2026 Random Cowboys Stuff Thread...

Waiting in the wings...

rawImage.jpg
 
Cotton said:


Werder spitting facts.
Click to expand...


Well that's the thing, they're not encouraged.

You saw Jerry's reactions at various points in the game the other day, and he was just as upset and just as frustrated by what he saw just as we were.

They know bad coaching when they see it just like we do.

The Jones' aren't as stupid as people think, they're just stubborn -- insistent on doing things their way no matter what it costs them in the win column.

So when they get interviewed, they have to say stupid shit like the nonsense Stephen spewed yesterday about feeling encouraged because what else do people expect him and Jerry to say?

"Yeah, what we saw yesterday was a disgrace. We are easily the worst coached team on both sides of the ball every single week. Our coaches give us no advantages whatsoever.....but what do you want us to do? Fire them and hire better coaches who are going to make us uncomfortable? No way we're doing that!"

There is zero chance they ever come out and say anything like that or admit that their way of doing things is by far and away the biggest reason why we haven't won anything in 31 years. So again, they have to say the dumb shit they say in interviews about having faith and believing in their guys and all that other nonsense because the only other option is to be honest and accountable and that's not happening.
 
Simpleton said:
The way they're talking right now sounds awfully similar to how they talked about Eberflus last year.
Click to expand...

Right, because this is what they say each and every time their coaching decisions blow up in their face.

And given how often we hire shitty coaches, this is song and dance routine that we see and hear quite often as Cowboys fans.
 
Texas Ace said:
I know this a stupid discussion because it's basically cherry picking about which guy is worse at what, but I have nothing better to do this morning and I have to vent my anger some kind of way :lol.

They are both awful coaches who never before and never after would or will get a head coaching job outside of Dallas -- something both men achieved due only to the unique ownership of the organization.

I think Schotty is a better offensive coach than Garrett, but Garrett makes for a better HC.

Garrett proved time and time again that he had zero conceptual understanding of offensive football, which is exactly why he was terrible with the Giants when he got their OC job.

Schotty is average at best, but at least he's that -- average. He's not completely lost, but his conservative nature coupled with his ceiling as a coach makes it to where he'll never be anything more than average as an offensive mind.

Garrett is better as a HC because I think he at least knows what a championship team is supposed to look and smell like since he was fortunate enough to be on the Cowboys roster in the 90s. So he tried to emulate what he could (despite the unique circumstances of the circus) but just doesn't possess the natural ability to do so that a person has to possess to be good at something.

The best analogy I can come up with is that Garrett is like a a sous chef who was fortunate enough to spend years in some of the best kitchens in the industry but just didn't possess the natural ability to be a good cook himself.

He knew what methods and ingredients he needed to make the best meal, but when it came for him to do it himself, he simply couldn't.

Schotty literally has no clue whatsoever how to run a football team or what makes for a winner or what culture to establish nor what sort of methods to apply that are conducive to winning.

I think if you gave him 10 years, I think his record would be significantly worse than Garrett's and there is NO CHANCE any of his teams would go on the kinds of runs the 2014 and 2016 Cowboys went on under Garrett.

It's sad that we can even have this discussion and it's ownership malpractice that Jerry Jones has given the keys to Cowboys to either of these guys.

It's shameful.
Click to expand...
I mean, it’s such water under the bridge but I agree. There is a difference between being a good offensive mind and a good coordinator, and being a good head coach. The skill set is different. In today’s league they usually just pick a good coordinator and then turn them loose and hope they will be a good head coach, but a lot of guys lack the total team management ability to run the whole thing. A great head coach bumps up against the responsibilities of the GM. Do you ever see Schottenheimer getting adjacent to that?

Garrett may not have even been a very good head coach - but he was far better than as a head coach than what Schottenheimer is doing right now. Garrett was organized, he did a decent job of motivating the players in tough spots. and most of all he made them work within the confines of what the rules allowed.

Schottenheimer might know modern Xs and Os a little better. But he’s a clown at all the other head coach duties. He’s Wade Phillips all over again.

To me, the head coach discussion kinda starts and ends there. How many games you win in a given season is kinda irrelevant. (That’s not to say ULTIMATE winning isn’t important, ie, the Super Bowl, but like, what the fuck do I care if you win 5 games or 8 games? Or even if you make the playoffs and are a pretender?).

The baseline evaluation is how competent you are at doing the things that will result in your team being mentally prepared, mentally disciplined, organized, in shape, and well managed enough to win lots of high level games over time and thus compete for titles.

The Xs and Os that win this game or that, that’s a coordinator fitness discussion.

Sadly, I’m not even sure Schotty is calling Xs and Os well right now.
 
Simpleton said:


Speaking of which...

See you when he's dead.
Click to expand...



Hey Grok, can you dispute Jerry's claim? (It took Grok 7 seconds.)




Yes. Jerry Jones’ claim of “zero correlation” between NFL coach pay (or staff size) and winning is overstated. Available data shows a clear positive association between higher compensation and better results, even if causation runs both ways and other factors (roster talent, quarterback play, ownership involvement, luck) matter a great deal.

Evidence of association
Super Bowl-winning head coaches have historically earned substantially more. One analysis of 2020 salaries found they averaged about 77% higher pay than coaches without a Super Bowl title.
Win percentage tracks with pay. Coaches with career winning percentages of 60% or higher earned markedly more on average than those in the 30–50% range in the same dataset.
Current high earners illustrate the pattern. Top reported salaries in 2026 include Andy Reid ($20M, strong sustained winning percentage and multiple Super Bowls), Sean Payton ($18M), Jim Harbaugh, Sean McVay, Nick Sirianni, and others with proven track records of regular-season success, deep playoff runs, or titles. Lower-paid coaches show more mixed or poorer results on average.

Schottenheimer’s reported ~$4.5 million salary sits well below the upper tier while his tenure winning percentage sits around .420—consistent with the broader pattern rather than a pure “no correlation” world.

Caveats (why it’s not a simple causal story)
Coach salaries are not public in the same way player contracts are, so precise league-wide regression analyses are limited. Success clearly drives higher future pay (teams bid for proven coaches), and paying more does not automatically create wins if the hire is a mismatch or the roster is weak. Many coaching hires fail regardless of cost. College football research (where data is more transparent) has found positive correlations and evidence that higher pay for new coaches is associated with improved performance, but the NFL market is different.

Staff size is harder to quantify cleanly, but specialized, larger coaching staffs can provide advantages in scheme installation, player development, and game planning—advantages that cost money.

In short, the market pays a premium for coaches with demonstrated ability to win, and the highest-paid group disproportionately includes those with stronger historical results. Claiming zero correlation does not hold up against the observable patterns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom