Fire Jason Garrett? Then You Would Have Fired Tom Landry

[LACowboysFan1]

You aren't saying Landry is the greatest of all time are you? If innovation is part of it, then Bill Walsh is the greatest of all time, I would guess. 3 time SB winner, fantastic offensive mind.

Did Walsh have any defensive innovations? Not to my knowledge. Landry not only had the Flex and the 4-3 defense, he developed the standing up of the offensive line to mask the back's movements, brought back the "shotgun" formation that was little used before but now is used by every team, was the first to use "gadget" plays like the halfback option play in big games. Walsh won 3 SBs but Landry brought his team to 5, one of which was the first wildcard team to make the SB.

Walsh was a good coach, no doubt, but if Landry isn't the greatest of all time, the coach above him isn't Bill Walsh...

 

[GMO415]

Per my 1988 Logic 101 text book this argument is indeed....invalid.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Anything is possible.

But you have to also state that while possible, it's pretty improbable that Garrett will find similar success at this point.

Would have to research it, but how many head coaches have done as Garrett has done in his 7 years, and eventually "got it" and started winning multiple playoff games and Super Bowls? And I'm not counting coaches like Landry that took over expansion teams, would have to be somebody like Jimmy, but he only took 3 years to win his first playoff game and 4 to win his first SB, Garrett has had 7 years and has only 1 playoff win.

Don't have the time or the inclination to research it, maybe somebody has some idea off the top of their head?

 

[khiladi]

 

[Idgit]

Belichick is the best HC of all time. Most Superbowl appearances (10), most Superbowl appearances as a HC (7), most Superbowl wins (5). 9 straight AFCE titles, 7 straight AFCCG appearances. .739 W/L record with the Pats, .722 postseason record overall. 4th all-time in victories in just 19 seasons. 17 consecutive winning seasons and counting. Back to back 17-2 campaigns culminating in Superbowl wins.

Plus, however you measure innovation, he's about as innovative as they come on both sides of the ball. The only strike against him is he also cheats.

 

[Sydla]

Would have to research it, but how many head coaches have done as Garrett has done in his 7 years, and eventually "got it" and started winning multiple playoff games and Super Bowls? And I'm not counting coaches like Landry that took over expansion teams, would have to be somebody like Jimmy, but he only took 3 years to win his first playoff game and 4 to win his first SB, Garrett has had 7 years and has only 1 playoff win.

Don't have the time or the inclination to research it, maybe somebody has some idea off the top of their head?

I did the research.

Of the 32 SB winning head coaches, 29 won SBs in the first 7 years on that job, with Pederson being the latest in Philly. The three who took longer than 7 years on the job to win a SB:

- Landry was already discussed
- John Madden didn't win a SB until his 8th year. But in the first 7 years in Oakland he went to the playoffs 6 out of those 7 years, and in that span coached in 4 AFC title games and one AFL Champ game. So there is no comparison between his resume and Garrett's.
- Bill Cowher didn't win a SB until his 14th year. But in his first 7 years in Pittsburgh, he made the playoffs 6 out of those 7 years. Coached in 3 AFC Champ games and a SB. Again, his resume dwarfs Garrett's.

So yes, if Garrett starts winning SBs, he'll likely have done something that no other coach has ever done other than Landry.

 

[Idgit]

Would have to research it, but how many head coaches have done as Garrett has done in his 7 years, and eventually "got it" and started winning multiple playoff games and Super Bowls? And I'm not counting coaches like Landry that took over expansion teams, would have to be somebody like Jimmy, but he only took 3 years to win his first playoff game and 4 to win his first SB, Garrett has had 7 years and has only 1 playoff win.

Don't have the time or the inclination to research it, maybe somebody has some idea off the top of their head?

I can't think of any. Though there is a decent list of coaches like Belichick and Carroll who didn't win in one situation and then found sustained success in another. Sometimes teams lose playoff games for reasons other than coaching. It's just rare that a team will stick by a guy who does that. That doesn't necessarily mean cutting bait was the right decision for those clubs.

 

[Diehardblues]

In the defense somewhat of the original post, I don't see that he compared Garrett to Landry, exactly, though it could be interpreted as such. He was asking why you wouldn't have fired Landry after a 1-2 post-season record, in a 7 year stretch.

But that still doesn't alter my argument that Landry had far more success in that 7 years than Garrett has had in HIS 7 years, my point being that getting to the NFL championship game against a powerhouse Packers team that had won the championship the year before in 1966 and again getting to the Ice Bowl shows PROMISE, whereas Garrett's losing at home to a Giants wildcard team, a Packers team with a gimpy Rodgers and a Packers team that they were unprepared to play doesn't give one much confidence that he can get "over the hump"...

Correct.

We can compare their early Records while not comparing their quality of coaching of which there’s no comparison .

 

[Diehardblues]

I can't think of any. Though there is a decent list of coaches like Belichick and Carroll who didn't win in one situation and then found sustained success in another. Sometimes teams lose playoff games for reasons other than coaching. It's just rare that a team will stick by a guy who does that. That doesn't necessarily mean cutting bait was the right decision for those clubs.

To me it’s useless comparing Garrett and our situation with Jerry to other teams.

That’s not an accuarate measurement because we don’t have comparable situations. The only comparison is to other coaches under Jerry.

Then we must analyze and evaluate what Jerry’s expectations are. Not to mention his intent on controlling the situation with a coach so he’ll recieve credit if we have success.

Fans forget Jerry isn’t interested in having success if he’s not going to recieve more credit than he did with Jimmy. Tried that and didn’t like it. It’s why we are where we are. Jerry only wants to win his way.

Now, what other teams have a similar situation we can compare to?

 

[Shake_Tiller]

Being old, I have some sympathy for the OP's position, though it cries for nuance. Recall the book "Next Year's Champions," which was published in 1969. The title of the book wasn't meant to compliment Tom Landry or the Cowboys. The Cowboys had been the heir apparent to the Packers, having lost back-to-back NFL championships in agonizing fashion. The Packers were dead and at the front end of a lost decade. The Cowboys were heavy favorites to be in Super Bowl III. Dallas was loaded. They finished the 1968 regular season 12-2 and in a 14-game regular season outscored their opponents by 245 points -- 17.5 points per game. Then they laid an egg against the Browns. In 1969, the Cowboys finished the regular season 11-2-1 after having added Calvin Hill, dubbed "Super-Rook." Once again, they laid an egg against the Browns.

Whether from a broken heart or a broken body, Don Meredith had retired after the 1968 season, many fans having turned on him. Craig Morton had seemed an ideal replacement and was something of a golden boy. The Dallas defensive line was Lilly, Larry, Jethro and George. Jordan, Howley and Edwards were the linebackers. Renfro and Green were in the secondary. The OL was loaded and included Rayfield, Niland, Nye and Neely. In addition to Hill, the backfield featured Garrison and Reeves. Hayes and Rentzel were the WRs, Ditka and Norman the TEs.

Landry was under enormous pressure -- can't win the big one. And he was slow to install Staubach, though the Navy grad was spectacular every time he stepped on the field.

In 1970, the Cowboys started the season 3-2, intensifying the pressure, and Landry still couldn't bring himself to commit to Staubach who he considered a bit of a wild card and didn't trust to adhere to the game plan. The Cowboys went to the Super Bowl for the first time, but lost perhaps the sloppiest of Super Bowl games to a Colts team that was perceived to be old and on the way down.

In 1971, Landry still hesitated to start Staubach and actually alternated him and Morton, including in the infamous shuttle system versus the Bears -- the quarterbacks alternating plays. Dallas staggered to a 4-3 start to the regular season, and Landry made the decision to move to Staubach as the full-time starter. In three December regular season games, the Cowboys out-scored their opponents by a staggering, combined 89 points. They closed the season with 10 consecutive wins, including three in the post-season, which culminated in the Super Bowl win over Miami. Next Year's Champions became America's Team.

The point isn't to second-guess Landry re his hesitation with regard to Staubach. Nor is it to suggest that Garrett will enjoy Landry's success. Tom Landry was one of the greatest coaches in NFL history. The point is there was much more pressure on Landry in those days than people who didn't live through it are likely to understand. Yes he had pulled an expansion team from nowhere to the league's elite. But the post-season losses -- especially those two shattering losses to the Browns -- took a great toll on fan support of Landry, and fans in general wanted the move to Staubach to happen much more quickly than it did.

If there had been an Internet forum, I find it difficult to imagine there wouldn't have been a great groundswell of angst and insistence that Landry be replaced. Having lived most of the Cowboys' history, I would suggest those two Browns games remain the most shocking defeats the franchise has suffered. Younger people can't imagine how stunning it was to see Dallas lose those games. The Cowboys were perceived to be loaded, and they laid consecutive eggs. And the Colts Super Bowl -- suddenly it seemed Dallas might have missed its window. Some of its stars were getting older. Then the Duane Thomas problem blew up... the Ezekiel Elliott situation times 10, let's say.

So I would never presume to say individuals who populate this board would have called for Landry to be fired. I have no way of knowing that. But there was at that point a great deal of fan and media angst. A lesser man than Murchison might have fired Landry.

 

[Aviano90]

Being old, I have some sympathy for the OP's position, though it cries for nuance. Recall the book "Next Year's Champions," which was published in 1969. The title of the book wasn't meant to compliment Tom Landry or the Cowboys. The Cowboys had been the heir apparent to the Packers, having lost back-to-back NFL championships in agonizing fashion. The Packers were dead and at the front end of a lost decade. The Cowboys were heavy favorites to be in Super Bowl III. Dallas was loaded. They finished the 1968 regular season 12-2 and in a 14-game regular season outscored their opponents by 245 points -- 17.5 points per game. Then they laid an egg against the Browns. In 1969, the Cowboys finished the regular season 11-2-1 after having added Calvin Hill, dubbed "Super-Rook." Once again, they laid an egg against the Browns.

Whether from a broken heart or a broken body, Don Meredith had retired after the 1968 season, many fans having turned on him. Craig Morton had seemed an ideal replacement and was something of a golden boy. The Dallas defensive line was Lilly, Larry, Jethro and George. Jordan, Howley and Edwards were the linebackers. Renfro and Green were in the secondary. The OL was loaded and included Rayfield, Niland, Nye and Neely. In addition to Hill, the backfield featured Garrison and Reeves. Hayes and Rentzel were the WRs, Ditka and Norman the TEs.

Landry was under enormous pressure -- can't win the big one. And he was slow to install Staubach, though the Navy grad was spectacular every time he stepped on the field.

In 1970, the Cowboys started the season 3-2, intensifying the pressure, and Landry still couldn't bring himself to commit to Staubach who he considered a bit of a wild card and didn't trust to adhere to the game plan. The Cowboys went to the Super Bowl for the first time, but lost perhaps the sloppiest of Super Bowl games to a Colts team that was perceived to be old and on the way down.

In 1971, Landry still hesitated to start Staubach and actually alternated him and Morton, including in the infamous shuttle system versus the Bears -- the quarterbacks alternating plays. Dallas staggered to a 4-3 start to the regular season, and Landry made the decision to move to Staubach as the full-time starter. In three December regular season games, the Cowboys out-scored their opponents by a staggering, combined 89 points. They closed the season with 10 consecutive wins, including three in the post-season, which culminated in the Super Bowl win over Miami. Next Year's Champions became America's Team.

The point isn't to second-guess Landry re his hesitation with regard to Staubach. Nor is it to suggest that Garrett will enjoy Landry's success. Tom Landry was one of the greatest coaches in NFL history. The point is there was much more pressure on Landry in those days than people who didn't live through it are likely to understand. Yes he had pulled an expansion team from nowhere to the league's elite. But the post-season losses -- especially those two shattering losses to the Browns -- took a great toll on fan support of Landry, and fans in general wanted the move to Staubach to happen much more quickly than it did.

If there had been an Internet forum, I find it difficult to imagine there wouldn't have been a great groundswell of angst and insistence that Landry be replaced. Having lived most of the Cowboys' history, I would suggest those two Browns games remain the most shocking defeats the franchise has suffered. Younger people can't imagine how stunning it was to see Dallas lose those games. The Cowboys were perceived to be loaded, and they laid consecutive eggs. And the Colts Super Bowl -- suddenly it seemed Dallas might have missed its window. Some of its stars were getting older. Then the Duane Thomas problem blew up... the Ezekiel Elliott situation times 10, let's say.

So I would never presume to say individuals who populate this board would have called for Landry to be fired. I have no way of knowing that. But there was at that point a great deal of fan and media angst. A lesser man than Murchison might have fired Landry.

So Landry couldn't win the big one? Garrett can't even win the little ones. If he had the team knocking on the door to winning the big one then he would have more rope with the fans. Contending for playoff berths in week 17 isn't going to cut it.

 

[Diehardblues]

While there was much public attention drawn to Landry not winning the big game , I’m not sure how much pressure within there was?

I think once Murchison and Tex extended Tom there was not the pressure to win a championship like some fans are referring to.

The Cowboys were an up an coming franchise gaining popularity and profit . Winning a championship as an ultimatum didn’t carry the weight it appears to this era.

We were excited we had a competitive contender every year . There were no guarantees we’d win a championship. Just happy we were beginning to be in it every year,

 

[Shake_Tiller]

While there was much public attention drawn to Landry not winning the big game , I’m not sure how much pressure within there was?

I think once Murchison and Tex extended Tom there was not the pressure to win a championship like some fans are referring to.

The Cowboys were an up an coming franchise gaining popularity and profit . Winning a championship as an ultimatum didn’t carry the weight it appears to this era.

We were excited we had a competitive contender every year . There were no guarantees we’d win a championship. Just happy we were beginning to be in it every year,

I agree with much of your post. I certainly think Landry had internal support. It's also true that much of the current criticism of Jerry Jones centers on his support of Garrett. Murchison and Schramm were proven right. Jones is yet to be proven right.

I do think the pressure to win it all has increased, but there was a reason Steve Perkins called his book "Next Year's Champions," and it was a derisive tag. So there was pressure to win it all.

Beyond that, I think you have it right... except maybe those two years they lost to the Browns. There were pitchforks. Dallas wasn't the happiest city about right then. The Meredith retirement was at least partly a response to an extremely sullen fan base.

 

[Shake_Tiller]

So Landry couldn't win the big one? Garrett can't even win the little ones. If he had the team knocking on the door to winning the big one then he would have more rope with the fans. Contending for playoff berths in week 17 isn't going to cut it.

Apparently I am not writing well. My intention wasn't to say Landry couldn't win the big one. My intention was merely to point out that Landry was the target of enormous fan/media criticism. Being Tom Landry, he responded to it by winning.

 

[Diehardblues]

I agree with much of your post. I certainly think Landry had internal support. It's also true that much of the current criticism of Jerry Jones centers on his support of Garrett. Murchison and Schramm were proven right. Jones is yet to be proven right.

I do think the pressure to win it all has increased, but there was a reason Steve Perkins called his book "Next Year's Champions," and it was a derisive tag. So there was pressure to win it all.

Beyond that, I think you have it right... except maybe those two years they lost to the Browns. There were pitchforks. Dallas wasn't the happiest city about right then. The Meredith retirement was at least partly a response to an extremely sullen fan base.

“ next year’s champions “ was like an ESPN catch phrase which sold airtime , papers or a book.

While there’s always pressure to win, I’m not sure there was to win a championship.

Success isn’t measured alone by winning championships. The Cowboys were already a popular franchise generating enough revenue to build a new stadium before winning a championship.

I recall being very excited where our local team was before winning our 1st championship. That doesn’t mean we didn’t have some heartbreaking losses . So excited we bought season tickets for the new stadium.

We were a championship caliber team in the playoffs then every year. I don’t recall thinking we needed to win a championship to validate Landry. That’s something some in the press might have rolled with but not all the fans.

 

[Diehardblues]

I agree with much of your post. I certainly think Landry had internal support. It's also true that much of the current criticism of Jerry Jones centers on his support of Garrett. Murchison and Schramm were proven right. Jones is yet to be proven right.

I do think the pressure to win it all has increased, but there was a reason Steve Perkins called his book "Next Year's Champions," and it was a derisive tag. So there was pressure to win it all.

Beyond that, I think you have it right... except maybe those two years they lost to the Browns. There were pitchforks. Dallas wasn't the happiest city about right then. The Meredith retirement was at least partly a response to an extremely sullen fan base.

I also wanted to add I agree with much of your thought .

But the thing is with Jerry is that he’s already validated himself with the early success with Jimmy and that’s presented him the opportunity for our current situation . Without that early success we’d already run him out of town.

And the fans continue providing him a seal of approval at the gate so I’m not sure what he has left to prove except building a championship team without Jimmy.

But he’s in the HOF already . I think it’s more about Jerry just not willing to share the limelight with another ego as big as his which doesn’t leave room for a top notch coach anymore.

This is his Baby. And he’s in it as long as the fans are providing him a seal of approval endorsing the check. Garrett is just a product of Jerry Ball. He’s only interested winning his way.

 

[Dre11]

well that kind of destroys your argument about the D does it not?
You ORIGINALLY SAID he inherited a lousy D- or as you put it NO D AT ALL. SO how could the NO D suddenly perform and then disappear?
Fact is that Red Ball inherited a playoff contending team and did nothing with it the next three years as the roster was churned. Romo was about all we had going for us; well him and Ware who was beginning to wear out. Why can other teams with top QBs keep contending. the only team with a top QB that was not in theplay offs was NO and Brees; and we all know what happened there. Terrible D coordinators and team management screwing up. Sounds kind of familiar does it not? One of the reasons i am not a big fan of Sean Payton. He had a lot of control there and most of the responsibility for the poor D is on him.

Are you a real Cowboy fan or casual fan? Real fans know that we were not very good at that time. But as for the D, because the D played better for an 8 games doesn't mean they were good,as a matter of fact, The defense was then handed over to , IIIRC , to Rex Ryan, and any Cowboy fan knows that was a fiasco, new philosophy and a defense that had the players complaining about being confused on game day , due to Ryan being unorganized. For the record that wasn't a playoff contending team he inherited. What kind of fan are you...lol

 

[Shake_Tiller]

I also wanted to add I agree with much of your thought .

But the thing is with Jerry is that he’s already validated himself with the early success with Jimmy and that’s presented him the opportunity for our current situation . Without that early success we’d already run him out of town.

And the fans continue providing him a seal of approval at the gate so I’m not sure what he has left to prove except building a championship team without Jimmy.

But he’s in the HOF already . I think it’s more about Jerry just not willing to share the limelight with another ego as big as his which doesn’t leave room for a top notch coach anymore.

This is his Baby. And he’s in it as long as the fans are providing him a seal of approval endorsing the check. Garrett is just a product of Jerry Ball. He’s only interested winning his way.

Thanks for that. And also to be clear, I am a lifelong Tom Landry fan. A letter from him is a treasured possession. I also think, though it wasn't understood at the time, the Ice Bowl had a lot to do with the difficulty in getting over the hump. Players had lifelong physical scars, frostbite, etc. Surely no football game has taken a greater collective toll on its participants.

 

[IheartRomo]

An early contender for worst thread of the year.

It's mind bogglingly foolish to compare a coach inheriting an expansion team and one inheriting a franchise QB and AT LEAST league average, if not better, surrounding talent. Also, Landry did not have the luxury of addressing any needs through free agency and, with an expansion team, there is an endless list of needs.

Really an apples to oranges comparison if there ever was one. Awful thread. Take a timeout.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Winning and losing was exactly the same as it was today and in 1967 nobody knew the Cowboys would have 20 consecutive winning seasons.

I am not comparing Garrett to Landry, I am comparing most of you to those in the mid 60's who wanted Landry fired. His playoff record at the time was exactly the same as Garrett's today right up to who they lost to and how.

The truth is, Garrett was one Dez catch and one Rodgers pass away from being "brilliant".

If Elliott had not been suspended then the Cowboys would have been in the playoffs again where anything could have happened and if you insist that Garrett would have blown it then it just makes you even more similar to those that wanted Landry gone.

I have touched on the hypocricy, many of you dislike being cornered by it so you are attempting to distract readers from recognizing this by falsely characterizing the nature of this debate.It didn't work. Those of you calling for Garrett's head would have wanted Landry fired within the same time frame as Garrett. None of you have really denied this..

This dude is just trolling now to get people riled up, it’s a joke thread.

Nobody can be this stupid on purpose