Broaddus take on Garrett being fired after this season

[cml750]

I live in the Bay Area Shaw is a college coach. Going from Stanford to the Cowboys is to big of a jump.

It was a big jump for Jimmy Johnson and that worked out pretty well. It was a big jump for Chip Kelly too and he is doing a good job of turning the Eagles around in one year.

 

[Tabascocat]

I live in the Bay Area Shaw is a college coach. Going from Stanford to the Cowboys is to big of a jump.

Jim went from there to SF, what is the difference?

 

[17yearsandcounting]

It was a big jump for Jimmy Johnson and that worked out pretty well. It was a big jump for Chip Kelly too and he is doing a good job of turning the Eagles around in one year.

Jim Harbaugh turned it around too.

 

[cml750]

Firing Jason would be a mistake.But hey let's start over...new offensive and defensive schemes.

Who needs continuity?

Continuity, like going 8 - 8 every year? We see Chip Kelly turning the Eagles around in one year, Andy Reid turning the Chiefs around in one year, Jim Harbaugh turning the Niners around in one year, Pete Carroll turning the Seahawks around quickly,etc......... You can't seriously think keeping Jason Garrett is a good idea unless you like mediocrity. He has been with the team for 8 years and the head coach for over 3 years. If we were winning more games each year and building toward the ultimate goal then yea we should keep him, but Garrett has us stuck in neutral or worse regressing.

 

[17yearsandcounting]

Chip Kelley has beaten 2 teams with a winning record.... in less than a season.


Ginger is 4-29

 

[Beast_from_East]

Continuity, like going 8 - 8 every year? We see Chip Kelly turning the Eagles around in one year, Andy Reid turning the Chiefs around in one year, Jim Harbaugh turning the Niners around in one year, Pete Carroll turning the Seahawks around quickly,etc......... You can't seriously think keeping Jason Garrett is a good idea unless you like mediocrity. He has been with the team for 8 years and the head coach for over 3 years. If we were winning more games each year and building toward the ultimate goal then yea we should keep him, but Garrett has us stuck in neutral or worse regressing.

Great post bro.

All these other coaches come in and turn things around immediately, they dont have a 4 year plan to break 500............................the job Garrett has done is laughable.

 

[cml750]

Great post bro.

All these other coaches come in and turn things around immediately, they dont have a 4 year plan to break 500............................the job Garrett has done is laughable.

I do laugh at him regularly but it is truly sad that we are wasting the prime years of some talented football players on this clown. I just do not understand why anyone would want to keep him.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

How many more mediocre years would it take for you to fire Garrett? 2, 3, 4, more? We are not building anything here, our 3 star players have been in the league close to 10 years, we live in the Free Agency era, when you draft someone anither 3 you drafted 4 or 5 years ago go to other teams, this is not the 70's, 80's or 90's where you could buitd dynasties, there is a very small window for a team to win (unless you have Brady and Belichick), this guy has been here for 8 years, 3.5 as a HC and nothing to show for it. If we don't make it to the playoffs he's gone and 95% of the fan base will be happy.

They'll be happy for 1 year...before they are calling for the new coaches head.

The problem on this roster is talent. That's not on JG.

He isn't done with the roster, nor is he himself a complete product as a coach, but I like his philosophies. This is a young team.

You talk about 3.5 mediocre years...but do you remember the team he took over? It was old and underperforming. Go back and look at that offensive line. It was offensive. And we've had to dedicate two 1st rounders to just get it functional.

People talk about the desire for success over long periods of time...yet are happy to change the team's identity and philosophy every 2-3 years.

The view is myopic and you're blaming the easy targets and lashing out at the low hanging fruit. How Jerry Jones of you.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Continuity, like going 8 - 8 every year? We see Chip Kelly turning the Eagles around in one year, Andy Reid turning the Chiefs around in one year, Jim Harbaugh turning the Niners around in one year, Pete Carroll turning the Seahawks around quickly,etc......... You can't seriously think keeping Jason Garrett is a good idea unless you like mediocrity. He has been with the team for 8 years and the head coach for over 3 years. If we were winning more games each year and building toward the ultimate goal then yea we should keep him, but Garrett has us stuck in neutral or worse regressing.

Most of those situations had pretty real caveats we can point to. Chiefs having 8 probowlers the year before and getting a massive upgrade at QB. Philly is a talented team, is ahead of us by just 1 game, has only 1 more win against a winning squad than we do (1 vs 2) and wouldn't you just kill for their offensive line? And really the Niners and Seahawks? Both teams also changed QBs and because those players are on rookie contracts the teams have been spending freely in free agency. But sure let's give all that credit to their coaches.

All those teams you listed which one has a roster as bad as ours?

And if you're going to name the jobs that turned around quickly why not point out the ones that haven't...because there are many more examples...Raiders, Cardinals, Jags, Chargers, Bills, Dolphins, Browns, Titans, etc. How have those teams been served by continuously reshuffling the HC position?

But hey keep thinking we are just a coach away. Or in this case a Rob Ryan away. That should tell you how silly this conversation has gotten.

Oh but look what he did in New Orleans!

New Orleans has 50% new starters on that defense than they had last year. That should tell you something about the true impact of Rob. The Saints turnaround probably has less to do with him and more to do with changing half your starters and well..improving on the worst defense in history is a pretty likely outcome.

 

[BoysFan4ever]

Great post bro.

All these other coaches come in and turn things around immediately, they dont have a 4 year plan to break 500............................the job Garrett has done is laughable.

I don't like Jason & think they could hire much better but one thing is he has to deal with Jerry.

That is a crutch none of the others have to deal with.

 

[jobberone]

How many more mediocre years would it take for you to fire Garrett? 2, 3, 4, more? We are not building anything here, our 3 star players have been in the league close to 10 years, we live in the Free Agency era, when you draft someone anither 3 you drafted 4 or 5 years ago go to other teams, this is not the 70's, 80's or 90's where you could buitd dynasties, there is a very small window for a team to win (unless you have Brady and Belichick), this guy has been here for 8 years, 3.5 as a HC and nothing to show for it. If we don't make it to the playoffs he's gone and 95% of the fan base will be happy.

The problem Jerry has is first of all the season is not over and then you have the problems of evaluating the team. The offense looks ok. So does STs. The problem is the defense. You can't evaluate it due to all the injuries; not if you're fair and reasonable.

That leaves the real problems. One is talent, depth and the ability to stay out of the trainers room. That's purely a player's question.

Then you have the problem of deciding if you want to run Kiffin's scheme with the personnel on board now and in the near future. IMO if you're just running the Tampa 2 then the answer is a no-brainer NO. If Kiffin wants to run variants of it like what Seattle does then it's a resounding YES. Do we have the personnel to run that? Not many (read no one) out here knows the answer to that because its too complicated for almost any fan to either understand the defenses and/or realize if we have a decent change of running them with these players.

This isn't a decision of well Garrett hasn't won enough in three years so lets go find a savior. The problem is much more complicated.

And if you decide to change coaches then you have to retrain everyone including Romo to new systems and nomenclature. Romo has gone from a Perkins scheme under Parcells/Carthon to a Parcells/Payton one, to a multiple variant of the Coryell system. And on top of that they changed the play calling nomenclature this year to a variant of the Erhart I think. That's just the offense. Then you have the defense and likely the STs. It takes time for people to not only learn but for the coaches to realize this player can or can't play well in this scheme. Some people excel in one scheme and not so much in another.

That's just the simple version.

If you want to vent about not winning then at least understand the problems of moving on and the loss of continuity. Look around at the most successful defenses and offenses over time and see what stability does.

Finally try to understand no matter how good a coach(es) you are you MUST have players who can well......play at a high level. So if you're going to complain a lot then point your finger at the person(s) in charge of talent acquisition which includes cap management.

 

[khiladi]

Whats dumb is trying to act like an offense that only scored 17 points and lost was moving the ball like they wanted to cause I'm pretty sure they would liked to have scored more than 3 points after the half. I don't give a rat furry but what the Jets did. I guess since they scored the same points as the Broncos they must be as good as the Broncos. But The Cowboys did score more than 9 of the other teams the Raiders played so theres 9 more teams the Cowboys can beat. Using your Jets logic.

No what's dumb is you can't maintain coherency in your posts... Your the one that brought up us 'stopping' the 4th ranked rushing attack of Oakland as evidence of our power-house team.. I never argued anything about us not beating Oakland.

 

[OhSnap]

No what's dumb is you can't maintain coherency in your posts... Your the one that brought up us 'stopping' the 4th ranked rushing attack of Oakland as evidence of our power-house team.. I never argued anything about us not beating Oakland.

Whatever dude. How bout you don't try to convince me everything the Cowboys do is bad or meaningless and I won't try to convince you anything they've done is good. You have a merry Christmas and don't forget to stuff your stocking.

 

[OhSnap]

It was a big jump for Jimmy Johnson and that worked out pretty well. It was a big jump for Chip Kelly too and he is doing a good job of turning the Eagles around in one year.

Careful how quick you crown Chip and compare him to Jimmy. Only 2 coaches have ever came into the NFL with NO NFL experience and won a SB. Johnson and Switzer are their names. Right now I would bet on Shaw having more success in the long run than Chip Kelly. Not that I want him to coach the Cowboys but he does have a better pedigree.

 

[Coy]

They'll be happy for 1 year...before they are calling for the new coaches head.

The problem on this roster is talent. That's not on JG.

He isn't done with the roster, nor is he himself a complete product as a coach, but I like his philosophies. This is a young team.

You talk about 3.5 mediocre years...but do you remember the team he took over? It was old and underperforming. Go back and look at that offensive line. It was offensive. And we've had to dedicate two 1st rounders to just get it functional.

People talk about the desire for success over long periods of time...yet are happy to change the team's identity and philosophy every 2-3 years.

The view is myopic and you're blaming the easy targets and lashing out at the low hanging fruit. How Jerry Jones of you.

He took over a team that won a playoff game 10 months earlier, they had talent, the problem that year was coaching and the loss of Romo.

Back to my question? How long is long enough for you? When will he be done with the roster? 5, 6 or 7 years? because in the NFL, 3.5 years of mediocrity with players on offense like Romo, Witten, Dez, Murray, Smith, Frederick, Austin, T Williams and on Defense like Ware, Hatcher, Carr, Lee, Spencer, Claiborne etc. should be enough for a coach to get fired.

At some point he has to take accountability, that excuse gets old, the talent may not be the best but it´s far from the worst, you can find plenty of teams with less talent being in the playoffs in the past 3 or 4 years so that excuse simply doesn´t work for Garrett and I believe he would be the first to tell you that. Just imagine him going to Jerry and saying “Mr Jones I´m doing quite a job but unfortunately we do not have enough talent but give me a couple of more years and we will make the playoffs”, he would get kicked out of the office before he finishes the sentence. Like on every job, it should be about results, he simply hasn´t performed as expected.

Saying that, I am a true fan and there´s nothing that I would like more than to eat crow on the matter, I want to make the playoffs and if we do then Garrett gets another shot to prove himself but if he doesn´t he should be thinking of getting an OC job with the Jaguars or even maybe with the UCLA Bruins or something.

 

[Coy]

The problem Jerry has is first of all the season is not over and then you have the problems of evaluating the team. The offense looks ok. So does STs. The problem is the defense. You can't evaluate it due to all the injuries; not if you're fair and reasonable.

That leaves the real problems. One is talent, depth and the ability to stay out of the trainers room. That's purely a player's question.

Then you have the problem of deciding if you want to run Kiffin's scheme with the personnel on board now and in the near future. IMO if you're just running the Tampa 2 then the answer is a no-brainer NO. If Kiffin wants to run variants of it like what Seattle does then it's a resounding YES. Do we have the personnel to run that? Not many (read no one) out here knows the answer to that because its too complicated for almost any fan to either understand the defenses and/or realize if we have a decent change of running them with these players.

This isn't a decision of well Garrett hasn't won enough in three years so lets go find a savior. The problem is much more complicated.

And if you decide to change coaches then you have to retrain everyone including Romo to new systems and nomenclature. Romo has gone from a Perkins scheme under Parcells/Carthon to a Parcells/Payton one, to a multiple variant of the Coryell system. And on top of that they changed the play calling nomenclature this year to a variant of the Erhart I think. That's just the offense. Then you have the defense and likely the STs. It takes time for people to not only learn but for the coaches to realize this player can or can't play well in this scheme. Some people excel in one scheme and not so much in another.

That's just the simple version.

If you want to vent about not winning then at least understand the problems of moving on and the loss of continuity. Look around at the most successful defenses and offenses over time and see what stability does.

Finally try to understand no matter how good a coach(es) you are you MUST have players who can well......play at a high level. So if you're going to complain a lot then point your finger at the person(s) in charge of talent acquisition which includes cap management.

Good post jobberone.


I do understand that it´s not that simple, "change HC and all will be perfect" of course not but I believe that if you bring a top notch HC things will change around here (we´ve seen it in other franchises across the NFL), because I just don’t get the talent or injury excuses, this is the NFL and they are part of it, every team goes through them. Take a look at the playoff teams in the last 3 o 4 years and you´ll find some that look like a lot less talented than the Cowboys.

As far as talent acquisition, everybody is involved, from Jerry to Garrett, he´s been on the franchise for 8 years now so he has to have share of the blame if we don´t have the necessary players to win.

 

[jobberone]

Good post jobberone.


I do understand that it´s not that simple, "change HC and all will be perfect" of course not but I believe that if you bring a top notch HC things will change around here (we´ve seen it in other franchises across the NFL), because I just don’t get the talent or injury excuses, this is the NFL and they are part of it, every team goes through them. Take a look at the playoff teams in the last 3 o 4 years and you´ll find some that look like a lot less talented than the Cowboys.

As far as talent acquisition, everybody is involved, from Jerry to Garrett, he´s been on the franchise for 8 years now so he has to have share of the blame if we don´t have the necessary players to win.

Nice civil thoughtful response. I don't have the answers but this has got to be eating Jerry up. I'm trying to look at the problem from a CEOs perspective and not a fan. Without the injuries this is a no-brainer. you fire Garrett and Kiffin and bring in a HC who can pick his guys and fire anyone he doesn't want. I don't know how to evaluate the defense with this many injuries two years in a row esp this year. I can tell you I had reservations about the Tampa 2. In fairness Kiffin said he was going to run a hybrid and do some things like Seattle does which I really like(d). No one plays a base defense that much anymore anyway. And we've not been able to run much of anything other than make a tackle and try to cover like with taught you in TC. Church, Scandrick and Carr know how to play but the defense is much more than the sum of its parts.

Frankly it takes a little imagination to see how they've managed to win 7 games so far and be in a playoff race.

 

[Coy]

Nice civil thoughtful response. I don't have the answers but this has got to be eating Jerry up. I'm trying to look at the problem from a CEOs perspective and not a fan. Without the injuries this is a no-brainer. you fire Garrett and Kiffin and bring in a HC who can pick his guys and fire anyone he doesn't want. I don't know how to evaluate the defense with this many injuries two years in a row esp this year. I can tell you I had reservations about the Tampa 2. In fairness Kiffin said he was going to run a hybrid and do some things like Seattle does which I really like(d). No one plays a base defense that much anymore anyway. And we've not been able to run much of anything other than make a tackle and try to cover like with taught you in TC. Church, Scandrick and Carr know how to play but the defense is much more than the sum of its parts.

Frankly it takes a little imagination to see how they've managed to win 7 games so far and be in a playoff race.

Thanks for your response and i understand your thoughts, It's just that I not only see the problem on defense but on offense as well, I don't know if it's game planning, the players, the coaches or what but something is missing and as the CEO you must start with the head and in this case it's the HC because Jerry ain't going anywhere. A .500 record and no playoffs for 4 years should not be tolerated just like a CEO would not let his General Manager not bring in the expected results for 4 straight years.
Saying that, if we do make the playoffs this year I wouldn't mind Garrett staying for another year.

 

[dallasfan4lizife]

I've never been a big Garrett supporter. I think there is better coaches out there. But the fact is, this team doesn't have as much talent as people thought. His draft picks seem decent this far...if I was Jerry, the only coach that would be out the door is kiffin.

 

[TellerMorrow34]

I'd like for Broadus to be right on this but I just don't see it. I just don't see Jerry firing him.