FWST JFE: Jason Garrett: the next Sean Payton?

[Hoofbite]

Sean Payton's first 3 years as an OC were not in Dallas, they were in New York with the Gaints. I want to make that clear from the get go.

In 1999 he was the QB Coach for the Giants and in 2000 he took over. So he did not have a transition to an unfamiliar Offense.

Garrett came here from Miami. He did inherit new personnel.

Garrett's 3 years in Dallas have yielded better Offensive results than Sean Payton's best 3 years as an OC.

I believe Payton is a better Head Coach than he was an Offensive Coordinator and I really like him, but let's be honest, he had a great first year and 2 sub par year before this year they were amazing. This year he had a Defense worthy of matching his Offense.

I think Garrett will be every bit as good. I also think he has been a better OC than Payton was.

Which isn't a shocker considering Payton had to deal with QBs like Carter, Bledsoe and Testeverde, just to name the better QBs of that ****ty bunch. Or are you saying over Payton's entire career?

I hate the whole "next Payon" idea. I think you pointed it out in another post but the similarities aren't there much past being young and having spent time with Dallas.

Will Garrett be as successful as Payton? Who knows. We can hope but who really knows. And if it is his destiny, how long are we going to have to wait? I have a hard time believing that Dallas will find a QB as good as Romo in the near future so that kind of limits the timeframe. Not to say that you can't get by with a QB slightly less capable because you can but having a good QB certainly makes things easier.

I think Garrett could eventually be a good coach but watching him basically learn on the go while Dallas has a really good team is frustrating. There are times where the guy looks lost but there are also times where he looks great. Its almost like watching a kid get his drivers permit with a Lambo.

Looking back, most people probably had their expectations too high for the guy but that should expected when he's clearly tabbed as the "one" going forward.

 

[Hostile]

Which isn't a shocker considering Payton had to deal with QBs like Carter, Bledsoe and Testeverde, just to name the better QBs of that ****ty bunch. Or are you saying over Payton's entire career?

I hate the whole "next Payon" idea. I think you pointed it out in another post but the similarities aren't there much past being young and having spent time with Dallas.

They both prefer to throw the ball and like intermediate routes more than dumps offs or bombs. But yeah, I said there is not much else equal about them.

Will Garrett be as successful as Payton? Who knows. We can hope but who really knows. And if it is his destiny, how long are we going to have to wait? I have a hard time believing that Dallas will find a QB as good as Romo in the near future so that kind of limits the timeframe. Not to say that you can't get by with a QB slightly less capable because you can but having a good QB certainly makes things easier.

I think he will and for one reason in particular, he's learned from some amazing football minds, including Payton himself.

I think Garrett could eventually be a good coach but watching him basically learn on the go while Dallas has a really good team is frustrating. There are times where the guy looks lost but there are also times where he looks great. Its almost like watching a kid get his drivers permit with a Lambo.

Learning on the go does not frustrate me. It excites the hell out of me. I do not understand why more people don't love the game. I really don't get it.

Looking back, most people probably had their expectations too high for the guy but that should expected when he's clearly tabbed as the "one" going forward.

Nothing wrong with high expectations. Not much right about unrealistic ones.

 

[stilltheguru]

NO. Just no!

 

[Hostile]

Obvious implication being that such a suggestion would be logical. As in, it's a logical impossibility.

I now believe I can divide by zero because of you.

:ninja:

 

[theogt]

I now believe I can divide by zero because of you.

:ninja:

LOL @ the sub-zero smiley.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

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.

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.

You have no idea how to run a Fortune 500 company but you certainly are arrogant enough to think that you are qualified to determine who is.

Thats the whole point: you take his lack of experience and then interpret that into him running the offense into the ground.

When someone runs a 40 yard dash, there is only one person involved. It also has a single metric (time) that it is judged by. You turn on the timer when the race begins and you turn it off when they cross the finish line.

You comparing that to the influence of a particular offensive coordinator on the production of an NFL offense is laughable or how a CEO effects a companies bottomline ifor that matter.

Quite frankly what you can or cannot do is irrelevant. I know you think you saying you cannot do something but you can judge something actually posits something. Thats par the course with you.

I think the typical human wants an easy answer, an easy explanation. Thats why the figurehead is often scapegoated. Cliches abound in reference. All that makes me think is that people don't want to look deeper or have to think hard about things.

 

[the truth of it all]

God why do people keep posting her crap seriously. STOP are you doing it just to make others annoyed? there is literally no point in posting anything of her's . Boredom? What is it why would you post this?
I understand this is the "cowboys zone forum" but please .

And no to her question He isnt and will never be shut up you idiot (to jfe)

I just wasted two minutes of my life i will never get back. I HATE myself for doing that. When im dying i will curse the two minutes i couldve spend enjoying life.

We are all paying for bandwidth here. None of us should have to pay to see that crap pop up on our favorite site.

edit:tomorrow i will pay to not see that crap anymore i will make a donation of whatever amount is nessesary not to see this idiot who knows nothing of football who needs mydol write articles anymore . Atleast be posted on this site, What will it take in terms of $$$

 

[Hoofbite]

God why do people keep posting her crap seriously. STOP are you doing it just to make others annoyed? there is literally no point in posting anything of her's . Boredom? What is it why would you post this?
I understand this is the "cowboys zone forum" but please .

And no to her question He isnt and will never be shut up you idiot (to jfe)

I just wasted two minutes of my life i will never get back. I HATE myself for doing that. When im dying i will curse the two minutes i couldve spend enjoying life.

We are all paying for bandwidth here. None of us should have to pay to see that crap pop up on our favorite site.

I keep wondering why people enter threads when they have no desire to read them.

 

[the truth of it all]

I keep wondering why people enter threads when they have no desire to read them.

i wanted to give her a chance, maybe she wrote something worth while. But no, she didnt.

 

[Hostile]

i wanted to give her a chance, maybe she wrote something worth while. But no, she didnt.

Then you didn't waste your 2 minutes. It is what you wanted to do.

 

[CF74]

:laugh1: Funny schtuff..

 

[theogt]

You have no idea how to run a Fortune 500 company but you certainly are arrogant enough to think that you are qualified to determine who is.

Where did this come from? I've never once commented on such a thing.

Thats the whole point: you take his lack of experience and then interpret that into him running the offense into the ground.

Actually, I never once said anything like this. I think that's a stupid argument and wouldn't make it at all. And I don't think he's "[run]the offense into the ground," so I have no idea where you're coming from.

When someone runs a 40 yard dash, there is only one person involved. It also has a single metric (time) that it is judged by. You turn on the timer when the race begins and you turn it off when they cross the finish line.

You comparing that to the influence of a particular offensive coordinator on the production of an NFL offense is laughable or how a CEO effects a companies bottomline ifor that matter.

Quite frankly what you can or cannot do is irrelevant. I know you think you saying you cannot do something but you can judge something actually posits something. Thats par the course with you.

I think the typical human wants an easy answer, an easy explanation. Thats why the figurehead is often scapegoated. Cliches abound in reference. All that makes me think is that people don't want to look deeper or have to think hard about things.

You seem to have a shocking lack of attention to detail when you read, because you're all over the map here. Please do try and read more carefully so that you can follow the actual conversation that is going on and not some conversation that exists only in your head.

What you still don't get is that there was a single criticism being attacked -- the criticism that Garrett lacks experience. It was not some grand criticism of overall ability as a coordinator. It was one single criticism that the poster was attacking. That single factor is almost solely gauged by an objective variable -- years of service. That is why I used the 40 time analogy. It's an objective variable that can be gauged and exclaimed by those who cannot even obtain that level themselves.

Anyone can say Garrett lacks experience. It's quite obvious, and you don't even have to watch a single Cowboys game to recognize that obvious fact. He would likely even admit it himself. The idea that only those that have more experience can claim that he lacks experience is beyond dumb. He may be the best coordinator in the world, but still lack experience.

 

[CoCo]

Where did this come from? I've never once commented on such a thing.

Actually, I never once said anything like this. I think that's a stupid argument and wouldn't make it at all. And I don't think he's "[run]the offense into the ground," so I have no idea where you're coming from.

You seem to have a shocking lack of attention to detail when you read, because you're all over the map here. Please do try and read more carefully so that you can follow the actual conversation that is going on and not some conversation that exists only in your head.

What you still don't get is that there was a single criticism being attacked -- the criticism that Garrett lacks experience. It was not some grand criticism of overall ability as a coordinator. It was one single criticism that the poster was attacking. That single factor is almost solely gauged by an objective variable -- years of service. That is why I used the 40 time analogy. It's an objective variable that can be gauged and exclaimed by those who cannot even obtain that level themselves.

Anyone can say Garrett lacks experience. It's quite obvious, and you don't even have to watch a single Cowboys game to recognize that obvious fact. He would likely even admit it himself. The idea that only those that have more experience can claim that he lacks experience is beyond dumb. He may be the best coordinator in the world, but still lack experience.

Fuzzy,

You are correct in your comprehension of the discussion. It's actually theogt who has not followed this coversation correctly. But I gave up on trying to correct it because those efforts are futile with him.

So suffice it to say that your response is on the money with my original post. I actually suggested I could have worded it more clearly. And yet shockingly somehow you were able to grasp precisely what I was saying all along. Go figure.

This much is probably accepted by all. You and I understood the conversation to be about X while theogt understood it to be about Y.

Nuff said, though I suspect the situation may require one more retort to lay all the blame for the confusion at my feet.

That's ok.

 

[theogt]

Fuzzy,

You are correct in your comprehension of the discussion. It's actually theogt who has not followed this coversation correctly. But I gave up on trying to correct it because those efforts are futile with him.

So suffice it to say that your response is on the money with my original post. I actually suggested I could have worded it more clearly. And yet shockingly somehow you were able to grasp precisely what I was saying all along. Go figure.

This much is probably accepted by all. You and I understood the conversation to be about X while theogt understood it to be about Y.

Nuff said, though I suspect the situation may require one more retort to lay all the blame for the confusion at my feet.

That's ok.

Try not to use such sloppy, imprecise language and you won't deserve the blame next time. It appears that one lesson you need to learn is quality vs. quantity in your writing.

You may have intended something other than what you typed, and Fuzzy may have thought that you intended something other than what you typed, but what you typed is very clearly not what you intended.

 

[CoCo]

Try not to use such sloppy, imprecise language and you won't deserve the blame next time. It appears that one lesson you need to learn is quality vs. quantity in your writing.

You may have intended something other than what you typed, and Fuzzy may have thought that you intended something other than what you typed, but what you typed is very clearly not what you intended.

Not much of a communicator in your eyes. But apparently one heck of a prognosticator.

You didn't disappoint.

 

[theogt]

You didn't disappoint.

If I could say the same.

The clairvoyance it takes to predict I would respond to a post directly after mine that specifically references my post makes me pause, however.

 

[CoCo]

If I could say the same.

The clairvoyance it takes to predict I would respond to a post directly after mine that specifically references my post makes me pause, however.

I guess you missed the point, again (though undoubtedly my fault in your eyes, again).

Its not predicting that you would respond, but rather exactly how you would respond, brimming with blame for others.

It's actually kind of humorous that despite the fact that the clarity of my original post was validated by Fuzzy's responses, you remain undeterred in your insistence that both what I said and Fuzzy heard are incorrect.

And when I tried to build a compromise by suggesting I could have reworded for greater clarity, and again when I wrote that the two sides simply had different perceptions of the OP, you'd have none of it. You're not interested in a diplomatic solution. Only one where others take the full blame regardless of the truth. That takes truly uncommon arrogance.

C'est la vie.

 

[theogt]

I guess you missed the point, again (though undoubtedly my fault in your eyes, again).

Its not predicting that you would respond, but rather exactly how you would respond, brimming with blame for others.

Actually, you predicted both. The latter may have been what you intended to "emphasize" (because it would be impossible to predict the latter without the former).

A prediction that I would respond in disagreement in a thread in which we are discussing a disagreement we have, is hardly more praiseworthy than the prediction that I'd even respond at all. Feel free to congratulate yourself, however.

It's actually kind of humorous that despite the fact that the clarity of my original post was validated by Fuzzy's responses, you remain undeterred in your insistence that both what I said and Fuzzy heard are incorrect.

Fuzzy correctly understood what you intended to say. I understand what you intended to say. And I insist that what you intended to say was not what you said.

And when I tried to build a compromise by suggesting I could have reworded for greater clarity, and again when I wrote that the two sides simply had different perceptions of the OP, you'd have none of it. You're not interested in a diplomatic solution. Only one where others take the full blame regardless of the truth. That takes truly uncommon arrogance.

C'est la vie.

I fully recognized your attempt to re-word your original post to say something different. Not sure how you missed that, since you replied to that post. I even stated, albeit sarcastically, that I DID misread your post if that's what you had intended. Granted, I didn't misread it. It was just poorly worded.

 

[CoCo]

Actually, you predicted both. The latter may have been what you intended to "emphasize" (because it would be impossible to predict the latter without the former).

A prediction that I would respond in disagreement in a thread in which we are discussing a disagreement we have, is hardly more praiseworthy than the prediction that I'd even respond at all. Feel free to congratulate yourself, however.

Fuzzy correctly understood what you intended to say. I understand what you intended to say. And I insist that what you intended to say was not what you said.

I fully recognized your attempt to re-word your original post to say something different. Not sure how you missed that, since you replied to that post. I even stated, albeit sarcastically, that I DID misread your post if that's what you had intended. Granted, I didn't misread it. It was just poorly worded.

Peace to you.