Originally Posted by LatinMind
Mickey says he was told Skip Peete firing is the first move and more to come in the coaching dept.
They way they're talking is the changes will come on the offensive side. Talking about being told the team didnt like the way the OFFENSE played in the begining part of the season.
I dont think they were talking about the offense. Sounds like they were talking about the defense.
At the 6:30 mark he talks about interviewing Jerry for a show on Saturday night.
He asked about the defense and injuries and if he gives the defense a pass and Jerry's reply in paraphrased form was about not liking the way the defense played to start the year when there weren't injuries. He also mentions that Seattle and Chicago are games that Jerry said he didn't like.
IMO, this is just insane. The ST and offense fronted the Seahawks 10 points and only mustered 7. Even a flawless game from the defense doesn't win that.
Against Chicago, the offense handed over 14 points and another turnover or two.
If Jerry is going to base his decision to keep or fire Rob and he's using Seattle and Chicago as his examples, Jerry's more lost than any of us could have imagined. Look, the defense folded in the second half of the Seattle game. I think they were hung out to dry but they got bullied and ran over in the second half. That said, if you're only scoring 7 points in a game and 10 points have been given to the opponent, it doesn't matter how good the defense plays. If you're rule for measuring your own defense includes it's inability to stop your own offense or special teams from allowing the opponent to score, you've got some problems with the ruler.
I also like how Broaddus mentioned that firing Skip Pete was misguided because there are bigger problems than Skip Pete. Broaddus also called it a "philosophical issue". Lets see, philosophically the running back coach isn't in line with the guy calling plays. That kind of narrows it down for me. Pete probably wanted more running and Garrett wasn't having it.
Broaddus also mentions how Ray Sherman was let go for similar reasons. Here's my question, what exactly is going on that after multiple years on the team these "philosophical" issues arise?
Sherman was around for 4 years.......philosophical issues so he's gone.
Pete was around for 6 years......philosophical issues so he's gone.
The same thing with past players.....just not a good fit. If Jay Ratliff gets released for standing up to Jerry instead of playing the role of whipping boy, he'll be called a "bad fit".
1. Why do these issues only arise after multiple seasons? If a guy isn't "philosophically" on the same page, isn't that something that should come out a lot earlier? Wouldn't you discuss such things in the interview?
2. Why does Jason Garrett have such difficulty working with these guys? Ray Sherman has been a coach in the NFL since before Jason even set foot on an NFL field as a player. Ray Sherman's first collegiate coaching position came when Jason Garrett was 8 years old. You telling me Ray Sherman can't be worked with?
Skip Pete has been a coach for just as long as Garrett has been in the NFL, although the 1st 10 years were at the collegiate level and the last 15 have been in the NFL. Skip Pete can't be worked with?
These are two tenured guys with vastly more experience than Jason Garrett, they have worked with more coaches than Jason has and yet philosophical problems can be the reason for their release?
Perhaps it isn't "everyone else" who has the "philosophical problem". Perhaps it's Jason Garrett.