The Evolution of Jerry Jones The Cowboys GM In The Red Garrett Era

[SilverStarCowboy]

It's a Process!

 

[jobberone]

LOL. I could type a long response with plenty of examples, but you clearly can't be objective about Garrett.

In a nutshell: He's been completely handicapped. Everything wrong with this team is someone else's fault.

I do love that when the situation and "culture" was supposedly the worst, in his first 19 games, Garrett started 12-7. Since then, as Garrett has implemented his superior everything and moved farther away from that untenable situation, he is 17-20.

I'm not going to say anymore about this now but @xwalker and I are roughly about the same concerning Garrett. Neither is a fan of Garrett but we see the difficulties the team has faced the last few years. I won't speak anymore for him but I'm not convinced Garrett is HC material. However, if the team continues to improve, other than the record for those that insist on that being the criteria we should all use, then I'll continue to gain more confidence in him. If he loses the team or we implode otherwise then we'll all have the answer.

You have taken what he said and twisted it to be an extreme view serving your anti-Garrett bias. He clearly stated he wasn't a fan and has done an admirable job presenting in a cogent manner why he sees the situation Garrett walked into different than either Wade or Parcells; which shouldn't really be surprising given all the dynamic variables of a NFL team. He's merely presently his side of an argument which seems to either be intolerable for some to read and/or serve as a springboard to serve as their own agenda including demonizing their perceived antagonists and making debate next to impossible for anyone but those with the thickest of skin. This pushes away many who would rather just talk about the topic rather get drowned out of the conversation.

It's ok to see the team and Garrett as total failures even though their record indicates they are merely average without taking anything else into consideration. It's not ok to consistently and persistently project your emotions and thoughts into another's post and either consciously, unconsciously or inadvertently convert what they say into something altogether different from what a reasonable person would perceive. Nor is it cool to repeat the same thing over and over in every thread.

 

[xwalker]

LOL. I could type a long response with plenty of examples, but you clearly can't be objective about Garrett.

You could, but it's much easier to just complain.

I do love that when the situation and "culture" was supposedly the worst, in his first 19 games, Garrett started 12-7. Since then, as Garrett has implemented his superior everything and moved farther away from that untenable situation, he is 17-20.

It's like the Jimmy/Marino example. The Dolphins probably had more wins with Marino in the 1st year or so than they would have had with a scrub QB; however, Jimmy couldn't build a Super Bowl contender with Marino in place.

The talent in place when Garrett took over might have been better to win with in the near term than what they have at this minute, but it's wasn't a team that could win a Super Bowl with any coach and it could only get worse due to the players that had to be retained due to the cap and the limited cap space to get new players. Most of all, it was an old roster with many players near the end.

The current roster might not be poised to win a lot in 2014, but it has terrific upside with young players and future cap space.

 

[xwalker]

I'm not going to say anymore about this now but @xwalker and I are roughly about the same concerning Garrett. Neither is a fan of Garrett but we see the difficulties the team has faced the last few years. I won't speak anymore for him but I'm not convinced Garrett is HC material. However, if the team continues to improve, other than the record for those that insist on that being the criteria we should all use, then I'll continue to gain more confidence in him. If he loses the team or we implode otherwise then we'll all have the answer.

You have taken what he said and twisted it to be an extreme view serving your anti-Garrett bias. He clearly stated he wasn't a fan and has done an admirable job presenting in a cogent manner why he sees the situation Garrett walked into different than either Wade or Parcells; which shouldn't really be surprising given all the dynamic variables of a NFL team. He's merely presently his side of an argument which seems to either be intolerable for some to read and/or serve as a springboard to serve as their own agenda including demonizing their perceived antagonists and making debate next to impossible for anyone but those with the thickest of skin. This pushes away many who would rather just talk about the topic rather get drowned out of the conversation.

It's ok to see the team and Garrett as total failures even though their record indicates they are merely average without taking anything else into consideration. It's not ok to consistently and persistently project your emotions and thoughts into another's post and either consciously, unconsciously or inadvertently convert what they say into something altogether different from what a reasonable person would perceive. Nor is it cool to repeat the same thing over and over in every thread.

Terrific post. You've it into words better than I can.

 

[big dog cowboy]

The difference is...........Jason is building something.

While I won't dispute that, I wish he would hurry up.

 

[JustAGuy]

Wade inherited the team from Parcells. It had talent, a reasonable cap situation and had a sense of discipline that Parcells had instilled.

Wade getting to the playoffs was similar to Barry Switzer winning a Super Bowl.

What Wade left behind was the biggest mess possible for a new coach to take over. Garrett would have been in better shape inheriting a team with 53 Jeff Heaths making Heath's salary. With modern free agency, that would be a dream scenario compared to inheriting a team with Roy Williams, Gurode, Bigg, Barber, Ratliff, etc.. with their huge salaries and sense of entitlement.

While I have no dog in this hunt I must ask why you chose to phrase it this way. Garrett was part of Wade's staff (though he didn't hire him). Garrett was assistant head coach and OC. It's not like he had nothing to do with the team he "inherited". The way you word it here is quite common among those defending Garrett as Jobber did similarly. It makes it look as if you are trying to float the idea that Garrett was hired into this team post Wade's firing when in fact he was here all along, and had a hand in building the "biggest mess possible".

I'm not asking for a defense of Garrett, Wade, or anyone else. What I want to know is why you chose to word it like that thus implying Garrett wasn't part of the staff.

 

[Fansince64]

While I have no dog in this hunt I must ask why you chose to phrase it this way. Garrett was part of Wade's staff (though he didn't hire him). Garrett was assistant head coach and OC. It's not like he had nothing to do with the team he "inherited". The way you word it here is quite common among those defending Garrett as Jobber did similarly. It makes it look as if you are trying to float the idea that Garrett was hired into this team post Wade's firing when in fact he was here all along, and had a hand in building the "biggest mess possible".

I'm not asking for a defense of Garrett, Wade, or anyone else. What I want to know is why you chose to word it like that thus implying Garrett wasn't part of the staff.

Basically, because these guys HAVE to put it like that in order to defend their hero (even though they claim they're not really supporting him - they are just "making objective observations"). After all, they are required to use these kind of nebulous generalities in praise of their idol because there is absolutely nothing (repeated with emphasis - nothing) OBJECTIVE they can use to support their incredibly inflated opinion of the guy.


Monte Sliger

 

[xwalker]

While I have no dog in this hunt I must ask why you chose to phrase it this way. Garrett was part of Wade's staff (though he didn't hire him). Garrett was assistant head coach and OC. It's not like he had nothing to do with the team he "inherited". The way you word it here is quite common among those defending Garrett as Jobber did similarly. It makes it look as if you are trying to float the idea that Garrett was hired into this team post Wade's firing when in fact he was here all along, and had a hand in building the "biggest mess possible".

I'm not asking for a defense of Garrett, Wade, or anyone else. What I want to know is why you chose to word it like that thus implying Garrett wasn't part of the staff.

The Garrett guys are Witten and Romo.

The local media and the Cowboys media guys have indicated that Garrett was not in favor of moves like the Roy Williams trade.

Garrett pushed TO out while he was the OC and dumped Roy as soon as he became the HC.

The offense was top 10 last season in points scored and has been top 10 most or all years under Garrett.

What else could Garrett have done prior to becoming the Head Coach?

 

[jnday]

You should be able to answer your own question.

But you can't without your argument falling apart.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

The local media and the Cowboys media guys have indicated that Garrett was not in favor of moves like the Roy Williams trade.

That is not true. Newy Scruggs was saying about a week after the trade was made -- thus before it had proven to be a bad move -- that Garrett was the one pushing for it. That was when TO was getting doubled and Crayton wasn't good enough to make defenses pay.

Also, we have evidence right there on Hard Knocks that Garrett was the one singing MB3's praises. Told Jerry right there on camera that we didn't need an everydown back because that was Barber for us.

He also supported drafting Bennett. Where is theebs to back me up on that one.

As for what jobber said... LOL. "Demonizing" people and "making debate next to impossible"? No melodrama there at all.

All I've done is present my argument. No different than anyone else, except that I'm able to see Garrett for what he is and not what people wish him to be. It makes some people mad when I point out evidence contrary to the wonderful claims made about him (no more bad trades, much improved drafting, better team discipline, great offensive mind, great judge of talent, Jerry less involved etc), but I can't help that.

And BTW, I didn't start out thinking Garrett was terrible. After those first 20 games or so, I thought his fans might actually be right about him. But he's proven by his actions since then to be a mistake.

Also, jobberone, if after 3.5 years you still don't know if a guy is head coach material... You probably have your answer.

 

[Beast_from_East]

I'm not defending Garrett and I'm only going to say that one last time. So don't ever again say that about me. I've said it over and over I'm on the fence about Garrett and I'm not a big fan of his. Put this in your memory and stop throwing out stuff that is either not true or is a misrepresentation of what people say here including me. It is pointless having any conversation with you. Don't even bother responding to this. Just FYI.

 

[JustAGuy]

The Garrett guys are Witten and Romo.

The local media and the Cowboys media guys have indicated that Garrett was not in favor of moves like the Roy Williams trade.

Garrett pushed TO out while he was the OC and dumped Roy as soon as he became the HC.

The offense was top 10 last season in points scored and has been top 10 most or all years under Garrett.

What else could Garrett have done prior to becoming the Head Coach?

Like I said, I didn't ask for a defense of Garrett. I want to know why you chose the wording you did which implied that Garrett was hired post Wade. He was assistant HC and OC so please explain your wording as Garrett most certainly did have a hand in the "worst possible mess".

It just reeks of dishonesty to choose the wording you did, and thus makes me want to side against you.

 

[birdwells1]

That is not true. Newy Scruggs was saying about a week after the trade was made -- thus before it had proven to be a bad move -- that Garrett was the one pushing for it. That was when TO was getting doubled and Crayton wasn't good enough to make defenses pay.

I remember this, in the 2008 season teams caught on to what Garrett was doing and just doubled TO and begged for Dallas to beat them with someone else and we couldn't.

 

[xwalker]

Like I said, I didn't ask for a defense of Garrett. I want to know why you chose the wording you did which implied that Garrett was hired post Wade. He was assistant HC and OC so please explain your wording as Garrett most certainly did have a hand in the "worst possible mess".

It just reeks of dishonesty to choose the wording you did, and thus makes me want to side against you.

I guess I don't understand your question.

What do you think Garrett could have done as an OC to change the roster and locker room mentality. He did make a stand against the worst locker room guy ever (TO) and his followers like Patrick Crayton. The "Garrett guys" Romo and Witten are definitely not part of the poor mental makeup in the locker room in the Wade years.

 

[Wolfpack]

The thought of the OP thread is that Jerry is now a better GM because he listens to the more stable voice of Jason. This thread has gotten into a wash but the original premise is crazy. Jerry is still Jerry and he isn't going to ever change. He still is a nut case micro manager with a deep need for self worth.

If you think Jason is making (or influencing) Jerry to make better choices as a play-time GM, then please explain why Jason, as a Head Coach, has been forced to have 3 different Defensive Coordinators and now also three Offensive Coordinators? Either Jason is in charge and is flat out crazy or he is not in charge and just a leaf in the wind…you cant have it both ways. Jason cant even say who will be returning kick offs with out the approval of Coach Jones for crying out loud.

Its the same old story, crazy Jerry doing crazy Jerry things all day every day. The scenery changes but thats about it.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

You could, but it's much easier to just complain.

It's like the Jimmy/Marino example. The Dolphins probably had more wins with Marino in the 1st year or so than they would have had with a scrub QB; however, Jimmy couldn't build a Super Bowl contender with Marino in place.

The talent in place when Garrett took over might have been better to win with in the near term than what they have at this minute, but it's wasn't a team that could win a Super Bowl with any coach and it could only get worse due to the players that had to be retained due to the cap and the limited cap space to get new players. Most of all, it was an old roster with many players near the end.

The current roster might not be poised to win a lot in 2014, but it has terrific upside with young players and future cap space.

Who's young and good? Dez, Twill, Tyron, Frederick, maybe Leary.

Lee can't stay healthy and demarco shouldn't be re-signed. And you can't really say Tyrone Crawford bc every team has a mid round pick who's barely played that may or may be worth playing


And Future cap space that every team will have too . Bc it's in the future and contracts can only run so long.

We're honestly like a real badly setup mishmash of nfl type guys. Top to bottom.

 

[cml750]

What about Bellicheck coaching the offense?
What about Harbaugh running his defense?
Whats your point?

Your saying that we didn't make the playoffs because of injuries.Well I say that nothing but an excuse.

We were 8-8 for 3 consecutive years and each year we could have made the playoffs by winning the final game of the season. That was all that Garrett needed to do. He just needs to win the final game. But no he completely failed in doing so. He can't find ways to win important games. Heck he can't even win close games.

Basically, is the only coach in the NFL right now who has failed to win the final game of the season 3 years in a row to send us into the playoffs. To me thats very disturbing and a strong indication on Garrett's ability to coach.

Him not being to win the big games is not because of injury at all. We played the Eagles in that final game pretty well. It was Garrett who failed to provide a cohesive game plan in winning that game. He doesn't provide an advantage. In fact, he provides no advantage at all and its the one main reason why I believe Garrett will not become a good coach.

Good post and I will add that if Garrett had any clock management skills at all we would have been at least 10-6 the 3 years and not even been playing a win or go home last game of the regular season. Garrett has been an epic fail on many levels!!!!

 

[jobberone]

Good post and I will add that if Garrett had any clock management skills at all we would have been at least 10-6 the 3 years and not even been playing a win or go home last game of the regular season. Garrett has been an epic fail on many levels!!!!

I won't buy all that but definitely some of it. Garrett lost us a few games and I do think we might have made the playoffs once or twice because of it. No one reasonable can deny that IMO.

 

[MarionBarberThe4th]

I won't buy all that but definitely some of it. Garrett lost us a few games and I do think we might have made the playoffs once or twice because of it. No one reasonable can deny that IMO.

What aren't you buying from that post ?

 

[jobberone]

What aren't you buying from that post ?

You can't predict all wins and losses that way although a lot of them you can and some of Garrett's....decisions....led to some losses IMO. I'd have to consider each one individually but I'm pretty sure my memory serves me well on some. I don't buy the ice your own kicker one. We lost because of it but that's looking at it in retrospect; not from the point of the TO. I'm sure I'll get OMG's from that but that's the way you have to look at decisions. I'm actually tired of the topic and really don't want to participate any longer. I answered you to be respectful but I'm out of this thread. Have a good one.