If we take a L, are you out for Wades Blood?

[Dave_in-NC]

No, I won't be out for his blood, but I don't think it will matter. He has never won a playoff game and the Cowboys are on an Historic losing streak in the Post Season. I won't blame Jerry if he gets heavy handed.

Agreed. If Phillips can't win in the playoffs with this team it simply isn't in the cards for him. You can be the coach with the best winning percentage in all the NFL regular season. If you have one of the worst in the second season the first season doesn't matter.

 

[thechosen1n2]

I would. He needs to win a playoff game, lets be serious here. This team is talented and very healthy. No excuses.

so if romo fumbles a snap alah seattle, or crayton drops 2 sure tds alah new york that is wades fault.

 

[gmb85]

I'll answer this Saturday night. However, if we play hard and inspired, we shouldn't lose.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

so if romo fumbles a snap alah seattle, or crayton drops 2 sure tds alah new york that is wades fault.

It was Parcells fault, why shouldn't it be Phillips fault?

 

[RS12]

They need to win on Saturday. That is all.

 

[thechosen1n2]

No, I won't be out for his blood, but I don't think it will matter. He has never won a playoff game and the Cowboys are on an Historic losing streak in the Post Season. I won't blame Jerry if he gets heavy handed.

From where i sit that would be a non thought out decision. 1 dropped pass, and a inexplicable route that was quit on, and injury after injury in year 2.

 

[SC Cowboyfan]

I think Wade has earned a one year extension with the win Sunday.
Jerry would love to win it all next year at home(as would all of us ) and keeping Wade and having a continuation would give us the best chance of that.

 

[SDogo]

I think Wade has earned a one year extension with the win Sunday.
Jerry would love to win it all next year at home(as would all of us ) and keeping Wade and having a continuation would give us the best chance of that.

Anderson SC huh?

Lyman SC here!

 

[SharutoX]

If he doesn't win saturday he's probably gone.

 

[superpunk]

I can't say that I'd want him gone without knowing the exact circumstances we would lose under, but you can't blame Jerry if he decides to can him, especially if it means keeping Garrett.

The one thing swaying me to Wade's side is that all his players seem to be going to bat for him, giving him props as a sort of "Hey Jerry, let's keep this guy" thing. But I think we know what he is, and I don't think that includes being a great leader of men. I think the players have had to take that mantle on themselves. And it's awesome that they have.

 

[Coy]

Non Issue, WE WILL WIN.

 

[Dhragon]

With the possibility of a lock out in 2011, I can't see Jerry going a different direction barring a complete collapse. No owner is going to want to pay a coaches contract if there are no games being played and Jerry just needs to pick up that one year option for 2010 and not worry about it for 2011.

 

[aquavita]

I'm reminded of the parable of the dog with a bone in his mouth, looking into the river. The dog sees his reflection in the water, barks at the "other dog" in order to obtain it's bone, and drops the bone it actually had into the water, thus leaving it with no bone.

See what I mean? Do you guys not realize that it takes a few years to build a successful team relationship? I see this team on the uptick, win or lose Saturday. How well did Jimmy work out in miami? How about gibbs coming back to the Commanders? How about a million other examples?

Go back and look at the most successful coaches/QBs and whoever else, and you'll rarely find that switching gears at the drop of a hat ever works out. It's a combination of many factors, and right now we've got the right combination.

 

[AbeBeta]

With the possibility of a lock out in 2011, I can't see Jerry going a different direction barring a complete collapse. No owner is going to want to pay a coaches contract if there are no games being played and Jerry just needs to pick up that one year option for 2010 and not worry about it for 2011.

Seriously? Lockout is your argument?

If that were the case then all the owners who have coaches with deals running through 2011 would be highly motivated to avoid a lockout. Paying a coach is a drop in the bucket compared to the issues motivating a potential lockout. No owner is going to not hire a coach b/c of a potential lockout.