This was originally a comment response to this fanpost extolling the virtues of a certain sportswriter. Said writer also merited a front page article (apologies, the link box is broken on my iPhone and I barely got the first one in) which probably outlines this far better than I will.
That being said - I want to hear this from people, and I think it's a worthy discussion point.
It was said in a comment:
These same articles are going to come out year after year until they succeed in getting Jerry Jones to get rid of him. Coach Garrett has never been fully accepted, because many in the media never wanted him as HC in the first place.
No, really. Who never wanted Garrett as HC?
Oh yes, the peanut gallery, the important ones. I think I could believe there is some amount of truth in that statement.
I really hope that JJ keeps laying on the scotch and drawing attention to himself, and away from Garrett and what the team is doing.
If the pundits have the answers, why are they still pundits instead of being gainfully employed by a team?
This all frustrates me terribly, because so many folks just parrot what they hear, without even the slightest pause to think critically about what they're saying. That isn't leveled at anyone here in particular, but a general observation based on statements and attitudes I have read/heard (even spouted at times, guilty).
I admit, there have been games where I was livid about the way things worked out - and it's always simple and easy to point at the HC and say, "You suck! Your fault! Pack your bags!"
It's too simple, too easy. It's the lazy way out - but it's also right in line with the capacity of the masses, and their preferred route.
Why break down the film after a draw on 3rd & 6, cross it with success on other play options in that game, weaknesses that may drive a coach into playing field position, and then critique the call based on the facts of reality, instead of always-aggressive wishful thinking?
It's too much work, might not fuel controversy, and heaven forbid, in hindsight it might have even been understandable. Not your druthers - but understandable.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but why ask a colorblind person to comment on varying shades of red? If they cannot form an opinion based on fact - not wishful thinking gone Optimus Prime into truth - how valid is it?
In the end it is still true that clicks = revenue, revenue = jobs, and anything stirring the pot about the Cowboys, well that = clicks.
Blame capitalism ;)
So I ask: Why would you want Garrett gone? Or, why are you happy with him coaching?
Take the blinders off, give concrete examples, and examine alternative answers. You don't have to change your mind - just back up why you feel the way you do.