Time to NAME NAMES- who do you want?

[iceberg]

Most people? You really have a conceited opinion of yourself, don;t you?

yea, that's me. love me some me and all.

but no - i think we (excuse me, just me and only me) tend to talk in generalities when on a topic so divided. i'm sure no one else does this so i'll go get some therapy now.

 

[Biggems]

Chan Gailey...

He kept us respectable while we were losing FAs, players to injury (Novacek, Haley, Irvin) and drafting poorly. He took us to the playoffs.

The biggest issue was Troy was too stubborn to adjust to Gailey's offense and that hurt us. Had Troy been more accepting of Gailey's philosophy, I think we could have had a real shot at making another SB run.

Romo is young and easier to get to adjust his game. I think Gailey's open offense and multiple formations would be right up Romo's alley. Also, in this offense, a QB is allowed to improvise a little....something Romo would be able to do with him mobility and such.

Also, say what you want, but when Gailey was here in Dallas, we had ZERO off field issues.

So I say Chan Gailey.

 

[burmafrd]

I really doubt that JJ will give Chan a second chance. BUT I will say that outside of Fisher and Cowher, I think I would take him over any other coach with previous HC experience.

 

[dbair1967]

Chan Gailey...

He kept us respectable while we were losing FAs, players to injury (Novacek, Haley, Irvin) and drafting poorly. He took us to the playoffs.

The biggest issue was Troy was too stubborn to adjust to Gailey's offense and that hurt us. Had Troy been more accepting of Gailey's philosophy, I think we could have had a real shot at making another SB run.

Romo is young and easier to get to adjust his game. I think Gailey's open offense and multiple formations would be right up Romo's alley. Also, in this offense, a QB is allowed to improvise a little....something Romo would be able to do with him mobility and such.

Also, say what you want, but when Gailey was here in Dallas, we had ZERO off field issues.

So I say Chan Gailey.

Gailey is a frigging boob...Aikman "being too stubborn to adjust to Gailey's schemes" is a pretty stupid argument, when actually it was the other way around...Aikman actually put up good numbers...his (as well as numerous other players) complaint was that Gailey was too predictable and relied too much on short dink and dunk passes...Gailey also made alot of really stupid in game decisions, including recurrent benching of Michael Irvin for far lesser players, even in obvious passing situations

the Cardinals defensive players laughed their arses off about how stupid Gailey's game plan and play calling was in the 1998 playoff loss...

and Gailey has been the model of stupidity and stubborness at Ga Tech...he cost the team numerous games this yr down the stretch for staying with no talent scrub Reggie Ball, when Ball was clearly playing some of the most hideous football known to man and they had a real decent option sitting behind him all along (proven in the bowl game when Gailey had no choice but to play him)

David

 

[dbair1967]

I really doubt that JJ will give Chan a second chance. BUT I will say that outside of Fisher and Cowher, I think I would take him over any other coach with previous HC experience.

I wouldnt

David

 

[nicodywill]

chan gailey damn we should just have open try-outs

 

[iceberg]

moving this post from one group to this one where the question actually is so i can fully answer it w/o trying to pick a fight that i'm sure is to ensue cause i said something stupid to someone and they must chastise me for it. (cue in summer or super)

-----
bumford asked me what i thought of cowher for our coach - my reply:

i don't like him as our coach. i think it took him 15 years to win a superbowl so i'm not real sure why people would translate that to instant success here, at least to the point where we'd wait a year in what i view "limbo" to get a younger version of what we have now.

he seems to be a good guy and a good coach, but my own preference would be fisher. the argument is then "well has he even won one?" and that's true. i do think fisher is young and still "hungry" in ways i don't feel parcells is or cowher would be here. could i wait a year for fisher?

i could get through that better than a cowher hunt, sure.

but in the end, neither are a lock or guarantee to WANT to coach here or not get a better offer from another team. so i'm not a big fan of the waiting game when the "coach selection" is supposed to be better.

one of my arguments has been that it's hard to find good coaches who will want to coach for 1 year and the crowd who argues otherwise points out 1 year coaches left and right saying "it's how it works!!!" simply because it suits their argument at the time.

great, so if that's how it works, then you can't be sure "next year" will be any better because again, it's a year by year thing (when talking to the crowd trying to herd arguments their way vs. just trying to understand the landscape) yes, i think we *all* try to herd arguments are way but sometimes it just gets far beyond the realm of reason to me (like my saying parcells is a bad influence to the team so i also said he's a bad person - that was just ignorant. i think he's apathetic, not hungry, and lost - none of which make him a bad person but all of which are a bad influence to the team but summer couldn't get that point, i said parcells was bad also).

so to your question of naming names - i'm on the side that feels a young and hungry coach is the answer. fisher is the logical choice here and if we could be sure to get him next year, i could survive a year of parcells holding down the fort. but we're not and it simply can't be sure.

cowher i just don't want. i think he's make us more competitive than we are now, yes. and maybe that would pull the team together and i'm unjustly putting cowher and parcells in the same light. quite possible but simply how i feel about it today.

i'd look at rex ryan - he's my "dark horse" and i fully understand and realize he's a gamble and not many have come knocking down his door and maybe there's good reason for that. but i'd like to look more closely at him to understand why and what the good, bad and ugly he could bring to the table would be. so i'd want to go young. if i must provide a "valid name" then i say fisher and damn it, we have to wait a year to even have a shot.

not a lock, but a shot. since it's not a lock i'm not a fan of waiting vs. wanting to go look for and take a chance on a payton here in dallas.

hope that helps answer your question w/o the angst and agony currently in much of these debates - apologies again for my misfire.

 

[burmafrd]

In looking at Cowher I would like to think that having gotten a taste of winning one he wants more badly. BUT I admit that might be wishful thinking. Fisher then would be my previous HC choice.
Young and hungry is usually pretty good; DC or OC. BUT if the BOise State guy follows up this year with as good or better next year then I think I would put him first.

 

[Jarv]

Actually, if this were a car repair analogy, some would hear a strange noise in the engine and assume we need to replace the whole motor immediately instead of looking at the real symptoms.

Or change the mechanic who refuses to make any adjustments to the car.

 

[iceberg]

Or change the mechanic who refuses to make any adjustments to the car.

ooo - another good reply to the analogy!

 

[jem88]

I really doubt that JJ will give Chan a second chance. BUT I will say that outside of Fisher and Cowher, I think I would take him over any other coach with previous HC experience.

I think I would shoot myself if Gailey were to be our coach again.

 

[jem88]

Gailey is a frigging boob...Aikman "being too stubborn to adjust to Gailey's schemes" is a pretty stupid argument, when actually it was the other way around...Aikman actually put up good numbers...his (as well as numerous other players) complaint was that Gailey was too predictable and relied too much on short dink and dunk passes...Gailey also made alot of really stupid in game decisions, including recurrent benching of Michael Irvin for far lesser players, even in obvious passing situations

the Cardinals defensive players laughed their arses off about how stupid Gailey's game plan and play calling was in the 1998 playoff loss...

and Gailey has been the model of stupidity and stubborness at Ga Tech...he cost the team numerous games this yr down the stretch for staying with no talent scrub Reggie Ball, when Ball was clearly playing some of the most hideous football known to man and they had a real decent option sitting behind him all along (proven in the bowl game when Gailey had no choice but to play him)

David

I'll never forgive him for his treatment of Irvin.

 

[PullMyFinger]

I know who I want for d-cord. Jerry Glanville.......I know, I know, you laughing.