DMN: Blog: Ed Reed isn't a Jason Garrett fan

[theogt]

Garrett is paid $3 million a year specifically because he's supposedly this Ivy League genius that's smarter than everyone else, certainly not because of his track record of being a Lombardi/Parcells/Jimmy Johnson type of dominant personality, motivator and leader among men. If he's not the "smartest guy in the room" he really brings absolutely nothing to table ... other than Troy's approval. If we're going to run a simplistic, vanilla offense based on execution, we're better off with a drill sargeant alpha male who demands nothing less than perfection from his players at all times. Now we have the worst of both worlds ... the "cool, summer camp counselor" player's coach who can't out smart anyone. We call this species Rick Neuheisel Majorus

Good lord, dude. Tell us how you really feel. Spot on post, though.

 

[Hoofbite]

Good lord, dude. Tell us how you really feel. Spot on post, though.

Pretty much dead on.

 

[jrumann59]

Does anyone actually believe that? It sure sounds cool, though, doesn't it?

Marty Schottenheimer said the same thing about playing the cowboys, he knew what was coming but because it was executed so well you couldn't stop it.

 

[Rack]

Ed Reed isn't a Jason Garrett fan

3:40 PM Wed, Jan 07, 2009 | Permalink | Yahoo! Buzz
Tim MacMahon

It's a good thing for Jason Garrett that Michael Irvin's radio show doesn't air in Denver. Ravens safety Ed Reed's comments made on ESPN 103.3 today definitely don't reflect well on the redhead.


From Matt Mosley's NFC East blog on ESPN.com:

"That was a real simple game plan that they attacked us with," said Reed of the Cowboys' offense. "I thought it would be more complicated, but it was a real simple game plan that they attacked us with. I mean we knew it. Looking at these coaches' openings and talking about a certain someone from Dallas, I'm like, 'Hold on now.'

"It's just Garrett, Garrett, Garrett. I knew the plays we were going against. Maybe that was the game plan for us. But when you watch it on tape, it's not as complicated as I thought it would be. I'm surprised people want to fire Wade Phillips down there and he's the one calling the defense -- and the defense is successful. The guy who's calling the offensive plays isn't getting the same turnaround. Maybe it's the players."
​

These comments echo those made by Ray Lewis, which were relayed by NFL Network analysts/redhead haters Deion Sanders and Marshall Faulk.


There is the chance that Lewis and Reed have an ax to grind with Garrett. After all, Garrett did turn down an offer to become the Ravens' head coach.


Then again, Tony Romo didn't seem too fond of that particular game plan, either.

Yet that "Simple" gameplan scored 24 points on you and if not for a couple of BONE HEADED decisions from the QB (not the OCoord) you'd have had zero ints that game.

 

[Rack]

Does anyone actually believe that? It sure sounds cool, though, doesn't it?

I believe teams knew when we were gonna run the lead draw with Emmitt.

Or an out route to Irvin.



Hell, the colts offense isn't complicated either.


If you've got the talent and put in the work, then you don't need a bunch of complicated plays to win a game.

 

[khiladi]

Everyone always talks about how in the 90s we only had 2, 3, 5 plays, but just executed them so well that no one could stop them. I think this is true to a point.

The thing that gets overlooked are the formations. Norv was a master of running the same play from multiple formations. This goes a long way to a defense's inability to determine what's coming.

We didn't do that this year. You saw a formation and it was easy to diagnose what was coming. Because when in a given formation, we did the same thing. In other words, one formation for one play, not multiple formations for one play.

Bingo... Plus we had effective play-action, which obviously entails the secondary is biting, meaning they don't know what is coming. He also established the run.

 

[khiladi]

Yet that "Simple" gameplan scored 24 points on you and if not for a couple of BONE HEADED decisions from the QB (not the OCoord) you'd have had zero ints that game.

And if it weren't for the bone-headed QB and his no-huddle, and ability to kepp plays alive with his feet, Garrett wouldn't have 14 of those 24 points..

Garrett is about good for one good drive a game...

 

[Cochese]

Step up to the plate Garrett defenders.

 

[Rack]

And if it weren't for the bone-headed QB and his no-huddle, and ability to kepp plays alive with his feet, Garrett wouldn't have 14 of those 24 points..

Garrett is about good for one good drive a game...

And Romo is about good for 2 boneheaded turnovers a game.

 

[RainMan]

Step up to the plate Garrett defenders.

I've admittedly been down on Garrett for a while, and consider Reed's comments nice ammunition, but the strong anti-Garrett sentiment coming out of Baltimore does reek a little of a team still being ticked that he stiffed them last year, doesn't it?

 

[The30YardSlant]

Simple doesnt have to be a bad thing. Norv's offense was very simplistic in terms of the number of plays but the other team could rarely stop it. It's more about execution than playcalling. Back then, we had receivers who ran good routes and a dominant O-Line that let Troy stand back there as long as he wanted to.

 

[Shinywalrus]

Some of this is a bit more subtle. It's not always about being "unexpected", but you have to strike a balance between finding plays that your personnel have the ability to execute perfectly but incorporate them in a way that, while the defense may suspect strongly that you will be running them at a given juncture, it cannot aggressively respond to counter them because of the evidence of plays from similar situations that could take advantage of that aggressiveness.

Historically Garrett has been "OK" about goading teams into these sorts of mistakes, and more so at the beginning of seasons and immediately after halftime (remember how dominant Dallas was in second halves in 2007? Don't tell me that our offense wasn't good at making adjustments). But this year the feints and maneuvers were just blunt instruments. That draw audible that Tony used so infuriatingly, the TO fake reverse nonsense even after it had been demonstrated that it wasn't a high upside play, etc.

Sometimes all it means is running the same off-tackle play 4 times effectively before you switch to a zone blocking scheme for a play to sucker the run blitz they send to counter. Our attempts at cuteness this year, instead, had all the gracefulness of a rusty sledgehammer.

But can we please dispense with the, "Jerry's keeping him cause him's an Ivy League edumacated graduwat, hur hur hur" nonsense? I've never heard that anywhere but on these boards, and now it's spread like wildfire, just like the juvenile "Tecmo" posts. Seriously, grow up.

 

[JohnnyHopkins]

If he stays, Garrett needs to scrap some pieces of this 1990's offense and build more to the strengths of his players. Witten is better than Novaceck so he has flourished, but TO is not Irvin. His strength is catching the ball in stride and running after the catch, not fighting bump and run coverage. That is simply never going to change. How about more slant passes in 2009?

Plus, where the heck is the naked boot-leg, which should be right up Romo's alley??? And can some-one slap Romo and remind him that the QB is allowed to run down the field????? How many times in the Raven's game could he have simply run for the first down instead of throwing those errant passes?

 

[SweetDC]

I've admittedly been down on Garrett for a while, and consider Reed's comments nice ammunition, but the strong anti-Garrett sentiment coming out of Baltimore does reek a little of a team still being ticked that he stiffed them last year, doesn't it?

The Ravens are in the playoffs in part because of Harbaugh. We are not in the playoffs in part because of Garrett. I highly doubt the Ravens are bemoaning Garrett's decision not to go there. Actually, they are probably thanking their lucky stars he said "no" and are laughing at us for paying Garrett an outrageous sum to keep him. I think I faintly heard them say "So long, suckers" as they waved goodbye after they whupped us and headed onward to the playoffs.

I can't think of a single reason why the Ravens would be hatin' on the Cowboys other than truly telling it like it is. Jealousy? Please.

 

[Cochese]

Simple doesnt have to be a bad thing. Norv's offense was very simplistic in terms of the number of plays but the other team could rarely stop it. It's more about execution than playcalling. Back then, we had receivers who ran good routes and a dominant O-Line that let Troy stand back there as long as he wanted to.

And 3 hall of fame players, but dont let that stifle mentions about 'execution'. The players really should be better at executing some of the Gingers ****** playcalls.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

of course many already knew this

I think

 

[joseephuss]

I always wonder if these types of comments would have come out had Dallas won the game. It is not as if the Ravens stopped every single play that Dallas ran. Choice was gouging them at times. Romo had guys open deep. He overthrew Austin and TO lost the ball in the lights on another play. Those two could have been big plays if not TDs. It is more about execution than play calling although play calling and design is important, too.

I do think Garrett has some things to learn. I didn't quite understand the rush to call him a genius or ready to take over as head coach. He is still new to coaching and coordinating. It was a rush to say he was ready and now it is a rush to say he won't ever be good.

 

[Shinywalrus]

I do think Garrett has some things to learn. I didn't quite understand the rush to call him a genius or ready to take over as head coach. He is still new to coaching and coordinating. It was a rush to say he was ready and now it is a rush to say he won't ever be good.

There are scant few members of these boards that agree with you, but for what it's worth, I think that's a pretty fair assessment.

Just to be safe, though, you may want to post a picture of "Tecmo Bowl" so that someone posts you the "Nail on the Head" emoticon. Alternatively, you can play a little game of ad-lib. Simply fill in a single noun after, "The Red-Headed..." when you refer to Garrett and you will gain instant credibility, so long as you don't actually make an argument.

It's like magic!

 

[Sasquatch]

I've been pretty critical with some of Garrett's playcalling--lack of three step drops, screens, rollouts, etc.--but I don't see how anyone can complain about the simplicity of the offense when our players are so patently dumb. I wide receivers and offensive linemen look confused enough as it is.

 

[Sasquatch]

I've been pretty critical of some of Garrett's play calling--lack of three step drops, screens, rollouts, etc.--but I don't see how anyone can complain about the simplicity of the offense when our players are so patently dumb. I wide receivers and offensive linemen look confused enough as it is.