News: PFT: Stephen Jones: Cowboys have “secret sauce” to win

[jnday]

When I say they quit on Wade, I'm obviously talking about 2010.

And, yes, the excuses for Garrett should be out the window at this point. But note, I'm not making excuses for him. I think he's done a great job. I think you're measuring him with the wrong measuring stick if you've found the job he's done in 2011 and 2012 to be wanting. Specifically, the problems with this team are not with its head coach, and they have not been (he has made his share of mistakes, I just mean we've had a lot bigger fish to fry than Jason Garrett). I know there are fans who are going to want to measure the performance of the coach and the QB solely on won/loss records. I think that's simplistic, and likely to get you making substantial changes willy-nilly without addressing the actual problems that are keeping the team from getting over the hump.

Fortunately, I'm also convinced the organization is very high on Garrett, and I don't think he seat is all that hot. Unless he implodes this year, I think they expect to keep him around.

Sure there are fans that are going to judge the coach and QB on their W-L record. What other way do you measure success of a professional football team? For some reason , only on this board, success is measured by anything other than a better W-L record. I have read every reason that has been made up to defend this team, but the bottom line is if it does not include more wins as a result, it is BS. This big roster turnover an the so-called talent does not mean squat if it doesn't mean more wins. This is the greatest team ever if you don't count the W-L record.

 

[jnday]

I'm no too impressed with his body of work so far.

Those are the most impressive 8-8 records in NFL history. If you don't believe it, just disagree and watch the reaction.

 

[Idgit]

Sure there are fans that are going to judge the coach and QB on their W-L record. What other way do you measure success of a professional football team? For some reason , only on this board, success is measured by anything other than a better W-L record...

I can't imagine any reason for evaluating a young coach on anything but his early won/loss records, but it apparently only happens on this board.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/NollCh0.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/WalsBi0.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/BeliBi0.htm

 

[kristie]

made a video where i mention the "secret sauce" comment:

 

[BAT]

It's been mentioned by more than one person that Jason Williams was a Wade "pet cat".

No, Wade may not have controlled the draft but guys like he and Houck (the Brewster pick) made sure they influenced the thing... for the worst.

Way to cherry pick. And your argument is Jason Williams, a 3rd rounder? Why not Anthony Spencer? By the by, Houck was a Jason Garrett hire so blaming Wade for the Brewster pick is a head scratcher. Felix Jones, Martellus Bennett, Isaiah Stanback, Stephen Magee ..... who do you believe influenced those picks?

 

[jnday]

I can't imagine any reason for evaluating a young coach on anything but his early won/loss records, but it apparently only happens on this board.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/NollCh0.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/WalsBi0.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/BeliBi0.htm

Is there any information from this century that supports your argument that W-L record should not be considered as the most important factor in determining the success of a coach? Do you realize that coaches are fired for lack of wins? Next, RBs will not be evaluated on their carries and yards .

 

[jnday]

Way to cherry pick. And your argument is Jason Williams, a 3rd rounder? Why not Anthony Spencer? By the by, Houck was a Jason Garrett hire so blaming Wade for the Brewster pick is a head scratcher. Felix Jones, Martellus Bennett, Isaiah Stanback, Stephen Magee ..... who do you believe influenced those picks?

It is well known that Garrett wanted the great Felix Jones. Some may forget that Garrett also wanted Roy Williams playing with TO because his offense needed another WR to work.

 

[Idgit]

Is there any information from this century that supports your argument that W-L record should not be considered as the most important factor in determining the success of a coach? Do you realize that coaches are fired for lack of wins? Next, RBs will not be evaluated on their carries and yards .

Sure. Sorry, I just went reflexively to the list of NFL greats in my own head, because I thought that was the better example. But, if you think there's something unique about this century that makes back-to-back won/loss records more important now than they used to be, we can use current HC. Bear in mind, the good coaches tend to keep their jobs, so they've mostly been in their current positions some time.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/ShanMi0.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/CougTo0.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/PaytSe0.htm

These examples aren't as good. For NO, you have the back:back 7-9 and 8-8, but it's sandwiched between good years. One of Coughlin's 9-7s was a year they won the Superbowl. Shanahan's a pretty good example. But the obvious point is the same: great coaches have years where their back-back won/loss records are not very good. Yet they're still obviously good coaches. Meaning you absolutely have to take factors other than the teams record for a given year into account if you're trying to properly evaluate a coach. It doesn't matter if the fans are upset at the time, or not.

 

[jnday]

Sure. Sorry, I just went reflexively to the list of NFL greats in my own head, because I thought that was the better example. But, if you think there's something unique about this century that makes back-to-back won/loss records more important now than they used to be, we can use current HC. Bear in mind, the good coaches tend to keep their jobs, so they've mostly been in their current positions some time.

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/ShanMi0.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/CougTo0.htm
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/coaches/PaytSe0.htm

These examples aren't as good. For NO, you have the back:back 7-9 and 8-8, but it's sandwiched between good years. One of Coughlin's 9-7s was a year they won the Superbowl. Shanahan's a pretty good example. But the obvious point is the same: great coaches have years where their back-back won/loss records are not very good. Yet they're still obviously good coaches. Meaning you absolutely have to take factors other than the teams record for a given year into account if you're trying to properly evaluate a coach. It doesn't matter if the fans are upset at the time, or not.

What the heck, give him several years before making him accountable for wins and losses. This is the Cowboys after all.

 

[Idgit]

What the heck, give him several years before making him accountable for wins and losses. This is the Cowboys after all.

You're the one who brought up evaluating coaches solely on wins and losses. I'm just pointing out that's not the way it's worked for some really great coaches in this league. Because, as it turns out, there are factors other than winning the games involved in good coaching.

I'll go so far as to wager that many great coaches don't consider their best year doing their job to be the year they had their best team record. I know John Wooden has said as much. I don't imagine he's alone in that.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Way to cherry pick. And your argument is Jason Williams, a 3rd rounder? Why not Anthony Spencer? By the by, Houck was a Jason Garrett hire so blaming Wade for the Brewster pick is a head scratcher. Felix Jones, Martellus Bennett, Isaiah Stanback, Stephen Magee ..... who do you believe influenced those picks?

Do you have information on who influenced who's picks?

So Garrett gets no credit for the drafting turn-around since 2010?

 

[MichaelWinicki]

You're the one who brought up evaluating coaches solely on wins and losses. I'm just pointing out that's not the way it's worked for some really great coaches in this league. Because, as it turns out, there are factors other than winning the games involved in good coaching.

I'll go so far as to wager that many great coaches don't consider their best year doing their job to be the year they had their best team record. I know John Wooden has said as much. I don't imagine he's alone in that.

The challenge with evaluating coaches based simply on wins and losses is with situations like this...

These are his records for the first 5 years of his career:
W L T
0 11 1
4 9 1
5 8 1
4 10 0
5 8 1

So are we convinced that this coach is a loser?

 

[Plankton]

The challenge with evaluating coaches based simply on wins and losses is with situations like this...

These are his records for the first 5 years of his career:
W L T
0 11 1
4 9 1
5 8 1
4 10 0
5 8 1

So are we convinced that this coach is a loser?

You're right. The coach of an expansion team that didn't have a draft in their first year of existence is a good comparison for the situation Garrett faced. /sarcasm

 

[MichaelWinicki]

You're right. The coach of an expansion team that didn't have a draft in their first year of existence is a good comparison for the situation Garrett faced. /sarcasm

I didn't list the 6th year which the team was .500

That's 6 years of not one winning season.

Joe Torre had 5 losing seasons as the manger of the Mets. He was 351 and 354 as manager of the Cards.

I guess based on that it means Joe Torre couldn't manage.

Hey you have an agenda against Garrett... I think we get that.

 

[Plankton]

I didn't list the 6th year which the team was .500

That's 6 years of not one winning season.

Joe Torre had 5 losing seasons as the manger of the Mets. He was 351 and 354 as manager of the Cards.

I guess based on that it means Joe Torre couldn't manage.

Hey you have an agenda against Garrett... I think we get that.

No agenda at all. Way to try and slant it even more.

The only thing I have done is assign accountability where it is due. Garrett did have a hand in the 1-7 start, no matter how hard people try to absolve him of that. His teams have been toward the bottom of the league in penalties, a sign of a lack of discipline. Record wise, he has been an average coach.

I will give him credit for holding the team together after the Brent situation - he showed terrific leadership skills in a very difficult time. He definitely has helped in identifying better players in the draft. However, at some point, there has to be results that go along with the intangibles that all of his supporters point to while ignoring the very real results on the field.

If that's an agenda, then so be it.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

No agenda at all. Way to try and slant it even more.

The only thing I have done is assign accountability where it is due. Garrett did have a hand in the 1-7 start, no matter how hard people try to absolve him of that. His teams have been toward the bottom of the league in penalties, a sign of a lack of discipline. Record wise, he has been an average coach.

I will give him credit for holding the team together after the Brent situation - he showed terrific leadership skills in a very difficult time. He definitely has helped in identifying better players in the draft. However, at some point, there has to be results that go along with the intangibles that all of his supporters point to while ignoring the very real results on the field.

If that's an agenda, then so be it.

Hey do I give the guy "carte blanche" when it comes to this season?

Nope. I expect a playoff team and will not be a happy camper if there isn't one.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Do you have information on who influenced who's picks?

So Garrett gets no credit for the drafting turn-around since 2010?

LOL, Garrett wasn't even the coach for the draft of 2010.

I guess by this logic you have to give Wade credit for Dez and Sean Lee. That was one heck of a going away present. Thanks, Wade.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

LOL, Garrett wasn't even the coach for the draft of 2010.

I guess by this logic you have to give Wade credit for Dez and Sean Lee. That was one heck of a going away present. Thanks, Wade.

You guys are funny...

First you want to blame Garrett for being on the staff under Wade.

Then you want to discredit Garrett for being on the staff under Wade.

Make up your minds.

 

[jnday]

You're the one who brought up evaluating coaches solely on wins and losses. I'm just pointing out that's not the way it's worked for some really great coaches in this league. Because, as it turns out, there are factors other than winning the games involved in good coaching.

I'll go so far as to wager that many great coaches don't consider their best year doing their job to be the year they had their best team record. I know John Wooden has said as much. I don't imagine he's alone in that.

Do you really want to go through the good coaches that have been fired for not putting wins on the board. Enough owner may give a coach two or three seasons, but if the wins don't start, the coaches get fired. New England wasn't the first stop for Bill. I used him as an example because you used him as an example without considering his whole career. Coaches are hired to win games. What other reason is there. You like Garrett, but the wins better come or he will be gone. They didn't hire him to go 8-8 every year with no playoffs.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

LOL, Garrett wasn't even the coach for the draft of 2010.

I guess by this logic you have to give Wade credit for Dez and Sean Lee. That was one heck of a going away present. Thanks, Wade.

When it comes to the drafting, I think many at VR (after the 2009 draft fiasco) realized that coaches... and this probably goes back a ways had too much power when it came to selecting players over what the scouts suggested which caused picks to be taken against what the draft board suggested such as Parcels with Marten, Wade with Jason Williams and Houck with Brewster.

So yeah I can see giving Wade "credit" for Dez and Lee because the previous 3 drafts were such a cluster that someone finally smartened up and reduced the oomph that coaches brought to the war room.