Do you have faith in Jerry

[Bob Sacamano]

I have to admit I am shocked at the results of this poll.

To show how much of a fine line there is in this poll, imagine if Romo doesn't get hurt, we make the playoffs and actually win one game.

I'm betting the results would be much different.

you think we win a playoff game? after that Philly fiasco, I don't believe it

 

[dbair1967]

I have to admit I am shocked at the results of this poll.

To show how much of a fine line there is in this poll, imagine if Romo doesn't get hurt, we make the playoffs and actually win one game.
.

you mean like last yr, when we had homefield adv?

oh wait...

 

[TRUTH87]

everything about dallas right now makes me sick. specially after sunday and pittsburgh winning number six. oh boy. The promise land looks so far far away right now its not even funny.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I just don't see how this fact can be argued .

Heres how you argue it. You people don't know a damn thing about argumentation that much is clear.

Non Causa Pro Causa
Translation: "Non-cause for cause", Latin

Alias: False Cause

Type: Informal Fallacy
Exposition:

This is the most general fallacy of reasoning to conclusions about causality. Some authors describe it as inferring that something is the cause of something else when it isn't, an interpretation encouraged by the fallacy's names. However, inferring a false causal relation is often just a mistake, and it can be the result of reasoning which is as cogent as can be, since all reasoning to causal conclusions is ultimately inductive. Instead, to be fallacious, a causal argument must violate the canons of good reasoning about causation in some common or deceptive way. Thus, to understand causal fallacies, we must understand how causal reasoning works, and the ways in which it can go awry.

Causal conclusions can take one of two forms:

1. Event-Level: Sometimes we wish to know the cause of a particular event, for instance, a physician conducting a medical examination is inquiring into the cause of a particular patient's illness. Specific events are caused by other specific events, so the conclusion we aim at in this kind of causal reasoning has the form:

Event C caused event E.

Mistakes about event-level causation are the result of confusing coincidence with causation. Event C may occur at the same time as event E, or just before it, without being the cause of E. It may simply be happenstance that these two events occurred at about the same time. In order to find the correct event that caused an effect, we must reason from a causal law, which introduces the next level of causal reasoning:
2. Type-Level: A causal law has the form:

Events of type C cause events of type E.

Here, we are not talking about a causal relation holding between two particular events, but the general causal relation holding between instances of two types of event. For example, when we say that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer, we are not talking about an individual act of smoking causing a particular case of lung cancer. Rather, we mean that smoking is a type of event which causes another type of event, namely, cancer.

Mistakes about type-level causation are the result of confusing correlation with causation. Two types of event may occur simultaneously, or one type always following the other type, without there being a causal relation between them. One common source of non-causal correlations between two event-types is when both are effects of a third type of event. For examples of causal fallacies, see the Subfallacies of Non Causa Pro Causa:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/noncause.html

 

[Bob Sacamano]

so Jerry the GM hasn't fielded a winning team is a fallacy?

 

[Juke99]

I have to admit I am shocked at the results of this poll.

To show how much of a fine line there is in this poll, imagine if Romo doesn't get hurt, we make the playoffs and actually win one game.

I'm betting the results would be much different.

Yo dog...

But Romo did get hurt....the back up QB was a joke...the team didn't step up in Romo's absence...this team, even without Romo should NOT get shellacked by the Rams.

And when Romo came back, this team had control of it's destiny...

..we had the end of the Ravens game...which was an embarrassment. Two running plays, each +75 yards on back to back carries when the defense KNEW the Ravens were going to try to run out the clock...and then that loss to the Eagles...with Romo...was as bad as it gets.

That loss to the Eagles was beyond words. There is something dramatically wrong. And if ya wanna be the top guy...if you want to be the face of the franchise...if you've made it clear that you are THE man in the organization...then you have to take the hit when things go wrong. Jerry takes the hit.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

so Jerry the GM hasn't fielded a winning team is a fallacy?

Are you really that obtuse?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Are you really that obtuse?

Jerry hasn't put together a winning team

is that not true?

 

[RoadRunner]

Heres how you argue it. You people don't know a damn thing about argumentation that much is clear.



http://www.fallacyfiles.org/noncause.html

You are using it incorrectly. The only common denominator over the last 13 years is Jerry jones who makes ALL important decisions.

Logically speaking, one can only conclude that Jerry Jones is the cause of the problem.

 

[SDogo]

very very little

 

[theogt]

Hiring a soft head coach like Wade Phillips and rendering him nearly powerless is not a sound decision. He kneejerked due to the idea that Coach Parcells was too harsh and went right to the opposite side of the spectrum. That's not sound.

I agree with you about the draft decisions. He at least appears to have "got that" out of the four years.

Hiring Wade Phillips was a sound decision when it was made. He needed a "Mr. Fix It" for the defense, which was literally performing like the worst defense in the league at the time. I don't think he rendered him powerless at all. But I'm not going to sit here and go round and round with details.

 

[theogt]

really

you made a bad analogy

just tell me this, what GM has survived 13 years without his team winning a playoff game? talent on paper is good enough just to wipe your ***

The force is strong with this one.

No kidding. Food or a lotto ticket?

Another genius among us.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I have some confidence or whatever that particular answer was but it's getting harder and harder to believe in him all the time.

 

[avaj]

Yeah, Jerry Jones' popularity may be even lower than when he first bought the team.

Unfortunately, I believe he has dung himself in a hole that is going to be quite difficult to dig out of.

I believe it started when he emphatically stood by Wade Phillips before the Eagles Game. After the Eagles took apart the Cowboys, he felt that if he changed his mind, he would look like a flip flopper and guilty of knee-jerking.

Sadly, if he did have an impulse to fire Wade Phillips, it would have been the right decision this time.

I really hope the reason Dan Reeves is not in Dallas is because of Terrell Owens or Jason Garrett.

I agree with this.

 

[Doomsday]

Wow only 17 percent of the people have any confidence in Jerry Jones.

Too bad he doesnt read this site, it would be nice if he got the message that us fans have no faith in him or the direction he has taken this team.

 

[DallasGirl50]

No I don't have confidence in Jerry.

In fact I will be glad when the leadership changes and Stephen takes over.

 

[Doomsday101]

Yes I do I think this team is pretty far removed from the 5-11 days, I have seen a big upgrade in players and FA even after BP left. We are not where we want to be but we are pretty far down the road from where this franchise was.

 

[bayeslife]

really

you made a bad analogy

just tell me this, what GM has survived 13 years without his team winning a playoff game? talent on paper is good enough just to wipe your ***

You miss the point completely.

Regardless if its realistic or not he's saying if at the time that decision goes in your favor, you should go with it.

Would you then say that if you used a lottery ticket with a 1/100 chance of winning (same analogy as theo), and it turned out that you won for $1,000,000, that before knowing that you won, you would say that's a good decision?

I don't think so. It's ALL hindsight.

 

[DoomsDayD]

I think that too many people tout the no playoff wins in 13 years thing as if it proves anything. Its called a fallacy of causation.

I also think people have no perspective. This sinking ship went 9-7, barely missed the playoffs and 4 of those losses were against all four teams in the conference championship games.

So let me gets this straight...it is ok to go 13 years without a playoff victory and go 9-7 just so we lose to playoff teams????? WOW BROTHER TALK ABOUT WEARING ROSE COLORED GLASSES. How much did jerry line your pockets with to come up with that??

 

[Bach]

So let me gets this straight...it is ok to go 13 years without a playoff victory and go 9-7 just so we lose to playoff teams????? WOW BROTHER TALK ABOUT WEARING ROSE COLORED GLASSES. How much did jerry line your pockets with to come up with that??

Fuzzy's always good for a well-timed laugh. No one takes him serious.