Discussion in 'Fan Zone' started by CouchCoach, Feb 22, 2021.
No, it's stupid. It's selective to construct a narrative.
Jerry would be considered a great GM...if there were no salary cap. He's proved time and time again that he can't build a championship team with salary cap restrictions.
It’s a very reasonable response to your comment. Do you have counterpoints that aren’t unfalsefiable?
How does that make your point,, I only see @Bobhaze making and explaining a point.
The well is poisoned and placing a pawn in the front office is not going to save this franchise. The Cowboys may get lucky and win something with the current structure in place, but it will be an uphill battle a require a great deal of luck, so I vote for your #2.
The culture of Jerryworld is more about optics and less about commitment and sacrifice. The latter usually conditions a team to have a grit and edge that shows up when the sledding is toughest. Johnson was the last to make that work in Dallas. Parcells was close, but quit.
You really think Jerry spends a lot of time learning football? He doesn't follow college football or even most NFL football. He couldn't tell you the starting tackles on the Ravens. I'd be surprised if he could tell you all 32 starting QBs. He doesn't do the work required to be a good GM. Rather he delegates everything, gets briefings, and uses what information he has to make a decision. But that decision is rarely ever from any real personal knowledge, philosophy, or football insight.
Of course, he wouldn't be able to work with a real GM. His reasoning for not hiring one is basically that he makes the final decision on everything anyway so why pay a GM? He would just be another opinion in the room.
This dry spell doesn't end until Jerry removes himself from football operations.....or dies.
It is reasonable but it is incorrect
"Be careful for what we wish for as far as GM goes"??? How can it get any worse??? I'd trade in Jerry like I'd trade in a girls 34a for a 34D
You keep missing the fact that Jerry hires the personnel.
What exactly makes you give Jerry a pass?
I see your point. Jerry is a great GM and would have won 14 Super Bowls had his coaches and players not let him down.
You don’t wish to debate the matter. You just want to be contrary.
There's no debate. 25 years is selective data, specifically to leave out the successful years.
I don't even support Jerry or think he's a particularly good GM, I just wish people would be intelligent about it.
Right, because that's totally what I said.
The GM position is fine, its Jerry occupying the position that is the problem.
He does follow the Razorbacks. Oops, you're right, he doesn't follow football.
Well done !
One of the best responses !
And we wish everyone would use all data. Such as, Jerry is responsible for hiring coaches and acquiring players. If they fail, it is on him. Just as it is w/ every GM. Don't you agree that all NFL GM's should be judged using the same criteria?
Using the last 25 years is not being selective either. It is using the most relevant data we have. Its not like we picked only the least successful years out of the last 25. If we were running an assembly line for a product and the last 25 to come off the line were defective we would discern a problem exists. That is all we are doing with Jerry. Frankly, I don't see how anyone can look at the Cowboys last 25 years and argue Jerry is not the problem for a variety of reasons not the least of which is his choice of coaches, players, and the atmosphere that surrounds the team. Jerry is good owner because of how he promotes the team, but he is a lousy GM.
On the contrary, I think it would be selective to to pick the years the Cowboys have had some success or a decent draft, to argue that Jerry is not the real problem.
It'd be a different evaluation if someone took over the Lions for 2-3 years. Might not be enough time to judge. But 25 years? Holy Malarky, that's just sick.