Having an interesting conversation with a few Eagle fans. They think that the best two NFC teams in terms of talent are our Boys and the Eagles. Two of them believe that if Pederson was our HC instead of Garrett that we would be Super Bowl winners. Their reasoning:
1) Pederson has been able to keep a badly injured team competitive due to adjustments made in game--they don't always win (we beat them twice last year) but they rarely get blown out and keep it close.
2) Pederson has shown that he is willing to change the system to fit the players better than Garrett has shown.
3) Pederson simply makes better in game adjustments. He puts his players in a better position to win.
4) Dallas might have the best personnel on paper. They should have more playoff success than they do. That points to coaching.
Both the past two years, the Eagles have been hit hard with injuries--I think only the Commanders have been hit harder on the injury front. During the Super Bowl year, Pederson looked at old game footage of Foles under Kelly when he had that 27/2 year. Pederson took what worked under Kelly and incorporated it into his offense for Foles. Result: Super Bowl victory.
So, would Pederson have a better chance to lead us back to Lombardi heaven over Garrett?
Thanks for the breakdown, but why is this even a question?
JG is terrible, he would have been fired by almost any other organization other than Dallas. What does he do other than spit, slap backsides, push his players when they are walking back on the field?
He doesn't coach O,D or ST, doesn't know how to manage the game. He loves 48 + yd FG tries. My 6 year old knows we run 50 gut 80 percent of the time on 1st down. He does not use play action.
I think his headphone is tuned into the oldies station. How many times does he have a deer in the headlights look on his face.
He builds a culture of mediocrity.