DMN Blog: Dan Reeves at practice

[Randy White]

Two things are clear:

• Wades decisions have been good for this team (Just this year: DeCamillis, Wade running defense, Brooking, Gerald, Igor, etc)
• Garrett seems to be learning how to be a coordinator on the fly. This is not what a team like ours needs. We needed someone with longtime league experience and Garrett is clearly not that.

So to think of 'what could have been' if Wade was able to hire someone he wanted for OC or to even get a 'consultant' in place. Someone to complement the quality of defense he has been putting on the field.

I still think Reeves probably wanted some easy $.

whooaaa.. slow down a little, toad. Let's keep a little prespective here. Yes, over the past two games the offense has been stinking it up but let's not forget that it was the offense who won the game against Tampa in a shootout and it's the same offense that was on fire just three weeks ago.

Remember the defense didn't start as hot as they are right now.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

According to Star Mag, Reeves was required to work as many hours as Phillips and Garrett. Reeves balked at this. Whether or not it was the standard hours for a consultant, I don't know.

 

[pancakeman]

I wonder if Jerry Jones is making him punch in?

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I don't have an answer! Have thought about this a lot. One thought that came to mind is that the organization, after having Reeves ariound the office for a couple days, decided they didn't like the arrangement and so they put a clause in the contract they knew Reeves wouldn't like - then it would appear that Reeves was being problematic... Just a thought.

That's exactly what I think happened.

Reeves was on several radio shows the day after the deal fell apart and it was obvious that he was completely crushed by this. He wanted this job so badly. But on principle he wasn't going to sign a contract with a clause allowing Jerry to fire him at will if he worked five minutes less than Garrett or Wade in any one day.

Which is ridiculous, because Reeves has never had his work ethic questioned. Ever.

In contrast, Jerry called into GAC and acted oh well, things didn't work out -- no big deal.

Reeves even said he would fly back to Dallas and sign the deal in a heartbeat if Jerry would take out that clause, but Jerry was having none of it.

My guess is that Garrett didn't really want someone looking over his shoulder. And Jerry didn't want anyone possibly butting heads with his pet project and heir apparent.

 

[YosemiteSam]

11:15 AM Wed, Nov 25, 2009 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Todd Archer/Reporter Bio | E-mail | News tips

On Tuesday it was Jimmy Johnson gracing the Cowboys practice field.

Today it is Dan Reeves and it is a case of what could have been.

In the offseason coach Wade Phillips wanted to bring Reeves in as a consultant for the offense but Reeves and owner and general manager Jerry Jones could not come to an agerement on how much Reeves should work.

Phillips served as Reeves' defensive coordinator in Denver and Atlanta.

Reeves' son in law is special teams coach Joe DeCamillis and he is working Thursday's game for the national radio broadcast.


Comments (0) Leave comment | E-mail entry

Sign him Jerry!

Someone needs to teach Garrett how to run an offense!

 

[CF74]

whooaaa.. slow down a little, toad. Let's keep a little prespective here. Yes, over the past two games the offense has been stinking it up but let's not forget that it was the offense who won the game against Tampa in a shootout and it's the same offense that was on fire just three weeks ago.

Remember the defense didn't start as hot as they are right now.

Another perspective might be that the offense turned the ball over to much, left the D with a short field, and couldn't sustain enough drives to keep the defense fresh and off the field....

 

[Alexander]

That implies that Reeves just wanted to do as little work as possible, just to get paid, and not really have to try to contribute to hte offense. Sorry, but Reeves has never been that kind of coach.

I also don't think Coach Reeves has that shallow of a character.

Had he been here, the offense would be differnet - meaning better - because Reeves is 10000 times the offensive coach that Garrett is, and Reeves has a connection to Phillips. With Reeves here Phillips would be in charge of the whole team.

The best thing Reeves could have done is bridged that communication gap that I think still exists between Phillips and Garrett. I don't believe Phillips is very much in tune with what it takes for winning offensive football and Reeves would have filled that void. I also think the right hand would know what the left hand is doing if he were in the position and we'd have more of a unified thought process. But since he wasn't willing to live up to Jones' expectations, we have to deal with what we have now, which is far from optimal.

 

[Temo]

Two things are clear:

• Wades decisions have been good for this team (Just this year: DeCamillis, Wade running defense, Brooking, Gerald, Igor, etc)
• Garrett seems to be learning how to be a coordinator on the fly. This is not what a team like ours needs. We needed someone with longtime league experience and Garrett is clearly not that.

So to think of 'what could have been' if Wade was able to hire someone he wanted for OC or to even get a 'consultant' in place. Someone to complement the quality of defense he has been putting on the field.

I still think Reeves probably wanted some easy $.

If you think Wade has been doing a good job with the defense this year and Garrett has been doing a bad job (again, this year and not just the past two game), then we're not watching the same games.

 

[Temo]

I totally agree with this. Thing is, Garrett has shown random flashes that he "gets it".. then it'll just disappear.

The D is playing great right now.. I don't understand all the whining about our secondary or anything defensively. I would LOVE to see the stats on where we rank in the NFL in defense if you don't count the first 2 weeks.

We've gotta be up there in every single category. Every loss of ours, we've been in. 4 turnovers against the Giants while forcing none and only losing by 2? Denver was playing hot, and playing @Denver is a tough thing to do.. and we had multiple opportunities to tie that game at the end. Packers? Well, we know that story.

I haven't really taken a stance because things haven't been so clear to me, but now I'd be upset if Wade is fired and Garrett gets promoted. Wade has been fantastic for our D, and I'm pretty sure that the only offensive control he has is the important decisions: going for it on 4th down, possibly influencing "let's run the ball more", stuff like that.

Garrett is still a youngin' and needs to learn a bit more. I think he'll get eaten alive as a head coach. If you're going to keep him around, please just keep him as an OC.. let him work on his craft and become a consistent playcaller, then we can see from there.

Are you kidding me? This defense was run over by TAMPA BAY, was passed all over by ELI MANNING, and gave up 20 points to KC.

We are 16th in yards per game on defense this year and 5th in yards per game on offense.

Our offense has been FAR BETTER than our defense this year.

 

[Dallas]

My guess is that Garrett didn't really want someone looking over his shoulder. And Jerry didn't want anyone possibly butting heads with his pet project and heir apparent.

Which is complelely in his right and something I can personally understand. How would you like it if someone was brought in to consult your position w/ your company?

I thought it was a bad idea in the 1st place. We have hundreds of consultants available to us here at my office, and we dont' give them the time of day. They have no power and that right there is every reason you need to just ignore them. Let's face it, he was only being brought here because of Wade and so that Wade could have someone he was more comfortable with. I understand that but JG is already here and they should have know that the DR experiment would probably have failed somewhere down the road anyway.

Consultants only work if everyone is on board w/ the idea.

Dan Reeves balking at that clause is just flat out rediculous. If it's in all the contracts like Jerry says, then Dan is an idiot, and he can just stick his little butthurt pride issue and never work for the Cowboys ever for all I care.

I never understood the infatuation over Reeves anyways.

 

[Dallas]

Are you kidding me? This defense was run over by TAMPA BAY, was passed all over by ELI MANNING, and gave up 20 points to KC.

We are 16th in yards per game on defense this year and 5th in yards per game on offense.

Our offense has been FAR BETTER than our defense this year.

Those 1st 2 games really hurt this defenses stats for sure. They are just now digging themselves out of it. Our defense is the REASON this team is winning right now.

I haven't a clue how you feel that the offense is the power of the team. That most certainly isn't a fact.

This defense has turned itself completely around after those 2 games.

Stat people make me giggle

 

[802dave]

We have hundreds of consultants available to us here at my office, and we dont' give them the time of day. They have no power and that right there is every reason you need to just ignore them.

Excellent Reasoning...

 

[Temo]

The only reason that the defense hasn't surrendered as many points as you would expect is because our Special Teams and offense are giving the defense great field position to work with.

Dallas is 6th in the league in yards per drive on offense (gaining 33.38) and 18th on defense (giving up 28.88). Our defense works with the 5th best field position in the league (average opposing team's drive starts on the 26.46 yard line) while our offense has the 24th best field position (average offensive drive starts on the 27.94).

Source: http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

Our points per game is being helped a lot by our offense managing to win the field position war (while not scoring enough TDs lately, true) and our Special Teams being stellar.

Oh by the way, lets not forget that our defense is being staffed by multiple first round picks and free agent signings, while we're using 2 4th round picks at RB, a UDFA QB, a 7th round WR, and 3 other UDFA WRs.

This defense is still underperforming. The anti-Garrett statements have really lost touch with reality.

 

[Temo]

Those 1st 2 games really hurt this defenses stats for sure. They are just now digging themselves out of it. Our defense is the REASON this team is winning right now.

I haven't a clue how you feel that the offense is the power of the team. That most certainly isn't a fact.

This defense has turned itself completely around after those 2 games.

Stat people make me giggle

So they struggled for 2 games, but we're not allowed to ignore the 2 games that the offense struggled? Or the fact that, as said above, they've been given great field position to work with while our offense is always starting backed up?

If I can't use stats to back up my statements, what else can I use? Shall we just devolve into "no, I'm right, duh" arguments?

 

[JBond]

Those 1st 2 games really hurt this defenses stats for sure. They are just now digging themselves out of it. Our defense is the REASON this team is winning right now.

Those two games also padded our offensive running stats.

Stats are nice to get an overall perspective. The most important stat is turnover ratio. There is no more telling stat than that.

 

[JBond]

So they struggled for 2 games, but we're not allowed to ignore the 2 games that the offense struggled? Or the fact that, as said above, they've been given great field position to work with while our offense is always starting backed up?

If I can't use stats to back up my statements, what else can I use? Shall we just devolve into "no, I'm right, duh" arguments?

Do what I do. Make up as much bs as possible.

 

[Dallas]

So they struggled for 2 games, but we're not allowed to ignore the 2 games that the offense struggled? Or the fact that, as said above, they've been given great field position to work with while our offense is always starting backed up?

If I can't use stats to back up my statements, what else can I use? Shall we just devolve into "no, I'm right, duh" arguments?

We just watch entirely different ball games. I don't see our offense as special as some folks do. The struggles of JG and this offense are legend.

When the execution is there then we are tops in the league, I just haven't seen that but maybe once or 2 this year.

I literally sit on the edge of my seat when the O is on the field, hoping and hoping some more that we can convert 3rd downs and not get another 3 and out.

This offfense just doesnt execute at all much. The penalties and stupid mistakes absolutely KILL us everytime. I don't see the D doing much of that this year.

Intially yes - but that has been addressed.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Which is complelely in his right and something I can personally understand. How would you like it if someone was brought in to consult your position w/ your company?

I thought it was a bad idea in the 1st place. We have hundreds of consultants available to us here at my office, and we dont' give them the time of day. They have no power and that right there is every reason you need to just ignore them. Let's face it, he was only being brought here because of Wade and so that Wade could have someone he was more comfortable with.

Um, he's the head coach. He should have the say, and who cares if Garrett doesn't like it?

It sounds like you are on board with Jerry's preference for dual head coaches.

The only reason that the defense hasn't surrendered as many points as you would expect is because our Special Teams and offense are giving the defense great field position to work with.

Dallas is 6th in the league in yards per drive on offense (gaining 33.38) and 18th on defense (giving up 28.88). Our defense works with the 5th best field position in the league (average opposing team's drive starts on the 26.46 yard line) while our offense has the 24th best field position (average offensive drive starts on the 27.94).

Source: http://footballoutsiders.com/stats/drivestats

Our points per game is being helped a lot by our offense managing to win the field position war (while not scoring enough TDs lately, true) and our Special Teams being stellar.

Oh by the way, lets not forget that our defense is being staffed by multiple first round picks and free agent signings, while we're using 2 4th round picks at RB, a UDFA QB, a 7th round WR, and 3 other UDFA WRs.

This defense is still underperforming. The anti-Garrett statements have really lost touch with reality.

Please. By that line of thinking the New England Patriots are only being staffed by a fifth rounder at QB.

And also by that line of thinking, Bobby Carpenter > Romo.

Are you seriously arguing that we lack talent on offense?

 

[Temo]

We just watch entirely different ball games. I don't see our offense as special as some folks do. The struggles of JG and this offense are legend.

When the execution is there then we are tops in the league, I just haven't seen that but maybe once or 2 this year.

I literally sit on the edge of my seat when the O is on the field, hoping and hoping some more that we can convert 3rd downs and not get another 3 and out.

This offfense just doesnt execute at all much. The penalties and stupid mistakes absolutely KILL us everytime. I don't see the D doing much of that this year.

Intially yes - but that has been addressed.

I actually agree with much of what you said here. I do think our offense is highly variable. Either they're firing on all cylinders and dominating or struggling to eke out points. I think that has a lot to do with the penalties and sacks, which force the offense into tough situations that result in either complete failure or amazing success. It's a weakness of the team and of the players, who are a highly talented but largely undisciplined lot.

However, I do think that the offense has still provided more to the winning effort overall this year than the defense. I think if our field position battle was as bad as it was last year (thankfully it isn't), then we'd see them allow more points than they have.

 

[rynochop]

Which is complelely in his right and something I can personally understand. How would you like it if someone was brought in to consult your position w/ your company?

I thought it was a bad idea in the 1st place. We have hundreds of consultants available to us here at my office, and we dont' give them the time of day. They have no power and that right there is every reason you need to just ignore them.

http://i17.***BLOCKED***/albums/b63/SidDithers/bobs.jpg