MacMahon: No excuse for Dez to be targeted only twice

[E_D_Guapo]

In any case, I disagree about it not being reflected in the team's direction. The team has flattened out right now -- obviously not good enough -- but the arrow isn't pointed straight down like it was under Wade.

So instead of slowing sinking in quicksand under Wade the Cowboys are subjected to spinning their tires trying and failing to get out of the mud? Either way the team is stuck in a pit and can't get out.

 

[Smitty]

So basically, another of your novellas that says nothing.

You said tangible things, I gave them to you. It's not "nothing" -- it's just things that you apparently think don't matter.

If you meant to ask, "Has Garrett won more games than Wade" then maybe you should have done that. The answer is obviously no.

However, I think all those things that he is doing differently than Wade are definitely getting more out of this team than Wade would have been, as evidenced by Wade's approach resulting in a 1-7 collapse.

Though obviously the question of whether Garrett should stay and whether he's better than Wade are two separate things.

 

[Smitty]

So instead of slowing sinking in quicksand under Wade the Cowboys are subjected to spinning their tires trying and failing to get out of the mud? Either way the team is stuck in a pit and can't get out.

Amazing how I have to answer the same things over and over again. Yes.... the issue of whether Garrett is better than Wade, and whether Garrett is good enough, are clearly distinct. It's possible to think that Garrett isn't good enough while acknowledging that he's not the trainwreck that Wade was.

 

[Rev]

They both suck. Why wrap yourself around either one?

 

[E_D_Guapo]

Amazing how I have to answer the same things over and over again. Yes.... the issue of whether Garrett is better than Wade, and whether Garrett is good enough, are clearly distinct. It's possible to think that Garrett isn't good enough while acknowledging that he's not the trainwreck that Wade was.

You didn't have to answer anything. I'm just kind of summing up the fact that neither one of these fools is advancing the organization from a W & L standpoint so both have failed (well, Garrett still has a chance to not fail but it doesn't look good). Given the choice I take Garrett 10 times out of 10 though (but I wouldn't be happy about those two being my choices). There is at least a chance for him to field a successful team because of his approach that you mentioned. Wade, not so much. Teams quickly deteriorate under him.

 

[Cotton]

They both suck. Why wrap yourself around either one?

/thread

 

[NoDak]

Though obviously the question of whether Garrett should stay and whether he's better than Wade are two separate things.

The answer to both of those questions is a resounding NO. Garret is not better than Wade on the results he's put forward so far. Maybe down the road he will be. I'd like to think so. But until then, the answer is still no. To argue against that shows either stupidity, or being too f'n stubborn to back off an opinion already formed years ago. I honestly don't think you're stupid. Quite the opposite, actually. But your determined stance on this subject has made me question myself on that.

 

[Clay_Allison]

You are what your record says you are unless you are Jason Garrett. -- Bill Parcells as paraphrased by Schmitty.

 

[Smitty]

You didn't have to answer anything.

Sorry, was frustrated.

I'm just kind of summing up the fact that neither one of these fools is advancing the organization from a W & L standpoint so both have failed (well, Garrett still has a chance to not fail but it doesn't look good). Given the choice I take Garrett 10 times out of 10 though (but I wouldn't be happy about those two being my choices). There is at least a chance for him to field a successful team because of his approach that you mentioned. Wade, not so much. Teams quickly deteriorate under him.

Yes, I completely agree. Not saying that Garrett is good enough, but he's no Wade. He may not be effective, but his approach is mirrored after the coaches who have proven they are winners. Wade is a loser through and through, everything he does reeks of losing, and he will never be able to successfully lead a team. Garrett is superior to Wade simply because his methods are the correct methods that MAY eventually gain traction in the W-L department.

And implicit in that statement is that Garrett is better than the worst coaches in the league, and therefore selecting a true upgrade requires a measured approach where you know you are getting someone quality. Which I approve of, and have said as much many times.

 

[data]

Schmitty on "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire"

Regis: Schmitty, you passed Round 1 and have $50 in your pocket. What would you like to do?

Schmitty: I'm taking my $50 and stopping here.

Regis: But $50 isn't that much. You could win a million dollars...

Schmitty: $50 is worth $500k to me and you can't guarantee me more than $50, can you?

 

[NoDak]