Vita Vea visits

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The team's got the best player in the draft. It worked!

There's your examples, where are mine? Where are the examples of what Garrett's meaningless wins have done for anyone other than him?



I do think it's amusing that you care so much about what the paid employees might think that you'd run your business around it. Anybody who would stop doing their job could find another one elsewhere. If you're letting the inmates run the asylum, you're sure as hell not winning anything.



But wait, they're "moribund franchises" despite the fact that both have won championships more recently than this one? That's the point. Yiu want to try to disparage them while the Cowboys look worse.



The coaching staff? Yeah, I absolutely would. You're simply wasting yet another year with a proven loser as your head coach. 7-plus years backs me up on that. That's provable. What's not provable is that making that change would make things worse.



I've already shown you that the teams got what they wanted, the top players in the draft. You haven't shown me one thing that Garrett's meaningless wins have gotten this team?

I love you, Stash, but I could never work for you. Worker morale is important for productivity.

How exactly does the Bucs and Colts winning championships when they were not tanking make tanking a good idea. I get that you loathe the Cowboys franchise right now but try and at least argue the issue here. We are arguing about whether or not tanking is a good idea or not.

So it was provable.

I already pointed out to you that what I meant by "worked" was turning the franchise around. Before I could understand that it was unclear but since this is now the third time I have pointed it out, your just being goofy. There are no examples of teams tanking and winning playoff games in the next few years.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Which Garrett and the Cowboys don't get.

Thanks for helping to prove my point.

What point is that, that Garret and the Cowboys suck?

I'm not wasting my time arguing that. You guys are way too emotional on the subject and its a waste of time. Again, we are talking about tanking in the NFL.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

ou can find plenty of examples of teams that don't tank succeeding. The Patriots, Steelers, and Packers never tank yet they are consistently in the playoffs and winning playoff games year after year.

There is much more to consistent success than just "not tanking", you can't just use one action to say that's why they are successful, for one thing. The teams you mention also have head coaches that stay year after year, even when they don't have a great year. They have owners that keep out of the day to day operations of players, and aren't the general manager as well as the owner.

And as far as "that last bit is worse than worthless", where did I say that was actually the case? Do you know what scenario means? It's a supposition, I used it as an EXAMPLE, not as a truth. Don't appreciate your attempt at belittlement, I respect your opinion, I expect you respect mine...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What do you want? A daycare? Did the players play up to par or not last season? Do some players need to be replaced or not? What do you want? To build a championship caliber team or to build an underachieving coddled team? Don't complain when they continue to not even smell an NFC Championship Game. You reap what you sow. You have no idea how to build a winner is what I get from your posts.

I want high morale where players work hard in excellent facilities to become the best players they can be. I want them to play hard on game days and sacrifice to achieve wins.

Getting the players together and tanking is going to destroy morale. What I get from you is you have no concept of the difference between constructive criticism and criticism in general. You come across as emotional.

I have no idea what you guys are talking about with all the complaints about not sniffing a NFCCG. My entire point is that tanking isn't going to get you there.

 

[Stash]

Huh? You can find plenty of examples of teams that don't tank succeeding. The Patriots, Steelers, and Packers never tank yet they are consistently in the playoffs and winning playoff games year after year.

And it is an empirical fact not an opinion that no team that has tanked for draft status has won a playoff game in the past 20 years. Every team that has done it has failed.

That last bit is worse than worthless.

If you want to believe that tanking will lead to providence anyway then I cannot stop you but don't tell lies like saying my position is subjective and not empirical.

Here's "empirical" for you:

By your own admission, the Colts "Suck for Luck".

And he helped them make six playoff appearances from 2012 to 2014. Winning not "none", not one, not two, but three of them. He actually took them to something called a "Conference Championship Game."

"Empirical fact".

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is much more to consistent success than just "not tanking", you can't just use one action to say that's why they are successful, for one thing. The teams you mention also have head coaches that stay year after year, even when they don't have a great year. They have owners that keep out of the day to day operations of players, and aren't the general manager as well as the owner.

And as far as "that last bit is worse than worthless", where did I say that was actually the case? Do you know what scenario means? It's a supposition, I used it as an EXAMPLE, not as a truth. Don't appreciate your attempt at belittlement, I respect your opinion, I expect you respect mine...

I'm not disputing that more to it. My point is that tanking is not a part of it.

The Rooney's and Packers management team interject themselves all the time.

And it's worse than worthless because it reads like the type of things conspiratards come up with. IT COULD BE TRUE! YOU CANNOT DISPROVE IT!

 

[Stash]

I love you, Stash, but I could never work for you. Worker morale is important for productivity.

No you couldn't. But I love you too Fuzzy. Even when we vehemently disagree.

How exactly does the Bucs and Colts winning championships when they were not tanking make tanking a good idea. I get that you loathe the Cowboys franchise right now but try and at least argue the issue here. We are arguing about whether or not tanking is a good idea or not.

I'm arguing about yiu dismissing them as "moribund franchises". If that what they're labeled, we're so much worse right now.

So it was provable.

I thought it was clear, but what is not provable is that dumping Garrett could possibly make things worse.

I already pointed out to you that what I meant by "worked" was turning the franchise around. Before I could understand that it was unclear but since this is now the third time I have pointed it out, your just being goofy. There are no examples of teams tanking and winning playoff games in the next few years.

Andrew Luck - Indianapolis Colts.

Are we done now?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Here's "empirical" for you:

By your own admission, the Colts "Suck for Luck".

And he helped them make six playoff appearances from 2012 to 2014. Winning not "none", not one, not two, but three of them. He actually took them to something called a "Conference Championship Game."

"Empirical fact".

I should have looked at that again. Pagano took over the Colts the same year that Luck came in.

Blowing up the program can work.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

And it's worse than worthless because it reads like the type of things conspiratards come up with. IT COULD BE TRUE! YOU CANNOT DISPROVE IT!

Okay from now on we'll not discuss anything but what actually happens? No "they won the last game so that Garrett could have a winning record two years in a row" comments, because "it could be true", but then it could not be true?

Going to be a lot less posts here in that case...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Okay from now on we'll not discuss anything but what actually happens? No "they won the last game so that Garrett could have a winning record two years in a row" comments, because "it could be true", but then it could not be true?

Going to be a lot less posts here in that case...

Hypotheticals and speculation are fine. Acting like that is what happened is not.

 

[Stash]

What point is that, that Garret and the Cowboys suck?

In short, yes.

I'm not wasting my time arguing that. You guys are way too emotional on the subject and its a waste of time.

It's a "waste of time" because it's one you can't win. 7-plus years isn't "emotional" whatsoever. Emotional is hoping against hope despite those 7-years of evidence. Emotional is ignoring what is happening for what you hope would happen. That's emotional.

Again, we are talking about tanking in the NFL.

And you keep going back to "playoff wins". If that's the standard, it applies to Garrett and the Cowboys too. But apparently, when it comes to them, you want a different barometer.

And again, I showed you a team that purposely tanked - the Indianapolis Colts - they got Andrew Luck and made several playoff appearances and wins. And made it to a conference championship game. Something Garrett's Cowboys have NEVER DONE

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

In short, yes.



It's a "waste of time" because it's one you can't win. 7-plus years isn't "emotional" whatsoever. Emotional is hoping against hope despite those 7-years of evidence. Emotional is ignoring what is happening for what you hope would happen. That's emotional.



And you keep going back to "playoff wins". If that's the standard, it applies to Garrett and the Cowboys too. But apparently, when it comes to them, you want a different barometer.

And again, I showed you a team that purposely tanked - the Indianapolis Colts - they got Andrew Luck and made several playoff appearances and wins. And made it to a conference championship game. Something Garrett's Cowboys have NEVER DONE

And as I pointed out Pagano started a new program the year Luck came in.

That is what this really comes down to you are fine with undermining the team because you have no hope for this coming year anyway.

 

[Stash]

I should have looked at that again. Pagano took over the Colts the same year that Luck came in.

Blowing up the program can work.

Is this your concession speech?

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Andrew Luck - Indianapolis Colts.

So the got Luck because they won ONE less game the year before he was drafted? That's what the whole thread is about, how did winning one last game help the team?

The Colts started off the season 0-13. They tried a couple of different quarterbacks, but neither did well.

They got Luck because they were an awful team in 2011, not because they intentionally lost the last game of the year. If they tanked, it was the entire season, nobody is saying Dallas should have lost a lot more games...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Is this your concession speech?

I've said before that I think Garrett can be upgraded. I just don't think he is hyperbolically bad as you guys do.

That is besides the point. We aren't blowing up the program.

 

[Stash]

And as I pointed out Pagano started a new program the year Luck came in.

That is what this really comes down to you are fine with undermining the team because you have no hope for this coming year anyway.

Who said anything about "undermining the team"?

What's done is done. Jones and Garrett got their latest "worthless win". They got their joke of a "winning season" to buy both another year of this proven failed experiment.

And the franchise is saddled with another wasted season and worse draft picks, with no positive tangible results.

 

[Stash]

I've said before that I think Garrett can be upgraded. I just don't think he is hyperbolically bad as you guys do.

That is besides the point. We aren't blowing up the program.

Moving the goalposts now? Just admit it and move on. I don't need yet another set of qualifiers to knock down.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who said anything about "undermining the team"?

What's done is done. Jones and Garrett got their latest "worthless win". They got their joke of a "winning season" to buy both another year of this proven failed experiment.

And the franchise is saddled with another wasted season and worse draft picks, with no positive tangible results.

You would have thought it wasted either way. So what record do you expect this year?

 

[America's Cowboy]

I want high morale where players work hard in excellent facilities to become the best players they can be. I want them to play hard on game days and sacrifice to achieve wins.

Getting the players together and tanking is going to destroy morale. What I get from you is you have no concept of the difference between constructive criticism and criticism in general. You come across as emotional.

I have no idea what you guys are talking about with all the complaints about not sniffing a NFCCG. My entire point is that tanking isn't going to get you there.

Who is getting emotional? Your way is a loser's way. It's been proven time and again for the past 25+ years in Dallas. You think Jimmy Johnson would agree with you? Think again. Jimmy Johnson showed us how to build a winner by sacrificing during key times and making crucial trades in order to win through the draft in order to surround yourself with the best talent compared to your competition. Then coach them up hard into becoming winners. If they fail, you replace those underachievers with new and better talent that will help you succeed every year thereafter in the playoffs. That's how you build a winning morale, not by coddling them like you insist.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Moving the goalposts now? Just admit it and move on. I don't need yet another set of qualifiers to knock down.

What goal post is that?

My point has always been that tanking doesn't work unless you have a regime change. The Colts got a new regime in 2012 in Pagano and Grigson.