Jones Says Record Won't Be Deciding Factor For Garrett

[bvhawkeye]

Lets get some good players on the roster. It is amazing how coaches look when there is high caliber talent on the roster.

it's also amazing how lesser talent looks with a competent coaching staff

 

[5Stars]

Ok, let's make test 10 years the clear guideline.

He head coaches here for 10 years, you win. He doesn't, I win.

Although another year of mediocrity and him sticking around may drive me away so you may gave to track me down!

Why don't you two just go out and buy yourselves a steak dinner! Hell, in 10 years both of you might not even be around! lol

 

[tantrix1969]

Some did, that is true. However, not all teams are the same. The current coach, Harbaugh in SF would not have come to the Cowboys and had the same success that he had in SF.

The same way that had Payton Manning came to the Cowboys instead of the Broncos, the Cowboys would not have been in the SB.

Not sure how your hypothetical situation applies to coaches that have continuity have earned it

 

[5Stars]

it's also amazing how lesser talent looks with a competent coaching staff

What team are you talking about?

 

[tantrix1969]

Others will get the joke. My bad.

Soon as I answered I figured this was an inside joke I missed :/

 

[Hostile]

Soon as I answered I figured this was an inside joke I missed :/

It's a malaprop by Jerry yesterday.

 

[TheDude]

I don't believe I was being disingenuous now. The fact of the matter is Chuck Noll's teams struggled at first, then became great. He's hardly the only Head Coach to encounter these things. I don't see that as a comparison either. Just an example. No different than if I say Tom Landry's teams struggled for 6 seasons. I'm not comparing Garrett to Landry or Noll. I am merely relaying a fact. People who want Garrett gone at 24-24 over the last 3 years would certainly want him gone for 12-30 instead. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

I disagree, trends matter.

Jimmy Johnson was 19-29 in his first 3 years - though it went 1-15, 7-9, 11-5
Rich Kotite went 29-19 in his first 3 years - 10-6, 11-5, 8-8 (he was fired after yr 4's record of 7-9)
Tom Coughlin went 24-24 in his first 3 years, with an expansion team, going 4-12,9-7,11-5

so the 24-24 > 11-18 or whatever obviously wasn't your point

Also, I dont think you can compare a those prior eras with even a free agency era (even "PLan B"). Today it is much easier to build a team. I would be curious if you think otherwise. Therefore 3-4 years should be enough time to cycle through old vets, have all of the "new draftees" coming up on final years (i.e. the book should be out on the selection/performance) and you should have a decent activity in FA. I can't juxtapose the current NFL situation to the 1960s or 1970s. I wish autotune would go away and people would actually try to write songs like the 1970s - 90s, but it isn't happening

No one knew Noll was going to build one of the greatest teams ever from the scraps of a Steelers team that was a laughing stock for decades. No one knew Landry was going to have 20 straight winning seasons after 1960 to 1965. People were calling for his head too. They were wrong. Taking the facts of their struggles as a comparison of Garrett to a legend rather than an example of why we should put away the crystal balls would be disingenuous.

People want results, and the today's NFL is about BIG money and winning begets more $. Jason Garrett inherited a better situation than Landry or Noll or Coughlin.

People say they like the culture change, management focus, etc. of the team right now. What doesn't work for me is the belief that they can't ever climb above 8-8. That is disingenuous to me, because that is speaking from frustration rather than trying to see the reasons why something isn't an instant miracle cure. Or it's a lack of respect for the game. I can't quite decide which. The fact of the matter is any team can be good like the Texans of 2012 and fall apart like the Texans of 2013. Conversely a team can come from virtually nowhere like the Kansas City Chiefs of 2013 did. What I want is the stability of the Patriots or Steelers and long term excellence. I do not believe you get that by over reacting to win loss records while trying to build something from nothing.

I know I haven't given my recent view on "change", but - if it works out - you can only possibly call not resigning Ware as the only culture change. I think that had more to do with the cap, age, and the thought of restructuring to add years only to not see the returns after being burnt by Ratliff. But Im open to that 1 action as perhaps a change.

As to the highlighted part, There have been way too many philosophy changes since 2011 for me to believe (after changing both coordinators again this year) that stability of style, type is concretely changed.

The only teams that can build long run consistency are the ones with great QBs and they find their replacements quickly. Otherwise, the franchises age and the windows are finite. Pittsburg is going through it now.

I obviously need to see teams play. Right now, and I come at this from a regular Vegas Wager, I dont realistically see going 5-1 in the division again. Those are tough games and 3-3 / 4-2 is about the best you can hope for.

The NFC West is stacked I can't see better than 1-3. NoLA and Chicago seem to have the Cowboys number, So That's 7-8 losses that I would not be shocked by. I dont Like the INdy matchup.. DO they have a chance to win those - absolutely, but I can't convince myself that this offseason the Cowboys have improved at a greater rate than most other teams.

I honestly believe that Jason Garrett building pride in the team is what we need to return to the levels of respect and glory that we all miss. No one has to agree with me. That's their right. So I don't feel I am being disingenuous at all. I feel that I am being pretty level headed about it. I don't go for sensationalism like saying Campo would be amazing by now if we had just stuck with him. Anyone who can't see the difference in Campo and Garrett is either blind or a fool. Not that I am saying anyone is doing that. Hopefully that explains a little why I merely pointed out that Noll didn't exactly set the NFL on fire. He built a program with steady focus and his team backed him. I want that.

Again, all of this "change" and "pride" may be true but its not measurable and accountable, maybe it makes for fun debate, but I think there is just as much evidence that thinks havent changed (or have changed for the sake of change) than there is for tangible proof of change.

In closing, trends matter so a point in time record of a HC is a stat, is a fact, but is not a story. BUt the story inevitably gets written when you look at trends.

 

[Idgit]

Yes.

That whole entire "Believe" campaign was just a sham based on top of an illusion.

Everyone here who defends Garrett at every turn and just loves what is being built here just kept their mouths shut that whole season while they just secretly knew that Phillips was a fraud. Or something.

The people who support Garrett are more likely to be people who supported Wade than not. The pitchforks and torches that were used to chase Phillips around each year have just been repurposed by their owners for Garrett.

And I can't speak for everybody, but I was shocked by how that 2009 season ended in that Vikings game. I thought we looked to be a team who's time was overdue that was finally getting hot at just the right time, and that Minnesota had an old QB and was entirely beatable. So it goes. Sometimes fans are excited about their team, and their team loses.

 

[dragon_mikal]

I've honestly gotten to the point of just ignoring this nut job whenever he opens his mouth.

Headlines is the name of the game with Jerry Jones and it doesn't matter if the team is winning or losing while making them because the "brand" is still relevant.

If the team ever wins anything with this fool still sitting in the GM chair it'll be in spite of him.

 

[BigStar]

The people who support Garrett are more likely to be people who supported Wade than not. The pitchforks and torches that were used to chase Phillips around each year have just been repurposed by their owners for Garrett.

And I can't speak for everybody, but I was shocked by how that 2009 season ended in that Vikings game. I thought we looked to be a team who's time was overdue that was finally getting hot at just the right time, and that Minnesota had an old QB and was entirely beatable. So it goes. Sometimes fans are excited about their team, and their team loses.

This is a good post and had to really think back if I was as hard on Wade. I wasn't, but for a reason. He produced despite my problems with him and never felt that he held the team back similar to Garrett. You are correct in that most skeptics (me included) will remain that way despite the situation but there is a HUGE gray area of how it is expressed when the team is successful. We would want improvement in any lacking aspect of the team, regardless of record, and a necessary component of any fan base. Would you want to read discussions on how great we are over and over in contrast? Both sides (cynics/optimists) benefit each other.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

You mean the team that was 1-7?

Exactly. The same team that was picked by many to go to the SB in the pre-season and was coming off it's first playoff win in years. It was a team that had a franchise QB. It had Jason Witten, Demarcus Ware. It was not a bad team. That team just quit on it's coach and after Jerry laid down the law they finished 5-4. Pittsburgh had nothing like that. It's also a lot easier to turn around a team now than back then. Teams routinely go from last to first anymore. Back then it took time to build a team. Garrett hasn't shown anything in his years as OC or as HC that he might one day be a good HC. Now if you want to say that he's building something then maybe. I think the jury's still out on that. The defense is awful. The Offensive line is pretty good finally after the Cowboys finally addressed it. We have some good young receivers that could be good but we don't know yet. They have to prove it. And if the team does improve and Garrett still hasn't learned how to be a coach then what good is it? Wins and losses are what matter in the long run. Maybe the team will finally win after he leaves sort of like what happened in SF. I guess we'll see. I want to see improvement this year. I'm tired of excuses.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

They year before that they were 11-5 and won a playoff game. A half season later "no coach in football" could win with that team?

Exactly. I just don't understand that reasoning. I remember even the media thought the Cowboys would be a contender. Heck I even was on that bandwagon until I saw how sloppy they were in preseason and then I started to get worried.

 

[blindzebra]

I disagree, trends matter.

Jimmy Johnson was 19-29 in his first 3 years - though it went 1-15, 7-9, 11-5
Rich Kotite went 29-19 in his first 3 years - 10-6, 11-5, 8-8 (he was fired after yr 4's record of 7-9)
Tom Coughlin went 24-24 in his first 3 years, with an expansion team, going 4-12,9-7,11-5

so the 24-24 > 11-18 or whatever obviously wasn't your point

Also, I dont think you can compare a those prior eras with even a free agency era (even "PLan B"). Today it is much easier to build a team. I would be curious if you think otherwise. Therefore 3-4 years should be enough time to cycle through old vets, have all of the "new draftees" coming up on final years (i.e. the book should be out on the selection/performance) and you should have a decent activity in FA. I can't juxtapose the current NFL situation to the 1960s or 1970s. I wish autotune would go away and people would actually try to write songs like the 1970s - 90s, but it isn't happening




People want results, and the today's NFL is about BIG money and winning begets more $. Jason Garrett inherited a better situation than Landry or Noll or Coughlin.



I know I haven't given my recent view on "change", but - if it works out - you can only possibly call not resigning Ware as the only culture change. I think that had more to do with the cap, age, and the thought of restructuring to add years only to not see the returns after being burnt by Ratliff. But Im open to that 1 action as perhaps a change.

As to the highlighted part, There have been way too many philosophy changes since 2011 for me to believe (after changing both coordinators again this year) that stability of style, type is concretely changed.

The only teams that can build long run consistency are the ones with great QBs and they find their replacements quickly. Otherwise, the franchises age and the windows are finite. Pittsburg is going through it now.

I obviously need to see teams play. Right now, and I come at this from a regular Vegas Wager, I dont realistically see going 5-1 in the division again. Those are tough games and 3-3 / 4-2 is about the best you can hope for.

The NFC West is stacked I can't see better than 1-3. NoLA and Chicago seem to have the Cowboys number, So That's 7-8 losses that I would not be shocked by. I dont Like the INdy matchup.. DO they have a chance to win those - absolutely, but I can't convince myself that this offseason the Cowboys have improved at a greater rate than most other teams.



Again, all of this "change" and "pride" may be true but its not measurable and accountable, maybe it makes for fun debate, but I think there is just as much evidence that thinks havent changed (or have changed for the sake of change) than there is for tangible proof of change.

In closing, trends matter so a point in time record of a HC is a stat, is a fact, but is not a story. BUt the story inevitably gets written when you look at trends.

What you are missing is we never blew it up and started from scratch. 4 years is enough to do it if you give yourself a cap killing 1-16 season to unload the dead weight and bad contracts and then start building. Garrett has rebuilt and still kept us in the playoff hunt. Factor in the injuries last year and that was a coach of the year job having this team at .500.

 

[Hostile]

I disagree, trends matter.

Jimmy Johnson was 19-29 in his first 3 years - though it went 1-15, 7-9, 11-5
Rich Kotite went 29-19 in his first 3 years - 10-6, 11-5, 8-8 (he was fired after yr 4's record of 7-9)
Tom Coughlin went 24-24 in his first 3 years, with an expansion team, going 4-12,9-7,11-5

so the 24-24 > 11-18 or whatever obviously wasn't your point

No, it was my point. I'm saying Chuck Noll wouldn't have been given a chance to build a great team by that standard.

Also, I dont think you can compare a those prior eras with even a free agency era (even "PLan B"). Today it is much easier to build a team. I would be curious if you think otherwise. Therefore 3-4 years should be enough time to cycle through old vets, have all of the "new draftees" coming up on final years (i.e. the book should be out on the selection/performance) and you should have a decent activity in FA. I can't juxtapose the current NFL situation to the 1960s or 1970s. I wish autotune would go away and people would actually try to write songs like the 1970s - 90s, but it isn't happening

I haven't made a comparison. That's what I was saying earlier. I provided examples.

People want results, and the today's NFL is about BIG money and winning begets more $. Jason Garrett inherited a better situation than Landry or Noll or Coughlin.

People wanted results when Landry was being ridden out of Dallas on a rail too. Gary Cartwright in particular was all over him in the DFW media. Tex Schramm felt so much pressure to fire Landry that he couldn't do it, so he turned the job over to Clint Murchison. Who shocked the world by giving Landry an unheard of 10 year extension. That despite a 25-53-4 record to that point.

This is not a comparison. I am merely pointing out that results are always expected.

I know I haven't given my recent view on "change", but - if it works out - you can only possibly call not resigning Ware as the only culture change. I think that had more to do with the cap, age, and the thought of restructuring to add years only to not see the returns after being burnt by Ratliff. But Im open to that 1 action as perhaps a change.

I'm talking about Ware, sure. But I'm also talking about Roy Williams 11, Marion Barber III, Leonard Davis, Andre Gurode, Marc Colombo, and other high priced releases too. I'm talking about making Doug Free take a pay cut or be released. I'm talking about a team that goes from never taking an Offensive Lineman in round 1 under an owner/GM, to taking 3 in 4 years. I'm talking about not going after high priced free agents like Jared Allen, and making cap friendly deals. I'm talking about rolling the dice on other team's high draft picks at bargain prices. Ryan Williams, Rolando McClain, Brandon Weeden, et al. High reward, low risk type moves. That hasn't been our style.

As to the highlighted part, There have been way too many philosophy changes since 2011 for me to believe (after changing both coordinators again this year) that stability of style, type is concretely changed.

That's fair enough. I still see this as Garrett's Offense. I still see this as the same Defense as last year, just giving Marinelli what he probably deserved in the first place. These aren't philosophy changes like 3-4 to 4-3 was.

The only teams that can build long run consistency are the ones with great QBs and they find their replacements quickly. Otherwise, the franchises age and the windows are finite. Pittsburg is going through it now.

I obviously need to see teams play. Right now, and I come at this from a regular Vegas Wager, I dont realistically see going 5-1 in the division again. Those are tough games and 3-3 / 4-2 is about the best you can hope for.

The NFC West is stacked I can't see better than 1-3. NoLA and Chicago seem to have the Cowboys number, So That's 7-8 losses that I would not be shocked by. I dont Like the INdy matchup.. DO they have a chance to win those - absolutely, but I can't convince myself that this offseason the Cowboys have improved at a greater rate than most other teams.

I myself don't have a crystal ball to see these things. I see every game as winnable if the Defense can get stops and the Offense can do what it did last year.

Again, all of this "change" and "pride" may be true but its not measurable and accountable, maybe it makes for fun debate, but I think there is just as much evidence that thinks havent changed (or have changed for the sake of change) than there is for tangible proof of change.

I disagree with you because I think it is measurable and accountable.

In closing, trends matter so a point in time record of a HC is a stat, is a fact, but is not a story. BUt the story inevitably gets written when you look at trends.

I don't believe in trends in sports. Any sport, any team. I believe there are right ways to build and wrong ways to build and we have a team focusing on the right way to do it. I expect results. I believe we'd have already had it if the last 2 years hadn't been so injury riddled. I didn't expect it in 2011 as much with the change of 80% of the Offensive line and 3 of them waived. I think 8-8 given those factors is a lot better than some people realize. But that's just me. I am always looking for the good.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Garrett has rebuilt and still kept us in the playoff hunt. Factor in the injuries last year and that was a coach of the year job having this team at .500.

LMAO....

 

[tantrix1969]

Factor in the injuries last year and that was a coach of the year job having this team at .500.

I've seen some outlandish stuff posted here but this takes the cake

 

[Idgit]

This is a good post and had to really think back if I was as hard on Wade. I wasn't, but for a reason. He produced despite my problems with him and never felt that he held the team back similar to Garrett. You are correct in that most skeptics (me included) will remain that way despite the situation but there is a HUGE gray area of how it is expressed when the team is successful. We would want improvement in any lacking aspect of the team, regardless of record, and a necessary component of any fan base. Would you want to read discussions on how great we are over and over in contrast? Both sides (cynics/optimists) benefit each other.

I used to defend Wade quite a bit, too, when I thought he was getting criticized unfairly. He does have a fairly decent W/L record as a coach, and he was just an all-around nice guy. I didn't like the hire, and thought it was definitely appropriate that he be fired mid-season when the team quit on him, but I still liked him personally despite what I think are some obvious shortcomings.

The same goes for Garrett, too. I like him a lot better as a HC candidate than I ever liked Wade, but I see why a lot of people don't and can respect their rationale. It's only when posters think the guy's an all around idiot who can't do anything right, or when they bend over backwards to criticize just for the sake of criticizing that I really feel the need to engage on his behalf.

Honestly, the 'how great we are' types of posts bug me, too. Not as much as the 'what a disgrace we are' posts, but nearly. The team's been stuck at .500 for a reason. I think we should all be able to see that and discuss it without drifting to either extreme. Right?

 

[BoysFan4ever]

What you are missing is we never blew it up and started from scratch. 4 years is enough to do it if you give yourself a cap killing 1-16 season to unload the dead weight and bad contracts and then start building. Garrett has rebuilt and still kept us in the playoff hunt. Factor in the injuries last year and that was a coach of the year job having this team at .500.

One vote for Jason!

I don't even think he was the best coach on his own staff.

 

[Stash]

Why don't you two just go out and buy yourselves a steak dinner! Hell, in 10 years both of you might not even be around! lol

Or able to chew it anyway!



Maybe we'll grind it up and put it in some tacos?

 

[TheDude]

No, it was my point. I'm saying Chuck Noll wouldn't have been given a chance to build a great team by that standard.

I haven't made a comparison. That's what I was saying earlier. I provided examples.

People wanted results when Landry was being ridden out of Dallas on a rail too. Gary Cartwright in particular was all over him in the DFW media. Tex Schramm felt so much pressure to fire Landry that he couldn't do it, so he turned the job over to Clint Murchison. Who shocked the world by giving Landry an unheard of 10 year extension. That despite a 25-53-4 record to that point.


This is not a comparison. I am merely pointing out that results are always expected.

But your examples are dated. Today's world is not yesterday's world. You could only build a team in the 60s and 70s through the draft. You couldnt pick off FAs. I mean, i could say Garret's offense is better than Landry's by a mile. I can find a stat to fact it up, but it is not intellectually honest when the rules, and the game has evolved.

I'm talking about Ware, sure. But I'm also talking about Roy Williams 11, Marion Barber III, Leonard Davis, Andre Gurode, Marc Colombo, and other high priced releases too. I'm talking about making Doug Free take a pay cut or be released. I'm talking about a team that goes from never taking an Offensive Lineman in round 1 under an owner/GM, to taking 3 in 4 years. I'm talking about not going after high priced free agents like Jared Allen, and making cap friendly deals. I'm talking about rolling the dice on other team's high draft picks at bargain prices. Ryan Williams, Rolando McClain, Brandon Weeden, et al. High reward, low risk type moves. That hasn't been our style.

The "high priced" releases were easy calls as they were a) not very good or b) old and breaking down. They brought in because we had cap space and they thought they were close - and they were

That's fair enough. I still see this as Garrett's Offense. I still see this as the same Defense as last year, just giving Marinelli what he probably deserved in the first place. These aren't philosophy changes like 3-4 to 4-3 was.

The switch to 4-3 from 3-4 is just too odd in timing and too recent to think it was a well thought out plan. They never had a true NT, yet ran a 3-4, Jerry really thought "DL was a position of strength" but it was likely as as the Davis, Columbo, Guroude crew prior to dumping.

I cannot say definitively, but it could as easily be argued that the Oline rebuild was sheer necessity just as the DLine is now. The fact they had to fill 3 positions with #1 picks is fine, but saying "Romo can handle a pourous line in 2012" isnt enough time to make me think it was a proactive move.

I myself don't have a crystal ball to see these things. I see every game as winnable if the Defense can get stops and the Offense can do what it did last year.

I agree every game is winnable, but realistically no one is going 16-0. Therefore, if you are objective, you assume some losses. Perhaps there was a scenario for the Iraq army to overpower the US, but I don't bet on that

I disagree with you because I think it is measurable and accountable.

What is the metric?

I don't believe in trends in sports. Any sport, any team. I believe there are right ways to build and wrong ways to build and we have a team focusing on the right way to do it. I expect results. I believe we'd have already had it if the last 2 years hadn't been so injury riddled. I didn't expect it in 2011 as much with the change of 80% of the Offensive line and 3 of them waived. I think 8-8 given those factors is a lot better than some people realize. But that's just me. I am always looking for the good.

[/quote]

So after the bulls won their second NBA chamionship, you didn't see a trend? Trends are everywhere. Fair enough on the last part .