NBC: Wade Phillips says Jerry Jones was “good to me”

[Risen Star]

Wade compiled a 56 win and 34 loss record resulting in a winning record of 0.607, hardly a failure.

At the time if Parcell's departure, the rumor mill suggested Bill Cowher, Bob Stoops, Charlie Weiss, and Wade Phillips were possible candidates for the Dallas Cowboys. It ultimately came down to a decision on the 3-4 defense and who best could build on what Parcell's had started. Cowher was the obvious front-runner from that list. When he dropped out (or declined), Wade was considered a viable alternative. Hindsight has shown that Wade was a decent coach, but not the ideal selection for the Cowboys.

Wade took over a Parcells team ready to win. He had good timing. Then he drove that team right into the dirt and had to be fired in season. He's a bum, weak willed puppet head coach. A proven failure in two spots beforehand and a terrible hire for the Cowboys.

 

[Zman5]

24-24. Top ~quartile in the league over his tenure, overall. I mean, if you're counting wins.

JG isn't a god, and didn't invent the internet. He's just a pretty good coach and a good fit in Dallas. Even though it pains you to have been wrong about that fact.

Good coach would have won more than 1 playoff game in 7 seasons. Especially with a top 5 QB,WR, TE and the best pass rusher on the team. He was so good, even his eternally optimistic owner/GM called him a HC in training.

Sorry the truth hurts for you, but JG is only good at making excuses. Winning championships. Not so much.

 

[Idgit]

Good coach would have won more than 1 playoff game in 7 seasons. Especially with a top 5 QB,WR, TE and the best pass rusher on the team. He was so good, even his eternally optimistic owner/GM called him a HC in training.

Sorry the truth hurts for you, but JG is only good at making excuses. Winning championships. Not so much.

Lol. And so we get to the goal posts moving.

Which means I've won the debate as far as I'm concerned. We can agree that his teams need to win (more) playoff games now that they're good enough to.

 

[Zman5]

Lol. And so we get to the goal posts moving.

Which means I've won the debate as far as I'm concerned. We can agree that his teams need to win (more) playoff games now that they're good enough to.

Keep dreaming. LOL. I don't know what goal post you are talking about. If anything, you are the one who keeps trying to change the argument.

As I stated from the beginning, you are completely wrong thinking Wade inherited a talented team and drove it into the ground and JG inherited a talentless team and made it into a SB contender. But keep posting about how great JG has done in past 7 seasons. One playoff win in 7 seasons. LOL.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Lol. And so we get to the goal posts moving.

Which means I've won the debate as far as I'm concerned. We can agree that his teams need to win (more) playoff games now that they're good enough to.

If your debate is that Garrett is no longer considered a scrub coach to now being considered a jag coach who can win you a playoff game every half dozen years, then yes, you won the argument.

Congrats

 

[mattjames2010]

Not trying to be a dick, but what exactly have we won over Garrett's 7 years as head coach?

A single playoff game in the Wildcard round?

Using that standard Bill Obrien in Houston is just as successful as Garrett, maybe even more since he won a playoff game with no legit QB on the roster where Garrett had a franchise QB from day one.

Bill O Brien beat an Oakland Raiders team without Carr. Garrett faced Stafford and a Lions strong D, and Rodgers twice.

This stupid crap that the only way a coach can be talking about positively is if they win a Super Bowl is ridiculous. And don't pretend you'd be okay with us winning a divisional championship or just making an appearance in the Super bowl - you either want a Super Bowl win or he sucks. That's imply how this fanbase is.

 

[mattjames2010]

If your debate is that Garrett is no longer considered a scrub coach to now being considered a jag coach who can win you a playoff game every half dozen years, then yes, you won the argument.

Congrats

"Jag coach"

Man, this place throws this around like it's nothing.

Garrett is no legendary coach, but he's certainly not a "JAG". He's a really good coach that has done a lot in terms of rebuilding.

 

[Zman5]

Bill O Brien beat an Oakland Raiders team without Carr. Garrett faced Stafford and a Lions strong D, and Rodgers twice.

This stupid crap that the only way a coach can be talking about positively is if they win a Super Bowl is ridiculous. And don't pretend you'd be okay with us winning a divisional championship or just making an appearance in the Super bowl - you either want a Super Bowl win or he sucks. That's imply how this fanbase is.

LOL. The ridiculous excuses JG fanboys come up for JG is beyond real. Now JG's playoff failure excuse is that he had to face tough competition? I hate to tell you, most playoff teams are good. That's why they are in the playoffs.

Wade lost to the eventual SB winner. Does he get a pass for that from you? Or is that excuse only good for JG?

 

[mattjames2010]

LOL. The ridiculous excuses JG fanboys come up for JG is beyond real. Now JG's playoff failure excuse is that he had to face tough competition? I hate to tell you, most playoff teams are good. That's why they are in the playoffs.

Wade lost to the eventual SB winner. Does he get a pass for that from you? Or is that excuse only good for JG?

I am far from a JG fanboy, I look at things realistically. I think Garrett is a good coach. Far from perfect, but not a "JAG". And who said that's his excuse? Maybe you should slow down and think before responding.

When I see someone bringing up another coaches success, or lack thereof, it better make sense when comparing. O'Brian didn't have the competition we had in playoffs, he played a terrible Oakland team - again, we beat Stafford and a damn good Lions D, and nearly beat the Packers twice - one was a controversial call, the other a rookie QB and some other young guys went toe to toe with one of the leagues best QBs.

The comparison was bad - we at least know Garrett puts a team on the field that can compete. Of course, at some point like any coach, they will need to take the next step. But this doesn't make Garrett a JAG. There are many, many coaches not even close to Garrett's level. There are very few people that are able to rebuild and coach an NFL team, it's a tough job.

If you are to criticize Garrett, put forth better arguments. Not ridiculous exaggerations.

Wade doesn't get excuses because he completely lost the team in 2010. It's one thing to lose, it's another when guys get on the field and not want to play. Here is a reminder so you don't ever attempt to bring up Phillips when discussing this topics. This is what got him fired.

 

[Zman5]

I am far from a JG fanboy, I look at things realistically. I think Garrett is a good coach. Far from perfect, but not a "JAG". And who said that's his excuse? Maybe you should slow down and think before responding.

When I see someone bringing up another coaches success, or lack thereof, it better make sense when comparing. O'Brian didn't have the competition we had in playoffs, he played a terrible Oakland team - again, we beat Stafford and a damn good Lions D, and nearly beat the Packers twice - one was a controversial call, the other a rookie QB and some other young guys went toe to toe with one of the leagues best QBs.

The comparison was bad - we at least know Garrett puts a team on the field that can compete. Of course, at some point like any coach, they will need to take the next step. But this doesn't make Garrett a JAG. There are many, many coaches not even close to Garrett's level. There are very few people that are able to rebuild and coach an NFL team, it's a tough job.

If you are to criticize Garrett, put forth better arguments. Not ridiculous exaggerations.

Wade doesn't get excuses because he completely lost the team in 2010. It's one thing to lose, it's another when guys get on the field and not want to play. Here is a reminder so you don't ever attempt to bring up Phillips when discussing this topics. This is what got him fired.

What? I only stated the facts. So is it not a fact JG only won one playoff game in past 7 seasons? Is it not a fact, Wade lost to the team that went on to win the SB? Those are the facts. Unlike, your ridiculous excuse for JG losing in the playoffs.

 

[mattjames2010]

What? I only stated the facts. So is it not a fact JG only won one playoff game in past 7 seasons? Is it not a fact, Wade lost to the team that went on to win the SB? Those are the facts. Unlike, your ridiculous excuse for JG losing in the playoffs.

Nothing you have stated were "facts" - you used a downplay tactic first off. Pretending Phillips didn't inherent a good team, he most certainly did. He then went on to underachieve with a team he really didn't build, and the team he did try to build eventually went 1-7 and quit on him.

And I already told you the reason Phillips was fired - him lost to the Giants having a Parcells team. We then underachieved in 08, and got hot at the end of 09. 2010 is what got him fired, the team quit on him, Phillips himself has said he's not suited with being a coach. He's a great coordinator, but he's not a coach you rally behind - a lot of this had to do with his coaching methods, he's entirely too soft.

I never called for Phillips to be fired at the end of 07,08, or 09. Though, we got embarrassed in the Vikings game. But 2010 simply was inexcusable and nothing like that has really happened to Garret - actually, I haven't seen it get that bad for many teams. No one wanted to be there, most of all Phillips.

As I said, you need to slow down and think.

 

[Idgit]

If your debate is that Garrett is no longer considered a scrub coach to now being considered a jag coach who can win you a playoff game every half dozen years, then yes, you won the argument.

Congrats

That's not my debate. You sort of have to read the thread, I guess.

 

[Zman5]

Nothing you have stated were "facts" - you used a downplay tactic first off. Pretending Phillips didn't inherent a good team, he most certainly did. He then went on to underachieve with a team he really didn't build, and the team he did try to build eventually went 1-7 and quit on him.

And I already told you the reason Phillips was fired - him lost to the Giants having a Parcells team. We then underachieved in 08, and got hot at the end of 09. 2010 is what got him fired, the team quit on him, Phillips himself has said he's not suited with being a coach. He's a great coordinator, but he's not a coach you rally behind - a lot of this had to do with his coaching methods, he's entirely too soft.

As I said, you need to slow down and think.

Are you saying JG won more than one playoff game past 7 seasons? And the 2007 Giants didn't win the SB?
Wow. I suggest you watch the games before trying to talk football.

 

[mattjames2010]

Are you saying JG won more than one playoff game past 7 seasons? And the 2007 Giants didn't win the SB?
Wow. I suggest you watch the games before trying to talk football.

I'm basing this on the conclusions you are coming to - your retorts really aren't at all addressing my point. "Phillips lost to the Super Bowl champs" - The argument here isn't that Phillips didn't go up against tough opponents, again, he was let go for having a team completely quit on him. I brought up who Garrett faced when someone brought up another coach that really didn't have much of a challenge in the playoffs, and then got blown out the weak after when they went up against a competent team.

You are actually missing my point completely. You are also ignoring the fact that that 2007 team really wasn't one he built, it was still very much a Parcells team. Phillips underachieved with it - in many ways, Garrett had to rebuild due to Phillips lack of draft success and both Phillips and Parcells ignoring the O-Line.

People don't realize we were rebuilding because we had Romo, those teams without Romo would have been 4-12-like teams. That's how much rebuilding needed to be done. The Phillips era was an absolute disaster and some of Romo's prime years were wasted by HCs ineptitude.

 

[Zman5]

I'm basing this on the conclusions you are coming to - your retorts really aren't at all addressing my point. "Phillips lost to the Super Bowl champs" - The argument here isn't that Phillips didn't go up against tough opponents, again, he was let go for having a team completely quit on him. I brought up who Garrett faced when someone brought up another coach that really didn't have much of a challenge in the playoffs, and then got blown out the weak after when they went up against a competent team.

You are actually missing my point completely. You are also ignoring the fact that that 2007 team really wasn't one he built, it was still very much a Parcells team. Phillips underachieved with it - in many ways, Garrett had to rebuild due to Phillips lack of draft success and both Phillips and Parcells ignoring the O-Line.

People don't realize we were rebuilding because we had Romo, those teams without Romo would have been 4-12-like teams. That's how much rebuilding needed to be done. The Phillips era was an absolute disaster and some of Romo's prime years were wasted by HCs ineptitude.

It's obvious you don't even understand what the debate was all about. I wasn't arguing about if Wade should or should not have been fired. The debate was the talent level of the teams Wade and JG inherited. To imply JG inherited a vastly lesser talented team than what Wade got in 2006 is completely wrong.

And the notion that 2010 team was aging over the hill team is also wrong. In fact the 2006 roster Wade inherited was older (26.6 years/avg) than the 2010 squad (26.1 years/avg) JG inherited.

Romo was a 1/2 year starter and DWare was a 2nd year starter who had a good season but neither were established players when Wade got them. Both Ware and Romo could have turn out to be a one year wonders. They were much better and established players in 2010 and so was Witt. And they weren't "old" but in their prime when JG got them as a HC.

To say Wade inherited much more talented team than JG is completely wrong. If anything JG had it easier since the hardest hurdle to building a good team is having an established franchise QB and a pass rusher. JG started with both.

The whole idea that JG did a great job rebuilding the team is also not correct. He may have built the better OLine but failed miserably building the defense. If he had really done a great job building the whole team, like you are saying, he would have made the playoffs more often and won more playoff games. It was just pathetic how we lost to a one legged Rogers in 2014.

 

[mattjames2010]

It's obvious you don't even understand what the debate was all about. I wasn't arguing about if Wade should or should not have been fired. The debate was the talent level of the teams Wade and JG inherited. To imply JG inherited a vastly lesser talented team than what Wade got in 2006 is completely wrong.

And the notion that 2010 team was aging over the hill team is also wrong. In fact the 2006 roster Wade inherited was older (26.6 years/avg) than the 2010 squad (26.1 years/avg) JG inherited.

Romo was a 1/2 year starter and DWare was a 2nd year starter who had a good season but neither were established players when Wade got them. Both Ware and Romo could have turn out to be a one year wonders. They were much better and established players in 2010 and so was Witt. And they weren't "old" but in their prime when JG got them as a HC.

To say Wade inherited much more talented team than JG is completely wrong. If anything JG had it easier since the hardest hurdle to building a good team is having an established franchise QB and a pass rusher. JG started with both.

The whole idea that JG did a great job rebuilding the team is also not correct. He may have built the better OLine but failed miserably building the defense. If he had really done a great job building the whole team, like you are saying, he would have made the playoffs more often and won more playoff games. It was just pathetic how we lost to a one legged Rogers in 2014.

No, you argued that Wade Phillips didn't inherent a good team - he did.

And the 2010 team wasn't aging? The O-Line were dinosaurs, our linebackers were over 30 outside of Lee, Newman was over 30, Ratliff pushing 30. The team in key spots was certainly lacking young players, and sadly, a lot of that was on D.

Also, the argument here is simply just bad - the aging team in 2010 was also lacking significant talent to refill positions for the aging players. Again, the positions I just mentioned. The players we did bring in, Jenkins, Felix Jones/Tashard Choice, Spencer, scrubs we brought in for the safety position - If we weren't relying on aging players, we were relying on scrubs or rookies in Bryant or Lee.

I mean, who even from the Phillips era even lasted? Lee, Scandrick, and Bryant. Having aging players isn't bad, we simply didn't have enough young talent to work with.

As for your last part, you can only do so much in one offseason. I don't think Garrett has built a great defense, I think it has been average to good at times. And yes, it has been a reason we have failed in the playoffs and us switching to the 4-3 really hurt our 2013 season. But Garrett has also been handicapped due to lack of cap space to bring in quality defensive FA - instead, we've had to rely on hitting in the draft more - and sadly, you only have so many picks. Of course we've had some duds, Gregory being the biggest - but in terms of drafting success, we have been near the top since Garrett has got here.

Bad contracts have been the biggest impact on why we could address both sides of the ball in the offseason - it is just now starting to improve.

 

[rpntex]

It's obvious you don't even understand what the debate was all about. I wasn't arguing about if Wade should or should not have been fired. The debate was the talent level of the teams Wade and JG inherited. To imply JG inherited a vastly lesser talented team than what Wade got in 2006 is completely wrong.

And the notion that 2010 team was aging over the hill team is also wrong. In fact the 2006 roster Wade inherited was older (26.6 years/avg) than the 2010 squad (26.1 years/avg) JG inherited.

Romo was a 1/2 year starter and DWare was a 2nd year starter who had a good season but neither were established players when Wade got them. Both Ware and Romo could have turn out to be a one year wonders. They were much better and established players in 2010 and so was Witt. And they weren't "old" but in their prime when JG got them as a HC.

To say Wade inherited much more talented team than JG is completely wrong. If anything JG had it easier since the hardest hurdle to building a good team is having an established franchise QB and a pass rusher. JG started with both.

The whole idea that JG did a great job rebuilding the team is also not correct. He may have built the better OLine but failed miserably building the defense. If he had really done a great job building the whole team, like you are saying, he would have made the playoffs more often and won more playoff games. It was just pathetic how we lost to a one legged Rogers in 2014.

Disingenuous comparison here. Look at the average age of the starters...

2006 team - 25.7 (offense 28.9, defense 26.7)
2010 team - 28.9 (offense 29.3, defense 27.8)

The main argument people make is that the OL was older and deteriorating. So...

2006 OL - avg. age was 29.8 (31, 28, 28, 34, 28)
2010 OL - avg. age was 30.8 (26, 32, 32, 32, 32)

The starting unit Garrett inherited was significantly older than the team Wade started with.

 

[plasticman]

I have always sispectws there is a clause in the contract, an exiting agreement if you will. Jerry agrees to compensate him generously upon leaving on the condition that they do not openly critisize him once they are gone.

I just don't see how Parcells and Phillips have been totally good with the results they had given the level of Jones's intrusions into their traditional roles and authority.

Maybe Iam wrong but......I am skeptical.

 

[Zman5]

No, you argued that Wade Phillips didn't inherent a good team - he did.

And the 2010 team wasn't aging? The O-Line were dinosaurs, our linebackers were over 30 outside of Lee, Newman was over 30, Ratliff pushing 30. The team in key spots was certainly lacking young players, and sadly, a lot of that was on D.

Also, the argument here is simply just bad - the aging team in 2010 was also lacking significant talent to refill positions for the aging players. Again, the positions I just mentioned. The players we did bring in, Jenkins, Felix Jones/Tashard Choice, Spencer, scrubs we brought in for the safety position - If we weren't relying on aging players, we were relying on scrubs or rookies in Bryant or Lee.

I mean, who even from the Phillips era even lasted? Lee, Scandrick, and Bryant. Having aging players isn't bad, we simply didn't have enough young talent to work with.

As for your last part, you can only do so much in one offseason. I don't think Garrett has built a great defense, I think it has been average to good at times. And yes, it has been a reason we have failed in the playoffs and us switching to the 4-3 really hurt our 2013 season. But Garrett has also been handicapped due to lack of cap space to bring in quality defensive FA - instead, we've had to rely on hitting in the draft more - and sadly, you only have so many picks. Of course we've had some duds, Gregory being the biggest - but in terms of drafting success, we have been near the top since Garrett has got here.

Bad contracts have been the biggest impact on why we could address both sides of the ball in the offseason - it is just now starting to improve.

You have reading comprehension problems. Where did I post Wade didn't inherited a good team? I posted the team he inherited was equivalent to team JG inherited talent wise.

Post facts like I have done. Not your bogus opinions. Average age for 2010 team was 26.1 years old. Average age for 2006 team was 26.6 years old.

 

[Zman5]

Disingenuous comparison here. Look at the average age of the starters...

006 team - 25.7 (offense 28.9, defense 26.7)
2010 team - 28.9 (offense 29.3, defense 27.8)

The main argument people make is that the OL was older and deteriorating. So...

2006 OL - avg. age was 29.8 (31, 28, 28, 34, 28)
2010 OL - avg. age was 30.8 (26, 32, 32, 32, 32)

The starting unit Garrett inherited was significantly older than the team Wade started with.

I don't know where you are getting your stats but according to pro-football reference the average age for 2010 roster was 26.1 and 26.6 for 2006.

Besides your numbers don't even make sense. How can you have averages age of offense 28.9, defense 26.7 and come up with 25.7 as average for both?