FWST JFE: Jason Garrett: the next Sean Payton?

[jobberone]

My criticism of Garrett is the offense has failed every year. While 07 set records it crashed at the end of the year. 08 speaks for itself. And 09 was much the same. We only averaged 22 pts per game. And while we moved the ball as well as anyone in the league we averaged about 56 pts per 1000 yds gained. NO had slightly more yardage but roughly the same. They hit the 80 pts per 1000 yards gained goal.

I think some of the problem is RW and some MB. Some is on the OL. The rest is on Garrett. And if we don't assume Garrett is being influenced on who to play, then that's on him, too.

I can't know all the details and dynamics of what goes on in Dallas but I can look at the bottom line and point a finger.

 

[Eskimo]

I was glad when we hired Parcells... as we needed discipline... and it worked for a couple of years...

I loved his PC's but soon came to realize he was bat-**** crazy...

That move was TOTALLY uncalled for...

I like the crusty old ballcoach, but he's just a lunatic...

I agree that we badly needed Parcells when he came.

This whole organization was a mess from player selection in the draft, FAs, cap management, coaching talent, team discipline, team cohesion and team vision.

Parcells put the framework of a successful organization in place for us and for that I thank him. However, on his way out the door there was no natural successor as Payton had flown the coop a year earlier. He also took a great young coach and GM with him. Furthermore, he decided to retire so late that it left us without much to choose from in the HC ranks.

I do think he understands lots about how to setup successful organizations. I think he has lost some of his touch with the players and he is not a great gameday or gameplanning coach. He is very much an anti-innovator and we would never have won anything with him at the helm. You can say what you want about Wade being a softie but he has a much better defensive mind than Parcells.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I don't get the Marion hate. He slowed down a bit in the second half, but still averaged 4.4 yards a carry. It's not like he's putting up Eddie George numbers. He's a leader on the team, known for being physical. Coaches don't like giving up on that kind of player at the drop of a hat, so they tried to give him opportunities. In fact, when we needed a big win against the Eagles in week 17, he was fantastic.





3JACK

 

[Eskimo]

My criticism of Garrett is the offense has failed every year. While 07 set records it crashed at the end of the year. 08 speaks for itself. And 09 was much the same. We only averaged 22 pts per game. And while we moved the ball as well as anyone in the league we averaged about 56 pts per 1000 yds gained. NO had slightly more yardage but roughly the same. They hit the 80 pts per 1000 yards gained goal.

I think some of the problem is RW and some MB. Some is on the OL. The rest is on Garrett. And if we don't assume Garrett is being influenced on who to play, then that's on him, too.

I can't know all the details and dynamics of what goes on in Dallas but I can look at the bottom line and point a finger.

I actually think most of it is on the OL, Jobber. They just continuously made major mistakes in the red zone that cost us lots of points. When you combine that with our horrible FG unit, our bad KOR unit and our lack of TOs generated and I think that would mostly account for the lack of points per yards statistic.

Step number one is getting better at OT and getting a few more big plays (TOs, deep passes to WRs, big runs from Felix).

 

[jobberone]

I actually think most of it is on the OL, Jobber. They just continuously made major mistakes in the red zone that cost us lots of points. When you combine that with our horrible FG unit, our bad KOR unit and our lack of TOs generated and I think that would mostly account for the lack of points per yards statistic.

Step number one is getting better at OT and getting a few more big plays (TOs, deep passes to WRs, big runs from Felix).

I agree with all that you've said. I'm not blaming it all on Garrett although at times I scratch my head over some play calls. I see him as head of the offense and that's why I feel I can point a finger.

They can only work at replacing the OL. I don't think you can coach all the mistakes out of these guys. Heck, Witten was getting false starts more than Flo at the end of the year. They can coach some of the other types of penalties out. And they can coach (hopefully) the blitz/stunts better. The backups need to be drafted anyway now so they can replace the present players eventually. They can either bring in a #2 WR, coach RW up, and/or draft a WR.

It's entirely fixable.

My only worry is we were outclassed along the OL in the MN game. Because of the injury to Flo and Colombo being rusty I don't know how to interpret that.

 

[TheCount]

I don't get the Marion hate. He slowed down a bit in the second half, but still averaged 4.4 yards a carry. It's not like he's putting up Eddie George numbers. He's a leader on the team, known for being physical. Coaches don't like giving up on that kind of player at the drop of a hat, so they tried to give him opportunities. In fact, when we needed a big win against the Eagles in week 17, he was fantastic.





3JACK

I think the only reason ditching Barber is remotely possible is because of the uncapped year. It'd be downright stupid to consider moving him otherwise.

 

[ConstantReboot]

I actually think most of it is on the OL, Jobber. They just continuously made major mistakes in the red zone that cost us lots of points. When you combine that with our horrible FG unit, our bad KOR unit and our lack of TOs generated and I think that would mostly account for the lack of points per yards statistic.

Step number one is getting better at OT and getting a few more big plays (TOs, deep passes to WRs, big runs from Felix).

Just wanted to point out that this Oline problem was not only relegated to the Minnesota game. We had issues with the Oline from last year and the year before that (see Giants game).

Even this year against Green Bay and Denver our Oline was exposed. Even Romo being one of the most sacked QB in the league shows how really weak we are in the pass protection dept.

But Garrett is the coach. He needs to take charge of the offense and make these problems go away. Rather than balancing the offense with more running plays or get cute with Wildcat plays and so forth, wouldn't it be logical to focus more on protecting the QB and giving Romo that extra time to look downfield?

I once heard a commentator say that Romo is one of the most blitzed QB in the league. Yet he finds it strange that we don't focus much on blitz protection. I think he has a point. Why doesn't Dallas focus more on blitz protection?

 

[khiladi]

The difference between Peyton and Garrett is that the latter has had total control over the offense since he has been here, while Peyton was dictated by the conservative nature of Bill Parcells.

 

[CoCo]

Whether it's as simple or not has nothing to do with the analogy. I can't run that fast. I can't coordinate an offense. I can't run a Fortune 500 company.

But I can point out obvious things, such as someone not having much experience, someone running slow, or someone driving a company's earnings into the ground.

Years of experience according to a resume is an obvious thing.

Competency and effectiveness as an OC is not nearly as simple. And I'll give you the critics regular dismissal of the Cowboys offensive rankings as Exhibit A.

This was never about the simplistic issue of how many years Garrett has on his resume. The criticism of Garrett is well beyond that.

 

[Eskimo]

I agree with all that you've said. I'm not blaming it all on Garrett although at times I scratch my head over some play calls. I see him as head of the offense and that's why I feel I can point a finger.

They can only work at replacing the OL. I don't think you can coach all the mistakes out of these guys. Heck, Witten was getting false starts more than Flo at the end of the year. They can coach some of the other types of penalties out. And they can coach (hopefully) the blitz/stunts better. The backups need to be drafted anyway now so they can replace the present players eventually. They can either bring in a #2 WR, coach RW up, and/or draft a WR.

It's entirely fixable.

My only worry is we were outclassed along the OL in the MN game. Because of the injury to Flo and Colombo being rusty I don't know how to interpret that.

The OL as currently constructed is not good enough to win a championship. We will run into a team with a great DL in the playoffs who will expose us. I think the first step is getting rid of the weakest link which is Colombo. The second weakest link is probably Flo but maybe we can coax one more year out of him because we only have one OT ready to start next year out of our backups.

The problem with the Minnesota game was that right off the bat Colombo was getting whipped on every passing play by Edwards who just ran right around him and planted Romo nearly every play. Colombo was in a horrible mismatch against a speed rusher and I honestly think his time as a starter is done. I suspect he lost some quickness from this last injury and the rest of the league is just going to put their best speed rusher out there against him time and time again next year if he is the starter.

Contrary to popular belief, Flo was not some tower of power out there against Jarred Allen. He gave up 4 pressures in a little more than a quarter of work. The sack against Romo for the fumble was an odd play in which Witten was 1-on-1 against Allen. After that, Free did a very good job against Allen the rest of the game.

I think for next year Flo is probably LT for one last season and Free is the starter at RT. I think the season after that we will have Free at LT and hopefully Brewster or a draftee at RT. I hope it is Brewster so that we aren't forced to pick an OT with a first or second rounder. Much of the draft planning this year will depend on Houck's opinion on Brewster's readiness to play. Luckily we already know Free is ready to be a starter at one of the two slots.

I suspect we are drafting at least one OT and one OG/C in the first 3 rounds this year. I actually wouldn't be surprised to see us bring in a vet FA at OT if the staff isn't convinced that Brewster is going to the RT within a year. We just can't be held captive by our OL when the rest of the team is ready to compete for a championship.

 

[CoCo]

I believe the criticism he was attacking was that Garrett lacked experience coaching. That's a pretty objective call there and has nothing to do with his coordinating abilities.

Sorry if you misunderstood the conversation.

Actually, you're incorrect, though I'll concede that its easy to miss the distinction in the way I worded the original post.

To clarify, critics point out Garrett's lack of experience as dooming his ability to be an effective OC. And yet, their far more glaring lack of expertise in evaluating the performance and effectiveness of an OC doesn't stop them from engaging in it wholeheartedly and quite definitively.

Don't have to be a CEO to critique one? Sure anyone can track earnings but there is often a greater story than just earnings themselves that novices can't discern.

Sure, point out Garrett's lack of experience on his resume. But there is more to the story than that. What I find especially hard to swallow are those who want to dismiss the teams offensive rankings entirely and point to far more vague issues as definitive proof of their point.

Its akin to having no CEO experience, dismissing the record earnings, and criticizing much less quantifiable and more vague evidences.

I just think there have been many on this board this year who've done just that regarding Garrett. Its become very shic to criticize Garrett and its gotten out of hand IMO in the same manner that folks crown coaches as genius after they win a SB. Not that Garrett is perfect. Not that he doesn't have some things to learn. Its just been over the top IMO.

 

[TheCount]

Actually, you're incorrect, though I'll concede that its easy to miss the distinction in the way I worded the original post.

To clarify, critics point out Garrett's lack of experience as dooming his ability to be an effective OC. And yet, their far more glaring lack of expertise in evaluating the performance and effectiveness of an OC doesn't stop them from engaging in it wholeheartedly and quite definitively.

Don't have to be a CEO to critique one? Sure anyone can track earnings but there is often a greater story than just earnings themselves that novices can't discern.

Sure, point out Garrett's lack of experience on his resume. But there is more to the story than that. What I find especially hard to swallow are those who want to dismiss the teams offensive rankings entirely and point to far more vague issues as definitive proof of their point.

Its akin to having no CEO experience, dismissing the record earnings, and criticizing much less quantifiable and more vague evidences.

I just think there have been many on this board this year who've done just that regarding Garrett. Its become very shic to criticize Garrett and its gotten out of hand IMO in the same manner that folks crown coaches as genius after they win a SB. Not that Garrett is perfect. Not that he doesn't have some things to learn. Its just been over the top IMO.

It doesn't really matter if you're pro or anti Garrett. It's all speculation and opinion. The problem only arises when one side thinks they are definitively correct on their opinion of him, and both sides do that quite often with baseless reasoning.

 

[theogt]

Actually, you're incorrect, though I'll concede that its easy to miss the distinction in the way I worded the original post.

To clarify, critics point out Garrett's lack of experience as dooming his ability to be an effective OC. And yet, their far more glaring lack of expertise in evaluating the performance and effectiveness of an OC doesn't stop them from engaging in it wholeheartedly and quite definitively.

Don't have to be a CEO to critique one? Sure anyone can track earnings but there is often a greater story than just earnings themselves that novices can't discern.

Sure, point out Garrett's lack of experience on his resume. But there is more to the story than that. What I find especially hard to swallow are those who want to dismiss the teams offensive rankings entirely and point to far more vague issues as definitive proof of their point.

Its akin to having no CEO experience, dismissing the record earnings, and criticizing much less quantifiable and more vague evidences.

I just think there have been many on this board this year who've done just that regarding Garrett. Its become very shic to criticize Garrett and its gotten out of hand IMO in the same manner that folks crown coaches as genius after they win a SB. Not that Garrett is perfect. Not that he doesn't have some things to learn. Its just been over the top IMO.

Well, yeah, if you're going to completely re-word your post to say something entirely different, then I guess I DID misunderstand your original post.

 

[wileedog]

I think he has lost some of his touch with the players and he is not a great gameday or gameplanning coach. .

I think he realized that too, which is why he wanted a front office job.

 

[wileedog]

I don't get the Marion hate. He slowed down a bit in the second half, but still averaged 4.4 yards a carry. It's not like he's putting up Eddie George numbers. He's a leader on the team, known for being physical. Coaches don't like giving up on that kind of player at the drop of a hat, so they tried to give him opportunities. In fact, when we needed a big win against the Eagles in week 17, he was fantastic.





3JACK

I think its because he is taking carries from two guys who look more effective behind him, and aren't going to make close to $8M this year.

 

[TNCowboy]

Sure, point out Garrett's lack of experience on his resume. But there is more to the story than that. What I find especially hard to swallow are those who want to dismiss the teams offensive rankings entirely and point to far more vague issues as definitive proof of their point.

You mean like points scored?

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Well I wouldn't mourn too much over his departure.

I believe he is a guy who ultimately came to think much too highly of himself after two very good years in a niche role as the "closer" RB. His agent then overinflated his ego further demanding the $45M contract and refusing to sign his tender.

I've always thought Marion to be a decent back but far from a great one and paid about two to three times his actual worth to the team.

I had hoped back in 2008 when we used a first rounder on a RB it was with the idea of trading Barber at the peak of his value and then upgrading in a deep RB class. Alas, the worst of both world's happened with that terrible contract and the drafting of a guy that no one thinks can be a primary back.

Having said that, I do think people are not giving Felix enough credit here. I haven't seen much evidence of contact injury in his career to make me think he can't handle many carries. He doesn't take many direct shots. He is much bigger than people give him credit for at 210 pounds. I know some of it comes from his poor performance on the bench press at the Combine but I bet his is quite a bit stronger now.

I really wouldn't mind going into 2010 without Barber. However, we would need to keep our eyes peeled for a vet backup or a UDFA to keep as a #3 RB.

This is absurd. Maybe we should reduce his role, but to say Marion hasn't been great at times is foolish.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

You mean like points scored?

No kidding.

Sure, there are certain details we fans comment on that we don't really know for sure, like what coverage or OL scheme was called.

But if we can't comment on anything we aren't somehow definitively qualified to know, we might as well shut down this and all forums.

 

[CF74]

Actually, you're incorrect, though I'll concede that its easy to miss the distinction in the way I worded the original post.

To clarify, critics point out Garrett's lack of experience as dooming his ability to be an effective OC. And yet, their far more glaring lack of expertise in evaluating the performance and effectiveness of an OC doesn't stop them from engaging in it wholeheartedly and quite definitively.

Don't have to be a CEO to critique one? Sure anyone can track earnings but there is often a greater story than just earnings themselves that novices can't discern.

Sure, point out Garrett's lack of experience on his resume. But there is more to the story than that. What I find especially hard to swallow are those who want to dismiss the teams offensive rankings entirely and point to far more vague issues as definitive proof of their point.

Its akin to having no CEO experience, dismissing the record earnings, and criticizing much less quantifiable and more vague evidences.

I just think there have been many on this board this year who've done just that regarding Garrett. Its become very shic to criticize Garrett and its gotten out of hand IMO in the same manner that folks crown coaches as genius after they win a SB. Not that Garrett is perfect. Not that he doesn't have some things to learn. Its just been over the top IMO.

There are three things stopping our offense in the red zone:

1) Execution
2) Play Calling
3) Coaching

All three of these things go hand in hand. Some people only point to one of the three and that's how this board goes "Over The Top."

Sometimes the right play is called but a player drops the ball, that goes to execution.

Sometimes we go with a one dimensional series of play calls and when the defense makes it's adjustments it has the advantage because we lose the element of surprise.

And sometimes we have guys playing injured who should be on the bench and that hurts the team, that is on the coaches...


All three of these things combined have bogged down this offense. Some can make stronger arguments for any one of the three but the reality is that they are only focusing on that one thing because it is the most obvious to them.

 

[CoCo]

Well, yeah, if you're going to completely re-word your post to say something entirely different, then I guess I DID misunderstand your original post.

Original Post...
"I do think people here can be ridiculously hard on Garrett. But I don't give much credibility to those folks who poo-poo Garrett's lack of experience but at the same time consider themselves fully qualified to provide definitive critique from their couch. Sure, share an opinion. But couch it in a little humility just in case (*gasp*) you could be wrong."

I reworded to add clarity to the original post above. It doesn't say something entirely different. "Definitive critique" is certainly broader than looking at someone's resume.

But whatever you wish to believe...