The team not quitting does not matter

[FuzzyLumpkins]

its even more amusing watching the mental gymnastics you use to keep defending him

If you are going to make that argument it helps to point out what mental leaps I am making.

As it is now you look like a lackwitted adolescent who parrots a criticism back in reflexive anger with no sense of what it means.

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

This is all largely true. I'd argue in each case the injuries took the entire team out of what it did best at that point, and what was left of the center couldn't hold. 2015, at least, the losses were close. And it hasn't just been Elliott this season. The OL has really struggled. And that's the real heart of this offense.

Our defense has been a poor complement to a high powered, high scoring offense for years. We got caught retooling this year, and when the offense cannot produce, the lack of talent on defense gets exposed.

If you are the owner/GM...that should be unacceptable. I don't think much of Jerry as a football man. But if 2015 did not convince him. This stretch of 6 games should be something he is watching through FOOTBALL lenses. And if not him...someone he trusts. Teams are losing players all over the league. The Commanders went to Seattle with OL that showed up as the plane was on the tarmac. And the cobbled together enough competitiveness to WIN! Being competitive would have been acceptable...but winning was icing on the cake. Kase Keenum went into Washington and looked like Dan Marino. We should not have a scheme so simple and rigid that renders us HOPELESS when people get hurt. Sure you might not win. Sure you might get blown out here and there. But you should NOT get blown out EVERY week?! That is how far I have lowered the bar....can we just avoid getting blown out!!!!!!!!

 

[jazzcat22]

Jerry might actually be glad we got flexed for the the Gints game. Imagine how embarrassing it would be to get spanked by Geno Smith lead Gints.

I am surprised they haven't flexed us out on the SNF at Oakland yet. At least they can flex it out, but not announce what teams will play. I know they wait 2 weeks.
This game could have been a SB preview, but now it looks like a preview of what team gets a higher draft pick.

 

[Rockport]

I just don't know how Jerry won't be embarrassed if we lose tonight, at home, on national TV again. Ridiculous

It will certainly be his fault of they do lose.

 

[Kevinicus]

The way that the team plays hard for 60 minutes sure did matter when we were coming back against the Bengals, SF, Pitt, and GB last year.

There are other things that matter too but this notion that all coaches get their teams to play as hard as Garrett's do through adversity is just false. We know this after watching Wade, Campo, Switzer and others here in our own backyard.

It is interesting watching the mob use mental gymnastics to try to justify getting rid of Garrett without any notion of a plan and at all costs. It is also unsurprising that Catch would be the one to pull this argument out of the other Garrett rant thread and consider it a trump card.

Bengals? They were up 28-0 at one point, and never trailed.

SF? One of the worst teams in the league, down by 14 at most, and tied at halftime. Why would someone quit there?

Pitt? Again, never a huge deficit. Briefly above 10 pts in the first half. Why would someone quit there?

GB - This one you have a point on. But it's the playoffs, you have to be desperate at this point, and an 11 pt halftime lead, and 2 TD 4th qtr lead is certainly not something a player should be thinking about quitting on.

However, I didn't see a lack of playing for 60 minutes with those other coaches either.

I think one could make a stronger argument that they don't always play for 60 minutes under Garrett which is why you have seen so many team records for blowing things in the 2nd half under his watch.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Bengals? They were up 28-0 at one point, and never trailed.

SF? One of the worst teams in the league, down by 14 at most, and tied at halftime. Why would someone quit there?

Pitt? Again, never a huge deficit. Briefly above 10 pts in the first half. Why would someone quit there?

GB - This one you have a point on. But it's the playoffs, you have to be desperate at this point, and an 11 pt halftime lead, and 2 TD 4th qtr lead is certainly not something a player should be thinking about quitting on.

However, I didn't see a lack of playing for 60 minutes with those other coaches either.

That was off the top of my head but I just looked it up.

They overcame a 21 point deficit against the Rams in 2014.
They overcame a 14 point deficit against the Lions in the playoffs that year.
They overcame a 14 point deficit against the Raiders in 2013.
They overcame a 14 point deficit against the 49ers in 2016.
They overcame a 13 point deficit to overcome the Browns in 2012.
They overcame an 11 point deficit to overcome the Giants in 2014.
They overcame an 11 point deficit to beat the Eagles in 2012.
They overcame a 10 point deficit to overcome the Seahawks in 2014.


And you can poopoo the teams all you like but when you go down multiple scores the win probability scuttles to 3:1 or worse regardless of competition. Garrett's team regularly overcomes it with the mental toughness he preaches.

It matters.

 

[Kevinicus]

That was off the top of my head but I just looked it up.

They overcame a 21 point deficit against the Rams in 2014.
They overcame a 14 point deficit against the Lions in the playoffs that year.
They overcame a 14 point deficit against the Raiders in 2013.
They overcame a 14 point deficit against the 49ers in 2016.
They overcame a 13 point deficit to overcome the Browns in 2012.
They overcame an 11 point deficit to overcome the Giants in 2014.
They overcame an 11 point deficit to beat the Eagles in 2012.
They overcame a 10 point deficit to overcome the Seahawks in 2014.


And you can poopoo the teams all you like but when you go down multiple scores the win probability scuttles to 3:1 or worse regardless of competition. Garrett's team regularly overcomes it with the mental toughness he preaches.

It matters.

Lost a 10 point lead to lose to the Jets in 2011.
Lost a 24 point lead to lose to the Lions in 2011.
Lost a 12 point lead to lose to the Giants in 2011.
Lost an 11 point lead to lose to the Chargers in 2013.
Lost a 14 point lead to lose to the Broncos in 2013.
Lost a 10 point lead to lose to the Lions in 2013.
Lost a 23 point lead to lose to the Packers in 2013.
Lost a 14 point lead to lose to the Falcons in 2015.
Lost an 11 point lead to lose to the Rams in 2017.
Lost a 15 point lead to lose to the Packers in 2017.


Where is the mental toughness here?

Why are they needing to make so many comebacks and giving up so many at the same time? It seems like 60 minutes is a rarity under Garrett.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Lost a 10 point lead to lose to the Jets in 2011.
Lost a 24 point lead to lose to the Lions in 2011.
Lost a 12 point lead to lose to the Giants in 2011.
Lost an 11 point lead to lose to the Chargers in 2013.
Lost a 14 point lead to lose to the Broncos in 2013.
Lost a 10 point lead to lose to the Lions in 2013.
Lost a 23 point lead to lose to the Packers in 2013.
Lost a 14 point lead to lose to the Falcons in 2015.
Lost an 11 point lead to lose to the Rams in 2017.
Lost a 15 point lead to lose to the Packers in 2017.


Where is the mental toughness here?

Why are they needing to make so many comebacks and giving up so many at the same time? It seems like 60 minutes is a rarity under Garrett.

Yeah those were some horrifically bad defenses the first few years.

And this is just moving the goalposts. The OP is about the team playing hard not mattering. It clearly does.

 

[phildadon86]

If the standard for judging a coach were winning, that can be argued to play in his favor. Relative to the rest of the league, Garrett wins at a reasonable rate. His issue has been the up and down seasons. Problem is, people won't credit him for the wins, and blame him for the losses.

Do people really think the quality of coaching is what's see-sawing back and forth in Dallas in recent years? Because the coaching has been pretty consistent. And yet the results have carried wildly. That suggests to me the problems are actually elsewhere, though nobody wants to hear that.

More than anything, people want change because they thing that represents progress. I understand the reaction, and as much as I support him generally, it's hard not to be swayed by that when the blowout pile up. But it's Fools Gold.

Jerry Jones created a situation that makes it very difficult to win in Dallas. But like it always does, it comes down to the players. You build a team around an identity, take a bunch of hits in free agency, whiff on your own signings, and you have a net talent loss. Then you lose 4 all pro players for significant time and your good team becomes an average one. That's how the league is setup to work.

So he wins at a reasonable rate? That’s what cowboys fans should be happy about? Sorry this is America’s team. We should be winning at an exponential rate like the coach in New England....guess settling for reasonable is what has happened to some fans. Not this one. Garrett should have been fired after the 4-12 season.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

LOL @ moral victories in pro sports, especially for the Dallas Cowboys.

 

[Kevinicus]

Yeah those were some horrifically bad defenses the first few years.

And this is just moving the goalposts. The OP is about the team playing hard not mattering. It clearly does.

It does matter. But I don't think it's hard to get players to play hard. I don't think that was an issue before Garrett, and I don't think it will be an issue after him.

It also matters that they don't seem to always "play hard" earlier in games. It matters that they get complacent and comfortable and don't always "play hard" when they have a lead. It matters that there is as much evidence of players not "playing hard" under Garrett as there is for them doing so.

And it also matters that if a coach maximizes getting the players to "play hard" and doesn't bring a lot more...then it doesn't matter, they likely won't accomplish much, which is what I think the OP was trying to say.

 

[Idgit]

So he wins at a reasonable rate? That’s what cowboys fans should be happy about? Sorry this is America’s team. We should be winning at an exponential rate like the coach in New England....guess settling for reasonable is what has happened to some fans. Not this one. Garrett should have been fired after the 4-12 season.

Hey, it's a thread topic about how much winning matters.

And sorry, but if you have a plan for winning at an exponential rate, I'm all ears. It'd be an easy thing for me to say that I insist on excellence. Actually getting excellence is another matter.

 

[Idgit]

If you are the owner/GM...that should be unacceptable. I don't think much of Jerry as a football man. But if 2015 did not convince him. This stretch of 6 games should be something he is watching through FOOTBALL lenses. And if not him...someone he trusts. Teams are losing players all over the league. The Commanders went to Seattle with OL that showed up as the plane was on the tarmac. And the cobbled together enough competitiveness to WIN! Being competitive would have been acceptable...but winning was icing on the cake. Kase Keenum went into Washington and looked like Dan Marino. We should not have a scheme so simple and rigid that renders us HOPELESS when people get hurt. Sure you might not win. Sure you might get blown out here and there. But you should NOT get blown out EVERY week?! That is how far I have lowered the bar....can we just avoid getting blown out!!!!!!!!

Teams that lose games usually do lose them because they don't have enough good players on the field. And the Commanders have the same record we do this season. How good did the Vikes look the season before this one? It's not enough to point to a couple of the 31 other teams in the league who are doing well right now and conclude that's evidence we're a disaster. You have to look at what's getting built, or not built, over time. And you have to be aware that the league is setup for parity. For teams to rise and fall based off of schedules and injuries and suspension. That's what they want. Sure, we'd all love a Belichick in Dallas. There's only one of them, and he's in New England. What's next?

 

[Idgit]

Relative to the rest of the league, Garrett wins at a reasonable rate.

those are your words and nowhere did you say that was not enough= so you own it now

The idea that I own something because I did not say it is definitely an interesting take.

 

[jwitten82]

It will certainly be his fault of they do lose.

Lmao, so if Dallas wins its because they decided to play hard but if they lose its because theyre against Jerry. Thats the dumbest thing ever posted on a message board, it fits you Mr. Fify

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It does matter. But I don't think it's hard to get players to play hard. I don't think that was an issue before Garrett, and I don't think it will be an issue after him.

It also matters that they don't seem to always "play hard" earlier in games. It matters that they get complacent and comfortable and don't always "play hard" when they have a lead. It matters that there is as much evidence of players not "playing hard" under Garrett as there is for them doing so.

And it also matters that if a coach maximizes getting the players to "play hard" and doesn't bring a lot more...then it doesn't matter, they likely won't accomplish much.

Your unsubstantiated assertion that its easy to get players to play hard particularly through adversity has already been repudiated. It should be easy for Cowboys fans to see after watching how Campo, Phillips, Gailey, and Switzers teams performed. This goes doubly when considering off the field in preparation.

It's the great coaches like Jimmy, Landry, and Parcells that motivate at a high level. It is not common nor easy to replace and Garrett does it too.

And 2/3 of your list is from 2013 and earlier when we were trotting out historically bad defenses starting the likes of Everette Brown, Jarius Wynn, Ernie Sims, Cam Lawrence, and Nick Hayden. That was also before Romo made adjustments to his game to reduce his turnovers.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL @ moral victories in pro sports, especially for the Dallas Cowboys.

Who is arguing moral victories? I was arguing actual victories that came out of perseverance.

 

[Kevinicus]

Your unsubstantiated assertion that its easy to get players to play hard particularly through adversity has already been repudiated. It should be easy for Cowboys fans to see after watching how Campo, Phillips, Gailey, and Switzers teams performed. This goes doubly when considering off the field in preparation.

It's the great coaches like Jimmy, Landry, and Parcells that motivate at a high level. It is not common nor easy to replace and Garrett does it too.

And 2/3 of your list is from 2013 and earlier when we were trotting out historically bad defenses starting the likes of Everette Brown, Jarius Wynn, Ernie Sims, Cam Lawrence, and Nick Hayden. That was also before Romo made adjustments to his game to reduce his turnovers.

Your assertions are unsubstantiated.

I didn't see a lack of effort from those other coaches. Give me Phillips any day over Garrett. Switzer has a SB win. Your not strengthening your argument here. The talent on the teams other coaches had is not all the same. They're not all going to perform the same.

5/8 of your list is from 2014/2016 when this team had a lot of talent on offense. You are moving the goalposts. You want to ignore that comebacks are against bad teams because historically double digit leads change the chances of winning dramatically, and then you want to use the excuse of the Cowboys having a bad defense when they blow a double digit lead. You can't have it both ways.

 

[Direwolf63]

I am surprised they haven't flexed us out on the SNF at Oakland yet. At least they can flex it out, but not announce what teams will play. I know they wait 2 weeks.
This game could have been a SB preview, but now it looks like a preview of what team gets a higher draft pick.

I'm sure it will get flexed out. They just haven't yet decided which game to replace it with.

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

Teams that lose games usually do lose them because they don't have enough good players on the field. And the Commanders have the same record we do this season. How good did the Vikes look the season before this one? It's not enough to point to a couple of the 31 other teams in the league who are doing well right now and conclude that's evidence we're a disaster. You have to look at what's getting built, or not built, over time. And you have to be aware that the league is setup for parity. For teams to rise and fall based off of schedules and injuries and suspension. That's what they want. Sure, we'd all love a Belichick in Dallas. There's only one of them, and he's in New England. What's next?

I hear you...but again...is it too much to ask to not get blown out as much as we have? I pointed to those teams because I knew how injured they were. I knew how far down the QB and OL depth chart they reached to cobble together a roster. They are NOT the only one's. The kid in Green Bay looked AWFUL at the start...and then he went into Pittsburgh and gave them the game of the season. All I am saying is...Jerry needs to pay attention to how simple and rigid his coaching staff is. Do you think in our present state....we would have ANY chance of going into Pittsburgh and giving them a game...heck of even scoring double digits? I've lowered the bar. I have accepted we will get blown out in games we are overmatched. But should Jerry dismiss this season if we get blown out over the entire stretch of Zeke's suspension?