Mr. Scot

But we wouldn't have thrown away picks to do so

It's actually been confirmed that Shanahan wanted Lance. I do get the feeling that if they had that to do all over again, it probably would have been Jones.

And the Super Bowl is guaranteed? (Cuz if you give up all that and don't get a Super Bowl, you've really screwed yourself)

Eh, I'm not so sure of that.

If you're okay with giving up two first round picks as well as gutting our front office and giving Payton full control, you've got a lot more faith in that guy and (and in David Tepper) than I do. Either of those things would be an absolute non-starter for me. Both would be unthinkable.

We weren't trading McCaffrey to a division rival

How do you feel about Payton moving his own people into the front office and moving guys like Fitterer and Morgan out?

I'm not a fan of Garoppolo, but both he and Purdy at least proved that they could run the Shanahan system. Can we really say that of Lance?

It's been confirmed by multiple sources that all of the quarterback decisions were basically Matt Rhule. He had full control, so that was his prerogative.

Did any of those coaches win a Super Bowl with their first team?

Posted in the playoff thread

Does dumping Fitterer and Morgan in favor of guys like Jeff Ireland sound like a better situation to you? That's one of the expectations if Payton is the guy.

It's been reported that Payton wants full control, and Joe Person erson went as far as to say that the current group of football people (including Fitterer and Morgan) would likely be looking for work after Payton got in and hired his own people. If he's the hire it's gonna be a Tepper decision.

From the Cowboys official Twitter...

A college guy is different than a guy who's been in the NFL for two years, barely seen the light of day and been (hypothetically) shipped out in favor of a seventh round rookie. Under Rhule. I'm not up for continuing his practices.

I don't like him, but that's not why I wouldn't want him hired. I don't like what we'd have to give up for him. I don't like that he'd want full control. I don't like the idea of hiring a guy who was successful elsewhere and hoping that he has the same success in an entirely different system without the quarterback that helped make him. And I don't like the idea of Tepper "swinging for the fences" again rather than taking a more measured approach. That's my reasoning.

The returns just kept diminishing. And again, Parcells Is a guy who insisted on having full control, just as Peyton would. Yet the only team he actually won a Super Bowl with was the one where he didn't have it.

There's no way in hell I'd give up a pick that high for a guy that unproven.

But not to the Super Bowl. I'd also add that Parcells Cowboy teams weren't anything to write home about.

Not convinced of that, but if true I'd really hope Tepper doesn't fall for it.

Bledsoe was good, just not good enough. I'm not yet convinced that Lance is good. Hell, I'm not really convinced that Purdy is good, but if the Niners think he's better than Lance...

And who couldn't replicate his prior success even though he was coaching one of the premier teams in the league with the acknowledged best receiver in the game. Also a coach who absolutely insisted on control and likely wouldn't be able to handle today's players.

You go with the better option, contract be damned. If they don't think Lance is better than a seventh round rookie, that says something.

You mentioned coaches having been successful this year. I'd call that 'recent". I would add since you're arguing for retreads, the historically successful retreads you were talking about were overwhelmingly guys who did not win a Super Bowl on their previous job. As has been mentioned here before, no Super Bowl winning coach has ever replicated that success with a second team.

Given what they gave up to get him, they're not exactly set to make a profit on this either way.