The Defecation Hits the Oscillation Situations

[jobberone]

Yes he is the HC. As HC , he has to have the whole team playing good. It is his job.

So are you firing the GM who has handicapped this club for quite awhile, too? Hopefully Jerry doesn't take a simplistic view. Jerry should have his own 1, 3, 5, and 10 year plan. I'll betcha Garrett has goals and plans like any good CEO or good business owner.

 

[jobberone]

A General with green troops, is still a General.

And without good troops, NCOs and officers both Company and Field grade a General is likely to fail. You can't cut down the Amazon with stone axes.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

So are you firing the GM who has handicapped this club for quite awhile, too?

I thought Garrett had basically taken over the GM duties and was the driving force behind this vastly improved roster.

 

[Rockport]

Wait, what?

The pounding the rock mantra has been around San Antonio Spurs culture for several years now and gained some national pub along the way. The folks at Pounding the Rock even named their blog after the famous Jacob Riis quote.

It’s one of those unique things about this franchise that makes supporting the Spurs fun. It makes them a thinking fan’s basketball team in a way.

“When nothing seems to help, I go look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock, perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before."

 

[CowboyDan]

I'd say using an option team to prove your point is a poor example. Their offense is designed for the QB to run - Russell Wilson ran 96 times for 539 yards in 2013.

I'd say it's the perfect example. Proves they don't abandon the run, no?

 

[jnday]

So are you firing the GM who has handicapped this club for quite awhile, too? Hopefully Jerry doesn't take a simplistic view. Jerry should have his own 1, 3, 5, and 10 year plan. I'll betcha Garrett has goals and plans like any good CEO or good business owner.

No question that Jerry should go too, but I would rather fix 50% of the problem than none if it. They should have plans, but it seems like they have been changed quite a bit to sellbFarrett to the fanbase . How many more big name asst coaches can Jerry hire and fire before he get to the coach that is getting on the job training?

 

[jobberone]

I don't see the hiring of any asst coaches as being anything other than Jerry writing off on what Garrett desires. It costs money to hire then fire people. And the OJT thing is old. You guys get some new material.

 

[jnday]

Do you have a link to him stating he had a three year plan. Not saying there isn't one. Here is what I found while fighting off my 1 year old grandson's attention:

When the Cowboys Nation looks at the last three years under Jason Garrett’s rule and infers that nothing has changed in Dallas, it seems like willful blindness or succumbing to the human instinct to over-simplify.

Before I begin unleashing the mountain of evidence to prove the monumental changes that have occurred under the leadership of Jason Garrett, I need to make a few things clear: Garrett has made mistakes, perhaps even blunders, in his game-management (although I believe that the average Cowboys fan grossly exaggerates those miscues); Garrett inherited a top-heavy roster with a plethora of over-priced veterans – to think that he would fix those problems in 2 or 3 years was pure folly; Garrett has always been hampered by a fairly inept GM who also happens to sign his paychecks; my evaluation of Garrett and the progress that has been made is premised on the belief that Garrett started with a 5 year plan, and therefore he deserves another season or two before we can fairly evaluate what he was trying to implement in Dallas.

http://cowboyszone.com/2014/01/the-times-they-are-changing-jason.html

I've never thought there was a timeline on the hire nor do I think there has ever been more than Jerry's final decisions at or near the end of the season each year.

I've said for the last couple of years you cannot evaluate the job Garrett has done; not in a reasonable way. I don't just look at the record of a team. There are many things to look at IMO.

Again, unless the team unhinges this year I suspect Garrett has two years before undergoing a hard look by Jerry. JMO.

I remember the three year plan as a topic when Garrett was hired and IIRC it come from a comment to the media during that time. It really doesn't matter because he will remain coach until Jerry feels that he has no other choice than to replace him. If is sickening at the good coaches that has been available during the time that Jerry has been training Garrett.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

The pounding the rock mantra has been around San Antonio Spurs culture for several years now and gained some national pub along the way. The folks at Pounding the Rock even named their blog after the famous Jacob Riis quote.

It’s one of those unique things about this franchise that makes supporting the Spurs fun. It makes them a thinking fan’s basketball team in a way.

“When nothing seems to help, I go look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock, perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before."

Okay, so you weren't talking about anything having to do with football.

Funny thinking we're run or coached anything like the Spurs, though.

 

[phildadon86]

I think the real question to ask is, how many of those games would we have won with a competent head coach. One that knows how to kill the clock, and not abandon a running game that is working (green bay game). If it wasnt for his blatant stupidity we could have won 10 games last year.

 

[CCBoy]

And without good troops, NCOs and officers both Company and Field grade a General is likely to fail. You can't cut down the Amazon with stone axes.

That was the point of the statement...and of course, agreed.

 

[jday]

I'd say it's the perfect example. Proves they don't abandon the run, no?

Tony Romo is not a running QB. When you have a running QB you can make your running attack more effective because the defense never knows who is taking the ball from the backfield...hence the name option. So, no, I'm afraid based on that it is still a poor example.

 

[xwalker]

I remember the three year plan as a topic when Garrett was hired and IIRC it come from a comment to the media during that time. It really doesn't matter because he will remain coach until Jerry feels that he has no other choice than to replace him. If is sickening at the good coaches that has been available during the time that Jerry has been training Garrett.

Does it matter with the rosters that they've had? When Garrett took over mid-season for Wade, they still had Bigg, Gurode, Barber, Roy Williams, Sensabaugh, Felix, Bradie James, Keith Brooking etc...etc..

They could only rebuild the roster slowly due to salary cap limitations.

Also, the team mentality that Garrett inherited was terrible. Wade took a good roster from Parcells and let it deteriorate into a bunch of over entitled, over paid underachievers. Garrett as OC was the one that stood up to TO because Wade wouldn't do it.

I don't know if Garrett will ever win, but if he does get replaced, the talent, team mentality and salary cap will be in a much better situation than what he inherited. That's how it worked in SF. Mike Singletary wasn't quite the right guy to win, but he did instill a sense of discipline in the team while their GM put together a quality roster. Harbaugh came into an excellent situation with both talent and a decent team mentality.

If Harbaugh had become the Cowboys HC instead of Garrett, I still think it would have been a long time before they were Super Bowl contenders. He might have won an extra game per year, but they wouldn't have been Super Bowl contenders.

It would probably have been faster to start with no talent and no big contracts than the situation that Garrett inherited. The over entitled guys could all have been eliminated immediately and he could have signed many players in free agency that fit his RKG mold. They would have been 4-12 or 2-14 the 1st couple of years instead of 8-8 which would have been a big benefit in getting top 10 draft picks.

 

[jnday]

Does it matter with the rosters that they've had? When Garrett took over mid-season for Wade, they still had Bigg, Gurode, Barber, Roy Williams, Sensabaugh, Felix, Bradie James, Keith Brooking etc...etc..

They could only rebuild the roster slowly due to salary cap limitations.

Also, the team mentality that Garrett inherited was terrible. Wade took a good roster from Parcells and let it deteriorate into a bunch of over entitled, over paid underachievers. Garrett as OC was the one that stood up to TO because Wade wouldn't do it.

I don't know if Garrett will ever win, but if he does get replaced, the talent, team mentality and salary cap will be in a much better situation than what he inherited. That's how it worked in SF. Mike Singletary wasn't quite the right guy to win, but he did instill a sense of discipline in the team while their GM put together a quality roster. Harbaugh came into an excellent situation with both talent and a decent team mentality.

If Harbaugh had become the Cowboys HC instead of Garrett, I still think it would have been a long time before they were Super Bowl contenders. He might have won an extra game per year, but they wouldn't have been Super Bowl contenders.

It would probably have been faster to start with no talent and no big contracts than the situation that Garrett inherited. The over entitled guys could all have been eliminated immediately and he could have signed many players in free agency that fit his RKG mold. They would have been 4-12 or 2-14 the 1st couple of years instead of 8-8 which would have been a big benefit in getting top 10 draft picks.

So the roster is still used as an excuse three years later? From the round of things, you are willing to excuse another three years. If they was winning a game or two more every year, then I could see the progress , but that is not the case.

 

[Hostile]

I thought Garrett had basically taken over the GM duties and was the driving force behind this vastly improved roster.

Nope, and no one has ever claimed that either.

 

[jday]

I thought Garrett had basically taken over the GM duties and was the driving force behind this vastly improved roster.

I wouldn't so much suggest that. But clearly his fingerprint is on the roster..I honestly think Jerry is finally listening based on the moves made this last year. That could be Garrett's influence or someone else. Read into that what you will. But I'd hate to find out it was Garrett's influence in hindsight living through another "yes man" like Wade.

 

[xwalker]

So the roster is still used as an excuse three years later? From the round of things, you are willing to excuse another three years. If they was winning a game or two more every year, then I could see the progress , but that is not the case.

That would make sense if he just started with a blank slate. If they had no players under contract for 2011 when he took over in mid way in 2010, then that would be a reasonable projection; however, they were basically in a hole that was worse than having nothing. The cap issues made it slow to move forward in replacing players. The team mentality had to be reversed while still retaining some of the players that contributed to it. These players had to be retained due to cap issues from cutting them or in 1 case an attachment by the owner to veteran players like Ratliff.

This (2014) is the 1st year that the roster really reflects what Garrett has been trying to achieve with the exception of Orton as the lone malcontent. Also, they don't have any super highly paid old non-QB players limiting the future.

In all past years, they were going to have roster constraints the following year due to age and contracts/cap-issues. I don't know if the win/loss record in 2014 will be better with massive changes to the defensive personnel, but 2015 should unequivocally be better because they don't project to lose any players next off-season due to contracts or age unless Romo gets injured. They should be able to just move forward with the roster development instead of having to take a step back for every step forward which they done since Garrett has been here.

Parcells was here 4 years and went though a similar process; although, he didn't have as many cap issues to deal with. Wade came in and screwed up the team mentality with a complete lack of discipline. Without any push-back from the Head Coach, Jerry went amuck as the GM. Now, after 3 years with Garrett they're back in a situation similar to where they were after 3 years with Parcells in terms of the roster and locker room mentality.

Like I said before, I don't know if they will win big with Garrett or not, but if they don't, the new Head Coach would inherit something that could quickly be turned into a winner. That was not what Garrett inherited.

 

[jday]

That would make sense if he just started with a blank slate. If they had no players under contract for 2011 when he took over in mid way in 2010, then that would be a reasonable projection; however, they were basically in a hole that was worse than having nothing. The cap issues made it slow to move forward in replacing players. The team mentality had to be reversed while still retaining some of the players that contributed to it. These players had to be retained due to cap issues from cutting them or in 1 case an attachment by the owner to veteran players like Ratliff.

This (2014) is the 1st year that the roster really reflects what Garrett has been trying to achieve with the exception of Orton as the lone malcontent. Also, they don't have any super highly paid old non-QB players limiting the future.

In all past years, they were going to have roster constraints the following year due to age and contracts/cap-issues. I don't know if the win/loss record in 2014 will be better with massive changes to the defensive personnel, but 2015 should unequivocally be better because they don't project to lose any players next off-season due to contracts or age unless Romo gets injured. They should be able to just move forward with the roster development instead of having to take a step back for every step forward which they done since Garrett has been here.

Parcells was here 4 years and went though a similar process; although, he didn't have as many cap issues to deal with. Wade came in and screwed up the team mentality with a complete lack of discipline. Without any push-back from the Head Coach, Jerry went amuck as the GM. Now, after 3 years with Garrett they're back in a situation similar to where they were after 3 years with Parcells in terms of the roster and locker room mentality.

Like I said before, I don't know if they will win big with Garrett or not, but if they don't, the new Head Coach would inherit something that could quickly be turned into a winner. That was not what Garrett inherited.

Add to that injuries and the switch from the 34 to the 43 and people should easily understand that circumstances have been a huge issue for Garrett to contend with since he took over.

 

[casmith07]

This is the ridiculousness of claiming Garrett is some maestro head coach. He might not even get a OC job if Jerry fired him.

That was never my claim.

 

[xwalker]

Add to that injuries and the switch from the 34 to the 43 and people should easily understand that circumstances have been a huge issue for Garrett to contend with since he took over.

Yes, they might have been able to survive a scheme change or the injuries, but not both. Cycling through about 20 DL players would be bad enough if everybody else were entrenched in the scheme, but trying to implement a new scheme with street free agents was an impossible task for anyone.