But that is a comparison. I'm not making a comparison. Therein lies the difference. I'm not talking about changes in the game, that affect outcome. I am talk about bottom line results. 3 years in Chuck Noll did not have them. Tom Landry did not have them. Tony Dungy's record after 3 seasons was 24-24. Bill Belichick was 20-28. I'm not talking about what offenses or defenses they ran, or what era of football they were in at the time. I'm talking about bottom line results.
Cleveland blew it by firing Belichick. Would he have the same success there he has had in Cleveland? I can't say that unless he had Tom Brady there. But the point is they built something and overcame poor results to do it. When New England fired Pete Carroll to hire Belichick they promptly went 5-11 after 27-21 3 years under Carroll, and 2 trips to the post season. I still remember the Patriots fans talking about how Pete Carroll was done in the NFL and they wished the 49ers still had him or the Jets had never let him go.
Well, were they right? My response is no.
Fans are reactionary. Media are reactionary. I'm not saying it is right or wrong, I'm saying it is a fact. Just like it is a fact that great Head Coaches have had unceremonious starts only to create a fantastic football team.
But therein lies the assumption to your arguement - Jason Garrett will turn out to be Belichick, Carroll, etc. Its easy to look back legendary coaches road and try to draw a parallel to fit a current situation. However, for ever Belichick, Carrol the NFL landscape is littered with coaches with that may have a similar and better record than 24-24 and flamed out or especially worse records and showed the job wasn't cut out for them. The Wade Phillips, Dom Capers, Rich Kotite, Mike Tice, Ray Handley, NOrv Turner, the list is endless. I cant just make the leap that Garrett is Belichick when you have the Harbaugh brothers, Sean Paytons and Mike McCarthy and the like out there who have a style, put THEIR Indisputable stamp on a team and have measured success.
You're a smart guy, I think you knew the comparison you wanted to draw, but it comes from an internal place of bias as you believe - and if I may be bold for lack of a better word - have faith in Garrett. I wont discount I may be biased in that it is myopic to expect upward trends in records. I try to objectively look at the teams situation in a HC comparison and if you inherit a top 5-7 QB, your job should be much easier than turning a team around with Blaine Gabbert.
Got cap space now, but aren't over spending it. I take it nothing there has changed then? I don't agree.
Not sure it is as much space as you think after resigning Dez and Tyron.
I agree, it was a necessity, and the DL is now too. I am already looking at DE and DT in the 2015 Draft, choosing my pet cats. That doesn't change the fact that there has been a change in focus. You talk about trends. While I don't believe in them I think if you're going to notice one, then acknowledge one with more evidence. From 1989 to 2010 the Dallas Cowboys did not take any player in the 1st round of the NFL Draft and put him on the Offensive Line. That is 22 years. Since the red head has taken over 3 of the 4 years have taken OL in 1. You should be calling that a trend. I'm not. I'm calling it a change in philosophy.
Hey I'll give koudos to the Oline focus, but when driven from necessity because the cupboard is bare it is hard to really assume there is lasting change. Much of what we all do is based off experience. Dallas was fortunate/savvy enough to concoct a great oline in the 1990s without investing #1 pick resources. That drove the philosophy for the nest 15-20 years. But the root cause isn't the round of the pick, but the overall talent evaluation and eye for depth. Almost everything came crashing down on the Oline in Minnesota 2010. BUt when the owner makes a proclamation that "I dont need to invest high resources in the line because Tony Romo doesn't need it" (I posted this link/quote..but cant remember if it 2012 or 2013) - then I dont see it as oline focus as much as BPA.
Look its a fine line and I dont want to discredit everything, as there is some credit to be shared, but there is some blame to that got us in that position since Garrett has been here since 2007.
I don't think you will ever find a time when I have predicted any team would go 16-0. I was downright chocked when the Patriots pulled it off. In other words, I assume some losses. What I do not do is assign them. We could lose to Jacksonville and destroy the Colts, and logic would tell you that the opposite should be true. Logic doesn't rule football though.
On the law of average or the law of large numbers, i think it does. Sure there is an "any given sunday" component, but Seattle is likely to be favored in EVERY game starting week 1. They will lose some games, but I (we) are looking for a team that is expected to win more often than not. I never feel that way watching a Garrett team, there are just too many indescribable, statistically implausible losses under his watch - GB, Det 2x and others. I have gone on record stating I dont assign the GB loss to him from a game mgmt point, Romo missed 2 passes and the defense ...well. I get extremely frustrated (and this may or may not be you) when fans flippantly chalk up losses to the scenario you point out above. Every game counts and the NFL is slim margin for error. A true franchise QB alone should give you a leg up. Discounting a loss to KC or Jax as not as important as a loss to NO, is a horrible view.
I could argue that there are several, but I'll focus on one. Age. Are we younger? Have we focused on getting a youth movement in here to rebuild this team? I say we have. To me that is measurable. On top of this, we've eschewed high priced sexy free agents to go after steady. We stepped away from a Cowboys legend and fan favorite the team could afford to keep to focus on youth. I believe that is just one area. To me, this is tangible proof of change and I do think it is measurable and accountable.
Age alone isn't a a feather in the hat..trotting out Costa, Heath, Webb, escobar and hanna in 12 packages when they get pushed 6 yards into the backfield is not winning football.
No, I didn't see a trend. I especially do not see a trend in the NFL. It is a parity driven league where a team can be crappy one year, great the next, or great one year and crappy the next. If you want to believe all 12 teams who made the post season last year are locks, be my guest. I won't respect ya any less in the morning.
Lets look at those 12.
Philly - new coach, obvious new system, innovative
GB - Rodgers and McCarthy - Proven
SF - Harbaugh - immediate success after a Mike Singletary debacle. Drafted his QB first year
Sea - Carroll - proven USC, Decent at Jets, has a certain style and philosophy - The Carroll Seahawks are night and day removed from the Holmgren Seahawks
Panthers - Rivera and Cam Newton
NO - Brees, Payton
NE- Brady, Belichick
Indy - Luck is an elite up and coming QB
Denver - Manning
KC - Andy Reid 15 years made the playoffs 10 times - yr 2 with Philly, yr 1 with KC.
Chargers -
Bengals -
Barring Injury, you expect NO, NE, Den, Indy, SF, GB, Sea - those are the elites.
6 left - I can see SD, Cincy, Car, getting replaced easily mainly based on the lack of truly stellar QB play and a run of the mill overall talent
2 left - Indy, Luck is a stud the division is weak. Andy Reid has results.
If Chip takes Philly back to the playoffs, then that trend is building a true pattern of results - I really like Chip's style, but maybe the league catches up.
So are there surprises sure, and time rolls on and teams fade from age FA dilution, etc. Its hard to predict, but there is a great divide between the 6 elites and the rest
Thanks for the civil discourse. I gather from a friend that not everyone was.
?? Maybe because I've had a hectic day but this isn't registering.
