Dak’s 2020 Empty Calories

[CowboysFaninHouston]

So why do keep reading my threads and responding? More moral high-ground routine?

I like a good laugh. laughter is good for the heart. I find you mildly amusing easily fooled

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Why are you talking to me after you told somebody else to stop wasting their time? Go home, I’m not dealing with your hypocrisy.

your feelings got hurt? did I speak the truth and touched a sore spot? seems like you are trying to back track

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

No that was not my argument. You WANTED that to be my argument so you argued against that (aka a strawman argument).

My argument does not involve Dak's numbers at all. I am operating purely under the notion that the team was consistently .500 or better for the past few years with a "scrub" QB. Teams with a "scrub" QB do not achieve that result and certainly not consistently. Even the stacked ones bounce between 5 and 7 wins. Therefore, by your premise, the team was overachieving with Dak as QB if he was a scrub and if the team is overachieving you do not change head coaches. The only relevant point about Dak in my argument is that I am taking your argument at face value that Dak is a scrub.

To boil my argument down to simple logic: if Dak is a scrub then the team was overachieving. If the team was overachieving then you clearly do not fire the head coach leading the overachieving football team. Taking these two premises you come to the conclusion that if Dak is scrub then Jason Garrett should not have been fired.

his argument like Leeblair's argument (although I suspect Khiladi is a ghost member for Leeblair). he hated garrett and called him often not good enough to even be a peewee league coach. at the same time he argued Dak is awful. you can't have both with the results we achieved.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I must say, probably my most favorite time of the forum in the last month was probably last week when Dak-stans started threads about how this organization doesn’t deserve him and he should just walk, since he’s carrying a bunch of bums... You know who you are... Come on.. here, kitty, kitty.. stop hiding yourselves...

wait until your idol, Dalton achieves something before counting your chickens......this is called premature ejaculation....

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Conversely, if some are Dak haters, does that make some like you Dak Lovers?
Based on what?
A 1-3 revord before he went down and Dalton got us to 2-3?
Stop the personal attacks.
Trolls? Seriously? If you don't love Dak and his trash time numbers in losing games then you are a troll?
Matey, when you send flowers to the $31 million man, me tears will accompany them.

Dalton didn't get us to 2-3, we had the lead when dalton came in. in fact, we were well on our way to scoring another TD when Dak got injured....Dalton proceeded to lose the lead with his fumble and turnover. and then needed a heroic effort from gallup on an under thrown ball to make a comeback...

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

The Dak-Stans are on the final leg here.
As the weeks progress they will melt away as seen below...

counting your chickens already. perhaps it would be wiser to wait and see the Dalton results before crowing....then again, you and wise don't go together

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Which premise is false? Is it that teams with scrub QBs do not consistently win at least 8 games because I can prove that easily with decades of statistics so that one is obviously true. So clearly the Cowboys overachieved if you believe to be a scrub. There really are only two premises for this conclusion one of which is YOUR premise: Dak is a scrub QB and teams with scrub QBs do not have the record the Cowboys have even the past 3 years. The second is again easily provable and the first is your premise. From those premises the conclusion is that as the Cowboys were doing better than they should have, give the team they had, that Jason Garrett.

You keep saying smokescreen and that word does not mean what you think it means because my argument is very simple. My premises that led to the conclusion fit 2 lines. There is no smokescreen when EVERYONE else can understand it easily. Either you are very easily confused or you cannot accept the consequences of your own position. If you believe the Garrett regime was actually doing a good job and therefore should still be around then that is a fair position to take (I guess) but do not run from your own position. HOW the Garrett regime got those wins is not relevant to the fact that they happened and by your premise they happened with a scrub QB. Clearly if you believe that to be true than Jason Garrett was doing a very good job and should still be around.

he is obviously avoiding and spinning to some answers, because he has no answers. he is caught in a rock and a hard place, where no matter what he says he knows he is wrong and thus he is squirming and avoiding feverishly.

great points on your response....

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

More gibberish.. Teams went to the SB with scrub QBs like Dilfer and Grossman. Blake Bortles was like a game away from the SB, while the refs gifted the Pats bogus PI calls. Scrub QBs go 8-8 all the time and have, throughout the history of football. Your premises are joke and you are trying to maneuver around your original false assumptions and trying to narrow down your false assumptions as the only ones possible now. Your not slick either. We had a talented roster all these years.. Dak was the problem.. If you followed my posts, you would have known that Dak’s mediocrity is what limited the team. We had an all-pro line and a generational back that consistently gave Dak More man looks than any other QB. Linehan and Moore did decent jobs to shield these mediocrity, including competition tailoring the offense to his limitations.

Just admit you were completely wrong. Jason Garrett wasn’t even allowed to touch the offense and was a figurehead since 2014.

like I said, stop propping up yourself with your logic. There is a Reason philosophers don’t get paid the big bucks.

but what he asked was that then garrett wasn't a bad coach. what was common with those QBs is they had great defenses and great coaching to get them there....so his premise was that you can't say garrett is a bad coach and at the same time same Dak is a scrub. its one or the other....its painfully obvious that the team didn't have great defense. so his question which you are avoiding to answer is if Dak is a scrub then was garrett a good coach and if he was a good coach then why fire him?

you are pinning...

and its funny you singing praises of Linehan, when the ENTIRE NFL MEDIA was criticizing him. I guess you know more than ENTIRE NFL MEDIA

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

If anyone knows football, stats are not garbage time stats when you comeback and put your team in position to win. Each of the losses in 2020, Dak Prescott led his team back to win or took the lead with less than 3 minutes (approx.) left in the game.

When your Head Coach makes calls that jeopardizes the comeback victory, or your defense flat out snatches defeat out of the jaws of victory, your QB is not getting garbage time stats. Your QB is showing he is a franchise QB that will one year tag himself to a large dollar long term contract with another team.

Last year vs. the Packers, Vikings, Bills, and Bears game where garbage time stats as the Cowboys offense and defense were out of those games.

Roger Staubach had all those comeback victories because he was a franchise QB that had a Hall of Fame Head Coach that kept him with a defense that gave opportunities to win. That is not the case with the 2020 Dallas Cowboys. They have a franchise QB on a one year franchise tag, and a defense that is non-existing setting records ALL TIME for AWFUL with Coaches that have no hope at all for Hall of Fame consideration (McCarthy the big Blue M&M is ruining his bleak and slight hope).

this was way too logical and above their heads....they won't understand this...

 

[khiladi]

um before I jump into why you are wrong on the face of your argument, I should probably tell you that are using the wrong profession in addition to everything else (its actually hard to take you seriously when you constantly use words incorrectly). A philosopher is not the profession that uses the kind of logic I am using, or at least not the primary one as those types of arguments are very rare in philosophy. The profession that uses that kind of logic is more in STEM fields specifically on the Math and CS side of STEM, the latter of which I can personally tell does make the big bucks.

Now onto the rest of your silly argument. First and foremost those teams had all time great defenses and the Cowboys defense was barley top 10 any of the past 4 years (really not so much this year) so certainly not a team built on defense which can scrape the odd set of wins together. However, the other and more important fact was the word consistently. There is a reason I used a 3-year window. After making the SB, and in the Ravens case winning it with likely the greatest defense of all time, both teams went 7-9 the following season and fell off the face of the earth. You do not win consistently in the NFL, especially recently as the rules since both those teams made it that far as the rules have been changed to help the offense, without having a top tier QB. Winning 8 or 9 games with a scrub QB even as a one off requires an all-time great defense which they did have and that obviously does not translate year-to-year whereas the Cowboys seem to get 8 or 9 wins regardless.

HOW the coaches divided up responsibility does not change the fact that it was divided it up in a way that caused the team to win more than it historically should have and when that happens you also historically keep the head coach.

Again, more nonsense..

You narrowed down the possibilities of Dak being great to having to play for Garrett, which was completely wrong, because Garrett hasn’t had any control since 2014 and now you are adding to
he list of assumpyon and maneuver out of your self-created conundrum. I didn’t narrow down the assumptions, YOU DID. You tried to narrow down my argument to YOUR OWN LIMITED ASSUMPTiONS, not mine.

So they had great defenses. That proves you were wrong in your argument period, because scrub QBs can win and have taken their teams farther than scrub Dak ever did. So you’ve moved on to consistent, defining consistency to falling to a 7-9 argument. WOW! One GAME difference than 8-8.

I can just counter that with Dallas has been playing in the most garbage division in football and four of its eight wins have gone against the Commanders and Giants each year. I can point out that Dallas had the best OL and RB in football these last four years, far superior roster than any of the bums in the division, outside of “the GOAT’ Dak, who isn’t better than any of the QBs during this stretch. I also said that this offensive roster gives Dak more man looks than any Qb on any of those teams.

like I said, stop sweating yourself about your weak argument couched in ‘formal logic discourse’. It’s still garbage. You should be embarrassed for such arrogance you displayed, propping your game up, while you obviously took some courses in formal logic, only to get completely annihilated on this forum by a ‘nobody’. Learn some humility.

To sum it up in a couple words.

You tried to pin Dak bring a great QB on him having to play for Garrett, going 8-8 in the process.

I proved that entirely false, because Garrett was a figurehead puppet snd had no control over the offense or defense, or anything for that matter since 2014.

I pointed out scrub QBs go to the Sb and outperform Dak all the time.

So the you tried to argue that 8-8 Dak was good because they had good defenses, which I never disputed. Which guess what? Prove that teams can win with scrub QBs.

So then you moved the goal post to “consistency” and tried to argue that the Ravens fell to 7-9 after the Sb, which proves that Dak is ‘great’, because of consistency. I then I said, guess what? You ignore the fact that we played in a trash division during these four years and still choked to a garbage Eagles team, while also ignoring the fact that Dak has Zeke and multiple pro OL during this time, and so many other factors during this time, and Dak that in reality Dak was the WEAK link in the whole equation.

To sum up “Mr. Formal Logic Discourse”, all you have done is changed the goal-posts of your argument. All you did is put the blame game on everybody but Dak.

 

[Adreme]

Again, more nonsense..

You narrowed down the possibilities of Dak being great to having to play for Garrett, which was completely wrong, because Garrett hasn’t had any control since 2014 and now you are adding to
he list of assumpyon and maneuver out of your self-created conundrum. I didn’t narrow down the assumptions, YOU DID. You tried to narrow down my argument to YOUR OWN LIMITED ASSUMPTiONS, not mine.

So they had great defenses. That proves you were wrong in your argument period, because scrub QBs can win and have taken their teams farther than scrub Dak ever did. So you’ve moved on to consistent, defining consistency to falling to a 7-9 argument. WOW! One GAME difference than 8-8.

I can just counter that with Dallas has been playing in the most garbage division in football and four of its eight wins have gone against the Commanders and Giants each year. I can point out that Dallas had the best OL and RB in football these last four years, far superior roster than any of the bums in the division, outside of “the GOAT’ Dak, who isn’t better than any of the QBs during this stretch. I also said that this offensive roster gives Dak more man looks than any Qb on any of those teams.

like I said, stop sweating yourself about your weak argument couched in ‘formal logic discourse’. It’s still garbage. You should be embarrassed for such arrogance you displayed, propping your game up, while you obviously took some courses in formal logic, only to get completely annihilated on this forum by a ‘nobody’. Learn some humility.

To sum it up in a couple words.

You tried to pin Dak bring a great QB on him having to play for Garrett, going 8-8 in the process.

I proved that entirely false, because Garrett was a figurehead puppet snd had no control over the offense or defense, or anything for that matter since 2014.

I pointed out scrub QBs go to the Sb and outperform Dak all the time.

So the you tried to argue that 8-8 Dak was good because they had good defenses, which I never disputed. Which guess what? Prove that teams can win with scrub QBs.

So then you moved the goal post to “consistency” and tried to argue that the Ravens fell to 7-9 after the Sb, which proves that Dak is ‘great’, because of consistency. I then I said, guess what? You ignore the fact that we played in a trash division during these four years and still choked to a garbage Eagles team, while also ignoring the fact that Dak has Zeke and multiple pro OL during this time, and so many other factors during this time, and Dak that in reality Dak was the WEAK link in the whole equation.

To sum up “Mr. Formal Logic Discourse”, all you have done is changed the goal-posts of your argument. All you did is put the blame game on everybody but Dak.

All time great defenses did not prove me wrong because there was the consistent in their and both teams finished under .500 the next season so they did not win consistently so your argument sort of falls apart there (also that Dallas never came close to having an all-time great defense and to think they did is delusional). The fact that you could not read 2 words ahead in a sentence suggests more of a problem with your reading comprehension and attention span than it does with anything I said.

The NFC East is bad but there have been worse divisions in football over the years. The Patriots got 6 wins spotted to them basically for 15 years as an example. The AFC West and South have had awful years, The NFC South had the 7-9 division winner a couple years back. So bad divisions still do not guarantee wins (and to note the winners of each of those divisions were the teams with the best QB).

See the beauty of my argument is that it is simple and accurate and you keep having to twist yourself into a pretzel to try and find edge cases to desperately disprove it and none of them stand up to scrutiny.

Also you wanted to focus on the OLine and RB but teams have not won SBs off of ground and pound in a long time (at least a decade). So we look at the Cowboys the past 4 years and they have had a good OLine and a good RB, but bad TEs and generally below average WRs until about 18 months ago. The defense was average at best (Dallas has still not won a game where they did not score at least 30 dating back to 2018).

Again though NONE of these facts matter. 20 years of football data (10 if we want to consider the rookie wage scale and rule changes the more modern era) all show that you do not win consistently with a scrub QB. Therefore if the Cowboys did that coaching staff was doing a good job and must stay. Going "but NFC East" is meaningless when plenty of other divisions have been terrible over the years. Going "what about these edge cases" is meaningless when the edge cases required all time great defenses just to win for 1 year and not consistently. The fact that it requires an all-time great defense just to win for 1 year in the NFL sort of shows how hard it is.

 

[khiladi]

All time great defenses did not prove me wrong because there was the consistent in their and both teams finished under .500 the next season so they did not win consistently so your argument sort of falls apart there (also that Dallas never came close to having an all-time great defense and to think they did is delusional). The fact that you could not read 2 words ahead in a sentence suggests more of a problem with your reading comprehension and attention span than it does with anything I said.

The NFC East is bad but there have been worse divisions in football over the years. The Patriots got 6 wins spotted to them basically for 15 years as an example. The AFC West and South have had awful years, The NFC South had the 7-9 division winner a couple years back. So bad divisions still do not guarantee wins (and to note the winners of each of those divisions were the teams with the best QB).

See the beauty of my argument is that it is simple and accurate and you keep having to twist yourself into a pretzel to try and find edge cases to desperately disprove it and none of them stand up to scrutiny.

Also you wanted to focus on the OLine and RB but teams have not won SBs off of ground and pound in a long time (at least a decade). So we look at the Cowboys the past 4 years and they have had a good OLine and a good RB, but bad TEs and generally below average WRs until about 18 months ago. The defense was average at best (Dallas has still not won a game where they did not score at least 30 dating back to 2018).

Again though NONE of these facts matter. 20 years of football data (10 if we want to consider the rookie wage scale and rule changes the more modern era) all show that you do not win consistently with a scrub QB. Therefore if the Cowboys did that coaching staff was doing a good job and must stay. Going "but NFC East" is meaningless when plenty of other divisions have been terrible over the years. Going "what about these edge cases" is meaningless when the edge cases required all time great defenses just to win for 1 year and not consistently. The fact that it requires an all-time great defense just to win for 1 year in the NFL sort of shows how hard it is.

So your still at it, continually changing your assumptions to maneuvers around YOUR claim that Dak MUST be good going 8-8 with Garrett and this coaching staff in place, as the natural logical corollary. I didn’t make that claim, it was you did. You tried to shackle me into a fallacious assumption I never held and all you’ve been doing is trying to weasel out of it, by trying to contest the MULTIPLE LOGICAL POSSIBILITIES that exist of why we went 8-8 with Dak. Notice how I tighter “MULTIPLE LOGICAL POSSIBILITIES”.

Homie, you lost the argument. I know it’s hard for you to admit it, coming from your background in ‘formal logic’. Now your off to playing ‘grammar police’ about the coherency of my sentences as well as trying to argue these multiple logical possibilities, that these are ‘edge cases’ now. You even think your slick by converting a 1 game difference of 8-8 to 7-8 into a percentage of ‘below 50%’, because you realize the stupidity of the example. Mathematically homie, just to play along with you, the NFC garbage division can more than compensate for one game. And the Patriots have been winning SBs in their garbage division AND win in the play-offs. You don’t even know what your talking about, you have completely lost yourself in your waffling.

Believe me, and you actually know this, you have been doing now is trying to contort your way around the fact that teams can win and be 8-8 for many years, with the QB being mediocre and the weak link.

Go back to university and get a degree in something that pays, not philosophy. Your taking Ls on a football forum, while sweating yourself based on this ‘Forman logic’. I don’t play the nice game with guys who come at me person from the get-go thinking they are all that. Stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[Adreme]

So your still at it, continually changing your assumptions to maneuvers around YOUR claim that Dak MUST be good going 8-8 with Garrett and this coaching staff in place, as the natural logical corollary. I didn’t make that claim, it was you did. You tried to shackle me into a fallacious assumption I never held and all you’ve been doing is trying to weasel out of it, by trying to contest the MULTIPLE LOGICAL POSSIBILITIES that exist of why we went 8-8 with Dak. Notice how I tighter “MULTIPLE LOGICAL POSSIBILITIES”.

Homie, you lost the argument. I know it’s hard for you to admit it, coming from your background in ‘formal logic’. Now your off to playing ‘grammar police’ about the coherency of my sentences as well as trying to argue these multiple logical possibilities, that these are ‘edge cases’ now. You even think your slick by converting a 1 game difference of 8-8 to 7-8 into a percentage of ‘below 50%’, because you realize the stupidity of the example. Mathematically homie, just to play along with you, the NFC garbage division can more than compensate for one game. And the Patriots have been winning SBs in their garbage division AND win in the play-offs. You don’t even know what your talking about, you have completely lost yourself in your waffling.

Believe me, and you actually know this, you have been doing now is trying to contort your way around the fact that teams can win and be 8-8 for many years, with the QB being mediocre and the weak link.

Go back to university and get a degree in something that pays, not philosophy. Your taking Ls on a football forum, while sweating yourself based on this ‘Forman logic’. I don’t play the nice game with guys who come at me person from the get-go thinking they are all that. Stop embarrassing yourself.

The only thing that has changed is your strawman kiddo. I have kept the exact same position every time shattering your pitiful attempts at counters because they like you are empty and devoid of any factual basis. Your argument fails because you cannot accept the consequences of that argument and in your desperate attempt to deflect you keep rewriting my position.

If you want to know why you lost this argument so horribly it is simply because you failed miserably at breaking a single premise apart. You relied on strawman arguments to deflect but those obviously fail when there is actual text proof about what the real premise is. You are also seemingly not smart enough to understand your own positions and not mature enough to try and handle the consequences of those positions. Basically you lost this argument because you are ill equipped to deal with the argument itself. A smart person would have actually tried to shatter one of my premises by trying to find a hole in them. Maybe try going back to 80s and 90s and even early 2000s when QB play was less important (not unimportant but less so) where maybe you could break the correlation and while I could have broken that argument apart using the same logic I just did at least it would be SOMETHING to argue. As it stands you have nothing and never had anything.

By the way I will remind you again, my degree is a CS degree not a philosophy degree and that pays a lot more money than you seem to realize (certainly more than enough for me to have everything I want).

 

[khiladi]

The only thing that has changed is your strawman kiddo. I have kept the exact same position every time shattering your pitiful attempts at counters because they like you are empty and devoid of any factual basis. Your argument fails because you cannot accept the consequences of that argument and in your desperate attempt to deflect you keep rewriting my position.

If you want to know why you lost this argument so horribly it is simply because you failed miserably at breaking a single premise apart. You relied on strawman arguments to deflect but those obviously fail when there is actual text proof about what the real premise is. You are also seemingly not smart enough to understand your own positions and not mature enough to try and handle the consequences of those positions. Basically you lost this argument because you are ill equipped to deal with the argument itself. A smart person would have actually tried to shatter one of my premises by trying to find a hole in them. Maybe try going back to 80s and 90s and even early 2000s when QB play was less important (not unimportant but less so) where maybe you could break the correlation and while I could have broken that argument apart using the same logic I just did at least it would be SOMETHING to argue. As it stands you have nothing and never had anything.

By the way I will remind you again, my degree is a CS degree not a philosophy degree and that pays a lot more money than you seem to realize (certainly more than enough for me to have everything I want).

I completely SHATTERED your original premise “kiddo”, and the only thing you are doing, while ‘sweating yourself’ and personally attacking from the get go is waffling around trying to save face as I completely exposed the shallowness of your argument. Let us go back to what you said:

MY ARGUMENT is that if you honestly believe that Dak is a "scrub" then YOU MUST believe that Jason Garrett and the rest of the coaching staff should have stayed because winning 8 games with a "scrub" QB DOES NOT HAPPEN.

Look at what we have here. Exactly as I stated.. Such absolutism for a guy sweating himself for his ‘formal logic’. Notice the terms “MY ARGUMENT IS” and MUST BELIEVE” and “DOES NOT HAPPEN”. It was surely NOT I attempting to argue that Dak can’t be mediocre, because he went 8-8 under Garrett.

I mean who is ‘re-writing’ whose position? All you have done after me telling you Garrett was a complete figurehead here, who was removed from play-calling duties in 2014, is tried to make excuses for teams going 8-8 or even going farther than Dak did, all the way to the SB, with garbage QBs. You then said, well they had good defenses. And then I said, which you obviously failed to see the point, is yeah, well we had a bunch of all pro-linemen and the best RB in the game giving Dak more man looks than any QB in the game. We also had guys like Linehan tailoring the offense to hide Dak’s flaws.

So basically all you have done is admitted I was right over and over again... But like I said, you completely lost yourself in this ‘discussion’ and couldn’t even fathom what was going on. Now to a big lesson in life:

Being logically true, doesn’t make an argument true in real life. A logical true argument can be based on a completely fallacious assumption, like yours was.

I feel sorry for your QA team if you are in CS. They most continually have to report your errors, because of how bad you are in formal logic, despite taking plenty of classes in them. But I just admit “kiddo”, the comments in your code must be immaculately punctuated though.

 

[khiladi]

Imagine if I said, our defense must be incredibly all-world, the greatest defense in history defying all historical precedent, because we went 8-8 with a scrub QB like Dak... That is essentially what you are saying.

All this formal discourse in ‘proper logic’ that followed was pretentious gibberish, that resulted from an original argument built on a completely faulty assumption. It was the “scholar from the ivory tower” nonsense, meaning EGO masking itself in ‘big words’, which you prided yourself on from the get-go in this discussion, while personally attacking me. But in the end, it’s still shallow and proved itself shallow.

 

[Adreme]

I completely SHATTERED your original premise “kiddo”, and the only thing you are doing, while ‘sweating yourself’ and personally attacking from the get go is waffling around trying to save face as I completely exposed the shallowness of your argument. Let us go back to what you said:



Look at what we have here. Exactly as I stated.. Such absolutism for a guy sweating himself for his ‘formal logic’. Notice the terms “MY ARGUMENT IS” and MUST BELIEVE” and “DOES NOT HAPPEN”. It was surely NOT I attempting to argue that Dak can’t be mediocre, because he went 8-8 under Garrett.

I mean who is ‘re-writing’ whose position? All you have done after me telling you Garrett was a complete figurehead here, who was removed from play-calling duties in 2014, is tried to make excuses for teams going 8-8 or even going farther than Dak did, all the way to the SB, with garbage QBs. You then said, well they had good defenses. And then I said, which you obviously failed to see the point, is yeah, well we had a bunch of all pro-linemen and the best RB in the game giving Dak more man looks than any QB in the game. We also had guys like Linehan tailoring the offense to hide Dak’s flaws.

So basically all you have done is admitted I was right over and over again... But like I said, you completely lost yourself in this ‘discussion’ and couldn’t even fathom what was going on. Now to a big lesson in life:

Being logically true, doesn’t make an argument true in real life. A logical true argument can be based on a completely fallacious assumption, like yours was.

I feel sorry for your QA team if you are in CS. They most continually have to report your errors, because of how bad you are in formal logic, despite taking plenty of classes in them. But I just admit “kiddo”, the comments in your code must be immaculately punctuated though.

No I am generally one of if not the highest performing person on the Scrum team because I am multi specialized with a keen eye for detail.

The path you are choosing to go with your argument is still dumb and that is why I dismiss it. Your argument seems to boil down to "Garrett ran neither the offense nor the defense and this makes him nothing more than a figurehead so even if the team is exceeding expectations it is still fine to fire him". The problem, well the biggest problem of many, is that it ignores that a LOT of tenured head coaches, many of whom are considered top tier head coaches, do not call their own plays on either offense or defense. It is not uncommon for the head coach to let the coordinators call the plays and focus on managing the big picture so if Garrett is bad for not running the offense or defense and he deserved to be fired for that then so should many future Hall of Fame coaches who are currently coaching teams that exceed expectations.

Second, even your examples from 15 and 20 years ago do not pass the consistency test despite being two all time great defense from top bottom they could not consistently win in the NFL with scrub QB play. And that was BEFORE the NFL made it even harder to win with scrub QB play. So basically your counter example ignores consistently winning, because you will fail that hurdle easily, is focused on that if you only focus on before the NFL changed the rules to make QBs more important and you build an all time great defense from to bottom than you can win in the NFL for a single year.

If that is the best counter argument you have you should stuck to accepting that you lost this argument and just bowed out gracefully. Your posts do nothing but make me laugh and feel sorry for you at this point.

 

[khiladi]

No I am generally one of if not the highest performing person on the Scrum team because I am multi specialized with a keen eye for detail.

The path you are choosing to go with your argument is still dumb and that is why I dismiss it. Your argument seems to boil down to "Garrett ran neither the offense nor the defense and this makes him nothing more than a figurehead so even if the team is exceeding expectations it is still fine to fire him". The problem, well the biggest problem of many, is that it ignores that a LOT of tenured head coaches, many of whom are considered top tier head coaches, do not call their own plays on either offense or defense. It is not uncommon for the head coach to let the coordinators call the plays and focus on managing the big picture so if Garrett is bad for not running the offense or defense and he deserved to be fired for that then so should many future Hall of Fame coaches who are currently coaching teams that exceed expectations.

Second, even your examples from 15 and 20 years ago do not pass the consistency test despite being two all time great defense from top bottom they could not consistently win in the NFL with scrub QB play. And that was BEFORE the NFL made it even harder to win with scrub QB play. So basically your counter example ignores consistently winning, because you will fail that hurdle easily, is focused on that if you only focus on before the NFL changed the rules to make QBs more important and you build an all time great defense from to bottom than you can win in the NFL for a single year.

If that is the best counter argument you have you should stuck to accepting that you lost this argument and just bowed out gracefully. Your posts do nothing but make me laugh and feel sorry for you at this point.

Your still at it?

Look, it’s clear. You claimed that Dak must be good, because he went 8-8 with Garrett and his staff here. That wasn’t me, it was you. One more time:

It was YOU that claimed it.

I simply responded to this claim of yours that it’s not even accurate, because Garrett was a figure-head since 2014 and Jerry made him a walk-around HC. That is a HISTORICAL FACT, not a logical assumption. Once again, it was not I that used absolutism and words like MUST.. it was YOU..

Just this one historical fact completely obliterated your fallacious argument. But since we are talking “logically” this doesn’t imply that I don’t believe in other reasons why we can still go 8-8 with Dak as QB, despite being a scrub homie. Never did I insinuate that I only held one reason.

So you trying to maneuver around your blunder by using words now such as “your argument seems to boil down to Garrett not calling plays” are just more examples of you just trying to weasel out of join simply admitting you were wrong in your FALLACIOUS ASSUMPTION from which your argument followed, meaning you wasted so much of your own time in trying to dig yourself out of the hole.
I had no argument. My ‘argument’ was ahistorical fact proves your assumption that ACCORDING TO YOU, NOT I MUST be true, was completely asinine.

All you had to do from the very beginning is read all my posts on this forum OT simply ask me why I think Dak is a scrub if we had an 8-8 record, instead of assuming that Dak must be good because he was carrying a ‘figure head’ coach.

Further, guess what, as far as history goes? Marinelli was the DC when Grossman went to the Sb. He was the DC when Marvin Lewis was the HC. The same DC when Dak was here. The Bears were constantly averaging around 8-8 and above during this stretch when Marinelli was here.

But just keep digging and digging and digging and digging yourself into a hole....

 

[Adreme]

Your still at it?

Look, it’s clear. You claimed that Dak must be good, because he went 8-8 with Garrett and his staff here. That wasn’t me, it was you. One more time:

It was YOU that claimed it.

I simply responded to this claim of yours that it’s not even accurate, because Garrett was a figure-head since 2014 and Jerry made him a walk-around HC. That is a HISTORICAL FACT, not a logical assumption. Once again, it was not I that used absolutism and words like MUST.. it was YOU..

Just this one historical fact completely obliterated your fallacious argument. But since we are talking “logically” this doesn’t imply that I don’t believe in other reasons why we can still go 8-8 with Dak as QB, despite being a scrub homie. Never did I insinuate that I only held one reason.

So you trying to maneuver around your blunder by using words now such as “your argument seems to boil down to Garrett not calling plays” are just more examples of you just trying to weasel out of join simply admitting you were wrong in your FALLACIOUS ASSUMPTION from which your argument followed, meaning you wasted so much of your own time in trying to dig yourself out of the hole.
I had no argument. My ‘argument’ was ahistorical fact proves your assumption that ACCORDING TO YOU, NOT I MUST be true, was completely asinine.

All you had to do from the very beginning is read all my posts on this forum OT simply ask me why I think Dak is a scrub if we had an 8-8 record, instead of assuming that Dak must be good because he was carrying a ‘figure head’ coach.

Further, guess what, as far as history goes? Marinelli was the DC when Grossman went to the Sb. He was the DC when Marvin Lewis was the HC. The same DC when Dak was here. The Bears were constantly averaging around 8-8 and above during this stretch when Marinelli was here.

But just keep digging and digging and digging and digging yourself into a hole....

So kiddo, your argument boils down to Garrett was a figurehead because you said so? If not being involved in offense or defense is not what makes one a "figurehead" because you seem to not have a definition for that term beyond it being a name you call someone with no basis because again like with the rest of your argument if you quantify what you think that means I will once again easily be able to find other head coaches who meet that definition. So basically "fact" is meaningless drivel because it is undefined nonsense and has as much meaning as calling him the uniball pen of head coaches. The fact that I am trying to find meaning in your undefined word choice so the fact that I did not guess whatever arbitrary you made up and will not explain is YOUR failiure.

Also this might surprise you but Marinelli was the Bears coordinator in 2007 when they lost to the Colts in the SB. He joined them in 2009 and became defensive coordinator in 2010. Their defensive coordinator that year was not interesting but it is noteworthy that they had been previously coached by Ron Rivera who had just left that offseason, who is a very good defensive coach, and the head coach was Lovie Smith another pretty good head coach. So shockingly you were completely wrong on that factually as well.

Basically at this point I sort of pity you with your inability to just basic facts right. It is no surprise that you were completely wrong on the Defensive coordinator when after 10 posts you still do not understand of my argument despite it being very simple. Clearly you are not experienced at debate or conversation or reading/citing so at this point I just feel bad destroying you more in this debate because you are clearly not capable of understanding your own positions.