True.
And that line has also been used by the Garrett Apologists when they claim Red had it tougher than Tom Landry did in building a team. Ive yet to connect all the dots on that and Im not sure I ever will be able to figure out how Coach Landry had it easier building the roster for an expansion team than Red did inheriting a roster with pro bowlers and HOFer's.
At the end of the day, today's teams are easier and faster to build and quicker to erode. Every team can get players to succeed in 4 year window or less (if you have a QB). Rookies get a max 4 year deal and most vet contracts are structured to get out of in 4 or less. QB may be the one exception, but most agree that isnt the problem that Garrett had to face in his tenure. It is a super hollow argument.
The argument that drives me crazy is how he "works well with Jerry" and "installs a culture" or has is an effective leader and messenger." People that are effective know how to manage up to get the resources they need to succeed and influence their superiors to make the appropriate moves.
This is the catch-22. For example, on one hand we hear that Rob Ryan is responsible for the 2012 CB orgy - moves that set the team back immensely, but Ryan hung for it. You have to assume Garrett co-signed on CB > Safety or LB or DT.
Additionally, in this timeframe, we couldnt decide on power scheme, zone blocking, 3-4, 4-3, Kiffen/Marinelli, touting the ineffective 12 package and spending resources on Escobar and he never sees the field. To play call or not to play call, "Weeden is most improved player", "Best staff ever", etc,etc.etc.
So either he is effective at getting Jerry, Stephen, and the scouting on his page and this construction is far and away his baby after 5 1/2 years - or he is ineffective at getting his football vision/evaluation across and he is a puppet of the Jones dictatorship. Either way, all signs point to ineffectiveness as a product after 5 1/2. He has kept much of his bosses ire off of him (which ironically is a form of effectiveness I suppose).
