Video: Jesse Holley totally destroys Jason Garrett and exposes him even further!

[rockj7]

Meh, this board has known this for 10+ years.

perfectly put

 

[_sturt_]

The whole board? Not at all. Garrett still has apologists. I always thought he sucked. He was the suckiest, suckface of all the suckers.

First... Jesse who? We live in an era when, if it's on the internet, it has to have some merit, as long as it fits someones' desired narrative, and never mind that any organization composed of several dozen men, there inherently will be some variety in perceptions.

Second, and following up on that last premise, when a guy like Travis Frederick is as supportive and complimentary of Red as he was, I don't brush that off as fluff. Nor do I presume that his perceptions of Red were limited to himself and a few others.

How many were Red supporters, how many were detractors, and how many were somewhere in the middle?

I don't pretend to know. Some do. I don't.

These things aren't scientifically investigated. There is no pretense that some objective data collection was performed and analyzed, no pretense that a court of law would find the hearsay so overwhelming that a conviction would be handed down.

Some pretend otherwise... and all they need is a former player making some accusations and telling what he's heard, and that's all they need to hear. It seems to give them something approaching orgasm, it really does.

And am I an "apologist" because I don't even barely agree with all the "suckiest" perspective.

I'm really not, but that again is what best fits the narrative of the anti-JG-mob. I'm really just a normal person who tries to approach any given issue, no matter how big or small, with a high priority on being fair to all concerned, and treating people like I would want to be treated.

Red had his flaws. I'm one of those who cited them as occasion arose to cite them. Red also had flawed people working above him. And below him. And Red had/has critics who even today are still so emotionally stoked about, not just his performance as a coach, but his very character as a person, that it takes minimal gas lighting to get them going... let alone 3 hours worth of it.

They, too, are flawed. And a major flaw of that population of people is that they don't get that. You can tell not only by what they say, but how they say it. There's no detectable appreciation for balance and objectivity, no recognition that even in the most extreme head coach hiring situations, NFL teams don't find one of us fans and say, "Hey, you seem to know what you're talking about... how would you like to be our coach for the next year or two?" No, they identify people who have some track record and some reputation that appears to be promising, and depending on results and a handful of other factors, they keep them in those positions accordingly. Not saying anything we all... all... don't already know actually, but it's relevant to this thread yet one of those inconvenient truths to the thread's premise.

So what's my analysis?

My analysis is that Red wasn't wrong, but rather entirely right, to be as consistent as he was in his messaging. My analysis is that mere mortals can find it increasingly difficult to come up with new ways of saying the same old... but constitutionally right (in the character sense, I mean, not legal)... ways, and after a decade, particularly without having been able to claim a Super Bowl appearance, it was "just time."

My analysis is that Aikman probably had it right when he observed that Red deserved a better fate in his last contract year than to not have the chance to determine for himself who he wanted on his coaching staff, and to not regularly have his voice and his messages conflict with what was coming out of the GM/owner's; and, to late to do anything about it, Jerry admitted to as much.

My analysis is that sometimes when someone seems really sure of himself, the people who that tends to rub raw the most are people who themselves are constantly being second-guessed in their lives and who covet having reason for that kind of self-confidence.

Tying a bow on it...

One should never apologize for applying the golden rule to any situation. It is called "golden" because it is effectively the ultimate morally superior standard that every perspective ought to pass through... whether that's talking about something actually meaningful in life, like doing right by family and friends, or talking about something that is merely a form of recreation and entertainment like sports and sports personalities.

 

[johneric8]

youre insufferable, I've seen you start thread and all the ones I see is about the old coaching staff, you like the scorned wife.

You simply don't get it. It was definitely an interview worth watching if your a fan of the cowboys hence the reason I posted it. we sit on these forums and talk amoungst ourselves about every facet of our team and this interview does provide some food for thought.

In regards to current players sticking up for garrett, well what do you expect them to do? I've met Garrett myself personally and while it was brief, I thought he did indeed come off phoney and not the kind of guy you would want to have a beer with .....

 

[_sturt_]

In regards to current players sticking up for garrett, well what do you expect them to do?

Suffice it to say, there's a difference between saying nice things, and going beyond that to say

"I’m very fortunate to have spent the time that I did with coach Garrett. Whether he’s here next year or somewhere else next year, the group of men that he’s going to be in front of will be better men and better players because of it.”

I've met Garrett myself personally and while it was brief, I thought he did indeed come off phoney and not the kind of guy you would want to have a beer with

Whoa. Didn't see that coming. Who can argue with that? I'm convinced now. Why didn't you say so in the first place.

 

[stilltheguru]

When i saw his handling of Dez, Hardy and Scandrick in sideline incidents I knew he was a chump. But he grew balls with the easily releasable Joe Randle on the sideline. Dont get more phony than that

 

[kskboys]

Meh, this board has known this for 10+ years.

That's really how I feel. I think that JG being a subpar HC has been proven 100% unequivocally beyond any doubt. His terrible game management just didn't get any better. Misevaluation of players, misuse of players, very strange O game plans that all too often didn't make sense.

 

[kskboys]

The whole board? Not at all. Garrett still has apologists. I always thought he sucked. He was the suckiest, suckface of all the suckers.

Yeah, but they are such outliers, I really don't think it's inaccurate to say the whole board.

 

[_sturt_]

To guru's comment, we evidently disagree about two things.

First, that the roster wasn't always ultimately controlled over the last 10 years by the owner/GM. (I believe it was, and with the exception of the Jimmy and Parcells years, always has been.)

Second, that Jimmy's philosophy was wrong--ie, the one where he came out and said he had a different standard for a Micheal Irvin than he did for a John Roper or Curvin Richards. (I believe he was right.)

 

[Qcard]

First... Jesse who? We live in an era when, if it's on the internet, it has to have some merit, as long as it fits someones' desired narrative, and never mind that any organization composed of several dozen men, there inherently will be some variety in perceptions.

Second, and following up on that last premise, when a guy like Travis Frederick is as supportive and complimentary of Red as he was, I don't brush that off as fluff. Nor do I presume that his perceptions of Red were limited to himself and a few others.

How many were Red supporters, how many were detractors, and how many were somewhere in the middle?

I don't pretend to know. Some do. I don't.

These things aren't scientifically investigated. There is no pretense that some objective data collection was performed and analyzed, no pretense that a court of law would find the hearsay so overwhelming that a conviction would be handed down.

Some pretend otherwise... and all they need is a former player making some accusations and telling what he's heard, and that's all they need to hear. It seems to give them something approaching orgasm, it really does.

And am I an "apologist" because I don't even barely agree with all the "suckiest" perspective.

I'm really not, but that again is what best fits the narrative of the anti-JG-mob. I'm really just a normal person who tries to approach any given issue, no matter how big or small, with a high priority on being fair to all concerned, and treating people like I would want to be treated.

Red had his flaws. I'm one of those who cited them as occasion arose to cite them. Red also had flawed people working above him. And below him. And Red had/has critics who even today are still so emotionally stoked about, not just his performance as a coach, but his very character as a person, that it takes minimal gas lighting to get them going... let alone 3 hours worth of it.

They, too, are flawed. And a major flaw of that population of people is that they don't get that. You can tell not only by what they say, but how they say it. There's no detectable appreciation for balance and objectivity, no recognition that even in the most extreme head coach hiring situations, NFL teams don't find one of us fans and say, "Hey, you seem to know what you're talking about... how would you like to be our coach for the next year or two?" No, they identify people who have some track record and some reputation that appears to be promising, and depending on results and a handful of other factors, they keep them in those positions accordingly. Not saying anything we all... all... don't already know actually, but it's relevant to this thread yet one of those inconvenient truths to the thread's premise.

So what's my analysis?

My analysis is that Red wasn't wrong, but rather entirely right, to be as consistent as he was in his messaging. My analysis is that mere mortals can find it increasingly difficult to come up with new ways of saying the same old... but constitutionally right (in the character sense, I mean, not legal)... ways, and after a decade, particularly without having been able to claim a Super Bowl appearance, it was "just time."

My analysis is that Aikman probably had it right when he observed that Red deserved a better fate in his last contract year than to not have the chance to determine for himself who he wanted on his coaching staff, and to not regularly have his voice and his messages conflict with what was coming out of the GM/owner's; and, to late to do anything about it, Jerry admitted to as much.

My analysis is that sometimes when someone seems really sure of himself, the people who that tends to rub raw the most are people who themselves are constantly being second-guessed in their lives and who covet having reason for that kind of self-confidence.

Tying a bow on it...

One should never apologize for applying the golden rule to any situation. It is called "golden" because it is effectively the ultimate morally superior standard that every perspective ought to pass through... whether that's talking about something actually meaningful in life, like doing right by family and friends, or talking about something that is merely a form of recreation and entertainment like sports and sports personalities.

Yep...Pricenton is about right. This word salad crap doesn't fly long enough in a professional lockeroom. None of these so called Garrett guys had Championship pedigree. Travisis a very good player. Professional Football players respect personal accomplishments but when Princeton snobbishness and lack of results rule the day.....all your intellectual word salad is just talk

 

[_sturt_]

outliers

If you happen to do research in your profession, you know that it's just the worst to distribute 100 surveys to a population sample, and only get back 30 of them. That's even though 30 often is considered sufficient to reach some conclusions (depending on the size of the population).

Why?

Because the researcher doesn't know why the 70 didn't respond. That lack of information represents a significant challenge since the reasons for declining to participate may be so varied that they represent no actual problem to the conclusions drawn from the 30... or... if there's one or two leading reasons, it's entirely plausible that those reasons completely confound the conclusions drawn from the 30.

My point?

It can feel like everyone agrees with me when the only people who post on the topic are those people who agree with me. Silo vision.

Given that this board is visited by hundreds if not thousands of different fans in a given period of time, the math would seem to indicate that happens quite a bit.

 

[Idgit]

It’s a pretty good measure of how objective a fan forum is willing to be about an unpopular HC when you get threads like this propping up takes like Jesse Holley’s and ignoring the countless other takes by higher profile players that say exactly the opposite.

Pat yourselves on the back all you want for living in an echo chamber, but the guy won a lot of games. He’s got the respect of the vast majority of his former players. He’s well-respected across the league, and was out of work for about three days before landing a premium OC gig. He’ll very likely be an NFL HC again within the next two seasons. You have to be low-functioning to say he’s not at least a decent coach. And I’m not even going to get into the stupidity of going all-in on Mike McCarthy and his staff. The guy’s definitely a decent coach himself. But to think he’s a shoe-in to fix what’s been broken since 1993 around here? Really? I’m going to believe it when I believe it.

 

[_sturt_]

Yep...Pricenton is about right. This word salad crap doesn't fly long enough in a professional lockeroom. None of these so called Garrett guys had Championship pedigree. Travisis a very good player. Professional Football players respect personal accomplishments but when Princeton snobbishness and lack of results rule the day.....all your intellectual word salad is just talk

You're welcome to your opinion, but pardon the observation that the word salad crap you've chosen here makes self-evident a certain prejudice against people who come from colleges with high reputations.

That, if you think about it, is no different than if a person were to inject into his/her opinion mention that the coach came from a college with a below-average reputation.

And can't help but observe that you appear to want it both ways... Travis' opinion does matter because he was a "very good player?" Or, it doesn't matter because he didn't have a "championship pedigree?"

To use your analogy, that word salad just presented begs for some meat.

 

[_sturt_]

It’s a pretty good measure of how objective a fan forum is willing to be about an unpopular HC when you get threads like this propping up takes like Jesse Holley’s and ignoring the countless other takes by higher profile players that say exactly the opposite.

Pat yourselves on the back all you want for living in an echo chamber, but the guy won a lot of games. He’s got the respect of the vast majority of his former players. He’s well-respected across the league, and was out of work for about three days before landing a premium OC gig. He’ll very likely be an NFL HC again within the next two seasons. You have to be low-functioning to say he’s not at least a decent coach. And I’m not even going to get into the stupidity of going all-in on Mike McCarthy and his staff. The guy’s definitely a decent coach himself. But to think he’s a shoe-in to fix what’s been broken since 1993 around here? Really? I’m going to believe it when I believe it.

I don't follow these anti-JG-mob threads to any degree b/c they're, on their face, predictable and, worse, irrelevant for the last 5 months.

So, I wouldn't know if you are one who is considered a JG advocate.

Except for the "likely be a HC again within 2 years" part... and I'm not saying he won't, I'm just saying there are too many things that can happen for me to feel comfortable in saying the word "likely"... the rest of that sounds pretty sound.

 

[Idgit]

I don't follow these anti-JG-mob threads to any degree b/c they're, on their face, predictable and, worse, irrelevant for the last 5 months.

So, I wouldn't know if you are one who is considered a JG advocate.

Except for the "likely be a HC again within 2 years" part... and I'm not saying he won't, I'm just saying there are too many things that can happen for me to feel comfortable in saying the word "likely"... the rest of that sounds pretty sound.

Lol! I’m not so much of an “advocate” as I am someone who’s challenged a lot of the constant dumb bull**** takes on JG over the years. I just can’t stand the mob pretending its process is rational.

As for The HC comment goes, I don’t have a crystal ball. I know there was scuttlebut that the Giants considered him for their HC role briefly and decided they couldn’t pull it off. I know that NFL owners reportedly think highly of him in general from his interactions at the ownership meetings. And I know he’d be a tough sell to the fans, but that I’ve seen tougher sells go down previously. I do expect him to improve the NY offense that has some good pieces and that improved its OL this offseason. I think that’s going to be enough for him to land an AFC gig in some market where he’ll have the time to build a roster. We’ll see.

 

[johneric8]

Suffice it to say, there's a difference between saying nice things, and going beyond that to say

"I’m very fortunate to have spent the time that I did with coach Garrett. Whether he’s here next year or somewhere else next year, the group of men that he’s going to be in front of will be better men and better players because of it.”



Whoa. Didn't see that coming. Who can argue with that? I'm convinced now. Why didn't you say so in the first place.

Look man, I'm a pro photographer who has shot many wedding of prominent athletes so I do indeed meet quite a few people.
And yes, I did meet Garrett briefly, I don't know him, but I can tell you that its easy to see the guy tries too hard.

I think my reason for posting things that support my drab feelings toward Garrett absolutely come from a place of feeling like I've been scorned,
so you're right by that analogy in a sense. I've said it once and I'll say it again, if Garrett came back in 2020 I was not going to watch any more
games because I was beyond fed up with dealing with Jerry Jone's pride puppet. Trust me on this, I meant it as well, I quit watching the Texas Rangers
after they lost their second world series.

I had gotten to the end of my rope with being a fan of the rangers so I actually quit watching baseball all together.
Sure I was overly invested in the Rangers and that is not healthy, but after losing that second world series I was DONE... I know that sounds extreme
but I had enough and I haven't looked back... And seeing how the seasons have gone for the rangers since then, I just saved myself alot of time and heartache.

In terms of me posting the video of Holley, sure it's therapy for me to see that others acknowledging what I was seeing in 10 years of watching Garrett.
Garrett came across as a slick GM at a car lot, and believe me I've known quite a few of those. Believe it or not, this is a job for everyone, it requires
a certain air of confidence, but that air of confidence doesn't make you smarter than everyone else, it just means you are good at holding down the fort.

We all know that Garrett helps make better men, and players did indeed play hard for him at times, but his message was stale and his football teaching skills were incredibly limited.
There is no doubt that his "Smartest Man In The Room" complex rubbed lots of players the wrong way. Sometimes coaches have a personality that just clicks with the players, A great head coach is respected not because he ask for it, but he has earned it. The problem for Garrett is that he tried to buy respect with corny rah rah speeches, but at the end of the day he couldn't put himself on the same level as his players in a natural way.

 

[stilltheguru]

To guru's comment, we evidently disagree about two things.

First, that the roster wasn't always ultimately controlled over the last 10 years by the owner/GM. (I believe it was, and with the exception of the Jimmy and Parcells years, always has been.)

Second, that Jimmy's philosophy was wrong--ie, the one where he came out and said he had a different standard for a Micheal Irvin than he did for a John Roper or Curvin Richards. (I believe he was right.)

Sp he cant be a man and tell Scandrick or Dez to sit the F down? Lmao was Jerry gonna punish him for it? So many excuses for that phony

 

[stilltheguru]

@Idgit
Is Mcarthy a better coach than Garrett? Yes or no

 

[_sturt_]

rubbed lots

.........when a guy like Travis Frederick is as supportive and complimentary of Red as he was, I don't brush that off as fluff. Nor do I presume that his perceptions of Red were limited to himself and a few others.

How many were Red supporters, how many were detractors, and how many were somewhere in the middle?

I don't pretend to know. Some do. I don't.

These things aren't scientifically investigated. There is no pretense that some objective data collection was performed and analyzed, no pretense that a court of law would find the hearsay so overwhelming that a conviction would be handed down.

Some pretend otherwise... and all they need is a former player making some accusations and telling what he's heard, and that's all they need to hear. It seems to give them something approaching orgasm, it really does.

And am I an "apologist" because I don't even barely agree with all the "suckiest" perspective.....................

I'm really not, but that again is what best fits the narrative of the anti-JG-mob. I'm really just a normal person who tries to approach any given issue, no matter how big or small, with a high priority on being fair to all concerned, and treating people like I would want to be treated.

Red had his flaws. I'm one of those who cited them as occasion arose to cite them. Red also had flawed people working above him. And below him. And Red had/has critics who even today are still so emotionally stoked about, not just his performance as a coach, but his very character as a person, that it takes minimal gas lighting to get them going... let alone 3 hours worth of it.

They, too, are flawed. And a major flaw of that population of people is that they don't get that. You can tell not only by what they say, but how they say it. There's no detectable appreciation for balance and objectivity, no recognition that even in the most extreme head coach hiring situations, NFL teams don't find one of us fans and say, "Hey, you seem to know what you're talking about... how would you like to be our coach for the next year or two?" No, they identify people who have some track record and some reputation that appears to be promising, and depending on results and a handful of other factors, they keep them in those positions accordingly. Not saying anything we all... all... don't already know actually, but it's relevant to this thread yet one of those inconvenient truths to the thread's premise...................

 

[_sturt_]

So many excuses

I'd reply, but you gave me no counterpoint to either #1 or #2 "excuses" to give a response. I'll only add this to your complaint, if you're assuming yourself to be the omniscient one who can discern when a player should be told X or Y or Z and when he shouldn't, then there's nothing to argue. You possess all knowledge, while the rest of us mere mortals don't. So, I can't argue with anything you'd say. Literally.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

America may be shut down, but not the Garrett Fan Club