Coaching change doesn't change results for Dallas Cowboys

[CowboyRoy]

2020 was supposed to be a new era for the Dallas Cowboys but, in Week 1, Mike McCarthy’s tenure began in a similar way to how Jason Garrett left things.

DALLAS — If the debut result at SoFi Stadium is to be believed, and seeing is believing, then you were fooled and hoodwinked by the Dallas Cowboys. If you bought into the hype, as most observers of the team did, then the Mike McCarthy era had an inauspicious beginning.


All summer, without seeing a single snap from the Cowboys on either side of the ball, there was an outpouring of optimism for the perpetually optimistic franchise. The organization had brought in talent and changed the majority of the coaching staff, which was supposed to be one of the biggest problems that led to an 8-8 season without a playoff appearance for Dallas in 2019.

Full story attached..and added excepts in following post
https://www.wfaa.com/mobile/article...boys/287-809d52aa-e860-4bbc-bdb0-e05e501d10e4

coaching has been a problem for a long time. It’s still a problem until it’s not.

 

[Diehardblues]

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. If Jerry was the driving force behind keeping the kid, then McCarthy had no choice but to approve. Like I've said before, MM has always wanted charge of the play calling and I don't think that has changed, I think he got hornswaggled out of it by Jerry and his desire to keep the kid.
I also think if Moore ever had any creativity running in his veins, it probably got filtered out by Garrett.
Personally I was against retaining Moore. I believe we should've had a clean break from EVERYTHING Garrett and start fresh.
Keeping Moore killed that fresh start, but I hope I'm wrong about that.

I’d agree retaining Moore was possibly a mistake. You’d think bringing an offensive minded OC/ HC we would want to implement his offense and scheme.

As far as Jerry’s intent or wishes to retain Moore we are all certainly able to draw our own conclusions. Based on what I’ve seen , read On the matter and Jerry’s history of meddling it certainly seems very reasonable assertion. And I believe the fact McCarthy liked him and agreed sealed the deal with Jerry.

As a matter of fact it provides McCarthy an out because if the offense struggles he can use Moore as a scapegoat with Jerry. Again, that’s how I see it.

We could extend this discussion on why we’d think Jerry would want to retain Moore.

 

[CowboyRoy]

This is agenda on full display.

A person who tried to make every excuse in the book for Jason Garrett - for 10 years!

Who now wants to question Super Bowl winning coach Mike McCarthy - after one game.

It sure not hard to spot the person who looks foolish.

coaching has been a problem for a long time. It’s still a problem until it’s not.

yep.....liehardluz made up every excuse in the book for Garrett for 10 years. After one game all of a sudden the coaching is a problem.

 

[Jake]

I’d agree retaining Moore was possibly a mistake. You’d think bringing an offensive minded OC/ HC we would want to implement his offense and scheme.

As far as Jerry’s intent or wishes to retain Moore we are all certainly able to draw our own conclusions. Based on what I’ve seen , read On the matter and Jerry’s history of meddling it certainly seems very reasonable assertion. And I believe the fact McCarthy liked him and agreed sealed the deal with Jerry.

As a matter of fact it provides McCarthy an out because if the offense struggles he can use Moore as a scapegoat with Jerry. Again, that’s how I see it.

We could extend this discussion on why we’d think Jerry would want to retain Moore.

Moore is Jerry's second attempt to groom "his" coach. McCarthy is the new Wade.

 

[Diehardblues]

coaching has been a problem for a long time. It’s still a problem until it’s not.

I’d agree to a certain extent.

At what point though will we know it’s our core problem?

Or is weaknesses of talent a bigger problem? How do we measure ?

 

[Diehardblues]

Moore is Jerry's second attempt to groom "his" coach. McCarthy is the new Wade.

That could be part of it. I also believe Jerry thinks Moore was good for Dak. And Jerry was afraid to complicate things for Dak.

 

[Diehardblues]

yep.....liehardluz made up every excuse in the book for Garrett for 10 years. After one game all of a sudden the coaching is a problem.

This article clearly doesn’t state coaching is the problem. And now where did I suggest it was . You appear to only be reading titles not the content.

The point is that our new coaching after Week 1 didn’t appear to be any better. Or at least didn’t improve on the results.

 

[Diehardblues]

It was announced that all coaches were released and able to interview. Lateral move doesn't play into that situation, they're FA's.

It doesn't make any sense to retain Moore if he's considering either McC or Riley. He said he wanted a vet NFL HC and it's not likely he's going to force a one year OC on a guy like McC. I think Booger was pleasantly surprised that McC was even interested in bringing Moore back and he had to talk him into not taking the UWA OC job.

I think Jethro was pleased Mikey like Moore. But every column and local media I read and heard Jerry’s intent was to retain Moore.

Why would an offensive minded OC/ HC agree to take on a 1 yr OC in which he didn’t know the offense. It just didn’t add up to me especially when you throw in Jerry’s wishes.

IMO fans just want to think that Jethro was totally stepping out of the way bringing in Mikey and so him saying he liked Moore supported that notion. . Sorry, I just don’t buy it.

 

[Diehardblues]

As I said, you defended a never-was coach for ten years, but now try to criticize a Super Bowl winning coach after one game.

We all know who looks bad here, and it ain't Mike McCarthy.

As usual you aren’t arguing the content only attempting to discredit he messenger cause you don’t agree with the message.

All this article is saying is the coaching hasn’t helped the results after Week 1. I’m not sure you read the content .

 

[Stash]

As usual you aren’t arguing the content only attempting to discredit he messenger cause you don’t agree with the message.

Discrediting and pointing out the flaws in the ‘message’.

All this article is saying is the coaching hasn’t helped the results after Week 1. I’m not sure you read the content .

I saw the agenda behind it.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I’d agree to a certain extent.

At what point though will we know it’s our core problem?

Or is weaknesses of talent a bigger problem? How do we measure ?

You may never know. 10 years and you didn't know with Garrett.

 

[CowboyRoy]

This article clearly doesn’t state coaching is the problem. And now where did I suggest it was . You appear to only be reading titles not the content.

The point is that our new coaching after Week 1 didn’t appear to be any better. Or at least didn’t improve on the results.

Your agenda has been obvious since your hero Garrett got fired. At this point, I cant take anything you say seriously or anything you post.

 

[cern]

Damn me, cern is using something other than a firearm to shoot a living thing. Damned monarch butterflies need to be buying lottery tickets.

Never, ever, ever eat a monarch. Got some good pics. And a few of my fav creature to photograph on the ranch, painted buntings.

 

[TwistedL0g1k]

An interesting hypothetical:

What would McCarthy's record have been if he had coached during the Garrett era, with the exact same roster?

Not significantly different I believe.

The problem has been, and continues to be the roster.
And that's on the GM, not the coach.

 

[Diehardblues]

Your agenda has been obvious since your hero Garrett got fired. At this point, I cant take anything you say seriously or anything you post.

I said from the get go Id hold Mikeys feet to the fire since so many felt his resume could elevate the results with this team we had been missing with Garrett.

Many fans hyped him to be the savior from Jerry , the frustrations and disappointments of this era. And all this article is stating , which it doesn’t appear you read, is after Week 1 it doesn’t appear things are any different.

All you have presented thus far is an attempt to discredit the messenger cause you don’t like the message. You haven’t addressed any content of this article I shared .

 

[CowboyRoy]

I said from the get go Id hold Mikeys feet to the fire since so many felt his resume could elevate the results with this team we had been missing with Garrett.

Many fans hyped him to be the savior from Jerry , the frustrations and disappointments of this era. And all this article is stating , which it doesn’t appear you read, is after Week 1 it doesn’t appear things are any different.

All you have presented thus far is an attempt to discredit the messenger cause you don’t like he message. You haven’t addressed any content of this article I shared .

More lies from LIEHARDLUZ!!!

 

[Diehardblues]

More lies from LIEHARDLUZ!!!

Prove it big shot. You got nothing .

Nothing to add or contend anything in this article. All you got is attempting to discredit the messenger cause you don’t like message.

 

[Diehardblues]

You may never know. 10 years and you didn't know with Garrett.

But yet many on this forum were convinced we weren’t having more success cause of Garrett. No one really knows.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Prove it big shot. You got nothing .

Nothing to add or contend anything in this article. All you got is attempting to discredit the messenger cause you don’t like message.

Show the thread where people were calling MM the savior. If you cant then your a liar.

 

[grgnfg420]

Starting to think there’s not many players on this team that give a **** anymore...