Garrett not a good coach?

[CCBoy]

He has more consistently winning seasons that's for sure and he was in a stronger division for years. The only break I'll give Garrett is he has a playoff win but even that only gets you so much.

Lets just look at this version of Jason Garrett...

 

[cml750]

Out of curiosity, which of the rosters between 2011-2013 did you think we're significantly better than .500 teams?

Given the way Garrett cost the team AT LEAST two games in each of those seasons, I would say all of them. If we had a real coach we would have been in the playoffs 3+ consecutive years. Now the roster may not have been good enough to win the Superbowl but they were definitely better than .500 and playoff quality with better coaching.

 

[Idgit]

Given the way Garrett cost the team AT LEAST two games in each of those seasons, I would say all of them. If we had a real coach we would have been in the playoffs 3+ consecutive years. Now the roster may not have been good enough to win the Superbowl but they were definitely better than .500 and playoff quality with better coaching.

Yeah, we just really disagree then. Those teams were good enough to contend for the East, and mostly because we had Tony Romo.

 

[haleyrules]

Given the way Garrett cost the team AT LEAST two games in each of those seasons, I would say all of them. If we had a real coach we would have been in the playoffs 3+ consecutive years. Now the roster may not have been good enough to win the Superbowl but they were definitely better than .500 and playoff quality with better coaching.

Amen!

 

[The Fonz]

Maybe he is suffering from paralysis analysis

 

[Sydla]

To answer the first question. I am not sure he's a good coach or not. I know he's not a great coach (at least not yet) and to me, that's the problem.

 

[Idgit]

To answer the first question. I am not sure he's a good coach or not. I know he's not a great coach (at least not yet) and to me, that's the problem.

How is it that we went from a 1-7 team to a team in the upper quartile in wins, while rebuilding, under Garrett and you're not sure if he's a 'good' coach or not? Is there any aspect of the club (personnel, average age of the team, condition of the salary cap, winning percentage) that hasn't improved from the team he inherited? That doesn't outpace 'NFL average' by a fair margin during his tenure?

I completely understand why you wouldn't consider him a great coach. He hasn't earned great, and it took longer than expected to get the team back to competitive. But he's earned 'good' already, and then some. If he's ever going to be considered a 'great' coach, his teams need to start winning championships.

But the fact that many in this thread don't even think he's a good coach and choose to believe the significant turn around in the team's fortunes is happening in spite of him or without his involvement is hard to take seriously.

 

[Ranching]

Lets just look at this version of Jason Garrett...

Haha, that's pretty funny.

 

[Sydla]

How is it that we went from a 1-7 team to a team in the upper quartile in wins, while rebuilding, under Garrett and you're not sure if he's a 'good' coach or not? Is there any aspect of the club (personnel, average age of the team, condition of the salary cap, winning percentage) that hasn't improved from the team he inherited? That doesn't outpace 'NFL average' by a fair margin during his tenure?

I completely understand why you wouldn't consider him a great coach. He hasn't earned great, and it took longer than expected to get the team back to competitive. But he's earned 'good' already, and then some. If he's ever going to be considered a 'great' coach, his teams need to start winning championships.

But the fact that many in this thread don't even think he's a good coach and choose to believe the significant turn around in the team's fortunes is happening in spite of him or without his involvement is hard to take seriously.

Good coaches win multiple playoff games. Great coaches win SBs.

Garrett has done neither to date in 6 full seasons. I get some of you are basically trying to excuse his run up until now as he had to take over a terrible situation and rebuild the team, but that's not really true. It's put up or shut up time now. If he continues the run of either missing the playoffs or getting bounced early in the playoffs, it would be hard to argue he's a good coach. And at this point, no one here has a clue if he can become much better in the postseason or not.

Ergo, I am not sure he's a good coach or not at this point. It's time to prove it. No more excuses.

Essentially you want to give him credit for things that really can't be qualified or the Garrett has little to do with, such as the salary cap manipulation. You oversell his importance in terms of the personnel getting better. That's more to do with the culture change in the front office with McClay having a bigger voice, Stephen having more say and Jerry's willingness now to listen. Garrett is a small part of the resurgence of the front office and better player personnel decisions. Coaching success is based on wins and losses and playoff wins. Garrett has little to no postseason success. So at this point, until he does, it's unclear if he's a good coach or not.

 

[Sydla]

I'll put it another way. If Garrett can get this team to the NFC Title game (not even win it) in 2017, I'll openly admit he's a very good coach.

But until he (or any coach for that matter) doesn't experience postseason success, I can't call him a good coach.

 

[Idgit]

Good coaches win multiple playoff games. Great coaches win SBs.

Garrett has done neither to date in 6 full seasons. I get some of you are basically trying to excuse his run up until now as he had to take over a terrible situation and rebuild the team, but that's not really true. It's put up or shut up time now. If he continues the run of either missing the playoffs or getting bounced early in the playoffs, it would be hard to argue he's a good coach. And at this point, no one here has a clue if he can become much better in the postseason or not.

Ergo, I am not sure he's a good coach or not at this point. It's time to prove it. No more excuses.

Ok, I guess. I definitely don't agree with the distinction you make here, since there are plenty of good coaches who don't always win playoff games, and there are great coaches, too, who haven't won Superbowls. I always go back to John Wooden saying his best job coaching was on a sub-.500 team. But if you're definition of 'good' is winning multiple playoff games,' I guess you'd have to be undecided. At least we've moved beyond just having a winning record.

Essentially you want to give him credit for things that really can't be qualified or the Garrett has little to do with, such as the salary cap manipulation. You oversell his importance in terms of the personnel getting better. That's more to do with the culture change in the front office with McClay having a bigger voice, Stephen having more say and Jerry's willingness now to listen. Garrett is a small part of the resurgence of the front office and better player personnel decisions. Coaching success is based on wins and losses and playoff wins. Garrett has little to no postseason success. So at this point, until he does, it's unclear if he's a good coach or not.

I try to give the credit where it's due, but I'm not overselling anything. Stephen Jones and Will McClay both pre-date Jason taking over the team. The improved drafting coincides with Garrett taking over and Wade's departure. If you want to give the credit to Stephen, fine, but listen to what he has to say about Jason some time, then, because those guys are on the same page.

At some point, you look at how the team got better under Parcels, how the talent peaked and then dipped under Wade, and then how it improved again under Garrett and just give these coaches credit (or blame) for what their teams have done. We can pretend that Parcels was the reason they got good in 2005-2007, Wade the reason they dropped off in 2010, and then Stephen and Will McClay were the reason they started suddenly improving again under Garrett if you really want to. That's pretty contrived though. The much simpler explanation is that Bill was a good coach in Dallas (even without any playoff wins), Wade was a good change of pace for Bill but ultimately unable to lead the franchise effectively so his team peaked and then fell off, and Jason came in, restructured the scouting department, changed the staff, promoted McClay, and worked with Jerry and Stephen to rebuild the team again into the contender it currently is. As with most of these things, the simplest explanation is often the best explanation.

Either way. Fingers crossed we get those Superbowl wins so your estimation of the HC can go from 'not sure if he's good' to considering him 'great.' As you say, no excuses. It's time to prove it.

 

[Sydla]

I try to give the credit where it's due, but I'm not overselling anything. Stephen Jones and Will McClay both pre-date Jason taking over the team. The improved drafting coincides with Garrett taking over and Wade's departure. If you want to give the credit to Stephen, fine, but listen to what he has to say about Jason some time, then, because those guys are on the same page.

At some point, you look at how the team got better under Parcels, how the talent peaked and then dipped under Wade, and then how it improved again under Garrett and just give these coaches credit (or blame) for what their teams have done. We can pretend that Parcels was the reason they got good in 2005-2007, Wade the reason they dropped off in 2010, and then Stephen and Will McClay were the reason they started suddenly improving again under Garrett if you really want to. That's pretty contrived though. The much simpler explanation is that Bill was a good coach in Dallas (even without any playoff wins), Wade was a good change of pace for Bill but ultimately unable to lead the franchise effectively so his team peaked and then fell off, and Jason came in, restructured the scouting department, changed the staff, promoted McClay, and worked with Jerry and Stephen to rebuild the team again into the contender it currently is. As with most of these things, the simplest explanation is often the best explanation.

Either way. Fingers crossed we get those Superbowl wins so your estimation of the HC can go from 'not sure if he's good' to considering him 'great.' As you say, no excuses. It's time to prove it.

I think you want to try to give him credit for off the field things because of the fact he's really done squat in terms of postseason success on the field.

Will McClay might predate Garrett in terms of hire date but McClay didn't get real control over the draft board and player personnel decisions until around 2013-14. And Stephen was an executive but it was Jerry who was calling the shots until the last few years where Stephen has been the calming influence on him. Even Jerry admitted that if it had been a few years earlier, he would have overruled people and taken Manziel over Martin.

So no, I don't believe the rise in player personnel success and the fact we manage the cap has a lot to do with Garrett. I think it has a lot to do with Jerry giving up more control to Stephen and Will McClay over the last 4-5 years.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

I think Garrett is a good coach. Better than most in the NFL today. Top 10. He took over a team that was old and very cap strapped. The team was rebuilt and I think the team was ready to really compete in 2013. Then our D was destroyed by injuries. To make it to 8-8 with what, 20 different DL in one year, is pretty amazing and I think that was his best year of coaching. 2014 12 wins, 1 playoff win and a loss to ARod. 2015 was very disappointing, both from a coaching standpoint and player standpoint. Losing Romo is no excuse and I consider that his worst year of coaching. 2016 - 13-3 with a rookie QB, which showed me he learned from 2014 and again a playoff loss to A Rod. The team is young, hungry and in a good place as far as Cap goes. You can call him average, below average, horrible, whatever word you want, but if he was fired today, he would be employed tomorrow by another team in the NFL. I look forward to many more years of Garrett at the helm and a few SB rings as well.

 

[Ranched]

He lost us the last playoff game with his awful game management- TWICE he allowed Aaron Rodgers to have the ball at the end of the half when it was unnecessary- he allowed the ther teams biggest strength to go up two more times against our biggest weakness.

He didn't have the team ready to play.

And his whole tenure here has been riddled with clock management issue after clock management issue.

Do players like him? Sure- he doesn't get on them or hold people accountable except for the bottom of the ladder guys.

He doesn't call plays, and claps all game. He is the boss who everyone talks about behind their back but they are nice to him in person.

Rodger's had all day at the end of that game when he tossed that fatal bomb. If not for Garrett & the rest of the coaching staff, we wouldn't of even have made the playoffs. Garrett came a long way, time to stop the blame/hate. That playoff game was lost due to no pass rusher. Can't deny the obvious.

 

[Idgit]

I think you want to try to give him credit for off the field things because of the fact he's really done squat in terms of postseason success on the field.

Will McClay might predate Garrett in terms of hire date but McClay didn't get real control over the draft board and player personnel decisions until around 2013-14. And Stephen was an executive but it was Jerry who was calling the shots until the last few years where Stephen has been the calming influence on him. Even Jerry admitted that if it had been a few years earlier, he would have overruled people and taken Manziel over Martin.

So no, I don't believe the rise in player personnel success and the fact we manage the cap has a lot to do with Garrett. I think it has a lot to do with Jerry giving up more control to Stephen and Will McClay over the last 4-5 years.

I don't want to get stuck debating whether or not Jason Garrett should get credit for the collaborative efforts that go on under his watch. He's the HC, he assembled his scouting and coaching staff, he has a big role in what players are selected, and then the develops and plays them. In his tenure, we've gotten better, and not worse. We've gone to fans complaining about winning at all, to fans complaining about getting over .500, to fans complaining about not winning more playoff games. If you really want to believe we've gotten better, but mostly without the HC's input, there's nothing I'm going to be able to say to change that opinion except that it's counter to everything we hear coming out of the organization.

 

[Sydla]

I don't want to get stuck debating whether or not Jason Garrett should get credit for the collaborative efforts that go on under his watch. He's the HC, he assembled his scouting and coaching staff, he has a big role in what players are selected, and then the develops and plays them. In his tenure, we've gotten better, and not worse. We've gone to fans complaining about winning at all, to fans complaining about getting over .500, to fans complaining about not winning more playoff games. If you really want to believe we've gotten better, but mostly without the HC's input, there's nothing I'm going to be able to say to change that opinion except that it's counter to everything we hear coming out of the organization.

He did not assemble the scouting department (what does "his" scouting department mean?). That was McClay and others in the front office. You are proving my point. You are continuing trying to give him credit for things he doesn't have a ton of control over because the on the field performance to date has been largely disappointing when you see one playoff win in 6 seasons as head coach.

He has input like every other coach in the league does to some extent. But to give him the lion share of credit for personnel improvements, salary cap management (which he has little to no control over), etc. and use that as the significant proof he is a good HC is simply erroneous.

 

[Idgit]

He did not assemble the scouting department (what does "his" scouting department mean?). That was McClay and others in the front office. You are proving my point. You are continuing trying to give him credit for things he doesn't have a ton of control over because the on the field performance to date has been largely disappointing when you see one playoff win in 6 seasons as head coach.

He has input like every other coach in the league does to some extent. But to give him the lion share of credit for personnel improvements, salary cap management (which he has little to no control over), etc. and use that as the significant proof he is a good HC is simply erroneous.

A lot of what we're talking about here is collaborative, but it's naive to think any of it happens without input from the HC.

When Wade was here, he used to say in press conferences that it was up to the front office and the scouting department to pick the players, and that he'd just coach whoever it was they selected to be the best possible football players. When Jason took over--because he grew up around both scouting and head coaching--one of the topics on Cowboys radio was how he had a specific plan for how he wanted the scouting department to work with his coaching staff. They reportedly expanded the number of scouts they had on staff, juggled their area responsibilities in the 2011 or 2012 offseason, and changed the way they worked with the position coaches in identifying scheme fit for the players. It was a fairly regular topic of conversation with Broaddus when Garrett first took over, and they compared it quite a bit to Wade's (absurd) hands-off approach.

This is on top of the changes they made collaboratively to promote McClay twice, demote Ciskowski, and bring in Lionel Vital from the Falcons. Obviously, these major decisions aren't all coming directly from the head coach, but what would be erroneous would be to pretend they are happening without his involvement.

The salary cap improvements, too, are a by product of good coaching because it means the staff is developing players, allowing the team to let guys like Murray or Leary or Terrence Williams or Barry Church walk instead of signing them to disadvantageous deals. The HC isn't making these decisions, but if you were willing to be objective, you'd have to credit the staff for their role in player development.

And I'll reiterate that the on-field performance to-date has actually not been disappointing at all, in that we've been one of the top 8-9 teams in the league under Garrett while overhauling the roster entirely. And I'll point out again how the chains have been moved for what a 'good' coach is from 'winning more games than other coaches' to now 'beating other good coaches and good teams with regularity.' We don't agree on how to measure a good coach, and that's fine. I just think you're working with a poor definition.

 

[Sydla]

A lot of what we're talking about here is collaborative, but it's naive to think any of it happens without input from the HC.

When Wade was here, he used to say in press conferences that it was up to the front office and the scouting department to pick the players, and that he'd just coach whoever it was they selected to be the best possible football players. When Jason took over--because he grew up around both scouting and head coaching--one of the topics on Cowboys radio was how he had a specific plan for how he wanted the scouting department to work with his coaching staff. They reportedly expanded the number of scouts they had on staff, juggled their area responsibilities in the 2011 or 2012 offseason, and changed the way they worked with the position coaches in identifying scheme fit for the players. It was a fairly regular topic of conversation with Broaddus when Garrett first took over, and they compared it quite a bit to Wade's (absurd) hands-off approach.

This is on top of the changes they made collaboratively to promote McClay twice, demote Ciskowski, and bring in Lionel Vital from the Falcons. Obviously, these major decisions aren't all coming directly from the head coach, but what would be erroneous would be to pretend they are happening without his involvement.

The salary cap improvements, too, are a by product of good coaching because it means the staff is developing players, allowing the team to let guys like Murray or Leary or Terrence Williams or Barry Church walk instead of signing them to disadvantageous deals. The HC isn't making these decisions, but if you were willing to be objective, you'd have to credit the staff for their role in player development.

And I'll reiterate that the on-field performance to-date has actually not been disappointing at all, in that we've been one of the top 8-9 teams in the league under Garrett while overhauling the roster entirely. And I'll point out again how the chains have been moved for what a 'good' coach is from 'winning more games than other coaches' to now 'beating other good coaches and good teams with regularity.' We don't agree on how to measure a good coach, and that's fine. I just think you're working with a poor definition.

It's really not as collaborative as you want to claim. I mean I understand why you think it might be, because as our personnel and cap situation improve, you can use that to overcome any on the field shortcomings of Garrett thus far and going forward.

Like many coaches in the league, his input is sought. He's asked about his feelings on specific players, etc. But he's not a guy that if Garrett says we have to take this player, that everyone in the room suddenly nods in agreement. The end call is still always the Jones' and McClay's.

The salary cap situation has gotten better because Stephen Jones has made it more of a priority to not overspend in FA chasing good players getting paid like elite players. That's really the big driving force there. Not the great job Garrett is doing developing players.

Listening to you talk, you'd think Garrett is in the Belicheck area in terms of control over a franchise - where he has control over the draft and FA and front office personnel, etc.. That's not even close to being true for Garrett.

But since you want to give Garrett all this credit for all this stuff going on with the franchise, can we then hang the fact that the Cowboys are one of the least disciplined teams on him? As the chart on FZ showed, the Cowboys are far and away the most suspended team in the NFL. 100 games lost to suspension compared to the 2nd worst team, the Ravens at 53 games lost.

I don't see how not having any postseason success is a bad definition of what's a good coach. If anyone has a poor definition of what's a good coach, it's you, who has spent much of his time talking about offseason things that Garrett has, at best a tertiary effect on.

 

[Idgit]

It's really not as collaborative as you want to claim. I mean I understand why you think it might be, because as our personnel and cap situation improve, you can use that to overcome any on the field shortcomings of Garrett thus far and going forward.

Like many coaches in the league, his input is sought. He's asked about his feelings on specific players, etc. But he's not a guy that if Garrett says we have to take this player, that everyone in the room agrees. The end call is still always the Jones' and McClay's.

LOL at now using the development of players as salary cap management. Dude, I like you, but that's some immense pretzel twisting going on there. The salary cap situation has gotten better because Stephen Jones has made it more of a priority to not overspend in FA chasing good players getting paid like elite players. That's really the big driving force there. Not the great job Garrett is doing developing players.

Listening to you talk, you'd think Garrett is in the Belicheck area in terms of control over a franchise - where he has control over the draft and FA and front office personnel, etc.. That's not even close to being true for Garrett.

I don't see how not having any postseason success is a bad definition of what's a good coach. If anyone has a poor definition of what's a good coach, it's you, who has spent much of his time talking about offseason things that Garrett has, at best a tertiary effect on.

I don't think you have a good grasp on how collaborative it actually is, but that's fine because it's not something either of us can readily prove because it's not publicly available information. The facts support what I'm saying and undermine your position, though. Wins on the field, improvement in the cap, improvement in the drafts, extension of the coach, and pretty much everything that comes out anecdotally from the organization supports the idea that it's not just coincidence things that were bad under Wade have happened to have turned around under Garrett.

We all know Jerry ultimately makes the decisions in Dallas. Nobody is suggesting otherwise.

Not sure what is amusing about the reality that the team has shifted to developing players and not signing premium free agents. Of course that's got a lot to do with Stephen Jones. But that strategy doesn't work if you don't develop players internally. If you don't want to credit the coaching staff for their role in that, I don't know what to say to you other than I"m not the one twisting anything. Stephen is the first one to say that Jason's doing a great job coaching the team and developing the players.

I don't think Garrett has Belichick control, and I've never suggested that. In fact, I think he has less control in Dallas than a lot of coaches have in a lot of cities. That's still a ton of control over the direction a team takes in terms of the players it selects and how they go about making personnel decisions. Control a lot of fans here want to believe doesn't exist because there's no way to reconcile it with their position that Jason is not a good coach.

I'm basing my estimation of a good coach on winning football games and building a competitive roster. Dallas wins more than 3/4 of the league under Garrett. They have one of the better rosters in the league right now. Both of those are in-season accomplishments. The offseason stuff only comes up because you're unwilling to credit the coach for things every coach in the league routinely get credit for.

 

[Sydla]

So if he has less control than many coaches in "a lot" of cities, then how in the world can you sit there and call him a good coach based on roster enhancements, scouting, cap management?

No, most coaches in the league save for the ones that have clear control over rosters like Belicheck and to a lesser extent, someone like Reid, get a lot of credit for things like scouting and cap management. Those are two things you wanted to give Garrett credit for. It makes no sense. John Harbaugh doesn't get credit for the Ravens cap situation or how they build their roster. The credit often goes to Ozzie Newsome. Doesn't mean Harbaugh doesn't have input, he does. But Newsome gets the majority of credit for roster management. Same in GB with McCarthy. That's the way it is in a lot of cities.

And I'll note that you didn't answer my one question. If you want to give Garrett all this credit for all these improvements in roster, cap management, scouting, can we then blame him for putting together one of the least off the field disciplined teams in the league?