Maybe you have me confused with another poster but I don't think I ever stated that you claimed Garrett was building a "dynasty" so I don't know why you're going off in that direction. You've held that "sustained greatness" mantra which is about the only thing I'd attribute to you but certainly not a dynasty. But that sustained greatness is still hard to swallow after 3 .500 seasons. I'm not even sure a team can live up to that expectation in today's NFL. At best, you need to stay very competitive when you have a franchise QB and take your shots. IMO, that requires some solid drafts, savvy FA acquisitions and a relatively injury free season. And even then some luck is involved. You made a good post recently where you spelled out this very thing and listed some young talent and some good FA pick-ups. The cards are falling right with Melton, McClain and some young studs on the OL. But, at some point, the results have to be seen in the win-lost column.
No, maybe you need to read the post I was replying to and see where he claimed I was. As hard as it may be for you to comprehend, I was answering someone else and you stepped in to give your 2 cents. Hence the idea that you may need to learn how to read better.
The 3 .500 seasons would be covered by the first line of the post that you left out. Reading again.
You're making yourself look very foolish. Let me also keep it simple for you. You can question other coaches and bring up issues they may be having. That's all well and good. But those folks have some skins. Garrett has yet to clinch a playoff spot yet you like what he's building going .500 with a franchise QB. Color me unimpressed at this point. "At this point" means as of now and "tangible evidence" means playoffs, playoff victories and other universally accepted barometers of success used by NFL standards.
I do not care how impressed or unimpressed you are. Prove to me you actually know something about football, and maybe that changes.
And given your dynasty references (that I never made) and your mini defensive diatribe to something that was never stated (by me), it looks like one side misconstrued a post and, from the looks of it, it wasn't me. But what I find funny is that this is multiple responses to me where you've mentioned DCU. What bearing does that have and what purpose does it serve? I've never mentioned or made reference to you setting up a knock off website, naming it uniquely similar sounding to the Cowboy's Zone, screening all the members to stifle any opposing views and opinions and no doubt recruiting members from CZ. And you want to bring up the "DCU mindset?" Yes, you're a real prince.
Clearly you still don't get it on the dynasty stuff. Here you go.
"We haven't even made it to the playoffs. I'm more interested in any kind of success than this mythical
dynasty Garrett is creating."
There it is in black and white for you. The poster was accusing me of saying Garrett was building a dynasty and in response to that, I said it was premature to say he was until...wait for it...we see the results happen ON THE FIELD. You see how easy this reading stuff is? All you have to do is read the start of the conversation rather than jump into the middle of it, make a claim that isn't supported by the text presented and you avoid a slew of things ot need to be educated on.
For the most part, when the coaches you mentioned have come up in conversations, it's because some Garrett homer wants to compare them, not because people wish we had them. The only exception is Sean Payton and that's only because of his previous ties to the Cowboys and his relationship to the Jones family. Case in point is this very thread. How in the world do people compare Garrett to Harbaugh, Chip Kelly, Pete Carroll, etc.? It's an assinine comparison that flies int he face of the "process" crowd so now they invent the excuse that those coaches had more talent when they were hired than Garrett. Forget about the fact that Kelly, Harbaugh, Carroll or Payton didn't have an existing franchise QB like Garrett did which is the most difficult position to find and the biggest requirement for future success in today's NFL.
Unlike some people I do not get my panties in a wad when another coach is mentioned and scream about comparisons. You see, I actually know what a comparison is. I merely asked the poster in question that I was having a discussion with if the coaches he was talking has sustained their early success. You see, I do not want to be like some on here and see a Tony Sparano season 1, jump to a rash conclusion that he was the missing ingredient we should have clung to, and then look stupid as he promptly proves to be a one hit wonder.
Who is "you guys" because I have no idea who you pimped beyond Brandon Weeden the moment he was signed by Dallas. And, in case you haven't noticed, he didn't get it done.
I pimped him? News to me. I don't mind the singing given the cost implications on the Cowboys, but I believe if you actually take the time to look I plainly said I would prefer Orton as our backup. In fact, I know I said that right up to the point that we let him go, and I have even said it afterwards. I have no idea why you felt the need to change gears from coaching discussion to a backup QB discussion, but at the very least can you attribute me the right opinion I presented? Is that too much to ask?
Interesting. So the Niners go from 5 and 11 in 2008, 8 and 8 in 2009 and you predicted a SB appearance in 2010? So other coaches don't require a multi-year rebuilding process? And did you think they would go to the SB with Shaun Hill who beat out Alex Smith for the starting QB position in 2009? Or did Smith's 81 QB rating that year after Hill was benched give you a clue that he'd take them to the SB the following year?
Wait a minute, you don't see 2008, 2009, and then 2010 as multi years? I see it as three. I saw a team losing very close games, playing solid, and having a what I considered to be a fantastic 2010 Draft and I predicted that for the 3rd year. It looks very much to me that just like what I want of Garrett, I saw in Singletary. In other words, progression towards something. Now, I was clearly wrong about the 2010 Niners, but isn't it interesting that you just proved I do NOT have expectations on other coaches that differ from my expectations for Garrett? Funny how that works.
Bottom line is the 9ers finished 6 and 10 in 2010 and somehow folks (like you) characterize this as a coach walking into a gold mine, especially with an uncertain QB situation. Up to that point, Smith had won 19 games in 50 NFL starts. Folks can look back now and say the 9ers were talented but nothing would indicate that; not their record nor their QB situation. I remember back then thinking how horrible the 9ers were and how much a bust Alex Smith was. That was also the common belief on CZ as well, from what I recall. The 9ers were just bad. But you thought they were so talented (and SB bound) that the only person you told this to was your friend "Jared?" Did you post it on CZ? I bet not........
I probably did, but I do not remember. You're more than welcome to go look. I don't care at this point.
Get off yourself man, you're just not that important and hardly a litmus test for people's opinions about the Cowboys. Your arrogance to even assume that is very unflattering. Many folks here, including myself, have stated that they were Garrett supporters but soured on him as his game day flaws became utterly apparent. Garrett's record is a reflection of Garrett himself and the only thing that kept him from having a worse coaching record is Romo saving his ***.
You're so blind you can't even see it. You're grading Garrett on criteria that you yourself admit doesn't include winning. Yet you're comparing him and his "model" to coaches that have actually won and have turned teams around relatively quickly. Forget the GPS and Sherpa, it's too late for that. You're stuck on the summit in the middle of a zero visibility blizzard and below freezing temperatures Take off the gloves, remove your coat and unfasten the goggles. They say after a while things start to get warm before the end comes.
Believe it or not I have to go to Church now, so I can't answer or even rad your last 2 paragraphs. I willa ssume they are as misguided as the rest of this drivel was.
