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

[CyberB0b]

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

Way to cherry pick. This is a different league than when those guys started, including Belichick. There are plenty of coaches who took terrible franchises to the playoffs in a couple of years. Each one of the Harbaugh brothers, Mike Smith, John Fox, McCarthy, Tomlin, Carroll. We could do this all day, but the days of waiting 10 years to get it right doesn't exist anymore.

 

[jnday]

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.

It is a little too early to give Garrett or anybody else credit for these drafts at this time. His great drafting can go belly-up in a heartbeat. Use Claibourne as an example. He is not a top CB at this time and he may not ever be. He is unproven. The only way that drafting him can be considered great drafting, is if he becomes an elite CB. If he turns out to be slightly above average , it drops the draft grade quite a bit considering what it took to move up and pick him. After watching the warroom this last draft, Jerry and Stephen made it clear that they was running the show while Garrett was entertaining Jerry's daughter.

Way to cherry pick. This is a different league than when those guys started, including Belichick. There are plenty of coaches who took terrible franchises to the playoffs in a couple of years. Each one of the Harbaugh brothers, Mike Smith, John Fox, McCarthy, Tomlin, Carroll. We could do this all day, but the days of waiting 10 years to get it right doesn't exist anymore.

Several of those coaches are on their second or even third stop. Guess why. That's right, not enough wins. In Dallas, Garrett shouldn't be judged on his wins according to some posters. I guess he is special.

 

[Plankton]

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.

Couple of things.

First of all, Parcells wasn't in Dallas when James Marten was selected (he was part of Phillips' first draft). I think you were referring to Jacob Rogers, but don't want to assume.

Second, if, as you said, the coaches lost power after the 1995-redux draft in 2009, how can Garrett be given credit for drafting after that? Those statements don't seem to line up.

Personally, I think the coaches have the same power in terms of instilling the vision and prototype of player that they are looking for.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

Couple of things.

First of all, Parcells wasn't in Dallas when James Marten was selected (he was part of Phillips' first draft). I think you were referring to Jacob Rogers, but don't want to assume.

Second, if, as you said, the coaches lost power after the 1995-redux draft in 2009, how can Garrett be given credit for drafting after that? Those statements don't seem to line up.

Personally, I think the coaches have the same power in terms of instilling the vision and prototype of player that they are looking for.

I don't give Garrett much credit for the change in drafting philosophy... I give the organization credit.

But as Wade benefitted from the drafts from 2003-2005, Garrett has suffered from the drafts from 2006-2009.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

It is a little too early to give Garrett or anybody else credit for these drafts at this time. His great drafting can go belly-up in a heartbeat. Use Claibourne as an example. He is not a top CB at this time and he may not ever be. He is unproven. The only way that drafting him can be considered great drafting, is if he becomes an elite CB. If he turns out to be slightly above average , it drops the draft grade quite a bit considering what it took to move up and pick him. After watching the warroom this last draft, Jerry and Stephen made it clear that they was running the show while Garrett was entertaining Jerry's daughter.

Oh I agree time needs to pass to fully gauge the draft from 2012.

But I'll tell ya I knew the drafts from 2000-2002 were awful not long after the drafts took place... Like Parcells' said "I don't have to be hit in the face with a skunk more than once to know that it stinks."

And as of yet I haven't detected "skunk" on any draft since the clunker of 2009.

 

[Idgit]

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.

My only argument in this thread is that it's dumb to evaluate a HC on wins alone. And I think that's pretty obvious. Now, if he doesn't have wins, and you don't like what he's doing organizationally, fire him. If the wins don't come with time and you love what he's doing organizationally, fire him with time. But it's silly to fire a coach you love on the basis of two season of 500 football if you think the reason you're 500 isn't tied to the job the HC has done.

And of course I considered Bill's whole career when I used him as an example. You think in retrospect it was a smart move for CLE to fire him based off of his record there alone? Of course not. It was one of the biggest HC gaffe's in recent memory.

 

[Idgit]

Way to cherry pick. This is a different league than when those guys started, including Belichick. There are plenty of coaches who took terrible franchises to the playoffs in a couple of years. Each one of the Harbaugh brothers, Mike Smith, John Fox, McCarthy, Tomlin, Carroll. We could do this all day, but the days of waiting 10 years to get it right doesn't exist anymore.

Of course I'm going to cherry-pick. What's the point of selecting examples that are counter to my point? But the fact remains, the fact that I can cherry pick examples (throw Mike Shanahan in there to eliminate your objection that was already addressed that there might be something magical about 2013 when it comes to coaches needing time to build their teams) where it's downright foolish to fire a HC based off of his record alone. That's obvious, and as far as I'm concerned, no longer a debate worth having.

The question then becomes, what metric do you use for evaluating the job your HC is doing that includes his team's record, but also includes other important factors in assessing his performance.

 

[CyberB0b]

The question then becomes, what metric do you use for evaluating the job your HC is doing that includes his team's record, but also includes other important factors in assessing his performance.

As fans, we have no other metric. That is it.

 

[Idgit]

As fans, we have no other metric. That is it.

Well, if that's the only metric we have, and we can tell from experiences all over the league that it's obviously unreliable, why would we put any weight at all in it?

Plus, I don't agree that it's the only metric. There's lots of information available re: how the organization is performing if you're paying attention to it. It's just that it's hard to trust that information before it's supported by significant wins or significant post-season success.

 

[CyberB0b]

Well, if that's the only metric we have, and we can tell from experiences all over the league that it's obviously unreliable, why would we put any weight at all in it?

Plus, I don't agree that it's the only metric. There's lots of information available re: how the organization is performing if you're paying attention to it. It's just that it's hard to trust that information before it's supported by significant wins or significant post-season success.

How the organization is performing? You mean like hot dog sales at Jerry World? Jersey sales? I couldn't care less about how many Tony Romo jerseys get sold.

All I know is that we haven't been successful under multiple coaches, schemes, players, scouts for most of my life. The one common denominator is this equation is Jerry and his family. Wins are really all that matter to me as a fan.

You can keep feeding me bullcrap and calling it caviar, just like Jerry has been doing for nearly 20 years, but it is still going to taste like crap.

 

[Plankton]

I don't give Garrett much credit for the change in drafting philosophy... I give the organization credit.

If that's the case, then why did you make this statement?

Do you have information on who influenced who's picks?
So Garrett gets no credit for the drafting turn-around since 2010?

If Garrett doesn't deserve much credit for the change in philosophy, why mention it at all?

But as Wade benefitted from the drafts from 2003-2005, Garrett has suffered from the drafts from 2006-2009.

Agreed, but Garrett did have input into those drafts that his teams have suffered during (Felix Jones being a prime example).

Is he the only one to be blamed? Absolutely not. Does he deserve some? Absolutely.

 

[MichaelWinicki]

If that's the case, then why did you make this statement?



If Garrett doesn't deserve much credit for the change in philosophy, why mention it at all?



Agreed, but Garrett did have input into those drafts that his teams have suffered during (Felix Jones being a prime example).

Is he the only one to be blamed? Absolutely not. Does he deserve some? Absolutely.

I only mentioned it because there is no consensus on how much blame/credit Garrett should get... So I'm going to cover all the bases.

 

[Plankton]

Well, if that's the only metric we have, and we can tell from experiences all over the league that it's obviously unreliable, why would we put any weight at all in it?

Plus, I don't agree that it's the only metric. There's lots of information available re: how the organization is performing if you're paying attention to it. It's just that it's hard to trust that information before it's supported by significant wins or significant post-season success.

You point to Belichick, Chuck Noll and Bill Walsh as being successful coaches. If you didn't use the won/loss record, how would you arrive at that conclusion?

Won/loss has context to it, but it can't be used only to demonstrate success. It has to be able to be used to demonstrate mediocrity or failure as well.

 

[Idgit]

It's like a birthday cake. When the cake is done, if it's gross, then the baker was not very good. But I don't go eating the warm batter and then complaining about how the cake was prepared.

At some point, it really is a process, and the general manager has to have an idea what is entailed and whether he's willing to give his coach the time to implement it. Maybe the oven's not hot enough and you never get good cake. Maybe the ingredients were mostly good, but somebody slipped an injured free agent right guard or two into the batter and it ruined the whole cake. Maybe it's delicious and we all get a happy birthday. But you hate to let a good pastry chef go just because the people you invited to your party are complaining that they're hungry. They'll be a lot hungrier by the time you find a new chef to come in and start mixing his own ingredients.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

I've got some secret sauce. I make it when people act like Jason Garrett is the second coming of Tom Landry.