Mediocrity vs. change

[IrishAnto]

His 4th season was when they (I'm including the city here as well) quit when the team decided to move. His first two years were an improvement over the two previous years (3-13, 6-10), and then the 3rd year they were 11-5 and won a playoff game). They were headed in the right direction before the franchise bailed on the city.

And they should have taken Belichick with them.
Why didn’t they?
Because they were a screwup of a Franchise.

 

[IrishAnto]

Who knows if they will? Does that mean we should stand pat?

I’m not saying they should or will but supposing the six, seventh, eight etc HC change will make much of a difference with this FO. Who have failed for 22 straight years is stretching credulity.

 

[Aven8]

I think the fact that coaches like Belichick have failed elsewhere shows that it's often about the situation as a coach. Pete Carroll's first two NFL head coaching jobs didn't go great. Gary Kubiak was 61-64 with the Texans. Coughlin was 68-60 with Jacksonville. Etc.

Garrett has not been successful in this situation, so someone else should be given the chance. It could turn out worse, but it could be just what the team needs to get over the hump.

That's why when I suggested Swartz yesterday everyone said "he failed". Give me a break, we have no idea what went on in Detroit. McDaniels failed as well and is about to get another shot. Swartz wouldn't be my #1 by the way, I jut threw his name out there. Reich or Harbaugh would be fun however!

 

[Wood]

Jerry and Stephen Jones believe the way to success lies in stability at the head coaching position. It's somewhat understandable that they feel that way considering the lack of success overall we had switching from Gailey to Campo to Parcells to Phillips to Garrett.

But the Eagles are the latest team to show that change can be a good thing, that you've got to keep searching until you find a coach that has "it" or hits on the right formula for temporary success at the least. Pederson took his team to a Super Bowl championship in his second year as a head coach. The previous year Dan Quinn did the same for the Falcons.

It took Ron Rivera a little more time in Carolina to get the Panthers to the Super Bowl in 2015 (five years) but his opponent, Gary Kubiak, got Denver there his first year.

Even Jimmy Johnson had us trending up and then Super Bowl champions within four years. However, that was before free agency and the salary cap took hold, which I think makes it easier for coaches to turn a team around quickly. And if you look at Bill Belichick, his long-term success in New England began with winning a Super Bowl in his second year as coach there.

So what does this mean for Dallas? Eight years is more than enough time to see that the process isn't what wins championships. It's finding a coach who can do the most with the talent you have on the team now; one with a vision that adding a few key pieces can complete.

Jerry needs to learn from his past. When he came here, he cast aside a coach who is much better than Garrett will ever be but whose time had come to bring in a fresh, new approach. That led to three Super Bowl victories in four years. We might not catch lightning in a bottle again, but that certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

This comes from someone who has not been against Garrett as a head coach. The trend is just too hard to ignore even going back beyond the coaches I mentioned. There's Pete Carroll (it took four years in Seattle), John Fox (two years in Carolina, three years in Denver), John Harbaugh (five years in Baltimore, but AFC Championship Game in first year), Jim Harbaugh (two years in San Francisco), Tom Coughlin (four years in New York), Mike McCarthy (five years in Green Bay, but NFC Championship Game in second year), Mike Tomlin (two years), Sean Payton (four years in New Orleans, but NFC Championship Game in first year) and Jim Caldwell (first year with Indianapolis). That's your Super Bowl coaches since 2010, with few outside of Belichick having sustained Super Bowl success.

first of all. Who cares what Jerry or Stephen believe. They both have proven themselves to be incompetent at running football team. They might be marketing hero but that's not what fans are after. One thing is for sure - they are not very intelligent. Anyone who runs a business who hasn't produced a winning product in 20 years will usually hire something with skill set better than them. But Jerry & Stephan keep repeating same mistake year after year which makes two of them nuts.

 

[IrishAnto]

That's why when I suggested Swartz yesterday everyone said "he failed". Give me a break, we have no idea what went on in Detroit. McDaniels failed as well and is about to get another shot. Swartz wouldn't be my #1 by the way, I jut threw his name out there. Reich or Harbaugh would be fun however!

Yes but it’s Detroit which is what Dallas is slowly morphing into.

 

[IrishAnto]

I think the fact that coaches like Belichick have failed elsewhere shows that it's often about the situation as a coach. Pete Carroll's first two NFL head coaching jobs didn't go great. Gary Kubiak was 61-64 with the Texans. Coughlin was 68-60 with Jacksonville. Etc.

Garrett has not been successful in this situation, so someone else should be given the chance. It could turn out worse, but it could be just what the team needs to get over the hump.

Exactly.
The FO of any franchise sets the tone and situation for any HC.
Not to defend Garrett but he didn’t organise the contracts of the players so that 46% for the entire team was eligible for some form of fee agency in the one offseason.
Try winning after loosing 3/4 of your starting secondary.

 

[gimmesix]

I’m not saying they should or will but supposing the six, seventh, eight etc HC change will make much of a difference with this FO. Who have failed for 22 straight years is stretching credulity.

It's a handicap for any coach, but there are other franchises that have succeeded despite the handicap.

 

[gimmesix]

Exactly.
The FO of any franchise sets the tone and situation for any HC.
Not to defend Garrett but he didn’t organise the contracts of the players so that 46% for the entire team was eligible for some form of fee agency in the one offseason.
Try winning after loosing 3/4 of your starting secondary.

I think it's a cop-out to believe that the head coach isn't involved in the decisions the front office makes. In fact, the head coach is likely more involved here than with teams that have an actual GM. Parcells always lamented not being able to buy the groceries in other stops in his NFL career, but he didn't have that problem here.

 

[gimmesix]

That's why when I suggested Swartz yesterday everyone said "he failed". Give me a break, we have no idea what went on in Detroit. McDaniels failed as well and is about to get another shot. Swartz wouldn't be my #1 by the way, I jut threw his name out there. Reich or Harbaugh would be fun however!

I'm not going to pretend I know who would be the best coach to hire. I just know the Super Bowl pattern shows we need to replace ours.

 

[IrishAnto]

I think it's a cop-out to believe that the head coach isn't involved in the decisions the front office makes. In fact, the head coach is likely more involved here than with teams that have an actual GM. Parcells always lamented not being able to buy the groceries in other stops in his NFL career, but he didn't have that problem here.

Garrett is not negotiating contracts.

That’s Stephen’s department.

 

[TRUTH87]

pederson must laugh his *** off at garrett. hes had 8 years of a whole lot of 8-8 / 9-7 . with some sprinkled success that ends in a choke job.

 

[gimmesix]

Garrett is not negotiating contracts.

That’s Stephen’s department.

I didn't say he's negotiating contracts. I guarantee that what he wants as a head coach plays a part in those negotiations, though.

Clearly, a few years back, he wanted to keep DeMarco Murray, but Murray's price got out of whack and the front office moved on. So Garrett doesn't always get what he wants. No head coach does. Just want to make it clear that I'm not saying that.

What I am saying is that as head coach, he has a strong voice in the room. We changed out our offensive line because Garrett wanted to, for example. We run this offensive scheme because Garrett wants to. We keep certain players around because Garrett wants to. We didn't replace the OC or DC because Garrett didn't want to.

Super Bowl coaches don't win because they get everything they want. (As I said, Bill Parcells often lamented not being able to "buy the groceries.") They win because they know what to do with what they're given.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Jerry and Stephen Jones believe the way to success lies in stability at the head coaching position. It's somewhat understandable that they feel that way considering the lack of success overall we had switching from Gailey to Campo to Parcells to Phillips to Garrett.

I liked your post and agree overall, but it's not that they believe stability at HC is the key. It's that Garrett is a special case because he's a comfortable family friend who won't rebel against them. If any other non-family-portrait coach had Garrett's record, he'd have been fired long ago -- probably after the three consecutive 8-8 seasons when he lost the final game each time.

 

[gimmesix]

I liked your post and agree overall, but it's not that they believe stability at HC is the key. It's that Garrett is a special case because he's a comfortable family friend who won't rebel against them. If any other non-family-portrait coach had Garrett's record, he'd have been fired long ago -- probably after the three consecutive 8-8 seasons when he lost the final game each time.

I believe they have been quoted before talking about how important coaching stability is. There was a point in time where Jerry Jones clearly didn't think it was a big deal, but I believe the mind-set has changed. Yes, I think part of that reason is Garrett, but from their comments, I get the feeling they would have been looking for that long-term coaching stability no matter what.

Now, if Garrett had not had 12-4 and 13-3 records, but had continued to go 8-8, I have little doubt that he would be gone. The good years strengthened the Joneses' conviction.

 

[IrishAnto]

I didn't say he's negotiating contracts. I guarantee that what he wants as a head coach plays a part in those negotiations, though.

Clearly, a few years back, he wanted to keep DeMarco Murray, but Murray's price got out of whack and the front office moved on. So Garrett doesn't always get what he wants. No head coach does. Just want to make it clear that I'm not saying that.

What I am saying is that as head coach, he has a strong voice in the room. We changed out our offensive line because Garrett wanted to, for example. We run this offensive scheme because Garrett wants to. We keep certain players around because Garrett wants to. We didn't replace the OC or DC because Garrett didn't want to.

Super Bowl coaches don't win because they get everything they want. (As I said, Bill Parcells often lamented not being able to "buy the groceries.") They win because they know what to do with what they're given.

But there’s limits to what any coach can do with scrubs.
You think any coach would be happy with Stephen Jones current policy of only getting scrubs in Free Agency.
Hell even Belichick gets thrown a bone or two each year and I sure we both agree Garrett is no Belichick.
The reality is just about everything you could change in a football club has been changed over the last 22 years except for J&S Jones and the results on the field are still the same.
So now you expect HC number 6 to make a significant difference?
I think you’re setting yourself up for a big disappointment.

 

[ghst187]

If Garrett becomes head coach elsewhere and wins a Super Bowl, then we can put all the blame on the Joneses.

At that happening. JG offers absolutely nothing as a HC. He has no useful skills other than clapping.

 

[Sarge]

But Jason was coach of the year last year

He was coach of the year in spite of himself.

 

[WeaponX]

You guys should be ashamed for disrespecting The Process!!?!

Sounds like a disease, this “Process”. A disease that takes its time, draining you slowly while eroding all you are and everything you hold dear until you’re a shell of what you once were...and the worst part is, “The Process” isnt fatal, it refuses to finish the job. In fact, sometimes we’ll go in remission just long enough to hope again...

 

[xwalker]

Exactly.
The FO of any franchise sets the tone and situation for any HC.
Not to defend Garrett but he didn’t organise the contracts of the players so that 46% for the entire team was eligible for some form of fee agency in the one offseason.
Try winning after loosing 3/4 of your starting secondary.

Switching out the secondary turned out to be one of their better moves.

 

[xwalker]

Jerry and Stephen Jones believe the way to success lies in stability at the head coaching position. It's somewhat understandable that they feel that way considering the lack of success overall we had switching from Gailey to Campo to Parcells to Phillips to Garrett.

But the Eagles are the latest team to show that change can be a good thing, that you've got to keep searching until you find a coach that has "it" or hits on the right formula for temporary success at the least. Pederson took his team to a Super Bowl championship in his second year as a head coach. The previous year Dan Quinn did the same for the Falcons.

It took Ron Rivera a little more time in Carolina to get the Panthers to the Super Bowl in 2015 (five years) but his opponent, Gary Kubiak, got Denver there his first year.

Even Jimmy Johnson had us trending up and then Super Bowl champions within four years. However, that was before free agency and the salary cap took hold, which I think makes it easier for coaches to turn a team around quickly. And if you look at Bill Belichick, his long-term success in New England began with winning a Super Bowl in his second year as coach there.

So what does this mean for Dallas? Eight years is more than enough time to see that the process isn't what wins championships. It's finding a coach who can do the most with the talent you have on the team now; one with a vision that adding a few key pieces can complete.

Jerry needs to learn from his past. When he came here, he cast aside a coach who is much better than Garrett will ever be but whose time had come to bring in a fresh, new approach. That led to three Super Bowl victories in four years. We might not catch lightning in a bottle again, but that certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

This comes from someone who has not been against Garrett as a head coach. The trend is just too hard to ignore even going back beyond the coaches I mentioned. There's Pete Carroll (it took four years in Seattle), John Fox (two years in Carolina, three years in Denver), John Harbaugh (five years in Baltimore, but AFC Championship Game in first year), Jim Harbaugh (two years in San Francisco), Tom Coughlin (four years in New York), Mike McCarthy (five years in Green Bay, but NFC Championship Game in second year), Mike Tomlin (two years), Sean Payton (four years in New Orleans, but NFC Championship Game in first year) and Jim Caldwell (first year with Indianapolis). That's your Super Bowl coaches since 2010, with few outside of Belichick having sustained Super Bowl success.

Some of the early win coaches took over teams with good roster situations. The Eagles GM should get at least half the credit for their SB win.