News: Bob Sturm: Why I was so wrong about Cowboys coach Jason Garrett

[mahoneybill]

Jimmy Johnson won absolutely nothing until he hired Norv Turner to run the offense. Dave Shula was about to get Jimmy run out of Dallas before Jimmy hired Norv.

Good coordinators matter.

Landry was the coach who could do it all. O or D, but even he hired a D person to take over that side and instead focused more on the O

 

[guag]

No one's willing to give Sturm props for reminding us what he thought back then, and admitting he was dead wrong? People in the media rarely do this, and we're always saying "I wonder if such and such will eat crow and recognize he was wrong about such and such when he's proven wrong". Well, this time it happened and I respect him for that.

 

[waving monkey]

I do understand your statement. But its a clear reminder that how off respected sports commentators can be.
Some of us never wavered about Red from day one.

 

[Dodger12]

Lots of people were wrong about Jason Garrett because they couldn't separate his coaching from the team's record. It always surprised me that Sturm was in that group because he is generally a fairly perceptive guy.

It doesn't surprise me a bit that posters here are still trying to give the credit elsewhere, but this has been Garrett's baby, his staff, and his players. He gets the credit for the substantial rebuild.

This debate always goes around in circles and everyone is dug in. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. But the statement in bold is a head scratcher. I mean, your record is evidence of your success, is it not? Why would I separate that from the coach?

At some point, results matter and consistent (winning) results matter even more. When Garrett fan's didn't have the record to support their love for the man, they went into the circumstantial route and pointed to a rebuild, bringing in McClay, Linehan, having some mystical control/influence over Jerry/Stephen, etc.

Folks can claim that this staff is his and I have no doubt he wanted Linehan but please don't sell me that Kiffin/Marinelli were Garrett hires. For all this mystical control he had over Jerry, the GM still went with Lacewell's recommendation.

The book on Garrett will be written over the next several years. Garrett is the luckiest man in America because he'll get to keep his job even though his record thus far doesn't reflect the level of success and praise he's given by his fan boys. He'll also have a built in excuse when Romo retires and (if) the team falls on hard times again without a franchise QB.

If he wants to earn my trust and credit, win consistently and maximize Romo while he's still in uniform. You want to take it to the next level of credit (at least with me), then develop a QB to take over the reigns when Romo hangs it up. I like to give credit when I see something tangible.

 

[CyberB0b]

...and your opinion matters soooo much... Why??? Bob Sturm.

I hate "let me validate myself" articles.

It would be a "let me validate myself" article if he said he was right about Jason Garrett all along. That's the good thing about Sturm. He tells it like it is, and isn't afraid to admit when he's wrong.

 

[Apollo Creed]

No one's willing to give Sturm props for reminding us what he thought back then, and admitting he was dead wrong? People in the media rarely do this, and we're always saying "I wonder if such and such will eat crow and recognize he was wrong about such and such when he's proven wrong". Well, this time it happened and I respect him for that.

Sturm is on a whole different level than most DFW and even national journalists for that matter. So this kind of stuff doesn't surprise me.

 

[BigStar]

"He is not afraid of 4th down (as much). He is not afraid of road games (where he used to call the most conservative games). He is no longer risk-averse. He is, at times, no longer laying up on Par 5′s. He is now that coach that you can believe in, because he believes in himself more than ever before."

Even Linney was a tad too conservative in GB (why we lost outside of the obv lack of passrush by our DL). Loving the OL though. Agree with Walker's post that previously "established" coaches wouldn't come to DAL so JG is more of the best to expect, etc. Still think JG would make a better GM than coach; X's and O's level more than org-motivational leader.

 

[visionary]

This debate always goes around in circles and everyone is dug in. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. But the statement in bold is a head scratcher. I mean, your record is evidence of your success, is it not? Why would I separate that from the coach?

At some point, results matter and consistent (winning) results matter even more. When Garrett fan's didn't have the record to support their love for the man, they went into the circumstantial route and pointed to a rebuild, bringing in McClay, Linehan, having some mystical control/influence over Jerry/Stephen, etc.

Folks can claim that this staff is his and I have no doubt he wanted Linehan but please don't sell me that Kiffin/Marinelli were Garrett hires. For all this mystical control he had over Jerry, the GM still went with Lacewell's recommendation.

The book on Garrett will be written over the next several years. Garrett is the luckiest man in America because he'll get to keep his job even though his record thus far doesn't reflect the level of success and praise he's given by his fan boys. He'll also have a built in excuse when Romo retires and (if) the team falls on hard times again without a franchise QB.

If he wants to earn my trust and credit, win consistently and maximize Romo while he's still in uniform. You want to take it to the next level of credit (at least with me), then develop a QB to take over the reigns when Romo hangs it up. I like to give credit when I see something tangible.

Thank you, great post

Remember though that you are addressing someone who is the master of revisionist history

 

[DandyDon52]

I think those that like JG need to give credit to jerry and stephen, I think when they hired jg they intended on him becoming HC.
This is unusual thing to do , I dont know of any other team to do this.
They then make him HC and let him learn on the job, they hire ex HC's to help him and be his coordinators.
Again that is unusual .
Then They insist he give up play calling, and just be HC, which I dont think jason liked, but he went along with it, as he is paid very well.
I dont think JG hires his assistants, I think jerry and his boy do, but I think JG has input into that, and he wanted linehan as he knew him
and had worked with him.
I think Jerry and Jr hire all the staff, with input from JG.
I think they draft and hire FA as a group, Jerry, Stephen, clay, and JG.
They have worked well as a group, and I think the building of this team credit goes to those 4 as a group.
And others are involved too, marinelli has had input about defensive players.

I think those that credit JG with everything good are not seeing things clearly, and just like the guy.
With them if a good player is drafted Jason drafted him, and if player is bad jerry drafted him.
I think it is a group effort and they seem to be getting very good at getting the right players.

Jason has had another advantage, from the start as oc, and HC, he has had Romo who is a top QB, a lot of coaches
dont have that. Romo makes JG look good, maybe better than he is.
The real test for JG will be after Romo is gone , can he win then , and can he find another good QB.

Right now he has had one good season, and the guy they leaned on last year is now with the eagles.
So the pressure is on to have another winning season and get in playoffs again and do better.
They did add some key players on defense, and lael on offense, so they should be contenders again.

 

[Sportsbabe]

It would be a "let me validate myself" article if he said he was right about Jason Garrett all along. That's the good thing about Sturm. He tells it like it is, and isn't afraid to admit when he's wrong.

I didn't read the article but I get your point...but articles with titles like this presupposes that he made one judgement about a person or a thing and now he wants us to read another where he flips that judgement. I'll respectfully pass on his "Why I Was...". More times than not the first article by the author ...whoever they may be, is probably full of hyperbole and hypotheticals.

 

[Sportsbabe]

Lots of people were wrong about Jason Garrett because they couldn't separate his coaching from the team's record. It always surprised me that Sturm was in that group because he is generally a fairly perceptive guy.

It doesn't surprise me a bit that posters here are still trying to give the credit elsewhere, but this has been Garrett's baby, his staff, and his players. He gets the credit for the substantial rebuild.

Excellent point about separating coaching from the record.

The #1 attribute I find attractive/invaluable in a man is intelligence. No substitute. That's what I knew Garrett had. Then to find out about his relateability to the players???? It's a wrap. Everything else he does falls under intelligence and critical thinking. That's what Princeton gets you

Doesn't hurt that he has a phenomenal resume under the best of the best and is from a football lineage.

 

[Idgit]

This debate always goes around in circles and everyone is dug in. I'm not going to change anyone's mind. But the statement in bold is a head scratcher. I mean, your record is evidence of your success, is it not? Why would I separate that from the coach?

At some point, results matter and consistent (winning) results matter even more. When Garrett fan's didn't have the record to support their love for the man, they went into the circumstantial route and pointed to a rebuild, bringing in McClay, Linehan, having some mystical control/influence over Jerry/Stephen, etc.

Folks can claim that this staff is his and I have no doubt he wanted Linehan but please don't sell me that Kiffin/Marinelli were Garrett hires. For all this mystical control he had over Jerry, the GM still went with Lacewell's recommendation.

The book on Garrett will be written over the next several years. Garrett is the luckiest man in America because he'll get to keep his job even though his record thus far doesn't reflect the level of success and praise he's given by his fan boys. He'll also have a built in excuse when Romo retires and (if) the team falls on hard times again without a franchise QB.

If he wants to earn my trust and credit, win consistently and maximize Romo while he's still in uniform. You want to take it to the next level of credit (at least with me), then develop a QB to take over the reigns when Romo hangs it up. I like to give credit when I see something tangible.

It really oughtn't be a head scratcher when you think that the team that wins a given game isn't necessarily the team with the best coach. Or that the teams that have the best record in any given season aren't necessarily the teams with the best head coach each year. Like I said in multiple Jason Garrett threads in past seasons, John Wooden always said that his best jobs coaching weren't necessarily on his teams with the best records. The best coaches bring programs with them and develop winning cultures that carry over from team to team over time, putting their organizations in positions to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves.

The team Jason inherited mid 2010 is a far cry from the team we've got now. 'Garrett fans' as you call them--and there weren't a whole lot of them at one point--were probably fans in the first place because they noticed the structure that he put in place that hadn't been there under Wade. There was nothing mystical about any of it. He systematically went about stopping gaps and rebuilding position groups, clearing cap space and putting together his staff. And while there were missteps along the way, the process was obvious. You know that it was obvious because people mocked it every step of the way. Mocking the process itself, saying the drafting hadn't in fact gotten any better, mocking the coaching hires and the shift to the ZBS. Mocking finishing 8-8 with a flawed roster in the first place.

We can agree to disagree. I believe the book on Garrett has been apparent for some time. I think the big extension cemented that. We can wait until the record makes that more obvious, but the guy can coach. Eventually, it's going to be like the Romo debates used to be when people who lambasted him for years changed their minds and started pretending they supported him all along.

 

[Idgit]

Thank you, great post

Remember though that you are addressing someone who is the master of revisionist history

Care to cite a single example of that? I mean, one with an actual post or argument attached? It's human nature that opinions and arguments evolve over time, but from where I'm standing, I've been very consistent about Jason Garrett the entire time. Back when just about every poster on the board wanted to believe he was clueless, and now as the evidence has accumulated that he's got the support and admiration of his players, staff, and the organization behind him because he does, in fact, appear to know what he's doing. It's easy to say that I've revised something, but from where I'm sitting, it's pretty clear that I was just right and you were simply wrong on this topic and just don't want to admit it.

 

[jterrell]

Garrett has become a great coach.

If he were a free agent he'd quickly become one of the highest paid coaches in the league.
Early in his tenure he tried to do wayyy too much and subsequently the game management and play calling both suffered mightily.
Garrett was routinely outcoached early.

That is no longer the case. Last year he outcoached others.

He is not a top 10 -play caller so it didn't make sense for him to keep that role as well as stretching his duties for everything else.
But as a head coach right now in control of the program and managing games he has become a top tier guy.

This isn't that rare. Most good coaches got thta way because they made mistakes and learned from them.

 

[Sportsbabe]

It really oughtn't be a head scratcher when you think that the team that wins a given game isn't necessarily the team with the best coach. Or that the teams that have the best record in any given season aren't necessarily the teams with the best head coach each year. Like I said in multiple Jason Garrett threads in past seasons, John Wooden always said that his best jobs coaching weren't necessarily on his teams with the best records. The best coaches bring programs with them and develop winning cultures that carry over from team to team over time, putting their organizations in positions to take advantage of opportunities when they present themselves.

The team Jason inherited mid 2010 is a far cry from the team we've got now. 'Garrett fans' as you call them--and there weren't a whole lot of them at one point--were probably fans in the first place because they noticed the structure that he put in place that hadn't been there under Wade. There was nothing mystical about any of it. He systematically went about stopping gaps and rebuilding position groups, clearing cap space and putting together his staff. And while there were missteps along the way, the process was obvious. You know that it was obvious because people mocked it every step of the way. Mocking the process itself, saying the drafting hadn't in fact gotten any better, mocking the coaching hires and the shift to the ZBS. Mocking finishing 8-8 with a flawed roster in the first place.

We can agree to disagree. I believe the book on Garrett has been apparent for some time. I think the big extension cemented that. We can wait until the record makes that more obvious, but the guy can coach. Eventually, it's going to be like the Romo debates used to be when people who lambasted him for years changed their minds and started pretending they supported him all along.

I usually don't read "manifestos" but this had to be said. How soon the forget. As that great orator Big Sean woul say "you know what cha problem is...you don't even see the big picture...I ain't bout to play no games wit cha.."

 

[waving monkey]

Care to cite a single example of that? I mean, one with an actual post or argument attached? It's human nature that opinions and arguments evolve over time, but from where I'm standing, I've been very consistent about Jason Garrett the entire time. Back when just about every poster on the board wanted to believe he was clueless, and now as the evidence has accumulated that he's got the support and admiration of his players, staff, and the organization behind him because he does, in fact, appear to know what he's doing. It's easy to say that I've revised something, but from where I'm sitting, it's pretty clear that I was just right and you were simply wrong on this topic and just don't want to admit it.

My recall is your statement is correct sir

 

[CowboyRoy]

Strum this was were we parts ways.
I'll explain if anybody cares

The jump from 12-4 from 8-8 was quite obvious the reasons:

1. The Run Game. Garrett got kicked to the curb and no longer could call plays on offense. Linehan came in, and although Garrett has been preaching running game for 4 years, Linehan did what it took to implement it, stick with it, and not wuss out every week.

2. Marianelli started to make a difference with the D

3. A couple years of great drafting by the Joneses and Will Clay began to take hold on the roster

4. Romos health and the incredible play of the Oline

10. Garrett was able to ONLY do what he actually does well. Which is be the likeable, walkaround, politician that he is. (This is really stretching it, but I wanted to put in some kind of mild credit to Garrett for those of you that adore him)

 

[Idgit]

The jump from 12-4 from 8-8 was quite obvious the reasons:

1. The Run Game. Garrett got kicked to the curb and no longer could call plays on offense. Linehan came in, and although Garrett has been preaching running game for 4 years, Linehan did what it took to implement it, stick with it, and not wuss out every week.

2. Marianelli started to make a difference with the D

3. A couple years of great drafting by the Joneses and Will Clay began to take hold on the roster

4. Romos health and the incredible play of the Oline

10. Garrett was able to ONLY do what he actually does well. Which is be the likeable, walkaround, politician that he is. (This is really stretching it, but I wanted to put in some kind of mild credit to Garrett for those of you that adore him)

You could have just kept pretending it happened by accident. Your argument would have been just as believable.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Yes Linehan had to take the reigns, remember it was Garrett who, when the run was working would abandon it, see the GB game of 13. Tells you all you need to know. So, insert Linehan, whos main job it, "if the run is working, stick with it" and what do we do, run the heck out of a runner who can be run with. And what happens, we win some games. Something Garrett did not figure out on his own. And dont justify it, he had years to figure it out.

lets not forget romo having a hand in all of this. yes ultimately its the coach who is responsible, but that's also the game where garrett finally called out his QB for changing the plays to pass. one of the things that happened last year was to take that away from romo and force him to call run plays, even if it seemed the defense is geared towards stopping the run.

and lets not forget that linehan was told by garrett " we are going to run it like we did in the 90's" and wanting to establish the run game again.

but yeah, lets forget that.

Now, lets forget the 8-8 seasons, because thats what everyone is doing, but do you honestly think the Giants will roll over twice for us? That, many teams on our new schedule have not gotten better? Some did some didnt, but we are not going to have the NFCE lay down and let us route them again. So i expect a few less wins this year. Yes, that will affect on Garrett if we drop to 8. No i dont fully expect an 8-8 season, but im also not expecting 12 wins either. That will all be determined on the field regardless of our own ideas as it always is.

nobody lays down for anybody in the NFL except if the team quits on their coach. even when we were going 5-11 under the great campo leadership, we still fought and managed to beat playoff teams.

year to year matters. things change, etc. everybody had us going 6-10 to 8-8 at best, some even at 4-12. so much for predictions.

Does all the credit go to Garrett, no, we had to hire Linehan, it wasnt a luxury, it was a need. Its not like Garrett had a good season and said "you know what will be better, lets add another offensive guy to get us over that boost" No, Linehan was hired because someone would simply see something working and panic and got pass happy. Did the run have success? Yes, and who was it with, every so called expert who claimed "he runs into darkness" and what happens with a better line and a guy who can stick to the run, records broke. Was the pass happy way successful? no.

credit does go to garrett? why because he is the head coach. he hired his staff. he put the philosophy together. he filled the gaps in his staff and team and he convinced one of the most hands on owners in the NFL to stay patient and follow his blue print.

we can't lay all the blame on garrett when things go wrong. and give all the credit to everybody else when things go right.

Am i thrilled with Garrett? No, he would never have been hired, in fact i would let him interview just to tell him if we ever hired him, we would quickly rectify it and fire him during a game. But he is our coach. Im not going to get excited over 1 good season. I do feel he will have success in part with everything else that has come around him. Better scouting, good coaching, good talent, Everything coming together that even made some previous coaches in the league better than they were.

I am glad you are not in charge of hiring head coaches for cowboys. lets just leave it at that.

I dont feel Garrett can go offense to offense with anyone in our division, so im hoping he leaves that to Linehan. After watching Chip come into the league and face Garrett and steal his lunch and eat it front of him, no, i dont feel Garrett can challenge offensively with any one. Tom Coughlin with a bad team, can usually rally to beat Garrett, and RG3 by himself beat on Garrett with a hobbled leg. So i have little faith he can do that.

its not about going offense to offense. its about winning games. bottom line. in case you forgot, this is not fantasy football.

and that great chip Kelly kool aid you are drinking.... in case you forgot...went 12-4 his first season and 10-6 and miss the playoffs the second. lets wait until he accomplishes something before you go kissing his arse.

What i will credit Garrett for, getting in better players. Does that always translate to a better? No, but its mainly dependent on your view of success in the league is. Do i feel Garrett could ruin this? No, i feel the organization has taken time to put all the safety nets around him that it would be harder for him to fail than to succeed. He only needs 9 wins for public relations to say "9 is better than 8, SUCCESS".

what I credit garrett with is building a football team. its not just about having better players. its about philosophy, culture, coaches and the whole organization. I am glad garrett is here to stop jerry from ruining this. and that's not easy as we have evidenced.

What am i looking for concerning the next year. Simple, and i think this happened last year, so lets see it continue this year, I want Garrett to keep the penalities low again. It was becoming a staple that if the Cowboys converted a 3rd and long, there was a penalty somewhere. A sack, Dallas got a penalty, for a while any positive play that was good, got us a penalty.

I dont always necesarily need the roster churned, but Garrett has been doing that fairly well as of late, so ill credit him with that too. I will also credit him with having the team better prepared as well. The team from 2014 was vastly different from 2013.

thank god garrett is a cowboys coach.....in the meantime, mike smith and few others that people had put ahead of garrett got fired and ruined their teams in the process.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

umm, yea, I believe at one point Microsoft had to keep Apple afloat because of "monoply laws, also the same company that fired Jobs. So when thinking of apple and being smart, leave that company out.

Google successful, possibly, depends on what your definition is.

the rest of the post is ok, i like the word "a"

google successful? you question that!!!! dude....get a hold of yourself.