RKG Definition

[ConstantReboot]

He was drowned out by the infamous dominating personality of Wade Phillips. Poor Jason never had a chance.

What do you thing the TO attempted mutiny was all about? It was Garrett standing up to TO and his followers like Patrick Crayton.

TO was gone before Garrett became HC because Garrett insisted on it. Wade was not involved in the removal of TO.

Well isn't that the job of Garrett? Wasn't he supposed to take care of the offense while Wade focused on the defense? Patrick Crayton was removed by Garrett because he questioned his playcalling. Everyone these days questions Garrett's playcalling including Jerry. Thats why Garrett is no longer calling plays. So it wasn't as if Crayton was wrong for doing what he did.

 

[Hostile]

I hear you on the Ware aspect, but he did start while dinged with nagging injuries outside of the (2 games? not sure tbh) where he actually had to sit. That is a lot of injuries to deal with in terms of the starting 1 tech and the depth of the D but not necessarily the starters @ play, outside of the starting 1 tech and the Spencer IR misfortune who was replaced with an average starter. I'm not going to claim the team couldn't have been luckier in injury regard (mainly Spencer IR and Ware remaining 100%) but the 20 DL statistic is a stretch in terms of the impact it really had on the starting DL.

It was shockingly unfortunate in terms of replacing the starting 1 tech, but it really is more accurately applied to depth of the DL considering Hayden continued to start regardless of who they brought in. We lost a lot of prospective depth that could have replaced Hayden/rotate with Selvie. That is where the injury pile up statistic results from. They surely weren't brought in to replace Hatcher/Ware, and even Selvie towards mid-late season.

It's off season

I'm not saying we did a good enough job. We clearly didn't because they couldn't stop anyone. I am saying no team could have overcome that, and I am pretty sure anyone with even a decent amount of intelligence could figure that out. Atlanta couldn't overcome their injuries at all, and were worse than us with a team that more was expected of. Green Bay too. Houston had suddenly arrived, only to see them plummet. It happened to Indy when Manning was lost to injury.

Does that matter to anyone? To see that injuries do in fact sink teams? No, logic isn't required apparently.

Anyone who thinks we under achieved last year isn't worth listening to on the subject of football because they don't know anything. If anything, we over achieved because we have the right kinds of guys.

I expect that last comment to have a backlash.

 

[Hostile]

What do you thing the TO attempted mutiny was all about? It was Garrett standing up to TO and his followers like Patrick Crayton.

TO was gone before Garrett became HC because Garrett insisted on it. Wade was not involved in the removal of TO.

100% correct.

 

[daveferr33]

Point is that this RKG stuff is just usual basic coach speak that every coach wants in their players, and does not indicate anything special about Garrett's method or process or vision ...... Every peewee coach says the same stuff

Good coaches are ones that are able to convert those words into tangible results

This is a great post. Many examples abound. Here is one from a recently hired, first time NFL HC:

We're looking for guys who can be the next batch of Cleveland Browns -- we want to make that mean something -- being a Cleveland Brown is special. When you play like a Brown, there's the toughness part of it, has passion, they love football, they are instinctive and gym rats. Those are the types of guys we are looking for."

Only myopia could lead one to believe that Garrett's coach speak was some kind of secret sauce formula for acquiring NFL talent.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

What do you thing the TO attempted mutiny was all about? It was Garrett standing up to TO and his followers like Patrick Crayton.

TO was gone before Garrett became HC because Garrett insisted on it. Wade was not involved in the removal of TO.

LOL. There's zero proof of that.

And even if it were true, maybe Garrett should've kept TO and Crayton. His offense has never been as good as it was when they were around in 2007.

It's so amusing... The absolute delusions that are perpetuated in order to absolve Garrett of any and all blame for, well, everything.

 

[jday]

I don't think the goal is to not get too high or too low. It should be to face reality. I wasn't too high in the early 90's. I wasn't trying to temper my enthusiasm for a clearly great team. I didn't have to maintain any balance. Sometimes a team is good. Sometimes they're bad. This balance thing is nonsense homer fans say to hope to limit your stinging justified criticisms on the flawed product we see today.
If you've been half and half on this team over the last 20 years, congratulations...you've been only half wrong.
You said you choose to ignore certain aspects of the team because you're a fan and might not even watch if you didn't. That's creating a happy place for yourself not evaluating the team for what it really is.

Maybe "ignore" was the wrong choice of words, as well. Like I said, I see what's going on, but rather than playing verbal ping pong with you, let me see if I can't at least establish a middle ground with you - is there nothing that you like about this team? Can you not derive any hope for the future of this team based on the simpe fact that Jerry Jones is running the show?

I'd say that's a little extreme. The offense is good but it is also completely reliant on a 34 year old QB coming off of two back surgeries in a little more than a calendar year. I don't see greatness in the other talent on offense, but I do see good talent. Good gets transformed to great on here.

Maybe "greatness" is overstating the reasonable expectation for this offense, but still they have some really good players - consider: With the addition of Zach Martin, if every thing I've read about him is true could make that frount 5 one of the best in the NFL. Dez Bryant, Jason Witten, Demarco Murray, Tony Romo, if they can stay healthy, are a better tandem then, at least, half the league. Behind them are a whole host of players with good potential. So maybe I'm leaning a little to the optimistic side for that unit, but to a certain degree I believe my hope is warranted.

The Cowboys failed last year for the same reason they've failed for the last 20. They lack talent on a team that lacks the proper environment for coaches to do their job. We have emasculated coaches with subpar players. Injuries had nothing do with the failure. We weren't winning anything regardless.

I respectfully disagree. The injuries have been a big part of the issue. The only issue? Not at all. You could point your finger at alot of things, but your blind if you don't see that injuries played a significant role in the Cowboys demise the last two seasons. If you don't want to hear excuses, that's fine - you can choose to ignore them, but isn't that creating a sad place for yourself?

No. That's not why I watch. I don't believe that because I root for team X that that team has a chance to win every year. I'm a Sixers fan. They suck. Large. They have no chance to win anything next year. Just like they've had no chance to win anything for most of my lifetime, but I'll still watch and follow the team next season. I understand the situation, or the reality, of that team and it's completely irrelevant to my rooting interests.
I don't believe it's a coin flip as to whether the Cowboys win a title in 2014. Unless the success of the team falls on the coin landing on it's side.

I didn't say that's the reason to watch. This we both agree on - I watch because as much as I simply love the sport of football, there's is no other team, college or professional that I derive more enjoyment out of watching than the Cowboys...win or lose. Furthermore, I honestly don't like the Cowboys chances of even making the playoffs this next year considering the big question mark that looms over that defense. But that doesn't mean I have to completely dismiss the possibility that this team could actually be good and could contend.

 

[Idgit]

Some of you guys are willing to believe some fairly elaborate make believe on this topic. And where'd all this next-Landry nonsense come from? Is it more pure distorted fantasy, or did somebody actually say it in defense of Jason Garrett? He's no Tom Landry.

That said, his definition of the kind of players he wants on the team is straightforward, explicit, and it always has been. And there's no point in denying that he's churned the roster with that definition in mind. You guys can prop up or second guess the various decisions that have gone into it, but the overall direction is pretty clear.

And, as somebody who regularly defended Wade Phillips against attacks by posters who are now apparently his newest and greatest supporters, I'll freely admit that Wade was disrespected for the job he did here. Wade definitely had a better record than both Jason Garrett and Bill Parcels. There's no disputing that. Now, is he a better head coach than either of them? I don't think he is. And, I say that knowing he's got the won-loss record in his favor.

 

[scooper]

How about the rkg is defined as whatever our head coach who builds this roster says it is? I bet he knows just a little more about football and team building than any of us. I for one trust him!

 

[jday]

If you look at this team and think the fact they "fight" and "compete" as something different really means you have a very selective memory. There was less delusion the last time culture really did change from the Campo to the Parcells era.

It is amazing how one season collapse defines the Phillips era, yet continued mediocrity under Garrett that is a notch below what the Phillips teams achieved is somehow sold as definite progress.

So the idea is the lazy entitled players are all gone. Funny, I have seen players like Ratliff continue to be relied upon and even steal their salary laughing as they do it. Orton is basically flipping off management as we speak. I still see overpaid players like Brandon Carr underachieving on this roster with nary a harsh criticism from the leadership. But oh yes, all the lazy malingerers are gone, right?

Why does that perception exist? Because the propaganda machine is a lot stronger now.

The head coach is not a nervous defensive chuckling self-deprecating old man who plays with his chin fat and tugs nervously on his arm hairs during a press conference.

The team was forced by circumstance as much as philosophy to jettison older aging players, but if you tell yourself enough that it was Garrett taking out the trash, it makes it easier to digest for some..

Simple plain fact--Phillips' results were superior to Jason Garrett's have been to date. But everyone feels better because of empty coach speak and their own delusions of "what is being built here". The team is not coached better, it is marketed better.

Make no mistake, I loathed how Phillips ran a football team. In the same respect, there could very easily be the same undercurrent in the locker room towards Garrett. And no, do not bore me with quotes from the anointed leaders on this team like Romo and Witten. They are part of the upper crust haves on this team. I would rather hear how the 53rd man on this roster thinks Garrett is the next Landry.

First, Phillips benefitted from the team that Parcells built; I wasn't crazy about how parcells managed the game (e.g. playing Marty-ball with a 3 point lead), but he did build a good team. From the time Wade took over he ran this team into the ground and the team declined in talent and motivation.

Carr is still here because he is better than the alternative and the cap hit that releasing him at this point would entail; however, I'll agree he should never have been handed that stupid contract to begin with. I'm not sure if Garrett is the right guy for head coach or not, this next season will tell us alot. But I'm not basing that opinion on rather or not they have a winning season; alot can happen to prevent a winning season. To be honest, regardless if Garrett does a good job or not, I don't beleive this team given it's current construction, is ready. But I like the direction of the team, regardless of what they may be capable of accomplishing this year. This team has really been rebuilding since he took over and the rebuild was set back a few paces when they decided to move from the 34 to the 43. So I have patience that is good for another season or two. But if we don't see marked improvement in the next two seasons, I will probably join you in your opinion.

 

[BigStar]

I'm not saying we did a good enough job. We clearly didn't because they couldn't stop anyone. I am saying no team could have overcome that, and I am pretty sure anyone with even a decent amount of intelligence could figure that out. Atlanta couldn't overcome their injuries at all, and were worse than us with a team that more was expected of. Green Bay too. Houston had suddenly arrived, only to see them plummet. It happened to Indy when Manning was lost to injury.

Does that matter to anyone? To see that injuries do in fact sink teams? No, logic isn't required apparently.

Anyone who thinks we under achieved last year isn't worth listening to on the subject of football because they don't know anything. If anything, we over achieved because we have the right kinds of guys.

I expect that last comment to have a backlash.

Over achieved? Did they beat a winning team outside of the first PHI game? DET/GB? Those were two winnable games lost due to poor play calling and clock management. Plain and simple. But there were no other reasons outside of injuries that resulted in 8-8? That was it? Wish someone would've told the team earlier bc they seemed to have thought they could have made the playoffs all the way up to week 17. So when teams overcome injuries they are defying logic?

I broke down the starters in place after the "wrath" and it resulted in Ware, a starting 3 tech with 11 sacks, and an adequate starter @ LE (Selvie) that provided an adequate pass rush (7 sacks) while doing well @ setting the edge. Was the team actively trying to replace Hatcher and Ware during the season? Maybe to compete with Selvie...but that is it in terms of the starting DL. Shouldn't the players that "replaced" the injured starters also be considered? That includes Hatcher (for Rat) and Selvie (for Spencer). Both productive starters..one w/a probowl season. But that gets in the way of that easier injury statistic to rely on.

Back to the 1 tech...I asked who else did the team lose out on and you mentioned Bass and Marvin Austin? 20 DL...but when I ask specifically for the names of these quality players that kept falling to injury, I don't get much response? The team lost their starting LE and the potential 1 tech with Brent early in camp. Dallas PR is good. All the street FAs we brought in keep getting injured!

 

[BigStar]

GB overcame many more critical injuries (to starters) to go on to win the SB in 2010?
"The Packers had 16 people on injured reserve, including 7 starters in running back Ryan Grant, tight end Jermichael Finley, linebacker Nick Barnett, safety Morgan Burnett, linebacker Brandon Chillar, tackle Mark Tauscher, and linebacker Brad Jones."

But no team could overcome that yada yada yada

 

[jday]

Over achieved? Did they beat a winning team outside of the first PHI game? DET/GB? Those were two winnable games lost due to poor play calling and clock management. Plain and simple. But there were no other reasons outside of injuries that resulted in 8-8? That was it? Wish someone would've told the team earlier bc they seemed to have thought they could have made the playoffs all the way up to week 17. So when teams overcome injuries they are defying logic?

I broke down the starters in place after the "wrath" and it resulted in Ware, a starting 3 tech with 11 sacks, and an adequate starter @ LE (Selvie) that provided an adequate pass rush (7 sacks) while doing well @ setting the edge. Was the team actively trying to replace Hatcher and Ware during the season? Maybe to compete with Selvie...but that is it in terms of the starting DL. Shouldn't the players that "replaced" the injured starters also be considered? That includes Hatcher (for Rat) and Selvie (for Spencer). Both productive starters..one w/a probowl season. But that gets in the way of that easier injury statistic to rely on.

Back to the 1 tech...I asked who else did the team lose out on and you mentioned Bass and Marvin Austin? 20 DL...but when I ask specifically for the names of these quality players that kept falling to injury, I don't get much response? The team lost their starting LE and the potential 1 tech with Brent early in camp. Dallas PR is good. All the street FAs we brought in keep getting injured!

You make a decent argument above; I actually agree with a few of the things you said, in particular about the winnable games. There were games were I feel Garrett should accept completely responsibility for the loss. But there are few things I would point out. One, Ware played injured throughtout the year, perhaps being a detriment to the team as a whole, though he still had decent stats. Two, conventional wisdom of the 43 is ideally you can send players in waves. Their ability to do that last year was considerably hamstringed by the lack of talent behind the starters. Three, Selvie, Ware, and Hatcher, the significant contributors of the line often times were a tale of two different palyers. They were inconsistent, allowing QB's too much time in the pocket, which afforded them the ability to pick our secondary apart - granted, much of that was likely due to them being exhausted - see point 2. Four, continuity - the defensive line's make-up was constantly having to change as a result of injuries. Five, teams do overcome certain injuries, but not typically the loss of their starting QB. Romo play's that final game, who knows, we may actually have made it to the playoffs...especially considering that loss was the only loss the Cowboys had all year in the NFCE. Six, what was truly odd about last year was that the injuries on defense seemed to focus right smack in the middle. The 1-tech DT, MLB and Safety. I'm not going to say that middle of your defense is the most important part, but when an opposing offense needs a few yards, that's typically the place they are going to hit. And finally seven, the 43 was on it's maiden voyage, so-to-speak, so some growing pains with many of the players converting to new positions was expected.

I'm sure there are others reasons to look at, but injuries did play a huge role in the epic fail that was last season for the Cowboys defense.

 

[jday]

GB overcame many more critical injuries (to starters) to go on to win the SB in 2010?
"The Packers had 16 people on injured reserve, including 7 starters in running back Ryan Grant, tight end Jermichael Finley, linebacker Nick Barnett, safety Morgan Burnett, linebacker Brandon Chillar, tackle Mark Tauscher, and linebacker Brad Jones."

But no team could overcome that yada yada yada

I didn't see Aaron Roger's on that list. I only mention it because Romo was injured. And had Romo played in that last game, it's very possible they win, particularly since that was the first loss handed to them in the NFCE last year. Just saying...

Furthermore, people always bring up the Packers. But even then people pointed out it was pretty unbelievable what the Packers acheived. Which if it is unbelievable that means it doesn't happen often making it one of those exceptions to the rule...not to be confused with what we should expect from every team that is submitted to a similiar injury situation.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL. There's zero proof of that.

And even if it were true, maybe Garrett should've kept TO and Crayton. His offense has never been as good as it was when they were around in 2007.

It's so amusing... The absolute delusions that are perpetuated in order to absolve Garrett of any and all blame for, well, everything.

You really going to take issue with people making stories up about Garrett to fill in the gaps?

Introspection is important.

 

[BigStar]

You make a decent argument above; I actually agree with a few of the things you said, in particular about the winnable games. There were games were I feel Garrett should accept completely responsibility for the loss. But there are few things I would point out. One, Ware played injured throughtout the year, perhaps being a detriment to the team as a whole, though he still had decent stats. Two, conventional wisdom of the 43 is ideally you can send players in waves. Their ability to do that last year was considerably hamstringed by the lack of talent behind the starters. Three, Selvie, Ware, and Hatcher, the significant contributors of the line often times were a tale of two different palyers. They were inconsistent, allowing QB's too much time in the pocket, which afforded them the ability to pick our secondary apart - granted, much of that was likely due to them being exhausted - see point 2. Four, continuity - the defensive line's make-up was constantly having to change as a result of injuries. Five, teams do overcome certain injuries, but not typically the loss of their starting QB. Romo play's that final game, who knows, we may actually have made it to the playoffs...especially considering that loss was the only loss the Cowboys had all year in the NFCE. Six, what was truly odd about last year was that the injuries on defense seemed to focus right smack in the middle. The 1-tech DT, MLB and Safety. I'm not going to say that middle of your defense is the most important part, but when an opposing offense needs a few yards, that's typically the place they are going to hit. And finally seven, the 43 was on it's maiden voyage, so-to-speak, so some growing pains with many of the players converting to new positions was expected.

I'm sure there are others reasons to look at, but injuries did play a huge role in the epic fail that was last season for the Cowboys defense.

I don't agree with every point but you obviously put some thought into your response and appreciate the debate. You pushed on one of the holes of my argument in terms of the erratic production of Ware/Hatch/Selvie throughout the season. I know we had no pass rush...I watch the games, but the team has cleverly used the injury excuse to whitewash the poor planning that went behind the move from the 3-4 in the first place. Two agings OLBs in their prime...put em in a 4-3? The only two players the scheme seemed to fit were Rat and Hatch (both @ 3 tech). Instead of pushing Rat to DE and signing a prototypical NT, the team panicked because of an embarrassing loss to RG3 mainly using the read option. This was also thought to stop Vick in PHI who was lighting us up regularly.

I understand that 4-3 teams would almost always prefer to have depth and rotate but the team was light on DL as a result of drafting for the 3-4 (outside of NT of course) and neglecting in developing the position for several seasons (same applies to OLBs to rotate with Ware/Spencer though they did try with Butler and a couple of other misses). I would say Lee and Spencer were the critical injuries to this D, with Ware being iffy later in the season, but not much else. Those are two really good players that would've assisted (Ware/Lee) in making the D @ least mid range. I hate that it came down to the final game (again) as a result of the game mismanagement @ the hands of JG whose supporters like to point to injuries to distance him from just how important these miscues are. I just don't see what positive Garret brings to this organization outside of drafting OL early (which I love). If anything, he is the only mainstay (year to year) outside of great talent that prevents the team from succeeding or even making the playoffs. One year, the OL, the next year, injuries, the next, the secondary. Each year the team is 8-7 going into their final game (regardless of the justifications/excuses) but are only pushed into a must win bc of poor game management by their HC.

I am a Romo guy, so no issues there at all. I feel his best opps have been squandered and the only light @ the end of the tunnel is that Linny will ride the Romo-Dez connection to the playoffs while also relying on Murray to maintain the momentum of the games and to protect the D. What is frustrating is that there was NOTHING that would've prevented this formula working last season to get this team into the post season. It is now being used as the way to go, but what was the hold up last year? I can only think of one person, well two people technically

 

[BigStar]

I didn't see Aaron Roger's on that list. I only mention it because Romo was injured. And had Romo played in that last game, it's very possible they win, particularly since that was the first loss handed to them in the NFCE last year. Just saying...

Furthermore, people always bring up the Packers. But even then people pointed out it was pretty unbelievable what the Packers acheived. Which if it is unbelievable that means it doesn't happen often making it one of those exceptions to the rule...not to be confused with what we should expect from every team that is submitted to a similiar injury situation.

I hear ya, I was just pointing out the illogical abomination that were the "2012 SB Winning Green Bay Packers" for those who like the hyperbole

 

[jday]

This is a great post. Many examples abound. Here is one from a recently hired, first time NFL HC:



Only myopia could lead one to believe that Garrett's coach speak was some kind of secret sauce formula for acquiring NFL talent.

You lost me here - who said the type of players Garrett is looking for is a new concept? I've been following this thread since it's inception and I don't recall any post suggesting that Garrett is innovating the sport by looking for RKG's. This is nothing new to football. I also don't recall Garrett ever opening up his description of an RKG with, "I have a newand exciting way of finding football players. Sure it may oppose popular opinion, but I want guy's that are actually willing to work hard on off the field..."

The issues that many bloggers have about Garrett is that despite all his talk, he has yet to provide results. But I have sneaky feeling that had Romo played in the final season game and won, and had the Cowboys actually made the playoffs, many of these converstaions wouldn't be happening. It would have bought Garrett a little more patience from many...not all, I'll grant you, but most I'm pretty certain. I'll be the first to tell you that Garrett's hasn't done a great job, particularly in the area of game management and playcalling. But now that he has handed the offense to Linehan, that should help him improve in both areas. So, I'm giving him this season to prove it. Now, to be clear, I'm not simply looking at the win/loss ratio to determine his worth. Why? Because I don't expect them to accomplish much with that defense, as it is. But there will be evidence of the type of job he is doing, regardless of how many losses they have. In game management, is obviously the first thing we all will be looking at. But the other big question is do the players give their all for four quarters, or do they look like quitters, like they did in particular with Wade as Head Coach towards the end?

And just as a reminder, the initial intent of this thread was to reaquaint people with the definition, because they seemed to think that the acquisition of McClain suggest a departure from the philosphy, when in truth, it really doesn't. Had the Cowboys actually given something up for the guy and handed him a big contract as he walked through the door, then I might agree with that assessment, but this is nothing more than a free look to see if McClain can be an RKG. If he can't, which they should find out pretty qucik come training camp/preseason, the Cowboys lose nothing.

 

[jday]

I don't agree with every point but you obviously put some thought into your response and appreciate the debate. You pushed on one of the holes of my argument in terms of the erratic production of Ware/Hatch/Selvie throughout the season. I know we had no pass rush...I watch the games, but the team has cleverly used the injury excuse to whitewash the poor planning that went behind the move from the 3-4 in the first place. Two agings OLBs in their prime...put em in a 4-3? The only two players the scheme seemed to fit were Rat and Hatch (both @ 3 tech). Instead of pushing Rat to DE and signing a prototypical NT, the team panicked because of an embarrassing loss to RG3 mainly using the read option. This was also thought to stop Vick in PHI who was lighting us up regularly.

I understand that 4-3 teams would almost always prefer to have depth and rotate but the team was light on DL as a result of drafting for the 3-4 (outside of NT of course) and neglecting in developing the position for several seasons (same applies to OLBs to rotate with Ware/Spencer though they did try with Butler and a couple of other misses). I would say Lee and Spencer were the critical injuries to this D, with Ware being iffy later in the season, but not much else. Those are two really good players that would've assisted (Ware/Lee) in making the D @ least mid range. I hate that it came down to the final game (again) as a result of the game mismanagement @ the hands of JG whose supporters point to injuries to distance him from just how important these miscues are. I just don't see what positive Garret brings to this organization outside of drafting OL early (which I love).

I am a Romo guy, so no issues there at all. I feel his best opps have been squandered and the only light @ the end of the tunnel is that Linny will ride the Romo-Dez connection to the playoffs while also relying on Murray to maintain the momentum of the games and to protect the D. What is frustrating is that there was NOTHING that would've prevented this formula working last season to get this team into the post season. It is now being used as the way to go, but what was the hold up last year? I can only thing of one person, well two people technically

I actually liked the move to the 43...but that is just a matter of preference. I think it's easier to find guy's coming out of college that fit the scheme day 1 both in body type and skill set; for example, many OLB are converted 43 De's. Granted, I wasn't sure how Ware/Spencer and company were going to handle the switch from Lb to De, but ultimately, I honestly believed the Cowboys were otherwise setup well for the switch. I could be wrong there. The other injury that it seems you may have forgotten was Crawford. I know he hasn't proved anything yet, but they seem to be pretty high on him as a De. Stay tuned.

 

[BigStar]

I actually liked the move to the 43...but that is just a matter of preference. I think it's easier to find guy's coming out of college that fit the scheme day 1 both in body type and skill set; for example, many OLB are converted 43 De's. Granted, I wasn't sure how Ware/Spencer and company were going to handle the switch from Lb to De, but ultimately, I honestly believed the Cowboys were otherwise setup well for the switch. I could be wrong there. The other injury that it seems you may have forgotten was Crawford. I know he hasn't proved anything yet, but they seem to be pretty high on him as a De. Stay tuned.

I've gone back and forth on the whole 4-3 v 3-4 argument simply due to the creativity allowed in the (3-4) but also grew up on the 90s dynasty and initially hated the Parcells 3-4. Ware made it tolerable but I never thought I would see such a bland version of the 3-4 scheme. Loved Parcells overall, but common Billy, throw a twist in thr or something Crawford would be a nice find given his unlucky early start but once again, drafted for the 3-4 and the team is still finding his proper place along the line. Little light for 1, disruptive enough as the 3, or stay @ LE (his pref) and be more of an Ellis type pass rusher? Like his potential

 

[jday]

To my thinking the departure from this team seeking RKGs came simply by McClain's history being what it is. After all, he has abandoned his teams twice saying his passion for football was gone. Since having a passion of the game was one of the prime requirements for the RKG tag, it's natural to be concerned about the possibility that his return may well be based upon the need for money and the lack of it away from the sport.

That doesn't mean I'm not hopeful McClain has changed his thinking but his past DOES generate concern. Hopefully, he'll find a way to reestabish that fervor that has left him in his not-so-distant past. What his agent says simply means his agent is doing what he's paid to do, which is to support his client. If McClain has truly changed, the burden of proof is for him to prove it's so. He'll get that chance, despite what his recent history indicates is justifiable cause for concern. He'd best make the most of it. Everyone deserves a second change but the third one usually comes with at least some degree of trepidation and concern.

I might agree that McClain's acquisition suggest departure from the RKG philosphy if they actually had placed a real investment in him. But this is nothing more than a free look to see if he can be the type of player they are looking for. Off-the-field issues aside, he cam out of college possessing many of the qualities Garrett looks for, so if he can somehow return to being that player, he could prove to be a steal. And, as I mentioned in the OP, with the loss of Lee, this was chance they couldn't pass up. If his head isn't into it, they can put him off the team for what will likely be his final retirement.