News: DC: Spagnola: Beware Change For Change's Sake

[birdwells1]

Spagnola: Beware Change For Change's Sake

Cowboys owner Jerry Jones has intimated Jason Garrett will head into the 2019 season on the final year of his contract, likely meaning no contract extension, that his head coach is in a win-or-else situation.

Read Full Story

Why did I click on this article, I should have know better.

 

[JustChip]

the # 1 homer is out full tilt, everything is perfect at the ranch, typical MS suck up to JJ.

Forget who wrote it and simply look at the content through an unbiased lens. The core point is change simply for change sake is not necessarily positive. In fact, if you look at the examples Mickey provides, it's pretty compelling that change, especially a constant churn, is counterproductive. Way too many people only consider the positive examples (in this case, Pederson and McVeigh) and completely ignore the vastly greater number of negative or failed examples.

As Mickey said, change should be made after thoughtful consideration whether the individual or organization has lost those he's leading. E.g., and not football specific, if an organization is meeting all it's financial goals, but organizational morale or customer service is poor (coincidentally, poor customer service is a tell for poor morale), a change might be in order because eventually the financials will suffer if the morale and service remain poor. The question for the board is can the leader change themselves to be able to improve morale and service. Think Tom Coughlin in 2007 after 2 games when there were player meetings and Tom was being fired daily by those on talk radio and the media.

Conversely, if morale and service is high, but financial results are below expectations, a change MIGHT be in order. What the board has to decide is will the financial results follow at some point since the morale and service are high. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the individual just doesn't have the skill necessary. But it's easier to get those that are led to produce if they are happy and to retain customers if the workforce is happy.

A change with Linehan was in order simply based on the results. Garrett is not so clear. Garrett looking silly clapping is not a reason for change, but that's what some, maybe many, would base it on. Just like many want a coach that has a stern look like Chucky, but what does that have to do with coaching?

 

[Sydla]

Forget who wrote it and simply look at the content through an unbiased lens. The core point is change simply for change sake is not necessarily positive. In fact, if you look at the examples Mickey provides, it's pretty compelling that change, especially a constant churn, is counterproductive. Way too many people only consider the positive examples (in this case, Pederson and McVeigh) and completely ignore the vastly greater number of negative or failed examples.

As Mickey said, change should be made after thoughtful consideration whether the individual or organization has lost those he's leading. E.g., and not football specific, if an organization is meeting all it's financial goals, but organizational morale or customer service is poor (coincidentally, poor customer service is a tell for poor morale), a change might be in order because eventually the financials will suffer if the morale and service remain poor. The question for the board is can the leader change themselves to be able to improve morale and service. Think Tom Coughlin in 2007 after 2 games when there were player meetings and Tom was being fired daily by those on talk radio and the media.

Conversely, if morale and service is high, but financial results are below expectations, a change MIGHT be in order. What the board has to decide is will the financial results follow at some point since the morale and service are high. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the individual just doesn't have the skill necessary. But it's easier to get those that are led to produce if they are happy and to retain customers if the workforce is happy.

A change with Linehan was in order simply based on the results. Garrett is not so clear. Garrett looking silly clapping is not a reason for change, but that's what some, maybe many, would base it on. Just like many want a coach that has a stern look like Chucky, but what does that have to do with coaching?

Remove Mickey's name and it's still a poor article.

For one, it starts by suggesting Cowboys fans are being impatient with a coach heading into Year 9 with two playoff wins on his entire resume. That's an idiotic argument to try to make right out of the shoot. From that point on, you knew exactly where the author was going to go with this article.

The author points out that it's unfair to blame Garrett for the run we are on and that guys like Parcells and Campo and Phillips apparently are shielded from criticism. But Garrett has not accomplished anything more than those guys have. A year before Garrett took over, Phillips had the Cowboys winning a playoff game. So if the author wants to make sure that Campo and Parcells and Phillips get their fair share of criticism for the two decades of futility, how in the world should Garrett then be somehow rewarded for not being much better than those guys? But that's essentially what the author wants.............. for people to see Garrett as being better than those guys and not worthy of the criticism. It's bizarre.

Then the author goes into the debate over regular season wins and where the Cowboys rate after the three years, of course, again neglecting the lack of any real postseason success. He brings up examples of organizations that made a coaching change like the Lions and Cardinals and how the teams played worse after a change. But what he fails to note is that no one in Detroit, for example, is screaming to bring back Caldwell or lamenting that they should have never fired him. Most teams that fire a middling coach and bring in one who does worse, simply acknowledge the truth - they got rid of a middling coach and hired a bad one and probably need a new one. I suspect there won't be very many fans in Cincinnati screaming to bring back Marvin Lewis if the new staff stinks. They'll acknowledge the reality of their situation - they had a middling coach who accomplished little in over a decade and a half and their ownership made a cruddy hire to replace him. Mickey, like some fans here, seem to think that if you get rid of an average coach and then hire a bad one, that means the decision to fire the average coach was wrong. No, all it says is that you hired a bad coach to replace him. That's it.

The author goes on to make the silly argument of "he's only had one losing season" but that's a disingenuous argument because 8-8 isn't a winning record either. And Garrett spit out three of them in his career. But given the direction the author was taking the argument, it's not surprising that he wants to chalk up 8-8 records as apparently some level of success.

Your last paragraph is, respectively, pure poppycock and, frankly, insulting to some Cowboys fans who have laid out a very well constructed argument as to why a change needed to be made at HC that has nothing to do with how he looks clapping. There is no "maybe many" that want him out because of his clapping. The "many" have laid out pretty fair reasons as to why a change needs to be made that isn't just based on whims and how Garrett looks on the sideline during the season.

 

[blueblood70]

Is that you Skip

no but I think Sydia a double agent , is that you Stephen A Smith?? Sydia might be SAS

 

[cowboyblue22]

mickey is a shill for jerry always has been always will be

 

[Whyjerry]

the # 1 homer is out full tilt, everything is perfect at the ranch, typical MS suck up to JJ.

Exactly. Mickey is the biggest turd out there. If there was a mile high pile of turds you would easily pick out the Mickey turd. A testament to how much of a turd he is.

I hear his name and I shut off. Can’t stand the guy.

 

[Dre11]

Now you are just being foolish.

There would never be a situation where I would want Jason Garrett back. If the next coach sucked, I'd just want them to go out and find a different coach, not bring Garrett back.

You'd take anything

no but I think Sydia a double agent , is that you Stephen A Smith?? Sydia might be SAS

Lol

 

[JustChip]

Remove Mickey's name and it's still a poor article.

For one, it starts by suggesting Cowboys fans are being impatient with a coach heading into Year 9 with two playoff wins on his entire resume. That's an idiotic argument to try to make right out of the shoot. From that point on, you knew exactly where the author was going to go with this article.

The author points out that it's unfair to blame Garrett for the run we are on and that guys like Parcells and Campo and Phillips apparently are shielded from criticism. But Garrett has not accomplished anything more than those guys have. A year before Garrett took over, Phillips had the Cowboys winning a playoff game. So if the author wants to make sure that Campo and Parcells and Phillips get their fair share of criticism for the two decades of futility, how in the world should Garrett then be somehow rewarded for not being much better than those guys? But that's essentially what the author wants.............. for people to see Garrett as being better than those guys and not worthy of the criticism. It's bizarre.

Then the author goes into the debate over regular season wins and where the Cowboys rate after the three years, of course, again neglecting the lack of any real postseason success. He brings up examples of organizations that made a coaching change like the Lions and Cardinals and how the teams played worse after a change. But what he fails to note is that no one in Detroit, for example, is screaming to bring back Caldwell or lamenting that they should have never fired him. Most teams that fire a middling coach and bring in one who does worse, simply acknowledge the truth - they got rid of a middling coach and hired a bad one and probably need a new one. I suspect there won't be very many fans in Cincinnati screaming to bring back Marvin Lewis if the new staff stinks. They'll acknowledge the reality of their situation - they had a middling coach who accomplished little in over a decade and a half and their ownership made a cruddy hire to replace him. Mickey, like some fans here, seem to think that if you get rid of an average coach and then hire a bad one, that means the decision to fire the average coach was wrong. No, all it says is that you hired a bad coach to replace him. That's it.

The author goes on to make the silly argument of "he's only had one losing season" but that's a disingenuous argument because 8-8 isn't a winning record either. And Garrett spit out three of them in his career. But given the direction the author was taking the argument, it's not surprising that he wants to chalk up 8-8 records as apparently some level of success.

Your last paragraph is, respectively, pure poppycock and, frankly, insulting to some Cowboys fans who have laid out a very well constructed argument as to why a change needed to be made at HC that has nothing to do with how he looks clapping. There is no "maybe many" that want him out because of his clapping. The "many" have laid out pretty fair reasons as to why a change needs to be made that isn't just based on whims and how Garrett looks on the sideline during the season.

The contradiction in his argument about being impatient is a valid critique. But the question is whether patience is needed in the here and now and not looking backwards over a decade. Any decision on coaching has to be made in the present and not what happened 10 years ago. A good analogy is investing in stocks. It does not matter at all what you paid for a stock 3 years ago; it matters what the outlook for that stock is today. That's where the team is with Garrett.

In regards to my last paragraph, I didn't paint all Cowboys fans with my assertion. I said "some, maybe many" and I think that's an accurate statement. There are some, maybe many, for whom that is not the case. You obviously don't fall in that category. But to think there are not is, IMO, naïve based on what gets posted here and hearing callers on talk radio. There are trite posts with no substance other than derogatory name calling. And there absolutely was and still are fans that want Chucky simply because he looks the part. Neither of those fall into a well constructed argument. They fall in the change for change sake category.

I think you and I had a conversation prior to the season about what was needed this season for Garrett to be retained. I said at that time that I would evaluate after the season and decide after that evaluation. There was no get to the NFCC game or any other benchmark. I think 7-1 over the last 8 games, winning the NFCE and winning a home playoff game gets him another year, but not an extension. And that's where I am for next year as well.

Don't get me wrong, I would love to win a Super Bowl, but I'm not going to make some Faustian pact to win one and then have a decade of not making the playoffs or even competing for a playoff berth. There are way too many variables that determine who makes it to the big game, but the one variable that assures you won't is not making the playoffs. Consistently winning the Division, thereby guaranteeing a playoff berth (and home game), is far more important to me than winning the Super Bowl one year. I recognize there are those for whom that's not the case and that's fine, differences of opinion are healthy.

 

[Sydla]

You'd take anything

Lol

There is zero chance I'd want Garrett back if he gets fired after the 2019 season.

 

[JustChip]

There is zero chance I'd want Garrett back if he gets fired after the 2019 season.

You may find this strange given my other posts, but I'm with you on this. However, the reason is different. I try not to ever look backwards once a decision is made. If Garrett gets fired or leaves for whatever reason, that chapter is over. There's no future in the past.

 

[Rockport]

I can't tell if Spagnola is just an idiot or it's in his contract that he gets a bonus the more he pushes ridiculous pro-Cowboys narratives.

- "Live in a world of instant gratification, our microwave society where we don't want to wait for nothing........."

It's been 8 full years with Garrett, you twit. 2 playoff wins. Eight years. All this franchise's fans have been doing is waiting. Whether that be 8 years with Garrett with the franchise no closer to the SB than they were with Phillips, or the fact we have 4 playoff wins in 23 years since our last SB run.

- "Just pop with deal in the toaster, wait but a couple of minutes, and breakfast tasting like cardboard became yours."

This is a terrible analogy but also stupid. His point seems to be that fans are impatient and things like winning takes time. Really? Eagles won a SB in Year 2 of Pederson's run after the disaster that was Chip Kelly. Rams made the SB in Year 2 of McVay's run after Fisher had run the franchise aground. Stop, Spags. Please stop.

- "That the Cowboys haven't won at least two playoff games in a season since 1995 seems to land at Garrett's feet, the likes of Switzer, CAmpo, Parcells and Phillips ducking the slingshots."

Well, for starters, Switzer did win multiple playoff games in 1995, so it was dumb to include his name. Secondly, Spags undermines his own argument here. He seemingly wants to make sure we blame Campo and Parcells and Phillips for our run but Garrett has advanced the franchise no further than these guys have. A year before Garrett took over from Phillips, they won a playoff game. In 8 years, that's as far as Garrett has gotten. So no, Garrett isn't taking all the arrows. He just happens to be the next coach who hasn't done much.

- "Nevermind Garrett was the NFL's 2016 Coach of the Year"

Lovie Smith, Mike Smith, Marvin Lewis were also Coaches of the Year. You want any of them, Spags?

His argument is basically the same we get from the pro-Garrett supporters here - regular season wins carry more weight than playoff success, so the Cowboys 32 wins over 3 years is more impressive than say the Eagles 29 wins, despite the fact the Eagles have a SB win in that time frame and this year went as far as we did in the playoffs. Let's also point out that in that dumb comparison, he's comparing a coach in his 6-7-8 years to a coach that is a first time head coach in Philly and just finished his 3rd year as a HC. This type of logic and analysis is breathtakingly funny.

And his examples of coaches that shouldn't have been moved on from is idiotic. In every one of his examples, the team was either flatlining or trending down. The fact the franchises did worse after firing those guys speaks to the fact they just hired bad coaches. In other words, the logic that the Lions shouldn't have moved on from Caldwell because the next coach might now be worse is some of the dumbest logic out there. It says nothing about the quality of Caldwell. It only speaks of the quality of the guy they hired next.

His logic is basically don't try to get better because hey, it might get worse. That's a loser's mentality. Someone who is comfortable with mediocrity and doesn't aspire to be great.

If ANYONE would know about having a loser mentality it would be you.

 

[Sydla]

You may find this strange given my other posts, but I'm with you on this. However, the reason is different. I try not to ever look backwards once a decision is made. If Garrett gets fired or leaves for whatever reason, that chapter is over. There's no future in the past.

Absolutely.

Further, each decision stands on it's own. If we fire Garrett and the next coach sucks, that in no way disproves the idea that the Cowboys were wrong to move on. It just means that the decision on who to hire was a really bad one. Going back to the article, Mickey is seemingly trying to make that connection.

That because Patricia stunk this year, that means the Lions were wrong to fire Caldwell. That's a false assumption.

 

[Sydla]

If ANYONE would know about having a loser mentality it would be you.

From the guy who goes thread to thread to try to pick fights with people.

This board has known no bigger a loser than you. You openly admitted months ago that you come to this board largely to just cry about those that criticize the team.

 

[sbark]

Change for the sake of change....
.....like rod m. Use and view of a 1tech
....like garrets use of a te....unless injuries force otherwise must spend a decade learning how to block, even if he was drafted having other specific traits toward passing attack

 

[Brax]

Yet he's criticized Jerry and the front office consistently over their insistence of playing wr by committee, and the OLine situation.
You don't like it because it doesn't line up with your narrative, what's funny is the people who spend the most time at the star or around the team, you'll criticize, but hang on to every word of the hacks who speculate,sight sources, or people that just throw s against the wall , hoping it sticks.

MS has always taken the company line, why, because his pay check depends on it. The critical articles are few and far between. Hack MS is the king of the Cowboys hacks.

 

[Brax]

Forget who wrote it and simply look at the content through an unbiased lens. The core point is change simply for change sake is not necessarily positive. In fact, if you look at the examples Mickey provides, it's pretty compelling that change, especially a constant churn, is counterproductive. Way too many people only consider the positive examples (in this case, Pederson and McVeigh) and completely ignore the vastly greater number of negative or failed examples.

As Mickey said, change should be made after thoughtful consideration whether the individual or organization has lost those he's leading. E.g., and not football specific, if an organization is meeting all it's financial goals, but organizational morale or customer service is poor (coincidentally, poor customer service is a tell for poor morale), a change might be in order because eventually the financials will suffer if the morale and service remain poor. The question for the board is can the leader change themselves to be able to improve morale and service. Think Tom Coughlin in 2007 after 2 games when there were player meetings and Tom was being fired daily by those on talk radio and the media.

Conversely, if morale and service is high, but financial results are below expectations, a change MIGHT be in order. What the board has to decide is will the financial results follow at some point since the morale and service are high. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe the individual just doesn't have the skill necessary. But it's easier to get those that are led to produce if they are happy and to retain customers if the workforce is happy.

A change with Linehan was in order simply based on the results. Garrett is not so clear. Garrett looking silly clapping is not a reason for change, but that's what some, maybe many, would base it on. Just like many want a coach that has a stern look like Chucky, but what does that have to do with coaching?

I do not care if JG stands on his head on the side line, claps, or stands with no emotion, the number one priority is getting to and winning the Superbowl, JG has been with the team 12 years, 1 as the OC, 3 as a asst HC/OC and 9 more as a HC and in that time 0 championship games and 3 play off wins in 12 years, that is pathetic, say what ever you want for MS to write a article basically saying JG should stay has JJ stink all over it. I do not believe a quick fix is what fans are looking for but 12 years of JG are enough. So 12 years or more than half of the non Superbowl drought years you can thank JG and JJ for. Some need to be hit in the head with a 2x4 to see mediocrity, I see it every time JG takes to the sideline and another season is lost. Funny how MS mentions WP in Buffalo but fails to mention how JG got his job. Change is overdue in Dallas but JJ will not change because JG is his hand picked coach and in my view JJ's yes man. Going on 13 years under JG and still no meaningful play off wins, my how the bar has fallen for so many fan and DC hacks. Maybe year 13 will be the lucky year.

 

[atlantacowboy]

So, basically. b/c Garret isn't the only coach to fail to reach a super since since 1995, it is unfair to have that expectation. His 4 consecutive "winning" seasons are an accomplishment not seen since Landry. Throw in a Cleveland Browns comparison, and Mickey is really serving up the BS.

 

[MCMetal69]

Change for the sake of change......?

Almost a decade with the same guy and not even sniffing an NFC Championship game appearance isn't proof enough of a lack of results ? Wow...........

 

[LACowboysFan1]

"Oh, and I get it. We live in a world of instant gratification..."

Instant? We've had NINE bloody years of not advancing past the first round of the playoffs even ONCE.

But what do you expect from Jerry's hand picked PR man.

Does he realize how incredibly stupid comments like that make him look?

If so I hope he's well paid for them, because his reputation as an "objective" Dallas Cowboys supporter is totally shot..

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Hes correct those hungry and adamant about change the HC, get rid of the QB etc etc Dont look at the possibility it could get worse, stay the same and less a shot it gets better..a new HC/QB regardless of their name or history guarantees nothing..

as much as we all want a NFCG and trip the the SB, changing things doesnt guarantee that, its not like we have been bottom dwellers , as matter of fact we have been the last 5-10 regular seasons been top 5 in wins , and Dak has been 2nd to only Brady in wins, I know I know its not all him it team thing but we have been showing some signs of improvement with this new squad which gets reset for 2016 to now, not putting all this at the feet of the past coaches and QBs..yes id like to see Garett go but Mickey has point and hes not homer for saying so..its facts its the truth..

So that brings to mind two questions: (And I'm not belittling your opinion, just asking honest questions, so if you're going to get all mad/defensive about them then don't bother commenting, if you even want to)

1. What do you want for the Cowboys, as an assumed fan of the team? Super Bowl wins? Conference title wins? Get to the conference title game? Winning seasons?

2. If SB titles are the goal, as it is for me, then if Garrett shouldn't be replaced at this time, how long do you wait before you say it's time for him to go? 9 more years, 5 more, consecutive losing seasons, going 2-14 this year, or 8-8?

I'm not of the opinion that Garrett "sucks" or is "the worst coach in the league" or "clueless". To me he's average at best, if you pin me down to a more definitive answer, I'd have to say below average. Nine years (10 I guess now, if you include this year) is long enough to at least get to the NFC championship game, if he can't do that this year then there's NO justification in my mind to keep him, and precious little to keep him even if he gets to that game and loses...