Chip Kelly versus Jason Garrett

[blindzebra]

A team that also made the playoffs and won a game the year before under Wade. That 1-7 start had a lot to do with JG (remember the flare pass before the half against WAS?) just to name one of the gaffes that came to mind immediately. But that was what it was. I was excited about JG at the time. The following season JG had a franchise QB (top 10 @ least) and the best pass rusher in the NFL, to go along with an all pro TE. I'm not saying the talent was plentiful, but it was more than the rebuild jobs displayed in SF and SEA. No one rebuilds with a franchise QB and the top pass rusher in football; so the shtick about "rebuilding" while maintaining 8-8 becomes too far fetched. PHI/SEA/SF didn't have franchise QBs, and those coaches took their teams to the playoffs (SB). We are continuously told that JG just needs more time; but this standard has been outdone by Harbaugh, Carrol, Kelly, Arians ,etc.

The D was terrible last season, injuries before that, before that the OL, etc. Now in year 4 of the regime, a new OC has been brought in and is running the offense completely different than JG had during his tenure as HC/OC and has greatly contributed to the 7-3 start by mainly shortening the game with Murray. We are supposed to have faith that JG had a plan for this direction; though he never displayed any of these behaviors before? He didn't orchestrate this OL (though grateful) because if he was serious about rebuilding the OL, he wouldn't have attempted it over a four year span using only first round picks. The narrative is being written after the fact and the "aren't you glad we stuck with him" mantra being pushed is usually what this relates to. All that being said, I have acknowledged that if JG wins a playoff game he is due an extension. I still feel JG is painfully bland in his vision/scheme, and his influence wouldn't be lost on this team.

Harbaugh did not rebuild SF..lol A big chunk of that SB team was there when he got the job. e did not change their identity either, he just plugged in a running QB.

 

[blindzebra]

I'm obviously a big fan of Garretts, so we're in perfect agreement there.

I was watching to see if the Eagles back-slid this year, because I agree that it looked like a distinct possibility. I especially thought it was possible that Foles would return to earth, which he obviously did. But they keep winning. It's been 26 games now, and I'm not sure you can call it a fad. Chip Kelly does a lot of novel and innovative things to gain small advantages wherever he can. And he's also new to the league and still sorting out where those advantages can be found. He also doesn't really have his QB in place yet. We'll see what happens over time, but I think it's looking more likely that he'll get better as he figures the league out and not worse as we figure him out. As I said, though, I do like where Dallas is relative to the rest of the NFCE. A lot. Assuming, of course, we're able to sort out a long term solution at the QB position.

I'd call it luck.

They lose to Indy by 2 scores without the refs.

They got dominated by the Skins but got 17 points in gifts.

They got gift points to barely beat the Rams too.

They could very easily be 4-6 right now.

 

[BigStar]

Harbaugh did not rebuild SF..lol A big chunk of that SB team was there when he got the job. e did not change their identity either, he just plugged in a running QB.

A lot of the drafted talent was there (yes) but Singletary didn't get them into the playoffs and geared towards consecutive winning seasons, etc. I don't love their offensive makeup in all honesty, but like that he seemed to get more out of that team than was there.

 

[visionary]

This is actually a pretty dang good post, visionary. Supported by evidence and everything, and a far cry from your typical baseless negative reactions. So let me clarify my position here and give you the response you deserve. Remember, your own post which I responded to was "the GM had to remove his influence from offensive planning and playcalling for the team to be successful." So the issue is not just play calling. It's any involvement in the offense.

--One, I should say in all honesty that I hadn't seen or didn't remember this 'quote' from Clarence Hill. It's coming from this tweet, which was a paraphrasing of Jerry's actual quotes, and the 'Garrett will have no say on offense' from the tweet is what your sites like 'sportsmole.co.uk' picked up and ran with. But unless I'm missing more of Jerry's quotes, he's not saying at all that Jason won't have any say on offense. Jerry's saying Jason's involvement on offense will not be while the meal is being prepared (i.e., in play calling during the games), but afterward, (tasting it outside the room), i.e., his involvement will come in before and after the game day play calling.

Now, personally, I still suspect that there's a lot more collaboration that goes into each play and each series that involves the entire offensive staff, including Jason Garrett, but I'll freely admit that that's not what Jerry's saying here and that I don't really have anything to support my own interpretation directly.

--Two, on the issue of offensive planning, though, your own quotes make it pretty clear that Garrett's at least somewhat involved in the offensive planning, there are also many direct quotes like these:

From Jerry in October, re: Jason, emphasizing Jason's involvement in coaching his offensive staff:



Or from Jason, back in May, re: his communication with his own offensive staff:



And there's this, from Stephen Jones, re: Jason's involvement in the offensive game plan:



Or this one, from November, again from Stephen Jones:



So, let's put aside the term 'categorical' here for a minute (though I think it's still pretty obvious that you were categorically wrong because you overstated your case badly for what was supposed to be a dramatic effect). Can you reconcile your contention that Jerry 'removed Jason's influence from offensive planning and play calling' with the direct quotes from Jerry, Stephen, and Jason, above, that say otherwise? Based on a tweet from Clarence Hill paraphrasing in 140 characters what Jerry actually said re: the change in the play calling in Dallas for this season?

I don't think you can. But, as long as you're actually providing evidence to support your contentions instead of just dropping the drive-by negative opinions, I think it's a debate worth having.

Unfortunately this post is as devoid of substance as your other posts

Of course the HC will have 'some ' input but the evidence i posted is VERY damning that the input is negligible and not substantive and that Garrett's input has been specifically removed from the offense.

The fact that you ignore it and post unrelated stuff and try to move the goalposts by "clarifying your position" and pretend like you responded is unfortunately your usual schtick and not surprising in the least

You don't have the self confidence to admit you made up stuff when you were saying that you could "categorically" refute what I had said. Everyone who reads our exchange can clearly see this because the reality is that you made it up.

 

[Red Dragon]

This thread probably has more posts than the total yards we allowed in Philly

........And with this post, Shady McCoy picks up a first down.

 

[DOUBLE WING]

I'd call it luck.

They lose to Indy by 2 scores without the refs.

They got dominated by the Skins but got 17 points in gifts.

They got gift points to barely beat the Rams too.

They could very easily be 4-6 right now.

Right, and we could have easily lost to Seattle/Houston/St. Louis this year and been 4-6 as well.

NFL games are rarely blowouts. Most teams have multiple games every year that are decided by one or two plays, or by a few referee calls.

 

[Red Dragon]

I'd call it luck.

They lose to Indy by 2 scores without the refs.

They got dominated by the Skins but got 17 points in gifts.

They got gift points to barely beat the Rams too.

They could very easily be 4-6 right now.

So could the Cowboys. Almost every team lucks into a few wins.

 

[Idgit]

Unfortunately this post is as devoid of substance as your other posts

Of course the HC will have 'some ' input but the evidence i posted is VERY damning that the input is negligible and not substantive and that Garrett's input has been specifically removed from the offense.

The fact that you ignore it and post unrelated stuff and try to move the goalposts by "clarifying your position" and pretend like you responded is unfortunately your usual schtick and not surprising in the least

You don't have the self confidence to admit you made up stuff when you were saying that you could "categorically" refute what I had said. Everyone who reads our exchange can clearly see this because the reality is that you made it up.

This is what I get for treating one of your arguments seriously.

The evidence you posted was a 140 character paraphrase from a single Jerry interview that only addressed 1/2 of your criticism. You overreached in your argument again because you can't help yourself. This time you actually were able to back up part of what you were trying to say, and I give you full credit for that.

In that specific regard, you were right that Jerry said what he said about play calling, and I did not remember that that interview existed. But your fantasy involved more than just play calling. We can have a discussion about either half of that debate if you care to, but it really does have to be without the personal jabs.

Failing that--and your reply here makes it really clear that we're failing that--I'm very comfortable letting our exchange stand on it's own and people can make up their own minds who's making stuff up.

I'll just sit here enjoying 7-3 at the bye with a six game season in front of us. If you want to pretend that that's happening without Jason Garrett's direct and regular involvement in planning for the offense, then that's on you.

 

[Idgit]

So could the Cowboys. Almost every team lucks into a few wins.

Yeah. In order to win, you have to do enough right to be in position to luck into a win. Do it often enough, and it's not luck. Or it is luck, and it's one of those things where the smarter you are and the harder you work, the luckier you get.

 

[blindzebra]

So could the Cowboys. Almost every team lucks into a few wins.

Name a game the refs gave us?

We are the team that has been giving up defensive and ST scores not getting them.

They have won games because of good luck.

We have won games in spite of bad luck.

You can't coach good luck, but overcoming bad luck is about coaching.

 

[Red Dragon]

Name a game the refs gave us?

Luck doesn't necessarily mean the refs giving you a win.

The 3rd-and-22 conversion in Seattle was pretty lucky.

 

[Doomsday101]

Luck doesn't necessarily mean the refs giving you a win.

The 3rd-and-22 conversion in Seattle was pretty lucky.

no that was very well executed.

 

[Red Dragon]

no that was very well executed.

But there you have it - other team's big plays are "lucky," the Cowboy's big plays are "well executed."

 

[Doomsday101]

But there you have it - other team's big plays are "lucky," the Cowboy's big plays are "well executed."

No not at all, I for one am not big on luck, I think good teams tend to make their own good luck. My only comment was in regards to the 3rd and 22. Romo directed Williams and put the ball on the money and Williams made the grab to me that is great execution.

 

[5Stars]

No not at all, I for one am not big on luck, I think good teams tend to make their own good luck. My only comment was in regards to the 3rd and 22. Romo directed Williams and put the ball on the money and Williams made the grab to me that is great execution.

Romo did the same with Jessie Holley in the 49're game a few seasons ago.

 

[erod]

A team that also made the playoffs and won a game the year before under Wade. That 1-7 start had a lot to do with JG (remember the flare pass before the half against WAS?) just to name one of the gaffes that came to mind immediately. But that was what it was. I was excited about JG at the time. The following season JG had a franchise QB (top 10 @ least) and the best pass rusher in the NFL, to go along with an all pro TE. I'm not saying the talent was plentiful, but it was more than the rebuild jobs displayed in SF and SEA. No one rebuilds with a franchise QB and the top pass rusher in football; so the shtick about "rebuilding" while maintaining 8-8 becomes too far fetched. PHI/SEA/SF didn't have franchise QBs, and those coaches took their teams to the playoffs (SB). We are continuously told that JG just needs more time; but this standard has been outdone by Harbaugh, Carrol, Kelly, Arians ,etc.

The D was terrible last season, injuries before that, before that the OL, etc. Now in year 4 of the regime, a new OC has been brought in and is running the offense completely different than JG had during his tenure as HC/OC and has greatly contributed to the 7-3 start by mainly shortening the game with Murray. We are supposed to have faith that JG had a plan for this direction; though he never displayed any of these behaviors before? He didn't orchestrate this OL (though grateful) because if he was serious about rebuilding the OL, he wouldn't have attempted it over a four year span using only first round picks. The narrative is being written after the fact and the "aren't you glad we stuck with him" mantra being pushed is usually what this relates to. All that being said, I have acknowledged that if JG wins a playoff game he is due an extension. I still feel JG is painfully bland in his vision/scheme, and his influence wouldn't be lost on this team.

Garrett was strapped with a bucket full of horribly long-term contracts on declining or former players, a complete neglect on the offensive and defensive lines, and an owner drunkenly obsessed with throwing money at 190-pound players.

The team had no identity. It had no ability to be balanced because of a mismanaged offensive line a defense that couldn't hold a lead to save its life. (The defense is still greatly in need of upgrade).

One more offseason, and Jerry's roster sins will be vanquished. God willing.

 

[blindzebra]

Garrett was strapped with a bucket full of horribly long-term contracts on declining or former players, a complete neglect on the offensive and defensive lines, and an owner drunkenly obsessed with throwing money at 190-pound players.

The team had no identity. It had no ability to be balanced because of a mismanaged offensive line a defense that couldn't hold a lead to save its life. (The defense is still greatly in need of upgrade).

One more offseason, and Jerry's roster sins will be vanquished. God willing.

The thing that goes unnoticed by some is that Jerry refused to allow a rebuild in a normal sense. Had he allowed a one season blow up situation, where all the overpriced, always injured, locker room cancers were gone in one shot, the turn around would have been a lot quicker.

The fact that Garrett has redone the roster, culture and identity of this team while having them one game from the playoffs during two injury riddled years is an amazing job of coaching.

 

[erod]

The thing that goes unnoticed by some is that Jerry refused to allow a rebuild in a normal sense. Had he allowed a one season blow up situation, where all the overpriced, always injured, locker room cancers were gone in one shot, the turn around would have been a lot quicker.

The fact that Garrett has redone the roster, culture and identity of this team while having them one game from the playoffs during two injury riddled years is an amazing job of coaching.

Yep, Jerry relinquished control slowly and reluctantly. He basically has parsed the GM role to Will McClay, Garrett, and his son at this point.

With Garrett here, Jerry was able to admit he was wrong without admitting he was wrong. That's why I like Garrett so much, because I can't see another guy that could have brought us to this point. His close friendship with Stephen, Romo, and the Jones family made this possible.

Can you imagine Jerry with another coach in here? He'd be back to his old ways in a heart beat.

 

[scooper]

I'd call it luck.

They lose to Indy by 2 scores without the refs.

They got dominated by the Skins but got 17 points in gifts.

They got gift points to barely beat the Rams too.

They could very easily be 4-6 right now.

The eagles head coach accomplished in one year what Our head coach hasn't been able to in over three years, despite not having a franchise quarterback and having to completely overhaul the roster.

Resumes and logic point to Chip Kelly being a better and more successful head coach.

Deep down you know this is true. As such, you're having to cite such unfounded things as refs and luck and hope others ignore your intellectual dishonesty just to give Garrett a leg to stand on.

Kind of sad, really.

Chip Kelly is the better coach. Year one, he takes a below average QB and roster and wins the division.

Garrett with a franchise qb hasn't been able to get the job done.

And I know, I know.... had Romo played in week 17 we probably would've won that game and the division. Sadly, had Jason Garrett not so horrendously mismanaged the Lions and Packers game, that week 17 game wouldn't have even mattered. Sucks when your head coach costs you games, doesn't it?

 

[scooper]

No not at all, I for one am not big on luck, I think good teams tend to make their own good luck. My only comment was in regards to the 3rd and 22. Romo directed Williams and put the ball on the money and Williams made the grab to me that is great execution.

If by Romo making two miraculous dodges of pass rushers and heaving the ball to a spot with two receivers in it, yeah that's great execution.

Just like the coaching staff drew it up.

Romo made a miracle happen there. More of his backyard offense. And Willliams made as good a catch as I've seen in years.

There was more "luck" in that play than good execution. Hence the free rushers.