Has there been this much negative reaction to any HC hire here?

[Chocolate Lab]

Seriously, isn't this probably the most negative reaction you've ever seen to a Dallas Cowboys head coaching hire? Granted, it's not done yet, but if Norv really is hired, I think it will be the least popular head coaching hire here ever -- and maybe by a landslide.

I know Switzer, Gailey and Campo got and still do get knocked, but I can at least see why they all were hired. IMO Gailey made plenty of sense at the time, and Campo was even understandable given our awful talent situation and Campy's success as DC here.

So is it me, or will this be the least popular head coaching move Jerry has ever made?

 

[BigDFan5]

Minus firing Landry you are probably right

 

[AbeBeta]

Agreed. We would be going from a HOF coach to a lame attempt to recapture the glory days. Even with the crazies on this board, I can't see many who believe Norm is any kind of upgrade.

Me, I'd rather just have Garrett as HC instead of Norv.

 

[TheConnection]

Just means it's going to be that much sweeter for those that jumped on the bandwagon first when he proves everyone wrong.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Don't worry Cowboy fans...Norv is just keeping the seat warm for our future...

 

[theogt]

Don't worry Cowboy fans...Norv is just keeping the seat warm for our future...

Awesome.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Minus firing Landry you are probably right

And even back then, as revered as Landry was, a lot of fans thought his time was about done. The negative reaction to Jerry was more about the way he fired Tom.

I know Switzer was hated by many, and part of that had to do with the Oklahoma-Texas rivalry, but at the time, at least IMO, it made some sense to keep a team that great as intact as possible. And Barry might have been the only guy on Earth who would accept keeping every single existing coach in place.

Gailey, as I said, was a good idea IMO -- find a bright young assistant from a successful team. It wasn't as successful as some hoped, but the hire made sense.

Campo might have been the most controversial hire, but my thinking in those pre-message board days was that Dave might be okay given his success as a DC-- and I considered him a stopgap until we got out of salary cap hell anyway.

This one, though, is absolutely mind-boggling. Usually when you get a new coach, there's a sense of optimism, but the fans here seem to be about 80% against it -- at least.

 

[big dog cowboy]

So is it me, or will this be the least popular head coaching move Jerry has ever made?

You must be one of those young guys.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Hows recapturing the glory years going for Lil Danny Snyder. He brought back the franchises most storied HC. We are bringing back a OC who needed the best talent ever assembled in the NFL to win.

 

[T-New41]

IF Norv is hired and IF Norv has success, I wonder if all these people who are gnashing their teeth will give him any credit. As far as his past record as coach, sure it's not too great. But Bellicik was considered a failure in Cleveland before becoming one of the "greatest ever" in New England.

You really can't compare those two situations, but it's not as if the next head coach isn't getting a lot of talent to work with. The point is, maybe the situations Norv had in Washington and Oakland were not conducive to success, where as the team he would inherit here is. Plus, coming back to Dallas may be a revival for him as well. Just because he failed before, doesn't guarantee it will happen again. Most some-what intelligent people will learn from their mistakes. Hopefully IF Norv is hired, he can use the mistakes made in past jobs as stepping stones for this one. There IS a learning curve for Head coaches after all.

It is nice to know that Bill Parcells has been helping Jerry interview these candidates. If Bill signs off on him, would most of you jump on board too? Or will you just crucify Norv before he even gets a chance to do anything?

 

[TheConnection]

IF Norv is hired and IF Norv has success, I wonder if all these people who are gnashing their teeth will give him any credit. As far as his past record as coach, sure it's not too great. But Bellicik was considered a failure in Cleveland before becoming one of the "greatest ever" in New England.

You really can't compare those two situations, but it's not as if the next head coach isn't getting a lot of talent to work with. The point is, maybe the situations Norv had in Washington and Oakland were not conducive to success, where as the team he would inherit here is. Plus, coming back to Dallas may be a revival for him as well. Just because he failed before, doesn't guarantee it will happen again. Most some-what intelligent people will learn from their mistakes. Hopefully IF Norv is hired, he can use the mistakes made in past jobs as stepping stones for this one. There IS a learning curve for Head coaches after all.

It is nice to know that Bill Parcells has been helping Jerry interview these candidates. If Bill signs off on him, would most of you jump on board too? Or will you just crucify Norv before he even gets a chance to do anything?

It's obvious he will be written off before the PC

 

[Chocolate Lab]

You must be one of those young guys.

LOL, I wish. I wasn't around for the Landry hire, but I've seen all the rest.

 

[AbeBeta]

Campo might have been the most controversial hire, but my thinking in those pre-message board days was that Dave might be okay given his success as a DC-- and I considered him a stopgap until we got out of salary cap hell anyway.

Was he controversial? The listserv I was on at the time (with folks that remain prominent on some of boards and blogs) was, as a whole, pretty positive toward Campo. Then again, we were just happy to have Cowboy fans to correspond with - so we were all very positive about everything (go Wane Garrity!!!!!)

 

[big dog cowboy]

LOL, I wish. I wasn't around for the Landry hire, but I've seen all the rest.

Just wondering because it got pretty brutal. Campo? Gailey?

 

[JackMagist]

I don't remember anyone being terribly excited about the hiring of Gailey. But we didn't get as much information available to us or have places to express our opinions then like we do now.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

And even back then, as revered as Landry was, a lot of fans thought his time was about done. The negative reaction to Jerry was more about the way he fired Tom.

I know Switzer was hated by many, and part of that had to do with the Oklahoma-Texas rivalry, but at the time, at least IMO, it made some sense to keep a team that great as intact as possible. And Barry might have been the only guy on Earth who would accept keeping every single existing coach in place.

Gailey, as I said, was a good idea IMO -- find a bright young assistant from a successful team. It wasn't as successful as some hoped, but the hire made sense.

Campo might have been the most controversial hire, but my thinking in those pre-message board days was that Dave might be okay given his success as a DC-- and I considered him a stopgap until we got out of salary cap hell anyway.

This one, though, is absolutely mind-boggling. Usually when you get a new coach, there's a sense of optimism, but the fans here seem to be about 80% against it -- at least.

I totally agree with everything you said.

 

[chinch]

And even back then, as revered as Landry was, a lot of fans thought his time was about done. The negative reaction to Jerry was more about the way he fired Tom.

I know Switzer was hated by many, and part of that had to do with the Oklahoma-Texas rivalry, but at the time, at least IMO, it made some sense to keep a team that great as intact as possible. And Barry might have been the only guy on Earth who would accept keeping every single existing coach in place.

Gailey, as I said, was a good idea IMO -- find a bright young assistant from a successful team. It wasn't as successful as some hoped, but the hire made sense.

Campo might have been the most controversial hire, but my thinking in those pre-message board days was that Dave might be okay given his success as a DC-- and I considered him a stopgap until we got out of salary cap hell anyway.

This one, though, is absolutely mind-boggling. Usually when you get a new coach, there's a sense of optimism, but the fans here seem to be about 80% against it -- at least.

bingo.

 

[Aikbach]

I remember being unimpressed with the Chan Gailey hire, I fely it an anti-climactic choice after how long the search took.

Terry Donahue, George Seifert, Steve Spurrier, Brian Billick, Gary Kubiak and Chan Gailey were the roster of candidates in 1998.

The media favorites were Spurrier and Seifert.

Seifert would go on to bomb in Carolina and prove he inherited everything he won previously.
Spurrier would prove Jimmy Johnson had timing that provided flukish success for a college coach entering the NFL.

Donahue would've fulfilled Aikman's sarcastic prophecy that he would evetually work with all three of the coaches who pursued him in college with the Dallas Cowboys.

Billick or Kubiak would've been nice hires.

Enter Gailey, the soft spoken and understated offensive traditionalist who lacked the will power and gravitas to command a Super Bowl team.

 

[bbgun]

I don't think this forum pre-dates Parcells, so there's no way of knowing if this is the most negative reaction to a new hire.

 

[Ratmatt]

Seriously, isn't this probably the most negative reaction you've ever seen to a Dallas Cowboys head coaching hire? Granted, it's not done yet, but if Norv really is hired, I think it will be the least popular head coaching hire here ever -- and maybe by a landslide.

I know Switzer, Gailey and Campo got and still do get knocked, but I can at least see why they all were hired. IMO Gailey made plenty of sense at the time, and Campo was even understandable given our awful talent situation and Campy's success as DC here.

So is it me, or will this be the least popular head coaching move Jerry has ever made?

Switzer!