what we've been seeing for going on almost two decades now. Never. You claiming that we are in a drought similar to 77 to 92 is comical. But as I've said before, I give the Garrett and Jerry fan boys credit for once again trying to think outside the box and come up with something as unique as this "77 to 92 drought" you speak of. And one last point. I can live with the idea that Jerry is such a meddlesome owner and poor GM that Garrett can't succeed. I can buy that because we all know Jerry and he's more of a detriment to this team than any coach he hires. I can buy, to some extent, the fact that Garrett is coaching a team whose talent we over rate and maybe we're not much better than an average team. But Garrett has given multiple games away and has been nothing short of a failure at game and clock management. That's what I find inexcusable and I'm not willing to be patient for another year while an NFL HC learns the intricacies that even a high school coach would, should and does know.