Garrett 13 in HC Power Rankings

[Idgit]

The process takes time. lol

You don't believe the teams gotten better under Jason Garrett?

 

[CowboyRoy]

Panicked in the GB game, that is a joke. Cowboys did have some penalties that put them behind the chains they had to overcome and put them in situation where they were not going to run the ball as much that is not panic that is smart. Falling behind in the game of course Dallas was going to go to the pass a bit more had they just ran falling behind 3 score that would be stupid and many here would talk about not adjusting to the situation yet Dallas did and put themselves right back into the game. His clock management in the game please explain? if you are referring to not running the clock out and then try the 50 plus FG that in my view would be playing not to lose but with excellent field position and a TO in their back pocket the Cowboys continued to try and move the ball for the go ahead TD when they could not do so they kicked the tying FG.

Garrett said "we wanted to stop the clock and gather ourselves" in reference to why they called for a spike at the end of the game. YOU can look at that any way you want............but that means................"I am not sure what I want to do so lets just slow this thing down and figure it out".

That is total and complete panic. But no doubt the Garrett apologists will see that differently. A REAL head coach would have continued the momentum with the defense on their heals and pressed for the TD or at least burn more time.

And one could definitely have a problem with two straight passing plays that took NO time off the clock just after the spike.

 

[CowboyRoy]

So Garrett has nothing to do with it unless they lose the game then it is on him. LOL you crack me up it goes right back to blaming when things do not go right but if they win Garrett had nothing to do with it? Yeah only in your mind.

Try rereading the comment. I said he doesnt handle the personnel. I also said in another post that Garrett had his best year ever. If you cant make a legitimate argument, dont be lazy and start making things up.

 

[Idgit]

Not a knock on JG at all, but I was surprised he was in the top 15, as these lists are always biased in some form. As well, extremely subjective from those compiling these, as well as those reading them.
I will take that he is where they have him. He needs to win in the playoffs to move up.

also not reading through all the mega posts........just wanted to comment....

First off, its one dude's opinion. Second, these lists are silly. Third, if you're ranking coaches, tough to put guys who haven't been to Superbowls ahead of guys who have.

I don't have any problem with the list. My only issue is with our fans lacking rational perspective on this topic once again.

 

[Bullflop]

By far, the two most important things for any coach to have going for him is for his players to buy into his philosophy and play hard for him. Garrett has both of those factors going for him, above and beyond anything else. I think it's fairly obvious that he's improved.

If he manages to keep improving incrementally each season as he has so far, he should eventually be able to reach a point beyond that humble ranking. Thus far, I just haven't arrived at a point where I've given up on that happening. It's a process for him and the team as well.

 

[Sydla]

He's one voice in the selection process. But plays the lead role in player development.

They changed the way scouts and coaches were organized when Garrett first got here, jiggled the scouting department significantly his first couple of years, and that drafting improved dramatically from what it had been under his predecessor. You'd have to be blinded by an agenda or stupid to believe that was all coincidence.

Head coaches get credit when teams develop better player and win more games. That's the way it works.

Of which Garrett was not heavily involved. The front office changes were largely spurred on by the Jones' and McClay (when he was promoted by Stephen in 2013). To try to give Garrett a lot of credit for that is you being blinded by your agenda. Are you really trying to argue here that Garrett was the one who made all the changes in how we scout, how we build a draft board, etc.?

Head coaches who aren't responsible for talent acquisition get credit for winning games, winning playoff games and winning championships. They often don't get credit for acquiring the talent. No one goes around and says what a great job McCarthy has done in GB in building that roster. Ron Wolf, their GM, is the guy who largely gets credit for the roster. Sure, McCarthy has input but the lions share of the work is Wolf and his front office. And that's likely what happens here in Dallas. Garrett has input but in the end, it's the Jones' and McClay that have the most input into the roster we have.

 

[MileyDancer]

First off, its one dude's opinion. Second, these lists are silly. Third, if you're ranking coaches, tough to put guys who haven't been to Superbowls ahead of guys who have.

I don't have any problem with the list. My only issue is with our fans lacking rational perspective on this topic once again.

A guy who has been mediocre since he became head coach is ranked in the middle of the pack, and you're getting upset at posters who agree. And since you don't, we lack "rationale". OK.

 

[Alexander]

Head coaches who aren't responsible for talent acquisition get credit for winning games, winning playoff games and winning championships. They often don't get credit for acquiring the talent. No one goes around and says what a great job McCarthy has done in GB in building that roster. Ron Wolf, their GM, is the guy who largely gets credit for the roster. Sure, McCarthy has input but the lions share of the work is Wolf and his front office. And that's likely what happens here in Dallas. Garrett has input but in the end, it's the Jones' and McClay that have the most input into the roster we have.

It is actually Ted Thompson, not Ron Wolf, but point made.

 

[Idgit]

Of which Garrett was not heavily involved. The front office changes were largely spurred on by the Jones' and McClay (when he was promoted by Stephen in 2013). To try to give Garrett a lot of credit for that is you being blinded by your agenda. Are you really trying to argue here that Garrett was the one who made all the changes in how we scout, how we build a draft board, etc.?

Head coaches who aren't responsible for talent acquisition get credit for winning games, winning playoff games and winning championships. They often don't get credit for acquiring the talent. No one goes around and says what a great job McCarthy has done in GB in building that roster. Ron Wolf, their GM, is the guy who largely gets credit for the roster. Sure, McCarthy has input but the lions share of the work is Wolf and his front office. And that's likely what happens here in Dallas. Garrett has input but in the end, it's the Jones' and McClay that have the most input into the roster we have.

We've covered this in other threads. To not give a HC credit for developing players is to be blinded by your agenda.

Specifically, on the scouting front, there was a lot of talk when Garrett was elevated after the 2010 season about how he wanted the scouting department organized. At the time, Broaddus referred to it and attributed it to the fact that he had very particular ideas about what he wanted because he grew up around scouting and coaching both and had strong ideas about how it worked.

They shuffled the scouting department fairly significantly in 2012.

McClay wasn't elevated until 2013.

Lionel Vital was brought in in 2015.

There have been a lot of things done in Garrett's tenure. It's impossible to say where his influence stops or starts. What we do know is the his bosses love him, his players are developing faster and better than they did before he got here, the team is winning more games, and that some of the fans want to believe it's all coincidence that the only new variable is the head coach because to admit otherwise would be giving up on a deeply held agenda.

 

[Idgit]

A guy who has been mediocre since he became head coach is ranked in the middle of the pack, and you're getting upset at posters who agree. And since you don't, we lack "rationale". OK.

I've said a couple of times here I have no problem with the ranking. And I don't think fans who think 13 is reasonable here lack perspective.

 

[waving monkey]

Yes it is. Just making the playoffs doesn't mean one is a legit contender (And let's note Garrett has only two play off appearances in 7 years).

Have a couple of winning seasons in a row. Win a few more playoff games. Win the division a couple of times in a row. Then we can talk about having a legit contender.

As I have said many times before, maybe Garrett is a great coach but the results to date have not indicated it. So he needs to start producing now. 7 years is more than enough time to find yourself and your franchise. If Garrett is as good as you guys claim, he should start producing in the postseason now.

As I have said many times before, maybe Garrett is a great coach but the results to date have not indicated it. So he needs to start producing now. 7 years is more than enough time to find yourself and your franchise. If Garrett is as good as you guys claim, he should start producing in the postseason now.
It is time for the bacon

 

[Sydla]

We've covered this in other threads. To not give a HC credit for developing players is to be blinded by your agenda.

Specifically, on the scouting front, there was a lot of talk when Garrett was elevated after the 2010 season about how he wanted the scouting department organized. At the time, Broaddus referred to it and attributed it to the fact that he had very particular ideas about what he wanted because he grew up around scouting and coaching both and had strong ideas about how it worked.

They shuffled the scouting department fairly significantly in 2012.

McClay wasn't elevated until 2013.

Lionel Vital was brought in in 2015.

There have been a lot of things done in Garrett's tenure. It's impossible to say where his influence stops or starts. What we do know is the his bosses love him, his players are developing faster and better than they did before he got here, the team is winning more games, and that some of the fans want to believe it's all coincidence that the only new variable is the head coach because to admit otherwise would be giving up on a deeply held agenda.

First, the shuffling in the scouting department in 2012 was because a guy left to go to the Packers and they had to replace that guy. And all they did was shift region responsibilities between scouts. There wasn't this big overhaul of the scouting department in 2012. There was only one new person added in 2012.

2013 was the first real big change when Stephen promoted McClay to work under him and gave him way more responsibility in building the draft boards, etc.

Garrett was not the driving force in those moves.

I have never once even used the term "development". I've never said Garrett should not get credit for developing players. But the ultimate test of player development is what happens on the field and this is where you and I disagree. Winning 13 games but crapping out in the playoffs isn't some massive achievement in my book. One playoff win in 7 years isn't a sign to me that he and his staff are doing a fantastic job developing the players. I need more on field success before I can sit there and say he's done a great job at developing a championship caliber roster.

The key piece to building a roster is actually acquiring the talent first that can later be developed. Some seem to want to try to give him credit for that as well, and I think that's bogus.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

You don't believe the teams gotten better under Jason Garrett?

Until he starts winning in the playoffs I take a wait and see approach. The offense is good but it's always been good. Still waiting to see about the defense. I'll give him credit for sticking with Dak last year though and not giving in to sentiment to put Tony in. But Jason has to start winning consistently.

 

[Sydla]

What's really bizarre here is that you are seeing people that want to give Garrett credit for the development of the roster and the team then want to excuse Garrett for playoff shortcomings because of the defense. How can you hold Garrett responsible for playoff shortcomings with that defense, they say...........

So how does this all work? Garrett should be getting credit for the development of the roster but only for the offense? Because if Garrett is the one we should be giving credit to for apparently developing and building this roster, then shouldn't we look to him as the reason the defense simply wasn't up to snuff in key games the last few years?

 

[MileyDancer]

Until he starts winning in the playoffs...

I just don't think he has it in him. He was a backup QB, an average OC, and is an average coach. If we win anything big, it'll be in spite of him, not because he's some coaching genius.

Prove me wrong, Jason.500

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

I just don't think he has it in him. He was a backup QB, an average OC, and is an average coach. If we win anything big, it'll be in spite of him, not because he's some coaching genius.

Prove me wrong, Jason.500

He hasn't showed me that he can outcoach anybody either. That's another thing. As you said, I hope he proves me wrong. I just want to win and if he finally does nobody will be happier.

 

[Sydla]

I just don't think he has it in him. He was a backup QB, an average OC, and is an average coach. If we win anything big, it'll be in spite of him, not because he's some coaching genius.

Prove me wrong, Jason.500

I personally have no idea if he has it in him or not.

I think the best way to look at this is that he has certainly not done enough to warrant this undying love some have for him, nor has he been bad enough for some to claim he's a bad head coach. He's right in the middle as this ranking shows. When you look at his big game and playoff performances, he's been good and he's had some hiccups.

It's time to start producing. The "build" is over. No more learning curve. No more excuses. 7 years in, time to start producing. I do not deny that it is quite possible that Garrett could be a very good coach that will start delivering big playoff wins now for us. But that has to start now. I don't want to be here 2-3 years from now looking at more playoff futility and having people still trying to tell us what a good coach he is.

 

[Doomsday101]

I just don't think he has it in him. He was a backup QB, an average OC, and is an average coach. If we win anything big, it'll be in spite of him, not because he's some coaching genius.

Prove me wrong, Jason.500

LOL how can he prove you wrong? You just said if they win it will be in spite of him. So really no matter what this team does in your mind Garrett had nothing to do with it. However if they lose it is on him the same guy who has nothing to do with it? lol Basically Garrett is in a no win situation with some fans he is damned if they win and damned if they lose.

 

[MileyDancer]

LOL how can he prove you wrong? You just said if they win it will be in spite of him. So really no matter what this team does in your mind Garrett had nothing to do with it. However if they lose it is on him the same guy who has nothing to do with it? lol Basically Garrett is in a no win situation with some fans he is damned if they win and damned if they lose.

If we win a close playoff game because Garrett made a gutsy call, I'll give him credit. I'm only half-blinded by hate. I just don't think we will. It'll be because we somehow won despite stupid decisions he's made. If we hadn't spiked the ball, went for it, and won against GB, I'd praise Garrett. That didn't happen.

 

[perrykemp]

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

That Packers team was totally predicated on Aaron Rodgers playing like superman ever week. It was one of the worst 'teams' to play in a NFC Championship game in a long while.

Rodgers was merely mortal in that game and they got stampeded.

It's ultimately an example of why Superbowl winning teams are 'typically' more balanced.