Do you keep Garrett

Dodger12;4336371 said:
Sorry Hos but I what I posted was pretty clear. You spelled out on more than one occasion the role Jerry plays as the GM and how decisions are made by consensus. You basically reiterated that GM role in your quote that I posted in that Jerry made those decisions because that's what the coaches thought they needed to win.

Now you're telling us that the coaches wanted something but Jerry turned them down because of a work hours stipulation even though the coaches, according to you, had no problem with Reeves?
So Jerry is supposed to get guys but if that guy balks I contradict myself?

Huh?

By that logic Ozzie Newsome is a horrible GM because he did not get Garrett.

It's real simple. We went after Reeves. He was coming here and the staff was excited. Jerry has clauses in his coaching and scouting contracts that covers him for hours worked.

Reeves wanted to come here, but not under that clause. They called it off together. Again, where is the contradiction?
 
Picksix;4336285 said:
Whether that's true or not is beside the point. It's not like everyone knew what Payton was eventually capable of, once he was on his own. Based on his tenure with the Giants and Cowboys, most were very critical of him. And he's had more to work with in NO than Garrett has.

No, he didn't, and it's not even close. His roster was so poor that he took our retreads, some of whom ended up starting. He didn't even have a QB unless you consider Aaron Brooks or Todd Bouman franchise QB's.
 
Seems like several posts are defending coaches current and former.

With the former ones being missed.

Perhaps the one that got rid of those coaches is to blame.
 
SkinsandTerps;4336420 said:
Seems like several posts are defending coaches current and former.

With the former ones being missed.

Perhaps the one that got rid of those coaches is to blame.
Congratulations on last place in the NFC East yet again. 6 out of 8 years now, and 4 in a row.
 
Hostile;4336396 said:
Reeves wanted to come here, but not under that clause. They called it off together. Again, where is the contradiction?

So Wade and JG both wanted Reeves and thought he could help the Cowboys win but the GM didn't want him because of an hours clause in his contract that the GM absolutely had to have and went against his coaches wishes? Is that what you're saying?
 
SkinsandTerps;4336420 said:
Seems like several posts are defending coaches current and former.

With the former ones being missed.

Perhaps the one that got rid of those coaches is to blame.

Yup..... But he's the bestest ever.
 
Dodger12;4336429 said:
So Wade and JG both wanted Reeves and thought he could help the Cowboys win but the GM didn't want him because of an hours clause in his contract that the GM absolutely had to have and went against his coaches wishes? Is that what you're saying?

Not to butt in .. from what I remember, it was Reeves who refused to sign a contract with a required set of hours in it which is fairly common in most high salary employment contracts where goal and monetary milestones cannot be defined. I don't blame Jerry for requiring it because as I said, it is quite common, but I also don't blame Reeves for declining it because he has plenty of money and it wasn't like he needed the job.

From a fan standpoint (and I like Reeves), I am glad they did not pay a guy who would have worked as little as he wanted and only when he wanted. I wouldn't want a starting quarterback that can skip practices or games on a whim and I don't want a coach who can skip practices or games on a whim either.

#reality
 
Hostile;4336423 said:
Congratulations on last place in the NFC East yet again. 6 out of 8 years now, and 4 in a row.

Thanks.

Is it Homer or Hostile ? We all have faults. Accept them besides kickers and such.

The talent is something I have talked about with you for years. Romo and Ware deserve their credit along with a few others over the recent years.

But others...ehhh. I rarely pump the sunshine and rainbows here about the Commanders not because I don't think they are talented, but because I know they have missing pieces for certain matchups.

Don't sit there on your pedestal and act like the Commanders didn't give you your moneys worth vs. the Cowboys both times this season.
 
Dodger12;4336429 said:
So Wade and JG both wanted Reeves and thought he could help the Cowboys win but the GM didn't want him because of an hours clause in his contract that the GM absolutely had to have and went against his coaches wishes? Is that what you're saying?
Jerry wanted him. Reeves balked.
 
Dodger12;4336414 said:
No, he didn't, and it's not even close. His roster was so poor that he took our retreads, some of whom ended up starting. He didn't even have a QB unless you consider Aaron Brooks or Todd Bouman franchise QB's.

He had those guys for 1-2 years. Over the last 5 years as a whole, looking at skill position and OL, he's had better.
 
SkinsandTerps;4336461 said:
Thanks.

Is it Homer or Hostile ? We all have faults. Accept them besides kickers and such.

The talent is something I have talked about with you for years. Romo and Ware deserve their credit along with a few others over the recent years.

But others...ehhh. I rarely pump the sunshine and rainbows here about the Commanders not because I don't think they are talented, but because I know they have missing pieces for certain matchups.

Don't sit there on your pedestal and act like the Commanders didn't give you your moneys worth vs. the Cowboys both times this season.
If it is Homer you are Bart.
 
Reality;4336454 said:
Not to butt in .. from what I remember, it was Reeves who refused to sign a contract with a required set of hours in it which is fairly common in most high salary employment contracts where goal and monetary milestones cannot be defined. I don't blame Jerry for requiring it because as I said, it is quite common, but I also don't blame Reeves for declining it because he has plenty of money and it wasn't like he needed the job.

From a fan standpoint (and I like Reeves), I am glad they did not pay a guy who would have worked as little as he wanted and only when he wanted. I wouldn't want a starting quarterback that can skip practices or games on a whim and I don't want a coach who can skip practices or games on a whim either.

#reality

I understand and agree with the facts of the contract and that Reeves didn't want to sign it. I just think that if JG had been on board, Jerry would have found a way to work it out.

I can't believe the coaching staff was in consensus and thought they needed Reeves and Jerry would balk at it over a clause that stipulated hours worked. The man spends millions on salaries not knowing what he's going to get out of a player but he backs out over a time clock clause?
 
Dodger12;4336484 said:
I understand and agree with the facts of the contract and that Reeves didn't want to sign it. I just think that if JG had been on board, Jerry would have found a way to work it out.

I can't believe the coaching staff was in consensus and thought they needed Reeves and Jerry would balk at it over a clause that stipulated hours worked. The man spends millions on salaries not knowing what he's going to get out of a player but he backs out over a time clock clause?
Wait. So Jerry has that clause in every coaching and scouting contract, but you think he should have given Reeves an exception and that would have been better for this team?

Jerry did not back out. Reeves did. Jerry insists on that clause and every contact has it. How hard is that to grasp?
 
Reality;4336454 said:
From a fan standpoint (and I like Reeves), I am glad they did not pay a guy who would have worked as little as he wanted and only when he wanted. I wouldn't want a starting quarterback that can skip practices or games on a whim and I don't want a coach who can skip practices or games on a whim either.

#reality

Its Dan Reeves, not some random college coordinator. The guy is football nobility and has a pretty well known work ethic and track record.

I gotta agree with other posters - it him coming on board really was something that the team and staff was excited about then something would have been worked out. Dan Reeves is not a threat to start mailing it in, and a guy in his position with his career credentials is clearly not someone who requires a timeclock clause.
 
I believe in this thing called karma, and Garrett has it, but in the bad way, because of the sabotage of Wade Phillips. And don't even tell me that he didn't sabotage him because his offense had no problems the previous season, all of a sudden with a healthy Romo, we sucked on offense. Only to have us succeed when Wade leaves, with grandpa Kitna no doubt. So, bad karma will come back to get Garrett eventually, but I hope it's not this year because I think we have a chance to win the Super Bowl with the talent we have on this team.
 
wileedog;4336499 said:
Its Dan Reeves, not some random college coordinator. The guy is football nobility and has a pretty well known work ethic and track record.

I gotta agree with other posters - it if really was something that the team and staff was excited about something would have been worked out. Dan Reeves is not a threat to start mailing it in, and a guy in his position with his career credentials is clearly not someone who requires a timeclock clause.
So you are a 7 year scout with the Cowboys and a guy comes in and gets a contract without that clause.

You happy about it? Nobility or not, do you have a feeling there is a double standard and your job isn't appreciated?

I'm sorry, but if I have that clause in every contract then Reeves gets that clause.
 
Judas;4336507 said:
I believe in this thing called karma, and Garrett has it, but in the bad way, because of the sabotage of Wade Phillips. And don't even tell me that he didn't sabotage him because his offense had no problems the previous season, all of a sudden with a healthy Romo, we sucked on offense. Only to have us succeed when Wade leaves, with grandpa Kitna no doubt. So, bad karma will come back to get Garrett eventually, but I hope it's not this year because I think we have a chance to win the Super Bowl with the talent we have on this team.
:lmao2:

He sabotaged Wade but Wade's son stayed on the staff here and got promoted?

It gets worse every time you post.
 
Judas;4336507 said:
I believe in this thing called karma, and Garrett has it, but in the bad way, because of the sabotage of Wade Phillips. And don't even tell me that he didn't sabotage him because his offense had no problems the previous season, all of a sudden with a healthy Romo, we sucked on offense. Only to have us succeed when Wade leaves, with grandpa Kitna no doubt. So, bad karma will come back to get Garrett eventually, but I hope it's not this year because I think we have a chance to win the Super Bowl with the talent we have on this team.

"And don't even tell me that he didn't sabotage"

Then there would be nothing to talk about if your premise is built on this. Wade was the HC if he was unwilling to take more of an active role pretaining to the offense and what was going on then it falls on him. I like Wade and supported Wade but at the end of the day the HC is where everything falls and if things were being done on offense he did not like then it was up to him to see that it was corrected
 
Hostile;4336510 said:
So you are a 7 year scout with the Cowboys and a guy comes in and gets a contract without that clause.

You happy about it? Nobility or not, do you have a feeling there is a double standard and your job isn't appreciated?

I'm sorry, but if I have that clause in every contract then Reeves gets that clause.

Oh come on. If I am a 7 year scout I hope I am smart enough to understand that my contract situation as a scout for 7 years and Dan Reeves' situation who has coached multiple teams to Superbowls in his career are two entirely and utterly different scenarios. As a manager I would certainly be happy to sit in a room with that scout and explain to him why he gets a clause that a borderline HOF coach doesn't.

And if I am not that smart of a scout, then I am in the wrong business anyway and that probably explains some of our drafting the past several years....
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
474,019
Messages
14,506,982
Members
24,207
Latest member
TomGiantsfan
Back
Top