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

[Idgit]

Or maybe you just have nothing.

I don't see the point of trying to change some of the opinions you're sharing here in the thread. As far as I'm concerned, if you've watched everything that's gone on the last four years in Dallas and still believe the stuff you choose to believe for the reasons you're offering here, there's zero point in discussing it because we're not playing the normal game here were causes are actually related to effects. If you just want to make increasingly tortured speculations as to how the team might be improving despite its head coach and despite what all the players, coaches, and team officials say to the contrary, I'm not going to try to stop you. Knock yourself out. Like I said, it sounds like a whirlwind of crazy to me.

 

[AsthmaField]

I don't see the point of trying to change some of the opinions you're sharing here in the thread. As far as I'm concerned, if you've watched everything that's gone on the last four years in Dallas and still believe the stuff you choose to believe for the reasons you're offering here, there's zero point in discussing it because we're not playing the normal game here were causes are actually related to effects. If you just want to make increasingly tortured speculations as to how the team might be improving despite its head coach and despite what all the players, coaches, and team officials say to the contrary, I'm not going to try to stop you. Knock yourself out. Like I said, it sounds like a whirlwind of crazy to me.

Indeed. Some of the things that are being thrown around in this thread are simply outside the realm of common sense. It is so far off base that I can't hardly muster enough interest to debate the subject.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Folks have a bad habit of comparing Garrett to some great coaches. Really, that's not being fair to Garrett.

Bellicheat went 11 and 5 with Matt Cassel after Brady was lost for the season (in the season opener) in 2008. Think about that for a second. Brady was the reigning league MVP at the most important position in the game and he was lost for the season. By all accounts, the Pats should have sucked that year. yet they went 11 and 5.

Do I think Bellicheat can do what he's done without Brady over the long haul. No way. A quality HC needs a quality QB. But your argument holds a lot less water when you consider what he did in the 2008 season. In addition, Bellicheck was a SB winning DC. His coaching credentials have him HOF bound.

And my last point about Bellicheck. He started with Drew Bledsoe and finished with Brady who won him a SB. To assume that Bellicheck had no influence on Brady and his development is absurd. Who's to say that Brady would have had the same career without Bellicheck? Bottom line, the HC maximized what he got out of his franchise QB. This is where I'm not sure I can say the same about Garrett.

And Coughlin? Really? He took an expansion team to 2 AFC Championship Games. He continued winning when he got to NY. And Shanahan was a SB winning OC and HC and don't you think he influenced an aging Elway and his coaching helped propel the Broncos to 2 SB's? I mean, how can you possibly make these analogies with a straight face?

I get it. Those guys had HOF caliber QB's when they had extended success. I think Romo is one of the premier QB's in the game and I think we could have done more with Romo and failed to do so. Romo may have a couple of more years so Garrett is certainly going to get his chance to improve.

The ONLY things that I can say in Garretts defense is that he didnt get to pick any of his coordinators until Linehan. And the fact that Jerry of the last 3 years with Will Clay is NOT the Jerry Jones that Garrett got with Wade or before Clay.

I don't see the point of trying to change some of the opinions you're sharing here in the thread. As far as I'm concerned, if you've watched everything that's gone on the last four years in Dallas and still believe the stuff you choose to believe for the reasons you're offering here, there's zero point in discussing it because we're not playing the normal game here were causes are actually related to effects. If you just want to make increasingly tortured speculations as to how the team might be improving despite its head coach and despite what all the players, coaches, and team officials say to the contrary, I'm not going to try to stop you. Knock yourself out. Like I said, it sounds like a whirlwind of crazy to me.

Well it looks like my LIKES are piling up. I will give Garrett credit for that which he deserves. Nothing more, nothing less.

Giving him credit for the draft or FA makes little sense as it simply isnt what he does here. Giving him credit for the defense doesnt make sense because he has little if anything to do with it. We watched Garrett NOT run the ball more and more for 8 years. Sorry, but there is no convincing me that miraculously, the FIRST year someone else is hired to run the offense for him and we miraculously blossom with a dominant run game with ONE new player..........sorry, that is ridiculous.

And its not like Garrett WANTED to give up control of the offense. He fought it for 2 years.

When a team has a 12-4 season and there is success, the head coach gets credit because that's just the way winning goes. No different then Romo finally starting to get some respect around the league. Winning makes everyone look good. Heck, even Jones got executive of the year.

And why has Jones been doing so well the last couple of years as a GM? Because he has ceded more control over to Stephen and Will Clay when it comes to personnel. Now should he get credit for letting other people do his job for him? Certainly. But the people that actually do the work need to be recognized.

 

[Dodger12]

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.

I have to hand it to you again Idgit.....another great excuse for Garrett and another great job of thinking outside the box. I can agree that not always the best coached team or the team with the best QB wins week in and week out. But I do believe those types of things manifest themselves in the long haul. Garrett was consitently mediocre with a franchise QB.

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.

You can say that of any team from 2010. Teams churn the roster routinely in a salary cap NFL. This is nothing unique to Garrett. What I do know about Garrett was that he wanted Felix Jones over Johnson whom Wade prefered. JG wanted Brad Johnson at QB and he wanted Sharif Floyd. JG picked Jones, a back-up/change of pace back int he 1st round, after we had MBIII coming off a Pro-Bowl season (I think) and signed to a big money extension. yes, that Garrett sure is a cap guru and makes the most out of his limited resources.

And I put myself in the catagory of being a Garrett fan boy from day 1. I actually wanted him to take over for Wade much sooner (after the season ending beat down in Philly 44 to ??? the prior year). But I like winning when I have Romo as my QB. I'm just that way......

And I think we can attribute the influence of Will McClay to to this roster more than Garrett but that's just my opinion.

 

[Idgit]

I have to hand it to you again Idgit.....another great excuse for Garrett and another great job of thinking outside the box. I can agree that not always the best coached team or the team with the best QB wins week in and week out. But I do believe those types of things manifest themselves in the long haul. Garrett was consitently mediocre with a franchise QB.

You can say that of any team from 2010. Teams churn the roster routinely in a salary cap NFL. This is nothing unique to Garrett. What I do know about Garrett was that he wanted Felix Jones over Johnson whom Wade prefered. JG wanted Brad Johnson at QB and he wanted Sharif Floyd. JG picked Jones, a back-up/change of pace back int he 1st round, after we had MBIII coming off a Pro-Bowl season (I think) and signed to a big money extension. yes, that Garrett sure is a cap guru and makes the most out of his limited resources.

And I put myself in the catagory of being a Garrett fan boy from day 1. I actually wanted him to take over for Wade much sooner (after the season ending beat down in Philly 44 to ??? the prior year). But I like winning when I have Romo as my QB. I'm just that way......

And I think we can attribute the influence of Will McClay to to this roster more than Garrett but that's just my opinion.

There's really nothing to hand to me. The league is competitive. You need players and coaches and coordinators and health and a favorable schedule and a bit of luck. Even then, there are normally 5-6 games every season that separate 6-10 teams from 10-6 teams. Seasons literally come down to a handful of plays or a handful of mistakes. And coaching careers come down to dozens of plays made or not made. That's the way it goes.

The best teams play the odds, build deep rosters, and limit mistakes. There's way too much volatility to see it happening from week to week, or even over the course of a season, but over multiple seasons you can start to see the trends. I've said it many times, but we lost 5 games by a total of 8 points in 2013 and finished 8-8. I don't even know how many close games we actually won in that season, but you can bet there were a few of them.

And I'll agree that Garrett's teams were consistently 8-8 with a franchise QB. Don't leave out the part that where they had some of the worst defenses in the league during that same stretch. As we've seen in other threads, you can't win the passing effectiveness differential against a good team if you can't stop anybody from passing the football.

I won't get into picking nits with you on specific players over the years. I agree he's made some mistakes, though I also think you're attributing selections to him where you don't really know how heavily he was involved in the decisions. It doesn't matter, though, all teams make personnel mistakes. The proof is in the pudding, though. Complain all you want, but Garrett's personnel has been consistently getting better, where Wade's consistently got worse. As I said to Roy, I'm not all that interested in arguments that pretend that's happening despite the input of the HC.

 

[jday]

Your entire post was about tangibles when in reality it is the intangibles of Garrett's leadership as a coach you completely missed. Leadership qualities are nuanced and subtle. They are not about getting better players. It's about communication between coach and player, between ownership and coach. It's about building consensus, identifying goals and defining a direction. It's about instilling confidence and belief, Does he own the room, does he engage, does he have "it."

I hope you got a chance to see his speech at Princeton. It was riveting. I'm not trying to criticize your post I'm trying to expand the definition of what a good to great coach is and it's so much more than getting good players.

An army of lions led by a sheep can never defeat an army of sheep led by a lion.

Forget his boyish looks - Garrett is a lion.

I don't know...I think I'd have to pick the army of lions over the army of sheep regardless of who is leading the charge. Otherwise, great post!

 

[xwalker]

Garrett is the ultimate Jerry puppet.

You're in denial. I guess it's hard to admit when you were wrong.

 

[Doomsay]

Please.

There is no mention of Linehan or Marinelli taking the reigns in 2014, this should not be played down and they didn't even come up in that article.

Biggest year-over-year delta IMO.

 

[visionary]

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.

I have little patience in engaging with you on this topic again
We both know Garrett is a poor OC
The team flourished only once he got out of the way

 

[Sportsbabe]

12-4, no losing seasos...interesting perspective.

Perspective is a powerful drug.

 

[Doomsday101]

Regardless of feelings the fact is Garrett has this team believing and working hard to win a championship. Looking at the roster the day he took the HC job mid season to now a lot of changes have been made. After 3 consecutive years of failing to win week 17 games to clinch the east I had my doubts but with a year remaining on his contract Jerry let it play out and this team produced.

I said earlier this year this in my view is a big season for Garrett and his future and how many will view him as a HC. Expectations are high, winning when no one expects much from you is one thing, winning when everyone knows you are legit is another.

 

[Idgit]

I have little patience in engaging with you on this topic again
We both know Garrett is a poor OC
The team flourished only once he got out of the way

If you have no patience for it, then you probably shouldn't engage in the first place. Calling me out with your own fantastical interpretation of what I've actually never said in the first place proves nothing.

As I always say: the posts are there for anybody who wants to lookup the post history. Find some that are in context, and I'll either defend my take or admit I'm wrong. But I'm not going to just let you pretend i'm a revisionist because you don't like being on the short end of the argument yet again.

If *I* were to call *you* out as a revisionist, for example, I'd have an example of a post or several posts where you were specifically revising your argument that I could point to. That way my argument is believable. What you're doing is trying to paint with a broad brush that has no paint on it. And then saying you don't have the patience to find paint. That's fine. You don't want to bother to find paint. Just don't expect the rest of us to sit here and tell you what a great job you've done because you're basically just dusting the walls.

 

[xwalker]

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.

In regards to record, many people don't understand that the team building side of a HC is about 2 years delayed. In other words it was his team building in 2012 that most impacted 2014.

This is why Wade's teams were good initially and then declined, because Parcell's team building carried over into Wade's first few years.

The same happened in reverse going from Wade to Garrett. It took time for Garrett to build the team mentality back up after Wade had run it into the ground.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Before season ended they were considered Jerry hires.

They were?

Bill Callahan was considered a 'Jerry hire' and Jerry 'forced him to be the O-Coordinator' because Callahan came from a WCO philosophy. Linehan runs practically the same offense as Garrett does and even when Callahan was calling plays Garrett said he enjoyed not having to call plays. Remember, Jerry was the one that didn't want a 'walk around coach.'

Garrett had experience with Kiffin and Marinelli when he was at Tampa. That's how they hired Bisaccia (sp?). And the one thing that Garrett has been about is the 'next man up' philosophy. When Kiffin was hired, in the very first PC Garrett said that they felt with the new CBA rules with regards to practice that injuries would be more prevalent and that there was a benefit to having a simpler scheme because you would be better suited to utilize the 'next man up' if injuries occurred.

In reality, it's a group decision and there wasn't any strong opposition to getting somebody new to call plays on offense and to fire Rob Ryan.





YR

 

[Sportsbabe]

Your entire post was about tangibles when in reality it is the intangibles of Garrett's leadership as a coach you completely missed. Leadership qualities are nuanced and subtle. They are not about getting better players. It's about communication between coach and player, between ownership and coach. It's about building consensus, identifying goals and defining a direction. It's about instilling confidence and belief, Does he own the room, does he engage, does he have "it."

I hope you got a chance to see his speech at Princeton. It was riveting. I'm not trying to criticize your post I'm trying to expand the definition of what a good to great coach is and it's so much more than getting good players.

An army of lions led by a sheep can never defeat an army of sheep led by a lion.

Forget his boyish looks - Garrett is a lion.

Let's just dumb it down/make it plain ...he gets people to buy in.

 

[Doomsday101]

They were?

Bill Callahan was considered a 'Jerry hire' and Jerry 'forced him to be the O-Coordinator' because Callahan came from a WCO philosophy. Linehan runs practically the same offense as Garrett does and even when Callahan was calling plays Garrett said he enjoyed not having to call plays. Remember, Jerry was the one that didn't want a 'walk around coach.'

Garrett had experience with Kiffin and Marinelli when he was at Tampa. That's how they hired Bisaccia (sp?). And the one thing that Garrett has been about is the 'next man up' philosophy. When Kiffin was hired, in the very first PC Garrett said that they felt with the new CBA rules with regards to practice that injuries would be more prevalent and that there was a benefit to having a simpler scheme because you would be better suited to utilize the 'next man up' if injuries occurred.

In reality, it's a group decision and there wasn't any strong opposition to getting somebody new to call plays on offense and to fire Rob Ryan.





YR

True as well as later promote Marinelli and let Kiffin go. Given Rod loyalty for Dallas to retain Marinelli and make him DC was big and yes I think Jason played a big part in that

 

[DandyDon1722]

LOL.......so where were all these Garrett leadership qualities that didnt make a difference the previous 3 years he was head coach? Or are you going to laughably tell me they all of a sudden, miraculously showed up because they finally kicked in?

The run game was 70% of the reason for our increased success and everyone that watched the Cowboys the last 8 year with Garrett in control of the offense knows he was the biggest wussy in the history of football when it came to running the ball.

8 years of watching the running game fade away under Garrett. Then miraculously, the first year he no longer runs the offense we nearly lead the league in rushing and win 12 games?

Waaaaay tooooo much coincidence there my friend.

Garrett is a lion? LOL ahahahahaha!!!!!! Garrett is a fanny patting poser. I would liken him to a baboon. Certainly not a lion. LOL

Roy I don't have it in me to respond to LOL's and the hyperbole that went into your post. I will never change your opinion. He gets credit for turning things around last year and I believe he will continue to do so. After a six consecutive post rampage you don't.

I completely respect that and you might be right and I might look like an idiot. But let's agree stick to our guns and see what happens.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I don't know how people could not see that Garrett was highly like to be the best HC for the Cowboys. For somebody like Sturm that has following the Cowboys all these years, he should have known that neither the Parcells type or the Wade Phillips type would work here. The Parcells type just won't work with Jerry for long. Jerry can't have a HC that gets all of the attention and runs the team like he is in complete control. The HC under Jerry has to know how to manipulate Jerry without Jerry even knowing it for the most part.

Garrett seemed like and still seems like the idea middle ground between dictator Parcells and Jerry errand boy Wade. I don't know why somebody like Sturm couldn't see that then. I guess that Garrett's role as Offensive Coordinator clouded the issue. As a young HC, he really should not have been trying to do both jobs. They can get OCs. It is Garrett's ability to run a team like a real coach without having to get all of the attention like Parcells that makes him valuable to the Jerry owned Cowboys.

Parcells doesn't work for anybody for very long given his track record.

In all, the Parcells era was a massive success for the organization. It created more modern philosophies as far as structure of the organization, how to spend cap money, what trades to look for, and how to treat the draft.

The issue for Parcells was that he was old and in reality, I don't think he was ever quite prepared for the fiasco that is the Dallas media along with ESPN and their stalker qualities of the Cowboys. With the Giants, he was beloved and he turned a horrendous franchise into a 2-time SB winner. He went to New England who had never won anything and was beloved for just turning them around. He then went to the Jets and had the media eating from the palm of his hand because the Jets were a moribund franchise.

Things were different in Dallas. As Calvin Hill once said, "if you score 2 TD's in a quarter, Cowboys fans will want 3. If you score 3 TD's in a quarter, they'll want 4. If you score 4 TD's, they'll complain that you didn't do it at the fans side of the end zone."

I think his age played a factor as he didn't quite have the stomach to deal with this like he would have had 20 years earlier. But, the media is completely different in Dallas when it comes to the Cowboys than it was in all of the previous places he's worked.

Wade didn't work because it's the same problem he's always had...he is a great X's and O's guy, but struggles with player development That's a major issue in Dallas because as Parcells once said, it's easy to microwave stars here and they get big heads and stop working hard. The other issue is that Wade was bullied by the press and it only stirred up more controversy and made him look weak.

With Garrett, he has strengths that were weaknesses for Parcells and Wade. He knows how things are in Dallas with the media and the fans and he has no problem staying on a player regardless of the success they have. He also knows how to deal with the press here and nips things in the bud unlike Parcells and Wade. He also has youth on his side and is motivated to go thru the rigors of being the Cowboys head coach every year.

I don't think it has to do with Jerry Jones and meshing with him. I think it has to do with what each coach brought to the table and how well they countered two of the biggest detriments to the organization...they hype that players get after short term success and the circus that the media can create in order to manufacture a distraction to the team.







YR

 

[Yakuza Rich]

True as well as later promote Marinelli and let Kiffin go. Given Rod loyalty for Dallas to retain Marinelli and make him DC was big and yes I think Jason played a big part in that

Kiffin let Marinelli be promoted. And he was still a part of the coaching staff last year.

If anything, I think because the Cowboys were willing to keep Kiffin that Marinelli stayed because he liked the loyalty he saw that the Cowboys had and how they didn't make Kiffin the scapegoat for 2013. Then Kiffin did the admirable thing and let Marinelli be promoted while he assisted him.

Perhaps one could say that Garrett's attitude and handling of the coaches prompted Kiffin to make that decision because the atmosphere was such that it encouraged being selfless.

The big thing for me is that Garrett has stressed coaching. He talked about this in that he didn't care if you were Tony Romo or a practice squad player...you're going to be coached on this team. I think he's found great coaches and allowed them to do just that...coach. Instead of interfering with how they coach a player.

And I think assistants really appreciate that.





YR

 

[Idgit]

Parcells doesn't work for anybody for very long given his track record.

In all, the Parcells era was a massive success for the organization. It created more modern philosophies as far as structure of the organization, how to spend cap money, what trades to look for, and how to treat the draft.

The issue for Parcells was that he was old and in reality, I don't think he was ever quite prepared for the fiasco that is the Dallas media along with ESPN and their stalker qualities of the Cowboys. With the Giants, he was beloved and he turned a horrendous franchise into a 2-time SB winner. He went to New England who had never won anything and was beloved for just turning them around. He then went to the Jets and had the media eating from the palm of his hand because the Jets were a moribund franchise.

Things were different in Dallas. As Calvin Hill once said, "if you score 2 TD's in a quarter, Cowboys fans will want 3. If you score 3 TD's in a quarter, they'll want 4. If you score 4 TD's, they'll complain that you didn't do it at the fans side of the end zone."

I think his age played a factor as he didn't quite have the stomach to deal with this like he would have had 20 years earlier. But, the media is completely different in Dallas when it comes to the Cowboys than it was in all of the previous places he's worked.

Wade didn't work because it's the same problem he's always had...he is a great X's and O's guy, but struggles with player development That's a major issue in Dallas because as Parcells once said, it's easy to microwave stars here and they get big heads and stop working hard. The other issue is that Wade was bullied by the press and it only stirred up more controversy and made him look weak.

With Garrett, he has strengths that were weaknesses for Parcells and Wade. He knows how things are in Dallas with the media and the fans and he has no problem staying on a player regardless of the success they have. He also knows how to deal with the press here and nips things in the bud unlike Parcells and Wade. He also has youth on his side and is motivated to go thru the rigors of being the Cowboys head coach every year.

I don't think it has to do with Jerry Jones and meshing with him. I think it has to do with what each coach brought to the table and how well they countered two of the biggest detriments to the organization...they hype that players get after short term success and the circus that the media can create in order to manufacture a distraction to the team.

YR

I think this is right on. Dallas is a tough, tough place to coach, and a lot of the things Jerry does marketing the organization makes it even tougher. (Jerry also offsets that by going to get the players his coaches need when they're available and with deals like the La'el Collins deal this offseason). Garrett had a lot to learn about running the whole operation, and it showed. He also struggled getting a staff in place his first few years. But he's smart, he learned fairly quickly, and he figured it out. The culture of coaching and how closely he's got his coaches and scouts working together to find players they can develop he pretty much brought with him from the start, and we're finally seeing that pay off in terms of depth at just about every position group.

The game day limitations are relatively unimportant in comparison to some of the bigger problems Garrett's addressed and overcome.

And I agree with you, too, that the local media in Dallas is a headache of it's own that Jason's been pretty much able to take completely off the table. The more he wins, too, the easier that gets.