VA Cowboy;1337576 said:
You are really going to lose any credibility you may have if you are arguing that Jerry was the acting GM during the first five years when Jimmy was here.
Are you really saying that Jerry is the football brains behind the 90's dynasty???
Talk about revisionist history.
Yeah, Jerry is an egomaniac. It's been documented that the first few years after he bought the team he was busy getting the organization financially sound while Jimmy and company were building the team on the field.
It was only after we became successful and Jerry saw how it was put together that he felt he could do it just as well as Jimmy and company had done.
After he fell flat on his face he finally relented some and brought BP in. That didn't work as well as expected, and here we are today.
But please tell me you really think Jerry was the primary responsible acting GM during the early days. I need a good laugh.
well i'm sure if you talk to enough people i don't have any crediblity anyway - so find those people and make sure you talk only to them when attacking my viewpoint. it's what people do who load up bullets not facts into their arguments.
if you want to believe jones sat on his tail and did nothing while johnson did it all then fine - you do that. i don't think it's realistic to think that jones will put aside his "ego" when his entire "problem" from fans like you *IS* that very ego. where did he keep it during those years, WV? how come he could put it in check and yet still earn the egomaniac who'll never do good rep?
quite the contradiction to me and no, i won't buy into that cause the facts simply do not line up.
VA Cowboy;1337577 said:
The "past" is referring to the post-Jimmy days and the pre-Parcells days.
like i said - you're limiting your history when it suits your purpose - and you're doing so now. i can't and won't do that. people do what they do and in the end, that's simply what they're going to do. if jones is the monger you describe "in your own timeframe" then he was before that and he will be after that as well. to take a timeslice out of this ONLY because it favors our argument i find convenient and frankly, blinding. i'm sure i can go find some years hitler did some good for his people and then call the rest irrelevant, but not many would let me get away with such a logic faux pau.
VA Cowboy;1337581 said:
What's your motivation, besides trying to defend Jerry the GM and his failed ways?
calling out what i don't see as a logical use of facts. not defending anyone. jones has his problems and he's earned them. while people "do what they do" they also learn when it effects their own bottom line of importance. jjones as a GM is tough to defend and not my goal.
but i'm not gonna slice and dice things into piles i can more easily use for *my own views* - the whole picture is out there to figure out and talk about. but i'm not gonna sit here and agree that you can take a few bad years and define a career.
if that were the case parcells is a total failure cause i'm only gonna look at the last 4 decembers of his career and the rest isn't relevant to my argument.
would you allow such a statement to be "valid" in your eyes?
