Seriously, if Jimmy came back
- Thread starter LittleBoyBlue
- Start date
Illini88228
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,240
- Reaction score
- 191
So, you want everyone's honest opinion with the exception of any opinions that fall under " the obvious reasons why this could/would almost certainly fail"?
- Messages
- 58,971
- Reaction score
- 60,826
If Jimmy came back, it's be a redux of Joe Gibbs' reputational immolation from a few years back, only a lot less fun to watch. The lightning has left that bottle, and it's not coming back.
If Garrett can't get it done next season, I'm not sure what direction we'll go in. Perhaps we'll get the HC equivalent of the Monte Kiffin hire. That would be fun to watch. For about 5 minutes.
If Garrett can't get it done next season, I'm not sure what direction we'll go in. Perhaps we'll get the HC equivalent of the Monte Kiffin hire. That would be fun to watch. For about 5 minutes.
- Messages
- 78,651
- Reaction score
- 42,995
Jimmy has stated MULTIPLE times that he has no interest what so ever in coming back to coach. People really need to stop bringing up these what if scenarios with Jimmy Johnson.
Tawney88
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,640
- Reaction score
- 631
I'd take Don Johnson over the Buffon we have as GM/owner. I get the Garrett dislike here, but seriously folks Garrett is just a symptom of the real disease Jerry Jones.
To the topic at hand, I don't think he could do it again as others have said he had the perfect situation here the first time. No matter Jerry Jones tells him about control I don't believe he wouldn't Meddle. I doubt Jimmy would believe it either.
Lonestar94
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 3,527
- Reaction score
- 725
Ah cowboy fans, the only ones who think more than 20 years in the past
DCBoysfan
Hardwork and Dedication
- Messages
- 7,278
- Reaction score
- 3,582
He gets asked that question just about everyday on twitter.
joseephuss
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 28,041
- Reaction score
- 6,920
That isn't true. Fans of all teams do that. Just look at the Jets.
Doc50
Original Fan
- Messages
- 3,142
- Reaction score
- 3,430
Zimmy Lives
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 9,165
- Reaction score
- 4,631
No, he does not have the motivation.
Tobal
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 2,336
- Reaction score
- 328
He'd need early success, todays athletes wouldn't handle his grinding long enough to "build" something. If he had early success then he'd get the buy in needed.
His Dallas teams were very talented, but they also out worked other teams due to their depth. Jimmy was a great drafter because he manipulated the draft board. He had a lot of misses, but he covered those up with the Walker Trade and how he ran his draft. Other NFL teams are just as good if not better at running the draft now.
His Dallas teams were very talented, but they also out worked other teams due to their depth. Jimmy was a great drafter because he manipulated the draft board. He had a lot of misses, but he covered those up with the Walker Trade and how he ran his draft. Other NFL teams are just as good if not better at running the draft now.
jaybird
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,484
- Reaction score
- 814
Unless he could pull off another Hershall Walker deal -wht would be the point? Hes a quitter let him stay quit.
GimmeTheBall!
Junior College Transfer
- Messages
- 37,677
- Reaction score
- 18,033
It would take Jimma 3 seasons to wright the ship.
If he can take over the draft completely (with his trusted lieutenants) and given all personnel duties. he can.
Jimma was the greated coach we ever had and did more in the shortest time possible.
If he can take over the draft completely (with his trusted lieutenants) and given all personnel duties. he can.
Jimma was the greated coach we ever had and did more in the shortest time possible.
Picksix
A Work in Progress
- Messages
- 5,198
- Reaction score
- 1,081
Exactly. If you're not totally committed to something like this, even if you have the ability, it's destined to fail.
TwoDeep3
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 14,506
- Reaction score
- 17,339
One of the hallmark attributes of Jimmy was his ability to recognize talent. This includes assistant coaches.
One would project the Jimmy demeanor of a strict disciplinarian would also be exerted in the assistant coaching ranks. Meaning he was hard on them and demanded excellence from their individual tasks as well as the team. With this in mind, it puts in place the real talent of Jimmy, which is running an organization with motivated workers and motivated middle management.
The understanding of what each player was capable of, coming out of college, was more than just Jimmy. He had honed a staff to recognize talent. They scouted all the players who were meaningful then, and used this in drafts and game preparation. I would imagine this also included scouting the other coaches and what their tendencies were.
But the rebuttal to this would look like - well, why didn't the Jimmy disciples in the coaching ranks succeed to a higher degree. And herein lies the answer why both they and ultimately Jimmy did not succeed in other NFL cities.
They were a collective, each with first hand knowledge of the kids coming out of college when they were assembled in Dallas.
They also had the one chip to trade in Herschel Walker, and the one moron to trade with in Mike Lynn - who gave away way more for Walker than he was worth, *** although Jerry Burns, the head coach of Minnesota, did not utilize Walker well.
Further, the cap implications would require Jimmy, these days, to sit and wait until the mess Jerry has created goes away. Then there would need to be a great deal of losing to get top draft picks several years in a row to seed the team with talent.
And find the quarterback to lead the team.
Even then Jimmy would be required to put together a staff who could have the talent recognition. It was not him alone that built the 90's teams, but a group of focused and incited coaches to bring the best together. Jimmy's real gift is assembling a group, both coaches and players, that fear him, yet admire him in a way to give their all.
Jimmy was great getting buy-in with his plan.
Plus he could send people to the asthma field and flat out cut players.
So one would suspect protecting the defense means running the ball more. And having been on a team who had a terrific running game, and was utilized in closing out the second half by dominating on the ground and eating the clock. One would think Garrett would see this, remember it, ask Jimmy, or someone would suggest running the ball wins games when it is a shoot out.
Because we have all seen Garrett heed the press when they called him out on this, only to backslide into a pass happy team. Even when Murray was rushing for over 5 yards per carry.
*** What is amazing is the idea Walker was not really featured in the running game in Minnesota. Perhaps Burns understood the fallacy of giving away those draft choices, since the players weren't any more than magic beans. So perhaps Burns ignored Walker in a way to show up the GM Mike Lynn.
What I find ironic is this. While Murray isn't Walker by any stretch of the imagination. He is a pretty solid back who can balance the offense and eat clock when needed. And one bit of irony, although Garrett did not get to the team until 1993, is that you would think Garrett would have seen the wisdom in a running attack.
Maybe not noticed what happened when Walker was shelved in Minny. Even though truthfully Walker only broke 1000 yards twice in his pro career. Both times - Dallas in 1988 for 1514 and in Philly in 1992 for 1070, and in both cases ran the ball for an unprecedented 265 or more times in those years.
But what should be the template for Garrett to see that the running game is an effective tool at both wearing down a defense, and a clock managing aid is Emmitt Smith. And in this, no one here or anywhere would suggest Murray and Smith are from the same solar system, but, the idea behind using a back to control the game should be imprinted in Garrett's mind.
Because here is one of the two biggest gripes I have about Garrett. It is his lack of ability to adjust his preferences to what wins.
If you think about the current game as a whole, and the passing game and its almost unfair advantage over a defense, then you start to realize the 4th quarter is at a premium. While some will argue silly things like all interceptions are equal, and perhaps all quarters are equal, that is not the case.
Interceptions coming late in games. changing the field position advantage, and momentum, along with at what point they arrive - meaning the closer to the end of the game in relationship to the score and how the scoring has come about - will influence the outcome more than a pick at the beginning of the game in most cases.
Likewise, since this is quickly becoming a league where scoring last means winning in so many games, managing the clock and the possessions is paramount. This is where the running game comes in.
Think about the Washington game to end the season. Regardless of the pick, the game was back and forth. Had Garrett owned a running attack, which would control the clock and the possessions late in that game, the outcome could have been different.
More specifically, the Green Bay game this past season would be vastly different if Dallas had run the ball and had a long drive to exhaust the clock at the end, with the lead. Yet any attempt at eating the clock late in that game came after Green Bay's momentum took over. They suddenly realized they could win. Garrett doesn't see this, or implement this style of controlling the environment of the game itself.
Jimmy understood this, planned for it in the game plan, and implemented it without fail. They say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, but in Garrett's case, it may be a continent away.
Now what is something that seems to be running under the radar here is Garrett as a leader. One of the interesting things that has come out lately is film study, or lack thereof. And I wondered out loud, in a thread on this board, if Garrett doesn't have the gumption to either stand up to the players and make them study, as Jimmy surely would. Or is it he will not stand up to Jerry and force the issue.
This is all speculation on my part, but I have predominately worked in management in my career, and have seen managers who were timid. They were brilliant, but did not have that ultimate backbone of steel and demand complete obedience. They did not succeed in being managers.
Is one of the major faults with this team Garrett and his dominion over the staff and players?
I got off topic here, and went a little long.
But to answer, Jimmy would not be the same because the dynamics have changed to offer him his riverboat gambler style of coaching/drafting/managing.
And Garrett is a Milquetoast toast or a moron. Which ever you want to assign him since he does not see the wisdom in controlling who has the lead andf the ball last by utilizing the running game.
One would project the Jimmy demeanor of a strict disciplinarian would also be exerted in the assistant coaching ranks. Meaning he was hard on them and demanded excellence from their individual tasks as well as the team. With this in mind, it puts in place the real talent of Jimmy, which is running an organization with motivated workers and motivated middle management.
The understanding of what each player was capable of, coming out of college, was more than just Jimmy. He had honed a staff to recognize talent. They scouted all the players who were meaningful then, and used this in drafts and game preparation. I would imagine this also included scouting the other coaches and what their tendencies were.
But the rebuttal to this would look like - well, why didn't the Jimmy disciples in the coaching ranks succeed to a higher degree. And herein lies the answer why both they and ultimately Jimmy did not succeed in other NFL cities.
They were a collective, each with first hand knowledge of the kids coming out of college when they were assembled in Dallas.
They also had the one chip to trade in Herschel Walker, and the one moron to trade with in Mike Lynn - who gave away way more for Walker than he was worth, *** although Jerry Burns, the head coach of Minnesota, did not utilize Walker well.
Further, the cap implications would require Jimmy, these days, to sit and wait until the mess Jerry has created goes away. Then there would need to be a great deal of losing to get top draft picks several years in a row to seed the team with talent.
And find the quarterback to lead the team.
Even then Jimmy would be required to put together a staff who could have the talent recognition. It was not him alone that built the 90's teams, but a group of focused and incited coaches to bring the best together. Jimmy's real gift is assembling a group, both coaches and players, that fear him, yet admire him in a way to give their all.
Jimmy was great getting buy-in with his plan.
Plus he could send people to the asthma field and flat out cut players.
So one would suspect protecting the defense means running the ball more. And having been on a team who had a terrific running game, and was utilized in closing out the second half by dominating on the ground and eating the clock. One would think Garrett would see this, remember it, ask Jimmy, or someone would suggest running the ball wins games when it is a shoot out.
Because we have all seen Garrett heed the press when they called him out on this, only to backslide into a pass happy team. Even when Murray was rushing for over 5 yards per carry.
*** What is amazing is the idea Walker was not really featured in the running game in Minnesota. Perhaps Burns understood the fallacy of giving away those draft choices, since the players weren't any more than magic beans. So perhaps Burns ignored Walker in a way to show up the GM Mike Lynn.
What I find ironic is this. While Murray isn't Walker by any stretch of the imagination. He is a pretty solid back who can balance the offense and eat clock when needed. And one bit of irony, although Garrett did not get to the team until 1993, is that you would think Garrett would have seen the wisdom in a running attack.
Maybe not noticed what happened when Walker was shelved in Minny. Even though truthfully Walker only broke 1000 yards twice in his pro career. Both times - Dallas in 1988 for 1514 and in Philly in 1992 for 1070, and in both cases ran the ball for an unprecedented 265 or more times in those years.
But what should be the template for Garrett to see that the running game is an effective tool at both wearing down a defense, and a clock managing aid is Emmitt Smith. And in this, no one here or anywhere would suggest Murray and Smith are from the same solar system, but, the idea behind using a back to control the game should be imprinted in Garrett's mind.
Because here is one of the two biggest gripes I have about Garrett. It is his lack of ability to adjust his preferences to what wins.
If you think about the current game as a whole, and the passing game and its almost unfair advantage over a defense, then you start to realize the 4th quarter is at a premium. While some will argue silly things like all interceptions are equal, and perhaps all quarters are equal, that is not the case.
Interceptions coming late in games. changing the field position advantage, and momentum, along with at what point they arrive - meaning the closer to the end of the game in relationship to the score and how the scoring has come about - will influence the outcome more than a pick at the beginning of the game in most cases.
Likewise, since this is quickly becoming a league where scoring last means winning in so many games, managing the clock and the possessions is paramount. This is where the running game comes in.
Think about the Washington game to end the season. Regardless of the pick, the game was back and forth. Had Garrett owned a running attack, which would control the clock and the possessions late in that game, the outcome could have been different.
More specifically, the Green Bay game this past season would be vastly different if Dallas had run the ball and had a long drive to exhaust the clock at the end, with the lead. Yet any attempt at eating the clock late in that game came after Green Bay's momentum took over. They suddenly realized they could win. Garrett doesn't see this, or implement this style of controlling the environment of the game itself.
Jimmy understood this, planned for it in the game plan, and implemented it without fail. They say the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, but in Garrett's case, it may be a continent away.
Now what is something that seems to be running under the radar here is Garrett as a leader. One of the interesting things that has come out lately is film study, or lack thereof. And I wondered out loud, in a thread on this board, if Garrett doesn't have the gumption to either stand up to the players and make them study, as Jimmy surely would. Or is it he will not stand up to Jerry and force the issue.
This is all speculation on my part, but I have predominately worked in management in my career, and have seen managers who were timid. They were brilliant, but did not have that ultimate backbone of steel and demand complete obedience. They did not succeed in being managers.
Is one of the major faults with this team Garrett and his dominion over the staff and players?
I got off topic here, and went a little long.
But to answer, Jimmy would not be the same because the dynamics have changed to offer him his riverboat gambler style of coaching/drafting/managing.
And Garrett is a Milquetoast toast or a moron. Which ever you want to assign him since he does not see the wisdom in controlling who has the lead andf the ball last by utilizing the running game.
BringBackThatOleTimeBoys
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,470
- Reaction score
- 311
Dick Vermeil easily could have been fired the year he adapted and won the SB.
He was 5-11, then 4-12 in St Louis. Players were fed up with the boot camp atmosphere the third year and about to mutiny. Vermeil somehow sensed this and decided to be more flexible. That along with Trent Green's injury giving Kurt Warner his chance to shine was crucial in the turnaround. I'm glad it worked out for him - it could have gone the other way.
TwoDeep3
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 14,506
- Reaction score
- 17,339
So the question is this. Was Vermeil astute and put together a winner? Or did he not see Warner was the answer and fate stepped in and made him the coach of the year?
That question has a great deal to do with Vermeil's genius.
Cowboy Brian
@BrianLINY
- Messages
- 15,864
- Reaction score
- 5,053
Yes I do - primarily because he would only do it if he had control over personnel.