Update: McCarthy to the Cowboys

[Pazhoosier89]

1 hour ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

It's not necessary to take one comment I made and run to an absurdly extreme conclusion with it. Did I suggest the Patriots should have their championships taken away? No, then why would you infer that I'm making that argument?  They have in fact been caught cheating on multiple occasions, this is not in dispute. I don't want to have anything to do with cheating, so I'm highly skeptical of having someone who's a longtime part of such an organization become our HC.

If you noticed, I actually acknowledged that McD is skilled in this area and after Fox and Rivera's lack of imagination or flexibility it is also something I highly desire for our next HC, it's just that he has significant negatives of not just being part of an organization with a history of cheating, but by all accounts interpersonal skill and leadership deficits that lead me to expect his technical skill wont' matter much if his locker room doesn't want to play for him. This part of his history is also not conjecture, but established fact.

I'm willing to take his baggage because his technical skill is much higher than any of the other candidates. Maybe Stefanski has that skill as well but he has such a limited body of work. I think McDaniels has learned from his time in Denver and you can't pin all the cheating on him.

[Mr. Scot]

Nolan's hire is now being reported as official.

[1of10Charnatives]

11 minutes ago, Pazhoosier89 said:

I'm willing to take his baggage because his technical skill is much higher than any of the other candidates. Maybe Stefanski has that skill as well but he has such a limited body of work. I think McDaniels has learned from his time in Denver and you can't pin all the cheating on him.

I don't need to. The Patriots cheated as an organization and then he got caught cheating in Denver. He has proven through his actions he will cheat when he is the one calling the shots. Cheating is a matter of character, and those who cheat tend to keep doing it if they are adults, see Bellicheck, Bill. Cheaters view themselves as above the rules and being caught rarely changes this attitude. That being the case, a history of cheating for me outweighs any perceived greater proficiency in technical skill.

[sml1950]

Jerry’s hiring of McCarthy is a reflection of his heightened sense of mortality.  He can’t afford to wait for a college coach to mature.  He’s in his late 70s and needs something to happen quickly.  He thinks that winning another SB will verify his legitimacy as a HOF GM as well as owner.  He’s always thought that he didn’t get the proper acclaim for the previous SBs.  So if McCarthy is lucky enough to win one he better step aside and let Jerry take the bows

[Mr. Scot]

1 minute ago, sml1950 said:

Jerry’s hiring of McCarthy is a reflection of his heightened sense of mortality.  He can’t afford to wait for a college coach to mature.  He’s in his late 70s and needs something to happen quickly.  He thinks that winning another SB will verify his legitimacy as a HOF GM as well as owner.  He’s always thought that he didn’t get the proper acclaim for the previous SBs.  So if McCarthy is lucky enough to win one he better step aside and let Jerry take the bows

Wonder if Jones has considered that no head coach who won a Super Bowl with one team has ever won it again with another.

[1of10Charnatives]

34 minutes ago, Mr. Scot said:

Wonder if Jones has considered that no head coach who won a Super Bowl with one team has ever won it again with another.

you know I was thinking about that, and it's entirely possible that the sample size of coaches who have won a super bowl and then coached with another team isn't large enough to be statistically valid.  only 31 coaches have won super bowls, and some number of those never coached another team after, so the sample size is almost assuredly too small to say it's meaningful. Probably the best we can say is not enough coaches have won super bowls and then coached other teams to draw any statistically valid conclusions.

Just to play devil's advocate.

[Mr. Scot]

3 minutes ago, 1of10Charnatives said:

you know I was thinking about that, and it's entirely possible that the sample size of coaches who have won a super bowl and then coached with another team isn't large enough to be statistically valid.  only 31 coaches have won super bowls, and some number of those never coached another team after, so the sample size is almost assuredly too small to say it's meaningful. Probably the best we can say is not enough coaches have won super bowls and then coached other teams to draw any statistically valid conclusions.

Just to play devil's advocate.

Obviously it's possible.

I think the fact that no one has done it to this point more than anything just points up how incredibly difficult it is to win a Super Bowl.

[Wes21]

4 hours ago, Kinographer said:

He was by far the least inspiring choice. Since we met with him twice, I'm assuming that if we really wanted him, we could have had him. He would have been a good choice for a place like Cleveland where they desperately need stability even if its mediocrity.

One of the things that makes him good is he teaches some tricks that his players would not be allowed to do in Cleveland.  That's why I think Dallas is a good choice for him because he can still do it.