I will never like Jason Garrett

[Idgit]

The logic is clear... I didn't overstate anything. I made a stately of fact, you denied it, I once again like countless times bring the proof, and you respond with a bunch of useless waffling and more denials..

I was right and you were wrong and your looking for excuses. Dallas went after Sparano in 2012. That is a fact.

Now it's clear were looking backward. They had no plan and Sparano wouldn't have changed the scheme to a zone-blocking one Jason coached in his whole life.

And in 1 year, Jason Garrett was demoted as play-caller for an average play caller in Callahan, but Garrett sabotaged him.

But your also right, Callahan was also demoted, but he wasn't demoted for Garrett but Linehan, because Dallas didn't want to change the offense from Coryell. How about that? So he left after building the number one line in football to the Commanders to build one of the better OLs in football in one season..

All the while, Jerry said Garrett won't touch the offense and will be a walk-around coach.

I know it's difficult for you that you got embarrassed once again..

You're all over the place here, so I don't know how to respond with a logical reply. I didn't suggest we weren't interested in Sparano, so I don't know why you're presenting it as a fact as if it was in dispute. It also doesn't play into any argument about Jason Garrett and the team's rebuilt OL. They considered going in more than one direction with the rebuild, they went in the direction they went in. It resulted in what's generally considered to be the best OL in the league right now. How you interpret that as somehow an indictment of the HC is not my problem.

Jerry didn't say Jason Garrett 'won't touch the offense.' And I"m very comfortable resting my credibility on this topic on my post history and on the results. I don't believe anybody with an ounce of sense on the forum can look at the results and disagree. We don't ned to keep going back and forth with the "you're embarrassed!" "no, *you're* embarrassed!!" stuff. One of us is right, and the other is trying to ignore the team's record and the coach's NFL Coach of the Year hardware. The discussion ends there.

 

[khiladi]

You're all over the place here, so I don't know how to respond with a logical reply. I didn't suggest we weren't interested in Sparano, so I don't know why you're presenting it as a fact as if it was in dispute. It also doesn't play into any argument about Jason Garrett and the team's rebuilt OL. They considered going in more than one direction with the rebuild, they went in the direction they went in. It resulted in what's generally considered to be the best OL in the league right now. How you interpret that as somehow an indictment of the HC is not my problem.

Jerry didn't say Jason Garrett 'won't touch the offense.' And I"m very comfortable resting my credibility on this topic on my post history and on the results. I don't believe anybody with an ounce of sense on the forum can look at the results and disagree. We don't ned to keep going back and forth with the "you're embarrassed!" "no, *you're* embarrassed!!" stuff. One of us is right, and the other is trying to ignore the team's record and the coach's NFL Coach of the Year hardware. The discussion ends there.

I'm not following you around. You on the other hand are following me around and then trying to dictate terms of the conversation.

You were wrong and I was right. Dallas was targeting Sparano. It's a fact so get over it. You don't need to waffle and try and say you weren't denying this when you were.

Houck was let go and Dallas and Jason went after Sparano. He refused them. That means they were not looking to revamp their RG and concepts from an OL perspective.

Callahan brings a totally different scheme.

And Jerry did say exactly what I said, which you as normal deny, and it's in the links above.

So yeah, I'm right as usual and you are wrong. That's a fact.

 

[Idgit]

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/article3847045.html

Of, look what we have here. Right again, with Jerry admitting that Garrett being removed from the offense puts his role in an ambiguous place.

He then proceeds to admit that this is what Jason didn't want:

So Jason was stripped of play-calling duties and they got Linehan and that Jerry basically in the same article admits he liked his coordinators and will give them more control.

Why do you continually embarrass yourself?

Our success has been predicated on making Jason vanish, while giving appearances that he plays a big role simply to save Jerry's face as well as, because Jerry simply loves the guy and the Garrett family.

You might as well be quoting random articles about fish riding bicycles or videos of dogs buttoning up dress shirts and then telling us you're right and that I've embarrassed myself. If you're going to make whatever point you think is there to be made in your head, you have to do more than pull an unrelated link and show it to us like it's something we don't know and have never considered.

Nobody here has ever disputed that Jason Garrett's play calling duties were taken away and given to Callahan, and then given to Linehan. When it's been pointed out historically, it always get answered with the fact that most NFL HC's *don't'* call their own plays. It's usually about two thirds of the league whose HCs don't call plays for their respective sides of the ball. Including Belichick in New England. The list of guys who *do* (or, did I guess I should say) includes guys like Whisenhunt and Kelly who were fired for it.

 

[Idgit]

You were wrong and I was right. Dallas was targeting Sparano. It's a fact so get over it. You don't need to waffle and try and say you weren't denying this when you were..

I genuinely have no idea what you're referring to here. Are you talking about in this thread? In another thread I've somehow forgotten about? If you've got a link or a shred of support to suggest I didn't believe Dallas ever targeted Tony Sparano, I'll be happy to reply to it.

Otherwise, it's just weird that you keep saying I said it and keep trotting it out as if it were relevant in some way.

 

[khiladi]

You might as well be quoting random articles about fish riding bicycles or videos of dogs buttoning up dress shirts and then telling us you're right and that I've embarrassed myself. If you're going to make whatever point you think is there to be made in your head, you have to do more than pull an unrelated link and show it to us like it's something we don't know and have never considered.

Nobody here has ever disputed that Jason Garrett's play calling duties were taken away and given to Callahan, and then given to Linehan. When it's been pointed out historically, it always get answered with the fact that most NFL HC's *don't'* call their own plays. It's usually about two thirds of the league whose HCs don't call plays for their respective sides of the ball. Including Belichick in New England. The list of guys who *do* (or, did I guess I should say) includes guys like Whisenhunt and Kelly who were fired for it.

Nobody ever disputed the fact the play-calling duties were taken away, but I'm not talking about that and you, like usual are changing the argument to try and save face..

Jerry flat out admitted Jason didn't want to give up play-calling, which you claimed was false. Just one of the many things you are wrong about..

When Jason was in control of the offense, you vehemently denied his play-calling was a problem.. still trying to waffle out of it. Who exactly is in denial?

So unlike Whisenhunt or Kelly, Jason was emasculated, though he gave up when he didn't want to and remained HC.

I haven't even gotten to the quote from Jerry about the 'coach' refusing to run and not target the best WR on the team like Linehan did in Detroit..

 

[khiladi]

I genuinely have no idea what you're referring to here. Are you talking about in this thread? In another thread I've somehow forgotten about? If you've got a link or a shred of support to suggest I didn't believe Dallas ever targeted Tony Sparano, I'll be happy to reply to it.

Otherwise, it's just weird that you keep saying I said it and keep trotting it out as if it were relevant in some way.

You just responded to a thread for no reason where I said Dallas was targeting Sparano meaning they had no real plan..

when that was wrong, you basically tried to spin it that what you meant was that it doesn't prove that they can do multiple things at once as if going after two coaches, one of them according to the same direction they were going for the past five year and the only reason the other was even free was because that same coach they were targeting took the Jets job, was an example of them "planning" wisely...

Desperate much?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Garrett didn't reign anybody in and why he got stripped of his play-calling duties..

Romo wasn't even allowed in game planning until he got the new contract and it was forced from on top by Jerry, using the analogy of Peyton Manning.. that year they made the change was when both Witten and Romo were seen yelling at Garrett on the sidelines in 2012-2013 season.

And then Kyle Orton, when Romo got injured, proceeded to chuck the ball as well while Garrett took back the reigns from Callahan, interfering that whole season, crying to Jerry and ended up calling the plays by the end and refusing once again to run the ball, with Orton chucking two key INTs against basic coverages by Philly..

then Linehan came in and Garrett wasn't even part of the play-calling and Jerry basically affirmed they don't want his hands on the offense and he will figure a role out.

2014 was Romo taking control away from Garrett completely and having a somewhat halfway competent OC working with him...

Garrett was stripped of his play calling duties because it was obvious he wasn't very good at them and struggled to handle it while he was the head coach (I submit he struggled with it when he was the O-Coordinator, but that's another story).

Romo had free will over this offense. There were times when Wade mentioned that Romo audibled out of run plays too often and then Garrett mentioned it when he became HC and then there was the story of Jason Hatcher yelling at Romo in practice when he checked out of another run play into a pass.

I think Jerry saw there was a problem. The play calling wasn't effective and my *guess* is he saw the issue of Romo and Garrett being buddies. If your QB won't run the ball and your HC won't get after him for doing so...we'll just keep throwing the ball. At least with a different person calling the plays...that relationship may be different.

I think Callahan was not originally brought in to be a play caller, but he was the best available at that time and he was already our O-Line coach. Whatever happened in 2013, we were throwing the ball a ridiculous amount. My belief is once again Romo was a culprit and should share some of the blame.

As far as 2014 goes, it's really hard to tell. From day one of Garrett being the coach he has said he wanted to have a physical and dynamic running game. I will give him credit, we didn't have the O-Line for it and it was easy to see that he was really bothered by the center position and finally addressed it in 2013.

At the same time, I wouldn't doubt if Romo just got sick of taking the blame for checking out of the runs and finally relented and went with it. We were down by 21 to the Rams at St. Louis and actually ran the ball to get back into the game and win. That was week 3 in 2014 and was completely different from how we would have handled that deficit in previous years with Romo. I think that perhaps showed Romo that you don't have to panic and abandon the run so quickly.

But Garrett is still heavily involved with the gameplanning on offense, the play designs and how he wants the game called in general. Oddly enough, Linehan was considered to have the same problems as Garrett as a play caller...abandoning the run for the pass. Perhaps like Romo he just got tired of hearing about it and decided to change his ways.





YR

 

[Doomsday101]

Nobody ever disputed the fact he got the play-calling duties away, but I'm not talking about that and you, like usual are changing the argument to try and save face..

Jerry flat out admitted Jason didn't want to give up play-calling, which you claimed was false. Just one of the many things you are wrong about..

Garrett is still involved with putting the game plan in place he also has say on what he wants from the OC. Jerry wanted Jason to be the HC not the coach of 1 side of the ball something Jimmy Johnson suggested from the get go. Jimmy knew from his own experience that wearing too many hats would hurt Jason which is why Jimmy never called Offense or defense he was HC he was in charge of what took place on the field. Garrett took the heat after 2015 season but now that the offense shows success all of a sudden he has no credit for the success of the offense? See that is what makes your arguments a complete Joke you will blame Garrett for poor play by the offense even when Linehan was OC in 2015 but when success happens Garrett played no part? LOL Too funny

 

[Idgit]

You just responded to a thread for no reason where I said Dallas was targeting Sparano meaning they had no real plan..

when that was wrong, you basically tried to spin it that what you meant was that it doesn't prove that they can do multiple things at once as if going after two coaches, one of them according to the same direction they were going for the past five year and the only reason the other was even free was because that same coach they were targeting took the Jets job, was an example of them "planning" wisely...

Desperate much?

Ah! Now I know what you're getting at. You're referring to this post:

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/i-will-never-like-jason-garrett.375475/#post-7284946

Sorry, I was responding to your 'Officially the worst decision Jerry ever made' comment, and not the other gobletty-gook.

At least I know what you're talking about now, though, because I was pretty confused.

And, no, I don't consider Jason Garrett and company trying to fill an open OL/OC coaching position with either Sparano or Callahan to be a particular sign of anything more than the Cowboys looking for a good coach. I think most people probably would agree with that.

 

[khiladi]

Garrett was stripped of his play calling duties because it was obvious he wasn't very good at them and struggled to handle it while he was the head coach (I submit he struggled with it when he was the O-Coordinator, but that's another story).

Romo had free will over this offense. There were times when Wade mentioned that Romo audibled out of run plays too often and then Garrett mentioned it when he became HC and then there was the story of Jason Hatcher yelling at Romo in practice when he checked out of another run play into a pass.

I think Jerry saw there was a problem. The play calling wasn't effective and my *guess* is he saw the issue of Romo and Garrett being buddies. If your QB won't run the ball and your HC won't get after him for doing so...we'll just keep throwing the ball. At least with a different person calling the plays...that relationship may be different.

I think Callahan was not originally brought in to be a play caller, but he was the best available at that time and he was already our O-Line coach. Whatever happened in 2013, we were throwing the ball a ridiculous amount. My belief is once again Romo was a culprit and should share some of the blame.

As far as 2014 goes, it's really hard to tell. From day one of Garrett being the coach he has said he wanted to have a physical and dynamic running game. I will give him credit, we didn't have the O-Line for it and it was easy to see that he was really bothered by the center position and finally addressed it in 2013.

At the same time, I wouldn't doubt if Romo just got sick of taking the blame for checking out of the runs and finally relented and went with it. We were down by 21 to the Rams at St. Louis and actually ran the ball to get back into the game and win. That was week 3 in 2014 and was completely different from how we would have handled that deficit in previous years with Romo. I think that perhaps showed Romo that you don't have to panic and abandon the run so quickly.

But Garrett is still heavily involved with the gameplanning on offense, the play designs and how he wants the game called in general. Oddly enough, Linehan was considered to have the same problems as Garrett as a play caller...abandoning the run for the pass. Perhaps like Romo he just got tired of hearing about it and decided to change his ways.





YR

You can claim all you want, but Jerry flat out denied all of this when he gave the contract to Romo and when he hired Linehan. The quotes are in the links I provided among many.

Wade constantly complained about Garrett not running the ball, which was his whole reason to bring in Dan Reeves. That is another fact that cannot be denied. Wade had problems with Garrett, which time eventually proved right.

The TOs and pressure those put on the defense, Wade put on the lack of running the ball because of Garrett, not Romo..

Most people simply rely on Parcells take that Romo was a gunslinger and let that define Romo's career with Garrett, which was totally different. Parcells in fact, was way too conservative anyways to the point he refused to attack scrubs in Seattle's secondary.. his judgments in Romo in that regards was partly influenced by that mentality and was hardly PURELY rational.

Romo had no problems running the ball the very year Linehan came and he didn't turn the Ball over..

 

[Doomsday101]

You can claim all you want, but Jerry flat out denied all of this when he gave the contract to Romo and when he hired Linehan. The quotes are in the links I provided among many.

Wade constantly complains about Garrett not running the ball, which is his whole reason to bring in Dan Reeves. That is another fact that cannot be denied. Wade had problems with Garrett, which time eventually proved.

The TOs and pressure those put on the defense, Wade put on the lack of running the ball because of Garrett, not Romo..

Linehan was hired because that is who Garrett wanted and had worked with. Fact is Jerry hired Garrett as HC and Garrett is still HC. You have a problem with Garrett fine but Jerry Jones and the Dallas Cowboys don't. His job is not as a coordinator his job is to be in charge of the entire team. He did well enough to earn coach of the year and Jerry likes what he is doing enough to extend his contract

 

[khiladi]

In fact, when Linehan took control and the RG was establishing itself, Jerry again admits that this was not Garrett's plan, but he was ACQUIESCING. Again, Jerry denies whatever any of you say.

http://www.star-telegram.com/sports/nfl/dallas-cowboys/article3874353.html

Make no mistake about it: Jason [Garrett] is acquiescing to what we are doing out here,” Jones said. “ ... I think when you are down 21-0 and you are sitting out there and you run the ball twice and it’s third-and-7, third-and-6, then everyone starts realizing we are committed to the run.”

In fact, when they brought in Linehan he said this was a major factor that the previous coach refused to stick with the run, besides not targeting Dez, but it's getting annoying quoting Jerry directly affirming this facts plainly.

Garrett was known as the coach who abandoned the run. Of course as the politician he is, he and his homers make it sound like this was all part of his plan.

The reality is, Garrett training process wasted Romo's career, put a tremendous burden on Romo, increased the pressure on the OL as well, resulting in getting sacked close to 40 times a game... and the guy that built the OL, he was feuding with the very next year and his homers also try and give him credit for..

 

[dogunwo]

You're right. Have your day of mourning.
Though something tells me you've been both mad and bitter on this topic for more than 24 hours.

He is firmly entrenched on his position too. People have a hard time of just admitting they were wrong, so there is nothing Garrett can do now to earn his respect. Winning back to back Superbowls would not be enough. He would still find some reason to say that they were won in spite of Garrett.

 

[khiladi]

He is firmly entrenched on his position too. People have a hard time of just admitting they were wrong, so there is nothing Garrett can do now to earn his respect. Winning back to back Superbowls would not be enough. He would still find some reason to say that they were won in spite of Garrett.

Look cheerleading amongst each to try and make themselves feel better inspite of the evidence saying otherwise...

 

[Idgit]

He is firmly entrenched on his position too. People have a hard time of just admitting they were wrong, so there is nothing Garrett can do now to earn his respect. Winning back to back Superbowls would not be enough. He would still find some reason to say that they were won in spite of Garrett.

I'm sure you're right. Winning back to back Superbowls would get probably 70-80% of the stragglers to tell us 'man, this crow really tastes delicious.' The other 20-30% would insist the game was won in spite of the HC and that we look ridiculous for believing otherwise.

 

[Doomsday101]

Look cheerleading to try and make themselves feel better inspite of the evidence saying otherwise corroborating the guy with the other opinion and claiming that guy is 'firmly entrenched in an opinion', which is the 'ironically' the opinion based on facts..

what evidence? Who is the HC of the Dallas Cowboys? He has been the longest tenure of any HC the Cowboys have has under Jones and has the full backing of Jerry and Stephen. As OC Garrett offense never ranked below 13th in the NFL and was top 10 in 3 of them. Jerry did take play calling away but continued to back Jason as the HC of the Dallas Cowboys you know the position in charge of the entire team. I have no issue when the team fails that Jason takes heat because as HC the team failure and success falls directly on him but by the same token when the team is being successful to act as if Jason played no part is juvenile and becomes completely agenda driven

 

[dogunwo]

Look cheerleading amongst each to try and make themselves feel better inspite of the evidence saying otherwise...

Exactly. You didn't address my point about what it would take for Garrett to earn your respect. You attacked me instead.

 

[haleyrules]

I'm sure you're right. Winning back to back Superbowls would get probably 70-80% of the stragglers to tell us 'man, this crow really tastes delicious.' The other 20-30% would insist the game was won in spite of the HC and that we look ridiculous for believing otherwise.

Heck, if Jason wins a SB...I will be happy to eat two Crows....Raw! You can serve it up.

 

[Idgit]

Heck, if Jason wins a SB...I will be happy to eat two Crows....Raw! You can serve it up.

It's going to happen. You know it is.

 

[haleyrules]

It's going to happen. You know it is.

Idgit...it should happen. Looking at a 2-3 yr window. I have a good feeling about the Cowboys future. Next yr could be a step back.