Discussion in 'Overtime Zone' started by erod, Nov 17, 2014.
Yeah....unfortunately it only took 5 years to do so
I think you need to keep up. Anything "excerpted"...from whatever or whoever, is "hear say".
You weren't there, so therefore anything that you took out of context does not make it so. FYI
Lol, I have been around this forum longer than you. Don't let the post count fool you and thank you for the "young man" compliment. It has been while since someone called me a young man. Now carry on with your rose colored Garrett is great mantra!
So nothing like usual, huh?
Let me know when you have something knowledgeable to say...I'll wait...for a very, very long time.
Jerry does not understand the importance of the HC as an authority figure, or he wouldn't be in the lockeroom and on tv speaking for the team every week. He is a delegator and hopefully will continue to delegate more and more as he ages.
Blind as usual.
Typical childish comeback. Let us know when you can talk football.
I am not as scared because I don't think they can stop our running game. It won't be easy but if we stick to heavy dose of Murray and keep ARod on the sideline, I like our chances.
I like the gameplan NE used against the Colts past Sunday. I think that could work against GB.
AZ is the team I think we may have hard time beating. They are the only team that can really stop our run game and have enough offense to beat us.
That would require the other side to know something about football...sadly that is not the case.
Oh, I get it. You can't talk football so resort to childish tactics.
Tom Landry could be posting and if he did not say Garrett sucked you'd ignore his every word about football, so what is the point?
I don't bang my head against the wall either.
Don't mention Tom Landry and Garrett in a same sentence. Then again, with your lack of football knowledge, you probably think JG is the next Landry.
Landry and Garrett are Cowboy coaches.
Does it burn like holy water to read it?
So was Campo. What's your point? Stick to banging your head. You are probably good at it.
Comprehension skills are a problem for you I see.
You said not to mention Landry and Garrett in the same sentence...oops I did it again didn't I?
I said I don't bang my head against the wall...which is in the same realm as attempting to discuss football with fools. Very difficult and pointless. However, making those fools look silly is quite easy and fun.
Comprehension skills? Who was the one who made a comment about 2010 team when the whole point of the post was about the 2014 team?
I think you've been banging your head little too hard.
There was some significant curb stomping going on in this thread.
As usual, one side is presenting facts and the other side's argument is "nuh uh"
The OP would have been better served saying they don't see what the fuss is about Kelly or simply stating they think he's overrated. I'm a Pac-12 guy but I can't stand all things Oregon, Chip Kelly, or that gimmicky offense. I do respect the attacking, breakneck pace they play at and it's had a huge impact on our game.
But saying Garrett is better smacks of blind homerism. He's done less for a longer time and has made some significant coaching gaffes in games. Kelly doesn't have that type of history or reputation.
The best part is that we are going to see an answer to this debate very shortly (9 days actually). The Cowboys' offense (big o-line, power running game, a QB that can make you pay if you load the box) has a similar style to the Stanford and USC offensive attacks that kept Oregon's offense off the field in upset wins. I hope like heck we can play keep away, shorten the game, and come away with the Turkey Day win. If the game comes down to Garrett vs Kelly we are probably in trouble.
Perception is a funny thing. There have been all kinds of facts presented by the so-called homers that totally obliterated the nonsense the realists crap out over and over, but it gets ignored. Just like it always has.
The thing now is that the knowledgeable fans are not out numbered by the herd. Most have either gone into hiding or are wisely keeping their mouths shut. Only the most ridiculous are still holding on, wishing for a collapse of their so-called favorite team.
This is actually a pretty dang good post, visionary. Supported by evidence and everything, and a far cry from your typical baseless negative reactions. So let me clarify my position here and give you the response you deserve. Remember, your own post which I responded to was "the GM had to remove his influence from offensive planning and playcalling for the team to be successful." So the issue is not just play calling. It's any involvement in the offense.
--One, I should say in all honesty that I hadn't seen or didn't remember this 'quote' from Clarence Hill. It's coming from this tweet, which was a paraphrasing of Jerry's actual quotes, and the 'Garrett will have no say on offense' from the tweet is what your sites like 'sportsmole.co.uk' picked up and ran with. But unless I'm missing more of Jerry's quotes, he's not saying at all that Jason won't have any say on offense. Jerry's saying Jason's involvement on offense will not be while the meal is being prepared (i.e., in play calling during the games), but afterward, (tasting it outside the room), i.e., his involvement will come in before and after the game day play calling.
Now, personally, I still suspect that there's a lot more collaboration that goes into each play and each series that involves the entire offensive staff, including Jason Garrett, but I'll freely admit that that's not what Jerry's saying here and that I don't really have anything to support my own interpretation directly.
--Two, on the issue of offensive planning, though, your own quotes make it pretty clear that Garrett's at least somewhat involved in the offensive planning, there are also many direct quotes like these:
From Jerry in October, re: Jason, emphasizing Jason's involvement in coaching his offensive staff:
Or from Jason, back in May, re: his communication with his own offensive staff:
And there's this, from Stephen Jones, re: Jason's involvement in the offensive game plan:
Or this one, from November, again from Stephen Jones:
So, let's put aside the term 'categorical' here for a minute (though I think it's still pretty obvious that you were categorically wrong because you overstated your case badly for what was supposed to be a dramatic effect). Can you reconcile your contention that Jerry 'removed Jason's influence from offensive planning and play calling' with the direct quotes from Jerry, Stephen, and Jason, above, that say otherwise? Based on a tweet from Clarence Hill paraphrasing in 140 characters what Jerry actually said re: the change in the play calling in Dallas for this season?
I don't think you can. But, as long as you're actually providing evidence to support your contentions instead of just dropping the drive-by negative opinions, I think it's a debate worth having.