Adult Language Jason Garrett is soft and only a clapper?

[LACowboysFan1]

It’s about results.

In 8 full seasons, Garrett’s won one playoff game and has yet to get past the division round (btw, we lost to GB in the catch/no-catch game because of bad 4th quarter play calling and the fact that our defense couldn’t contain a one-legged QB).

As long as the Cowboys are making BIG-$$$$ and Garrett doesn’t fall much below 8-8, and as long as Jones can blame mediocrity on anything he deems outside of JG’s control, Jerry won't fire him.

If that floats your boat, then please enjoy.

I agree not being able to contain Rodgers was part of the loss in 2014, but if Dez holds on to the ball or it's ruled a catch, Cowboys have the ball on the GB one foot line, and assuming an easy td from there, Cowboys go up by 2 (or 3, if they went for 2), and GB would have had to score again, with the Cowboys not scoring, all Rodgers had to do was get a couple of first downs to hold on for the win, which of course he did. And I watched highlights of that game again to refresh my memory, the bigger part was horrible tackling, Cobb and Adams several times evaded what should have been tackles to make GB punt the ball, but they kept drives going/scored tds. Also had the Murray fumble and Bailey missing a field goal. All that contributed to the loss.

But that's an aside.

I was questioning about one of your comments which was "Jason Garrett will remain as HC as long as the team stays close to 8-8 " Maybe I didn't get your drift, or maybe you didn't understand mine, so let me re-phrase it:

If Jason was like 7-9 to 9-7 the entire 8 years, and had not had the two high-win total seasons and won the playoff game, do you think he'd still be the coach?

I was wondering if you felt that mediocrity year after year, record-wise, was enough to keep Jason as the coach? I don't think that, in my view if Jason had gone for 8 years and never made the playoffs, or barely got in maybe one time, that Jerry would have fired him.

I do think Jerry wants another SB win or two or three, and that he felt the Cowboys with Jason were getting close, since they did have a couple of division titles and a playoff win, but without those, Jason, even as much as Jerry would be loathe to do it, would have been let go or bumped "upstairs" to some "consulting" position.

 

[Miller]

I'm not offended by your Landry view, believe me. I'm not even offended. Your willingness to apologize shows you're a good guy.

Those posts last night were two guys that kind of know each other screwing around because they haven't communicated in a while. I haven't been posting like I used to. I just want to make sure you know I'm me and not him.

For the record, though... again... you literally called me a liar right out of the gate. I had no idea about you and AC's back and forth here. Like I said, I'm not upset and take nothing personal on the internet, but here you are calling two guys joking about being called the same person a personal attack. I was just having fun. No hard feelings. But it is funny to see you bring up, "personal attacks," after calling someone a liar and a troll.

But hey, if you'd like to continue, what makes it disingenuous? I mean '66 was year 7 for Landry. I don't care about expansion team by year 7. He's had time to build. Just like Garrett. There's no excuses. This is the team he's built. He's here. He's going to coach this year and he could win a playoff game. Would that bother you?

Cool, glad we can talk about this.

First, let me say something about JG. My criticisms of him aren't "hate" related. So if he was a multi SB winning coach and I was wrong, I'd be thrilled. We are all here to hope the Cowboys win. Making the playoffs and winning a game is nice but we need more than that at this point. After all every coach hired in his time frame with his tenure has either won or played in a SB.

As for being disingenuous, here are my thoughts....

a) Landry was a known commodity. He was an All Pro player. He was known for his mind and being an innovator when he started coaching. While being the D coordinator for the Giants he created the top D for 3-4 years running and basically invented the 4-3. Garrett was a backup QB and was barely a QB coach when Jerry paid him the bank to be an O Coordinator before the HC was even hired. He had no cache.

b) You keep blowing off the "expansion" thing when it seems foolhearty. Expansion was tough back then....it is now. You had WAY less talent for the talent pool. You had a league merger coming in 1970 and before that it was 14 NFL teams and 10 AFL teams. The AFL had less talent to start and in both leagues you were more likely to bring on guys you could sign and pay vs most talented. So you had the small talent pool now spread over 24 teams. Landry got the benefit of the doubt because of his background. He was .500 in Year 6 and 10 wins in 1966, where they played the NFL Championship game...one playoff game. After that it was consistency. He reeled off a record 20 straight winning seasons. Despite the small playoff format which made it tougher to succeed they did break through with 2 wins in year 11 and a SB loss followed by the SB win in 71. Garrett took over a team that had tanked but was one year removed from being a top playoff team. He had a cornerstone QB and a cornerstone D player in Ware. All the talent back then was still in their prime. In his first 3 seasons he lost on chances to go to the playoffs. Thus people running out his 0-4 in regular season elimination games. He was even called a coach in training by his owner/GM. Something no one confused Landry of being. Until Philly laying down to give us a 9-7 season we had never had back to back winning seasons and never have had back to back playoff seasons...which Landry did build. I was in Houston when the Texans came. Even then, with rules set up to speed growth in expansion teams, they were horrible for years while they navigated growing talent. So skipping that era and comparing it on years alone with Garrett is crazy to me

c) AC seemed to point out that today's parity makes it harder to win when I see it completely as the opposite. Yes, 4-5 different teams make the playoffs yearly and every year a new team....like Philly...makes a SB run but you also have NE, Pitt, and a host of other teams that have been consistent while others bottom out. My issue is we are somewhere in between constantly. In the years since JG joined the staff as a OC until now as a HC, we have never had a run, even with a few great regular season records. Even the Dez catch year was marred by a Lions win that many saw as tainted by refs. If you have a "process" to build a consistent winner, and yet consistency is the one thing you lack when other teams are catching fire, there is an issue to me. I know we lost Zeke last season but last season made me feel even worse because we didn't adjust to anything or change anything up while Philly did. So are we incapable of doing so?

Basically I see a world of differences between Landry and Garrett and the eras they took over in. So yes, I find it disingenuous to compare them based on the simple numbers that Landry didn't win until year 7 and then more playoffs in Year 11, when he had already built a consistent winner by year 7 and had a blueprint in place. That is simplifying way too many factors.

 

[Haimerej]

Cool, glad we can talk about this.

Sure thing.

First, let me say something about JG. My criticisms of him aren't "hate" related. So if he was a multi SB winning coach and I was wrong, I'd be thrilled. We are all here to hope the Cowboys win. Making the playoffs and winning a game is nice but we need more than that at this point. After all every coach hired in his time frame with his tenure has either won or played in a SB.

Not every coach. Just saying.

As for being disingenuous, here are my thoughts....

a) Landry was a known commodity. He was an All Pro player. He was known for his mind and being an innovator when he started coaching. While being the D coordinator for the Giants he created the top D for 3-4 years running and basically invented the 4-3. Garrett was a backup QB and was barely a QB coach when Jerry paid him the bank to be an O Coordinator before the HC was even hired. He had no cache.

Garrett was being pursued, too. This idea that Garrett just stumbled into this job doesn't fit reality. Being a great player doesn't make one a great coach. Mike Singletary comes to mind. Many great coaches never played a down of professional football. Being a great coordinator doesn't make someone a great HC, either- Wade Phillips, Dom Capers, etc. Yes, Landry had the time in NY to fall back on, but as I've been told by many, there were several fans who were itching for results and wanting Landry gone before his actual success. Ask Chip Kelly what being an innovator means if your team doesn't win. Which is my point. It's easy to use hindsight and talk about the 20 straight years of winning seasons, but that didn't happen immediately.

b) You keep blowing off the "expansion" thing when it seems foolhearty. Expansion was tough back then....it is now.

That first post you responded to of mine mentioned Tom Coughlin and his success with JAX as an expansion team. You could argue Coughlin was even better than Landry due to such immediate results, if all we're to judge a HC by is W/L.

You had WAY less talent for the talent pool. You had a league merger coming in 1970 and before that it was 14 NFL teams and 10 AFL teams. The AFL had less talent to start and in both leagues you were more likely to bring on guys you could sign and pay vs most talented. So you had the small talent pool now spread over 24 teams.

By the same token, Landry didn't have to worry about balancing contracts for Lilly, Perkins, Hayes, Howley, etc. When you found great talent in those days, you got to keep them. Another point you never addressed in that original post of mine was that Landry had 11 Pro Bowlers in the '60's. By '66 he had a well built team with plenty of talented players. Seven years in the expansion team aspect is no longer valid to me. At the time, it wasn't for many fans either.

Landry got the benefit of the doubt because of his background. He was .500 in Year 6 and 10 wins in 1966, where they played the NFL Championship game...one playoff game. After that it was consistency. He reeled off a record 20 straight winning seasons. Despite the small playoff format which made it tougher to succeed they did break through with 2 wins in year 11 and a SB loss followed by the SB win in 71.

Look at what you're saying here. Landry needed, "the benefit of the doubt," because of the simple point I've been making- he struggled early as a coach.

Garrett took over a team that had tanked but was one year removed from being a top playoff team.

They didn't, "tank." They were getting beat.

He had a cornerstone QB and a cornerstone D player in Ware.

And a porous/aging offensive line. Offensive skill players who never performed as well as they did in DAL after leaving- Miles Austin? Crayton? Felix? A defense that was built with straw and falling apart. One good defender doesn't a defense make.

All the talent back then was still in their prime.

Who? You named 2 guys. There wasn't another guy on the defense worth anything.

In his first 3 seasons he lost on chances to go to the playoffs. Thus people running out his 0-4 in regular season elimination games.

I look at his 8-8 seasons as rebuilding years. The fact they were even playing for the playoffs with that dearth of talent impresses me.

He was even called a coach in training by his owner/GM. Something no one confused Landry of being.

Oh, but he was. Every new HC is a coach in training.

Until Philly laying down to give us a 9-7 season we had never had back to back winning seasons and never have had back to back playoff seasons...which Landry did build. I was in Houston when the Texans came. Even then, with rules set up to speed growth in expansion teams, they were horrible for years while they navigated growing talent. So skipping that era and comparing it on years alone with Garrett is crazy to me

If you were in CAR or JAX when they came, would your view be different? Both those expansion teams appeared to have early success.

c) AC seemed to point out that today's parity makes it harder to win when I see it completely as the opposite. Yes, 4-5 different teams make the playoffs yearly and every year a new team....like Philly...makes a SB run but you also have NE, Pitt, and a host of other teams that have been consistent while others bottom out.

The whole idea of parity is that it creates more competition. We'll just have to disagree about it making things easier.

My issue is we are somewhere in between constantly. In the years since JG joined the staff as a OC until now as a HC, we have never had a run, even with a few great regular season records. Even the Dez catch year was marred by a Lions win that many saw as tainted by refs. If you have a "process" to build a consistent winner, and yet consistency is the one thing you lack when other teams are catching fire, there is an issue to me. I know we lost Zeke last season but last season made me feel even worse because we didn't adjust to anything or change anything up while Philly did. So are we incapable of doing so?

Honestly, the fact they remained competitive after losing their foundational offensive weapon last year is encouraging. I knew once Zeke was out they were going to struggle. I don't know why so many people seemed surprised by it.

Basically I see a world of differences between Landry and Garrett and the eras they took over in. So yes, I find it disingenuous to compare them based on the simple numbers that Landry didn't win until year 7 and then more playoffs in Year 11, when he had already built a consistent winner by year 7 and had a blueprint in place. That is simplifying way too many factors.

He didn't build, "a consistent winner by year 7." Year seven is when it started.

You see it as disingenuous, I see it as simply pointing out facts. For all the excuses allowed Landry for needing the, "benefit of the doubt," there are excuses for Garrett's early struggles, too. Yeah, he had a franchise QB. Landry had Meredith. Meredith, like Romo, should show you what a good QB without help accomplishes- not much. Landry never had a GM who said they didn't need a good offensive line because the QB was elusive. Think about that for a minute.

 

[Miller]

Sure thing.



Not every coach. Just saying.



Garrett was being pursued, too. This idea that Garrett just stumbled into this job doesn't fit reality. Being a great player doesn't make one a great coach. Mike Singletary comes to mind. Many great coaches never played a down of professional football. Being a great coordinator doesn't make someone a great HC, either- Wade Phillips, Dom Capers, etc. Yes, Landry had the time in NY to fall back on, but as I've been told by many, there were several fans who were itching for results and wanting Landry gone before his actual success. Ask Chip Kelly what being an innovator means if your team doesn't win. Which is my point. It's easy to use hindsight and talk about the 20 straight years of winning seasons, but that didn't happen immediately.



That first post you responded to of mine mentioned Tom Coughlin and his success with JAX as an expansion team. You could argue Coughlin was even better than Landry due to such immediate results, if all we're to judge a HC by is W/L.



By the same token, Landry didn't have to worry about balancing contracts for Lilly, Perkins, Hayes, Howley, etc. When you found great talent in those days, you got to keep them. Another point you never addressed in that original post of mine was that Landry had 11 Pro Bowlers in the '60's. By '66 he had a well built team with plenty of talented players. Seven years in the expansion team aspect is no longer valid to me. At the time, it wasn't for many fans either.



Look at what you're saying here. Landry needed, "the benefit of the doubt," because of the simple point I've been making- he struggled early as a coach.



They didn't, "tank." They were getting beat.



And a porous/aging offensive line. Offensive skill players who never performed as well as they did in DAL after leaving- Miles Austin? Crayton? Felix? A defense that was built with straw and falling apart. One good defender doesn't a defense make.



Who? You named 2 guys. There wasn't another guy on the defense worth anything.



I look at his 8-8 seasons as rebuilding years. The fact they were even playing for the playoffs with that dearth of talent impresses me.



Oh, but he was. Every new HC is a coach in training.



If you were in CAR or JAX when they came, would your view be different? Both those expansion teams appeared to have early success.



The whole idea of parity is that it creates more competition. We'll just have to disagree about it making things easier.



Honestly, the fact they remained competitive after losing their foundational offensive weapon last year is encouraging. I knew once Zeke was out they were going to struggle. I don't know why so many people seemed surprised by it.



He didn't build, "a consistent winner by year 7." Year seven is when it started.

You see it as disingenuous, I see it as simply pointing out facts. For all the excuses allowed Landry for needing the, "benefit of the doubt," there are excuses for Garrett's early struggles, too. Yeah, he had a franchise QB. Landry had Meredith. Meredith, like Romo, should show you what a good QB without help accomplishes- not much. Landry never had a GM who said they didn't need a good offensive line because the QB was elusive. Think about that for a minute.

Dude, I'm trying really hard here but there isn't much to say if you truly believe that Jason Garrett and Tom Landry are on a similar trajectory. Even most fans of Garrett won't argue this. And it is true on coaches. Rivera and Carroll were both in that time range. Not talking every coach after. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges....Chip Kelly is a new wave innovator. Back in the 60s we are talking new to football altogether...not just a variation down the road. If you don't understand a brand new league vs and old league and being expansion vs today's NFL, then, again, it is an issue we can't get around because it is obvious to most. Also, you are making an excuse for the "coach in training." No, not every coach is because many cut their teeth being coordinators for years. JG had done nothing and his early mistakes were proof of it...thus Jerry's quote. In 2010 we had these Pro Bowlers..Miles Austin WR, Andre Gurode C, Mat McBriar P, Jay Ratliff DT, DeMarcus Ware LB, Jason Witten TE. Go look at the roster, there was plenty of talent. BTW, you are not doing yourself any favors saying Landry had 11 Pro Bowlers by 66 because that means he built that on his own, in a pool short of talent vs JG who was given talent.

This is the point where I move on, because, again, there is just no arguing something so ridiculous at this point. Under your theory, Marv Lewis and a host of other coaches are the next Landry because of patience and building. The fact that your trying to discount one of the greatest coaches 20 yr win streak as some sort of hindsight says a lot about where your argument is coming from.

 

[Big_D]

If Garrett and Landry were similar wheres the championship as a coordinator? lol One was one of the most innovative coaches in the history of football and the other one is just wasting this teams time. Comparing an expansion team to the annual Garrett blunder is comical. Landry brought hope and confidence, Garrett, not so much. Similar records don't tell the story. If you believe that then you never actually saw Landry coach. I wonder if he iced his kicker? Then this 'debate' gets really interesting! LOL

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I look at his 8-8 seasons as rebuilding years. The fact they were even playing for the playoffs with that dearth of talent impresses me

LOL. Jerry loves fans like you. Going 8-8 in a bad division with Demarcus Ware, Tyron Smith, Jason Witten, Dez Bryant, Terence Newman, Demarco Murray, Dan Bailey, a bunch of good role players, and most of all a franchise QB in Tony Romo? Great job, Jason!!!

 

[Big_D]

LOL. Jerry loves fans like you. Going 8-8 in a bad division with Demarcus Ware, Tyron Smith, Jason Witten, Dez Bryant, Terence Newman, Demarco Murray, Dan Bailey, a bunch of good role players, and most of all a franchise QB in Tony Romo? Great job, Jason!!!

lol no talent hacks. Rebuilding.. yet he already wasted half the players on that list?

 

[zrinkill]

All the tough talk and cursing doesn't mean anything as long as the players can knock on Jerry's door and make deals with him behind the coaching staff's back ......... that is the problem with this organization.

 

[Miller]

LOL. Jerry loves fans like you. Going 8-8 in a bad division with Demarcus Ware, Tyron Smith, Jason Witten, Dez Bryant, Terence Newman, Demarco Murray, Dan Bailey, a bunch of good role players, and most of all a franchise QB in Tony Romo? Great job, Jason!!!

Don’t forget a young Sean Lee, Scandrick, Church, Spencer, Spears and Hatcher. As you said good role players at that time. We weren’t talentless and it was a lot of the same from pre 2010

 

[Haimerej]

Dude, I'm trying really hard here but there isn't much to say if you truly believe that Jason Garrett and Tom Landry are on a similar trajectory.

It's as if you don't read what I type or you start adding in words. I specifically said earlier that none of this means Garrett will be Landry.

Even most fans of Garrett won't argue this. And it is true on coaches. Rivera and Carroll were both in that time range.

Marvin Lewis is still coaching. I'm a stickler on words like, "all," and, "every." Even still, you're appealing to a trend as if the trend is the best in all cases. For every splash coach who immediately succeeds there are coaches who develop over time. Unfortunately for some, Jerry has opted for patience with Garrett. I'm sure BAL might wonder what their history would've been were they patient with Belichick.

Not talking every coach after. Again, you are comparing apples to oranges....

Nah. Just pointing out the Lewis exception to your use of, "every."

Chip Kelly is a new wave innovator. Back in the 60s we are talking new to football altogether...not just a variation down the road. If you don't understand a brand new league vs and old league and being expansion vs today's NFL, then, again, it is an issue we can't get around because it is obvious to most.

The NFL wasn't brand new in the 60's, but you're not understanding my point. The point was that you can't bank on your past. If Landry was 3-11 in '66 his past wouldn't have helped him. He got results in his 7th season. The future at the time was unknown and you're arguing as though they knew they were about to rattle off 20 straight winning seasons.

Also, you are making an excuse for the "coach in training." No, not every coach is because many cut their teeth being coordinators for years. JG had done nothing and his early mistakes were proof of it...thus Jerry's quote. In 2010 we had these Pro Bowlers..Miles Austin WR, Andre Gurode C, Mat McBriar P, Jay Ratliff DT, DeMarcus Ware LB, Jason Witten TE. Go look at the roster, there was plenty of talent. BTW, you are not doing yourself any favors saying Landry had 11 Pro Bowlers by 66 because that means he built that on his own, in a pool short of talent vs JG who was given talent.

That's literally not what I said. Please reread.

Miles was indeed a great player. I mean look what he did without Romo. Know who else was great? Laurent Robinson. Gurode wasn't getting worse either. Nope. He was doing great. Romo was a scrambler. Remember Kyle Kosier? He was a stalwart at LG next to the great Doug Free protecting Romo's blindside. Columbo was definitely in his prime, too.

Yeah, Ratliff put up numbers but was out of position as a nose in the 3-4. He would've been even better in a 4-3. Don't forget the sensational tandem of Sensabaugh and Alan Ball at safety. I don't see how teams could've completed passes with those two beasts patrolling the secondary and Mike Jenkins shutting guys down, right?

This is the point where I move on, because, again, there is just no arguing something so ridiculous at this point. Under your theory, Marv Lewis and a host of other coaches are the next Landry because of patience and building.

I wouldn't argue against such a position either. Lucky for you, it's not my position. If you just check again, you'll see I made the point from the get go that none of what I'm saying says Garrett is going to be Landry. I've said that he's the coach and it's time for results. I just think it's... disingenuous... to act like Landry having time to become great means there wasn't a need for patience with him. To state my position clearly- Landry is an all time great because he was allowed to become one. We're stuck with Jason this year. I'd rather he become great than suffer through a disappointment this season. But I'm not a prognosticator.

Here's something else about me- I think this is a talent driven league. Coaching matters, but it's up to players during the games. If a player drops a pass *cough*cray*cough*ton*... excuse me... *cough*bry*cough*ant*... sorry... or some defender is out of position or misses a tackle- it's on them most of the time. These are grown men. Professionals. If a coaching staff puts their team in a position to win, that's all you need. Players have to execute. Every team watches tape. Every coach knows the Xs and Os. Every team wants to create and exploit mismatches. But you have to have the players to do it. So I've never been someone who complains about playcalling, for example.

Because of how I view the game itself, you could say I have a bias towards holding players accountable more than coaches. But I also am not so blind I can't see how playcalling affects things. Rob's playcalling was apparently confusing his players and they were getting toasted, for example. I think most playcalling critiques of Garrett over the years have been overblown. But again, it's time he started producing going into his eighth year. He was gifted two winning seasons in a row. Let's hope for three and maybe more.

 

[Haimerej]

LOL. Jerry loves fans like you.

He loves you guys, too. Your hatred keeps the interest alive.

Going 8-8 in a bad division with Demarcus Ware, Tyron Smith, Jason Witten, Dez Bryant, Terence Newman, Demarco Murray, Dan Bailey, a bunch of good role players, and most of all a franchise QB in Tony Romo? Great job, Jason!!!

Lol. Who?

 

[Idgit]

All the tough talk and cursing doesn't mean anything as long as the players can knock on Jerry's door and make deals with him behind the coaching staff's back ......... that is the problem with this organization.

100%. Not *the* problem, but a big problem. There are others.

 

[Haimerej]

Don’t forget a young Sean Lee, Scandrick, Church, Spencer, Spears and Hatcher. As you said good role players at that time. We weren’t talentless and it was a lot of the same from pre 2010

Church, Scandrick, and Hatcher? You're going to act like they weren't developmental players? Hatcher blossomed when they changed defensive schemes and really only had the one good year. Lee has an availability problem. Spencer's injury really set them back, too. Are you really trying to say that list is supposed to be proof of great talent and no need to rebuild? Did you watch those seasons?

 

[Miller]

It's as if you don't read what I type or you start adding in words. I specifically said earlier that none of this means Garrett will be Landry.



Marvin Lewis is still coaching. I'm a stickler on words like, "all," and, "every." Even still, you're appealing to a trend as if the trend is the best in all cases. For every splash coach who immediately succeeds there are coaches who develop over time. Unfortunately for some, Jerry has opted for patience with Garrett. I'm sure BAL might wonder what their history would've been were they patient with Belichick.



Nah. Just pointing out the Lewis exception to your use of, "every."



The NFL wasn't brand new in the 60's, but you're not understanding my point. The point was that you can't bank on your past. If Landry was 3-11 in '66 his past wouldn't have helped him. He got results in his 7th season. The future at the time was unknown and you're arguing as though they knew they were about to rattle off 20 straight winning seasons.



That's literally not what I said. Please reread.

Miles was indeed a great player. I mean look what he did without Romo. Know who else was great? Laurent Robinson. Gurode wasn't getting worse either. Nope. He was doing great. Romo was a scrambler. Remember Kyle Kosier? He was a stalwart at LG next to the great Doug Free protecting Romo's blindside. Columbo was definitely in his prime, too.

Yeah, Ratliff put up numbers but was out of position as a nose in the 3-4. He would've been even better in a 4-3. Don't forget the sensational tandem of Sensabaugh and Alan Ball at safety. I don't see how teams could've completed passes with those two beasts patrolling the secondary and Mike Jenkins shutting guys down, right?



I wouldn't argue against such a position either. Lucky for you, it's not my position. If you just check again, you'll see I made the point from the get go that none of what I'm saying says Garrett is going to be Landry. I've said that he's the coach and it's time for results. I just think it's... disingenuous... to act like Landry having time to become great means there wasn't a need for patience with him. To state my position clearly- Landry is an all time great because he was allowed to become one. We're stuck with Jason this year. I'd rather he become great than suffer through a disappointment this season. But I'm not a prognosticator.

Here's something else about me- I think this is a talent driven league. Coaching matters, but it's up to players during the games. If a player drops a pass *cough*cray*cough*ton*... excuse me... *cough*bry*cough*ant*... sorry... or some defender is out of position or misses a tackle- it's on them most of the time. These are grown men. Professionals. If a coaching staff puts their team in a position to win, that's all you need. Players have to execute. Every team watches tape. Every coach knows the Xs and Os. Every team wants to create and exploit mismatches. But you have to have the players to do it. So I've never been someone who complains about playcalling, for example.

Because of how I view the game itself, you could say I have a bias towards holding players accountable more than coaches. But I also am not so blind I can't see how playcalling affects things. Rob's playcalling was apparently confusing his players and they were getting toasted, for example. I think most playcalling critiques of Garrett over the years have been overblown. But again, it's time he started producing going into his eighth year. He was gifted two winning seasons in a row. Let's hope for three and maybe more.

If you were a stickler, you'd read my post. Never said ALL coaches...I said every coach in his time frame with the same tenure. Lewis is not included because he was hired not in that time frame...2003. Even Harbaugh.,2011 made a run and started with one of the worst rosters out there and that hadn't won a thing since 2002. These things defeat all the "process" or "build" arguments, especially since the 11-5 2009 team had many of the same players that were around in 2011. Again, I feel like this is wasting our time because I don't see the same build you do...whether you are saying JG and Landry are not the same or not. It's two different scenarios to me and until I see JG show a consistent product, I won't be sold.

 

[Miller]

Church, Scandrick, and Hatcher? You're going to act like they weren't developmental players? Hatcher blossomed when they changed defensive schemes and really only had the one good year. Lee has an availability problem. Spencer's injury really set them back, too. Are you really trying to say that list is supposed to be proof of great talent and no need to rebuild? Did you watch those seasons?

No, I'm saying that along with the Prow Bowlers we had an a franchise QB that we were very similar to the 2009 team that went 11-5. The team was not lacking in talent as you started. These guys were good players. As Chocolate Lab pointed out, we had high end talent. What excuse do we have when a guy like Harbaugh took over bottom dwellers and won. That's the issue...many coaches come in and turn things around without this process. It's strange. I mean even guys like Mike Smith in Atlanta made more noise in a shorter period of time. We already discussed parity. What do you want? We had a nice team.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Church, Scandrick, and Hatcher? You're going to act like they weren't developmental players? Hatcher blossomed when they changed defensive schemes and really only had the one good year. Lee has an availability problem. Spencer's injury really set them back, too. Are you really trying to say that list is supposed to be proof of great talent and no need to rebuild? Did you watch those seasons?

Again, LOL. I guess you're one of those people who think if we don't have Pro Bowl players in their primes at every position, poor Jason is so disadvantaged.

Sometimes I think some Cowboys fans don't ever bother to look around the league at other rosters. Even the best teams have some holes in the cap era.

 

[Idgit]

If Garrett and Landry were similar wheres the championship as a coordinator? lol One was one of the most innovative coaches in the history of football and the other one is just wasting this teams time. Comparing an expansion team to the annual Garrett blunder is comical. Landry brought hope and confidence, Garrett, not so much. Similar records don't tell the story. If you believe that then you never actually saw Landry coach. I wonder if he iced his kicker? Then this 'debate' gets really interesting! LOL

I've never been a fan of the Garrett/Landry comparisons. About the only relevant point is that Landry was given substantial time to build his team and that that's a luxury a lot of coaches have never had.

But the Joneses have been very good to Garrett in terms of giving him time to put his staff and his team together, so Jason really has no right to complain on that front.

From my perspective--and I know it's a minority opinion on the board right now--Garrett took a long time to build the team into a contender. He did it under some somewhat difficult circumstances (our cap situation wasn't good, and the CBA dropped the salary cap for a few years). He was slow to assemble a complete staff, and he made some legitimate game management mistakes along the way. But from 2014 on, he's had a system and a team capable fo competing in the NFC.

Pointing out that our team--like every other team in the league over an 8 year span--has had a handful of really good players doesn't mean anything. It's what the team hasn't had that matters. And our team has outperformed most teams during that span, anyway. Where we fall short is when we have to play other good teams in the playoffs.

I don't know that Garrett is actually the guy to get us over that hump. He's got his own limitations, but mostly he's up against an ownership culture that makes things harder than it needs to be a lot of times.

I do wish the tone when it comes to discussing the coaching around here were more rational. The 'Garrett is only a clapper' and 'Rod Marinelli doesn't understand defense' stuff makes it hard to engage seriously in the topic. We've got a 10-11 win team or so. We've had one for a couple of years now. It's spanned two different QBs and a lot of different players. It's not an accident. It's not in spite of the coaches. It's certainly not because the organization is overcoming that deficiency by loading the roster with talent. The team and the staff are 'pretty good.' Trying to become 'really good.' I'd like to see them try by making the talent on defense better.

We've got two years to see it. If not, the HC, and probably the QB, will be blown up and we'll get to see Jerry try his hand at a ground-up rebuild again. That should make everybody here happy. For about a week.

 

[Haimerej]

If you were a stickler, you'd read my post. Never said ALL coaches...

Ahem...

Please stop dude, it’s embarrassing. Landry was a player that was widely respected and when he started coaching was considered one of the best minds out there. He took over an expansion team. The league was smaller, there was less talent to build with immediately and you were having to play catch up. And by 1966..6 yrs in..he won 10 games and made it to the NFL Championship game vs the Packers. He then reeled off 20 straight winning seasons. In 11th yr SB champ. So stop pencil whipping the numbers like he was struggling after 11 yrs.

The league now is so full of parity that 4-5 new teams make the playoffs yearly. We have zero to show for it. All the coaches hired around JG with similar tenure have made a SB. He started with Romo and Ware in primes

I said every coach in his time frame with the same tenure. Lewis is not included because he was hired not in that time frame...2003. Even Harbaugh.,2011 made a run and started with one of the worst rosters out there and that hadn't won a thing since 2002. These things defeat all the "process" or "build" arguments, especially since the 11-5 2009 team had many of the same players that were around in 2011.

And those players were 1-7.

Again, I feel like this is wasting our time because I don't see the same build you do...whether you are saying JG and Landry are not the same or not. It's two different scenarios to me and until I see JG show a consistent product, I won't be sold.

Then don't be sold. It's ok to disagree. I actually think this team is headed in a good direction at this moment. They have a solid group of young talent. It's time for results, though.

 

[TheSkaven]

I wrote this in another thread as well, but I'm going to paste it here too.

Garrett IS the Dallas Cowboys; almost as much as the Jones family. He played quarterback for the team. He has been a coach with the team for 11 years. His father was a scout for Jerry for years (and famously was the strongest lobbiest for drafting Randy Moss - Jerry didn’t listen).

Barring an absolute catastrophe, Garrett isn’t going ANYWHERE. And this team has deep, young talent, so despite the wishes of some of the haters, a catastrophe isn’t going to happen.

 

[Haimerej]

No, I'm saying that along with the Prow Bowlers we had an a franchise QB that we were very similar to the 2009 team that went 11-5. The team was not lacking in talent as you started. These guys were good players. As Chocolate Lab pointed out, we had high end talent. What excuse do we have when a guy like Harbaugh took over bottom dwellers and won. That's the issue...many coaches come in and turn things around without this process. It's strange. I mean even guys like Mike Smith in Atlanta made more noise in a shorter period of time. We already discussed parity. What do you want? We had a nice team.

That 49er defense wasn't made with bottom dwellers. Nice teams aren't good teams. If you can't see that the team literally had to be overhauled, then we'll just disagree.