How bad is Jerry Jones?

[Galian Beast]

There are multiple constants. You have used your confirmation bias to select one as sole cause it seems.

Here is a logical refutation. Jerry Jones has been GM for more than 17 years. He bought the Cowboys in 1989 and has been the GM ever since. We have won 3 Super Bowls with him as the GM. Therefor Jerry Jones as GM does not prevent the team from winning the Super Bowl.

Personally, I don't think that it is that simple.

Isn't it also telling that they choose as their benchmark after the team fell apart to start judging Jerry?

It's like outside of all the positive work you did, what have you done? It's already disingenuous.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Actually he broke down how you analyze something. And rather than directly respond to that you came up with more straw man arguments.

You want to compare winning percentages? Okay... How many teams are above 500 in the last 17 years?

He doesn't speak for me, nor do you. I don't make excuses for the team.

Used to do that long ago when I defended Jerry on this very site to the original crew that posted here. I don't give a flying whit what other teams do. I do not need to pad the excuse for this team by looking at other teams.

I want the team to win. I do so without prejudice. I am not ashamed to say I am tired of this .500 ball club results. Because to me, .500 and .100 are the same winning percentages. The only difference is the draft slot.

But what I'd ask you was your comments during the three 5-11 seasons of Campo and how you justified that?

There is a great deal of hypocrisy going on during this raging argument over the last few years.

To suggest .500 is acceptable because you don't judge makes me ask why you watch.

If winning isn't the point, then what is the point?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And 2Deep demonstrates exactly what I am talking about. Set a desired outcome and anything else is to be identified as undesirable.

.500 is the same as .100. It is all about what he wants it to be instead of what it actually is.

Oh and if you don't care about what other teams do, 2deep, then I hope to never see you talk about "any other team would fire him" or comparatives like "worst," "best," etc relative to the league.

 

[Dodger12]

How does Jerry stack up against the rest of the teams in the last 17 years? Is he 32nd?

Is that how you qualify success? Being mentioned with the likes of the Bengals or the Browns is now acceptable?

I don't give a rats back-end how Jerry "stacks up" with other teams. I care about this team. It's the Cowboys, mentioned in the same breath as the Lakers and the Yanks, all storied franchises. .500 should not be acceptable in any way, shape or form.

The only NFC teams that haven't been to an NFC Championship game longer than the Cowboys are the Commanders and Detroit. In other words, every other NFC team, with the exception of Detroit and and the Skins, have appeared in an NFC Championship game since the the last time the Boys were in one. That's acceptable? Is the fact that we're .500 somehow supposed to make this OK?

In the AFC it's the Bengals, Browns, Bills, Dolphins and Chiefs. That's some exclusive company for this franchise to be in, especially considering we're in an age of salary cap and parity.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is that how you qualify success? Being mentioned with the likes of the Bengals or the Browns is now acceptable?

I don't give a rats back-end how Jerry "stacks up" with other teams. I care about this team. It's the Cowboys, mentioned in the same breath as the Lakers and the Yanks, all storied franchises. .500 should not be acceptable in any way, shape or form.

The only NFC teams that haven't been to an NFC Championship game longer than the Cowboys are the Commanders and Detroit. In other words, every other NFC team, with the exception of Detroit and and the Skins, have appeared in an NFC Championship game since the the last time the Boys were in one. That's acceptable? Is the fact that we're .500 somehow supposed to make this OK?

In the AFC it's the Bengals, Browns, Bills, Dolphins and Chiefs. That's some exclusive company for this franchise to be in, especially considering we're in an age of salary cap and parity.

You say you don't care about any other teams and with the same brain immediately set an arbitrary standard and compare it to other teams.

I'm done with this. I think I have demonstrated very clearly what I have to say and there is no point going on with it.

 

[Dodger12]

There are multiple constants. You have used your confirmation bias to select one as sole cause it seems.

Here is a logical refutation. Jerry Jones has been GM for more than 17 years. He bought the Cowboys in 1989 and has been the GM ever since. We have won 3 Super Bowls with him as the GM. Therefor Jerry Jones as GM does not prevent the team from winning the Super Bowl.

Personally, I don't think that it is that simple.

Well, you're whole premise is wrong so lets not go around in circles. We're just on opposite ends of the spectrum.

 

[Dodger12]

Isn't it also telling that they choose as their benchmark after the team fell apart to start judging Jerry?

Not really, the team started to erode after Jimmy left and Jerry was large and in charge. Even Jerry has said that if he wasn't the owner he'd have been fired as the GM. It's so simple that even Jerry can admit it. Question is, why can't you?

 

[Galian Beast]

Not really, the team started to erode after Jimmy left and Jerry was large and in charge. Even Jerry has said that if he wasn't the owner he'd have been fired as the GM. It's so simple that even Jerry can admit it. Question is, why can't you?

If Jimmy is the secret to success, how did Jimmy do without Jerry?

I think Jerry would have been fired, because most people are fired when a team doesn't have resounding success. It's not necessarily a reflection of them and their work ethic, but mostly about a desire to change overall.

The fact is there are still many teams in the league who have never won a super bowl let alone 3. The fact is many teams in the league have their own share of problems. The reality is that you have created an unfair benchmark, no matter what Jerry does outside of winning a super bowl, you would call him a failure.

 

[Dodger12]

You say you don't care about any other teams and with the same brain immediately set an arbitrary standard and compare it to other teams.

I'm done with this. I think I have demonstrated very clearly what I have to say and there is no point going on with it.

It's not an arbitrary standard. It's a fact. I was asked how Jerry compared to other teams the past 17 years and I answered the question.

For a guy who wants to sound bright in this thread going off on some statistical tangent BS, you've proven very little. But I'll give you credit for thinking outside the box, it's certainly a new angle.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, you're whole premise is wrong so lets not go around in circles. We're just on opposite ends of the spectrum.

What do you think my premise is?

The only conclusion that I have made is that over the cherry picked range of 17 years the Cowboys winning percentage is identical to league average.

My premise to that is from observation of wins and losses.

Is the premise that Jerry is the GM since 1989 wrong? Is that what you mean.

 

[Dodger12]

If Jimmy is the secret to success, how did Jimmy do without Jerry?

I think Jerry would have been fired, because most people are fired when a team doesn't have resounding success. It's not necessarily a reflection of them and their work ethic, but mostly about a desire to change overall.

The fact is there are still many teams in the league who have never won a super bowl let alone 3. The fact is many teams in the league have their own share of problems. The reality is that you have created an unfair benchmark, no matter what Jerry does outside of winning a super bowl, you would call him a failure.

I didn't create the benchmark for this team. It was America's Team long before Jerry bought it. It was a storied franchise long before Jerry bought it. It playing in (and won Super Bowls) long before Jerry bought it.

People get fired because they fail. It has nothing to do with work ethic or whether or not Jerry's a good guy. He's been an utter failure the day he took over full reign of the team and a quality HC and talent evaluator left the organization.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It's not an arbitrary standard. It's a fact. I was asked how Jerry compared to other teams the past 17 years and I answered the question.

For a guy who wants to sound bright in this thread going off on some statistical tangent BS, you've proven very little. But I'll give you credit for thinking outside the box, it's certainly a new angle.

:laugh2: "wants to sound bright"

You guys crack me up. Follow my post history. I have talked like this for a decade. If it sounds "bright" to you then so be it. Sorry if my vocabulary and empirical approach bothers you.

You were asked how he stacked up in wins and losses over the last 17 years. You moved the goalposts to your standard of NFCCG appearances.

That is the very definition of arbitrary.

ar·bi·trar·y
/ˈärbiˌtrerē/
Adjective

Based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Isn't it also telling that they choose as their benchmark after the team fell apart to start judging Jerry?

It's like outside of all the positive work you did, what have you done? It's already disingenuous.

It's confirmation bias plain and simple. When I say it they don't deny it. I am just told that I am trying "sound smart."

 

[Dodger12]

You were asked how he stacked up in wins and losses over the last 17 years.

No Fuzz, I wasn't asked about wins and losses. I was asked in more general terms about how Jerry stacks up against the rest of the teams in the last 17 years. Again, your premise is incorrect but keep trying.

How does Jerry stack up against the rest of the teams in the last 17 years? Is he 32nd?

 

[Galian Beast]

I didn't create the benchmark for this team. It was America's Team long before Jerry bought it. It was a storied franchise long before Jerry bought it. It playing in (and won Super Bowls) long before Jerry bought it.

People get fired because they fail. It has nothing to do with work ethic or whether or not Jerry's a good guy. He's been an utter failure the day he took over full reign of the team and a quality HC and talent evaluator left the organization.

The Cowboys couldn't even make it to .500 before Jerry bought the team. From 1986 it was all sub 500 seasons. The team had won TWO super bowls before Jerry. They have won THREE with him. They dominated the 90s, and I believe no quarterback had a better decade winning percentage than Troy Aikman. I think Brady might have surpassed that.

The Cowboys were America's Team, but the last time they won a super bowl before Jerry was 1977...

 

[Dodger12]

It's confirmation bias plain and simple. When I say it they don't deny it. I am just told that I am trying "sound smart."

Pot, meet kettle. You using a .500 record as some sort of barometer is confirmation bias at it's finest. The only difference is that I set my standards just a tad bit higher, you know, like playoff wins, NFCCG appearances and SB's.

 

[TwoDeep3]

You done crying?

Different people have different standards as to what things are 'about.' There are youth athletic programs that do not even keep score.

This is besides the point and apparently it escaped you that my basis for finding the average was winning percentage.

My signature is a comment about behavior. Did I call you a cynic? No, I did not. I am very careful to not call anyone a cynic here just as I am very careful not to call anyone out as a coward or any other personal attack. If you identify with the signature then that is on you and not me. Introspection is important.

And I find it funny that you try and denigrate my post on the basis of "intelligent sounding comments." As opposed to what? "Stupid sounding comments?" It is what it is. If that "sounds intelligent" then so be it.

I think and talk like that except for with children. Would you prefer I treat you like a child?

What is very telling though is that you do not even attempt to refute any of what I said. Again, it is what it is.

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.

 

[Galian Beast]

No Fuzz, I wasn't asked about wins and losses. I was asked in more general terms about how Jerry stacks up against the rest of the teams in the last 17 years. Again, your premise is incorrect but keep trying.

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

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Pot, meet kettle. You using a .500 record as some sort of barometer is confirmation bias at it's finest. The only difference is that I set my standards just a tad bit higher, you know, like playoff wins, NFCCG appearances and SB's.

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.

3. A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others.

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.

 

[Dodger12]

The Cowboys couldn't even make it to .500 before Jerry bought the team. From 1986 it was all sub 500 seasons. The team had won TWO super bowls before Jerry. They have won THREE with him. They dominated the 90s, and I believe no quarterback had a better decade winning percentage than Troy Aikman. I think Brady might have surpassed that.

GB, you need to stop at some point. I'm not trying to be disrespectful but maybe you're too young to have been alive or a fan back then.

The 1986 season was the first one with a losing record since 1965. That's a record that will never be broken, not even close. They were in three straight NFCCG's in the early 80's. They were always in the mix even when the dynasty started to crumble and poor ownership too over the team.

You make it sound like Jerry invented the Cowboys or defined them. Not even close.

I have no issue with a downturn after the 90's dynasty. It was or at least should have been expected when the team started to be dismantled and the triplets aged. But at some point you have to do what a GM does and that's re-stock the shelves with NFL caliber talent and NFL caliber HC's to lead the team. This is where Jerry has been an abject failure with the exception of Johnson and Parcells, who Jerry needed to help build his shiny new stadium.