TwoDeep3
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 14,475
- Reaction score
- 17,312
I look back at the Landry years, and see the team's identity mirrored the head coach. Those teams were all business, taking the cue from Landry himself. I think of Bob Lilly rolling around on the ground when the Cowboys won their first Super Bowl. He never would have done that with Landry during the season. There have been things written about Landry that when he had a player come to see him, he would pull out his computer print-outs and show the player the statistical data on why doing whatever Landry said would work. The Flex Defense was difficult because players had to be disciplined in maintaining their lanes. That defense didn't catch on because of the ad-libbing players sometimes do. And with the Flex, if you were not where you were supposed to be, the defense failed to a degree.
Jimmy's teams worked hard, but played hard off the field. Some of the frivolity leaked out on the field with Irvin's first down antics and Kenny "The Shark," Gant's pre-kick behavior. Yet those teams were afraid of Jimmy because he had an unpredictability about him. Find the story where he refused to allow the players to eat on the pane back home after a loss. Doesn't seem at this point to be a big deal, but at the time, other than the top seven or eight premiere players, that surely caused some tension. Especially when Jimmy had the plane doors closed when Irvin was late. Or made Aikman ride with the journalists when he stayed in an interview too long and the bus was headed to the airport.
But Switzer's laissez faire attitude - eating a hotdog on the sidelines during the game, - caused the team to have less of an attitude to work hard. Aikman's comments lately indicate his frustrated he was because Switzer held no one accountable. Probably a perfect example of a leader trying to be friends with his players instead of the boss. Switzer was probably a great guy to have a beer with. But I don't see him as the man who lead Dallas to the '95 championship.
Garrett was all show and no go. His, "process," comments indicated all things were filtered through some arbitrary process he decided was important. If you've read anything about Jimmy's way of treating the players, you would have heard him say he did not treat them all the same. I used to get really irritated with Garrett and that false bravado when he's shove a player who just did something good on the field, like Garrett was a tough guy. I believe the team took that cue and was, as they say, all hat and no cattle.
McCarthy appears to me to be affable, which translates, in my mind, to be less one to be a stern head coach, and more a mix between a Garrett and Switzer, but with a better football mind. Yet the penalties speak to his leadership. I'm not certain a head coach can correct an ingrained behavior such as the penalties issues during the season. To me it would be training camp where butts are chewed and players are demoted to get the point across. I like Big Mike. But there is something of a buffoons' aspect to him.
Parcells had some of that Jimmy sternness. But it seems he surrounded himself with players who had already proven themselves to him. I think Parcells hauled butt because he realized the game had changed and his coaching style would not work for the players at the time he led Dallas.
Opinions?
Jimmy's teams worked hard, but played hard off the field. Some of the frivolity leaked out on the field with Irvin's first down antics and Kenny "The Shark," Gant's pre-kick behavior. Yet those teams were afraid of Jimmy because he had an unpredictability about him. Find the story where he refused to allow the players to eat on the pane back home after a loss. Doesn't seem at this point to be a big deal, but at the time, other than the top seven or eight premiere players, that surely caused some tension. Especially when Jimmy had the plane doors closed when Irvin was late. Or made Aikman ride with the journalists when he stayed in an interview too long and the bus was headed to the airport.
But Switzer's laissez faire attitude - eating a hotdog on the sidelines during the game, - caused the team to have less of an attitude to work hard. Aikman's comments lately indicate his frustrated he was because Switzer held no one accountable. Probably a perfect example of a leader trying to be friends with his players instead of the boss. Switzer was probably a great guy to have a beer with. But I don't see him as the man who lead Dallas to the '95 championship.
Garrett was all show and no go. His, "process," comments indicated all things were filtered through some arbitrary process he decided was important. If you've read anything about Jimmy's way of treating the players, you would have heard him say he did not treat them all the same. I used to get really irritated with Garrett and that false bravado when he's shove a player who just did something good on the field, like Garrett was a tough guy. I believe the team took that cue and was, as they say, all hat and no cattle.
McCarthy appears to me to be affable, which translates, in my mind, to be less one to be a stern head coach, and more a mix between a Garrett and Switzer, but with a better football mind. Yet the penalties speak to his leadership. I'm not certain a head coach can correct an ingrained behavior such as the penalties issues during the season. To me it would be training camp where butts are chewed and players are demoted to get the point across. I like Big Mike. But there is something of a buffoons' aspect to him.
Parcells had some of that Jimmy sternness. But it seems he surrounded himself with players who had already proven themselves to him. I think Parcells hauled butt because he realized the game had changed and his coaching style would not work for the players at the time he led Dallas.
Opinions?
