Why a Cowboys head coach will never be good enough for the fans.

[Red Dragon]

• If you win by traditional, hard-nose, grind-it-out football, you're stuck in the last century and the game has passed you by. You're boring and lack imagination.
• But if you win by fluid game-planning, creative plays, and daring moves, you're being too fancy-schmancy. Can't you just win straight-up?

• If you win, you deserve no credit, because clearly you must have had an abundance of talented players. Why, even my grandmother could have coached this team to a Super Bowl!
• But if you lose......well, all hell breaks loose.

• If you play your starters near the end of a season (when you've sewn up home-field advantage or the No. 2 seed,) then you're "taking an unnecessary risk."
• But if you rest your starters in such a situation, you're "not going into the playoffs with momentum - you're letting the starters get rusty."

• If you yell or scream at your players, you're "too emotional and a hot head - too easily ruffled. Landry would have been calm and steady."
• But if you stay calm and steady, then "You're not being motivational enough - show some anger or passion, for goodness' sake!"

• If you take a knee near the end of the first half, then "You're being too timid and cautious. We need a coach who plays to win!"
• But if you keep on playing near the end of the first half, then "you're taking an unnecessary risk - playing with fire."

• If you win in a close game, then you suck, because you should never have allowed the game to be close in the first place.
• If you win in a come-from-behind win........then why did you allow your team to fall behind in the first place?
• If you simply flat-out dominate the other team....you're a bad sport.

 

[Doomsday101]

For some that may be the case for me it is not

Main thing is winning be it close games or blow outs. I don't expect any game to be a cake walk in this league.

I will say after any game a good coach is going to look at the positives and negatives. You build off the positives and work to correct the negatives

Lastly I expect any good HC to be able to develop players and get them to play to their ability. Not every guy is going to be a star player but even an avg player can learn to play smart

 

[lqmac1]

• If you win by traditional, hard-nose, grind-it-out football, you're stuck in the last century and the game has passed you by. You're boring and lack imagination.
• But if you win by fluid game-planning, creative plays, and daring moves, you're being too fancy-schmancy. Can't you just win straight-up?

• If you win, you deserve no credit, because clearly you must have had an abundance of talented players. Why, even my grandmother could have coached this team to a Super Bowl!
• But if you lose......well, all hell breaks loose.

• If you play your starters near the end of a season (when you've sewn up home-field advantage or the No. 2 seed,) then you're "taking an unnecessary risk."
• But if you rest your starters in such a situation, you're "not going into the playoffs with momentum - you're letting the starters get rusty."

• If you yell or scream at your players, you're "too emotional and a hot head - too easily ruffled. Landry would have been calm and steady."
• But if you stay calm and steady, then "You're not being motivational enough - show some anger or passion, for goodness' sake!"

• If you take a knee near the end of the first half, then "You're being too timid and cautious. We need a coach who plays to win!"
• But if you keep on playing near the end of the first half, then "you're taking an unnecessary risk - playing with fire."

• If you win in a close game, then you suck, because you should never have allowed the game to be close in the first place.
• If you win in a come-from-behind win........then why did you allow your team to fall behind in the first place?
• If you simply flat-out dominate the other team....you're a bad sport.

I heard that brother!!!

We have a lot of those on this blog, where 1 week they post " Romo is the greatest thread", then the following week " We should trade Romo thread". It's actually comical.

 

[Red Dragon]

I will say after any game a good coach is going to look at the positives and negatives. You build off the positives and work to correct the negatives

Well put. However, some fans, after a loss, consider it unacceptable to point out anything positive. And even in a win, they think that highlighting the negative is the way to "improve."



I sometimes wonder how these fans would act if their bosses or spouses held them to the same standard.

 

[Ashwynn]

If you win superbowls, the fans will buy anything you sell, old school style, not pressing for turnovers on D, whatever. Win a Superbowl and you are a god in Dallas.

 

[ZeroClub]

... because the Dallas head coach is destined to be the fall guy for deeper and more fundamental flaws in the organization.

 

[Red Dragon]

Win a Superbowl and you are a god in Dallas.

Only for 1 year.



The moment you lose the next regular-season game, the fans will be calling for you to be fired.

 

[Reality]

It's very simple .. any Cowboys coach responsible for a loss in the last game by fans' standards is not good enough and should be fired on the bus/plane or in the parking lot after the game.



-Reality

 

[JBS]

I will never criticize our coach for being a poor sport..

let the thrashings begin!!! Boy, I would absolute love to dismantle teams the way the Pats were doing it in 2007

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I don't know if the OP's comments are true at all, to be quite honest.

I'm very pleased with Garrett thus far and I'm sold on having him the HC. I have no issues, at all, with him being named the official HC of the Dallas Cowboys.

That said, like with any HC, or coach in general out there, he still has things I want to see him improve upon and what not.

No coach is perfect, never will be, and I'll want them to improve but I'm definately quite happy with Garrett at this point.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I will never criticize our coach for being a poor sport..

let the thrashings begin!!! Boy, I would absolute love to dismantle teams the way the Pats were doing it in 2007

Not me.

I'd rather do what the Giants did in 2007, to be quite honest.

All that dismantling of teams got the Patriots was being the first 18-1 to not win a Superbowl. Thanks but no thanks.

 

[Red Dragon]

Not me.
All that dismantling of teams got the Patriots was being the first 18-1 to not win a Superbowl. Thanks but no thanks.

Well, I don't think the Patriots' dismantling of earlier teams had anything to do with their loss. They did squeak by San Diego just two weeks earlier before the SB, so it's not like they were over-confident.

 

[Little Jr]

• If you win by traditional, hard-nose, grind-it-out football, you're stuck in the last century and the game has passed you by. You're boring and lack imagination.
• But if you win by fluid game-planning, creative plays, and daring moves, you're being too fancy-schmancy. Can't you just win straight-up?

• If you win, you deserve no credit, because clearly you must have had an abundance of talented players. Why, even my grandmother could have coached this team to a Super Bowl!
• But if you lose......well, all hell breaks loose.

• If you play your starters near the end of a season (when you've sewn up home-field advantage or the No. 2 seed,) then you're "taking an unnecessary risk."
• But if you rest your starters in such a situation, you're "not going into the playoffs with momentum - you're letting the starters get rusty."

• If you yell or scream at your players, you're "too emotional and a hot head - too easily ruffled. Landry would have been calm and steady."
• But if you stay calm and steady, then "You're not being motivational enough - show some anger or passion, for goodness' sake!"

• If you take a knee near the end of the first half, then "You're being too timid and cautious. We need a coach who plays to win!"
• But if you keep on playing near the end of the first half, then "you're taking an unnecessary risk - playing with fire."

• If you win in a close game, then you suck, because you should never have allowed the game to be close in the first place.
• If you win in a come-from-behind win........then why did you allow your team to fall behind in the first place?
• If you simply flat-out dominate the other team....you're a bad sport.

I can't lie, I'm guilty.

 

[Little Jr]

Well put. However, some fans, after a loss, consider it unacceptable to point out anything positive. And even in a win, they think that highlighting the negative is the way to "improve."



I sometimes wonder how these fans would act if their bosses or spouses held them to the same standard.

If? My souse does. Lol. I thought they all did. Guess I need to find a new one.lol

 

[RCowboyFan]

Spot on post by OP.

 

[Royal Laegotti]

After another 15 or 20 more years of Jerry, Jerry, Jerry running this franchise I would expect Cowboys fans to be appreciative to a coach who just wins no matter how.

 

[Red Dragon]

Correlation doesn't imply causation. For instance, Phil Jackson was coach when the Lakers were winning rings and he was coach when they weren't.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

Well yea of course. There are a lot of different posters with different views. Not sure why this is some grand revelation each week.

 

[Big Country]

Welcome to the 21st century.