RKG Definition

jday

Well-Known Member
Messages
9,321
Reaction score
13,284
In the wake of the McClain acquisition, I have seen many people posting this seems to be a departure from the rkg philosophy; some even suggesting that Marinelli is responsible for throwing that tired mantra away. As a result, I thought it be a good idea we revisit the definition of RKG, Jason Garrett quotes swiped from BTB (for fully story visit here http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2012...oys-draft-what-exactly-is-a-right-kind-of-guy):

"The most important thing is we talk about what it means to be a Dallas Cowboy, the kind of guys we want on our football team. If you look at the guys we've selected, each of these six guys represents that. They're good football players. The top three guys are from big schools. They're prominent players at that school, they have production at a high level. And then as we've gotten a little further down in the draft we've been able to take some guys who we think can fit a particular role for us. At least to create some competition on our football team. Again, they have the right measurables, they're the Right Kind Of Guys, we think they're good football players."

"Obviously they have to have the physical requirements to play this game. The measurables, the talent, the aptitude to play. Part of that is being "The Right Kind Of Guy."

"You want guys who love to play football and show you that they love it each and every day. Passion, enthusiasm, emotion, all of those things come into it....It's one thing to talk that, but you need to see that."

Then Jason expands on how he defines "The Wrong Kind Of Guy":

"The guys who don't love to play football. Guys who don't love to work. The guys who don't love to be around their teammates. The guys who aren't trying to be the best they can be. All those things."

Obviously, McClain has some red flags based on the above definition. He has been quoted as saying he doesn't love football. During his off-the-field struggles, he also stopped putting in the work. But while with the Crimson Tide, he embodied the RKG definition. So if that guy can emerge from the ashes of an otherwise burned out career, this will prove to be a steal.

But so there is no further confusion, RKG doesn't mean country-club membership touting boy scout who spends his off time looking for opportunities to help old ladies across the street.
 
It was reported when McClay got the promotion that he would be more tolerant of borderline character players but would be less tolerant of injury risk players.

Also, now that Garrett has had years to purge the non-RKGs and build a roster full of RKGs, it's much easier to add an occasional character risk player.

When Garrett inherited a roster with a horrible locker-room mentality, he had to over-focus on adding RKGs and purging the over-entitled, under-disciplined over paid underachievers that were the definition of the Wade Phillips era.
 
Who cares? Can he play football or not? I'm not asking for a role model for my children or a leader for my church youth group. We want football players. If they can help the team I'm all for them. This RKG stuff is stupid.
 
In the wake of the McClain acquisition, I have seen many people posting this seems to be a departure from the rkg philosophy; some even suggesting that Marinelli is responsible for throwing that tired mantra away. As a result, I thought it be a good idea we revisit the definition of RKG, Jason Garrett quotes swiped from BTB (for fully story visit here http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2012...oys-draft-what-exactly-is-a-right-kind-of-guy):

"The most important thing is we talk about what it means to be a Dallas Cowboy, the kind of guys we want on our football team. If you look at the guys we've selected, each of these six guys represents that. They're good football players. The top three guys are from big schools. They're prominent players at that school, they have production at a high level. And then as we've gotten a little further down in the draft we've been able to take some guys who we think can fit a particular role for us. At least to create some competition on our football team. Again, they have the right measurables, they're the Right Kind Of Guys, we think they're good football players."

"Obviously they have to have the physical requirements to play this game. The measurables, the talent, the aptitude to play. Part of that is being "The Right Kind Of Guy."

"You want guys who love to play football and show you that they love it each and every day. Passion, enthusiasm, emotion, all of those things come into it....It's one thing to talk that, but you need to see that."

Then Jason expands on how he defines "The Wrong Kind Of Guy":

"The guys who don't love to play football. Guys who don't love to work. The guys who don't love to be around their teammates. The guys who aren't trying to be the best they can be. All those things."

Obviously, McClain has some red flags based on the above definition. He has been quoted as saying he doesn't love football. During his off-the-field struggles, he also stopped putting in the work. But while with the Crimson Tide, he embodied the RKG definition. So if that guy can emerge from the ashes of an otherwise burned out career, this will prove to be a steal.

But so there is no further confusion, RKG doesn't mean country-club membership touting boy scout who spends his off time looking for opportunities to help old ladies across the street.

When Opie changes that definition to guys who like to knock the living snot out of other guys and look forward to Sundays so they can perform what is essentially sanctioned felonious assault on the opponents, then his definition falls flat for me.
 
Who cares? Can he play football or not? I'm not asking for a role model for my children or a leader for my church youth group. We want football players. If they can help the team I'm all for them. This RKG stuff is stupid.

Did you read the thread? RKG doesn't mean role model or church attendee - it means they love football, they go about their craft the right way, and they are good team players. So you absolutely should care about RKG, because guy's that don't do those things aren't going to have success on any team, let alone the Cowboys.
 
Who cares? Can he play football or not? I'm not asking for a role model for my children or a leader for my church youth group. We want football players. If they can help the team I'm all for them. This RKG stuff is stupid.

Did you even bother to read Garrett's definition of RKG? It has nothing to do with being a boy scout. It's about being the kind of guy who eats, sleeps and breathes football. Those are the guys who have success in the NFL.

EDIT:Jday beat me to it.
 
RKG = 8-8

For this response, I had to bring it back:

johnstewart_facepalm.gif
 
Did you even bother to read Garrett's definition of RKG? It has nothing to do with being a boy scout. It's about being the kind of guy who eats, eating, sleeps and breathes football. Those are the guys who have success in the NFL.

EDIT:Jday beat me to it.

No worries. Say it enough times and it may finally sink in.
 
It was reported when McClay got the promotion that he would be more tolerant of borderline character players but would be less tolerant of injury risk players.

I read the quote, but I think you have to read between the lines. Marinelli is tolerant of these types because he has proven that he can get the most out of guys like this. The guys like that by association with Marinelli can be transformed into RKG's. Make no mistake, if you are going to play and start on a Marinelli-lead defense, you are going to put in film study, you are going to put in the work on the field, you are going to be a team player and support the guys around you, and you are at the very least going to play like you love it. Because if you don't, you won't be playing on his defense for long. With McClain, they will not be tied to him by merit of cap hit; he will be on a very short leash.

Also, now that Garrett has had years to purge the non-RKGs and build a roster full of RKGs, it's much easier to add an occasional character risk player.

When Garrett inherited a roster with a horrible locker-room mentality, he had to over-focus on adding RKGs and purging the over-entitled, under-disciplined over paid underachievers that were the definition of the Wade Phillips era.

I'm with you on this, but again - RKG, at it's very core, means passion for the game of football and willingness to come to work every day to be your best. The same is true of any player on any team - if you don't have or do those things, your not going to have much success.
 
Who cares? Can he play football or not? I'm not asking for a role model for my children or a leader for my church youth group. We want football players. If they can help the team I'm all for them. This RKG stuff is stupid.

Herein lies the problem with today's "me first" generation. Whether you want it or not, players are role models. Go to any pee wee football game or little league baseball game and observe the kids emulating star players. Organizations are fully aware of this and all of them strive to get players that would be at least decent role models. It's a crap shoot, Aaron Hernandez is a good example. There's a lot more to it than just wanting good character people. They have to be able to play. With today's generation who only care about themselves, it's getting harder and harder. I understand what you're saying though, just that it's a naive stance.
 
I believe Nick Saban is largely behind this move. Garrett is close to Saban, and I'll bet McClain was recommended by Saban as a player worth the risk.

That, and we need a dadgum linebacker in the worst way.
 

Staff online

Forum statistics

Threads
465,296
Messages
13,864,074
Members
23,788
Latest member
mattyice
Back
Top