ESPN: Blame Jerry Jones? It's not so simple for the Cowboys

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Look no further than the man who hired the paralyzed puppet for 100% of the blame. If the coach you hire and extend couldn't get a single job in today's NFL, even one or two levels below his current position, the blame rests entirely with you.

Nice we are back to this same unfounded argument. I am so going to love this offseason. I make so many friends pointing out nonsense and I don't even have to come up with new material. Looks like the opposition is going to use the same material. Dare I hope we go 8-8 too?

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Lack is random and inconstant and cannot by itself account for the consistent poor performance of the team and organizations as a whole.

You're right. Luck is inherently unpredictable. When patterns start to emerge, you are no longer in the realm of chance.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're right. Luck is inherently unpredictable. When patterns start to emerge, you are no longer in the realm of chance.

Depends on the nature of the random event. If the random event is your star WR and QB are injured then the effect will be long lasting. Injuries have random distributions for the most part. Particular joint injuries correlate very strongly for certain alleles but collar bone and foot injuries do not fall into those classes.

About the only think I can really complain about is not bringing in Cassell sooner. They obviously misevaluated Weeden. Cassell's done rather well I think despite being in BUF for the offseason.

 

[JoeBoBBY]

Any article or opinion that says Jerry cares about profits before anything else is just lazy and unoriginal.

Jerry is a 70+ year old man who already has a team worth over 3 Billion dollars. He will never spend even 1% of this money. He would trade a heck of a lot of money for another super bowl at this point. It's so typical media to attempt to vilify Jerry with cries of greed.

I support Jerry as much as I do because even though he doesn't make all the right moves I know in my heart that losing hurts him even more than it hurts us fans.

I like JJ..Love JJ.

He cant win. And his ego and unwillingness to step aside, is costing the Dallas Cowboys.

What other GM stays employed after these results?

thats if were judging the GM by wins and losses. Now, if its money and entertainment and popularity, JJ is off the charts success............!

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Any article or opinion that says Jerry cares about profits before anything else is just lazy and unoriginal.

Jerry is a 70+ year old man who already has a team worth over 3 Billion dollars. He will never spend even 1% of this money. He would trade a heck of a lot of money for another super bowl at this point. It's so typical media to attempt to vilify Jerry with cries of greed.

I support Jerry as much as I do because even though he doesn't make all the right moves I know in my heart that losing hurts him even more than it hurts us fans.

Then he would stop making such mistakes.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I gave up on the season after the Seahawks loss. I figured we would not win a game until Romo came back. It just felt that way.

However, I'm not overly down on the organization. I wrote about this on my Facebook page before the season started.

Essentially, I really liked the offseason moves the organization made.

I believe that we had to let DeMarco go. He had too many carries last season and he wasn't going to be worth (and isn't worth) what the Eagles are paying him.

I believe in re-signing Dez. Your odds of finding another Dez are far, far slimmer than finding another DeMarco. Dez was a once in every 20 years steal for this team in the last first round. Guys like him usually go early in the 1st round (i.e. Megatron, AJ Green, Amari Cooper, Julio Jones, etc). Guys like DeMarco can be found in the 2nd or 3rd round. And I was a HUGE DeMarco supporter. But, that is just the way things are. That's why the Patriots never find that stud WR, they are always drafting late. So they rely on guys like Edelman and Amendola. And when they could get that stud WR, they got Randy Moss.

The La'el Collins signing was brilliant.

McFadden is basically on a pay-for-play basis and I think he's a decent fit for this team (I'd like to see him more with Romo at QB to get a better picture). Either way, he was a veteran we signed for dirt cheap and could get rid of at any time.

I also liked the addition of Christine Michael. But, mainly we got him for...again...fish heads and rice.

I like the Byron Jones pick (love it now, I think he's great). I loved the Randy Gregory pick because he's only a 2nd round and he was a legit top-5 talent. Moving to the 2nd round would likely just motivate him. Unfortunately, he had the ankle sprain.

Re-signing Rolando to a 1-year cheap deal I thought was a good idea (unfortunately, he hasn't played well until yesterday).

We kept Linehan and Marinelli and based off of last year's improvements, we should have kept them.

What I signed off on was that...yes...you never know what the NFL holds in store for you. I figured we could have a terrible record. But, we made a lot of good moves in the offseason and we avoided those really tough on the cap salaries where you need the player to perform well or you're really screwed type-of-deals.

This isn't 2010 where we had some really tough on the cap contracts like Marion Barber, Miles Austin, Roy Williams, Jay Ratliff and Terence Newman.

So with that, the offseason moves were much more tough to come by for the players and we still got some great talent. I think Jay Ratliff convinced Jerry to finally stop with those big deals for veterans. And now we can more easily reload and rebuild and do it more quickly.

And if we keep losing, that may end up being the best thing for this organization come next year and the years beyond.

I hate playing the 'wait 'til next year' game, too. And Jason Garrett has really disappointed me as a head coach this season. I just think that this bad of a season may be the best thing for us. Just like Jay Ratliff stealing Jerry's money...this may be the best thing for us. Maybe Jerry will be convinced that we still have major issues in the secondary (especially safety) and that even with a healthy Romo that would prevent the team from winning a Super Bowl. Maybe Jerry will now see what life without Romo is going to be like and maybe he will draft a stud QB. Maybe Jerry will see the issues we have on offense and finally get an O-Coordinator that create an offense that allows the team to use their weapons and can actually call a quality game.

But, I don't think I could say that if we were continuing to make the same awful moves on veterans.






YR

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Depends on the nature of the random event. If the random event is your star WR and QB are injured then the effect will be long lasting. Injuries have random distributions for the most part. Particular joint injuries correlate very strongly for certain alleles but collar bone and foot injuries do not fall into those classes.

About the only think I can really complain about is not bringing in Cassell sooner. They obviously misevaluated Weeden. Cassell's done rather well I think despite being in BUF for the offseason.

0-7 is an outlier in any W-L distribution for any NFL team, regardless of talent level. In fact, it's only happened four other times in the entire 55 year history of the franchise. Speaking of patterns, Garrett has set quite the precedence for losing "never lost when..." games.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

0-7 is an outlier in any W-L distribution for any NFL team, regardless of talent level. In fact, it's only happened four other times in the entire 55 year history of the franchise. Speaking of patterns, Garrett has set quite the precedence for losing "never lost when..." games.

Never been a fan of wholistic analysis. It being an outlier does nothing to preclude a random cause anyway.

And the "never lost when" is cherrypicked range nonsense with no meaning in the larger scale.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Never been a fan of wholistic analysis. It being an outlier does nothing to preclude a random cause anyway.

And the "never lost when" is cherrypicked range nonsense with no meaning in the larger scale.

Sure, it could be random--in the same way that Rich Kotite and Dick Jauron were secretly good coaches beset by terrible circumstances that were both random and uncontrollable.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure, it could be random--in the same way that Rich Kotite and Dick Jauron were secretly good coaches beset by terrible circumstances that were both random and uncontrollable.

Guilt by random association. Nice. You're just flailing away, holmes.

Kotite had issues developing players. Garrett doesn't have that problem. I couldn't comment on Jauron cause I don't pay much attention to BUF but a quick glance at his reference shows his record to be much worse if nothing else.

You are being gratuitous.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Guilt by random association. Nice. You're just flailing away, holmes.

Kotite had issues developing players. Garrett doesn't have that problem. I couldn't comment on Jauron cause I don't pay much attention to BUF but a quick glance at his reference shows his record to be much worse if nothing else.

You are being gratuitous.

This isn't random association. I'm simply carrying your reasoning out to its logical conclusion. You said, "Being an outlier does not preclude a random cause." That's true...but only because, in this case, a random cause can never be precluded. Can we say without a doubt that Rich Kotite and Dick Jauron would have never been regarded as good coaches under different sets of circumstances? No, of course not. All we have is their body of work before the league gave up on them, and many factors (including unscientific ones) go into a front office's decision to fire a coach. You can always appeal to larger numbers and/or insufficient data. Garrett hasn't won a game in three years without Tony Romo under center. The Cowboys are 0-10. Your argument essentially is, "Well, that's too small a sample size." Maybe it is. But coaches have been let go for less.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

This isn't random association. I'm simply carrying your reasoning out to its logical conclusion. You said, "Being an outlier does not preclude a random cause." That's true...but only because, in this case, a random cause can never be precluded. Can we say without a doubt that Rich Kotite and Dick Jauron would have never been regarded as good coaches under different sets of circumstances? No, of course not. All we have is their body of work before the league gave up on them, and many factors (including unscientific ones) go into a front office's decision to fire a coach. You can always appeal to larger numbers and/or insufficient data. Garrett hasn't won a game in three years without Tony Romo under center. The Cowboys are 0-10. Your argument essentially is, "Well, that's too small a sample size." Maybe it is. But coaches have been let go for less.

That is n't my argument at all. My argument is that your approach doesn't discern cause. You still have not outlined anything other than an ability to try guilt association with coaches that are not related outside of the most general sense. You saying plenty of clubs operate that way says nothing. If you want to use the Bears and Bills as model behavior then have at it.

All I get from reading you is that you get teh same emotional response about Garrett that you do with Jauron and Kotite. That isn't anything at all.

 

[Doomsay]

Nice we are back to this same unfounded argument. I am so going to love this offseason. I make so many friends pointing out nonsense and I don't even have to come up with new material. Looks like the opposition is going to use the same material. Dare I hope we go 8-8 too?

I'm not sure that it is unfounded, but I'd probably agree with you that it wont be tested, unfortunately.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

That is n't my argument at all. My argument is that your approach doesn't discern cause. You still have not outlined anything other than an ability to try guilt association with coaches that are not related outside of the most general sense. You saying plenty of clubs operate that way says nothing. If you want to use the Bears and Bills as model behavior then have at it.

All I get from reading you is that you get teh same emotional response about Garrett that you do with Jauron and Kotite. That isn't anything at all.

If your only argument against my point is that I haven't provided a falsifiable model for predicting success and failure in the NFL, your argument is pretty weak. There isn't such a model, nor has there ever been. Human action simply isn't that predictable, hence why economics is known as the dismal science. If there were such a model, it would likely become as obsolete as the Philips Curve once anyone tried to implement it. Empirically speaking, what we have is a 7 game losing streak--a fairly rare occurrence in the NFL regardless of a team's talent level. Therefore, we can infer the blame--at least in part--falls on the coaching staff. It's okay to admit he's at fault. In fact, admitting fault is how we grow. Believe it or not, you can admit he's at fault without believing he should be fired. The two premises aren't mutually exclusive.

Regarding your "emotion" claim, lolololololololol. Jauron and Kotite evoke no feeling from me. If I seem emotional, it's only because you're projecting. Seriously, bruh, it's possible for a person to offer rebuttal to your points without being emotional or illogical or otherwise intellectually impaired. There is such a thing as honest disagreement.

 

[links18]

If your only argument against my point is that I haven't provided a falsifiable model for predicting success and failure in the NFL, your argument is pretty weak. There isn't such a model, nor has there ever been. Human action simply isn't that predictable, hence why economics is known as the dismal science. If there were such a model, it would likely become as obsolete as the Philips Curve once anyone tried to implement it. Empirically speaking, what we have is a 7 game losing streak--a fairly rare occurrence in the NFL regardless of a team's talent level. Therefore, we can infer the blame--at least in part--falls on the coaching staff. It's okay to admit he's at fault. In fact, admitting fault is how we grow. Believe it or not, you can admit he's at fault without believing he should be fired. The two premises aren't mutually exclusive.

Regarding your "emotion" claim, lolololololololol. Jauron and Kotite evoke no feeling from me. If I seem emotional, it's only because you're projecting. Seriously, bruh, it's possible for a person to offer rebuttal to your points without being emotional or illogical or otherwise intellectually impaired. There is such a thing as honest disagreement.

Nice.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If your only argument against my point is that I haven't provided a falsifiable model for predicting success and failure in the NFL, your argument is pretty weak. There isn't such a model, nor has there ever been. Human action simply isn't that predictable, hence why economics is known as the dismal science. If there were such a model, it would likely become as obsolete as the Philips Curve once anyone tried to implement it. Empirically speaking, what we have is a 7 game losing streak--a fairly rare occurrence in the NFL regardless of a team's talent level. Therefore, we can infer the blame--at least in part--falls on the coaching staff. It's okay to admit he's at fault. In fact, admitting fault is how we grow. Believe it or not, you can admit he's at fault without believing he should be fired. The two premises aren't mutually exclusive.

Regarding your "emotion" claim, lolololololololol. Jauron and Kotite evoke no feeling from me. If I seem emotional, it's only because you're projecting. Seriously, bruh, it's possible for a person to offer rebuttal to your points without being emotional or illogical or otherwise intellectually impaired. There is such a thing as honest disagreement.

I always love it when people say they aren't emotional and then write something like 'lolololololololol' to belie such a claim. You have nothing to link those coaches with Garrett other than they coached in the same league. I already pointed out where your comparison fails.

My argumetn is taht you have nothing to justify your link. A model would work but I am not going to make your arguments for you. I don't establish what will work. I think youre simply looking for a scapegoat.

Simply stating something being rare does follow with 'blame Garrett.' Deduction given an open set proves nothing and given the general ignorance as to what goes on behind closed doors makes the attempt laughable.

On the last note the entire concept of fault is delusional. Normally when I am introspecting I look for particulars to work on so as to get better. That isn't what you are doing. You are using incomplete, open set deduction without explaining why something being rare reduces it down to Garrett. Even if I grant the deduction, it still is as nebulous as can be. What is he at 'fault' for? Even the notion of fault in this case is an emotional generalization.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

To distill it down: can something other than a coach cause a losing streak? Obviously and all of that is what you need to deduce.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

I always love it when people say they aren't emotional and then write something like 'lolololololololol' to belie such a claim. You have nothing to link those coaches with Garrett other than they coached in the same league. I already pointed out where your comparison fails.

My argumetn is taht you have nothing to justify your link. A model would work but I am not going to make your arguments for you. I don't establish what will work. I think youre simply looking for a scapegoat.

Simply stating something being rare does follow with 'blame Garrett.' Deduction given an open set proves nothing and given the general ignorance as to what goes on behind closed doors makes the attempt laughable.

On the last note the entire concept of fault is delusional. Normally when I am introspecting I look for particulars to work on so as to get better. That isn't what you are doing. You are using incomplete, open set deduction without explaining why something being rare reduces it down to Garrett. Even if I grant the deduction, it still is as nebulous as can be. What is he at 'fault' for? Even the notion of fault in this case is an emotional generalization.

I type "lolololol" because the accusation was absurd, not because of any emotion I'm feeling regarding Kotite or Jauron. Accusing someone of emotionalism is a way to attack your opponent while avoiding his argument. It's a variation on the old ad hominem fallacy. But I digress...

If I'm comparing Garrett to Kotite and Jauron, it's only terms of wins and losses, especially in the playoffs -- the measure by which all coaches in this "same league" are compared and their fates ultimately decided by front offices. You can certainly compare coaches using criteria other than wins and losses, such as ability to develop talent, ability to relate to players, innovation, attention to detail, etc. However, ultimately, every coach in the history of this league has had to answer for his win/loss record. It's "laughable" to assume otherwise. It matters little how original their schemes are or how much players like them; if the coach isn't winning, he's gone.

The problem with attributing any rare event to random chance is, when left to random chance, circumstances tend to gravitate to the mean, not outliers. As a rare event, a seven game losing streak is usually a result of failure across the organization -- that's why so few coaching staffs survive such losing streaks. Can something other than a coach cause a losing streak? Absolutely! That's why we evaluate Garrett in the aggregate.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Any article or opinion that says Jerry cares about profits before anything else is just lazy and unoriginal.

Jerry is a 70+ year old man who already has a team worth over 3 Billion dollars. He will never spend even 1% of this money. He would trade a heck of a lot of money for another super bowl at this point. It's so typical media to attempt to vilify Jerry with cries of greed.

I support Jerry as much as I do because even though he doesn't make all the right moves I know in my heart that losing hurts him even more than it hurts us fans.

If it hurt him as much as it hurts us he would do anything to get us a SB. He hasn't done that.

 

[superonyx]

If it hurt him as much as it hurts us he would do anything to get us a SB. He hasn't done that.

Yes he has...you want an owner that doesn't do anything? Jeffrey Laurie of the Eagles.
Jerry jones has made plenty of effort to get us a Super Bowl. Jerry called L Collins and invited him and his mother to his house very late at night to convince him to sign with us. A man who doesn't care if we win or lose doesn't do this.

Jerry hasn't gotten us a super bowl. It's not from lack of effort.

Show me how it is. I can find plenty of proof that he wants to win. Now show me the proof that he doesn't really care if we win?