Newman, James not Garrett RKGs ?

[Section446]

Personally, the whole RKG quality is quickly becoming my least favorite thing to read about, on the Zone or anywhere.

As of now, it seems the only guys who are not RKGs are those who are not on the team anymore. Regardless of their tenure here and/or what they contributed.

On a side note, that comment alone is total TimMacMahon-driven BS, IMO, especially about Bradie.

Pretty typical of the fan base though. Everyone is the best player in the league at their position while they're with the team, but as soon as they leave, it's "RKG".

 

[Cowboyz88]

Pretty typical of the fan base though. Everyone is the best player in the league at their position while they're with the team, but as soon as they leave, it's "RKG".

Not all of us have been enamored with the likes of Newman, RW31, RW11, Spears, James, etc. for a number of years.

This isn't a "johnny come lately" stance for a number of us, as many fans have maintained that there was something afoot with these type of Cowboys players for years. We've just been drowned out by the "you don't know football and aren't a real Cowboys fan" brigade.

There a reason this team "talent" has done squat for so many years.

 

[xwalker]

I have a close family member who occasionally works with Paul Pasqualoni at UConn, where PP is the head coach of the Huskies. As many of you recall, PP was with us on and off from 2005-2010, and served as our interim DC in 2010 after Wade's firing. PP told my family member in casual conversation that Bradie James was the biggest diva he's ever coached. He said that there was an institutional flaw within the Cowboys organization regarding a feeling of entitlement and guys who were mentally weak and didn't want to work. He didn't say that James wasn't a hard worker... but he said he wasn't very well liked and really *****ed and complained a lot. Basically, not a positive influence in the locker room.

Interesting info.

 

[Idgit]

I just wanted to pass a quick little nugget along. I haven't taken the time to read every post in this thread and therefore don't know where everyone stands on this issue (so it's not directed at anyone in particular), but take it for what it's worth...

I have a close family member who occasionally works with Paul Pasqualoni at UConn, where PP is the head coach of the Huskies. As many of you recall, PP was with us on and off from 2005-2010, and served as our interim DC in 2010 after Wade's firing. PP told my family member in casual conversation that Bradie James was the biggest diva he's ever coached. He said that there was an institutional flaw within the Cowboys organization regarding a feeling of entitlement and guys who were mentally weak and didn't want to work. He didn't say that James wasn't a hard worker... but he said he wasn't very well liked and really *****ed and complained a lot. Basically, not a positive influence in the locker room.

Didn't hear anything on Newman but I wouldn't be shocked if it were the same. Normally "tough minded" football players don't make the excuses T-New made year in, year out about being hurt.

I don't dislike either guy, and my intention isn't to smear their names. They were good players for us for a long time. But for whatever reason... and I'll let you all determine that for yourselves... it was time to move on.

Yeah, this was a good share. Thanks.

 

[Larry73]

You said it better than I did.

While I believe Garrett has a philosophy on what he wants in players, but ultimately it comes down to whether the guy can play. If he can play and play well, then the guy's on the team. If he can't, he won't.

Will the 40 or so guys who get cut after training camp be cut because they're not RKGs? No, it'll be because they can't play.

TO could play after we shipped him off. So that's not true at all.

 

[xwalker]

There have been all manner of coaches, successful coaches that have not been big on the character concerns. Jimmy Johnson was one. Every Raiders coach up until this year. Joe Gibbs. The list goes on. Even Bill Parcells gave LT a pass for his shenanigans.

Around here its certainly novel. PacMan TO, Tank, Spellman, Lett, Irvin, et al.

I consider Irvin in a completely different category from those other guys.

He was one of the all-time great locker-room type of guys, IMO. He was the hardest worker and loved the game as much or more than anybody on those Super Bowl teams. His off-the-field character was a problem, no doubt.

Ray Lewis is another player that has had some off-the-field character issues, but is a great locker room guy.

It is possible that Garrett could consider guys like Irvin and Lewis as RKGs while considering an high-character-off-the-field guy like Barbie Carpenter as NOT an RKG because he didn't have the right approach to the game.

Having said the above, with Goodell and the newer NFL rules, a guy like Irvin would probably get multiple suspensions for all the off-the-field issues that he had back in the day.

 

[Idgit]

TO could play after we shipped him off. So that's not true at all.

She probably meant if a player can be a net contribution to the team compared to other options on the market. TO could play, but he wasn't worth the price it cost to keep him on the roster because he was a narcissistic ***.

 

[xwalker]

Will the 40 or so guys who get cut after training camp be cut because they're not RKGs? No, it'll be because they can't play.

For the most part, I don't think players will be on the 90-man training camp roster if they are NOT RKGs.

The only ones that have any question marks in this area, IMO, are:

Dez
Ogletree
Jenkins

 

[Larry73]

She probably meant if a player can be a net contribution to the team compared to other options on the market. TO could play, but he wasn't worth the price it cost to keep him on the roster because he was a narcissistic ***.

She said if he can play he's in and that's not true.

 

[Idgit]

She said if he can play he's in and that's not true.

Ok. But it's quibbling. 'If he can play, and if he also doesn't try to destruct the team from the inside' is more accurate, but it's a qualification that isn't needed because it only applies to a very few players ever to have played in the league. You could make the same exceptions for players who can play, but who get injured all the time, or ones who can play, but who can't hold up for a full season anymore. Or ones who can play, but who won't because they've got chronic medical conditions like concussions or spinal stenosis. But, aside from the obvious exceptions, her point is still a good one.

 

[Larry73]

Ok. But it's quibbling. 'If he can play, and if he also doesn't try to destruct the team from the inside' is more accurate, but it's a qualification that isn't needed because it only applies to a very few players ever to have played in the league. You could make the same exceptions for players who can play, but who get injured all the time, or ones who can play, but who can't hold up for a full season anymore. Or ones who can play, but who won't because they've got chronic medical conditions like concussions or spinal stenosis. But, aside from the obvious exceptions, her point is still a good one.

I'm not going to keep arguing with you, and it was a very general and obvious point.

 

[Idgit]

I'm not going to keep arguing with you, and it was a very general and obvious point.

Cool with me. I didn't think we were arguing. I thought you made a general, obvious point, and I was adding to it that it was correct, and still didn't invalidate her original argument. Unless you think it did, it's not really an argument.

 

[Hoofbite]

Personally, the whole RKG quality is quickly becoming my least favorite thing to read about, on the Zone or anywhere.

As of now, it seems the only guys who are not RKGs are those who are not on the team anymore. Regardless of their tenure here and/or what they contributed.

On a side note, that comment alone is total TimMacMahon-driven BS, IMO, especially about Bradie.

Well said.

I was going to post something when I saw this the other day but most had already commented in a similar manner.

Then I was reading through Hos' thread on Entitlement and thought I would come back to this thread to post a little combination of thoughts.

In the other thread there was discussion about players fearing Jimmy and how that isn't the case with Garrett.

The other thread mentioned guys like Crayton and Ellis.

Could Jimmy have instilled fear into them and kept them in check? Who knows?

Parcells had his own tactics, mostly through mental emasculation and strict discipline that he could get players who thought the world of themselves to wake up a bit.

Garrett however seems to not even want to try to deal with those types.

Is that good or bad? You are either on board with the plan or you're standing in the way by not putting your ego aside.

RKG kind of appears like a guy who is solely team first. Less talented, more talented, it doesn't really appear to matter. If you are a guy who will sacrifice everything you have in order better the team, you are an RKG.

If you aren't team first, you aren't likely to have an extended stay because Garrett has no use for you.

I like the idea of no-nonsense but at some point where does act to a detriment?

With Jimmy and Bill, they could bend a player (to an extent) into their system. If you were arrogant, both of those guys would tear your down and show you just how worthless you were.

Will there be a point in time where Garrett asserts himself in a similar manner?

For Bill it was always kind of easy because he would infuse the team with ex-players who would swear by him. He would bring in all those old timers because he knew that if he could get a solid core of guys who believed in him it would immediately force players to fall in line or fall out of favor with the team.

Garrett doesn't have that luxury. He doesn't have half of a team worth of players he can bring in who will swear by his methods and back him up on every single move he makes without question. He has his "core" in Dallas but his methods have not been proven. No skins on the wall yet so I think it's kind of hard to rally that unwavering support.

Provided he's around for long enough, will there be a time when RKG is no longer the main priority? Will Garrett have built a strong enough core and have so much clout with them that they will do the same for him that Terry Glenn, Keyshawn and many other did for Parcells?

You can kind of see the same with BB in New England. He has "his guys" and he's willing to take a little risk because "his guys" are such high profile players that anyone who dares question them will automatically lose any sort of credibility they had when they walked in the door. Tell me any free agent who dares question Tom Brady will make a bunch of friends in the locker room. It ain't happening.

I'm not big on the idea that Garrett will automatically shut the door on guys who won't simply fall in line. At the same time, if such a player is doing nothing to build for the future then he might as well be hurting the present.

I always thought RKG was just lame because it's sounded so cheesy that Garrett needed players who were 100% subservient to his tactics. Plus, it doesn't help from a fan's perspective to constantly hear the excuse that the entire master plan of the head coach is being undermined by a few guys he can't get through to. Doesn't instill a lot of confidence if the coach needs a team entirely chalked full of order takers.

However, at the same time it's kind of unreasonable to expect a bunch of ******* players that Wade Phillips dumped on him to automatically change and become team first guys. Part of me wants to give the guy his time but part of me sees a guy who has been around for like 5 or 6 seasons now?

I have mixed feelings on Garrett and his RKG philosophy. I think he's gambling a bit. I'm not sure any sort of roster of RKGs can guarantee anything and spending so much time purging the roster of veterans or players who don't fit the RKG mold is a bit frustrating to watch. Also makes me question if there are players they have written off without even making an effort to pursue because they didn't appear to be RKGs.

Time will tell I suppose. He'll either be proven the brain he's credited with being or he'll fall flat and Dallas will be left with a bunch of guys who's are the RKGs for Jason Garrett but maybe the WKGs for the next coach.

 

[xwalker]

With Jimmy and Bill, they could bend a player (to an extent) into their system. If you were arrogant, both of those guys would tear your down and show you just how worthless you were.

Will there be a point in time where Garrett asserts himself in a similar manner?

For Bill it was always kind of easy because he would infuse the team with ex-players who would swear by him. He would bring in all those old timers because he knew that if he could get a solid core of guys who believed in him it would immediately force players to fall in line or fall out of favor with the team.

Garrett doesn't have that luxury. He doesn't have half of a team worth of players he can bring in who will swear by his methods and back him up on every single move he makes without question. He has his "core" in Dallas but his methods have not been proven. No skins on the wall yet so I think it's kind of hard to rally that unwavering support.

Good post.

Bill had his ex Patriots and Giants players that he brought to the Cowboys. Jimmy has his ex Miami players here like Irvin and others. Garrett has to create his core players from within. At least he has guys like Witten, Romo, etc.. as "his" guys from his time as the Offensive Coordinator.

I think in the modern NFL, it is more difficult to instill fear into players the way the Jimmy and Parcells did. Garrett may not be a fear monger, but he does appear to be a no-nonsense type personality. At least he is more like Jimmy than Wade.

Jimmy and Parcells methods worked best back in the days before Free Agency. IMO, the Parcells methods really didn't work that well when he was here with the Cowboys. Obviously, it was better than Campo or Wade, but I think the Garrett style might actually be better.

Garrett has also replaced some RIP (Retired In Place) type of coaches with some that are no-nonsense types. Callahan definitely has a rep as a hard-ace and Henderson couldn't be a soft as Campo.

 

[Outlaw Heroes]

Well said.

I was going to post something when I saw this the other day but most had already commented in a similar manner.

Then I was reading through Hos' thread on Entitlement and thought I would come back to this thread to post a little combination of thoughts.

In the other thread there was discussion about players fearing Jimmy and how that isn't the case with Garrett.

The other thread mentioned guys like Crayton and Ellis.

Could Jimmy have instilled fear into them and kept them in check? Who knows?

Parcells had his own tactics, mostly through mental emasculation and strict discipline that he could get players who thought the world of themselves to wake up a bit.

Garrett however seems to not even want to try to deal with those types.

Is that good or bad? You are either on board with the plan or you're standing in the way by not putting your ego aside.

RKG kind of appears like a guy who is solely team first. Less talented, more talented, it doesn't really appear to matter. If you are a guy who will sacrifice everything you have in order better the team, you are an RKG.

If you aren't team first, you aren't likely to have an extended stay because Garrett has no use for you.

I like the idea of no-nonsense but at some point where does act to a detriment?

With Jimmy and Bill, they could bend a player (to an extent) into their system. If you were arrogant, both of those guys would tear your down and show you just how worthless you were.

Will there be a point in time where Garrett asserts himself in a similar manner?

For Bill it was always kind of easy because he would infuse the team with ex-players who would swear by him. He would bring in all those old timers because he knew that if he could get a solid core of guys who believed in him it would immediately force players to fall in line or fall out of favor with the team.

Garrett doesn't have that luxury. He doesn't have half of a team worth of players he can bring in who will swear by his methods and back him up on every single move he makes without question. He has his "core" in Dallas but his methods have not been proven. No skins on the wall yet so I think it's kind of hard to rally that unwavering support.

Provided he's around for long enough, will there be a time when RKG is no longer the main priority? Will Garrett have built a strong enough core and have so much clout with them that they will do the same for him that Terry Glenn, Keyshawn and many other did for Parcells?

You can kind of see the same with BB in New England. He has "his guys" and he's willing to take a little risk because "his guys" are such high profile players that anyone who dares question them will automatically lose any sort of credibility they had when they walked in the door. Tell me any free agent who dares question Tom Brady will make a bunch of friends in the locker room. It ain't happening.

I'm not big on the idea that Garrett will automatically shut the door on guys who won't simply fall in line. At the same time, if such a player is doing nothing to build for the future then he might as well be hurting the present.

I always thought RKG was just lame because it's sounded so cheesy that Garrett needed players who were 100% subservient to his tactics. Plus, it doesn't help from a fan's perspective to constantly hear the excuse that the entire master plan of the head coach is being undermined by a few guys he can't get through to. Doesn't instill a lot of confidence if the coach needs a team entirely chalked full of order takers.

However, at the same time it's kind of unreasonable to expect a bunch of ******* players that Wade Phillips dumped on him to automatically change and become team first guys. Part of me wants to give the guy his time but part of me sees a guy who has been around for like 5 or 6 seasons now?

I have mixed feelings on Garrett and his RKG philosophy. I think he's gambling a bit. I'm not sure any sort of roster of RKGs can guarantee anything and spending so much time purging the roster of veterans or players who don't fit the RKG mold is a bit frustrating to watch. Also makes me question if there are players they have written off without even making an effort to pursue because they didn't appear to be RKGs.

Time will tell I suppose. He'll either be proven the brain he's credited with being or he'll fall flat and Dallas will be left with a bunch of guys who's are the RKGs for Jason Garrett but maybe the WKGs for the next coach.

Some really interesting thoughts in this post.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Harbaugh wasn't able to bring in any of his ex-players. Didn't stop him from completely turning a team around with a team that, unlike this one, had never been any good.

Why? Because he has natural charisma and leadership abilities. Most good coaches have that -- it doesn't take years to develop.

And who are all these terrible guys that Wade dumped on Garrett? The so-called bad guys in this thread, Newman and Bradie, were Parcells guys. (And if they were drafted today, everyone would talk about how Bradie was a team leader and hard worker. As was Newman, who noted no-nonsense hardass Bill Snyder said was a great teammate and the best player he ever coached. RKGs!)

So I ask the question again, who are they? Marty B? Please. You think Wade was the driving force behind the offensive guys we drafted? Give me a break. If any coach had major input on that side of the ball, it was Garrett or Houck. Jerry told the story of how Wade was "standing on the table" for Chris Johnson in 2008. They really took the guy the head coach wanted in that instance, did they?

It's just really funny that Garrett putting "RKG" on his programmed loop of cliches has made the phrase into some kind of ingenious, unique coaching philosophy that explains every reason we failed in the past. As said many times, every coach wants hard working, team-oriented guys. Name me a coach who doesn't want that. I can't think of any, with the exception of rare guys like Al Davis who might actually want guys who are a little unhinged.

Anyway, it's really time to stop the character assassination of every player who leaves here. I wonder what the excuses will be when some of the guys drafted under Garrett don't make it? Oh wait, I'm sure it'll be Jerry's fault.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I can only assume that it's short for "right kind of guy". Now, what that exactly is can be debated. To me, the RKG is the guy who's consistently competing and helping his team win more than a few games.

O, my. I can only assume this is Garrett's deal. What a load of wax. Having said that, there is something to not having a team full of thugs. It doesn't take a genius ginger to tell you that much.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

What does he have to lose with this "philosophy"?

Either a) he wins (in which case he can say his RKG philosophy worked)

Or b) he loses (then he blames it on the WKGs)

Hey! I wish real life worked this way. When in doubt, blame someone else.

 

[Doc50]

Harbaugh wasn't able to bring in any of his ex-players. Didn't stop him from completely turning a team around with a team that, unlike this one, had never been any good.

Why? Because he has natural charisma and leadership abilities. Most good coaches have that -- it doesn't take years to develop.

And who are all these terrible guys that Wade dumped on Garrett? The so-called bad guys in this thread, Newman and Bradie, were Parcells guys. (And if they were drafted today, everyone would talk about how Bradie was a team leader and hard worker. As was Newman, who noted no-nonsense hardass Bill Snyder said was a great teammate and the best player he ever coached. RKGs!)

So I ask the question again, who are they? Marty B? Please. You think Wade was the driving force behind the offensive guys we drafted? Give me a break. If any coach had major input on that side of the ball, it was Garrett or Houck. Jerry told the story of how Wade was "standing on the table" for Chris Johnson in 2008. They really took the guy the head coach wanted in that instance, did they?

It's just really funny that Garrett putting "RKG" on his programmed loop of cliches has made the phrase into some kind of ingenious, unique coaching philosophy that explains every reason we failed in the past. As said many times, every coach wants hard working, team-oriented guys. Name me a coach who doesn't want that. I can't think of any, with the exception of rare guys like Al Davis who might actually want guys who are a little unhinged.

Anyway, it's really time to stop the character assassination of every player who leaves here. I wonder what the excuses will be when some of the guys drafted under Garrett don't make it? Oh wait, I'm sure it'll be Jerry's fault.

At the very least, JG's personnel strategy should accomplish accountability and respectability.

I don't think we want to see our guys lose because of poor effort or poor preparation; likewise, a player who isn't a role model off the field is difficult for us to tolerate on the field -- the first apparent mistake he makes in a game will be blamed on his irresponsible (by fans' standards) lifestyle. I think fans want to like and respect their players, whether that's unreasonable in this sport or not.

So, the RKG philosophy would likely have significant support among loyal fans.

 

[Idgit]

Harbaugh wasn't able to bring in any of his ex-players. Didn't stop him from completely turning a team around with a team that, unlike this one, had never been any good.

Why? Because he has natural charisma and leadership abilities. Most good coaches have that -- it doesn't take years to develop...

JG's leadership qualities are just fine. Harbaugh also benefited from an unbelievably weak division and an unbelievable TO ratio for one year. It'll be really interesting to see if he can sustain that type of success. But when it came down to it, his team was about like ours was: lost narrowly to the Cowboys head to head and lost a heart breaker in a slug-fest to the NYFG in the playoffs. People overestimate how good the Niners are right now (though they are a really solid team).

RE: our players, the RKG stuff is way overblown. We had some key starters get old at OL, ILB, and at CB. And we shed some borderline starters that had some name recognition. All teams do that. All-in-all, RG's done a nice job flipping our OL and our secondary and inside LB corps on the fly, while keeping the team competitive. He's done a good job, too, bringing in young competition at most of these spots that will help us in terms of depth and, hopefully, keep starters on their toes each and every week. He's not working miracles, but I don't think there's any doubt we've done a better job under his watch with drafting, and so far anyway, the FA acquisitions are all young, quality players or team-friendly signings, or both. There's not much to complain about in that regard.