Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by leeblair, Jan 1, 2020.
Do you know what direct evidence is? Clearly you dont
How cute. You think you can win a point of fact and so completely ignore the core argument. You have zero evidence for your position direct or otherwise.
Direct evidence means it speaks directly as proof of an argument or similar position and does not need inference or other support. Dilfer is a national football journalists with access to multiple NFL clubs. His position is both informed and expert. When he makes claims about what NFL clubs are saying it is direct evidence.
No one is interested in Garrett as a HC, except his stepdad, Jerry!! What a joke!!!
So the answer is no, you dont know what it is.
it helps when you make such a claim that you give the definition that demonstrates your point. i would love to see you try and explain how my evidence is circumstantial.
Post the official definitions of both and tell me based on the actual definiton how dilfers trash was direct evidence.
I guess we all can't be as smart as you are.
So now i have to prove your argument? Your claim, your burden of proof. You don't get presumption.
I already gave a definition and showed how it applied.
You brought it up so burden of proof will not be on me. Your definition was just that, your definition. Wasnt the legal definition. Try again.
Many of you, no. But you guys do your best, which is cool, too.
Dominated the division? And all of 3 NFC East titles in 10 years to show for it. Meanwhile, the Giants have won 2 SB's and the Eagles one.
Any other comments about the horrid Garrett?
Without a doubt, you hold the title of Garretts #1 fan. That by itself kills any hope of you being considered smart by any stretch of the imagination.
Your faith in the horrid Garrett and his complete failure as our HC and your failure in support of him is coming to a long awaited end very soon. Enjoy the last few days of your hero.
If Jerry truly believes Garrett could have another job very quickly, is he doing Garrett a disservice not letting him out of his contract now to go interview for jobs?
It was said earlier the Giants might have interest in Garrett but they are already scheduling interviews, including one with McCarthy and possibly another with Ruhle.
Something just seems amiss with this whole thing. I don't buy the idea that we don't have to let him go now because he's still under contract for two weeks or that we won't can him now because our candidate isn't available yet. The longer this drags on, the weirder it becomes and the more likely Garrett is back either as the HC with a new staff or some made up front office job.
I suspect the NFCE teams would love to have Jerry continue to employee Garrett. Because for all his wins against the division, he has 3 divisional titles in 9 years and just collapsed and lost the division to an Eagles team that is completely ravaged by injuries.
He's not a terrible coach. He's not a great coach. He's just.......... ehhh
Could we do worse than him? Absolutely. But at this point, take the risk and move on, because what he's doing isn't working either.
To be perfectly honest I don't think most NFC East fans think the coaching situation in Dallas makes that much of a difference. The top of the totem pole is the real issue. The rest is just rearranging deck chairs.
And the people who operate them are called Jake Legs. lol
What's the significance of him being under contract for 12 more days?
i haven't heard of even one request to interview Garrett from teams with an opening.
I don't think they can formally or informally request an interview unless his contract is over or the Cowboys say he can interview. So that might be why we haven't heard anything.