Garrett 13 in HC Power Rankings

[perrykemp]

John Fox is ranked way too high.

Got two different teams to the Superbowl. Not a insignificant achievement.

 

[flashback]

Yep, its all about the post-season, my dudes. Maybe Zimmer and Arians are a little high, maybe Quinn and O'Brien are a little low. It's all good, off-season fun.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Waiting for the owner power rankings to get released

We have a HOF owner. Not many have that. LOL

 

[DandyDon52]

We've been about as consistent under Garrett as a team can be. We beat the teams we're better than, and lose to teams that are better than us. The toss-ups have been pretty even in terms of win-some, lose-some. We've been in the top-quartile of the league in terms of wins/losses under Garrett, and the team has consistently gotten better and won more games as a result.

And the playoff games, it's been discussed in many threads, but those games weren't lost because of coaching. They were lost because our defense wasn't able to play better because the talent hasn't been very good.

Some fans don't want to admit it, but that's whatever. The team's gone from bad in a poor cap situation to good in a good one under Garrett. There's no denying it.

As far as the general HC ranking goes, these linear rankings are silly. Every NFL coaching situation is different. Guys have different personnel support, different ownership support, different financial support, play in different divisions that are significantly more difficult or significantly easier. It's not an apples-to-oranges thing. What really matters is "is this coaching staff good enough to win an NFL championship." Looking at Dallas under Garrett, the most you can say right now is "maybe." He's definitely been a good coach for us. The question is how good?

I agree with most of what you say except the playoff losses and defense.
it is not right to rank coaches as each has a different situation.
JG is average like all the rest till he does better in playoffs and be in playoffs year after year.
the offense is good enough to do that now.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Jason is good enough to post back to back 8-8 seasons. Lets see if he can post back to back winning seasons.

 

[DenCWBY]

Just as we expect the team to take the next step the same will go for Garrett. I know many here do not care for him but for me I think he is a good fit in Dallas. He has a very good working relationship with Jerry and Stephen and this team plays hard for Garrett. Having said that this team must continue to be contenders and reach the SB for Garrett to remain HC.
I think he has this team moving in the right direction but the next step is a must. No more 1 step forward 2 steps back.

This.

 

[MileyDancer]

We've been about as consistent under Garrett as a team can be. We beat the teams we're better than, and lose to teams that are better than us. The toss-ups have been pretty even in terms of win-some, lose-some. We've been in the top-quartile of the league in terms of wins/losses under Garrett, and the team has consistently gotten better and won more games as a result.

And the playoff games, it's been discussed in many threads, but those games weren't lost because of coaching. They were lost because our defense wasn't able to play better because the talent hasn't been very good.

Some fans don't want to admit it, but that's whatever. The team's gone from bad in a poor cap situation to good in a good one under Garrett. There's no denying it.

As far as the general HC ranking goes, these linear rankings are silly. Every NFL coaching situation is different. Guys have different personnel support, different ownership support, different financial support, play in different divisions that are significantly more difficult or significantly easier. It's not an apples-to-oranges thing. What really matters is "is this coaching staff good enough to win an NFL championship." Looking at Dallas under Garrett, the most you can say right now is "maybe." He's definitely been a good coach for us. The question is how good?

OK, hostile.

 

[CCBoy]

We've been about as consistent under Garrett as a team can be. We beat the teams we're better than, and lose to teams that are better than us. The toss-ups have been pretty even in terms of win-some, lose-some. We've been in the top-quartile of the league in terms of wins/losses under Garrett, and the team has consistently gotten better and won more games as a result.

And the playoff games, it's been discussed in many threads, but those games weren't lost because of coaching. They were lost because our defense wasn't able to play better because the talent hasn't been very good.

Some fans don't want to admit it, but that's whatever. The team's gone from bad in a poor cap situation to good in a good one under Garrett. There's no denying it.

As far as the general HC ranking goes, these linear rankings are silly. Every NFL coaching situation is different. Guys have different personnel support, different ownership support, different financial support, play in different divisions that are significantly more difficult or significantly easier. It's not an apples-to-oranges thing. What really matters is "is this coaching staff good enough to win an NFL championship." Looking at Dallas under Garrett, the most you can say right now is "maybe." He's definitely been a good coach for us. The question is how good?

I think that is more of a Dallas fan caveat of some...as to how good and what is owed now. Bottom line there, is what players bring to the carpet.

 

[Idgit]

I agree with most of what you say except the playoff losses and defense.
it is not right to rank coaches as each has a different situation.
JG is average like all the rest till he does better in playoffs and be in playoffs year after year.
the offense is good enough to do that now.

The offense is good enough to do that. So was GBs and so was ATLs last year. It's all about the differential. We're one of a handful of teams in position to win it all, and we all agree the defensive talent is a liability. It's not really any more complicated than that.

Put it this way, had Byron Jones defended even that last pass and we advanced, do you think GB would have lost because of Mike McCarthy? When a team loses, people look to blame the figurehead, but the reality is they usually lose because of the players.

 

[Idgit]

OK, hostile.

Not to be too blunt about it, Miley, but Hostile earned quite a bit more respect here over the years than you have so far. You could learn a thing or two from him when it comes to defending your own argument.

Disagree with what I said about the team's consistency? Let me know why and we can discuss it. Don't just float an emoji and what you think is a backhanded insult and walk away from the discussion.

 

[Alexander]

The offense is good enough to do that. So was GBs and so was ATLs last year. It's all about the differential. We're one of a handful of teams in position to win it all, and we all agree the defensive talent is a liability. It's not really any more complicated than that.

Put it this way, had Byron Jones defended even that last pass and we advanced, do you think GB would have lost because of Mike McCarthy? When a team loses, people look to blame the figurehead, but the reality is they usually lose because of the players.

Atlanta had a mediocre defense last year, yet embarrassed the Packers.

 

[Garrettop]

Atlanta could bring pressure with Beasley and Freeney.

 

[Idgit]

Atlanta had a mediocre defense last year, yet embarrassed the Packers.

Like I said, it's all about the differential. DAL, GB, ATL all had good offenses and fairly mediocre defenses last year. Ours didn't get it done agains Rodgers. ATL won the turnover differential 2-0 and GB's defense couldn't stop them (the Falcons had 6 scoring drives in that game). The Falcons won that game by outplaying GB on both sides of the ball. Not because Dan Quinn outsmarted Mike McCarthy.

 

[Alexander]

Atlanta could bring pressure with Beasley and Freeney.

So all we needed was pressure to win that game? Our offensive gameplan was flawless, all of our weapons were optimized and it was just that dadgum defense again!

Gosh darn it, why do these things just keep happening to us?

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

So all we needed was pressure to win that game? Our offensive gameplan was flawless, all of our weapons were optimized and it was just that dadgum defense again!

Gosh darn it, why do these things just keep happening to us?

We're cursed. Shouldn't have abandoned the running game.

 

[LocimusPrime]

We have a HOF owner. Not many have that. LOL

 

[Idgit]

So all we needed was pressure to win that game? Our offensive gameplan was flawless, all of our weapons were optimized and it was just that dadgum defense again!

Gosh darn it, why do these things just keep happening to us?

Drumroll: Ummm, because we haven't seriously addressed the defensive deficiencies that have been biting us since ~2012.

 

[Shuff]

Maybe 31

 

[Alexander]

Like I said, it's all about the differential. DAL, GB, ATL all had good offenses and fairly mediocre defenses last year. Ours didn't get it done agains Rodgers. ATL won the turnover differential 2-0 and GB's defense couldn't stop them (the Falcons had 6 scoring drives in that game). The Falcons won that game by outplaying GB on both sides of the ball. Not because Dan Quinn outsmarted Mike McCarthy.

Judging by Atlanta's all timer offense, that is it then? It is one thing to say the team (players and coaches, offense and defense) was not good enough. Instead, you hang it on the defense. Yes, it would have been nice to force turnovers but if we were supposedly square otherwise, it should not have mattered. I would say that devising a game plan where you befuddle the best QB in the game and hold him scoreless for a half. That is not Quinn outsmarting McCarthy?

You mentioned the talent. So go down the line on Atlanta's defensive roster. Outside of Beasley, who is a great player? If that is so, how can coaching and scheming not matter? They called an outstanding game, offensively and defensively, the latter having not exactly the best talent, and seized the game early and never looked back. We did not. We sputtered and coughed offensively and finally awoke to tie late then faltered. We already know the talent is not there defensively and I am not going to claim that Marinelli has all the answers, because clearly that day, he did not.

That is called coaching. It was not just Atlanta's defensive talent. That game was supposed to be a shoot out. It never got that chance.

You can't call it one way (our problem was apparently defensive talent) and then turn around for another team and discount the coaching.

We were deficient in some ways both offensively and defensively to lose that football game.

It is one thing to say it was a team loss on us. That is completely fair.

But instead, it gets twisted. We didn't get the job done, coaching or talent wise, to beat them.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So all we needed was pressure to win that game? Our offensive gameplan was flawless, all of our weapons were optimized and it was just that dadgum defense again!

Gosh darn it, why do these things just keep happening to us?

We scored over 30 points despite the slow start. The last two plays from scrimmage were a microcosm of how the defense was helter skelter that year. Sack leading to 3rd and forever. Anemic pressure and 35 yard completion.

Between injuries and lack of talent the DL was not in good shape. Marinelli made the adjustment to the 3-3-5 early in the game and got a lot of production out of it using all kinds of zone dogs, stunts, blitzes and rolling coverages.

The issue as I saw it was at the end of the game we had blown our proverbial load and we were not able to pull out any more tricks particularly with that depleted front. Nonetheless on the final play the coverage was good enough that Rodgers scanned an entire side of the field and came back all the way to the opposite sideline. We also moved him off his spot even with the hold. He just made a hell of a play.