Garrett is a great coach waiting to happen

[Idgit]

LOL.

Garrett is the head coach. It’s his call to let the clock run or not.

There's no reason to not take a TO there. The only reason it's an issue is because the kick was then missed. If you want to question his decisions, question the ones where he makes an actual mistake.

 

[Idgit]

And the kicker and holder said they had time.

You can wait until 1 second to call timeout if you think they are struggling to get the kick off. And the kicker or holder can also call timeout if they feel rushed which McBriar said wasn’t the case.

He screwed up twice in that game.

What difference does it make if the kicker and holder thought they had time? That doesn't matter at all. If the ST coach or the HC thinks things are getting rushed and wants a split-second TO to be sure, it's their prerogative to use a TO (or not). The holder's job is to hold. The kicker's job is to kick. The players agreeing or disagreeing about feeling rushed doesn't enter into it at all.

 

[Sydla]

There's no reason to not take a TO there. The only reason it's an issue is because the kick was then missed. If you want to question his decisions, question the ones where he makes an actual mistake.

I questioned that.

I also question why he calls timeout with 6 seconds in the play clock. He could have waited until 1 second and then called timeout.

His own holder basically refuted Garrett’s statement.

 

[Captain43Crash]

Here's what Garrett actually said after the game when asked about why they called it:

"Just because we felt like the play clock was running down. Just wanted to make sure he had a real clean opportunity at it," Garrett said. "It was at about 6 (seconds), and we were still getting settled in, so we banged a timeout just to give him an opportunity to get the snap off and kick as clean as possible."

Pretty reasonable. They weren't settled, his ST coordinator asks for it, the HC calls it. They had two TOs in their pocket so there was no reason not to use one. Nothing wrong with that, at all. He got the TO off in time. I don't see how you fault him for any of that.

If you want to get on him, they had time to run a play and a TO to burn prior to clocking it. Even a short throw and a TO makes the kick a lot easier. Like I said, Garrett blew the clock management and possibly cost the team that game, but it wasn't because they called a time out before kicking it. The only reason people are mad is because Bailey made it the first time and missed it the second.

Again, bottom line, his coaching or lack there of, in the last 30 seconds, cost us the game.

 

[Sydla]

What difference does it make if the kicker and holder thought they had time? That doesn't matter at all. If the ST coach or the HC thinks things are getting rushed and wants a split-second TO to be sure, it's their prerogative to use a TO (or not). The holder's job is to hold. The kicker's job is to kick. The players agreeing or disagreeing about feeling rushed doesn't enter into it at all.

It matters a lot. Because whether they were rushed or not is precisely why the coach thought he needed to call a TO.

The coach called TO. It didn’t work.

And by the way, if you watch the full clip, there lined up and ready with more than enough time. So this notion that they rushed into the field and hastily tried to kick a FG is an overstatement by a coach who had his decision making questioned yet again.

Further, even if Garrett was right and they rushed on field, why were they rushed? The game clock was stopped. They had little option at that point to do nothing but kick FG. So if Garrett is right and they rushed into field to kick the FG, why was that? Why didn’t they come on field shortly after Romo spiked the ball and the officials started the play clock?

 

[Captain43Crash]

I always thought Romo didn’t manage clock well there either but no ones blaming him. Selective memories and agendas usually drive the rhetoric.

I was yelling at the TV, “call timeout”. Romo and Garrett both stood there while 10-25 seconds ticked off the clock. They both are to blame, but who is the HC?

 

[Idgit]

I questioned that.

I also question why he calls timeout with 6 seconds in the play clock. He could have waited until 1 second and then called timeout.

His own holder basically refuted Garrett’s statement.

You can question it all you like, it doesn't make your criticism rational.

Here's what Bailey had to say about it: "The first one, I felt like I hit it good. Obviously it went in," Bailey said. "We called the timeout, but that is my job to regroup and make the next one. I didn't do that. No excuses. I should have made it despite the circumstances."

 

[Idgit]

It matters a lot. Because whether they were rushed or not is precisely why the coach thought he needed to call a TO.

The coach called TO. It didn’t work.

And by the way, if you watch the full clip, there lined up and ready with more than enough time. So this notion that they rushed into the field and hastily tried to kick a FG is an overstatement by a coach who had his decision making questioned yet again.

Further, even if Garrett was right and they rushed on field, why were they rushed? The game clock was stopped. They had little option at that point to do nothing but kick FG. So if Garrett is right and they rushed into field to kick the FG, why was that? Why didn’t they come on field shortly after Romo spiked the ball and the officials started the play clock?

It doesn't matter at all, because it's their job to make the kick when not rushed, regardless. "Not rushed" is better than "rushed." You have the timeouts to spend, you put your team in the best position to make the kick and win the game.

Complaining because the not-rushed kick was good and the one they took coming out of the TO was bad is second-guessing. Had the rushed the kick and missed it, you'd be saying it was a mistake to not take the TO there and give yourself the best chance possible.

 

[Sydla]

It doesn't matter at all, because it's their job to make the kick when not rushed, regardless. "Not rushed" is better than "rushed." You have the timeouts to spend, you put your team in the best position to make the kick and win the game.

Complaining because the not-rushed kick was good and the one they took coming out of the TO was bad is second-guessing. Had the rushed the kick and missed it, you'd be saying it was a mistake to not take the TO there and give yourself the best chance possible.

And it’s the coach’s job to try to put players in best position to succeed.

Calling TO there was a mistake.

So were they rushed or not on that first kick? If they were, which you seem to believe what Garrett said, why were they rushed?

Garrett completely mismanaged those last 33 seconds.

 

[Idgit]

And it’s the coach’s job to try to put players in best position to succeed.

Calling TO there was a mistake...

That's where you're wrong. Calling the TO *did* put the players in the best position to succeed for that kick. The kicker is on the roster to make kicks like the one he missed.

I have no way of knowing how rushed they were or weren't the first time around, but it's not relevant anyway. I do know they weren't rushed the second time around. Since we had the TOs to use, it was perfectly reasonable to use one to eliminate the clock as a factor. If you're the HC and your ST coordinator want's a timeout before the game winning attempt, you give it to him.

But that's how it goes with fans. They second guess the judgement calls that do work and discredit the ones that don't if they don't like a guy. It's enough that Garrett and company messed up in the run up to the attempt and kept the team from getting closer and making the kick easier. Yes, maybe Bailey misses it anyway. Or maybe Romo gets sacked and we miss the shot entirely. It was still a bad use of time with two timeouts left.

But that doesn't change the fact that the timeout before the kick was perfectly reasonable and not a mistake, which is what we're debating here, again, for whatever reason.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I was yelling at the TV, “call timeout”. Romo and Garrett both stood there while 10-25 seconds ticked off the clock. They both are to blame, but who is the HC?

Even Jerry Jones knows when his head coach is mismanaging the clock.

This time was when the Giants were close to scoring the go-ahead TD and were letting clock run down so we wouldn't have time to come back.

 

[ConstantReboot]

I agree. If Garrett is responsible for personnel decisions his butt should fired. The risk we’ve taken in drafts alone would be enough for dismissal.

But we suspect Garrett doesn’t have final say and the root of the problem as you refer to.

Winning hasn’t been the top priority when the biggest obstacle insist on receiving credit.

Well Will McClay is in charge of personnel and the Cowboys are really doing well in the draft lately. Which goes to show that maybe Garrett doesn't use the talent given to him to the best of his abilities?

 

[ConstantReboot]

probsbly the dumbest post I have read in a while..

show me one coach who comes to presser and says our team sucks... and oh yeah, garrett did that once and people said he is throwing his players under the bus...

ummmm Parcells.

He flat out calls out players for their mistakes and throws them under the bus.

 

[School]

You want to think it's misleading because it undermines your point. But the context you claimed is Garrett going against the flow of the league, what was becoming too pass happy. Well certainly, if that context is to hold water, the Cowboys' rushing totals would seemingly be an outlier against previous years.

But they weren't. They were right in line with previous seasons for teams that ran the ball a lot. Further, let's go with TOP, since that's also something you are pushing. The Cowboys TOP for 2014, for example, ranked #1 at 32:52. Ranked second? The Steelers at 32:24 and Seahawks at 32:22. Not exactly huge differences here. The previous year, that TOP wouldn't have ranked first. The Chargers were over 33 minutes a game in 2013. Or 2012.

So again, this idea that Garrett was doing something counter to what the league was doing and trending towards is a myth. It may have been different for the Cowboys who had allowed Romo to throw the ball a ton and then shifted to more ball control, but what the Cowboys finally started doing in 2014 wasn't something that had disappeared from the NFL. There were other teams in the NFL eating clock and running the ball a lot.

He gets the credit when he does something of value. I give him credit for a nice job in 2016 when he took a rookie led team to 13-3 (really 14-2 that last Eagles game was a joke). So if you are trying to argue that I don't want to give him credit, that's bogus. I just don't accept made up successes to credit him for that aren't backed by actual evidence.

Rushing totals are misleading. In 2014, the Cowboys played at the slowest pace in the league (30.12 seconds on average between plays, over half a second longer than any other team). As a result, Dallas was near the bottom in plays per game, so of course their rushing totals are going to be depressed because of that. Rushing percentage would be better to look at. Dallas was #3 in 2014 (and #1 in 2016).

But even that doesn't tell the whole story. None of the other teams near the top in rushing percentage had as prolific a passing attack as the Cowboys. That means they generally ran not by choice, but because they had no other option. The top rushing percentage team in 2014 was the Texans, who had nothing at quarterback..

And I guess to me it's not a compelling argument when you say the Cowboys ranked #1 in TOP, but not by enough. Naturally a team like Seattle is going to have a high TOP when their defense is able to keep opposing offenses off the field.

Dallas was the only elite offense to play in the manner they did, with the exception of perhaps Seattle. The others either were either more pass heavy or played at a faster pace, or both. That is doing something counter to what the rest of the league was doing.

 

[School]

Who calls him heavily flawed other than a bunch of disgruntled fans on a social site? I don't see any of the sports analysts using this vernacular.

He has things to work on but I think it gets magnified bc fans on here are just so frustrated with not having success.

"Heavily flawed" might've been a bit much. I think "flawed" suffices. I have my disagreements with Garrett, but I'm rooting for him.

Also, not to you but more in general: all the stuff about him clapping is ridiculous. Yeah I said it.

 

[stilltheguru88]

Garrett is a Hall of Fame QB and Doomsday defense away from winning Super Bowls.

The same components Landry and Jimmy had.

This trash got likes too they became hall of fame qbs BY WINNING. Y’all disgust me to the highest degree

 

[Zman5]

Garrett is a great coach waiting to happen?

"great coach"? You Brits have funny way of spelling "accident"

 

[Cowpolk]

ummmm Parcells.

He flat out calls out players for their mistakes and throws them under the bus.

Constantly

 

[Beast_from_East]

Id say .. enough. He makes mistakes. They all do.

But overall I see lesser talent getting beat my greater talent. Always exceptions and why they call them upsets.

Funny how Wade didn't get the "not enough talent excuse".

Always excuses for poor little Garrett.......its just not fair that he doesn't have a Hall of Fame QB and a top 5 defense

 

[Cowpolk]

And it’s the coach’s job to try to put players in best position to succeed.

Calling TO there was a mistake.

So were they rushed or not on that first kick? If they were, which you seem to believe what Garrett said, why were they rushed?

Garrett completely mismanaged those last 33 seconds.

Garrett called the time out only in proxy his coaches requested it he gave them what they asked for