Josh McDaniels

[Kaiser]

But if the arguement is you dont want to risk winning a SB because the team may not be as talented in 4 years - OK

You are the one using Super Bowls as a metric. My point is the team has clearly been on the upswing under Garrett and it has a winning record. It would be hard to argue that Dallas isn't on a better trend with Garrett than when he took over.

 

[BoysWin]

Stephen says Jerry is serious about winning. Ok, Jerry.....you should now see what it takes.....you back up the Brinks truck for McDaniels, and get rid of that red headed goof ball that we've had to endure for almost 10 wasted seasons. We are currently a LONG ways off from what we saw today in both games!!!

Now 22 wasted seasons. No other NFC teams sucks more than WASH and DET. It’s been too long, Jerry.

 

[TheDude]

You are the one using Super Bowls as a metric. My point is the team has clearly been on the upswing under Garrett and it has a winning record. It would be hard to argue that Dallas isn't on a better trend with Garrett than when he took over.

Yea, Im not playing this game. You said winning. If winning to you only means a positive regular record and could care less about post season, fine.

 

[Mannix]

-----You still think all that **** works with anyone other than Brady at QB? If so, you're as gullible as the next stupid ******* to hire the guy. He'll fall flat on his face when he leaves New England. Book it.

I'll take that chance over what I do know about the clown we currently have, that gets a free pass because his players like him.

 

[Kaiser]

Yea, Im not playing this game.

The game called "the english language"?

 

[TheDude]

The game called "the english language"?

NO the game of
1. you asking a question where you "knew" it was rhetorical
2.Getting posed with 2 examples where the exact plan worked
3.You doing mental gymnastics an goalpost transportation that winning a SB "isnt correlated to wanting to win" - or the "kind of winning to which you were referring"

This was a pretty weak attempt to save face, especially resorting to some "you're illiterate" take to mask your embarrassment. Carry on though. I am sure the board is champing at the bit to hear about how we really need to slow our roll on just wanting post season success if that means we may have to rebuild 5 years down the road (in the free agency era). Im sure it will be profound

 

[Kaiser]

3.You doing mental gymnastics an goalpost transportation that winning a SB "isnt correlated to wanting to win" - or the "kind of winning to which you were referring"

The one moving goal posts is you and its pathetically obvious I didn't say the two things are claiming here.

My post was this:

If you are serious about winning, why do you fire a Head Coach with a winning record who clearly has the respect of the players?

You know that because you quoted it. You moved the goal posts to saying the new coach has to win a Super Bowl and even you admit there are more examples where it failed than the two examples you list.

And your examples are TB firing Tony Dungy (who is a better coach and did win a Super Bowl) and Kubiak taking a Super Bowl caliber team from a coach with a losing career record who failed badly in two of his three HC gigs. And after that one glory season, Kubiak had three losing seasons.

You can answer a question that wasn't asked by cherry picking bad examples, but you aren't going to get any respect for doing so.

 

[TheDude]

The one moving goal posts is you and its pathetically obvious I didn't say the two things are claiming here.

My post was this:



You know that because you quoted it. You moved the goal posts to saying the new coach has to win a Super Bowl and even you admit there are more examples where it failed than the two examples you list.

And your examples are TB firing Tony Dungy (who is a better coach and did win a Super Bowl) and Kubiak taking a Super Bowl caliber team from a coach with a losing career record who failed badly in two of his three HC gigs. And after that one glory season, Kubiak had three losing seasons.

You can answer a question that wasn't asked by cherry picking bad examples, but you aren't going to get any respect for doing so.

LOL. So on a topic of replacing garret with a coach who would be expected to win more, your line about "If you are serious about winning..." should not be confused with postseason winning. It was your "rhetorical" question that has been debunked. It has happened. It doesnt matter what happened 3-4 years later in the FA era and with retiring players,etc.

TB fans and Tony Dungy critics gave him the rep of not being able to win the big one. He was let go, they win a SB. But the Glazers were really not "serious about winning", "they were sarcastic about winning" and would they would trade that SB back if they knew then that they would fail at Jeff Garcia, Leftwich, Chriss SImms experiments. It really tainted their SuperBowl.

And Elway wasnt really "serious about winning" by moves such as releasing Tebow after a playoff win, firing John Fox (who had a winning record and a SB appearance in Car and 46-18 record in Denver). Kubiak got them a SB, but that move came at too high a cost I guess. I mean replacing P Manning was the easiest part of the equation for Kubiak.

And I have no idea what you are talking about with " Kubiak taking a Super Bowl caliber team from a coach with a losing career record who failed badly in two of his three HC gigs". Fox had a winning record at Car and Denver, Gruden had a winning record at Oak.

But I moved the goal posts, Rich

 

[AKATheRake]

Maybe McDaniels is who Jerry is waiting to see if he can kidnap.

Remember Kraft eating Parcell's and the Jet's food by yanking BelichicK?

Jerry could do both Kraft, Belichick and that entire Patriots organization right up their poop shoot by yanking their future young leader away from them. Turning him into a trader against them like Belichick became and be the General of our Army.

You think Jerry isn't sick of these guys constantly going where they go?

They're going to be considered, if not already the greatest dynasty in the sport, which used to be our moniker. Jerry's moniker.

Josh McDaniels offense with Kris Richards defense?

Now we're talking.

 

[Kaiser]

LOL. So on a topic of replacing garret with a coach who would be expected to win more, your line about "If you are serious about winning..." should not be confused with postseason winning. It was your "rhetorical" question that has been debunked. It has happened.

Nope, no moving goalposts there!

A coach "with a winning record" doesn't become a coach "who has to have a Super Bowl ring" unless you move goalposts.

You found two examples (one of them a poor example, the other implying it was a good idea to fire a guy with a .668 career winning percentage), I listed three on the opposite side of the argument in about three minutes of checking. That is only "debunking" in your imagination.

 

[TheDude]

Nope, no moving goalposts there!

A coach "with a winning record" doesn't become a coach "who has to have a Super Bowl ring" unless you move goalposts.

You found two examples (one of them a poor example, the other implying it was a good idea to fire a guy with a .668 career winning percentage), I listed three on the opposite side of the argument in about three minutes of checking. That is only "debunking" in your imagination.

We will try the Socratic method

Why do you think the Glazers fired Dungy?

 

[OmerV]

You are the one using Super Bowls as a metric. My point is the team has clearly been on the upswing under Garrett and it has a winning record. It would be hard to argue that Dallas isn't on a better trend with Garrett than when he took over.

I wouldn’t call it a trend. It’s been more of a roller coaster under Garrett. The only consistent stretch was early on with 3 straight 8-8 seasons. We may be at the start of a better trend now, but it’s too early to tell. As for how it was before Garrett, we went to the playoffs twice under Wade Phillips in 4 years as HC, and 3 times under Garrett in years as head coach, so thats not really an upward trend.

 

[TheDude]

I wouldn’t call it a trend. It’s been more of a roller coaster under Garrett. The only consistent stretch was early on wtpith 3 straight 8-8 seasons. As for how it was before Garret, we went to the playoffs twice under Wade Phillips in 4 years as HC, and 3 times under Garrett in years as head coach, so that not really an upward trend.

They do have 3 straight winning records....I mean dont besmirch the 6-0 win to close the season at 9-7 against the 2017 SB champions

 

[Kaiser]

As for how it was before Garrett, we went to the playoffs twice under Wade Phillips in 4 years as HC, and 3 times under Garrett in years as head coach, so thats not really an upward trend.

The trend is upward because the 2018 Cowboys were one of the youngest teams in the league and still went to the playoffs. Wade Phillips took over a team with three Hall of Famers (4 if Romo goes) and went 13-3. Wade steadily lost the team and was canned. Whatever you think of Garrett, you have to admit the team plays hard for him and buys into what he is doing. The trend in the last five years is upward and I give McClay a lot of the credit, but Garrett is clearly part of it too.

 

[OmerV]

The trend is upward because the 2018 Cowboys were one of the youngest teams in the league and still went to the playoffs. Wade Phillips took over a team with three Hall of Famers (4 if Romo goes) and went 13-3. Wade steadily lost the team and was canned. Whatever you think of Garrett, you have to admit the team plays hard for him and buys into what he is doing. The trend in the last five years is upward and I give McClay a lot of the credit, but Garrett is clearly part of it too.

The 2018 results with a young team is a positive sign, but one year does not make a trend. As for the last 5 years, we have had 12 wins, 4 wins, 13 wins, 9 wins (with an assist from the Eagles sitting their starters) and 10 wins. An “upward trend” would be steady improvement in each year, but starting with 12, and ending with 10, with a jumble between, doesn’t really qualify.

But as I said, there are positive signs, and maybe we are at the start of an upward trend, but I don’t think we can call it that just yet.

 

[OmerV]

They do have 3 straight winning records....I mean dont besmirch the 6-0 win to close the season at 9-7 against the 2017 SB champions

Well, the 2017 SB champions didn’t exactly play that game with their best effort since a lot of starters sat out much or all of the game, but admittedly the fact the team has had smaller stumbles the last 3 years looks much better than the 2015 collapse did.

 

[Brax]

You are the one using Super Bowls as a metric. My point is the team has clearly been on the upswing under Garrett and it has a winning record. It would be hard to argue that Dallas isn't on a better trend with Garrett than when he took over.

9 years on the upswing, 2 playoff win's, your on the upswing is as twisted as Jerry's. JG is mediocre coach at best, take off the rose colored glasses, if he wasn't JJ puppet boy he wouldn't be here and because Jerry is the de-facto coach it will be real hard to get a decent HC . Don't get me wrong for the money JJ pays JG he would be a fool not to take every penny from JJ he can just as anyone would. Poor old fool Jerry destroys a franchise just so he can say "I did everything" all credit is his; should they win another SB in his life time. 23 years and JJ is still in denial that he just isn't a football man.

 

[blueblood70]

Stephen says Jerry is serious about winning. Ok, Jerry.....you should now see what it takes.....you back up the Brinks truck for McDaniels, and get rid of that red headed goof ball that we've had to endure for almost 10 wasted seasons. We are currently a LONG ways off from what we saw today in both games!!!

Josh already stated hes not interested in moving especially not for a OC job why the F would he leave team thats been to 8 AFCCG in row and 3 SBs in a row and wining to make lateral move and for sure we already know jasons safe this year....

whats JoshM record as HC or OC anywhere else?

He looks awfully good standing behind Belechick and with Brady at the helm, hows that work anywhere else?

 

[LittleD]

Because we need a head coach that can get out of the 2nd round of the playoffs

Jerry believes that 5 teams would compete for Garrett if Dallas were to fire him. Jerry is wedded to his "red headed" stepson and he's going to extend him for maybe 3
years. You can forget a new HC anytime soon.

 

[Sydla]

The Chiefs fired Schottenheimer after a 9-7 team lost a wildcard game. They went 10 - 38 over their next three seasons.

The Packers fired Holmgren and Mike Sherman had a winning record replacing him, but noone considers that a good move. When the Seahawks fired Holmgren after a 4-12 season they went 19 -29 over their next three seasons.

When the 49ers fired Mariucci they followed that with 7 straight losing seasons.

No one has ever suggested that things couldn't get worse if they want to replace Garrett.

But that's simply making decisions paralyzed by fear. Stick with a coach who hasn't proven in 8 years be can win anything of note because you are afraid the next coach could be worse is actually a pretty horrible way to run a franchise and what happens is after 15 years, you wake up and realize you just became the new Bengals.

The Bengals were "comfortable" with Lewis and he won enough to the point that they were afraid that if they fired him, it could end up being worse. So they stuck with him and then realized after a decade and a half, "whoops, we probably misjudged that."