I almost felt sorry for Garrett

[kwcool619]

Feel sorry for Garrett for what? He's one of the longest tenured coaches in the NFL and gets paid millions of dollars while everyone else takes the blame for our lack of success. If only we got rid of x player and updated y position, then we'd make it! If only we got rid of this DC! If only if we got a new OC! Year after year it's the same result and yet there's only been one consistent on this team. How long is this process supposed to take? Pederson won a superbowl after year 2 and Mcvey was in one in year 2.

And he got beat by three then-rookie head coaches a couple seasons ago. Wasn't that embarrassing enough? Your point about Pederson and McVay is valid. There are some posters on this site who are the "it's all on the players. Coaching has nothing to do with it" school of thought. If that is so, I have some questions: 1) Where is our post season success? 2) Why haven't we even sniffed the Super Bowl as of yet? 3) Why aren't we winning the money (Bigger than big) games? Brees, Rodgers, Brady are consistently winning then money games. 4) Is it really the players or is it the scared coaching when it comes down to the nitty-gritty? and 5) During the Garrett era, what money games have we won?

 

[Doomsday101]

I agree that the blocking up front was terrible. So why keep running up the gut? Pollard is very fast at getting around the edge. We saw that last week. How many touches did he get last night? Zeke looked so slow last night and this offense/team needed a spark. Could Pollard have provided that, who knows, but why not at least try?

It was not just running, pass protection was not good, Dak did not take sacks but was getting hammered as he would release the ball. Could Dallas have use Pollard in the game? Sure but again you lose the battle of front Pollard was not going to likely make a big difference. Zeke looked slow? Zeke looked like he had no where to run.

 

[charron]

That is my question. Why not Pollard? Leaving him on the bench was not cool. But I guess the flow of the game did not warrant playing time. I dunno.

Disagree that the flow didn't call for Pollard. The saints owned us running zeke up the gut....what we never tried was getting pollard in there and running to the edges. That is supposedly where the saints DL has a little weakness. The results could have been exactly the same but to keep calling the same play with the same guy who has no burst for 2 yards is a bit crazy. we needed to get the ball to someone in space who can burst up field, the wr's weren't doing it, and Pollard has shown he can help with this.

 

[Hennessy_King]

Let's see here, on one side you've got a coach calling his 200th+ game and on the other, his 4th.

im not asking for excuses I just asked a very simple question.

 

[Hennessy_King]

I felt the saints were winning the battle at the line of scrimmage and often without blitzing. As for their play calling, they did not do that much, they scored no TD and took a lot of sacks. In the end they did not turn the ball over except 1 times. and had good field position on several drives.

Just answer the question. It's a pretty easy one.

 

[Doomsday101]

And he got beat by three then-rookie head coaches a couple seasons ago. Wasn't that embarrassing enough? Your point about Pederson and McVay is valid. There are some posters on this site who are the "it's all on the players. Coaching has nothing to do with it" school of thought. If that is so, I have some questions: 1) Where is our post season success? 2) Why haven't we even sniffed the Super Bowl as of yet? 3) Why aren't we winning the money (Bigger than big) games? Brees, Rodgers, Brady are consistently winning then money games. 4) Is it really the players or is it the scared coaching when it comes down to the nitty-gritty? and 5) During the Garrett era, what money games have we won?

Games are won and lost by coaches and players alike. Garrett deserves blame on this loss But do not hand me a bunch of BS that he deserve no credit for wins.

 

[Hennessy_King]

Games are won and lost by coaches and players alike. Garrett deserves blame on this loss But do not hand me a bunch of BS that he deserve no credit for wins.

He'll get credit when he makes a good decision in a close game against a good team. Wake me up when that happens

 

[Doomsday101]

Just answer the question. It's a pretty easy one.

I said before the game NO had very good talent on that team. As for offensive game plan of the Saints? they did nothing special, they scored FG and most of the time would start in very good field position. In the end this game was lost on the offensive line of scrimmage.

 

[tyke1doe]

I don't feel bad for him, but I don't necessarily blame him for this loss. I think Collinsworth said it best near the beginning of the program. The Cowboys came in with a similar game plan from last year, i.e., focus on Kamara. So Sean Payton got creative and sprinkled in Ted Ginn here and Hill (the backup quarterback) there, tossed in some reverses and jet sweeps, etc.
I was hopeful we would win, but I'm not surprised we didn't. The Saints played a good game. Bridgewater managed the ball well and limited his mistakes.
We loss. Simple as that.
If there's any blame to assign it's on the offensive line - which is supposed to be our strongest unit and our turnovers. It's funny, but when we won 13-10 last year, it was great strategy. We lose 12-10 and something is wrong with the coaching, Dak and the team itself.
The Saints lost last year and went to the NFC Championship Game.
We still have lots of football left. When we get to 4 losses and we're not at the end of the season, then I'll start getting antsy. But for now, it's one game. And we didn't lose to the Buccaneers like the Rams did.

 

[kwcool619]

Disagree that the flow didn't call for Pollard. The saints owned us running zeke up the gut....what we never tried was getting pollard in there and running to the edges. That is supposedly where the saints DL has a little weakness. The results could have been exactly the same but to keep calling the same play with the same guy who has no burst for 2 yards is a bit crazy. we needed to get the ball to someone in space who can burst up field, the wr's weren't doing it, and Pollard has shown he can help with this.

Point taken. I agree that Pollard has shown a lot. But still, something had to dictate why he wasn't on the field at all. I know us fans do not know what was going on in Garrett's (or Moore's) head. Any guesses from fellow posters?

 

[Doomsday101]

He'll get credit when he makes a good decision in a close game against a good team. Wake me up when that happens

Packers are up next you may not have to wait long, we will see. However I have a feeling should Dallas win it will have nothing to do with Garrett. I have no issue casting blame nor giving credit, I don't play that game you guys do.

 

[CouchCoach]

im not asking for excuses I just asked a very simple question.

I wasn't giving an excuse, that's just the fact.

I think the talent difference is marginal so I would expect the coaching to make a difference and Payton has a lot more experience with when the execution isn't going well and he turned the tables on the Cowboys to replicate the same kind of game Dallas won in Dallas.

And if Elliott and Witten don't fumble, does that change the outcome?

 

[pitt33]

Teams can win games when their coaching is terrible, when their talent is that much better.

See ‘95 Cowboys under Switzer

 

[Hennessy_King]

I said before the game NO had very good talent on that team. As for offensive game plan of the Saints? they did nothing special, they scored FG and most of the time would start in very good field position. In the end this game was lost on the offensive line of scrimmage.

The saints did what they wanted at will on offense. They beat themselves with penalties in the redzone. Their offensive gameplain was predictable but effective. Their defensive gameplan made moore look like his former "daddy" linehan

 

[Doomsday101]

See ‘95 Cowboys under Switzer

Yeah Switzer who had proven himself as a winning coach winning National Titles.

 

[Hennessy_King]

I wasn't giving an excuse, that's just the fact.

I think the talent difference is marginal so I would expect the coaching to make a difference and Payton has a lot more experience with when the execution isn't going well and he turned the tables on the Cowboys to replicate the same kind of game Dallas won in Dallas.

And if Elliott and Witten don't fumble, does that change the outcome?

Of course it does.

 

[Hennessy_King]

Yeah Switzer who had proven himself as a winning coach winning National Titles.

Aikman said it that Switzer wasn't even close to that same guy when he was on the cowboys

 

[OmerV]

Just answer the question. It's a pretty easy one.

It's easy in your mind because you have a predetermined answer that suits you. The reality is it's pretty hard to say either team outcoached the other. Neither team played particularly well, but in the end, both offenses were anemic and often shot themselves in the foot, and both defenses did a pretty good job. The biggest difference was probably the fumbles, which stopped 2 possible scoring opportunities for Dallas, and gave NO great field position that led to two of their FG's.

 

[Doomsday101]

The saints did what they wanted at will on offense. They beat themselves with penalties in the redzone. Their offensive gameplain was predictable but effective. Their defensive gameplan made moore look like his former "daddy" linehan

They did, I did not think they were looking to score 3 points and no be able to get a TD to save their life. Wow impressed. They had penalties true most of them holding because Dallas D line played a damn good game and were able to get pressure on the QB or maybe you missed that. NO defense no doubt beat our guys up front and it is damn hard to do much when you have defenders in your backfield. In the end 2 big turnovers killed drives. To claim stains did what they wanted on offense is a joke

 

[OmerV]

Games are won and lost by coaches and players alike. Garrett deserves blame on this loss But do not hand me a bunch of BS that he deserve no credit for wins.

That's exactly my point to some folks. If he has enough influence to be blamed for losses, it is illogical to say he doesn't have any influence when the team wins. Either he influences what happens or he doesn't, it can't only be one way to suit a particular viewpoint.