How bad is Jerry Jones?

[rcaldw]

I'm weighing in really late in this conversation, but in my opinion it couldn't be clearer. Jimmy left. The roster he built (Jerry was his yes man) started to break apart. Jerry was doing it "his way baby", and everyone else became his yes man. Mediocre to poor ever since. Worst team in football? Not by a long shot. Respected team based on the threat of winning the Super Bowl? Not by a long shot. The Cowboys have become something that I never could have imagined growing up a fan in the 70's. People joke about us. People make fun of our owner. People make fun of our false sense of optimism. People make fun of the thought that the Cowboys could win the Super Bowl.

And I'm sorry, if you don't think the Owner/President/GM is a big part of that, you are short sighted.

Having said that, I hope we overcome him. And I hope it happens this year.

 

[Dodger12]

General terms? What is that other than wins and losses?

Nice backtrack but if you want to continue on, then you can respond to my earlier post where I responded to your question. I won't play semantics with you.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Per normal you sling mud and then hold yourself up as the high road.

I am not crying. Thanks for asking though.

You try and understand why the team does what they do.

But you have no expectations. You merely use the evidence that is there and then figure out how they got there. Grade it against the norm of the league and Bob's your uncle....that's that.

This is your point.

Then you speak for me and suggest you understand what I do.

Do I point out Jones? Yes I do, since he is the common denominator for the last period of results that fail to get into the play-offs consistently.

Prior to that this team had a low period when first coming into the league. Then around 66 they started winning and making the play-offs. They had twenty years of success, and then the string ran out for Landry.

Predominately the rest of the league caught up to their talent accessing.

Then a down period.

Jimmy comes in with his keen eye for talent and they win again.

Now we are in the longest period for this team of not consistently making the play-offs and having winning records.

I did not make that up, that is what it is.

I prefer winning over this. I see Jones as the fulcrum that delivers this results. I don't double talk, and write esoteric comments to defray the fact that I make excuses for this team when they do not achieve what the point of the game is about.

Winning.

I see no point in finding also-ran acceptable.

Nope you are not done crying.

The only "mud" I have slung is characterizing your posts as crying. You are complaining about me so I don't see that as unfair.

I think an empirical, reductionist approach is the best way of finding the truth. If that is the "high road" I can live with that.

And the "common denominator" extends beyond your cherry picked range.

Sorry you're unhappy because we are no longer winning all the time like we did under Landry.

 

[Galian Beast]

Nice backtrack but if you want to continue on, then you can respond to my earlier post where I responded to your question. I won't play semantics with you.

I thought it was already responded to. You created a arbitrary standard for success.

Does going to the NFC championship game in one year, make you a better run team than a team that hasn't gone once, but wins more games than you on a consistent basis?

Are the 49ers a better run team than the Cowboys?

 

[Dodger12]

Actually I used the standard that I have heard over and over again of a .500 winning percentage over 17 years. Someone described it as "one of the worst." So I pointed out what the average outcome leaguewide was.

I didn't make the standard. I just used it.

I would never use that as a standard. It's an obvious adjustment to exclude a time frame that counters your argument.

When I make evaluations I don't look at things like that. I don't like wholistic deductions in general but I especially do not like it when they are based on oversimplification.

I look at details and not generalizations.

Confirmation bias doesn't mean that you have to make or create the standard, statistic or information you use, just that you favor the information that helps you confirm your belief or hypothesis.

And if you wouldn't use it as a standard, then why debate it at all? That just tells me you know the argument is weak but then it's odd that you go ahead and use it as part of your argument (yes Fuzz, that's confirmation bias).

And as someone pointed out earlier, league wide you can only have one of two outcomes, win or lose, so if you play X number of games, one team will win and one will lose. It's a poor basis for a (statistical) argument all the way around.

 

[Dodger12]

I thought it was already responded to. You created a arbitrary standard for success.

Does going to the NFC championship game in one year, make you a better run team than a team that hasn't gone once, but wins more games than you on a consistent basis?

Are the 49ers a better run team than the Cowboys?

Playoff wins which lead to Championship games which lead to SB's are a measure of success for any franchise outside of an expansion team. That's how teams are judged, not some .500 record that says we're "average."

At some point the team's futility will lead it to be lumped in with some sorry franchises (like the Bengals and Browns). That's pitiful but if you feel that since they're .500 that it's OK, have at it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Confirmation bias doesn't mean that you have to make or create the standard, statistic or information you use, just that you favor the information that helps you confirm your belief or hypothesis.

And if you wouldn't use it as a standard, then why debate it at all? That just tells me you know the argument is weak but then it's odd that you go ahead and use it as part of your argument (yes Fuzz, that's confirmation bias).

And as someone pointed out earlier, league wide you can only have one of two outcomes, win or lose, so if you play X number of games, one team will win and one will lose. It's a poor basis for a (statistical) argument all the way around.

Again I didn't start with the standard. Someone else did and characterized it as "one of the worst" and I pointed out what the reality of league winning percentages was and how it was equal to league average.

How many times do I have to say that I don't think this wholistic analysis is worth a flip for you to finally get it?

You are right there is one win for every loss. Why does acknowledging a truth make it a bad standard?

Quite the contrary. In physics, there is the principle of Newton's Third Law ie for every force there is an equal and opposite force. That has been used to determine the validity of physical models for centuries.

That there are equal numbers of wins and losses isn't even a standard. It's just the truth. I would say that something being true is an important criteria.

 

[Dodger12]

Jimmy left. The roster he built (Jerry was his yes man) started to break apart.

Mediocre to poor ever since. Worst team in football? Not by a long shot. Respected team based on the threat of winning the Super Bowl? Not by a long shot.

The Cowboys have become something that I never could have imagined growing up a fan in the 70's. People joke about us. People make fun of our owner. People make fun of our false sense of optimism. People make fun of the thought that the Cowboys could win the Super Bowl.

And I'm sorry, if you don't think the Owner/President/GM is a big part of that, you are short sighted.

Having said that, I hope we overcome him. And I hope it happens this year.

On the money rcaldw, especially the bolded part.........

 

[Galian Beast]

Playoff wins which lead to Championship games which lead to SB's are a measure of success for any franchise outside of an expansion team. That's how teams are judged, not some .500 record that says we're "average."

At some point the team's futility will lead it to be lumped in with some sorry franchises (like the Bengals and Browns). That's pitiful but if you feel that since they're .500 that it's OK, have at it.

The reality is that .500 isn't necessarily average in the aggregate. You have teams that are above .500 and you have a lot of teams who are actually below .500, and it's not necessarily the median. The highest win percentage in league history is .578 among active clubs.

If you think our winning percentage is similar to the Browns and the Bengals this confirms your confirmation bias, and inability to understand the truth.

You also ignored my question.

Are the 49ers a better run organization than the Cowboys?

 

[Galian Beast]

On the money rcaldw, especially the bolded part.........

That's quite right. That's the real crux of it. The confirmation bias based on the negativity from the media and friends.

 

[Dodger12]

Again I didn't start with the standard. Someone else did and characterized it as "one of the worst" and I pointed out what the reality of league winning percentages was and how it was equal to league average.

How many times do I have to say that I don't think this wholistic analysis is worth a flip for you to finally get it?

You are right there is one win for every loss. Why does acknowledging a truth make it a bad standard?

Quite the contrary. In physics, there is the principle of Newton's Third Law ie for every force there is an equal and opposite force. That has been used to determine the validity of physical models for centuries.

That there are equal numbers of wins and losses isn't even a standard. It's just the truth. I would say that something being true is an important criteria.

Don't go physics on me now....I'm still trying to keep us with statistics. :laugh2:

Again, we're going to disagree (on the Cowboys) but I appreciate the give and take. I'm out for the night. Peace.......

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Playoff wins which lead to Championship games which lead to SB's are a measure of success for any franchise outside of an expansion team. That's how teams are judged, not some .500 record that says we're "average."

At some point the team's futility will lead it to be lumped in with some sorry franchises (like the Bengals and Browns). That's pitiful but if you feel that since they're .500 that it's OK, have at it.

Over the last 17 years, there have been about 15 games played every week over 17 weeks. That is ~4,335 games. I know it's not precise because some weeks there are no teams with byes for one more game but its close enough.

In addition to that the are 4 Wild Card games, 4 division playoffs, 2 Conference Championships and 1 Super Bowl for another 187 games.

That makes ~4522 games played over the last 17 years.

There are 34 Championship Games.

You familiar with what "small sample size" implies?

 

[Dodger12]

The reality is that .500 isn't necessarily average in the aggregate. You have teams that are above .500 and you have a lot of teams who are actually below .500, and it's not necessarily the median. The highest win percentage in league history is .578 among active clubs.

If you think our winning percentage is similar to the Browns and the Bengals this confirms your confirmation bias, and inability to understand the truth.

Average in the aggregate? Again man, I have to hand it to folks thinking outside the box and bringing a new wrinkle and angle to this debate. Kudos........

And your turning the argument to "winning percentage" to save face. I never responded to winning percentage and that's not what your question was about.

Are the 49ers a better run organization than the Cowboys?

I don't think there's a huge argument to make that they haven't been better run than us in the recent past. Maybe they struck gold with Harbaugh but he's making the right moves and has done a good job coaching the team.

 

[Dodger12]

Over the last 17 years, there have been about 15 games played every week over 17 weeks. That is ~4,335 games. I know it's not precise because some weeks there are no teams with byes for one more game but its close enough.

In addition to that the are 4 Wild Card games, 4 division playoffs, 2 Conference Championships and 1 Super Bowl for another 187 games.

That makes ~4522 games played over the last 17 years.

There are 34 Championship Games.

You familiar with what "small sample size" implies?

Sure, but there are only 32 teams. And 14 teams in our conference haven't had a problem with the sample size, especially in an era where parity rules.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Sure, but there are only 32 teams. And 14 teams in our conference haven't had a problem with the sample size, especially in an era where parity rules.

Its not an issue of the sample size relative to the team. It's an issue of not having enough data to make any conclusions. The potential variance is from 0 to 4500. You have less than 40 data points.

 

[Galian Beast]

Average in the aggregate? Again man, I have to hand it to folks thinking outside the box and bringing a new wrinkle and angle to this debate. Kudos........

And your turning the argument to "winning percentage" to save face. I never responded to winning percentage and that's not what your question was about.



I don't think there's a huge argument to make that they haven't been better run than us in the recent past. Maybe they struck gold with Harbaugh but he's making the right moves and has done a good job coaching the team.

I never turned the conversation into anything. Read back the flow of the conversation. It's been said before, but your side of this argument has moved the goal post.

I think there is enough evidence to support that the 49ers are NOT a better run organization than the Cowboys. Does the 49ers having two strong years, after a history of being absolutely terrible through out the last decade mean that they're a better run organization? Or is it easier to win when you stockpile early draft picks?

In the last 10 years they've won 70 regular season games out of 160 games, that is a winning percentage of .4375...

If Jerry had that he would be roasted for it.

And that is the double standard and confirmation bias that surrounds Jerry and the Dallas Cowboys.

If the Cowboys had drafted Eric Reid at 18, it would have been seen as a major reach. Not only do the 49ers draft Reid at 18, they traded down, and gave up their 3rd round draft pick in order to do it. Massive reach. Difference is it's praised as an aggressive and gutsy decision....

Bears and Giants draft some linemen who should be drafted in the 2nd round in the mid 1st, and they don't get much criticism for doing it. The Cowboys have no choice but to draft a center at 31 (and they are brought over the coals for doing it). Not nearly as much of a reach, and they turned it into another 3rd round draft pick (which many people had a 2nd round grade on), and all that can be talked about is that they didn't get the value they should have. According to a chart THEY created in the early 90s, that has in fact changed over time.

But alas... reality is not kind to the Cowboys.

 

[Miller]

I never turned the conversation into anything. Read back the flow of the conversation. It's been said before, but your side of this argument has moved the goal post.

I think there is enough evidence to support that the 49ers are NOT a better run organization than the Cowboys. Does the 49ers having two strong years, after a history of being absolutely terrible through out the last decade mean that they're a better run organization? Or is it easier to win when you stockpile early draft picks?

In the last 10 years they've won 70 regular season games out of 160 games, that is a winning percentage of .4375...

If Jerry had that he would be roasted for it.

And that is the double standard and confirmation bias that surrounds Jerry and the Dallas Cowboys.

If the Cowboys had drafted Eric Reid at 18, it would have been seen as a major reach. Not only do the 49ers draft Reid at 18, they traded down, and gave up their 3rd round draft pick in order to do it. Massive reach. Difference is it's praised as an aggressive and gutsy decision....

Bears and Giants draft some linemen who should be drafted in the 2nd round in the mid 1st, and they don't get much criticism for doing it. The Cowboys have no choice but to draft a center at 31 (and they are brought over the coals for doing it). Not nearly as much of a reach, and they turned it into another 3rd round draft pick (which many people had a 2nd round grade on), and all that can be talked about is that they didn't get the value they should have. According to a chart THEY created in the early 90s, that has in fact changed over time.

But alas... reality is not kind to the Cowboys.

This post is so full of the usual crying excuses sprinkled with "everyone hates us" bs. The 49ers are getting credit because they woke up, hired a real coach, put things in his hands and went on their way. They went from one of the worst teams to a top team overnight because they changed the culture with their coach. They then used extra draft picks to fill holes. A 3rd to move up 13 is a steal when you were just in the SB.

Jerry doesn't get the benefit because the culture is the same as it is every year...hired a coach in waiting who wasn't a great O Coordinator and who has made horrible game time decisions; taking over the draft; underplaying the Oline, etc. it's a joke.

Here is what I'll never get...I started watching in 1975-1976. In the midst of this era to Jimmy's we had winning seasons 26 of 31 years. We were Americas Team. We expected excellence. Now we have 17 years of .500 with a few good years sprinkled in and people seem fine with it. They make excuses despite a bad 3 year run right now. Jerry is supposed to be this smart business man but he FAILs Business 101 which says stick with the model that brought success. The Jimmy years. Instead he thought he could do it himself and here we are! Yet people are just supposed to sweep it all under the rug, ignore the gaffs and the media should be kind. The only time Jerry woke up is with Parcells. Was it perfect? No. But the team started coming out if the Campo days and things stabilized and started to improve.

We are one of only 6 teams in the WHOLE league to have 0-1 playoff wins in this down period. This isn't Americas Team or anything special. This is bad to mediocre. AND we are in a league filled with parity where luck changes year to year...except for us where we find a way just to be right in the middle. Sorry if people want to expect more and see Jerry actually go back to a winning business model. I refuse to expect less and until his plan starts producing more, this is what you'll see written here. It's not like we don't want wins and just want to rip Jerry.

 

[coogrfan]

So anything short of requiring higher math should just be dumbed down to gross characterizations, cliche's, and meme's?

His track record is mostly told as "DERP DERP .500 over my cherry picked range DERP." That .500 is the characterized as "absolutely terrible." To me .500 is the very definition of average. In fact if you were to take the average W/L of all the games played in all professional sports ever you would get .500.

But hey who cares about an objective standard? That's too analytical and that is only worthwhile in engineering and particle physics. As an engineer I think that is absolutely asinine.

One playoff win since the start of the 1996 season. O-n-e.

For the analytically challenged, our state's other NFL team has twice as many postseason wins in that time period...and they didn't even exist prior to 2002.

There is not another franchise anywhere in pro sports where a gm could fail as totally and for as long as JJ has and still have a job. I guess that means we're special.

 

[TheDude]

Why are the 49ers relevant here?

Jed York or Denise Debartolo aren't the GMs, Trent Baalke is. Has been for 2 seasons.

The whole operation really is dysfunctional. It was crystallized when Barry Switzer hoisted that final SB trophy and proclaimed to Jerry "We did it our way BABAY"

Jerry the GM needs credit, he sees other GMs get credit (likel Baalke and Newsome, Reese) and he thinks he has the same skillset as they do. The problem is Jerry the GM can afford to be cute and try to make "blockbuster" moves because the owner will finance his every whim.

Jerry is a great owner in terms of marketing, wanting to win, being willing to invest etc. But roles have to be defined in business and you have to make correct hires. If anyone was an owner of a $B business, he/she likely would not be the one determining the hires for all of accounting, sales, HR, IT, etc. Good executives hire the best and let them implement their strategy that best meets the vision of the organization.

If the Chief Sales Officer decided that 2 former baseball players were the best candidates to be groomed for SVP of sales, he CEO would hold the CSO responsible if that move didn't work out

I think anyone would be hard pressed to find another GM who would take the most important position in the game and think Hutchinson and Henson were the answers. that move alone is really unfathomable. Let alone the same GM drafted Quincy Carter - another failed baseball player.

So Parcells comes in, somehow wins with QC. Hutchinson was released in favor of Henson. Romo was an afterthought as the 3rd stringer and that was a Sean Payton play. Romo being on the team had very little to do with GM Jerry in 2004.

Also, Nepotism is rarely a recipe for success in any business. The best companies have accountability as part of their vision.

 

[CF74]

Jerry the GM needs credit, he sees other GMs get credit (likel Baalke and Newsome, Reese) and he thinks he has the same skillset as they do. The problem is Jerry the GM can afford to be cute and try to make "blockbuster" moves because the owner will finance his every whim.


The best companies have accountability as part of their vision.

Yeah when his gambles fail he has nobody to answer to except maybe the media and the fans backlash..

He needs better advisors, better luck, and a little more patience. No more trading away two 1st rounders for a vet WR that can put us in the super bowl type of moves...

And whoever got in his ear and told him he could get far with bad o-line needs to come back and tell him they were just being facetious....