FanPost

An extensive Todd Archer report of the team's coaching change firmly refutes the notion of Dallas "dysfunction"

What the Dallas Cowboys did regarding their head coaching situation between season's end and the hiring of Mike McCarthy is unusual. That much is undeniable, as the basic facts of the situation were generally unprecedented. All indications were that the team was moving on from a head coach who had already been allowed to reach the end of his contract, and yet the team continued to meet with said coach and did not announce that it was moving on from him, even upon beginning to interview replacements.

Many Dallas Cowboys fans took this as the latest, and perhaps most clear, example of team dysfunction. Many, many fans. The motivation for this is simple and as old as time: they are unhappy with the team, and thus they want to see dysfunction in how the team is being run, as the presence of such issues implies that things would become instantly better once it is solved.

It is much more disturbing to have to consider that the team in fact can be run well - and perhaps has indeed been run well for some time - and still denied the longed-for fruits of ultimate victory. Denying that consideration might not be truthful or wise, but sometimes those can be tough to chew on in the moment. It's understandable.

Good journalism is able to dig up facts and first-hand information in such circumstances, and better journalism does so quickly. In a piece for ESPN (linked here), it appears that Todd Archer has pulled of some of that "better" journalism. Read the full article for all the items, but the key ones will be summarized here.

The crux of Archer's reporting is not just the "multiple sources" cited therein, but an explicitly-labeled "high-ranking source". That's as powerful a source admission as you'll hear described, short of naming actual names. And the information provided by Archer from this particular sources as well as the others brings into focus the previously unknown "why" behind what is sure to become the famous (and hopefully not infamous) delayed Garrett dismissal.

Let Archer's words deliver the powerful information: "The high-ranking source said that had the Cowboys not been overwhelmed by McCarthy or any other candidates, there was a chance Garrett could have returned as coach." And there it is - Dallas did not fire Garrett immediately because it was open to the possibility that it would not find a better candidate.

While many Dallas fans were utterly convinced (unjustifiably, as will be touched on below) that Garrett was totally in over his head and impossible to win with, the team was not. Fans, being individual and human, totally fairly responded with emotion and desired the catharsis of seeing Garrett "sacked" (what a wonderful term). But a good organization must act rationally, not emotionally, and the team had reached a point in which the odds of ultimate success under Garrett had shifted downward, enough that it was worth going looking for someone who presented better odds. Normally, a team doesn't get to go looking while holding the option to retain the former/current coach, but just because that is unusual doesn't mean that it is bad. On the contrary, it is a wonderful option, assuming all parties are on board. The team had nothing to lose; spending a few days reflecting on Garrett and talking to him did not materially delay the coaching search (let's not forget that the consensus is that the Dallas Cowboy job was by far the most desirable available - perhaps not for everyone, but #1 by a mile for most). And Garrett, apparently not acting emotionally himself in the face of potential dismissal, was willing to fight to keep his position and remain patient while that was possible.

The Dallas Cowboys got to have their cake an eat it too. Retaining Garrett would not have been a terrible option, period. Dysfunctional NFL organizations demand unrealistic levels of success from team leadership, and respond emotionally when those levels aren't met. They fail to understand the temporary damage that results from a leadership transition, and thus embrace frequent, premature changes rather than letting current leadership fully set its foundation and prove its quality. The Cowboys, on the contrary, understand that only so much success can be imposed by sheer will and desire in this league; ownership set expectations at being truly competitive (not necessarily a favorite) and showing signs of progress, while accounting for adversity outside the sway of coaching.

Jason Garrett returned competitiveness, by avoiding a losing partial or full season in all but 1 of 10 opportunities, with the only exception being filled with peak levels of adversity. Garrett returned progress, by inheriting a flawed 1-7 declining roster that also came with salary cap problems, stabilizing it for a few seasons, and then pushing ahead, winning more even while transitioning to a new franchise Quarterback and one of the youngest core rosters in the NFL. Even including that handicapped beginning, from 2011 to present the team had the 9th-best record in the sport, certainly at least as good as the team's average talent level over the same period. And Garrett returned evidence of the ability to achieve the ultimate goal, by leading two still-incomplete rosters to the best record in the conference before falling short to also-strong teams in the unlevel playing field of the playoffs. Through the end of the 2018 season, Garrett had rationally showed enough signs needed to stick with him.

But the Garrett ship finally sprung a leak this past season - a bad one. Given the most complete and talented roster of his time, the team underachieved by record in the early going, even slogging in bits and pieces of eventual easy wins. Even that is no sin, but the true failure came in the form of the team not only failing to rise to the occasion when it reached Thanksgiving still in an easy playoff pole position but also outright withering. The team started two consecutive games against the Bills and Bears strong, and then upon taking its first tough punch from the opposition fell dazed to the mat rather than continue to punch back. Failure. Even upon resetting the slate with a surprise win against the Rams, a rematch against an Eagles team it had beaten soundly the first time around resulted in another zombie performance - not a bad one, but uninspired.

This was the first time the Cowboys had played DOWN from its talent in Garrett's tenure. The arrow was now pointed down. Time to move on, right? Not if emotionally, and rationally it's illogical to equate one true failure with a representation of overall capabilities. And even if this was revealing a true, reliable weakness, rationally a change would only be worth it if at least one candidate could be identified who by all we can know offered better.

Dallas let itself marinate on the situation a few days, rather than engage in the emotion-serving practice of "black Monday". Function, not dysfunction. It met with Garrett to receive his input on the season and broader situation, to help it better process its perception of Garrett's quality and, hopefully, to gauge his response. Function, not dysfunction. Those meetings, apparently, ended with ownership concluding that Garrett was still capable of leading this team to ultimate success, even if he might not be the best one to do it. And once the coach made it clear that he would remain on hand to lobby to stay, even if a coaching search was initiated, an unusual but beneficial pathway was taken. Function, not dysfunction. If anything, the team was innovating, and while that may be too optimistic a label there was no major downside, outside of public hand-wringing that would have gone on even had Garrett been immediately dismissed.

According to the Archer article, Garrett was never considered for a front office position, as there wouldn't be room for him even if that was desired. Archer also writes "the Joneses did not want the new coach to be burdened by seeing the Cowboys' former coach around the building". The team was showing patience and consideration, nothing more or less. It's also easy to read between the lines about the Ed Werner report that ESPN misrepresented as the team having already decided that Garrett was out: the source likely had become aware that a coaching search was about to begin, and thus incorrectly had intuited to Werner (or he intuited incorrectly, himself) that the team was simply giving Garrett a respectful period of time before firing him and then engaging in the search.

Even the manner with which the Cowboys engaged in their search shows function over dysfunction. Archer writes that "The Cowboys first wanted to explore the experienced coaches available." The interview kicked off with former longtime Bengal head coach Marvin Lewis, a move some have since labeled (again, pushing for something negative) to be nothing more than an attempt to fulfill the "Rooney rule" requiring the consideration of at least one minority coaching candidate. But the reporting by Archer makes it clear that Dallas was entering the search with an open mind, and Lewis was a candidate with a remarkably similar resume to that of McCarthy - zero playoff success being the exception, but how many proven former head coaching minority candidates were available for Dallas's consideration? Lewis interview also moved into a second day, reflecting the team's next interview results and implying that consideration was quite real.

The team started with a type, and that type included at least Lewis, and then Mike McCarthy. When the team met with McCarthy, he "blew their socks off" as quoted from an Archer source. When you combine a strong resume (whose strength is rightly questioned due to the excellent Quarterback play it was built with) with a knockout interview that as best as can be told substantiates the quality of the man behind the resume, well, you have a worthy hire. The interview "could not have gone better", according to Archer's sources, and Dallas had identified a proven former NFL candidate who by all appearances offered better than what Garrett did. Of note: Archer includes the tidbit "A source told ESPN's Rob Demovsky that part of the Cowboys' interest in McCarthy stemmed from the fact the Joneses believed McCarthy had beat Dallas with inferior talent." Ownership thought there was something real behind McCarthy's prior success, and believed the interview had confirmed it. One night without a sleepover at Jerry Jones's home later, and the team had its man.

Perhaps this not the process you would have followed, but it's a rational one. Unusual has nothing to do with good or bad; it is what it is. If you see dysfunction in these proceedings, you're only putting it their yourself. The time has come to accept the truth: while the Cowboys suffered its share of dysfunction during earlier periods of Jerry Jones's ownership, for a decade now this has been a tight, well-functioning ship. It hasn't been the best, but that ties into capabilities and good fortune, not functional process. The ship continues to steam ahead, and if this new...first mate? navigator?...proves better than the old one, its course will be that much smoother in the annual great race.

Another user-created commentary provided by a BTB reader.