Jason Garrett and the missing attribute

[Reality]

Yes this is yet another Jason Garrett thread, but I want to focus on an area different than the other threads. This post will not dive into his play calling, clock management, personnel decisions, etc. Instead, I want to look at the coach himself and his coaching style.

As I have said in other threads, I am neither happy nor sad that Jason Garrett is the Cowboys coach. I am very concerned that if Jerry fires Garrett that he may make a poor choice for replacement, but that too is a discussion better had in another thread.

What I want to discuss is certain attributes that we as fans look for in coaches. If you played a lot of sports growing up, you have had a lot of different coaches in your life. From the youth league dads that had no clue to the high school coaches who all seemed to be yelling and screaming, you have seen a wide variety of coaching styles.

During that time I am sure that you started to see similarities between the coaches of the teams where you had the most success. Those are attributes that tend to be shared by winners, at least at that level. For me, the best coaches I had were half yeller and half arrogant. By arrogant, I really mean very confident and determined, but you get the idea.

When we look out across the NFL and see the head coaches of the successful teams, we start to see some common attributes with them as well. You look at Sean Payton, Tom Coughlin, Jim Harbaugh, John Harbaugh, etc. and you see coaches who look like they could go off on someone at any moment. They look angry, determined and arrogant. Most importantly, they present a "do whatever you want, I will beat you" perception. Then there are the coaches who present the "I'm a nice guy, but I am smarter than you" presence such as Andy Reid, Jason Garrett, John Fox, etc.

Of course the one enigma in coaching has to be Bill Belichick. He presents a "I don't care about you, your team or your players, my only goal is to beat you and leave" attitude. Of course it helps if you can back it up as often as he has. It is like he expects to win every game no matter the opponent or the situation and he looks angry when he loses any games no matter the circumstances.

I understand Jason Garrett's coaching style. He lives by the "stay focused on the task at hand until the job is done" philosophy. By that I mean he avoids highs and lows during games in an effort to lead his players by example. The problem with this is that the highs can trigger a major turning point in the game. Yes, I know the risks of lows doing the same thing but in a negative way exist, but in the NFL (all sports really) you play to win the game. That is the attribute I see missing from Garrett.

I will say this, Garrett will sometimes play to the win the game, but for a man who lives so strictly by statistical probabilities, he chooses the worst chance-for-success opportunities to do it. The biggest example of that is his propensity to throw 20+ yards down the field on 3rd or 4th and 2 yards or less. It is almost like he is trying to outsmart everyone, but again, for someone who lives by statistical probabilities, this is so far away from that mindset that I find it hard to believe it when he does it even if it yields successful results.

Playing to win the game is not about taking high-risk low-success chances. It is about having faith in your players to succeed because you coached and trained them well enough that they will succeed most of the time. It does not mean settling. It does not mean trying to hold on to a lead. It does not mean trying to win on the last shot. It does not mean holding back until you get behind. Winners play to win the game from start to finish. Winners in the NFL do not play chess, they fight. Winners hit their opponent hard and if they get hit back, they hit back harder.

Garrett coaches like a coordinator. A coordinator has to stay focused every moment on play-calling whether offense or defense. Even when on defense, the offensive coordinator has to look at images of the other team's defensive schemes and start planning the next drive's offensive plan. A head coach needs to either have coordinators handling that for him or they need to be able to separate themselves from the coordinator duties when they are not calling plays while the other side is on the field.

While I am not sold on Garrett yet, I do think he has potential to be a very good head coach. The problem I see him having is that he is still acting like a coordinator all game long when he needs to be a head coach. I do believe he is capable of being the head coach and play caller, but he needs to figure a way to be both or give up one of them.

/reality

[rickjameschinaclub]

Jason Garrett could be a horrible statistician.. What was his major in Princeton anyways?

[Zimmy Lives]

I agree with your last statement about being sold on Garrett but thinking he can be a good coach. I think he will only be successful if everything falls into place for him.

For example, he desperately needs a solid draft this April. He not only needs some studs (d-line and safety) on defense but he needs at least one blue-chip player to add to the starting o-line along with solid backups at RB and WR.

There are other factors (play calling, focused Romo, schedule) that will contribute to his success but personnel is where he can make the biggest improvement.

[ykc]

Norv Turner said that he is not ready to be OC when Norv interviewed for HC job here. Also, the importance of making the first down and keeping the drive alive, even if we are not going to score, is lost. HC think about time of possession, new set of downs will give defense additional 3-4 minutes of rest etc. JG, like you said is thinking like a QB or OC - not like a HC. I wish Bill Parcells stayed one more year when we hired JG as OC. I bet Sean Payton learned how to run the team as HC from Bill a lot, JG is missing that

[Gaede]

Great post.

Probably Garrett's biggest weakness is his coaching style, IMO. Haven't seen much change over the years either, in that regard. I'm still holding out hope that we'll play differently with a true OC, but I honestly believe that this is the way Garrett wants things done.

[xwalker]

IMO, Garrett is a better Head Coach than coordinator.

Wade Phillips and Norv Turner are better coordinators than Head Coaches.

For me, the best coaches I had were half yeller and half arrogant. By arrogant, I really mean very confident and determined, but you get the idea.

Wade and Norv didn't have enough arrogance when it came to dealing with the media and high profile players.

Regardless of ownership, the Cowboys attract a media circus. I think Garrett has done of good job of keeping that as contained as possible.

[Omegasupreme]

Well done.

In a business metaphor, Jason was general counsel to the financial department with the Dolphins. Jerry hired him to be the chief financial officer of the Cowboys, responsible for making and sustaining both financial gains and growth. He would show some growth in property and real estate acquisition but year after year he failed to convert those acquisitions into profits and the financial gains remained essentially the same (save for 2007). In many ways, he continued to act as general counsel while being a CFO, he tended to rely on predictable gain strategies that had a low ceiling; and he was not equipped to keep up with the modern, more heterogenic, and "win at all costs" CFOs who lead the top 12 companies in the nation, year after year.

Not making any improvement or significant financial gains, despite the potential within the company, AND despite the property and real estate acquisiton being on par with leading companies, the CFO was then given the role of CEO.

Now Jason, whose main strength is still being a very effective general counsel to a CFO, to help with the day to day operations of Romo exclusively, is now the CEO of all facets of the company. In many ways, he is still just a limited CFO with the title of CEO. He just has not demonstrated a will to win; to take the weaknesses and change them to strengths; to take the property and make profits; and to mercilessly topple rivals by using every minute of every play against them to outgain their profit margins.

What has he done with what he has been given in the past to warrant this? What has he shown in the passionate strategy to win with the complete freedom he had as CFO, to then be given the whole company?

To me, it makes perfect sense, that Garrett has had such limited success except for certain aspects of the passing game. That is all he is: a very good general counsel to the operations of the company. Not equipped nor able to be CEO. The company will be underdeveloped in some areas, lose workers with potential in others, overtax the efforts of the loyal and committed and blame those who fall under his failures.

Most businesses would look at Garrett like Parcells does. You are what your record says you are,

And Jason is nothing more than a very, very good QB coach to Romo.

[Idgit]

There's a long tradition of cerebral nice-guy coaches in this league in the Landry, Walsh mode. Even today, coaches like Mike Smith and, as you say, Andy Reid are very successful. I don't think there's any particular type of demeanor that gives an advantage to a HC one way or another. I think you need credibility to win, and that credibility gets shaken if you don't have proven results. But I do think that any personality type can work in the NFL if you're smart, hard working, and are honest with your players.

As to playing the probabilities....the example you use of a low-probability pass on third-and-manageable is function of what the QB does on the play based off of how the defense plays it. This happens to every team, and JG is probably right in giving Romo the latitude to try those plays if he thinks he has something. I'd wager to say that Tony does a better job than most in taking advantage of what's there, and that it only seems like we take a lot of failed shots when we don't have to because we tend to remember the failures better in hindsight.

I do wonder, though, how the way this coaching staff plays the probabilities might change once they finish implementing their plan for the roster. Especially when it comes to red zone calling. There are times when you can see JG playing things very conservatively because it seems like he doesn't exactly trust one side of his team or the other entirely. Last year at the end of the NE game, for example, when he elected to play for field position and to rely on the defense for a stop.

And there are times, like right before half time this year in the NO game where you see him getting aggressive and putting it on his offense (rightly so, in my opinion, given how that game was playing out), and it burns him. Not only could we not move the chains, but our defense gave up points almost immediately on the back end.

Given how much JG reportedly plays percentages, and given the success the team's got in areas like coaches challenges, for example, where you can see the results of that work, the fact that there are obvious game situations where the team actually doesn't do what you'd expect to be the high-probability thing says more to me than almost anything else that the staff probably doesn't completely trust its roster yet.

[visionary]

Originally Posted by xwalker

IMO, Garrett is a better Head Coach than coordinator.

not picking a fight xwalker, i usually agree with you on most things

IMO, people only say this to make themselves feel better about jason because it is abundantly clear he not a good OC

we know he has attributes that a good HC should possess but that does not mean he is or will be a good HC and there is really no actual evidence that he is a good HC ie he has been unable to translate those attributes to the product on the field and winning and losing

there are many people in all walks of life who have the necessary attributes for their respective job but dont succeed for various reasons

[cannonball44]

theres plenty of reasons to dislike Jason Garrett, but i dont think his stoic, even keeled presence is one.

Tony Dungy did well without the Singletary fire and brimstone.

[CATCH17]

Originally Posted by xwalker

IMO, Garrett is a better Head Coach than coordinator.

Wade Phillips and Norv Turner are better coordinators than Head Coaches.

Wade and Norv didn't have enough arrogance when it came to dealing with the media and high profile players.

Regardless of ownership, the Cowboys attract a media circus. I think Garrett has done of good job of keeping that as contained as possible.

Thats not really saying much though. There are guys out there who could do a better job as a head coach.

Heck, Wade has done a better job than Jason.


Somehow we went from getting to the 2nd round of the playoffs, to the team quitting on Wade, to being in some long *** rebuilding mode with Jason.

[Reality]

Originally Posted by cannonball44

theres plenty of reasons to dislike Jason Garrett, but i dont think his stoic, even keeled presence is one.

Tony Dungy did well without the Singletary fire and brimstone.

You are right in that simply having a specific persona does not make you a great coach. However, any time we played a Tony Dungy team, it certainly did not worry me. Not because he wasn't a good coach, but nice guy coaches just seem to "hope" to win rather than expect to win and I would rather go up against a team that hopes to win rather than one that expects to win.

/reality

[Future]

Originally Posted by cannonball44

theres plenty of reasons to dislike Jason Garrett, but i dont think his stoic, even keeled presence is one.

Tony Dungy did well without the Singletary fire and brimstone.

He had Peyton Manning.

[Picksix]

Originally Posted by Reality

You are right in that simply having a specific persona does not make you a great coach. However, any time we played a Tony Dungy team, it certainly did not worry me. Not because he wasn't a good coach, but nice guy coaches just seem to "hope" to win rather than expect to win and I would rather go up against a team that hopes to win rather than one that expects to win.

/reality

I think if Jason ever had a team that he felt really good about, with an OL he felt good about, and establishes this team as one that can win consistently, he'd develop that mentality. I think he displays more a "hope we win" behavior, because right now, that's how he feels. To me, he coaches like someone who just doesn't trust or really believe in the team he has. Not saying this is right, just what I think.

[Hostile]

Originally Posted by rickjameschinaclub

What was his major in Princeton anyways?

History.