Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by NewsBot, Aug 28, 2013.
Are you saying that results do not matter?
If they don't, then how are you measuring improvement?
Of course they matter but over time, Rome wasn't built in a day. I'm patient and willing to give JG the time he needs.
I like what Jason is doing as well. That was not the point. The point was what happens when we still have the same record? We have went through multiple head coaches, multiple OC and DC, multiple positional coaches. Multiple styles of HCs (hard like Big Bill, more player friend take it easy guys like wade). Different types of offenses and defenses...still similar records over the long haul.
As far as playing football or not. We have had professional players talk about the cowboys, some pro bowlers, some future hall of famers...saying basically it's time to stop talking the talk and time to walk the walk...Witten said something very similar to this very thing. So am I to only take what someone on a message board says that played football over the word of an all pro FOH on this very team says? That is not be combative but that just shows there is more than one side of the story about whether or not you played football means YOU are right when others are not.
I answered your questioned regarding another 8-8 season with my opinion. As for playing or not playing, I never said either or makes you right or wrong. I said its my opinion that playing and being around the game gives you better insight on how a team is built and what to look for. And again, that's my OPINION and I'm not being combative either, just stating how I feel on the matter. Enjoy the season!
Fair enough. I am admittedly not a Garrett fan, but I am willing to give him this season to see what improvement there is. I am hopeful for success. That being said, if we see another 8-8 or worse, I think they need to turn the page.
Personally, I don't think the record can be viewed in a vacuum. I think any objective fan would conclude that our talent level since Garrett has had the reins has improved considerably. I'm not sure if this is the year we bust it wide open, or not. My guess is that the culture is changing for the better. Guys like Dez Bryant, who I was fairly critical of early on, have begun to thrive under Garrett. Resources (in draft picks and cap dollars) are being Spent in the right way (from my perspective) for the most part. We have addressed the offensive line with a first rounder (who so far appears to be a hit). We have seemed to plug the endless leak satisfactorily at safety. The one lone issue I have is I think we Spent too much to franchise Spencer, but by all accounts you would expect him to be an above average player (even if he costs a little bit too much).
There are too many variables to just look at the win loss record and say Garrett succeeded or failed. That is just painting with way too broad of a brush in my humble opinion. Should it be an important factor? Yes. Should it be the only measuring stick to be used? Probably not (in a small sample size). You have to look at the whole bodu of work and progess made, and the upside of staying the course.
Wade also gave us some of the most embarrassing moments in Cowboys' history, namely the "We quit" game vs the Eagles to end the '08 season and the last game at Texas Stadium vs the Ravens. And that doesn't even include the foulness of '10.
I do blame Garrett to a certain extend... But it was Wade that presided over "Camp Cupcake" and drivel that came out of his cake hole about blowing a 3rd round pick on Jason Williams (Wade's pet cat) and it "not being a big thing" or some such nonsense. And we saw how the overall play of the team improved after Wade was given his walking papers in '10.
I would wager that the reason the play improved was because the owner put the players on notice, not because of Garrett. His winning percentage was better with Wade's leftovers, and his teams have had higher amounts of penalties per game since the change. As the assistant head coach, he had a role in Camp Cupcake, and his offensive unit was the most sloppy, error prone unit on the team.
I sincerely doubt much of what Jerry said had an impact... and you know why?
Look at the current Jay Ratliff situation, contacts are contracts and just because Jerry goes off doesn't mean diddly pooh to most of these millionaires. They're still going to be paid.
I watched the "Wade" show in Buffalo... And it was just as effed up there between Flutie-Johnson situation and other things.
If you want to wax nostalgic over Wade Phillips... have at it. I want no part of it.
And yeah, the team is a heck of a lot better now than when Wade left.
I see how the entire response was a dodge with a disregard of the impact of the owner saying that jobs were on the line. Jones has not uttered that to the players since. The Ratliff situation is entirely different, and is not an apt comparison. No one has threatened Ratliff's job - if anything, he has been somewhat coddled.
I fail to see anyplace where anyone has waxed poetic over Wade Phillips. All people have pointed out is that Phillips got the team to the playoffs, and won a game. He did ultimately fail, but Garrett owns some of that failure.
I think that your theory that the players played better after Wade got chopped because they were put on notice has a little bit of validity, but I am not sure it had all that much bearing on the players. IIRC they were 1-7 before Wade left. It is not like they didn't KNOW in their heart of hearts that changes would be made (likely players and coaches) BEFORE Wade got chopped. The only thing they didn't know was that the change would occur mid-season. They were already playing for their roster spots (for the following year) before Wade got the boot.
I completely disagree.
The team completely quit and laid down on Phillips in his final two games against the Jaguars and Packers. If they were playing for their roster spots prior to that, then they were all playing to be fired.
There is really no way of knowing if Garrett was a partial reason for the team's collapse or not. It is a bit hard to place blame on Garrett (pre Wade's firing) when the team responded so well under his direct leadership. Garrett has his weaknesses, but the arrow seems to be pointed up on the team under him (even though he has made a few really boneheaded decisions).
Players are always playing for their jobs. We can agree that things changed after Wade's firing for some reason ..... but we will never know the definitive answer to the reason it happened. It is really all just conjecture.
Miles suggested that was the reason on a Sunday Night interview and Patrick Crayton flatly said it was.
Regardless, if Garrett had this magical motivational power that people are still banking on three years later, he's had a funny way of showing it the last two seasons.
Because *motivation* is the reason this team hasn't won more games. Motivation to have a better pass defense, limit turnovers, get more takeaways, and provide better pass protection.
It's not going to be possible to separate the motivational effect of firing the old coach from the motivational efforts of the new one you brought in. And it doesn't matter, anyway. Garrett's teams play hard for him. It's pretty hard to deny that convincingly.
So after 18 years of mediocrity, the Jones' boys decides to bring out the "secret sauce!" I don't know what is more laughable, the stupid comment by Stephen or the sheep who fall for these stupid comments.
It's mayo and ketchup. There, problem solved.
The Cowboys played hard for Phillips too, up until the final two games of his tenure.
The Cowboys generally played hard for Dave Campo, right up until Coslet screwed him and the team by conveniently not having a play on fourth down against the 49ers.
At some point, results have to be commensurate with the "effort". To this point, they haven't been.