Regarding Linehan

[jobberone]

Was he really wrong or just insulting? He makes a point about having a top 5 QB AND A team ready to make a run.

I don't know Romo is a top five QB but that just escapes your point he is a very good QB. But so was LeBaron and that offense wasn't bad. Obviously we weren't ready to make a run when we had to retool the OL and eject a lot of expensive and spent players. I'd like to know just how good of a HC Garrett is but I'm not certain you will find out this year. If we go on a good run I may still have some doubts. If we compete the way I believe on defense then I still won't know a whole lot more but we'll see. They'll have to perform miserably for me to change trains. But I would like to have a better answer. I don't want to keep riding the wrong train.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

And conversely, some will give Garrett credit no matter what. If the O is better, he did a great job bringing in his pal... If worse, see, Garrett was better at OCing and Jerry never should have forced him to give up the offense.

This is what you call a win-win situation.

 

[Idgit]

What about 2011 or 2012 or 2013?

When do actual results and facts trump the diatribe of hope and believe?

What about them? You mean, because the team fell short those years? I think we've already gone round on the reasons for each of those campaigns not being more successful, haven't we? Pretty clearly, not everybody believes head coaching was the primary limiting factor. And there are really good reasons to support those arguments.

You should read some of Percy's posts, for just one example, sometime. He does a great job of unpacking what happened for the lay fan.

 

[jobberone]

You can keep on rooting for him. If that floats your boat, fine.

But do not sit there and pretend he is driving the train, because frankly, if he was, he would have a contract that extends beyond this upcoming season.

That makes no sense to me. Why would Jerry give him an extension when neither he nor anyone else really knows if Garrett is the 'guy'? And Garrett isn't going to leave because he doesn't have a contract extension. You're getting the GM's job mixed up with the HC's job. I'm sure Jerry is pulling for Garrett as are many here but Jerry is getting too old to give him a ten year extension when he's unproven.

 

[Idgit]

A player goes into this final year. The team does not feel good enough about his career arc to give him an extension and wants the player to prove it in his final year.

This is no different.

There is no mandate for what Garrett is doing from the front office. No matter how much everyone likes to imagine there is.

He is on a "prove it" deal.

As for your last comment, go ask Ron Rivera. He went through the same thing. His boss decided what our's is doing now.

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with a prove it season. For Tony, or Dez, or Jason, or Ron Rivera. If youre not certain, or there are unknown factors, and you have time under contract, you use it. That's what the contracts are for.

 

[Fredd]

You can keep on rooting for him. If that floats your boat, fine.

But do not sit there and pretend he is driving the train, because frankly, if he was, he would have a contract that extends beyond this upcoming season.

you keep tanking on him. If that floats your boat, fine. But do not sit there and pretend that there haven't been significant changes since he took over.

 

[Alexander]

And there's absolutely nothing wrong with a prove it season. For Tony, or Dez, or Jason, or Ron Rivera. If youre not certain, or there are unknown factors, and you have time under contract, you use it. That's what the contracts are for.

And yes, this statement has zero to do with what you posted before. But do what you do, you are good at it.

 

[jobberone]

Leave the personal insults, attacks, etc out of the conversations. First and last warning.

 

[Alexander]

you keep tanking on him. If that floats your boat, fine. But do not sit there and pretend that there haven't been significant changes since he took over.

"Significant" changes come with any coaching change. And they also happen due to what is typical roster turnover.

Fact remains--and it is very clear. If the "significant changes" were enough, this head coach would have a mandate to continue what he is building.

He does not.

Perhaps next time you should just try the angle that maybe he really is not in the final year or that he has secretly signed an extension we are not privy to. Seems to work for the rest of the deluded.

 

[visionary]

I don't know Romo is a top five QB but that just escapes your point he is a very good QB. But so was LeBaron and that offense wasn't bad. Obviously we weren't ready to make a run when we had to retool the OL and eject a lot of expensive and spent players. I'd like to know just how good of a HC Garrett is but I'm not certain you will find out this year. If we go on a good run I may still have some doubts. If we compete the way I believe on defense then I still won't know a whole lot more but we'll see. They'll have to perform miserably for me to change trains. But I would like to have a better answer. I don't want to keep riding the wrong train.

See this is the sort of excuse making I am talking about
You completely ignore the fact that when Garrett took over we still had the same GM and promoted the OC (who by all accounts had influence over the offensive personnel . So implying that the roster was run down (esp at OL on offense) and Garrett was now taking over and would retool it is backwards , Garrett already had control of the offense and input in personnel for the last 3 years.
These are just attempts at absolving a HC who is in over his head

3 years into his supposed leadership you still say that even after his fourth year as HC you won't know what he is

Also romo is among the all time leaders in several QB categories . More attempts at diminishing his accomplishments to prop up a wanna be HC

 

[rpntex]

True. For me it is simple team loses HC takes the responsiblity, team wins HC gets credit along with his staff. Same for front office, blame them for poor seasons and should they win then give them credit.

Not with some of these posters, as it pertains to Garrett.

If the team wins and the offense is successful, it's because Dallas "finally" hired an offensive coordinator. If the team loses, it's all on Garrett.

 

[Fredd]

"Significant" changes come with any coaching change. And they also happen due to what is typical roster turnover.

Fact remains--and it is very clear. If the "significant changes" were enough, this head coach would have a mandate to continue what he is building.

He does not.

Perhaps next time you should just try the angle that maybe he really is not in the final year or that he has secretly signed an extension we are not privy to. Seems to work for the rest of the deluded.

You really like to irritate, don't you...my point is just that he has made changes, and with the GM that he has, that is NOT an easy task...IMO, he is not a lame-duck coach, but why wouldn't the GM/owner take his time with this decision? also the argument relating this to players is not the same...a coach can last for decades and a player has a window...but, coaches can also be in the final year of their contract and need to do well enough to get their next one...that is what is going on now...so far, Garrett deserves to NOT be fired despite the troubles in his first 3 years - that is ONLY because the team looks to be moving in the right direction...if they flounder this year now that he has what he needs in place, then Jones needs to move on

 

[Alexander]

You really like to irritate, don't you...

Not trying to irritate. You are just not following along with this discussion, which makes me reiterate the same point over again.

my point is just that he has made changes, and with the GM that he has, that is NOT an easy task...

And again, changes happen with every single head coaching change. He took over three years ago. Changes happened with that change that get falsely attached to Garrett.

"He" has not done a single thing. "He" is involved but ultimately is not calling the shots.

IMO, he is not a lame-duck coach, but why wouldn't the GM/owner take his time with this decision?

You see that of the time with NFL teams, right?

Coaches on firm ground often operate on a one year deal. I mean it is so widespread I cannot even keep up with all the teams that adopt that practice.

Garrett deserves to NOT be fired despite the troubles in his first 3 years - that is ONLY because the team looks to be moving in the right direction...if they flounder this year now that he has what he needs in place, then Jones needs to move on

Again, root for him all you want. Hope for all that is holy that he is Tom Landry reincarnate and he is making a difference.

But Jones is not going to move on and he has Garrett, under his thumb in the last year of his contract. That is reality.

 

[jobberone]

See this is the sort of excuse making I am talking about
You completely ignore the fact that when Garrett took over we still had the same GM and promoted the OC (who by all accounts had influence over the offensive personnel . So implying that the roster was run down (esp at OL on offense) and Garrett was now taking over and would retool it is backwards , Garrett already had control of the offense and input in personnel for the last 3 years.
These are just attempts at absolving a HC who is in over his head

3 years into his supposed leadership you still say that even after his fourth year as HC you won't know what he is

Also romo is among the all time leaders in several QB categories . More attempts at diminishing his accomplishments to prop up a wanna be HC

I didn't ignore it. And no the OC is not the HC. You and others state that Jerry runs the show but now you're telling me it actually was Garrett with control of the offense or had influence over the offensive personnel. The story changes from one sentence to the next. We gutted the OL and got rid of more than a few players some with big contracts and dead money when Garrett took over. Who did that I don't know but Garrett surely had some influence over those moves.

Garrett has had the passing offense in the top half and better of the food chain for some time. So that part he's doing reasonably well. But that's just looking at one aspect of the club. I don't know about the defense for reasons stated. I do know the STs hare pretty good. We're just beginning to have a decent OL to run with but last year we didn't run as much as likely anyone wanted because after a score we'd give one up ourselves. Running the ball a lot when you're in a scoring fest is not the right way to win the game. So I don't know about that part of the offense nor even what his actual overall offensive philosophy is.

He's got a good ST's coordinator and he didn't hesitate to jump ship on the last two DCs. You'll have to propose another DC if you want any consideration from me as I'm satisfied with ours.

Unless you're going to give us all some reasons as to why he's such a failure beyond the superficial arguments of 8-8 is the end of the story then this conversation is over for me.

 

[jobberone]

Not trying to irritate. You are just not following along with this discussion, which makes me reiterate the same point over again.



And again, changes happen with every single head coaching change. He took over three years ago. Changes happened with that change that get falsely attached to Garrett.

"He" has not done a single thing. "He" is involved but ultimately is not calling the shots.

IMO, he is not a lame-duck coach, but why wouldn't the GM/owner take his time with this decision?

You see that of the time with NFL teams, right?

Coaches on firm ground often operate on a one year deal. I mean it is so widespread I cannot even keep up with all the teams that adopt that practice.

Again, root for him all you want. Hope for all that is holy that he is Tom Landry reincarnate and he is making a difference.

But Jones is not going to move on and he has Garrett, under his thumb in the last year of his contract. That is reality.

You and some others tend to see things in black or white/all or nothing. I don't see him as rooting for Garrett beyond what most fans do for the HC of the team. If he's successful then likely the team is as well. Beyond that I know i'm not rooting for Garrett. In fact since he's gotten here I've stated over and over I'm still on the fence with the guy and I definitely didn't like the direction the offense took early on although that's getting better.

So if someone doesn't dislike Garrett as much as you do and some others here then they are 'rooting' and pulling for the guy and making excuses. If you don't have enough reasons to put on the con side of the conversation then stop putting words and your thoughts in their heads as it appears as an ad hominem attack with little else of substance. Let them make their case and you make yours. In the end we're all fans and there are no winners from these conversations. They are had to discuss the Cowboys which is supposed to be fun.

 

[jobberone]

All have a good night.

 

[Fredd]

Not trying to irritate. You are just not following along with this discussion, which makes me reiterate the same point over again.



And again, changes happen with every single head coaching change. He took over three years ago. Changes happened with that change that get falsely attached to Garrett.

"He" has not done a single thing. "He" is involved but ultimately is not calling the shots.

IMO, he is not a lame-duck coach, but why wouldn't the GM/owner take his time with this decision?

You see that of the time with NFL teams, right?

Coaches on firm ground often operate on a one year deal. I mean it is so widespread I cannot even keep up with all the teams that adopt that practice.

Again, root for him all you want. Hope for all that is holy that he is Tom Landry reincarnate and he is making a difference.

But Jones is not going to move on and he has Garrett, under his thumb in the last year of his contract. That is reality.

your point being that garrett is on the last year of his deal? that he is or is not a lame duck coach? that he has not shaped the cowboys at all? IMO, yes he has done things...could wade Phillips have driven the bus at all? no, absolutely not, he was the stay-puft marshmallow man, he had no backbone as a HC...the last several coaches have not...even when parcells was there, jones was very involved...now, garrett is trying to put his stamp on the team and jones is still there, but unless you and others are hiding under a rock, jones has given up some of the responsibility for staffing to others, do you think that garrett had nothing to do with that? do you think he had nothing to do with linehan being brought in (as an example)?

I am not following your point at all apparently except that you don't agree with mine, you seem to be riding on "but it's his last year and if they thought he was driving the bus, then extend him now." why do that? if jones DID do that, then you would be calling him names for being impulsive and making another bad decision...he is making the right decision IMO by not extending him just yet...I think that could come in the middle of the season if the team is playing well...if the team pulls a 2013 giants (first half), then I will agree that at THAT point, he will be coaching out the string as a lame duck...not just yet

 

[slomoxn]

Yeah, he was dead wrong. Not about Romo, but that wasn't his point. This team was not about to make a run in 2010. It had imploded.

And, yeah, he's being unnecessarily rude, and is mischaracterizing jobber, badly.

Well yeah, I got the rude part; kinda hard to tell when were just typing though. As far as making a run you are correct 2010 was no year they were getting anywhere. I didn't pay mch attention to when JG took over but that 13-3 team is still suck in my head as a team that could, woulda, an shoulda done it. He took over shortly after or maybe I thought he could make a team with that core do something special.

 

[Alexander]

your point being that garrett is on the last year of his deal? that he is or is not a lame duck coach?

They are one and the same.

He is in the final year of his deal. And that fact makes him a lame duck.

that he has not shaped the cowboys at all?

He's been around and applied his flavor, just like Chan Gailey did, just like Dave Campo sort of did, just like Parcells did, just like Phillips did.

IMO, yes he has done things...could wade Phillips have driven the bus at all? no, absolutely not, he was the stay-puft marshmallow man, he had no backbone as a HC...the last several coaches have not...even when parcells was there, jones was very involved...now, garrett is trying to put his stamp on the team and jones is still there, but unless you and others are hiding under a rock, jones has given up some of the responsibility for staffing to others, do you think that garrett had nothing to do with that? do you think he had nothing to do with linehan being brought in (as an example)?

So the charm of Garrett continues to be he is better than Phillips? Even now? Are you serious?

Garrett has been in his position long enough. This upcoming season he will be around as long as Wade Phillips. Who, for some strange reason, gets demonized, but then Garrett gets a pass because of the supposed mess he left.

The mess was not created by either coach. Each man is trying is hardest to succeed under a horrific regime.

I am not following your point at all apparently except that you don't agree with mine, you seem to be riding on "but it's his last year and if they thought he was driving the bus, then extend him now." why do that? if jones DID do that, then you would be calling him names for being impulsive and making another bad decision...

The point that is clearly escaping you is that if Garrett were getting the job done, he would not be operating in a one year window. What I, or anyone else has to say will not influence Jerry Jones.

he is making the right decision IMO by not extending him just yet...I think that could come in the middle of the season if the team is playing well...if the team pulls a 2013 giants (first half), then I will agree that at THAT point, he will be coaching out the string as a lame duck...not just yet

I agree here. I am in full support of Jerry Jones in regards to Garrett's contract. He has to prove it. Prove he can operate and cope with the "ambiguity".

 

[percyhoward]

What about them? You mean, because the team fell short those years? I think we've already gone round on the reasons for each of those campaigns not being more successful, haven't we? Pretty clearly, not everybody believes head coaching was the primary limiting factor. And there are really good reasons to support those arguments.

You should read some of Percy's posts, for just one example, sometime. He does a great job of unpacking what happened for the lay fan.

I appreciate that. I have to say I admit to having no clue as to how much of a factor Garrett has been, and it seems to me just as likely that we put together a team that Garrett can win with as it is that we find a coach who can win with this team.