Sorry, but it's not an either/or proposition. Like the rest of the few Garrett excusemakers, you want to blame it all on Jones and absolve Garrett for being not good at his job. Sorry, no sell. It's not either/or, it's both. Jones for hiring him, Garrett for not being worthy of it.
What does this mean?
More excuses, certainly regarding coaching staff, and in several cases, players acquired as well. We can go through that if you'd care to know more as well. The fact is that Garrett had it better than any coach that's ever coached here, by far.
Glad we can agree on something.
Who's coming in with "multiple SB rings", your unreachable caveat is noticeable. Certainly considering the fact that McCarthy has one. So you 'raise your bar' to ridiculous levels so that nobody can hit it.
But why do you say "we shall see" after first claiming that "I disagree that somehow switching him out with another coaching staff equals way more wins". You've already made up your mind, and called your shot before a single game under McCarthy has been played. Or are you already contradicting yourself?
It's an either or if your argument is one thing caused more damage than the other (since you want to say both, that's fine, then who bears more blame for lack of success-Garrett or the front office). I'm arguing that Jones' hiring practices, favoritism, and existing culture bear much more blame than Garrett not being good enough.
Ummm, it is a fact that Jones has orchestrated the bulk of big decisions since Jimmy Johnson was fired. Johnson had it better than all the following coaches because of the player perception of authority along with final say on personnel decisions (which was written into his contract, which Johnson himself has made clear). Also, Johnson got to hand pick all coaching staff. I think Parcells got to as well?
I'm not absolving Garrett for not getting the job done (already said it several times). Yup, I'm blaming one more than the other. If you can't handle that I blame Jones more, it's your problem and my opinion that I cannot actually prove beyond the generalizations based on past history (before Garrett).
Firing responsibilities-meaning losing play-calling duties. Garrett had them taken away because the argument was that if it was given to someone else the offense would perform better (especially in key situations) and Jason could concentrate on a more comprehensive view of the team (though I would agree that at the time it was an excuse FOR Jones to keep Garrett onboard instead of firing him and getting another head coach).
If you mean that Garrett had it better than all the other Cowboys coaches with regards to how much Jones was willing to do to keep him employed, I agree. If you mean that Jones gave Garrett the best environment to succeed I disagree unequivocally.
Parcells came in with multiple super bowl rings, so it is not unattainable. My point is the head coach must come in with a bigger shadow than Jones to get the perceptual head of authority from the players.
I don't think McCarthy's shadow goes too far. Especially after his falling out with Green Bay. I doubt he will accomplish the things you say he will in the next three years (though I say "we shall see" as in who the *** really knows). If you are hoping for some definitive facts, maybe you should read history books. Spouting definitive statements about future events are done by seers and blow hards.