Kris Richard dilemma

[Galian Beast]

...thats not better...

Two of the players you mentioned were duds on top of that.

Not true. And it absolutely is better. Defensive backs coach is far more involved with the development of secondary players than a defensive coordinator who is largely focused on the defensive organization, scheme, and play calling.

 

[G2]

No. We will thank him for replacing JG, even if we think Richard himself stinks.

No one will regret the loss of Garrett.

Relax Francis. It's sarcasm.

 

[G2]

Lets see, Richard has been here one season and Clappy has been here dam near a decade and has won jack chit.

Not really seeing much of a sabotage argument here...……….Clappy was blowing games long before Richard even showed up.

I love how angry and overly serious some fans are, lol.
So entertaining.

Ummm people, it's a ******* joke!

 

[JustChip]

You talk as if even that's was some guarantee. It obviously wasn't, was it?

Not making a case that it was guaranteed. Nothing is guaranteed, including winning if they had gone for it and gotten it. But given how the offense had performed, it provided the best opportunity to not lose while still maintaining a chance to win.

But an opposing field goal (like they got) then doesn't get you beat either, does it? If I've invested all of this in my offensive line and running game, I'm having the guts to ride with them.

Running the ball would have had a better chance IF they had consistently run the ball effective all game, but that was not the case. Doesn't matter what you've invested in if you've demonstrated in the game up to that point that you have a reasonable chance to impose your will with running and that simply wasn't the case. They had just been stuffed on 3rd down.

Maybe but we'd be saying the guy had guts rather than the opposite too.

True, but I've been trying to find where having big stones factors into the standings. Maybe it's in the tie-breaker rules.

Always can be second-guessed. That's about half of what we talk about here.

Absolutely, everything is subject to second-guessing. Doesn't make the second guess right, or wrong for that matter. Each person's opinion is driven by their own emotions, value system (not taking about moral values) and preconceived ideas.

 

[Stash]

Not making a case that it was guaranteed. Nothing is guaranteed, including winning if they had gone for it and gotten it. But given how the offense had performed, it provided the best opportunity to not lose while still maintaining a chance to win.

I'll agree to disagree there. And the statistics support my argument and refute yours.

Running the ball would have had a better chance IF they had consistently run the ball effective all game, but that was not the case. Doesn't matter what you've invested in if you've demonstrated in the game up to that point that you have a reasonable chance to impose your will with running and that simply wasn't the case. They had just been stuffed on 3rd down.

So "stuffed that time" means "stuffed always", gotcha. I'm glad the good coaches don't give up on their running game quite so easily.

True, but I've been trying to find where having big stones factors into the standings. Maybe it's in the tie-breaker rules.

But you see where 8-plus years of gutless has gotten you. That's impossible to miss, even for those trying.

Absolutely, everything is subject to second-guessing. Doesn't make the second guess right, or wrong for that matter. Each person's opinion is driven by their own emotions, value system (not taking about moral values) and preconceived ideas.

Agreed.

 

[JustChip]

Can't make it every play, but that doesn't mean you don't try. The reality is they've been moving away from running on 3rd and short for some time now.

Very true. But there are multiple factors that going into the decision whether to go for it or not. It's simply not cut and dried. @DOUBLE WING is displaying McVay's "We don't fear failure" quote next to JG's "It was a long one (yard)" quote. The inference is that McVay's position is somehow superior. That sounds good, but if that's truly the case, the we can expect him to go for 4th and 1 from his own 8 yard line in the future.

 

[JustChip]

any coach here is short term anyway. nobody is like garrett to stay this long. one thing about Schwartz is his teams play good defense and he is a 4-3 DC

I agree 100% that nobody will ever approach Garrett's tenure, even if they are wildly successful. I'd be fine with Schwartz as DC, but not HC.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

The pass rush has been largely inconsistent across games. I hope for some improvement from Irving, Gregory, Collins, and Charlton.

Yeah, it's called playing different opponents. lol. The secondary doesn't fare nearly as well when the front seven isn't putting the heat on opposing QBs I noticed.

 

[Galian Beast]

Yeah, it's called playing different opponents. lol. The secondary doesn't fare nearly as well when the front seven isn't putting the heat on opposing QBs I noticed.

The same could be said of almost any secondary. It all starts up front.

 

[Galian Beast]

Very true. But there are multiple factors that going into the decision whether to go for it or not. It's simply not cut and dried. @DOUBLE WING is displaying McVay's "We don't fear failure" quote next to JG's "It was a long one (yard)" quote. The inference is that McVay's position is somehow superior. That sounds good, but if that's truly the case, the we can expect him to go for 4th and 1 from his own 8 yard line in the future.

I didn't realize it was his own 8 yard line. I thought it was his opponents 42.... You have to take real variables into account rather than work extremes.

 

[Plankton]

If the Cowboys make a coaching change after the season, and I'm not wholly convinced that they will, if they go with a first time head coach, it will be a disaster. With the media exposure, and utter lack of support and lack of a football first mentality courtesy of the franchise owner, this is no job for a first time guy to succeed in. If the hiring isn't someone who can plant their flag as the leader and face of the team, it's just another edition of the perpetual game of musical chairs that this team has been playing since 1994.

 

[Galian Beast]

A thread from 2014?

All that does is show me that people put way too much stock into assistants who coached under Pete Carroll's Super Bowl team.

People were clamoring for Norton before he ever did anything. Then after that thread was made, he went to Oakland and promptly failed and got fired.

Now we're rolling out the red carpet similarly here for Richard.

Again, some of you are far too easily impressed. Think bigger.

Noticed you didn't answer the question.

 

[JustChip]

I'll agree to disagree there.

Not looking to change your mind, just providing an opposing view that is just as reasonable and just as unproveable.

And the statistics support my argument and refute yours.

Statistics are simply a tabulation of past results, but does not quantify the risk/reward for any one decision. A coin flipped 25 times, coming up heads every time, still has the same probability of being a head or tail on the next flip. But, for arguments sake, I'll use a statistic to support punting - Dallas was only successful on 3rd down 28% in that game which means they were 72% unsuccessful. The statistics in that case favor punting.

So "stuffed that time" means "stuffed always", gotcha. I'm glad the good coaches don't give up on their running game quite so easily.

No. But you do have to take into account how your team and the opposing team has played thus far and what the likelihood of success is. Absent one 14 yard run, Zeke was 19 for 40 yards which is a 2.1 average. That is hardly a ringing endorsement that running Zeke will be successful.

But you see where 8-plus years of gutless has gotten you. That's impossible to miss, even for those trying.

I don't see any correlation between the perceived gutlessness and the record over the past 8 years. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, the Cowboys have been one of the top teams in going for it on 4th down. It's all about the feel of the game and risk/reward.[/QUOTE]

 

[Stash]

Not looking to change your mind, just providing an opposing view that is just as reasonable and just as unproveable.

No worries, I appreciate a good debate.

Statistics are simply a tabulation of past results, but does not quantify the risk/reward for any one decision. A coin flipped 25 times, coming up heads every time, still has the same probability of being a head or tail on the next flip. But, for arguments sake, I'll use a statistic to support punting - Dallas was only successful on 3rd down 28% in that game which means they were 72% unsuccessful. The statistics in that case favor punting.

They also cannot simply be discounted or dismissed because it's not the answer you want to see.

No. But you do have to take into account how your team and the opposing team has played thus far and what the likelihood of success is. Absent one 14 yard run, Zeke was 19 for 40 yards which is a 2.1 average. That is hardly a ringing endorsement that running Zeke will be successful.

So these statistics are OK to use while ther other, more comprehensive one side are not? I'll leave it to you to see your double standard there.

I don't see any correlation between the perceived gutlessness and the record over the past 8 years. In fact, unless I'm mistaken, the Cowboys have been one of the top teams in going for it on 4th down. It's all about the feel of the game and risk/reward.

[/QUOTE]

You'll have to show me numbers to support that claim.

 

[JustChip]

I didn't realize it was his own 8 yard line. I thought it was his opponents 42.... You have to take real variables into account rather than work extremes.

Exactly!!!!! That's precisely what JG did. The assessment of those variables is not an exact science.

The 8 yard line example was extreme, but only to illustrate that his statement of not fearing failure is inaccurate. If he doesn't truly fear failure, the circumstances won't matter.

 

[Redball Express]

I think we have a Kris Richard dilemma.

He almost certainly needs to be the next head coach of this team. I would have liked a more experienced head coach, but it probably needs to be him. He has a connection with these defensive players and despite a few positions, they're playing decently well.

The dilemma is that I don't think you can hire a new head coach and then tell them Kris Richard is your defensive coordinator. You just can't do it (Jerry would do it, but it isn't the right move).

So either you elevate Richard or you lose a very talented coach, and maybe the latter is the better move.

Pete Carmichael Jr., Josh McDaniels, and Jim Harbaugh are all very high on my list.

When I think of the lack of experience Richard has, I remember he has a decade of coaching experience compared to the five years experience Garrett had before becoming the head coach. He's also had tremendous success whereas Garrett had not.

My biggest worry with Richard becoming head coach is if he doesn't clean house across the coaching staff.

Valid concerns.

I think we all have had similar thoughts, too.

I could see Richards as HC.

Our best teams were with defensive coaches like Landry, Jimster and Parcells.

I could see him taking the job with this staff minus Linehan and Moore.

Make some personnel changes with the understanding that if it does not work..

in his second year he will make the real overhaul.

This would allow him time to find the rest of his staff from the other teams and hire them.

I think you have to be fair to the rest of the coaches as they have families to support and you should give them a heads up to relocate.

Kris would be an excellent coach.

He also fits the need to consider minorities in a hire.

A move to promote Stephen as GM would be wise.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

Noticed you didn't answer the question.

He improved Washington's offense and passing game specifically drastically after taking over. And clearly with his schemes and play calling he proved to the rest of the NFL that he was worthy of becoming the youngest head coach in NFL history. Kris Richard, meanwhile, has proven that he can get fired by his college coach and mentor, and take a step back in his career from defensive coordinator to DB coach.

 

[TheCoolFan]

I don't want a defensive head coach and it looks like the majority of the NFL thinks so too. Most of the head coaches have an offensive background

 

[JustChip]

They also cannot simply be discounted or dismissed because it's not the answer you want to see./QUOTE]

I'm not discounting the statistic. But making there are 2 sides to the stat you're basing your argument on. You're falling on the 70ish % history of converting on 4th and 1, but that same stat says there is a 30ish % chance of not making it. The coaching decision is to determine, based on how your team is playing and what has happened heretofore in that game and the circumstances at that point, whether your chances are more with the 70 or the 30.

So these statistics are OK to use while ther other, more comprehensive one side are not? I'll leave it to you to see your double standard there.

No double standard. Both statistics are valid. It is a macro vs. micro situation. Which stat most closely reflects the circumstances of that game at that time. E.g. the unemployment rate is 4.1% nationally, 2.9% in Dallas, and 5.8% in Chicago. Which stat is valid? They’re all valid and accurate, but you don’t care about the national or Dallas rate if you live in Chicago.

You'll have to show me numbers to support that claim.

I’ll see if I can find what I’m thinking about. I seem to recollect it was in another thread here in the last few days. But I may be remembering wrong, the ole noodle ain’t what it used to be.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

The same could be said of almost any secondary. It all starts up front.

,,, and the reason why that the secondary coach shouldn't be given all this credit and fast-tracked to be a head coach.