Maybe Its A Culture Problem, Not Neccessarily Playcalling

[LocimusPrime]

The transmission was supposed to be Jerry, which makes the Marinelli analogy more disturbing, somehow.

But, yeah, it's a separate issue, but we bet burned by the neglect of the defensive personnel, too.

Oh sick..... That gave me a visual.

 

[Sydla]

Whatever the analogy, it's tough for me to believe we're going to put together a working system as long as Jerry insists on providing the distraction he provides. That's the point I'm trying to make. And I think things have been surprisingly stable and that we're actually relatively close right now. I wish I had a better critique of what I think needs to change, but I"m not sure exactly what the problem is. I do think Jason ticks most of the boxes for what this organization needs at HC. He obviously doesn't tick them all, but I'd prefer to see him get the time to try to figure out what those last few boxes are, because the next guy could well be a disaster and we'd be starting all over again.

You are all over the map.

In one breath you claim Jerry has set up a flawed system and only Garrett can apparently make it work and we should accept that this might be the best we can do given the situation. But then in another breath you say we are really close and only need a tweak to be really good. Well if we are "close" how can the system be as dysfunctional as you claim?

How much time? He's in Year 6 now. How long does it take for a coach that's supposed to be high quality to be able to tick off all the boxes?

 

[MileyDancer]

Now, this is a thread I can get behind. I'm not sure what the problem is, but it needs to change..

You know what the problem is.

 

[Idgit]

You never answered my questions. What's the worst thing that can happen if they have another subpar season and fire Garrett?

Let's add another question to the mix. At what point will you eventually admit that Garrett isn't a good coach (you seem to act like he is)? Or are you just steadfast that as long as he keeps pumping out mediocre but not bad results he's the guy for the job because that's the best one can do under Jones?

I thought I had answered the question. The worst thing that happens if we fire Garrett is we risk bringing in a guy who's a worse fit, dismantle the staff, roster, and scouting department, give the illusion of progress that's not actually progress at all but just motion, remove the focus on what the problems actually are, spend another 5 years not actually addressing the real problem. What's the point of that?

 

[Roadtrip635]

I think it's a combination of both. The offensive and defensive philosophy and playcalling are outdated, predictable and stagnant. The culture has been accepting of mediocrity and continues to find excuses for it's failings. As bad as it seems now, it will continue to get worse as the good young players we do have will follow down this same path.

 

[Idgit]

You are all over the map.

In one breath you claim Jerry has set up a flawed system and only Garrett can apparently make it work and we should accept that this might be the best we can do given the situation. But then in another breath you say we are really close and only need a tweak to be really good. Well if we are "close" how can the system be as dysfunctional as you claim?

How much time? He's in Year 6 now. How long does it take for a coach that's supposed to be high quality to be able to tick off all the boxes?

I'm not all over the map. You're trying to read things into what I"m saying that aren't there and, apparently, confusing yourself in the process.

I think Jerry poses a very difficult problem for Dallas Cowboys coaches. I don't think the Jimmy route is open to us anymore. We've got a guy who can work within that system, that the players, coaches, scouts and ownership all appreciate and respect. He simplifies a lot of the moving parts around him and mitigates the distractions really effectively. And I do think we're close to putting it all together.

I guess my question is why is it a stretch for you to imagine a problem that's really tough to solve where, despite the dysfunction in how we've gone about addressing it, we've still managed to get close? The idea that people can overcome limitations to eventually get a solution isn't exactly earth-shattering.

 

[Idgit]

You know what the problem is.

I can point to a half-dozen things I think are problems (little P). As far as what's keeping this particular team from clicking and gaining the swagger I think they can and should have...that swagger we saw a bit of at the end of 2014, I'm not sure what it is. Maybe it's something as simple as winning 4-5 games in a row. But I'm not sure how to explain the execution problems that crop up from a different player or players every week to cause us to drop these games.

I get that, if it's not on one particular person, then it's on the coach. That's the way these things work. I just don't really think it's a mechanics or a philosophical thing. It's an attitudinal issue, I guess. The players all do and say the right things all the time, but when it comes time to make the plays, if Tony's not the one making them, they don't do it for some reason.

 

[Sydla]

I thought I had answered the question. The worst thing that happens if we fire Garrett is we risk bringing in a guy who's a worse fit, dismantle the staff, roster, and scouting department, give the illusion of progress that's not actually progress at all but just motion, remove the focus on what the problems actually are, spend another 5 years not actually addressing the real problem. What's the point of that?

That's an exaggeration. Garrett has no say or pull over the scouting department. Jerry still pulls all those strings. If Garrett is fired, all that will change is the guy building game plans and calling plays. That's it. Jerry and Stephen will still have control over the front office and they will still pick the players they want with input from the coach.

I mean again, you are contradicting yourself here. On one hand, Garrett is the best we can do in a situation where Jerry wields too much power but now you are claiming if we fire Garrett the entire thing has to be/will be stripped down?

 

[yimyammer]

it appears the issue is what its been for years and Jimmy Johnson summarized it succinctly:

“Really, the No. 1 motivator is fear, you know, fear of maybe letting down your teammates, of being chastised or maybe losing your job. Where’s the fear in Dallas? There’s no fear in Dallas. It’s a country club where everybody’s buddies,”

jeri loves to have a good time and revel in a nonstop party atmosphere

who gets scared at a party?

 

[Idgit]

That's an exaggeration. Garrett has no say or pull over the scouting department. Jerry still pulls all those strings. If Garrett is fired, all that will change is the guy building game plans and calling plays. That's it. Jerry and Stephen will still have control over the front office and they will still pick the players they want with input from the coach.

I mean again, you are contradicting yourself here. On one hand, Garrett is the best we can do in a situation where Jerry wields too much power but now you are claiming if we fire Garrett the entire thing has to be/will be stripped down?

Completely disagree with you on Garrett and the scouting department. He's deeply involved there and it's an important part of his program.

And I"m not contradicting myself at all. I've been very clear. Garrett is not perfect, but he's not really the source of the problem. Changing a piece that is not really the problem is unlikely to fix the problem, so let's not do that. Let's instead try to work on the actual problem.

The entire thing gets stripped down almost all the time in every NFL city when a coach is fired and a new regime is brought in. It's not an exaggeration to suggest that's what would happen in Dallas.

 

[yimyammer]

Didn't Jimmy Johnson say in a pre game show about a year or so ago that Dallas is more like a country club atmosphere than and professional sports team. I don't know about you guys but I've never been stressed out going to a country club. If that's true then it explains a lot as far as dumb players repeatedly doing dumb things and a lot of stuff we've been complaining about the last couple years.

By now, I should know better than post before I've gone through the entire thread.

We're in simpatico amigo, here's the quote:

“Really, the No. 1 motivator is fear, you know, fear of maybe letting down your teammates, of being chastised or maybe losing your job. Where’s the fear in Dallas? There’s no fear in Dallas. It’s a country club where everybody’s buddies,”

 

[Sydla]

I'm not all over the map. You're trying to read things into what I"m saying that aren't there and, apparently, confusing yourself in the process.

I think Jerry poses a very difficult problem for Dallas Cowboys coaches. I don't think the Jimmy route is open to us anymore. We've got a guy who can work within that system, that the players, coaches, scouts and ownership all appreciate and respect. He simplifies a lot of the moving parts around him and mitigates the distractions really effectively. And I do think we're close to putting it all together.

I guess my question is why is it a stretch for you to imagine a problem that's really tough to solve where, despite the dysfunction in how we've gone about addressing it, we've still managed to get close? The idea that people can overcome limitations to eventually get a solution isn't exactly earth-shattering.

Because in the end, it's only the results on the field that matter. At some point, given all the great things you think Garrett possesses, wins, playoff wins, SB runs have to manifest itself on the field. If it doesn't, then all the positives you want to list for Garrett are hollow. They don't matter. He's in Year 6 now as the full time coach. If year 6 is yet another mediocre to poor season resulting in another playoff-less season, it's then bizarre to keep acting like things are on the right track. So then we are on to Year 7. And then Year 8. And then Year 9. And if those are also blah seasons, then what?

Is there a line in the sand for you? Or are you basically such a Garrett homer at this point that you will always defend him because you will play the "Jerry is crazy" trump card?

The idea that people can overcome limitations isn't earth-shattering. But we aren't talking about finding a cure for Zika here or solving world hunger. We are talking about winning football games and being an elite team in the NFC. At what point do you realize that the limitations here aren't just all Jerry's and that your boy wonder Garrett is just a mediocre coach that will hold Dallas back?

 

[MileyDancer]

I can point to a half-dozen things I think are problems (little P). As far as what's keeping this particular team from clicking and gaining the swagger I think they can and should have...that swagger we saw a bit of at the end of 2014, I'm not sure what it is. Maybe it's something as simple as winning 4-5 games in a row. But I'm not sure how to explain the execution problems that crop up from a different player or players every week to cause us to drop these games.

I get that, if it's not on one particular person, then it's on the coach. That's the way these things work. I just don't really think it's a mechanics or a philosophical thing. It's an attitudinal issue, I guess. The players all do and say the right things all the time, but when it comes time to make the plays, if Tony's not the one making them, they don't do it for some reason.

Untimely penalties is a discipline thing; that's on coaching. If it's an attitude problem, that trickles down from the coach. If we can't win but ONE game without Romo (gifted to us by a Jackson fumble), that's on the coach. The players do say the right things, but don't exhibit that at times during the game (I agree with you), but you know who has been doing that since he took over?

The coach.

 

[Sydla]

Completely disagree with you on Garrett and the scouting department. He's deeply involved there and it's an important part of his program.

And I"m not contradicting myself at all. I've been very clear. Garrett is not perfect, but he's not really the source of the problem. Changing a piece that is not really the problem is unlikely to fix the problem, so let's not do that. Let's instead try to work on the actual problem.

The entire thing gets stripped down almost all the time in every NFL city when a coach is fired and a new regime is brought in. It's not an exaggeration to suggest that's what would happen in Dallas.

Deeply involved isn't the same as having control over them.

And yes, if we fired Garrett, the odds the entire thing gets stripped down from scouts to players to whatever is an exaggeration. He'll look for a coach that will work for him and can make what he's built go forward with tweaks. He and Stephen will still be calling the shots, Will McClay will probably still be making personnel suggestions, the scouts will all be the same.

Just look at why he hired Garrett. Garrett was already on the staff and Jerry wanted a guy that he could work with and wouldn't require a major overhaul to the team.

The idea that the next coach is going to be like a Chip Kelly who tears the whole thing apart and trades away all the good players isn't happening under Jones' watch.

I'll ask again. Is there a time frame on when Garrett has to get this thing past the finish line? You said we need to give him time to see if he can check off all the boxes. It's now Year 6. At what point should he have checked off all or most of the boxes? If we go 7-9 this year, 8-8 next year is that enough? Or does he need more time? How many playoff runs does he need in say an 8 year tenure to be worthy of keeping his job? One in 8 years? Three in 8 years?

 

[Idgit]

Untimely penalties is a discipline thing; that's on coaching. If it's an attitude problem, that trickles down from the coach. If we can't win but ONE game without Romo (gifted to us by a Jackson fumble), that's on the coach. The players do say the right things, but don't exhibit that at times during the game (I agree with you), but you know who has been doing that since he took over?

The coach.

This week, I think our interior OL was overmatched and that's why they held, so I'm not sure I'd call that a coaching problem.

The attitude thing is an issue. And I agree it's on Jason to figure out how to correct it.

 

[Clove]

I'm totally sick of these soft *** coaches. My coach was hard-nosed didn't take anything from players and we performed. When Jimmy was here, this team performed. When Bill Parcell's was here, this team performed. I'm really hating Jerry Jones right now.

 

[Idgit]

Because in the end, it's only the results on the field that matter. At some point, given all the great things you think Garrett possesses, wins, playoff wins, SB runs have to manifest itself on the field. If it doesn't, then all the positives you want to list for Garrett are hollow. They don't matter. He's in Year 6 now as the full time coach. If year 6 is yet another mediocre to poor season resulting in another playoff-less season, it's then bizarre to keep acting like things are on the right track. So then we are on to Year 7. And then Year 8. And then Year 9. And if those are also blah seasons, then what?

Is there a line in the sand for you? Or are you basically such a Garrett homer at this point that you will always defend him because you will play the "Jerry is crazy" trump card?

We went through a lot of these same debates here at CZ prior the the 2014 season, only it was the QB who was the target then. And my argument was the same: if he's not the problem, let's not change him and instead work on what the problem actually is.

There's not a line after which I'm going to say "let's replace a piece that's not really the problem," no. Now, if the accumulation of losses get us to a point where I think Garrett becomes a liability and not an asset, I'd want him to go. The same with Tony or any other player or member of the staff.

And I"m not a 'Garrett homer,' whatever that's supposed to be. I think he's a good coach and a good fit for the team. Setting aside the nebulous topic of team attitude in this thread, I think our primary issues are with the owner and with the quality of the defensive personnel. So I want to see Jerry's meddling limited and brought to focus as a problem that needs to be addressed. And I want to see us improve the talent on defense so we've got a better shot of winning games against good teams. I believe if we do those things, the coaching is not an issue. And I think the criticizing of the scheme and the play calling and calling the coach stupid is fan noise that can be dismissed for the emotional overreaction it is.

 

[wileedog]

And I"m not contradicting myself at all. I've been very clear. Garrett is not perfect, but he's not really the source of the problem. Changing a piece that is not really the problem is unlikely to fix the problem, so let's not do that. Let's instead try to work on the actual problem.

Not quite sure how you are going to fix the problem that Jason Garrett is not a very good HC. Or that after 6 years it is quite obvious he doesn't have the ability to build a defense that can win in the post-season, much less get to it.

 

[Idgit]

..I'll ask again. Is there a time frame on when Garrett has to get this thing past the finish line? You said we need to give him time to see if he can check off all the boxes. It's now Year 6. At what point should he have checked off all or most of the boxes? If we go 7-9 this year, 8-8 next year is that enough? Or does he need more time? How many playoff runs does he need in say an 8 year tenure to be worthy of keeping his job? One in 8 years? Three in 8 years?

I'm not ignoring your questions here. You're replying to me with two separate conversations in the same thread, and they're getting intertwined. No, there's no magic time period where I fire a coach if I don't thin the coach is the problem. I'm always going to address what I think the problem is instead.

 

[yimyammer]

Every decision that is made, including personnel, is calculated for the continuation and expansion of the revenue stream.

Then they're **** ing up because the team will never be more valuable or print more money than when they are winning and winning big.

jeri is still cashing checks because hopeful fans are enduring the endless nonsense dreaming of a return to the success of the 90's and the residue of that success will unfortunately last until jeri is 6 feet under and perhaps longer. The teams value and earning power would be drastically reduced if they had not won those 3 super bowls, jeri may not have gotten his new stadium which has been a huge cash cow.

Imagine if they had only won 3 or 4 playoff games during jeri's ownership, he and his family might have been run out town by a mob with pitchforks, etc by now

at this point, I might trade one or more of those super bowl wins in exchange for getting the entire jones clan out of cowboys ownership