Does Head Coach's Personality Permeate the Team's Identity

[boysfanperiod]

Great analysis.
We have a severe penalty problem.
It's gotta get fixed before it cost us an important game.

As well as a time management issue that needs to be addressed.

 

[Motorola]

John Witherspoon rarely - if ever - was the "star"...but always good and entertaining in his supporting roles throughout his career.

 

[jazzcat22]

Yes.

Teams take on the mindsets of their leaders and leaders normally want to be around like minded people.

That's why you see coaches come in and change rosters up so much (not the Cowboys cause Jerry) but other teams. Take the Broncos getting rid of Russ for example.

Seems to me Jerry changed this roster a lot from the Garrett days. Or he allowed it to change since you want to put it all on Jerry.

MM said right away, he will work with Will McClay to bring in the players, and will adjust the schemes to the players skill.
Complete opposite of Jerry's previous coaches. That would look for players that fit their scheme.

Otherwise they now want playmakers and adjust to them. Instead of trying to fit a square into a round hole.

 

[MountaineerCowboy]

Seems to me Jerry changed this roster a lot from the Garrett days. Or he allowed it to change since you want to put it all on Jerry.

MM said right away, he will work with Will McClay to bring in the players, and will adjust the schemes to the players skill.
Complete opposite of Jerry's previous coaches. That would look for players that fit their scheme.

Otherwise they now want playmakers and adjust to them. Instead of trying to fit a square into a round hole.

And even though MM said all that the biggest move Jerry has made since MM has been here was done behind MM's back.

Jerry does not and will not allow a team to be molded into any personality except his own.

 

[jazzcat22]

And even though MM said all that the biggest move Jerry has made since MM has been here was done behind MM's back.

Jerry does not and will not allow a team to be molded into any personality except his own.

Disagree. These players are not drinking JWB out on the field. Though sometimes it seems like they are.

 

[DallasEast]

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?

Absolutely great OP. I will only add:

Chan Gailey's teams were transitioning from Switzer's persona but were short-circuited by an eroding roster. Gailey's personality was met with some resistance from core players wanting a return to a Jimmy Johnson mindset but Gailey was not Johnson. Gailey attempted to instill his form of proficiency. There were signs of it taking hold at times but time itself was a luxury in Dallas, where the thought process was replacing what Gailey was trying to install with:

Dave Campo's coaching philosophy of teaching football basics with zero leadership influence to put them into practice. Unfortunately for Campo, his tenure happened during a pit of general managership oversight involving extremely poor roster building and extraordinary emphasis purposefully directed away from the head coach. A diverting emphasis was strong that examples of players PANTSING their own head coach happened too frequently. The lack of respect for the head coach was more tangible than that of:

Wade Phillips' cultivation of a team philosophy, emphasizing strong defense--his specialty and the primary reason for replacing Bill Parcells--overall team unity by encouraging practically all responsibility for game success by the players themselves. Phillips was a firm believer in getting his teams fully prepared and then getting the hell out of the players' way. Phillips' ultimate downfall was the same in Dallas as elsewhere--willingly granting too much of his leadership autonomy to his players, believing leaders can lead while the irreplaceable leader of them did not lead them.

The entire chain of post-Johnson coaching succession is an indictment, one which points squarely at one individual. Head coaches must be the unquestioned concrete foundation of any team. Like any good solid construction base, the cement finisher should not use substandard materials. Doing so only invites disaster. The same goes for the player acquisition.

 

[john van brocklin]

As well as a time management issue that needs to be addressed.

Yep, that too!!!!

 

[XXLMike]

100% and Dan Campbell is the antithesis of this question.

 

[Blast From The Past]

I think todays modern players are a different breed of cats. They care too much about social media, podcast, material goods and their brands. A good portion make more than enough money to live comfortably and others who are uber rich really care about what they themselves care about. The ones who want to be great or a HOF'er gets less with every passing year.

 

[TwoDeep3]

If you don't want to read all that just let me tell you this as long as the head coach is respected and most of the players especially the leaders like him and follow him that's all that matters everyone's got different personalities on how they handle their teams and I believe this team really likes Mike McCarthy....

First of all,

I just skimmed through all this but I think that you're way off base by saying that the penalties question his leadership then why is Pete Carroll still coaching seriously his team has been one of the most penalized teams in the NFL every year, as a matter of fact This is why it doesn't bother me so much Pete carrolls 2013 and 2014 Super Bowl years they led the league in penalties. So why is it that Pete Carroll still has a job I can tell you why because then leading the league and penalties didn't stop them from winning a Super Bowl and the next year also leading the league in penalties and getting back to the Super bowl and are one dumb play away from a second Super Bowl..

I hate to break it to you it's just part of the NFL now it's hard to control as a coach you can preach it all day long but these are professional players these are not high school players not even college where you can afford to make a an example of them and sit them down and replace them these dudes most of them who are making these mistakes are starters these are dudes with contracts and unions these are millionaire adults that don't take too well to use spitting in their face anymore this is the new NFL and I don't know of any of jimmy's or Landry 's players the good ones that actually were made an example of an absolutely cut off the team they made an example out of the low hanging fruit by the way..

Just like there's two kinds of parenting or if you go to the military there's a couple different ways that drill sergeants run their squads it can be done both ways the way Jimmy did it or the way McCarthy did it it's up to these professionals to show up and execute and stay on the right path this is not a parent child situation or you're molding young minds in high school or even college where you have a choice between 90 players where you have a lot of depth and you can make an example out of a player this is not that...

I bet if you go around the league you're going to find a lot of the best head coaches also led the league in penalties or were highly penalized by the way I believe it happened with Parcells I bet if you go back to those Dallas teams with Parcells here I remember them also being penalized a lot...

So if you're gonna bring that up why don't you go do your research show us all these head coaches that the Dallas Cowboys have ever had and show me where they landed in penalties keeping in mind that nowadays there's about 50 more rules and easier ways to get penalized and the referees have sucked balls for awhile....

I do not disagree with what you say. And like Tabascocat stated, it is part of this era of football. The control Jimmy could exercise is far stricter than even Parcells could. The cap and union rules, agreed upon by the league, come into play. The penalties, and in the case of Dallas, seem to negate some of the best plays this team does. I am not against McCarthy. I like him. I think his personality is such that Jerry likes the fact McCarthy will cede being the focal point of the team in regard to leadership. I also believe the team sees this, and thus for some, will take advantage of that.

I have long believed the cultural problem with the Dallas Cowboys is, the owner is the GM, which means players can go directly to the GM and sidestep the head coach. Or any coach for that matter. This creates a very fragile relationship with player and coach. We have witnessed this for almost three decades as Jerry and his massive ego tries to be the head coach in absentia, to win it all and point to the fact he is a real football guy.

There are a great number of posters on this site who have, over time, learned all the lingo of this sport. You see then talk about 1 techs and use terms as they come into fashion. I see Jerry having access to a depth where he can throw those out at a level even the most attuned here can't do. But he has to have real football people to tell him what he sees. So I see Jerry the same as some of the people posting here, who can sling the slang about this sport, but have no true in-depth insight to the real inner workings of football.

I am among that group, by the way.

And this was not a shot at you. It simply is what it is. We all want to be involved with this team. You see people post things and use the word WE when discussing making a decision, a trade, a draft pick, as if We have a blessed thing to do with anything being decided.

I refrain from that because I am a voyeur as a fan and not on this team. Please don't take this as me insulting you. I understand the mechanics of being a fan. Some are more immersed than others. Again, not about you, or this post you made.

I got off track, but to sum up. Penalties are not the end all, but we watched how two penalties effect the game this last week. One was called on the wrong team and the other was called correctly and stopped a second injustice to happen. The outcome being changed by an infraction was fortunately reversed by another that was correct.

I am not for jettisoning McCarthy. I used the penalties to illuminate his personality, much like it shone a light on Wade Phillips. He could get things done but that aspect worked against him. And in a way, I think this is happening to McCarthy.

I believe McCarthy can guide this team to the Dance and win. But the fact his teams are not pristine in their execution at times prevents him from elevating his coaching skills to reach the summit without a couple of lucky breaks in his favor. As someone mentioned above, maybe I should have used time management as the example for McCarthy.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Absolutely great OP. I will only add:

Chan Gailey's teams were transitioning from Switzer's persona but were short-circuited by an eroding roster. Gailey's personality was met with some resistance from core players wanting a return to a Jimmy Johnson mindset but Gailey was not Johnson. Gailey attempted to instill his form of proficiency. There were signs of it taking hold at times but time itself was a luxury in Dallas, where the thought process was replacing what Gailey was trying to install with:

Dave Campo's coaching philosophy of teaching football basics with zero leadership influence to put them into practice. Unfortunately for Campo, his tenure happened during a pit of general managership oversight involving extremely poor roster building and extraordinary emphasis purposefully directed away from the head coach. A diverting emphasis was strong that examples of players PANTSING their own head coach happened too frequently. The lack of respect for the head coach was more tangible than that of:

Wade Phillips' cultivation of a team philosophy, emphasizing strong defense--his specialty and the primary reason for replacing Bill Parcells--overall team unity by encouraging practically all responsibility for game success by the players themselves. Phillips was a firm believer in getting his teams fully prepared and then getting the hell out of the players' way. Phillips' ultimate downfall was the same in Dallas as elsewhere--willingly granting too much of his leadership autonomy to his players, believing leaders can lead while the irreplaceable leader of them did not lead them.

The entire chain of post-Johnson coaching succession is an indictment, one which points squarely at one individual. Head coaches must be the unquestioned concrete foundation of any team. Like any good solid construction base, the cement finisher should not use substandard materials. Doing so only invites disaster. The same goes for the player acquisition.

I believe in the case of Gailey, Jerry pulled the plug too soon. Wade Phillips was blindsided by Garrett, as attested to players for both informed that the playbook changed the minute Phillips was fired and Garrett promoted.

As far as Campo, the only difference between Campo and Garrett, in my opinion, is Garrett had a QB in Tony Romo and Campo did not. Else Garrett would have started at 5-11 as Campo did for the first three years instead of 8-8.

Fantastic post DallasEast.

 

[DallasEast]

I believe in the case of Gailey, Jerry pulled the plug too soon. Wade Phillips was blindsided by Garrett, as attested to players for both informed that the playbook changed the minute Phillips was fired and Garrett promoted.

As far as Campo, the only difference between Campo and Garrett, in my opinion, is Garrett had a QB in Tony Romo and Campo did not. Else Garrett would have started at 5-11 as Campo did for the first three years instead of 8-8.

Fantastic post DallasEast.

Bold> I believe Gailey's firing taught Jones one thing about being a general manager. The problem is that he got the lesson wrong.

I think most observers agree Gailey got pink slipped too early. That said, one general manager's responsibility is foreseeing where the head coach is leading the team in the near future. A head coach, whose potential appears to be trending upwards, should be given more leeway to succeed. On the other hand, a head coach, who looks like his teams will continually hit a ceiling below expectations, should not be given more slack.

Jones should not have hired Campo in the first place. He hired him anyway. Firing him after one season would have been the right thing to do. He stuck with him for three seasons. Some say Jones did it to sabotage team success in lieu of eventually getting a new stadium. Thing is, he could have accomplished the exact same thing with another head coach, who was not a top candidate, but certainly BETTER than Campo. OR. He could have gotten Parcells or another qualified head coach of his pedigree much soon.

Jones stuck with Phillips until Phillips lost the roster. Jones stuck with Garrett until he finally accepted the realization Garrett could not make it happen, no matter how hard Jones denied it to himself.

The lesson Jones got wrong is that it is not about impatience or patience. The lesson was doing a proper, thorough, wide-ranging head coaching search--allowing all head coaching candidates to pitch their 3-5 year plan for his franchise--hire the best qualified candidate with the best pitch and support them fully without giving any input except which players should be plugged into that plan. Players, period. Not coaching staff. Just drafting, trading and picking up players who coaches and scouts agree on.

Then, if the 3-5 year plan looks like it was going nowhere after 3-5 years, pull the trigger.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Bold> I believe Gailey's firing taught Jones one thing about being a general manager. The problem is that he got the lesson wrong.

I think most observers agree Gailey got pink slipped too early. That said, one general manager's responsibility is foreseeing where the head coach is leading the team in the near future. A head coach, whose potential appears to be trending upwards, should be given more leeway to succeed. On the other hand, a head coach, who looks like his teams will continually hit a ceiling below expectations, should not be given more slack.

Jones should not have hired Campo in the first place. He hired him anyway. Firing him after one season would have been the right thing to do. He stuck with him for three seasons. Some say Jones did it to sabotage team success in lieu of eventually getting a new stadium. Thing is, he could have accomplished the exact same thing with another head coach, who was not a top candidate, but certainly BETTER than Campo. OR. He could have gotten Parcells or another qualified head coach of his pedigree much soon.

Jones stuck with Phillips until Phillips lost the roster. Jones stuck with Garrett until he finally accepted the realization Garrett could not make it happen, no matter how hard Jones denied it to himself.

The lesson Jones got wrong is that it is not about impatience or patience. The lesson was doing a proper, thorough, wide-ranging head coaching search--allowing all head coaching candidates to pitch their 3-5 year plan for his franchise--hire the best qualified candidate with the best pitch and support them fully without giving any input except which players should be plugged into that plan. Players, period. Not coaching staff. Just drafting, trading and picking up players who coaches and scouts agree on.

Then, if the 3-5 year plan looks like it was going nowhere after 3-5 years, pull the trigger.

If you recall the first game of the season under Gailey, he sat both Emmitt and Irvin at some point in the game. One might suppose he was entertaining the idea of the transition from those players to a Gailey roster. Dallas was the better team that day playing the Commanders. But it took putting the core talent of the team back in to secure the win.

I have to wonder if the Garrett tenure lasted as long as it did because Jones had a soft spot for Garrett? Surely Garrett didn't show anything that would lead one to believe he could orchestrate a championship.

Very insightful post.

 

[DallasEast]

If you recall the first game of the season under Gailey, he sat both Emmitt and Irvin at some point in the game. One might suppose he was entertaining the idea of the transition from those players to a Gailey roster. Dallas was the better team that day playing the Commanders. But it took putting the core talent of the team back in to secure the win.

I have to wonder if the Garrett tenure lasted as long as it did because Jones had a soft spot for Garrett? Surely Garrett didn't show anything that would lead one to believe he could orchestrate a championship.

Very insightful post.

It would surprise no one concerning my opinion of the Jones/Garrett dynamic. Jones has proven he can be cutthroat in both business and football--when he chooses. The exact same man, who "endured" with Garrett:

• 4 8-8 seasons
• 1 4-12 season
• 3 Divisional playoff losses

--did the following before him:

• allowed Barry Switzer, his ex-assistant coach with Arkansas and personal friend for decades, to "resign"
• had an eleven-year working relationship with Dave Campo, took three EXTRA years before deciding that, "This change is more about a change in philosophy, not about what Dave didn't do," (link) before kicking him to the curb
• <well documented Jimmy Johnson nonsense and firing after SUPER BOWLS>

Perhaps Jones affectionately sees Garrett as the son of another mother (lol). His nepotism for his actual DNA offspring is fact. However, I have nothing to dissuade me from believing Jones' loyalty to Garrett was solely motivated by narcissism. He hired Garrett initially as an offensive coordinator and later promoted him to head coach, despite Garrett having accumulated a piss-pour coaching career resume beforehand.

Jones was going to prove his GM genius no matter what. It was only after he himself got tired of trying to prove the fallacy to everyone else that he changed course with Garrett. No matter how hard he tries to prove otherwise, Jones will always be more Captain Ahab than Tex Schramm. He may occasionally relent (i.e. Johnny Manziel) but he will never jump off the 'it's my way or the highway' no matter the contemporary front office makeup. The Trey Lance acquisition underscores who is still completely in charge.

 

[Bobhaze]

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?

Great observations TD. I do think players reflect the personality of the HC in many ways.

Skipping to the effect McCarthy has had on this team - they are better in X‘s and o’s; seem like the players and coaches are on the same page and have an appropriate level of respect and appreciation for McCarthy that did not seem to be there for Garrett. They seem to play looser for Big Mac and that may also reflect good and bad - as the penalty problems indicate.

JG was so plain vanilla it was ridiculous. I always remember that 4th down and short from the opponents 42 vs Hou a few years ago where he chose to punt it instead of going for it. Hou won in OT. Garrett was as inspiring as a Brussel sprout. McCarthy seems like he has more overall command of the locker room and the game plan than Garrett ever did.

 

[TheSport78]

Hope not, because we'd have a slow, dumb, and morbidly obese team!

 

[Rockport]

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?

I thought this was one of those “Coog” threads and was pleasantly surprised. Good post!

 

[Rockport]

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?

Switzer was a buffoon and eating that hot dog on the sidelines during the Pro Bowl solidified it.