After 5 Games, How Confident Are You in Garrett?

[lwehlers]

no confidence at all with garrett. he is a average coach who does not elevate his players and does a poor job of game adjustments if something is not working.

 

[jobberone]

I don't think there's a coach in this league that wouldn't want to have a team with Romo, Witten, Dez Bryant, and even guys like Austin, Harris and Beasley. Murray is a strong runner and we have a solid O-line now. The problem with this team is consistency and we've never really been able to get both sides to play well consistently. One game the defense looks outstanding and the offense looks awful and then we have our last game where the offense is lights out, but the defense gets shredded.

Garrett has a great analytical mind and ever since he's came here, it's obvious he's been exerting more influence on the draft process since there are a lot less head-scratchers. The problem is, Garrett never had time to grow into a coaching role. You don't put a guy with no coaching experience as a OC for a few years and then shove him into the HC role. Garrett simply doesn't have the technical knowledge to be an on-field general. That's something you only get through experience, and getting that experience in the NFL is not the best place to do it because you don't have much room for error. Where I do believe Garrett would be a lot more successful is if he was in a Tomlin-esque role where he is hands off and lets his coordinators do everything. If we can get a top notch OC who implements his own offensive scheme and fully runs the offense instead of trying to work within the confines of the Garrett system and we just let Garrett step back and oversee, we'd be a lot better.

I'm not certain this is the case although you may be right. How much experience did Landry have before he became a HC? He was a DB who was asked to talk to the team about a concept and then asked to be a defensive coach/player. Now I don't want to minimize that he refined the 4-3 where it was a viable NFL defense and grew into a basic scheme even today as well as make Sam Huff a HOFer. Lombardi came up thru the coaching ranks from playing at Fordham, being an asst then HC in HS, then to the college ranks then the NY Giants. Who was the better coach? What was seen in Landry was his genius and his ability to lead. And patience proved in the end he had the ability to win championships.

An argument against that line of reasoning is the game was much more simple then although I'm not calling it simple just much less complicated. That's one reason I like to see a HC come up thru the ranks. However, I still don't see it as being absolutely necessary. Garrett was a player long enough to pick up the information he needed to be a NFL coach. Only his peers can make the criticism he doesn't know enough. I do think he makes some bonehead mistakes with time management at times and I do believe that has cost us games. I can't make an argument against him having some more OJT as an asst before becoming a coordinator but that's water under the bridge now.

Like all HCs Garrett will be measured by wins and losses as well as titles. Even being a coaches coach can't save you from that finality. Garrett has to produce at some point even if he's handicapped by others to whatever degree you believe.

 

[jobberone]

I am not interested.
No backing' into a title.

While I prefer to win going away, I'll take the title for a shot at a crown. Look what the Giants and Cards did with entering the playoffs with a poor record. But I'm on your side as prefering to win a #1 seed going into the playoffs. That's not a guarantee though. I do think you must be playing very good football at the end of the season to have a shot at a CC game.

 

[TheRomoSexual]

Win the East, he's in. Miss the playoffs, he's out. It's as simple as that.

 

[jobberone]

Win the East, he's in. Miss the playoffs, he's out. It's as simple as that.

I think that's certainly a possibility but I'm not certain of that nor do I think Jerry has a concrete plan one way or the other. I know I wouldn't. Too many things could happen. If Romo goes down and we lose do you still fire Garrett? What if there are too many critical injuries like last year? Too many variables for me.

This offseason I said we needed to see steady improvement. Now I believe the OL is playing well enough to remove that handicap from the decision and tip the scales more towards a title or overall record. Now the DL is hampered some plus there have been even more growing pains with the new defensive scheme than even I thought there'd be. I said last year we needed at least another starting quality CB and to make substantial improvement to the safety position. While I think the safety position is improved, we have Church with little experience and having only this TC and 5 games in Kiffin's scheme along with a very raw but physically talented safety with very little experience period as a DB and safety. And safety in this scheme is a critical position. Then you get to the LB play and you scratch your head. Count me among those that thought both Lee and esp Carter were going to raise some cane. Well they have only in the opposite direction. I blame this more on the limitations of the scheme than I do their abilities but look what you have.

A DL with people off the street and the leftovers from other teams starting. Ware is not 100%. Ratliff hasn't played a down. The LBs are a liability in coverage. The CBs are playing soft zones when Carr has to at least soft cover if not press to be at his best. Claiborne is hurt and also not playing to his strength of press coverage. And the safeties have already been discussed. When you put an offense in against this group and scheme who can exploit the scheme and get the ball out quickly with a good QB then you have a significant problem in the one area you can't afford to. You must play pass defense better than your opponent to consistently win games.

At some point you have to fish or cut bait and look at results. As an owner or GM you don't want to throw away all your investment and start over prematurely. OTOH, you don't want to ride a losing portfolio too long when you can cut your losses and get into a better position.

Right now I would see what this defense and offense does against the Skins. If the O can beat the blitz and make the Skins play them st8 up and the D can stop the run and defeat the underneath game and read option then you wait and look at the next hurdle. I don't see this game as being the same test as the Denver game. But the next time we play a traditional offense I hope they have made some changes in special packages particularly the coverage schemes. I don't mind them playing a soft corner some but they are going to have to mix in some tight and even press corner play even if combined with zone.

PS: this didn't start off to be so general so forgive the vent.

 

[JakeCamp12]

I have no problem with Garrett, I do have a problem with our stud linebackers and the CB's not doing their jobs.

 

[big dog cowboy]

And I think he did blow it at the end of the Broncos game. If Parcells were coaching those last 2 minutes, we win that game.

BP would have told Tyron not to allow his foot to get into Tony's way?

 

[visionary]

I'm not certain this is the case although you may be right. How much experience did Landry have before he became a HC? He was a DB who was asked to talk to the team about a concept and then asked to be a defensive coach/player. Now I don't want to minimize that he refined the 4-3 where it was a viable NFL defense and grew into a basic scheme even today as well as make Sam Huff a HOFer. Lombardi came up thru the coaching ranks from playing at Fordham, being an asst then HC in HS, then to the college ranks then the NY Giants. Who was the better coach? What was seen in Landry was his genius and his ability to lead. And patience proved in the end he had the ability to win championships.

An argument against that line of reasoning is the game was much more simple then although I'm not calling it simple just much less complicated. That's one reason I like to see a HC come up thru the ranks. However, I still don't see it as being absolutely necessary. Garrett was a player long enough to pick up the information he needed to be a NFL coach. Only his peers can make the criticism he doesn't know enough. I do think he makes some bonehead mistakes with time management at times and I do believe that has cost us games. I can't make an argument against him having some more OJT as an asst before becoming a coordinator but that's water under the bridge now.

Like all HCs Garrett will be measured by wins and losses as well as titles. Even being a coaches coach can't save you from that finality. Garrett has to produce at some point even if he's handicapped by others to whatever degree you believe.

While I can see your point and also hope that Garrett becomes 'that ' coach the problem is that you are pointing to the exceptions to make your point

The overwhelming majority of successful HCs come up through the ranks and a very small minority break that rule and still go on to become successful HCs

That is not the way to do business , to shoot your entire life savings on a long shot

Once again Jerry rolled the dice on a whim and the entire franchise and it's fan base are paying the price

 

[jobberone]

While I can see your point and also hope that Garrett becomes 'that ' coach the problem is that you are pointing to the exceptions to make your point

The overwhelming majority of successful HCs come up through the ranks and a very small minority break that rule and still go on to become successful HCs

That is not the way to do business , to shoot your entire life savings on a long shot

Once again Jerry rolled the dice on a whim and the entire franchise and it's fan base are paying the price

I don't know how many are former players who spend a short time as an asst at any position then become HCs. There are plenty of HCs who have come from the college ranks directly to HC in the NFL and that is not my formula for coming up thru the ranks.

I don't think you have to coach HS and you don't have to coach in college either. But my definition of coming up thru the ranks is to be a position coach in the NFL and work your way up. Not all those HCs have been coordinators either. There is no one formula. And Red held a clip board for many years, then was a position coach then a coordinator then a HC. I personally don't think he had the time in grade as a position coach before becoming a coordinator but I do believe he absorbed enough on the offensive side of the ball to become an OC in short time. I admit I do think at times he's not had enough experience but I also recognize you can't overcome all the problems of being a HC from looking up. You have to fill the shoes to really understand what that's like.

Again, there isn't anyone on this board who understands the ins and outs of NFL football well enough to criticize Garrett for all the intricacies but you can certainly see they aren't reaching the goals they set and most fans accept. 8-8 ain't going to cut it on a consistent basis. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see some of the glaring mistakes. It's just some that are espoused as fact aren't always necessarily so.

 

[ConstantReboot]

I'm not certain this is the case although you may be right. How much experience did Landry have before he became a HC? He was a DB who was asked to talk to the team about a concept and then asked to be a defensive coach/player. Now I don't want to minimize that he refined the 4-3 where it was a viable NFL defense and grew into a basic scheme even today as well as make Sam Huff a HOFer. Lombardi came up thru the coaching ranks from playing at Fordham, being an asst then HC in HS, then to the college ranks then the NY Giants. Who was the better coach? What was seen in Landry was his genius and his ability to lead. And patience proved in the end he had the ability to win championships.

An argument against that line of reasoning is the game was much more simple then although I'm not calling it simple just much less complicated. That's one reason I like to see a HC come up thru the ranks. However, I still don't see it as being absolutely necessary. Garrett was a player long enough to pick up the information he needed to be a NFL coach. Only his peers can make the criticism he doesn't know enough. I do think he makes some bonehead mistakes with time management at times and I do believe that has cost us games. I can't make an argument against him having some more OJT as an asst before becoming a coordinator but that's water under the bridge now.

Like all HCs Garrett will be measured by wins and losses as well as titles. Even being a coaches coach can't save you from that finality. Garrett has to produce at some point even if he's handicapped by others to whatever degree you believe.

This sums it up about Garrett. His inexperience really shows at times and at the worst possible situations. Its a shame that he is learning how to coach from being a coach for America's team. Thus which makes most people say that he just isn't fit to coach. He would have done better if he actually learned how to coach through the ranks like what you mentioned here.

 

[odog422]

I don't know how many are former players who spend a short time as an asst at any position then become HCs. There are plenty of HCs who have come from the college ranks directly to HC in the NFL and that is not my formula for coming up thru the ranks.

I don't think you have to coach HS and you don't have to coach in college either. But my definition of coming up thru the ranks is to be a position coach in the NFL and work your way up. Not all those HCs have been coordinators either. There is no one formula. And Red held a clip board for many years, then was a position coach then a coordinator then a HC. I personally don't think he had the time in grade as a position coach before becoming a coordinator but I do believe he absorbed enough on the offensive side of the ball to become an OC in short time. I admit I do think at times he's not had enough experience but I also recognize you can't overcome all the problems of being a HC from looking up. You have to fill the shoes to really understand what that's like.

Again, there isn't anyone on this board who understands the ins and outs of NFL football well enough to criticize Garrett for all the intricacies but you can certainly see they aren't reaching the goals they set and most fans accept. 8-8 ain't going to cut it on a consistent basis. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see some of the glaring mistakes. It's just some that are espoused as fact aren't always necessarily so.

I'm not sure I understand your response to visionary's assessment that your use of Landry was use of an exception and his point - at least to me - is once again, instead of doing it conventionally, Jerry opts out to (IMO) make a hire he is comfortable with and can control and prove he is somehow ahead of the curve.

I do agree that the majority of successful HC's come up through the ranks, whether that be position coach to coordinator to HC, or college assistant/HC to NFL assistant/HC. One of the major benefits is not only experience acquired, but you also get to see if this person has the traits to mold men and ultimately, the team, in their identity. Another HUGE important point to me is that you get promoted ONLY if you are successful.

To your point, Garrett was position coach for a heartbeat, hardly long enough to establish any sort of rep. He was annointed OC with no track record, and the argument can easily be made that he was not successful as OC based on the success of his offenses to warrant promotion to HC. For the record, I define a successful offense as where they rank as a scoring offense, not yards. Same for defense. One can easily also argue that his time as HC has moreso provided proof he is in a position he was clearly not ready for.

I don't blame Garrett for it, he's doing the best he can. However, his lack of experience, and the fact this team still, IMO, has no identity, particularly offensively, I believe points to him. Who here thinks they know what team will show up week to week?

Garrett may understand X's and O's, but something is missing and I don't think intricacies of football has anything to do with whether I can view the performance of this team and say he is coming up short and that ultimately, we will continue with more of the same. Even with play calling duties removed, I don't see any significant difference in this team on the field. IMO, opportunities he has had to exert his influence as HC thus far in game have not occurred - they're spoken to after the fact. The whole point (supposedly) of removing play calling duties was to allow him to put his fingerprint on the game - to coach.

I'm not mad at Garrett, I'm very upset that years have been wasted on a strategy that if viewed from the beginning from a logical standpoint, showed very small chance for success because it was based on a strategy which has wrought success on only a few exceptional occasions with a few exceptional men. The blame IMO goes back to the top, of course.

 

[Beast_from_East]

I guess it comes down to the question............How many games have we won BECAUSE of great calls and game management by Garrett and how many games have we lost BECAUSE of terrible calls and game management?"

Make two columns and start putting games on each side and the side with the most games should tell you how good a head coach he is.

 

[jobberone]

I'm not sure I understand your response to visionary's assessment that your use of Landry was use of an exception and his point - at least to me - is once again, instead of doing it conventionally, Jerry opts out to (IMO) make a hire he is comfortable with and can control and prove he is somehow ahead of the curve.

I do agree that the majority of successful HC's come up through the ranks, whether that be position coach to coordinator to HC, or college assistant/HC to NFL assistant/HC. One of the major benefits is not only experience acquired, but you also get to see if this person has the traits to mold men and ultimately, the team, in their identity. Another HUGE important point to me is that you get promoted ONLY if you are successful.

To your point, Garrett was position coach for a heartbeat, hardly long enough to establish any sort of rep. He was annointed OC with no track record, and the argument can easily be made that he was not successful as OC based on the success of his offenses to warrant promotion to HC. For the record, I define a successful offense as where they rank as a scoring offense, not yards. Same for defense. One can easily also argue that his time as HC has moreso provided proof he is in a position he was clearly not ready for.

I don't blame Garrett for it, he's doing the best he can. However, his lack of experience, and the fact this team still, IMO, has no identity, particularly offensively, I believe points to him. Who here thinks they know what team will show up week to week?

Garrett may understand X's and O's, but something is missing and I don't think intricacies of football has anything to do with whether I can view the performance of this team and say he is coming up short and that ultimately, we will continue with more of the same. Even with play calling duties removed, I don't see any significant difference in this team on the field. IMO, opportunities he has had to exert his influence as HC thus far in game have not occurred - they're spoken to after the fact. The whole point (supposedly) of removing play calling duties was to allow him to put his fingerprint on the game - to coach.

I'm not mad at Garrett, I'm very upset that years have been wasted on a strategy that if viewed from the beginning from a logical standpoint, showed very small chance for success because it was based on a strategy which has wrought success on only a few exceptional occasions with a few exceptional men. The blame IMO goes back to the top, of course.

Good post although I don't agree with some points.

I used Landry as a rough equivalent of a person who didn't have a lot of experience coaching who was also not successful for several years who eventually became a legend and HOF coach. Landry was a player coach in 54 and 55 being the DC. Landry didn't have a lot of experience coaching. From 56-59 Landry had a very good defense with a championship in 56 and title appearances in 59 and 59. You could count that as 6 years coaching or 4 full time.

I don't see the issue with Garrett's OJT and pedigree as being as cut and dry as you. He played from 89 to 04 which is 15 years. Most of the time he carried a clipboard. That's a long time to absorb a lot of info and I know Aikman leaned on him some as an informal QB coach. He's the son of a coach. So he's been around football all his life. He was the QB coach for Miami for two years and attracted a lot of attention. Dallas wasn't the only team interested in hiring the guy. If Dallas wanted the guy then they had to hire him as OC. As the OC he was courted and offered the HC position at Baltimore and with the Falcons. He interviewed and was in final interviews at two other clubs later. It cost Dallas big money to keep the guy here in Dallas and not takes jobs elsewhere.

So it's not as if the guy was a nobody that Jones picked up when no one else even considered him as an OC or HC.

While you're entitled to your opinion and may be right, no one can predict that Dallas and Garrett will fail this year or any year. I certainly have no idea where we're headed this year and I'm not looking beyond it.

I've never been a huge Garrett fan. I've questioned his offense for years although I won't say I cried for his replacement. Let's just say I wasn't entirely convinced he was the right guy. This is the first year I've warmed up to him as a HC.

The book on Garrett hasn't been completed.

 

[odog422]

Good post although I don't agree with some points.

I used Landry as a rough equivalent of a person who didn't have a lot of experience coaching who was also not successful for several years who eventually became a legend and HOF coach. Landry was a player coach in 54 and 55 being the DC. Landry didn't have a lot of experience coaching. From 56-59 Landry had a very good defense with a championship in 56 and title appearances in 59 and 59. You could count that as 6 years coaching or 4 full time.

I don't see the issue with Garrett's OJT and pedigree as being as cut and dry as you. He played from 89 to 04 which is 15 years. Most of the time he carried a clipboard. That's a long time to absorb a lot of info and I know Aikman leaned on him some as an informal QB coach. He's the son of a coach. So he's been around football all his life. He was the QB coach for Miami for two years and attracted a lot of attention. Dallas wasn't the only team interested in hiring the guy. If Dallas wanted the guy then they had to hire him as OC. As the OC he was courted and offered the HC position at Baltimore and with the Falcons. He interviewed and was in final interviews at two other clubs later. It cost Dallas big money to keep the guy here in Dallas and not takes jobs elsewhere.

So it's not as if the guy was a nobody that Jones picked up when no one else even considered him as an OC or HC.

While you're entitled to your opinion and may be right, no one can predict that Dallas and Garrett will fail this year or any year. I certainly have no idea where we're headed this year and I'm not looking beyond it.

I've never been a huge Garrett fan. I've questioned his offense for years although I won't say I cried for his replacement. Let's just say I wasn't entirely convinced he was the right guy. This is the first year I've warmed up to him as a HC.

The book on Garrett hasn't been completed.

Thanks, and I see what you're saying, we just have different takes on the comparison between Landry as a player coach then DC and Jason as backup QB for 15 years and 2 years as QB coach. I don't dispute his knowledge, but knowledge alone doesn't make you a great coordinator (let alone HC) or leader of men. Jason was courted, I agree, but I never was enthralled with his hire and wouldn't have been upset in the least if he went elsewhere, simply because the experience factor. Or lack of it.

As far as his replacement, I've never been one to say "get him out of here" because I know the alternative - Jerry decides whos next based on....Jerry. He's here so I roll with it and watch and see. Ultimately, though, I don't expect success based on what Garrett might contribute, because I've just never got the sense I was watching a coach in control, say the way I did when I watched Parcells or Jimmy or even, blaspheme - Gibbs 1. I also disagree on the book being complete on Garrett. I think he'll always be recognized as a bright guy, but not a great coach. He'll likely IMO become a pretty good coordinator one day.

 

[kramskoi]

You have got to wonder why we are not one of those 'bust-out teams'. Every year we lose to some team that eventually stands out and gets over the hump to their mediocrity, but never us. San Francisco, Seattle, and now Kansas City. I like Garrett's drafting process because we are stacked with talent, but the team never has the discipline for BOTH sides of the ball to play well together except on rare occasion like the Rams game.

Honestly, I could see Garrett being better in a GM, talent evaluating role than anything. He's too inexperienced as a coach in the NFL, but he seems to know how to get talent.

Well Kansas City has had a rather easy schedule so far and it is very possible that they could be 9-0 when they finally play the Broncos in 5 weeks. It does makes you wonder how a coaching change can turn a 2-14 disaster in to 6-0 darlings after just one off-season. Reid has got some serious mojo and he's doing it with the ultimate bus driver in Alex Smith.

Personally, I think that Garrett lacks "it". Can I quantify what "it" is? No, but I will no "it" when I see "it" in him. So far? Not. The Cowboys continue to lack identity, will and consistency. Until that changes, they will continue muddle along in mediocrity. For example, I think the Cowboys are on their fourth defensive coordinator in 6 years. What has changed? They are on pace for season worse than last, yardage wise. The Cowboys are in the same offensive system they have been in since before Romo even took over, even though according to BTB they have supposedly switched to an Erhardt-Perkins style system. However, a quick check of ProFootball Reference reveals that they have been running that system since the Parcells era:

"Last year, of course, the Cowboys ran a lot of no-huddle offense, largely because they fell behind early in so many contests. Because of its success, a lot of people thought that they should make the no-huddle their base offense. One of the impediments to doing so what that they still ran a West Coast system. With the installation of the Erhardt-Perkins system, the Cowboys are preparing to communicate in a way that will allow them to run the no-huddle with ruthless efficiency."

http://www.bloggingtheboys.com/2013...w-offensive-scheme-the-erhardt-perkins-system
Dallas has been running a West Coast system?

IRVING, Texas -- Bill Callahan, the Dallas Cowboys' new playcaller, says despite working in a West Coast offense for a number of years, he can adjust to Jason Garrett's offense.

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/cowb.../bill-callahan-its-the-dallas-cowboys-offense
So which is it? Someone has their wires crossed it seems. Personally, I think that Garrett's system has not changed much since Romo has been under center and yet inconsistency continues ad nauseam.

 

[kramskoi]

Good post although I don't agree with some points.

I used Landry as a rough equivalent of a person who didn't have a lot of experience coaching who was also not successful for several years who eventually became a legend and HOF coach. Landry was a player coach in 54 and 55 being the DC. Landry didn't have a lot of experience coaching. From 56-59 Landry had a very good defense with a championship in 56 and title appearances in 59 and 59. You could count that as 6 years coaching or 4 full time.

I don't see the issue with Garrett's OJT and pedigree as being as cut and dry as you. He played from 89 to 04 which is 15 years. Most of the time he carried a clipboard. That's a long time to absorb a lot of info and I know Aikman leaned on him some as an informal QB coach. He's the son of a coach. So he's been around football all his life. He was the QB coach for Miami for two years and attracted a lot of attention. Dallas wasn't the only team interested in hiring the guy. If Dallas wanted the guy then they had to hire him as OC. As the OC he was courted and offered the HC position at Baltimore and with the Falcons. He interviewed and was in final interviews at two other clubs later. It cost Dallas big money to keep the guy here in Dallas and not takes jobs elsewhere.

So it's not as if the guy was a nobody that Jones picked up when no one else even considered him as an OC or HC.

While you're entitled to your opinion and may be right, no one can predict that Dallas and Garrett will fail this year or any year. I certainly have no idea where we're headed this year and I'm not looking beyond it.

I've never been a huge Garrett fan. I've questioned his offense for years although I won't say I cried for his replacement. Let's just say I wasn't entirely convinced he was the right guy. This is the first year I've warmed up to him as a HC.

The book on Garrett hasn't been completed.

The book ain't completed but the story and the excuses are getting old. I would call Norv Turner an excellent offensive mind but has he taken a team to a championship. It is not just about X's and O's and I don't rate Garrett as the best offensive mind in football. What is the first mental image that flashes through your mind when you think of the Cowboys? That will tell you a bit about what their identity is. Right now they have none. When I think about the New Orleans Saints, the first image that comes to mind is Sean Payton, with Drew Brees a close second. There is a swagger, an attitude...pride...the nineties Cowboys had it, the current Cowboys don't. They were a mirror reflection of their head coach. It really is that simple. When, for instance, you watch a team put up 48 points one week and the very next week they look pitifully pedestrian on offense then there is a HUGE problem "somewhere."

 

[Wizarus]

Average HC. I don't trust him to manage close games at all at this point.