The Defecation Hits the Oscillation Situations

[CCBoy]

I've been saying that leadership and motivation is all about knowing each trooper individually for years but they still don't get it.

On the NCO's level, that is reinforced at PNOC, BNOC, ANCOC, and the Sergeant Major's Academy at Fort Bliss, Tx.

 

[BigStar]

Yeah, none. Your explanation doesn't help much, as I don't share your assessments and I don't understand why you think taking Romo out of the equation.

I think these teams and the Campo teams are completely different. Apart from being specialists on opposite sides of the ball, I think the coaches in question are almost completely different in terms of their abilities, results, and approach to building the organization.

I actually think Parcells is the better comparison. Both in terms of approach and results.

The main point is that JG has a top QB where BP and Campo didn't; still resulting in 8-8 and no playoffs. Campo was a 5-11 coach without a franchise QB. It is easy to make the stretch that he also would make 8-8 records with a franchise QB (adding 3 wins). BP accomplished what he did with only Bledsoe resembling a starting QB, and he came in at the end of his tenure. You can attribute the positives in Garrett being the reason for the 3 win difference, or acknowledge that Romo could pull off 8 wins on a Campo team just as he is doing under Garrett.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Yeah, none. Your explanation doesn't help much, as I don't share your assessments and I don't understand why you think taking Romo out of the equation.

I think these teams and the Campo teams are completely different. Apart from being specialists on opposite sides of the ball, I think the coaches in question are almost completely different in terms of their abilities, results, and approach to building the organization.

I actually think Parcells is the better comparison. Both in terms of approach and results.

Campo had no quarterback any longer because Aikman had back problems and could not play at the level he did before.

But Romo can.

So, if you remove Romo, or hinder him in the way you saw Aikman, would this not be a 5-11 team? Or worse.

This is not rocket surgery.

So many want to hang on to the coach as the final piece of the puzzle. And to a degree that is true.

But take Romo and put him on a Campo team and you have three 8-8's and not three 5-11s.

That is the point.

It is not about style, it is about personnel, which is the most significant arbiter of all coaches.

If you don't have the engine you cannot win the race. But you can have the engine and the driver - read the coach - can be a poor driver and still lose the race.

Hence Garrett!

 

[casmith07]

Campo had no quarterback any longer because Aikman had back problems and could not play at the level he did before.

But Romo can.

So, if you remove Romo, or hinder him in the way you saw Aikman, would this not be a 5-11 team? Or worse.

This is not rocket surgery.

So many want to hang on to the coach as the final piece of the puzzle. And to a degree that is true.

But take Romo and put him on a Campo team and you have three 8-8's and not three 5-11s.

That is the point.

It is not about style, it is about personnel, which is the most significant arbiter of all coaches.

That's an incomplete analysis, though. This team is still a work in progress. Year 5 of basically a 6-year rebuild of cutting driftwood and growing talent.

It goes way beyond just a coach and a QB. Offensive line, defensive line, etc. Lots of other variables that are not considered in you guys' discussion.

 

[TwoDeep3]

That's an incomplete analysis, though. This team is still a work in progress. Year 5 of basically a 6-year rebuild of cutting driftwood and growing talent.

It goes way beyond just a coach and a QB. Offensive line, defensive line, etc. Lots of other variables that are not considered in you guys' discussion.

Garrett has led this offense for how long? He is now going on his 8th year. He has had a better team than Campo the last three years. But his record doesn't reflect this by much.

He has been head coach since part of 2010. He has gotten things he wanted in the draft and free agency.

Campo got the ridiculous drafts by Jones and free agency that made no sense, along with a cap strapped team.

And this is the crux of this argument against Garrett.

He has had an influence and better drafts and a better quarterback and still he only posts three more wins than Campo per year for three straight years.

Take Romo and put him on the Campo team and he would have matched Garrett's record with less, and may have even reached the play-offs.

That paradigm is a complete and utter rebuke of Garrett and his talents as head coach. The one guy hated more than any other head coach except Switzer - Campo -, and if you swapped one player from his team with Garrett's their records would be swapped as well.

I don't see this argument as obtuse. I cannot fathom why people are having difficulty with the premise unless this chips at personal agendas.

 

[CCBoy]

Ah ha...an old Chinese expression...the 'pencil lead' look figures out what path and velocity that a projectile flies through on in an ellipse. Hey, good show...but now, one has to figure out why it now ran into the sun.

I like the show of calculus, but the after action analysis leaves a tad to be desired.

 

[Idgit]

The main point is that JG has a top QB where BP and Campo didn't; still resulting in 8-8 and no playoffs. Campo was a 5-11 coach without a franchise QB. It is easy to make the stretch that he also would make 8-8 records with a franchise QB (adding 3 wins). BP accomplished what he did with only Bledsoe resembling a starting QB, and he came in at the end of his tenure. You can attribute the positives in Garrett being the reason for the 3 win difference, or acknowledge that Romo could pull off 8 wins on a Campo team just as he is doing under Garrett.

Well, is a bad point. You can't look at his performance and then say "if you take away the best part of the current team, it would be worse". Of course we'd be worse with worse QB play. That's no different from me saying we'd have a better record under Garrett if not for the franchise-low defensive output. Yes, that's true, but Jason's responsible for the defense, too.

Either you're going to judge the guy on his record, or you're going to make up whatever relative measure of performance you're going to use. But you can't have it both ways.

Either way, it seems like the only tenuous thread you guys are banking your Campo comparisons on is a record where you're arbitrarily deducting three wins/season in order to try to make a bad argument sound reasonable. Not on anything actually similar between the two coaches or between how the team was run during their respective tenures.

 

[CCBoy]

Good posting, Idgit.

As in an after action analysis following a battle, there are points in contrast with circumstances as well as effectiveness.

The bottom line in a battle, it still remains the fact that no one applauds a second place finisher.

 

[jnday]

That's an incomplete analysis, though. This team is still a work in progress. Year 5 of basically a 6-year rebuild of cutting driftwood and growing talent.

It goes way beyond just a coach and a QB. Offensive line, defensive line, etc. Lots of other variables that are not considered in you guys' discussion.

What happened to the three year plan of Garrett's? That timeline gets moved quite often as the years pass without improvement.

 

[Idgit]

...I don't see this argument as obtuse. I cannot fathom why people are having difficulty with the premise unless this chips at personal agendas.

It's because your premise relies on a subjective fantasy and is only tied to your guess as to what a final record might have been rather than looking at any of the factors that actually go into running an NFL team. Other than that guess, though, the two coaches have nothing in common.

Campo also had Troy Aikman in his first season as HC and finished 5-11 fwtw.

 

[Idgit]

What happened to the three year plan of Garrett's? That timeline gets moved quite often as the years pass without improvement.

This is true. This team should have progresses beyond 8-8 by now, in my opinion. I just think most of the reasons it hasn't aren't directly the fault of the head coach.

 

[jnday]

Ah ha...an old Chinese expression...the 'pencil lead' look figures out what path and velocity that a projectile flies through on in an ellipse. Hey, good show...but now, one has to figure out why it now ran into the sun.

I like the show of calculus, but the after action analysis leaves a tad to be desired.

I can usually figure these things out, but this one is way over my head.

 

[CCBoy]

I can usually figure these things out, but this one is way over my head.

Sorry, my friend, let me adjective it down...

When one limits a view to the arithmetic he figures out a solution upon, he often is limited in his view of the analysis, and things that can quickly negate the original analysis.

One often uses a pencil lead to do a math problem.

Excellerating the comparison to a calculus problem on a projectile, one has to account for speed and an elliptical path... but that alone, doesn't eliminate failure. Refocus presented as in running headlong into an object not in the equation.

The ah ha is humor, based upon merely reversing the order presented, and using that as a point of distinction. Thus illuminated through the inclusion of Chinese language, where short utterances are very intensive, again in contrast to the actual meaning. That being a play on words.

 

[BigStar]

Well, is a bad point. You can't look at his performance and then say "if you take away the best part of the current team, it would be worse". Of course we'd be worse with worse QB play. That's no different from me saying we'd have a better record under Garrett if not for the franchise-low defensive output. Yes, that's true, but Jason's responsible for the defense, too.

Either you're going to judge the guy on his record, or you're going to make up whatever relative measure of performance you're going to use. But you can't have it both ways.

Either way, it seems like the only tenuous thread you guys are banking your Campo comparisons on is a record where you're arbitrarily deducting three wins/season in order to try to make a bad argument sound reasonable. Not on anything actually similar between the two coaches or between how the team was run during their respective tenures.

You're correct that you can't compare the two coaches peg for peg, but based on these standards, how do you compare any two coaches? W-L record yes. But were not allowed to go past that step is the general point? Comparing talent levels of the two teams can't be included or you are saying that can't be defined? I took the idea as more of an "what if" exercise that are common in discussion boards, not some guaranteed conclusion though I obviously don't like JG too much.

 

[Idgit]

You're correct that you can't compare the two coaches peg for peg, but based on these standards, how do you compare any two coaches? W-L record yes. But were not allowed to go past that step is the general point? Comparing talent levels of the two teams can't be included or you are saying that can't be defined? I took the idea as more of an "what if" exercise that are common in discussion boards, not some guaranteed conclusion though I obviously don't like JG too much.

I always think about John Wooden when I think about this topic. He says in one of his books that the best job coaching he ever did was for a 500 team. It's not about the record. It's about performing up to reasonable expectations.

You definitely want to see an upward trend. You want to see players playing hard, and things organized, and teams getting younger and deeper. And then you want to see game day competence.

For my part, Garrett is weak on the last bit, but has been strong elsewhere. We haven't trended up or down in his tenure, but I think as I've said elsewhere that the reasons for that have less to do with coaching than they had to do with other circumstances surrounding the team.

Campo, on the other hand was weak on game days. But he was also weak organizationally, could not handle Jerry, represented the team poorly, didn't ever have enough respect from the players and was eaten alive by the media. Plus he lost three more games each season than Garrett has. As I said, the two are not similar.

 

[jnday]

Sorry, my friend, let me adjective it down...

When one limits a view to the arithmetic he figures out a solution upon, he often is limited in his view of the analysis, and things that can quickly negate the original analysis.

One often uses a pencil lead to do a math problem.

Excellerating the comparison to a calculus problem on a projectile, one has to account for speed and an elliptical path... but that alone, doesn't eliminate failure. Refocus presented as in running headlong into an object not in the equation.

The ah ha is humor, based upon merely reversing the order presented, and using that as a point of distinction. Thus illuminated through the inclusion of Chinese language, where short utterances are very intensive, again in contrast to the actual meaning. That being a play on words.

I think the Chinese expression is what was confusing lol.

 

[TwoDeep3]

It's because your premise relies on a subjective fantasy and is only tied to your guess as to what a final record might have been rather than looking at any of the factors that actually go into running an NFL team. Other than that guess, though, the two coaches have nothing in common.

Campo also had Troy Aikman in his first season as HC and finished 5-11 fwtw.

And so you completely ignore that Aikman was done the year before, which makes this premise exactly correct. Put Romo on that team, and they would have won as many games as Opie wins now with a distinctly better team now.

 

[BigStar]

I always think about John Wooden when I think about this topic. He says in one of his books that the best job coaching he ever did was for a 500 team. It's not about the record. It's about performing up to reasonable expectations.

You definitely want to see an upward trend. You want to see players playing hard, and things organized, and teams getting younger and deeper. And then you want to see game day competence.

For my part, Garrett is weak on the last bit, but has been strong elsewhere. We haven't trended up or down in his tenure, but I think as I've said elsewhere that the reasons for that have less to do with coaching than they had to do with other circumstances surrounding the team.

Campo, on the other hand was weak on game days. But he was also weak organizationally, could not handle Jerry, represented the team poorly, didn't ever have enough respect from the players and was eaten alive by the media. Plus he lost three more games each season than Garrett has. As I said, the two are not similar.

I'd question the trending upward aspect in terms of results bc you're associating his record to variables out of Garrett's control (mainly the D and OL before that). Would agree on the the other aspects but where you are losing some of us is implying the team wouldn't even be 8-8 in the first place if it weren't for the org skills, player acquisition aspect, etc.

But I understand the difference; esp regarding JJ's ear towards players though still don't think there is distinct "model" for the player they like other than being cost effective (which is good, but not when it is self inflicted via the cap). Really interested if the team stays course in 15 off season (nice class of FAs) and how JJ will deal with Romo when time is due. But like the O (Linny) and a couple of guys on D (hope to find more). He's got the year (obv) and if the team is successful he will get renewed. Hope to have to learn to like him type of deal.

 

[Rockport]

I hope that barring a total collapse involving players quitting on Garrett that he stays around. I like the way he's changed the philosophy, i.e. pound the rock, RKG's, etc. Being a hard core Spurs fan, I've seen how this philosophy yields results. Now if he would embrace the running game a bit more, the offense could carry this team to the playoffs. This year. Just need the defense to be middle of the pack.

 

[Idgit]

And so you completely ignore that Aikman was done the year before, which makes this premise exactly correct. Put Romo on that team, and they would have won as many games as Opie wins now with a distinctly better team now.

Here we go with the suppositions again. "Troy must have been done the year before, or else my speculative argument doesn't hold." Well, yeah.