Is Garrett getting a pass for lack of discipline?

[CowboyRoy]

Bad coaches don't win these?

Ummmmmmmmmmm...............yes they do!!! The guy in the picture is a perfect example.

 

[Idgit]

Actually, its quite the opposite. The definition of RKG is clear as day. Everyone knows what RKG is: Hard working, leader types both on and off the field. Plays hard, trains hard and is an example to his team mates. Doesnt miss practice, loves to play the game, ect....ect..... Basically Jason Witten/Dak Prescott/Jaylon Smith/Sean Lee are prefect examples.

What has happened is over the years its been quite obvious to Garrett and EVERYONE that Jones doesnt bother subscribing to the RKG mantra. So in the face of constant badgering by the media, Garrett has been forced to dumb down his public definition in order to not look stupid. At this point it is dumb down to ONLY on the field behavior and loving to play the game.

Which even in that dumb down definition players like McClain and Gregory and others dont even fit in there.

By any standard of the definition of RKG, if players like McClain and Gregory fit into the definition then it is completely useless and meaningless.

There is obviously no length you wont go in order to defend your hero Garrett. In this instance there is simply no defending him.

And dont tell me that he tries to have RKG's and that all of them dont have to be RKG's. If they are not ALL RKG types then why even use the term. You either subscribe to it or you dont. Its not a theory or philosophy that you can choose to ignore whenever you like and still maintain credibility.

This is certainly one interpretation of reality. And a pretty good case-in-point of the ignoring of the quoted definition I mentioned earlier.

This is another instance where I don't need to defend anything. The reality is the chemistry and work ethic on this team is very good. It doesn't matter if a guy gets a DWI and people try to use that as evidence that there's an issue when there isn't. Your Jerry fantasy story doesn't matter, either. All that matters is that the chemistry on the team continues to be the huge positive we all really know it is.

 

[CowboyRoy]

This is certainly one interpretation of reality. And a pretty good case-in-point of the ignoring of the quoted definition I mentioned earlier.

This is another instance where I don't need to defend anything. The reality is the chemistry and work ethic on this team is very good. It doesn't matter if a guy gets a DWI and people try to use that as evidence that there's an issue when there isn't. Your Jerry fantasy story doesn't matter, either. All that matters is that the chemistry on the team continues to be the huge positive we all really know it is.

Ok, let me just ask you a simple question:

Why do you need Garrett do define what the term RKG means?

As far chemistry I agree its great. But let me ask you another question:

Was there a difference in chemistry last year from previous years?

 

[Idgit]

Ok, let me just ask you a simple question:

Why do you need Garrett do define what the term RKG means?

As far chemistry I agree its great. But let me ask you another question:

Was there a difference in chemistry last year from previous years?

Garrett's definition is the only one that's relevant here. Why would I care how you choose to define RKG? Or how it differs from what the team is actually looking for?

Chemistry has always been good under Garrett (well, after TOs minions were released). It's been really good for years now. Last year was better, mostly because Dak and especially Zeke invigorated things. For the record, both of those guys had off field incidents before we drafted them, and both were guys Garrett was specifically tied to in the draft process.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Garrett's definition is the only one that's relevant here. Why would I care how you choose to define RKG? Or how it differs from what the team is actually looking for?

Chemistry has always been good under Garrett (well, after TOs minions were released). It's been really good for years now. Last year was better, mostly because Dak and especially Zeke invigorated things. For the record, both of those guys had off field incidents before we drafted them, and both were guys Garrett was specifically tied to in the draft process.

So if Garrett told you that RKG meant a guy that loves his mommy would you believe him? Are you really naive enough to believe everything you hear from these guys? The point is that RKG is a universal definition. Everyone knows what RKG means. Garrett has changed the definition as to not include things that he could get hammered for by the media. Hes not stupid. And even by Garretts laughable definition of RKG, McClan and Gregory dont fit. Why would off the field behavior not be a concern with RKG? So they are looking for RKG on the field but dont care what they are like off the field? If they arent RKGs off the field, they dont even get to be RKG's on the field. Do you fail to see that simple correlation? Garrett would be a complete moron to NOT look for guys that are RKG's off the field. Do you fail to see this as well?

So are you saying that Gregory and McClain fall into the category of Garretts RKG?


Now lets go to chemistry:

So are you saying that chemistry was great when we went 4-12? If so, then that would destroy the definition of chemistry.

And there is no doubt in my mind that last year (post Romo) chemistry was better than at any time (pre Romo). If you couldnt see the difference, then we really cant have the conversation. Can you see it or no?

 

[gimmesix]

That is the dumb down, pathetic definition of RKG. Do you really need Garret to tell you what RKG means? I dont. Its pretty obvious what a RKG is.

Guys who are willing to work, are great teammates

Does Mcclain, Gregory fit into that definition? Definitely not.

So the definition from the coach himself is dumbed down and pathetic? I quit because obviously, you've dug into a position and would not accept the truth if it slapped you on the face, which it has.

McClain was praised by coaches and teammates his first season here for being a great teammate. He was a leader on the field that season because of the way he played. it was clear, though, that Dallas did not trust him since it did not offer him a long-term deal, which was clearly a good move.

There's also no indication that Gregory doesn't work hard or is disliked by his teammates, which are part of the definition not off-field issues.

You are putting a spin on RKG that is not there because Garrett's definition doesn't fit yours.

 

[CowboyRoy]

So the definition from the coach himself is dumbed down and pathetic? I quit because obviously, you've dug into a position and would not accept the truth if it slapped you on the face, which it has.

McClain was praised by coaches and teammates his first season here for being a great teammate. He was a leader on the field that season because of the way he played. it was clear, though, that Dallas did not trust him since it did not offer him a long-term deal, which was clearly a good move.

There's also no indication that Gregory doesn't work hard or is disliked by his teammates, which are part of the definition not off-field issues.

You are putting a spin on RKG that is not there because Garrett's definition doesn't fit yours.

NO,its just quite obvious that Garretts definition leaves out many important features that need to be included.

If Gregory and McClain are both Garretts RKG's then the definition is meaningless.

How much do you think his team mates like Gregory after he keeps getting suspended? Do you think they admire him for that? How hard is Gregory working to get back on the field? All he has to do is stop smoking pot? Yah, he is working his butt off. LOL

You Garrett apologists will believe absolutely anything. Its hilarious.

And how about McClain? Is a guy that has retired twice from the NFL sound like a guy that loves the game of football? OR doesnt show up for OTA's? Nothing more hilarious then you cats telling us it was because he was a good father. LOL

 

[CowboyRoy]

So the definition from the coach himself is dumbed down and pathetic? I quit because obviously, you've dug into a position and would not accept the truth if it slapped you on the face, which it has.

McClain was praised by coaches and teammates his first season here for being a great teammate. He was a leader on the field that season because of the way he played. it was clear, though, that Dallas did not trust him since it did not offer him a long-term deal, which was clearly a good move.

There's also no indication that Gregory doesn't work hard or is disliked by his teammates, which are part of the definition not off-field issues.

You are putting a spin on RKG that is not there because Garrett's definition doesn't fit yours.

By the way, its not MY definition, its the universal definition.

 

[Idgit]

So if Garrett told you that RKG meant a guy that loves his mommy would you believe him? Are you really naive enough to believe everything you hear from these guys? The point is that RKG is a universal definition. Everyone knows what RKG means. Garrett has changed the definition as to not include things that he could get hammered for by the media. Hes not stupid. And even by Garretts laughable definition of RKG, McClan and Gregory dont fit. Why would off the field behavior not be a concern with RKG? So they are looking for RKG on the field but dont care what they are like off the field? If they arent RKGs off the field, they dont even get to be RKG's on the field. Do you fail to see that simple correlation? Garrett would be a complete moron to NOT look for guys that are RKG's off the field. Do you fail to see this as well?

So are you saying that Gregory and McClain fall into the category of Garretts RKG?


Now lets go to chemistry:

So are you saying that chemistry was great when we went 4-12? If so, then that would destroy the definition of chemistry.

And there is no doubt in my mind that last year (post Romo) chemistry was better than at any time (pre Romo). If you couldnt see the difference, then we really cant have the conversation. Can you see it or no?

Garrett didn't use an absurd definition, so that's irrelevant. Instead they gave a working definition of the sorts of players they were looking for and then went about assembling a roster that matches that definition. So, yes, I believe them when they say that's they were looking for.

I think they thought Gregory had a good chance to be the kind of player they were looking for if he could overcome his medical and psychological issues. They miscalculated. I think McClain was a mistake.

Yes the chemistry was great in 2015. No, chemistry isn't enough to win football games. You also need talented players.

Both Dak and Romo are good chemistry players. I'm not interested in making distinctions. As I said, all of the recent Cowboys teams have played hard together and show up for practice. They have a good work ethic, don't back bite, and don't turn on each other in the press. If you watched how Romo and Dak handled last year's controversy and somehow came away less than impressed with both guys, yeah, I'd agree there's not much of a conversation to be bad on the topic of team chemistry.

 

[gimmesix]

Garrett's definition is the only one that's relevant here. Why would I care how you choose to define RKG? Or how it differs from what the team is actually looking for?

Chemistry has always been good under Garrett (well, after TOs minions were released). It's been really good for years now. Last year was better, mostly because Dak and especially Zeke invigorated things. For the record, both of those guys had off field incidents before we drafted them, and both were guys Garrett was specifically tied to in the draft process.

Prescott and Elliott are good examples. Dak's DUI arrest came in March before he was drafted in April, yet he was an RKG.

I'm not sure any domestic violence complaints were filed against Elliott until after the draft, but there were plenty of concerns brought up about partying and drugs.

I'm sure Garrett doesn't like either of those things, but he's not looking for saints, he's looking for RKGs, players who love the game and are not a cancer in the locker room. Even Hardy when he signed him was considered to be a good locker-room presence, even though that went south with Dallas having a bad season.

 

[gimmesix]

By the way, its not MY definition, its the universal definition.

What you believe to be the universal definition is not Garrett's definition. He gave his definition but you refuse to accept it.

When Scandrick got suspended in 2014, Garrett didn't lament how he wasn't an RKG because he took a banned amphetamine. Instead, Garrett made this comment when Scandrick's suspension was reduced:

"He's got a competitive spirit and a way about him that we think is really positive for our team and infectious for our team," Garrett said. "He's just a good player, and it's good to get him back in the mix."

 

[Supercowboy1986]

Actually, its quite the opposite. The definition of RKG is clear as day. Everyone knows what RKG is: Hard working, leader types both on and off the field. Plays hard, trains hard and is an example to his team mates. Doesnt miss practice, loves to play the game, ect....ect..... Basically Jason Witten/Dak Prescott/Jaylon Smith/Sean Lee are prefect examples.

What has happened is over the years its been quite obvious to Garrett and EVERYONE that Jones doesnt bother subscribing to the RKG mantra. So in the face of constant badgering by the media, Garrett has been forced to dumb down his public definition in order to not look stupid. At this point it is dumb down to ONLY on the field behavior and loving to play the game.

Which even in that dumb down definition players like McClain and Gregory and others dont even fit in there.

By any standard of the definition of RKG, if players like McClain and Gregory fit into the definition then it is completely useless and meaningless.

There is obviously no length you wont go in order to defend your hero Garrett. In this instance there is simply no defending him.

And dont tell me that he tries to have RKG's and that all of them dont have to be RKG's. If they are not ALL RKG types then why even use the term. You either subscribe to it or you dont. Its not a theory or philosophy that you can choose to ignore whenever you like and still maintain credibility.

No matter how many times it's quoted, people will continue to intentionally take RKG and twist the definition into something it is not. And when you point it out, as you did here, it just gets ignored.

100% offseason participation. Players saying and doing the right things and parroting the things the coach says in the press constantly. Players like Zack Martin and Dez alking openly about how close the team is and the fact that they believe they're building something special. The fact that we get a 15 page thread this offseason about the mental state of the football team when all the evidence suggests it's one of the closest-knit lorckerrooms in the NFL is absurd.

We have issues in Dallas. They are with the quality of the defensive personnel. Not with the coaching staff. Not with team discipline. We get beat by really good teams because we can't stop their really good QBs often enough, period. Get more pressure, cover better, get deeper along the bottom of the 53, stay in contention, and see what happens. It's a pretty simple formula.

It's easy to see that CowboyRoy is giving his definition of what a RKG is and assumes that's JG's meaning of it despite JG already establishing what a RKG is.

Ask our local assumption expert @T-RO about how assumptions work.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Garrett didn't use an absurd definition, so that's irrelevant. Instead they gave a working definition of the sorts of players they were looking for and then went about assembling a roster that matches that definition. So, yes, I believe them when they say that's they were looking for.

I think they thought Gregory had a good chance to be the kind of player they were looking for if he could overcome his medical and psychological issues. They miscalculated. I think McClain was a mistake.

Yes the chemistry was great in 2015. No, chemistry isn't enough to win football games. You also need talented players.

Both Dak and Romo are good chemistry players. I'm not interested in making distinctions. As I said, all of the recent Cowboys teams have played hard together and show up for practice. They have a good work ethic, don't back bite, and don't turn on each other in the press. If you watched how Romo and Dak handled last year's controversy and somehow came away less than impressed with both guys, yeah, I'd agree there's not much of a conversation to be bad on the topic of team chemistry.

Ok, lets correct that. YOU dont think his definition is absurd but most do. So its only irrelevant to you. In case you didnt notice, its only a few Garrett homers types such as yourself that doesnt laugh at RKG. Most of the media and fans laugh at it. So you are clearly in the minority here. The media keeps hammering Garrett for years because his definition 100% doesnt make any sense. Clearly it only makes sense to you and a few others. No one can grasp how guys like Gregory and McClain and the Kraken are RKG's. There is no RKG definition that can include those guys. They are 100% the WKG.

And you can call Gregory a mistake, but he is still on the team. If he was a mistake, they would have cut him a while ago.

And McClain retired twice before he even got here. So NO they dont always look for RKG's by any definition.

And as far as chemistry, so you are saying chemistry doesnt guarantee anything? Exactly, so you claiming that " all that matter is the chemistry is great" just fell by the wayside.

And NO the chemistry was terrible during the 4-12 season. The QB's were shuffling in and out, they were losing, ect....ext.... it was horrible.

Are you confusing attitude with chemistry? Do you know the difference?

Its obvious now that you havent grasped the difference in CHEMISTRY on the team last year as opposed to the Romo years. Maybe that was one of the reasons you wanted Romo to come back when he was healthy. Some could see it right off the leadership and difference in Chemistry on this team last year. The presence of Dak and Zeke made a huge difference. The confidence, fire, and youth, and professionalism they infused into the team was incredible. Dak has IT where Romo never did when it comes to leadership.

So where is this all going? The difference in Chemistry had NOTHING to do with Garrett. It was a Dak and then some Zeke. Go watch the video where Dez is interviewed about last year. He spells it all out for you. Credits Dak and Zeke for everything. Not a peep about your hero Garrett. And when guys talk about the offense, its always Linehan. Nothing about Garrett.

 

[CowboyRoy]

It's easy to see that CowboyRoy is giving his definition of what a RKG is and assumes that's JG's meaning of it despite JG already establishing what a RKG is.

Ask our local assumption expert @T-RO about how assumptions work.

So I ask you again, does Gregory, the KRaken, and McClain meet Garretts definition of RKG?

 

[CowboyRoy]

It's easy to see that CowboyRoy is giving his definition of what a RKG is and assumes that's JG's meaning of it despite JG already establishing what a RKG is.

Ask our local assumption expert @T-RO about how assumptions work.

What is your definition of a great receiver? Do you need Garrett to tell you what a great receiver is?

If Garrett told you that a great receiver was a guy that love to play football, would that be it for you? LOL Cmon, stop being such a parrot.

 

[CowboyRoy]

What you believe to be the universal definition is not Garrett's definition. He gave his definition but you refuse to accept it.

When Scandrick got suspended in 2014, Garrett didn't lament how he wasn't an RKG because he took a banned amphetamine. Instead, Garrett made this comment when Scandrick's suspension was reduced:

"He's got a competitive spirit and a way about him that we think is really positive for our team and infectious for our team," Garrett said. "He's just a good player, and it's good to get him back in the mix."

I think that Scandrick is very much a RKG. Gregory is not.

And yes, I refuse to accept Garretts definition. Most refuse to accept it. Any definition that doesnt include behavior, leadership,and setting a good example is a useless one.

And then you still cant get past the fact that even under Garretts dumb down definition Gregory, McClain, and the KRaken dont meet the standard.

 

[Supercowboy1986]

So I ask you again, does Gregory, the KRaken, and McClain meet Garretts definition of RKG?

I don't answer your questions.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I don't answer your questions.

LOL.................You cant answer my questions.

Thats what I thought. There is exactly no way you can sit here and defend those 3 guys as RKG's even by Garretts definition.

Look, its quite simple. Garrett wants nothing but RKG's. If he controlled personnel, which he doesnt, then he wouldnt bother with guys like Kraken or McClain and would have probably never drafted Gregory, or would have cut him already.

Its Jerry Jones that doesnt care about RKG's. So Garrett winds up looking stupid when he keeps talking about it. If he had any brains he would just shut up about the RKG thing.

 

[gimmesix]

I think that Scandrick is very much a RKG. Gregory is not.

And yes, I refuse to accept Garretts definition. Most refuse to accept it. Any definition that doesnt include behavior, leadership,and setting a good example is a useless one.

And then you still cant get past the fact that even under Garretts dumb down definition Gregory, McClain, and the KRaken dont meet the standard.

There is no indication that Gregory doesn't love the game or isn't a good teammate. There's every indication that he loves marijuana more.

There was indication that McClain did not love the game, but no indication he wasn't a good teammate. Dallas gave him a prove-it deal to give him the chance to show he cared enough about playing to toe the line. He showed enough the first season for Dallas to give him another prove-it deal, and then he went back to being Rolando.

Hardy had shown he loved the game and was a good teammate. His deal was structured to account for his DV suspension. I don't think the Cowboys expected his attitude to sour when the season went into the tank. That plus less productivity than expected led Dallas to not be interested at all in re-signing him.

Two out of three met Garrett's RKG definition when Dallas acquired them. McClain did not completely meet it, but was a low-risk gamble.

I'm sure none of these players were ideally what Garrett would want because who would want a pothead, woman beater and purple dranker, but his definition of RKG does not eliminate players with problems, especially when the risk you take in acquiring them is not that great.

Probably the most accurate way to say it is that all three have/had some RKG attributes. That's what got them on the team despite the risks involved. If they had been known as locker-room cancers AND not having a love for football, I don't think Garrett would have gone along with their acquisition, no matter how cheap the cost.

Of course, I could be wrong about that. It's possible that RKG doesn't matter as much when the team is taking a low risk that allows it to move on from a player when it establishes that he isn't going to change.

 

[Idgit]

Ok, lets correct that. YOU dont think his definition is absurd but most do. So its only irrelevant to you. In case you didnt notice, its only a few Garrett homers types such as yourself that doesnt laugh at RKG. Most of the media and fans laugh at it. So you are clearly in the minority here. The media keeps hammering Garrett for years because his definition 100% doesnt make any sense. Clearly it only makes sense to you and a few others. No one can grasp how guys like Gregory and McClain and the Kraken are RKG's. There is no RKG definition that can include those guys. They are 100% the WKG.

And you can call Gregory a mistake, but he is still on the team. If he was a mistake, they would have cut him a while ago.

And McClain retired twice before he even got here. So NO they dont always look for RKG's by any definition.

And as far as chemistry, so you are saying chemistry doesnt guarantee anything? Exactly, so you claiming that " all that matter is the chemistry is great" just fell by the wayside.

And NO the chemistry was terrible during the 4-12 season. The QB's were shuffling in and out, they were losing, ect....ext.... it was horrible.

Are you confusing attitude with chemistry? Do you know the difference?

Its obvious now that you havent grasped the difference in CHEMISTRY on the team last year as opposed to the Romo years. Maybe that was one of the reasons you wanted Romo to come back when he was healthy. Some could see it right off the leadership and difference in Chemistry on this team last year. The presence of Dak and Zeke made a huge difference. The confidence, fire, and youth, and professionalism they infused into the team was incredible. Dak has IT where Romo never did when it comes to leadership.

So where is this all going? The difference in Chemistry had NOTHING to do with Garrett. It was a Dak and then some Zeke. Go watch the video where Dez is interviewed about last year. He spells it all out for you. Credits Dak and Zeke for everything. Not a peep about your hero Garrett. And when guys talk about the offense, its always Linehan. Nothing about Garrett.

This is where we've crossed over to the point where there's too much that's just logically inconsistent here that I don't want to even try to hash it out.

I didn't say anything about Garrett's definition being absurd, I was referring to your intentionally absurd example. I don't agree with your assessment that most of the media laughs at the culture in Dallas. It doesn't follow that if drafting Gregory was a mistake he necessarily should also be cut. The distinction you're trying to make between chemistry and attitude is irrelevant because neither are or have recently been even remotely issues in Dallas. Players and team management talk glowingly about Garrett all the time. Listen to either Stephen Jones' or Jason Witten's interviews from this week if you want a recent example. Or listen to anything Linehan has ever said about the HC.

As far as you continuously trying to parse out a universe where everybody *but* the head coach gets credit for the successes and the HC gets the blame, knock yourself out. Not my circus, not my monkies. I've been through this too many times on this site to worry about the perceptions of fans who react emotionally instead of rationally.