Could Garrett have been a good coach without Jerry?

[Idgit]

Good enough to compete for the division, you say.

And yet he has only won the division once in his entire time here. So if he's a championship caliber coach like you said above and then you just said he's had teams good enough to contend for the division, how come his great coaching has only gotten them over the hump once in 5 years in the division?

Also note, that when you defend him you always talk about off the field things.......... how he relates to players well, how the talent seems to be getting better with his help in player acquisitions, etc. And yet you rarely, if ever, talk about his on the field stuff. Like how he had a great plan this week, or that was a really great call in a tough spot that time. You keep saying that's really not the HC's responsibility but it absolutely is. Coaches get fired all the time FOR WHAT HAPPENS ON THE FIELD. How many coaches do you know that have kept their jobs while sucking on the field yet apparently being a big favorite of the players? Not many. Maybe a year or two they hang on but eventually if you keep spitting out non-playoff seasons, you are going to get fired, no matter how popular you are with the players. It's easy to say the fans don't know squat but your logic would indicate that few coaches should get fired just as long as the players like them, the staff likes them and the team acts respectfully on and off the field.

Basically what you describe is a GM. Not a HC. And maybe that's something the Jones' should consider. Finding a real head coach who can X and O and build game plans and build a competent staff to actually win games on the field and let Garrett be the GM/Head of Football Operations and do what he seems to do best........... find players, improve the talent level of the team, etc.

You've built a defense for Garrett that ignores his #1 job function - win games, make the playoffs, win playoff games.

He's done that once in 5 years. So for a big chunk of his job responsibility, he's hitting .200............ that's not good enough no matter how cool his players think he is.

A 40 hour a week Joe puts in 2000 hours/year. An NFL coach probably doubles that. Of those 4000 hours, what, 60 of them are spent in games? And of those 60, the staff makes decisions collectively, with the players, as they're all connected via headsets. Leaving ~3940 hours for the 'off the field things.' Yes, I think those hours outweigh what you see on Sundays when the cameras are on.

If you don't already, you might want to sit in on the gameday chats we've got going on. If you want to hear me commenting on which plays I think are good calls and which are bad, anyway. Not that it matters for your point all that much because Garrett doesn't call the plays for either offense or defense. But it does illustrate where the disconnect probably comes in. If you think what I've described are the duties of a GM, it's not a wonder that you don't value Garrett more.

As far as what keeps a coach employed, you changed around what I said. I never mentioned 'acts respectfully on and off the field.' That's not all that important (though it's nice to see). It's a rare coach that has the respect and approval of his staff, his players, and--here's the one you left off the list--team management--and gets fired. As far as wins and losses go, as I've said before, there's lots of reasons why teams lose NFL games. Otherwise, you don't see coaches like Sean Payton go 7-9, 7-9, 0-2 in subsequent years. But you do, because it's tough to win consistently in the league even with a good coach and a great QB if you don't also have a deep team or a defense.

 

[yimyammer]

he needs to be intimidating

I dont believe this is required and in the long run likely wears out its welcome and becomes anti productive

I think its far more important to be respected, which endures the long run and reaps benefits on and off the field

 

[Sydla]

A 40 hour a week Joe puts in 2000 hours/year. An NFL coach probably doubles that. Of those 4000 hours, what, 60 of them are spent in games? And of those 60, the staff makes decisions collectively, with the players, as they're all connected via headsets. Leaving ~3940 hours for the 'off the field things.' Yes, I think those hours outweigh what you see on Sundays when the cameras are on.

If you don't already, you might want to sit in on the gameday chats we've got going on. If you want to hear me commenting on which plays I think are good calls and which are bad, anyway. Not that it matters for your point all that much because Garrett doesn't call the plays for either offense or defense. But it does illustrate where the disconnect probably comes in. If you think what I've described are the duties of a GM, it's not a wonder that you don't value Garrett more.

As far as what keeps a coach employed, you changed around what I said. I never mentioned 'acts respectfully on and off the field.' That's not all that important (though it's nice to see). It's a rare coach that has the respect and approval of his staff, his players, and--here's the one you left off the list--team management--and gets fired. As far as wins and losses go, as I've said before, there's lots of reasons why teams lose NFL games. Otherwise, you don't see coaches like Sean Payton go 7-9, 7-9, 0-2 in subsequent years. But you do, because it's tough to win consistently in the league even with a good coach and a great QB if you don't also have a deep team or a defense.

Those 60 hours are the most important hours of a head coach's job. They ultimately determine whether the coach is a success or a failure because in those 60 hours, those are the only results that matter................. did you win or did you lose?

You've basically created this scenario/argument that boils down to this................ nothing that really goes on during a game can be blamed on Garrett because you think he does everything right off the field. And if he does happen to make a mistake during a game........... well it's completely outweighed by the fact he's a cool guy off the field and players and staff like him and respect him and he works hard.

There's no disconnect at all. It's the head coach's ultimate responsibility to win game. Yeah, he might not calls plays. But in the end, if the plays on the field are resulting in losses, it's his responsibility. You've created an argument that whatever goes wrong on the field is likely not Garrett's fault. It's someone else's................ Basically, if Garrett goes on for 5 more seasons and never makes the playoffs again, you'll still be able to argue it wasn't his fault.

At what point is he responsible for the product on the field?

 

[Idgit]

Those 60 hours are the most important hours of a head coach's job. They ultimately determine whether the coach is a success or a failure because in those 60 hours, those are the only results that matter................. did you win or did you lose?

You've basically created this scenario/argument that boils down to this................ nothing that really goes on during a game can be blamed on Garrett because you think he does everything right off the field. And if he does happen to make a mistake during a game........... well it's completely outweighed by the fact he's a cool guy off the field and players and staff like him and respect him and he works hard.

There's no disconnect at all. It's the head coach's ultimate responsibility to win game. Yeah, he might not calls plays. But in the end, if the plays on the field are resulting in losses, it's his responsibility. You've created an argument that whatever goes wrong on the field is likely not Garrett's fault. It's someone else's................ Basically, if Garrett goes on for 5 more seasons and never makes the playoffs again, you'll still be able to argue it wasn't his fault.

At what point is he responsible for the product on the field?

I never said what happens on game days is not important. Of course it's important. I said there's a lot more to being a HC than what people see on game days and that I weigh the other stuff more heavily. I also don't think our product on the field is anywhere near as bad as you're trying to suggest it is. His team's have won a lot of games, too. With a roster that's got limits.

At the end of the day, of course wins and losses factor into how you evaluate the jobs he's done. He's got to win more. But it's not the acid test for whether or not a guy is a good coach.

 

[Sydla]

I never said what happens on game days is not important. Of course it's important. I said there's a lot more to being a HC than what people see on game days and that I weigh the other stuff more heavily. I also don't think our product on the field is anywhere near as bad as you're trying to suggest it is. His team's have won a lot of games, too. With a roster that's got limits.

At the end of the day, of course wins and losses factor into how you evaluate the jobs he's done. He's got to win more. But it's not the acid test for whether or not a guy is a good coach.

You've littered your posts with strawman arguments. For one, I've never said that there aren't other aspects of a head coach's job that extends beyond the football field. What I have said is that the on field results are the most important factor though. All that other stuff is meaningless if the results don't show on the field. So the fact you think he works well with others and has helped increase the talent and staff members love working for him is great but will all be meaningless if he can't win games, get into the playoffs, win playoff games. Wins and losses is absolutely the acid test for whether a guy is a good coach or not. That's like saying your mechanic does this well and that well but when it comes time for you to pick up your car, you can't get it out of the parking lot without it breaking down again. In the end, wins and losses and playoff appearances are what defines a good coach versus an average one or even a bad one (Garrett is not a bad one).

Two, I've never said he's a terrible coach or the team is terrible. They are what they are. Likely a .500 team led by a .500 coach. You said above he's had teams good enough to win a bad NFCE but yet he's done it once in 5 years. So you kind of are undercutting your own argument.

So at what point can we start to hold him responsible for the on the field results?

 

[Idgit]

You've littered your posts with strawman arguments. For one, I've never said that there aren't other aspects of a head coach's job that extends beyond the football field. What I have said is that the on field results are the most important factor though. All that other stuff is meaningless if the results don't show on the field. So the fact you think he works well with others and has helped increase the talent and staff members love working for him is great but will all be meaningless if he can't win games, get into the playoffs, win playoff games. Wins and losses is absolutely the acid test for whether a guy is a good coach or not. That's like saying your mechanic does this well and that well but when it comes time for you to pick up your car, you can't get it out of the parking lot without it breaking down again. In the end, wins and losses and playoff appearances are what defines a good coach versus an average one or even a bad one (Garrett is not a bad one).

Two, I've never said he's a terrible coach or the team is terrible. They are what they are. Likely a .500 team led by a .500 coach. You said above he's had teams good enough to win a bad NFCE but yet he's done it once in 5 years. So you kind of are undercutting your own argument.

So at what point can we start to hold him responsible for the on the field results?

I don't think I've suggested you think off the field aspects of a coach's job don't exist, but let me know where you think I did and I'll clarify if you think there's a strawman somewhere. What I've said is that a lot of fans (yourself included) place too much value on what they think a HC does on game days.

I've also pretty carefully said that wins and losses matter, and that game days matter. At the same time, I've pointed out that there are factors beyond what any coach does or says that result in wins and losses, too. To use your mechanic analogy, you can't get too mad at a mechanic if he's trying to repair your car with missing or substandard parts. Or tying to do the work under really difficult circumstances because the guy who owns the garage keeps walking in and moving things around, telling him where to connect the hoses while loudly conducting an auto show while the mechanic is trying to work. When you look at the actual circumstances, perhaps hiring a guy who can get the car on the road and more or less heading in the right direction isn't the 'gaffe' you suggested after all. Maybe the problem is somewhere else.

And I haven't undercut my own arguments at all here. I said the 8-8 were teams capable of competing in the division, which they did. The 2014-2016 teams have better personnel than the earlier teams, and are teams that ought to be competing in the playoffs, by and large.

 

[Sydla]

How can you place "too much value" on what happens on actual game days and the effect the head coach, you know the guy responsible for everything, has on what happens on a game day?

 

[Idgit]

How can you place "too much value" on what happens on actual game days and the effect the head coach, you know the guy responsible for everything, has on what happens on a game day?

I've already addressed exactly that above here. We're kind of going in circles at this point. Let's agree to disagree on the topic since I think we both know where the other stands on this one.

 

[Sydla]

Obviously we won't agree on Garrett, but your take on this is fascinating to me. Because it goes beyond Garrett. The lack (or better yet, the limits) of responsibility you want to place on a head coach's head on game day fascinates me.

 

[Idgit]

Obviously we won't agree on Garrett, but your take on this is fascinating to me. Because it goes beyond Garrett. The lack (or better yet, the limits) of responsibility you want to place on a head coach's head on game day fascinates me.

Not sure why it's all that unusual. Both coaching and player acquisition play a role in building successful teams. The league is littered with good coaches who failed in one location only to succeed later with a better personnel partnership with the front office. I happen to think we've got a good coach with an organization that's had some challenges getting the right talent together. But then, I think getting the talent together is really the hard part. Either way, it has to happen with Jerry Jones involved.

I think it's more interesting that you *don't* see it that way, honestly. Because you're a bright dude, and you're takes are generally pretty reasonable.

 

[cowboyblue22]

personally I think garrett is a average coach at best but he has had lots of things that he has had to work his way through like a bad defense for several years now he hired a couple bad DC the defense is really a lot of what is hurting the dallas cowboys but jerry like the glits and glitter of offense makes him more money and jerry is one of garrets battles like the rest of the front office bad drafting decisions on defense hasn't helped but I think eventually he ahs to learn to win consistently or he will not be here because we know in dallas the GM is not going to be fired by the owner eventually wins and losses do matter your record counts and he may be like some other coaches that move on and be better somewhere else time is going to tell in a year or two. I could care less if the team wins its cool with me if he is the coach I just want to see them win if he cant then try to find someone that will try

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

how about could Jerry have been a good GM w/o Garrett? I am much more down on Garrett as a coach than Jerry as a GM but will have contempt for both if we don't make the playoffs and Garrett's still here next season.

 

[Sydla]

Not sure why it's all that unusual. Both coaching and player acquisition play a role in building successful teams. The league is littered with good coaches who failed in one location only to succeed later with a better personnel partnership with the front office. I happen to think we've got a good coach with an organization that's had some challenges getting the right talent together. But then, I think getting the talent together is really the hard part. Either way, it has to happen with Jerry Jones involved.

I think it's more interesting that you *don't* see it that way, honestly. Because you're a bright dude, and you're takes are generally pretty reasonable.

I am not sure why that would be interesting. I come from the approach that what happens on Sundays is largely the responsibility of the head coach. If a coordinator is calling a crap game, it's the head coach's job to go down there and tell him to do something different. If a player is continually screwing up and the coordinator doesn't take the player out, it's ultimately the head coach's responsibility to grab the coordinator and wonder what's going through his head. If the game plan was flawed from the beginning, it's the head coach's responsibility because he sat in on meetings, etc. If it was flawed, he should have seen it and had it changed. If the team continues to make mistakes week after week, again, that falls on the head coach.

That's the perspective I come from. I have never denied that I think Jones makes some peculiar personnel decisions. But I also believe that when you watch this team, they never show any signs of actually being well coached. So while they may have talent shortcomings, there's nothing that goes on during a game that makes you think this team is well prepared and well coached.

Using your logic, no head coach from an organization that lacks some talent should ever be fired because ultimately, it's not his fault. He was just hamstrung by a poor front office. So a guy like Jay Gruden probably should never be fired given the dysfunction that is Dan Snyder.

As it pertains to the Cowboys, the one fly in the wheel is the fact that there isn't a single head coach that came here and then went on to great success after getting out from under the scourge of Jerry Jones. I think you'd have a stronger case for your Garrett support if Gailey and/or Campo and/or Phillips went on to become successful head coaches after leaving Dallas.

 

[Nightman]

I am not sure why that would be interesting. I come from the approach that what happens on Sundays is largely the responsibility of the head coach. If a coordinator is calling a crap game, it's the head coach's job to go down there and tell him to do something different. If a player is continually screwing up and the coordinator doesn't take the player out, it's ultimately the head coach's responsibility to grab the coordinator and wonder what's going through his head. If the game plan was flawed from the beginning, it's the head coach's responsibility because he sat in on meetings, etc. If it was flawed, he should have seen it and had it changed. If the team continues to make mistakes week after week, again, that falls on the head coach.

That's the perspective I come from. I have never denied that I think Jones makes some peculiar personnel decisions. But I also believe that when you watch this team, they never show any signs of actually being well coached. So while they may have talent shortcomings, there's nothing that goes on during a game that makes you think this team is well prepared and well coached.

Using your logic, no head coach from an organization that lacks some talent should ever be fired because ultimately, it's not his fault. He was just hamstrung by a poor front office. So a guy like Jay Gruden probably should never be fired given the dysfunction that is Dan Snyder.

As it pertains to the Cowboys, the one fly in the wheel is the fact that there isn't a single head coach that came here and then went on to great success after getting out from under the scourge of Jerry Jones. I think you'd have a stronger case for your Garrett support if Gailey and/or Campo and/or Phillips went on to become successful head coaches after leaving Dallas.

Garrett can't get fired because the GM's job isn't in jeopardy and the owner loves Garrett for non-football reasons....no other organization would put up with Garrett's results for this long

 

[haleyrules]

Jason Garrett would not be a HC in the NFL without Jerry Jones. Jones wanted him and promoted him and keeps him employed. Without Jerry there is no Jason. No other club would, at this point, hire Garrett. He is, more or less, a laughing stock around tne league. My friends never stop tormenting me about the Cowboy FO and coaching staff.

 

[Idgit]

Using your logic, no head coach from an organization that lacks some talent should ever be fired because ultimately, it's not his fault. He was just hamstrung by a poor front office. So a guy like Jay Gruden probably should never be fired given the dysfunction that is Dan Snyder...

That's not my logic. Those coaches you're describing don't have the respect of the players, staff, and the support of team management. Plus they lose. There are a lot of coaches who fall into this category, and they get fired all the time.

 

[cml750]

But we did have Romo, so that argument doesn't matter. It also doesn't follow because if we didn't have Romo, we'd have had to have somebody else, or we'd have spent those Romo dollars on other players. You can't just remove the elite players from any coach's roster and suggest the issue is coaching. That doesn't make sense. And last year we didn't just lose Tony Romo. I'm not sure why that's become the narrative because it's pretty patently not true.

Campo never had the coaching reputation Jason Garrett has, from players, coaches, media, or team management.

As for Garrett being a pro coach if not in Dallas, I'm not sure if you're referring to a HC gig or any pro coaching gig. If the latter, he was a pro coach in MIA before he came to Dallas. If the latter, he was offered HC gigs before he took the Cowboys job (and got offers from both BAL and ATL). If you're suggesting he wouldn't get another HC gig if fired here, I guess we'll see. My own guess is that he'd have an OC gig immediately if he wanted it, and would be a HC again within 3 seasons (if not immediately) no matter how things play out. Though I don't think we're going to see that happen anytime soon, because I think he's got a decent team here in Dallas and an organization that's going to back him up.

Meh, we have had this argument too many times. I know how you feel and you know how I feel about Garrett. Only time will tell who is right but if 2014 and 2015 taught us anything, we both know this will not be answered in one season. .

 

[cml750]

But we did have Romo, so that argument doesn't matter. It also doesn't follow because if we didn't have Romo, we'd have had to have somebody else, or we'd have spent those Romo dollars on other players. You can't just remove the elite players from any coach's roster and suggest the issue is coaching. That doesn't make sense. And last year we didn't just lose Tony Romo. I'm not sure why that's become the narrative because it's pretty patently not true.

Campo never had the coaching reputation Jason Garrett has, from players, coaches, media, or team management.

As for Garrett being a pro coach if not in Dallas, I'm not sure if you're referring to a HC gig or any pro coaching gig. If the latter, he was a pro coach in MIA before he came to Dallas. If the latter, he was offered HC gigs before he took the Cowboys job (and got offers from both BAL and ATL). If you're suggesting he wouldn't get another HC gig if fired here, I guess we'll see. My own guess is that he'd have an OC gig immediately if he wanted it, and would be a HC again within 3 seasons (if not immediately) no matter how things play out. Though I don't think we're going to see that happen anytime soon, because I think he's got a decent team here in Dallas and an organization that's going to back him up.

I will add that we are both Cowboy fans which is the tie that binds. Also, as always, I admire your dedication to this site as I see your name amongst the mods online almost anytime day and night. Personally, I hope you are right about Garrett because I don't see Jerry admitting he was wrong and firing him anytime soon. I only want the team to succeed with or without Garrett. I just happen to think we would be better without him.

 

[haleyrules]

Idgit is the man!!

 

[Idgit]

Idgit is the man!!

This is true. A lot of people don't realize I'm the man, so I'm impressed that you picked up on it.