I give Garrett credit where credit is due, and blame where blame is due. Some of his game management decisions have obviously caused or greatly contributed to some losses.
But a head coach has many responsibilities, not all have to do with the x's and o's, some aren't visible to the fans or the media. We're not in meetings with Jerry, with Marinelli, with McClay, etc.
Do I think Garrett's anywhere near Landry's level? No.
But as well I find it to be ludicrous that Garrett could be a "terrible" coach, or a "puppet" and yet the team still has some success at least. My view is that a better coach could probably have won more playoff games, maybe even a SB, but if he is so bad, the team would be another Cleveland Browns or such.
He's an average coach, the history of the NFL is full of really "terrible" coaches like Rich Kotite, Marion Campbell, David Shula and many others. You look at those coaches, and they have records like 41-57. Garrett's is 78-59. Those "terrible" coaches noted had talent on their teams, with thousands of college players and a less than 2,000 NFL players, obviously the league has talent, no team can have more than 53 players, the talent is well spread out.
Would I like a new, better head coach? Oh yes, but as well I have to count my blessings we didn't have a Kotite, or Campbell, or Shula.
I've said before Garrett's time is NOW, he has to "put up or shut up".
But I also don't classify coaches as either "terrible" or "fantastic", there's a middle ground, that's my biggest problem with some of the posters here, it's all or nothing judgments, either coaches or players, and that's just not realistic....