News: DMN: Gosselin: Could the Cowboys lure in Nick Saban if they disappoint again in 2016?

[TheDude]

Isnt Kubiac in his first year with the Broncos after Elway fired John Fox for not getting it done?

Don't see that it set the Broncos back 2-3 years to change coaches.

Seems like a mythbusrer

 

[kevm3]

There is no way Saban comes here. Remain the king of Alabama and be considered as arguably the greatest college football coach of all time or deal with the circus that has been the cowboys. If you grab someone from college, maybe Jerry can get Art Briles here.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

Yes, myth. Explain Arians and Harbaugh, Reid, Gruden, New coaches, new systems and even new QBs.

You're wrapped up in the clevelands, oaklands, jacksonvilles, and dregs of the worlds.

why would I have to explain their success when I've already accounted for them in my reply? these strawmen you're building are ludicrous,,,

 

[TheDude]

why would I have to explain their success when I've already accounted for them in my reply? these strawmen you're building are ludicrous,,,

You, like many, have no idea what a strawman is.

You said in a declarative statement supporting that "changing coaches sets a team back 2-3 years." is "spot on." That is a myth and a flat falsehood that can be refuted with actual teams that changed all coaches and even QBs and had immediate success. Success as in playoff appearances, division winners, championship and super bowl appearances. That is not a strawman again it is a refutation

Az goes 5-11 in 2012, Wisenhunt (HC), MIke Miller(OC), Ray Horton (DC) were fired and Arians brings in Harold Goodwin (OC) and Bowles (DC) and goes 10-6, 11-5 and 13-3. That doesn't resemble a "set back", conversely, if that is a set back - I am signing up.

Only thing you offered is "if new coaches have similar schemes." Maybe you could lay out the similarities in Arians and Wisenhunts offense - especially the use of Fitz or you could regurgitate trite platitudes. My money is on the latter.

 

[ConstantReboot]

Stating the obvious here: the benefits of continuity are real, not an absurd myth. Giving Romo and the receivers a new offense to learn would be a set back. I can see how someone locked into hating Garret could rationalize otherwise, but that doesn't make it true.

Why would that be a setback? Our offense is already abysmal without Romo. Besides, the new coach would probably take what works and make it into a strength of this team. Just like what Callahan did here. I've seen enough of what Garrett's offense can do and its nothing to get excited about. This team is being hamstrung by Garrett and his playbook.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

You, like many, have no idea what a strawman is.

You said in a declarative statement supporting that "changing coaches sets a team back 2-3 years." is "spot on." That is a myth and a flat falsehood that can be refuted with actual teams that changed all coaches and even QBs and had immediate success. Success as in playoff appearances, division winners, championship and super bowl appearances. That is not a strawman again it is a refutation

Az goes 5-11 in 2012, Wisenhunt (HC), MIke Miller(OC), Ray Horton (DC) were fired and Arians brings in Harold Goodwin (OC) and Bowles (DC) and goes 10-6, 11-5 and 13-3. That doesn't resemble a "set back", conversely, if that is a set back - I am signing up.

Only thing you offered is "if new coaches have similar schemes." Maybe you could lay out the similarities in Arians and Wisenhunts offense - especially the use of Fitz or you could regurgitate trite platitudes. My money is on the latter.

There you go again, where I clearly did not, YOU inserted a the global descriptor that the coaching changes ALWAYS results in a 2-3 year setback. Then you proceeded to offer examples of how it doesn't ALWAYS happen. That my friend is a Straw-man, and a weak one at that.

 

[Alexander]

Why would that be a setback? Our offense is already abysmal without Romo. Besides, the new coach would probably take what works and make it into a strength of this team. Just like what Callahan did here. I've seen enough of what Garrett's offense can do and its nothing to get excited about. This team is being hamstrung by Garrett and his playbook.

The reset comes with the draft process, especially if you do not have a qualified GM who knows talent, has their own plan for what they want the organizational philosophy will be. This is what "X team football is". That is why some teams can survive for extended periods of time in the free agency era. They are very easy to pick out.

That is why the drafts under Jones have been disjointed.

Change the coach, and if you "listen" to the coaches constantly, you have to re-organize the entire structure when you make a change, even at the coordinator level.

Philosophies have a huge impact on that as well. We are now in Year Three of the Kiffin/Marinelli scheme defensively and we are still looking for the things he supposedly needs after he has been working with Ryan's recommendations, especially in the secondary. We have been looking for Marinelli's "rushmen" for a few years and will probably continue to do so this year and next even.

 

[jterrell]

Why is Goose still employed by the DMN?
Good grief.
Saban is the biggest mentor for Jason Garrett.
Saban could take 20 NFL jobs a year if he chose and he'd never choose Jason's.

Those mailbag answers ranged form incomplete to pointlessly dull.

Please get Goose back to around the NFL(non-cowboys) then draft coverage where he excels.

 

[TheDude]

There you go again, where I clearly did not, YOU inserted a the global descriptor that the coaching changes ALWAYS results in a 2-3 year setback. Then you proceeded to offer examples of how it doesn't ALWAYS happen. That my friend is a Straw-man, and a weak one at that.

Try to follow.

Columnist Rick Gosselin held a chat on Monday. Here are some highlights.


Garrett went 1-11 without Romo. What other coach can survive such a travesty of a record?

A coach goes 12-4 and you reward him with a five-year contract. You don't declare it a mistake when he goes 4-12 without the services of his Pro Bowl quarterback for 12 games. That's the problem with this league -- a complete lack of patience by the owners. Every time you change coaches, you set your program back 2-3 years as you bring in new players to fit new philosophies. I can understand why Jones chose to stick with Garrett. He saw 2015 as the aberration, not 2014. But I was surprised that there wasn't a change or two on the offensive staff.

It seems to me that the Cowboys burn bridges when they are moving on from a player or a coach. Am I right to think that, and it is typical of this organization?

Not at all. Jerry Jones has been very good to players in the past and most continue to speak very highly of him. In the case of both DeMarco Murray and DeMarcus Ware, both benefitted greatly financially from their divorce with the Cowboys. I didn't think Jones was all that fair with Chan Gailey and Wade Phillips. Wade went 11-5 and won the division in 2009, then was fired midway through the 2010 season. Garrett went 12-4 and won the division in 2014, then stays on despite the disaster of a season in 2015. But Garrett has a history with Jones. Phillips didn't.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW THE FULL CHAT

Continue reading...

The answer to the 2nd question is absurd.

If by absurd you mean "spot on", then yes, it was absurd...

In recap -

• Gosselin's answer to question #2 is that changing coaches sets teams back 2-3 years.
• Your supported that answer with "spot on"

If it is "spot on", then there should be very few and far between examples - if not almost non-existent - that counter that assertion. I gave you many examples in the past few years that are direct and antithetical proof that it is is not a truism. What definition of a strawman are you using?

Did you even read the Gosselin answer before saying "spot-on?"

 

[Stash]

The conventional wisdom is that most new coaches and their coordinators need time to get their system in place and the kinds of players they need. It will likely take Marinelli at least another year to get this defense where it needs to be.

Funny, the team that won the Super Bowl last night made wholesale changes in coaching, on both sides of the football.

'Unconventional wisdom' I guess...

 

[Stash]

Stating the obvious here: the benefits of continuity are real, not an absurd myth. Giving Romo and the receivers a new offense to learn would be a set back. I can see how someone locked into hating Garret could rationalize otherwise, but that doesn't make it true.

And 5 years of .500 football doesn't make the reverse 'untrue' either. A new offense (or defense for that matter) run by better coaches could yield better results, and quickly.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

Try to follow.

In recap -

• Gosselin's answer to question #2 is that changing coaches sets teams back 2-3 years.
• Your supported that answer with "spot on"

If it is "spot on", then there should be very few and far between examples - if not almost non-existent - that counter that assertion. I gave you many examples in the past few years that are direct and antithetical proof that it is is not a truism. What definition of a strawman are you using?

Did you even read the Gosselin answer before saying "spot-on?"

lol,,, you're grasping now. An honest response from you would have quoted my multiple subsequent posts that used clarifying language like "widely varied" and "most",,, but you didn't.

Time to move on,,,

 

[TheDude]

lol,,, you're grasping now. An honest response from you would have quoted my multiple subsequent posts that used clarifying language like "widely varied" and "most",,, but you didn't.

Time to move on,,,

lol,,, you make an initial unsound unequivocal edict of "spot on" to Gosselins statement that says teams are set back 2-3 years. But that isnt the most egregious part. You did so only in an effort to dismiss someones assertion that Gosselins stance was "absurd" by the condescending repudiation and supercilious emoji. You offered no support of your "spot on" position and would not address evidence to the contrary.

Now you decide that instead of admitting you were incorrect or spouting without thinking, the best avenue would be to place the onus on someone else again to "walk back" your statements for you. Add that with a double topping of you now inferring another person's honesty and integrity is lacking - and well, you fail kindergarten debate class.

To recap your answer is "I think that guy's statement is "spot on" and Im better than you, except I dont think that guy is spot on when I clarify for him"

Yeah, I'm grasping.

I'm sure that's it - wait for it -

 

[ConstantReboot]

The reset comes with the draft process, especially if you do not have a qualified GM who knows talent, has their own plan for what they want the organizational philosophy will be. This is what "X team football is". That is why some teams can survive for extended periods of time in the free agency era. They are very easy to pick out.

That is why the drafts under Jones have been disjointed.

Change the coach, and if you "listen" to the coaches constantly, you have to re-organize the entire structure when you make a change, even at the coordinator level.

Philosophies have a huge impact on that as well. We are now in Year Three of the Kiffin/Marinelli scheme defensively and we are still looking for the things he supposedly needs after he has been working with Ryan's recommendations, especially in the secondary. We have been looking for Marinelli's "rushmen" for a few years and will probably continue to do so this year and next even.

Garrett has been here as a coach for 6 years and had full control of the offense when Wade was coach. What you see is what you get out of Garrett. Most of the production from our offense was not because of Garrett. Its because of Romo being able to extend plays on his own - not from Garrett's playbook.

So if they all of a sudden kept the defense intact and replaced Garrett with another coach that knows how to utilize other players abilities , we will see a more productive and potent offense. The problem we have is with Garrett. His playbook can be changed without affecting the rest of the team. Thus I doubt there Romo and the offense will have any difficulty adjusting.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

lol,,, you make an initial unsound unequivocal edict of "spot on" to Gosselins statement that says teams are set back 2-3 years. But that isnt the most egregious part. You did so only in an effort to dismiss someones assertion that Gosselins stance was "absurd" by the condescending repudiation and supercilious emoji. You offered no support of your "spot on" position and would not address evidence to the contrary.

Now you decide that instead of admitting you were incorrect or spouting without thinking, the best avenue would be to place the onus on someone else again to "walk back" your statements for you. Add that with a double topping of you now inferring another person's honesty and integrity is lacking - and well, you fail kindergarten debate class.

To recap your answer is "I think that guy's statement is "spot on" and Im better than you, except I dont think that guy is spot on when I clarify for him"

Yeah, I'm grasping.

I'm sure that's it - wait for it -

Flailing away now,,, it's like somebody pushed your self-destruct button,,,