Garrett Locker Room speech after Browns win

[Idgit]

I was thinking the same thing. Garrett spent several of Romo's good years floundering, trying to be the play-caller and the head coach. Then, in Linehan's first year, Dallas figured out the formula it needed to follow to go 12-4 and be a contender in the playoffs. The plan was to follow the same formula last year but then we had Romo's setback.

This has been the main negative of Garrett's ascension. He didn't get to spend enough time first as an offensive coordinator to figure out either how to do it or that he didn't need to do it. So we ended up being out of balance while he tried to figure that out, putting too much on Romo and not understanding that a strong running game helps out both the passer and the defense.

It's a shame that we have wasted all those years when Romo was one of the few reasons we had any success.

Not really. He rebuilt the OL during that time, because it had gotten really old, really fast. But the offense was always strong under Romo/Garrett on a points/series basis, despite the needed personnel overhaul.

The false started on the DC hire, twice, which is he biggest early failing in my book. But it was really the very bad defense that held this team back during the early Garrett years. He might have fixed it more quickly, but that was also during the time when the cap came in ~$10MM lower after the CBA negotiation and when we had the Austin cap penalty that slowed things down further.

People who were certain Garrett was a know-nothing loser of a coach while he was putting up top percentile winning percentages during a significant rebuild are pivoting to the storyline that he's magically learned a lot now that the personnel is better. The reality is, he did a good job with a bad team and is now doing a better job with a good one and people just don't want to admit they were wrong all along.

 

[gimmesix]

Not really. He rebuilt the OL during that time, because it had gotten really old, really fast. But the offense was always strong under Romo/Garrett on a points/series basis, despite the needed personnel overhaul.

The false started on the DC hire, twice, which is he biggest early failing in my book. But it was really the very bad defense that held this team back during the early Garrett years. He might have fixed it more quickly, but that was also during the time when the cap came in ~$10MM lower after the CBA negotiation and when we had the Austin cap penalty that slowed things down further.

People who were certain Garrett was a know-nothing loser of a coach while he was putting up top percentile winning percentages during a significant rebuild are pivoting to the storyline that he's magically learned a lot now that the personnel is better. The reality is, he did a good job with a bad team and is now doing a better job with a good one and people just don't want to admit they were wrong all along.

I think you're giving him too much credit on rebuilding the line and too little blame for dismantling the line without a good plan. It was clear that the line needed to be revamped, but he did too much too soon in getting rid of Gurode and replacing him with Costa as the starting center. Nate Livings and Mackenzie Bernadeau weren't enough to do a quick rebuild around one rookie (Smith) and Free. So he put us in a position to not win. Too much pressure on Romo, no running game while we still had some defensive stars (although injuries badly hurt that unit).

The Cowboys purposefully added a lineman the year it drafted Frederick, but Martin was a happy accident. Leary was luck as was Collins. Without this luck and a switch in offensive philosophy that came with Linehan, Garrett might have remained a .500 coach. And I'm saying this as someone who likes head coach Garrett, but did not like offensive coordinator Garrett and his lack of creativity on offense, including not using the running game well.

 

[Idgit]

I think you're giving him too much credit on rebuilding the line and too little blame for dismantling the line without a good plan. It was clear that the line needed to be revamped, but he did too much too soon in getting rid of Gurode and replacing him with Costa as the starting center. Nate Livings and Mackenzie Bernadeau weren't enough to do a quick rebuild around one rookie (Smith) and Free. So he put us in a position to not win. Too much pressure on Romo, no running game while we still had some defensive stars (although injuries badly hurt that unit).

The Cowboys purposefully added a lineman the year it drafted Frederick, but Martin was a happy accident. Leary was luck as was Collins. Without this luck and a switch in offensive philosophy that came with Linehan, Garrett might have remained a .500 coach. And I'm saying this as someone who likes head coach Garrett, but did not like offensive coordinator Garrett and his lack of creativity on offense, including not using the running game well.

They did with the OL the exact thing they've done with rebuilding every position group. The brought in affordable stop gaps for short term contracts, threw numbers in terms of late round picks and UDFAs and CFAs at the position group, and then systematically drafted and developed players as they improved. We went over it in detail at the time, but Gurode was done as a starter in the NFL when we let him go (he only started 9 games in 3 years after leaving Dallas, and played for a different team each year). 2012 was the year we brought in Callahan and everybody flipped out about the move towards the zone concepts. It's why we bought in the stop gaps. And anybody who watched the OTs collapse in MIN in the 2009 playoffs and the abortion of the 2010 first half of the season knew an OL rebuild was necessary. People didn't like the way he went about it aggressively, but the reality was there wasn't much of a choice and it was the right thing to do. The same for the secondary and the DL after that.

I won't defend the team in the argument that they're just getting lucky with their first round picks. Frederick was absolutely a target that season after the Romo extension. Smith we took in the top 10, so of course there were options. Martin, we were hoping for a DL or front seven player on defense I think, but went with our board when it broke the way it did. He drafted him, so he gets the credit for it whether people want to consider that 'getting lucky' or not.

Garrett wasn't going to remain .500. He systematically rebuilt the roster from the minute he got here. I still don't understand how it took so many so long to see it going on. He flubbed getting his defensive coaching staff in place, as I've said several times, but he has gradually built a really strong staff, too. The NFL game is about finding and developing talent. No reasonable person is going to look at this roster and say we've done a poor job of that in the Garrett era.

 

[gimmesix]

They did with the OL the exact thing they've done with rebuilding every position group. The brought in affordable stop gaps for short term contracts, threw numbers in terms of late round picks and UDFAs and CFAs at the position group, and then systematically drafted and developed players as they improved. We went over it in detail at the time, but Gurode was done as a starter in the NFL when we let him go (he only started 9 games in 3 years after leaving Dallas, and played for a different team each year). 2012 was the year we brought in Callahan and everybody flipped out about the move towards the zone concepts. It's why we bought in the stop gaps. And anybody who watched the OTs collapse in MIN in the 2009 playoffs and the abortion of the 2010 first half of the season knew an OL rebuild was necessary. People didn't like the way he went about it aggressively, but the reality was there wasn't much of a choice and it was the right thing to do. The same for the secondary and the DL after that.

I won't defend the team in the argument that they're just getting lucky with their first round picks. Frederick was absolutely a target that season after the Romo extension. Smith we took in the top 10, so of course there were options. Martin, we were hoping for a DL or front seven player on defense I think, but went with our board when it broke the way it did. He drafted him, so he gets the credit for it whether people want to consider that 'getting lucky' or not.

Garrett wasn't going to remain .500. He systematically rebuilt the roster from the minute he got here. I still don't understand how it took so many so long to see it going on. He flubbed getting his defensive coaching staff in place, as I've said several times, but he has gradually built a really strong staff, too. The NFL game is about finding and developing talent. No reasonable person is going to look at this roster and say we've done a poor job of that in the Garrett era.

So Garrett's plan all along was to step down from being offensive coordinator? Doing that has made him a better head coach, but I don't think he had any plans to do it.

I won't argue drafting with you because all drafts are a combination of getting the players you are targeting and luck. The Cowboys have been pretty successful with both the past few years.

I disagree with you on the line. He put the team behind the eight ball by dismantling it as fast as he did. He did not do the same with the secondary or defensive line, leaving key parts in place while attempting to replace others. Claiborne and Carr were brought in to replace Newman and Jenkins. Ware and Hatcher stayed on until the team decided age and injuries were taking too much of a toll.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think you're giving him too much credit on rebuilding the line and too little blame for dismantling the line without a good plan. It was clear that the line needed to be revamped, but he did too much too soon in getting rid of Gurode and replacing him with Costa as the starting center. Nate Livings and Mackenzie Bernadeau weren't enough to do a quick rebuild around one rookie (Smith) and Free. So he put us in a position to not win. Too much pressure on Romo, no running game while we still had some defensive stars (although injuries badly hurt that unit).

The Cowboys purposefully added a lineman the year it drafted Frederick, but Martin was a happy accident. Leary was luck as was Collins. Without this luck and a switch in offensive philosophy that came with Linehan, Garrett might have remained a .500 coach. And I'm saying this as someone who likes head coach Garrett, but did not like offensive coordinator Garrett and his lack of creativity on offense, including not using the running game well.

Garrett 'dismantled the line' after Gurode, Adams, Kosier, and Davis after their play fell off a cliff. It's not like he traded them without replacements and given they were OL it was not a reasonable expectation that all of them would take a dive all at the same time. All of them were out of the league within a year of leaving here.

As for the picks themselves, Jones had never picked an OL in the first round in the decades he was here and when Garrett becomes HC we do it three out of four years. It is what it is.

As for Linehan, you are ignoring the credit for the running approach that he himself gave to Garrett.

 

[Idgit]

So Garrett's plan all along was to step down from being offensive coordinator? Doing that has made him a better head coach, but I don't think he had any plans to do it.

I won't argue drafting with you because all drafts are a combination of getting the players you are targeting and luck. The Cowboys have been pretty successful with both the past few years.

I disagree with you on the line. He put the team behind the eight ball by dismantling it as fast as he did. He did not do the same with the secondary or defensive line, leaving key parts in place while attempting to replace others. Claiborne and Carr were brought in to replace Newman and Jenkins. Ware and Hatcher stayed on until the team decided age and injuries were taking too much of a toll.

The play calling question is another topic entirely. No, I think he wanted to call the plays, as well (and there wasn't a huge problem with his play calling to being with, we just didn't have a very good team some of those years. Linehan is a better play caller, though). Jerry was right to free Jason up from that responsibility, but I don't think he has anything to be ashamed of in that regard. He's got a big job as it is, and plenty of coaches don't call their own plays.

We don't have to agree on the OL. There's little arguing with the ultimate result, so quibbling about the interim is kind of pointless. I already mentioned what Gurode went on to do after we let him go. Leonard Davis? He started 0 games in 2011 for the Lions and 0 in 2012 for the 49ers. Kosier played one more season, in Dallas, where he was moved over to pair with Smith before we released him. Colombo followed Parcels to MIA where he played a year and was not resigned. It's not exactly like the rest of the league agreed there was a lot of tread left on all those tires.

 

[gimmesix]

The play calling question is another topic entirely. No, I think he wanted to call the plays, as well (and there wasn't a huge problem with his play calling to being with, we just didn't have a very good team some of those years. Linehan is a better play caller, though). Jerry was right to free Jason up from that responsibility, but I don't think he has anything to be ashamed of in that regard. He's got a big job as it is, and plenty of coaches don't call their own plays.

We don't have to agree on the OL. There's little arguing with the ultimate result, so quibbling about the interim is kind of pointless. I already mentioned what Gurode went on to do after we let him go. Leonard Davis? He started 0 games in 2011 for the Lions and 0 in 2012 for the 49ers. Kosier played one more season, in Dallas, where he was moved over to pair with Smith before we released him. Colombo followed Parcels to MIA where he played a year and was not resigned. It's not exactly like the rest of the league agreed there was a lot of tread left on all those tires.

The only one we let go of that I disagreed with was Gurode. Nothing can convince me that it wouldn't have been best to hold on to him for another year instead of starting Costa. I understand why the Cowboys moved on (and part of it was because they couldn't get Gurode to agree to a salary reduction), but I didn't agree with it then and I don't now. We gave Romo little chance of succeeding by swapping so many out without bringing in more than stopgaps to replace them. The only reason I quibble about the interim is because it was one of the ways we wasted Romo's good years. When you've got a franchise QB, you can't make it all about "the process." The process needs to be done within the framework of winning before that QB's prime is gone.

We whiffed completely on Costa and pretty much completely on Livings, while Berny was just OK. You can't do that unless your defense is good enough to carry a heavy part of the load. That's on Garrett the head coach ... and I'm sure that he'd be the first to tell you he's made plenty of mistakes in getting to this point.

 

[Idgit]

The only one we let go of that I disagreed with was Gurode. Nothing can convince me that it wouldn't have been best to hold on to him for another year instead of starting Costa. I understand why the Cowboys moved on (and part of it was because they couldn't get Gurode to agree to a salary reduction), but I didn't agree with it then and I don't now. We gave Romo little chance of succeeding by swapping so many out without bringing in more than stopgaps to replace them. The only reason I quibble about the interim is because it was one of the ways we wasted Romo's good years. When you've got a franchise QB, you can't make it all about "the process." The process needs to be done within the framework of winning before that QB's prime is gone.

We whiffed completely on Costa and pretty much completely on Livings, while Berny was just OK. You can't do that unless your defense is good enough to carry a heavy part of the load. That's on Garrett the head coach ... and I'm sure that he'd be the first to tell you he's made plenty of mistakes in getting to this point.

No matter how you look at it, Costa played more games than Gurode did in the NFL after we made the switch. He signed a two year deal at above league average to compete for the starting role on a decent team (Colts) before an unexpected injury retirement.

Gurode petered out playing on three more teams in three years and was done. He was let go in Dallas after missing camp and most of the preseason after being unwilling to renegotiate the last year of his contract to stay with the team. Pretty hard to argue we erred in cutting him in any way, shape, or form in my book. Much less that cutting him was a reason why Tony's career was wasted.

If years of Tony's career were wasted, it was in not committing to field a competitive defense in 2012 and 2013.

 

[adbutcher]

I'd love to know what metric you guys are using to determine that Tomlin is overrated. Considering he's coached them for 10 years, been to the playoffs 6 times, played in the SuperBowl twice and won the SB once. Or do wins not matter when talking about how good a coach is in this case?

Is it because his team lost to the Ravens last week?

I love Red but I wish he was half as overrated as Epps.