DMN:Jason Garrett a long shot for Broncos' job?

[Iago33]

So when the team does well, it's on the individual players. When the team does poorly, it's on the coach. I see.

Funny how we didn't have a single one of those personally motivated players on offense, because I can't think of one who was better this year than last.


But you're saying that the "standard of discipline" Wade set was only bad for the offense. Somehow it was okay for the defense. I don't get that.

You're assuming that Wade upheld the same standard for both sides of the ball. I'll tell you what--I'm much tougher with my kids than I am with other people's.

I get your point, though, and we will never know exactly where the breakdowns are.

 

[DCBoysfan]

Good I want the Red head back in Dallas

 

[Bob Sacamano]

I think Garrett is one of those pompous coordinators, a Greg Williams, players will buy into the system, but not really play for you

 

[Rogerthat12]

Okay, this is what Galloway and JFE kept saying Thursday when Estridge kept asking why Garrett should be considered a great HC prospect when he didn't even handle his side of the ball this year.

So here's my question: Why didn't this affect the defense? Several guys on defense had their best years ever this year: Ware, Ratliff, Bradie James, even Keith Davis. Who on offense had their best year ever? Did a single player on the entire offense play better this year than last?

So why did this so-called lack of focus or whatever only affect Garrett's side of the ball?

I just think it's a cop-out. Garrett spends plenty of time with his guys. If he wanted to be tougher than Wade, he'd have plenty of opportunity to do so.

Excellent points!! Garrett is not yet a leader of men.

 

[Alexander]

Yes, I did. Wade controlled the defense and--possibly--could set and enforce his own standards of discipline. Garrett controlled the offense and couldn't set and enforce his own standards of discipline.

I agree completely.

The standard of discipline has to come from the head coach. And that is Phillips. Now it is debateable if he has that authority.

It really looks like this team really does not have a true head coach. For all practical purposes, I looks like we have two highly independent coordinators. Which would explain why one hand does not really know what the other is doing. Which could also breed resentment and a lack of "team" in the locker room.

Furthermore, you said that Garrett could be as tough as he wanted to on the offensive side of the ball. That is simply not true in an organizational setting--you can only be as tough as the superiors will reinforce.

Garrett was far from "tough". In fact, some have said he went out of his way to appease those like Owens who were complaining. So, either they are lying or.

 

[dadymat]

Excellent points!! Garrett is not yet a leader of men.

thats ridiculous....how do you know that?.............we havent seen him get his chance yet......i guess since you didnt agree with some of his play calling this season he isnt a good leader.......

I guess the OC is supposed to take blame for the Owner/GM, and Head Coach's lack of discipline ......his hands were tied ...he has no control over these things ....he was just asked to call plays......he is not responsible for practicing and studying routines

 

[MWILL]

Excellent points!! Garrett is not yet a leader of men.

I agree. There's no way you can make Garrett a HC here.

Defenses has caught up to Jason's scheme and he failed to adjust. And you Star QB and WR are questioning your play-calling.

Granted, Wade is not the best HC in the league. There's one thing I noticed and that was that his defense has gotten better.

Let's be real: Wade wasn't brought here to help the Offense that's Garretts job. IMO, This team had 2 head coaches Wade and Garrett. Garrett failed this year.

If Garrett comes back as OC that's cool ONLY if Jerry gives this man some MUCH NEEDED help.

 

[5Countem5]

Garrett was far from "tough". In fact, some have said he went out of his way to appease those like Owens who were complaining. So, either they are lying or.

And who are these "some" ???

 

[Alexander]

And who are these "some" ???

Google it.

 

[5Stars]

Google it.

Answer his question. You stated that "some"...you prove who.

 

[5Countem5]

Google it.

Give me a name, make googling easier.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

googlegegoogalee

 

[dadymat]

Answer his question. You stated that "some"...you prove who.

you cant show something to the blind...............

you cant tell something to the deaf..................

 

[5Stars]

you cant show something to the blind...............

you cant tell something to the deaf..................

What? I don't see or hear what you are trying to say?

 

[5Countem5]

you cant show something to the blind...............

you cant tell something to the deaf..................

So you are saying he can't produce any names, huh?

He could easily show who said it. Real easy. Has nothing to do with me believing it.

I was just wondering who thought Garrett was so intimidated that he threw the ball 16 more times this year than last. Wow!

 

[Alexander]

So you are saying he can't produce any names, huh?

He could easily show who said it. Real easy. Has nothing to do with me believing it.

I was just wondering who thought Garrett was so intimidated that he threw the ball 16 more times this year than last. Wow!

If you need me demonstrating that we threw the ball more to Terrell Owens when he started complaining then you are a little more dense than you demonstrate on here on a daily basis.

I can't recall where I read it. But "some" have suggested that was a flaw of his. I am positive I am not the only person who read it. I have seen it myself each game.

You are wasting your time if you think I am going to waste my time finding some source you can simply dismiss to bother trying to convince you. You have revealed yourself to be a joke on this forum in a relatively short period of time. If it were someone else asking, I might actually bother.

 

[5Countem5]

If you need me demonstrating that we threw the ball more to Terrell Owens when he started complaining then you are a little more dense than you demonstrate on here on a daily basis.

I can't recall where I read it. But "some" have suggested that was a flaw of his. I am positive I am not the only person who read it. I have seen it myself each game.

You are wasting your time if you think I am going to waste my time finding some source you can simply dismiss to bother trying to convince you. You have revealed yourself to be a joke on this forum in a relatively short period of time. If it were someone else asking, I might actually bother.

Translation- You got nothing.

You see in a discussion like this the identity of the "some" would be really, really important.

 

[Alexander]

Translation- You got nothing.

You see in a discussion like this the identity of the "some" would be really, really important.

What "some" would impress you?

If the "some" is a member of the media or some "unnamed source" it wouldn't matter, now would it? How about some unemployed GM like Mike Lombardi?

That's one of the reasons why I am not going to go back and find where I read it. It would be pointless.

"Some" have said it. If you cannot accept that, fine. Refute it if you feel strongly otherwise.

 

[5Stars]

What "some" would impress you?

If the "some" is a member of the media or some "unnamed source" it wouldn't matter, now would it? How about some unemployed GM like Mike Lombardi?

That's one of the reasons why I am not going to go back and find where I read it. It would be pointless.

"Some" have said it. If you cannot accept that, fine. Refute it if you feel strongly otherwise.

:laugh2:


Dude! Easy.....!!!!

 

[5Countem5]

What "some" would impress you?

If the "some" is a member of the media or some "unnamed source" it wouldn't matter, now would it? How about some unemployed GM like Mike Lombardi?

That's one of the reasons why I am not going to go back and find where I read it. It would be pointless.

"Some" have said it. If you cannot accept that, fine. Refute it if you feel strongly otherwise.

"Some" have said there's a Bigfoot, a Loch Ness Monster, ghosts and all other sorts of foolishness...


Maybe it's the same "some" that you are talking about.