Fire Jason Garrett? Then You Would Have Fired Tom Landry

[Big_D]

You exactly right I list them, because, I did want the hater claim cherry picking as you're doing. To rebuttal your stupid cherry pick of the first two games, knowledgeable football people know the defense is almost always ahead of offenses, So now an o-2 season is suppose to wreck ? Ok genius, explain why the other weeks Wade's defense couldn't play a little D with the offense output. Even if you count the 2 games you cherry picked, the first 8 games Wade was in charge of Defense put them at 6-2 or 5-3 a decent season at that point. As far as punt returns and Kick returns, they had 3 combined all season and 3 defensive td all season...lol which I think most of occurred after Wade was fired and Jason Took over....lol Now this is Gem, he put it up with TO,Dez, Romo, and Witten. He also put it up with Roy Freaking Williams and Miles In the tub Austin, and Witten...lol My man give it up, your football ignorance is apparent .

LOL in 2006 that offense was top 5, they were a top 5 running game also. Not just some facade of a passing game. Then in 2007 they dropped to their usual bottom feeder rankings under Garrett. You can't seem to handle the truth. Like I said, any coach could've did that. What a juggernaut offense he brought here. Who cares when he put up big points in week 9 of a wasted season. He scored 3 in the playoff game, then 7 on opening day, then 20. That's a combined 30 points. All Wades fault apparently? You're clueless. That's not cherry picking. 0-2 and your seasons basically over.

 

[Idgit]

just semantics

why not just come out and make it clear you would never fire garrett because you are terrified that the replacement would be worse

Not remotely 'semantics.' I just think the number of things you guys blame coaches for is straight-up stupid.

There are situations where I would fire Garrett, for sure. I just don't think he's done anything to merit being fired. I do have concerns the next HC would be worse, for sure. Jimmy aside, Jerry's generally don't a terrible job hiring coaches.

 

[acr731]

I guess next thing we're gonna hear is that Garrett is better than Lombardi. Or Bellycheat.

 

[DallasCowboysRule!]

You guys know that coach out in Cleveland, Hue Jackson? That guy hasn't had a winning season in his first two years and he even had one where he didn't win a game. Well, you know who else had that same problem? Tom Landry. Tom Landry's Cowboys were terrible his first two years with the team but then he lead the team to 2 super bowl wins. Same is gonna happen with Hue. The Browns are gonna win the Super Bowl soon and make it a habit. Hue Jackson is the next Tom Landry.

This is obviously ridiculous but it's the same logic as the OP.

 

[Dre11]

LOL in 2006 that offense was top 5, they were a top 5 running game also. Not just some facade of a passing game. Then in 2007 they dropped to their usual bottom feeder rankings under Garrett. You can't seem to handle the truth. Like I said, any coach could've did that. What a juggernaut offense he brought here. Who cares when he put up big points in week 9 of a wasted season. He scored 3 in the playoff game, then 7 on opening day, then 20. That's a combined 30 points. All Wades fault apparently? You're clueless. That's not cherry picking. 0-2 and your seasons basically over.

Again, aren't you tired of looking like a fool, it's pretty comical now. well in 1990 that run game was tops in the league....lol and in the 70's...lol you are ridiculous, and a glutton for punishment...lol you don't realize how foolish you sound if the only 2 games you can cherry pick, the offense must have been damn good...lol I'm literally cracking up!!!!!

 

[RustyBourneHorse]

You guys know that coach out in Cleveland, Hue Jackson? That guy hasn't had a winning season in his first two years and he even had one where he didn't win a game. Well, you know who else had that same problem? Tom Landry. Tom Landry's Cowboys were terrible his first two years with the team but then he lead the team to 2 super bowl wins. Same is gonna happen with Hue. The Browns are gonna win the Super Bowl soon and make it a habit. Hue Jackson is the next Tom Landry.

This is obviously ridiculous but it's the same logic as the OP.

Naturally, Hue Jackson is one hell of a coach, right?

 

[Darthkuriboh]

Don't EVER compare the carrot colored idiot puppet to one of the greatest coaches to ever live, who created half of the offenses and defenses that are used today. While The Lord our Tom may not have been to the Super Bowl every year, he literally created the 4-3 defense AND the pro-set offense that can defeat it when played properly, which 99% of teams use these days. I believe he also had a hand in creating the nickle and dime defenses as well. The man was a genius. Garrett is an idiot.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

Again, I ask any of you who defend Garrett. Tell me one game in 2017 that you could directly attribute a win to Garrett.

That's not really possible, if the game plan (if Garrett set it up) worked properly and the team won, you don't have the opposite scenario to look at.

Let's say they did run the ball instead of passing, that resulted in a touchdown. How would you know that a pass wouldn't have been successful?

You don't, because it never happened.

What you're doing is picking a decision that didn't work that resulted in a "failure" and blaming the loss on that decision. But in a win, if that bad decision never happened, what play could you point to that was "see, because he did so and so, it resulted in a win"? As another example, if a running back doesn't fumble in a game on a last second play on the goal line, and they win, nobody credits the win to a didn't-happen fumble, but if he does fumble, it's easy to say "if he doesn't fumble we win"

That's classic 20-20 hindsight.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

There are situations where I would fire Garrett, for sure. I just don't think he's done anything to merit being fired. I do have concerns the next HC would be worse, for sure. Jimmy aside, Jerry's generally don't a terrible job hiring coaches.

If you don't think that, fair enough, I can see your reasoning, but it's a bit hard to defend.

What is the goal of an NFL team? To win the championship. Now obviously not every coach does, and there are many coaches that became the head coach of a team and took a number of years to win it all, and you need to give them the chance. (I'm not mentioning Landry here in this context, since he took over a brand new team, you can't build a champ in 1-2 years in that case.)

The question of course, is how long do you give them? Obviously teams don't let a coach flounder for 20 years and not win anything, sooner or later they are fired or moved up to the front office. But how long they stay does, or should, depend on how they do other than winning the SB.

Garrett has had 7 years as the full time head coach. As a comparison, it took Noll 5 years to win it. Took Walsh 3, Parcells 3, Jimmy 4, Dungy 5. Marv Levy took 2 years to get to the SB, lost them all but got to 4 in a row. Shula took an expansion team to the title in just 5 years.

So for Garrett to take over the team and not get past the second round of the playoffs in 7 years means he's already had more time than other coaches, who arguably took over far worse teams, in particular Noll and Jimmy's teams won only 1 and 3 games the season before they took over, respectively. Even Madden, who took 8 years to win a title, went to the playoffs 6 of 7 years before winning it, but he was in the AFC championship game 5 times in his first 7 years. 5 conference championship games, how many has Garrett had?

ZERO.

The ONLY reason I haven't called for Garrett's firing to this point is the elephant in the room - Jerry Jones. I would submit that the above mentioned Noll, etc. didn't have to deal with the same situation.

But if Garrett can't deal with the situation he has, that's not to say another coach can't. You can't just flounder along with a playoff season every couple of years and a playoff win once every 5 or so and not change coaches because somebody might do worse. At some point you have to realize the person just doesn't have it., and Garrett is reaching that point very quickly....

 

[LACowboysFan1]

"Garrett is an idiot"

You do know that the term idiot was once an actual medical/psychological term (in the 19th and early 20th century, a real high point in psychology, along with drugging and institutionalizing, right?), "idiot" was used to refer to people having an IQ below 30.

I suspect people who had kids born with, or developed later in life, such a problem really appreciate having that term thrown around, you think?

Garrett may be a poor NFL head coach, offensive coordinator, etc., but he does have a degree from Princeton, and makes several million dollars a year as one of only 32 NFL head coaches. But an idiot?

Hardly. Insulting personal attacks don't help anything...

 

[Idgit]

If you don't think that, fair enough, I can see your reasoning, but it's a bit hard to defend.

What is the goal of an NFL team? To win the championship. Now obviously not every coach does, and there are many coaches that became the head coach of a team and took a number of years to win it all, and you need to give them the chance. (I'm not mentioning Landry here in this context, since he took over a brand new team, you can't build a champ in 1-2 years in that case.)

The question of course, is how long do you give them? Obviously teams don't let a coach flounder for 20 years and not win anything, sooner or later they are fired or moved up to the front office. But how long they stay does, or should, depend on how they do other than winning the SB.

Garrett has had 7 years as the full time head coach. As a comparison, it took Noll 5 years to win it. Took Walsh 3, Parcells 3, Jimmy 4, Dungy 5. Marv Levy took 2 years to get to the SB, lost them all but got to 4 in a row. Shula took an expansion team to the title in just 5 years.

So for Garrett to take over the team and not get past the second round of the playoffs in 7 years means he's already had more time than other coaches, who arguably took over far worse teams, in particular Noll and Jimmy's teams won only 1 and 3 games the season before they took over, respectively. Even Madden, who took 8 years to win a title, went to the playoffs 6 of 7 years before winning it, but he was in the AFC championship game 5 times in his first 7 years. 5 conference championship games, how many has Garrett had?

ZERO.

The ONLY reason I haven't called for Garrett's firing to this point is the elephant in the room - Jerry Jones. I would submit that the above mentioned Noll, etc. didn't have to deal with the same situation.

But if Garrett can't deal with the situation he has, that's not to say another coach can't. You can't just flounder along with a playoff season every couple of years and a playoff win once every 5 or so and not change coaches because somebody might do worse. At some point you have to realize the person just doesn't have it., and Garrett is reaching that point very quickly....

Wow. I appreciate the reasonable response here.

I don't think the reasoning is hard to defend at all. I'd say you keep the coach as long as the coach is not the limiting factor keeping the team from advancing. He's already established that he's capable of building winning teams. What we haven't done is advance in the playoffs. His two best teams lost a pair of questionable squeakers to the Packers.

Now, if you think they're losing games because of the coaching, sure, you'd want to change the coach. I think the problems we've had have been with the personnel (insufficient resources on defense) and with the overall team management (Jerry Jones). They've made some bad calls along the way in assembling the staff and have put the team together wrong here a couple of years--including last year. And, yeah, I think Garrett needs to take some of the blame for that, and I do think that there's a point where a coach loses the team if he can't get them over the hump even if the issues aren't necessarily coaching-related. At some point even if he's not the actual problem you clean house just because you've run out of changeable alternatives.

But the real issues are above the HC level in Dallas. Sure, maybe there's a guy out there who can get us farther along than we are right now. If I see that guy, I'd be down with trying to upgrade the HC, but I don't see that guy available right now. I'm not interested in change for the sake of change. It's too hard getting a guy who can work around the dysfunction in Dallas in the first place. We're much more likely to get a Gailey or a Campo or a Phillips than we are a Jimmy Johnson with Jerry making the calls. I'd much rather stick with a guy who's shown he can coach teams capable of contending with two different QBs already than blow that up and hope we luck into an improved situation. If there were a Payton or a Zimmer on the market, I'd probably feel differently.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

I'd say you keep the coach as long as the coach is not the limiting factor keeping the team from advancing. He's already established that he's capable of building winning teams. What we haven't done is advance in the playoffs.

And that's the salient point. You don't play to win division titles and a playoff game now and then, you play to win the Super Bowl. If you don't, or at least get close, in 7 years, you have to consider he just doesn't have what it takes to win championships.

And there is evidence that coaching is the problem - taking over an established team, have home field advantage TWICE and both times lose AT HOME in the FIRST GAME. Poor clock management. Failure to stick with the run game. No discipline on players like Greg Hardy slapping the clipboard from a coach's hands.

So he can have good regular seasons. That's better than a lot of teams, sure. And I'm not one of the "fire Garrett NOW" folks. Winning in the NFL is HARD, and it doesn't always happen quickly. Working under Jerry is also hard. And I also agree, could do worse than Garrett.

All I'm saying is that he's on a short rope, his time is running out. You could do worse, yes, but you could also do better, but if you stick with your once-every-couple of years-get into the playoffs coach for 20 years, that time is GONE, might have been another coach out there who could win it all, but you DIDN'T EVEN TRY...

 

[Idgit]

And that's the salient point. You don't play to win division titles and a playoff game now and then, you play to win the Super Bowl. If you don't, or at least get close, in 7 years, you have to consider he just doesn't have what it takes to win championships.

And there is evidence that coaching is the problem - taking over an established team, have home field advantage TWICE and both times lose AT HOME in the FIRST GAME. Poor clock management. Failure to stick with the run game. No discipline on players like Greg Hardy slapping the clipboard from a coach's hands.

So he can have good regular seasons. That's better than a lot of teams, sure. And I'm not one of the "fire Garrett NOW" folks. Winning in the NFL is HARD, and it doesn't always happen quickly. Working under Jerry is also hard. And I also agree, could do worse than Garrett.

All I'm saying is that he's on a short rope, his time is running out. You could do worse, yes, but you could also do better, but if you stick with your once-every-couple of years-get into the playoffs coach for 20 years, that time is GONE, might have been another coach out there who could win it all, but you DIDN'T EVEN TRY...

I don't accept the notion that a winning team can only lose playoff games because of coaching limitations.

He actually didn't take over an established team. He took over a team in relative disarray and rebuilt it around a fantastic QB at a time when we had no special draft capital and were limited by both the new CBA (that had a ceiling about $10MM lower than most teams had been expecting) and an unfair cap penalty for the Austin contract which the league ratified and then penalized us for.

We run the ball more than any team in the league, yet fans still criticize us for not sticking with the run game. I consider that an unrealistic criticism.

Clock management criticism is fair. He's blown it a couple of significant times in his tenure. I don't consider that as important as most, but it's a totally fair criticism.

If we could do a lot better, I'm all ears. Like I said, I would love an upgrade at HC. I haven't loved any of the names we've seen floated other than guys who already have jobs and aren't realistic options.

But the biggest thing for me is that I think there's a fairly obvious reason why our good teams haven't advanced farther in the post season, and I think it's relatively easy to address. I want to see that happen before I'd seriously look at changing the coaching staff.

 

[LACowboysFan1]

He actually didn't take over an established team

Just to clarify, I meant not an expansion team or a team that has been miserable for years. Cowboys were in the league since 1960 and were playoffs just the year before he took over, I'd consider that an established team. If by established team you mean one that was considered to be a contender for the title when he took over, no, he didn't take over an "established" team.
But that's not what I meant...

 

[Idgit]

Just to clarify, I meant not an expansion team or a team that has been miserable for years. Cowboys were in the league since 1960 and were playoffs just the year before he took over, I'd consider that an established team. If by established team you mean one that was considered to be a contender for the title when he took over, no, he didn't take over an "established" team.
But that's not what I meant...

Fair enough. I thought you meant a team that was capable of competing as it was structured. We'd done a poor job of player selection/development during those Wade years.

 

[Terrancemcclain]

I' m with you op




I also still believe the earth is flat
Sarc/off