Garrett not a good coach?

[Rockport]

Many fans will never admit that Garrett is a great coach until he wins a Super Bowl. Even then, some of them will refuse because they would have to admit they're wrong. It's easy to argue that he is not because of the playoff record. They know you have no come back to that. But that's a very naive stance to take and it's the easy way out and shows a lack of effort to understand what is happening with what Garrrett is doing to the organization.

 

[Idgit]

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?

Because that's going to be the case for *any* coach in Dallas, whether we like it or not. It comes with the dinner with Jerry Jones, so having a guy who can be productive under those circumstances is important.

And I called him a good coach because of wins relative to other coaches in the league, and because he's building a contender. The roster enhancements, changes to the scouting process, impact on the cap from developing more players internally...those things are part of how he's building a contending team, but there's really no need than to look farther than the wins on the field.

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?

This topic's being covered in a couple other threads on the board already, so I won't duplicate what I've already said again here, but I don't buy for a second we have one of the least disciplined teams in the league. The opposite is actually true. We also happen to take a lot more chances on troubled players than other organizations do.

 

[Idgit]

Many fans will never admit that Garrett is a great coach until he wins a Super Bowl. Even then, some of them will refuse because they would have to admit they're wrong. It's easy to argue that he is not because of the playoff record. They know you have no come back to that. But that's a very naive stance to take and it's the easy way out and shows a lack of effort to understand what is happening with what Garrrett is doing to the organization.

As long as the goal posts keep moving and we keep meeting the new goals, we're good. Who knows how successful we'll be ultimately. I happen to think the staff is good enough to win a title if we keep improving the personnel. I'd be surprised if we weren't, but we're at the point where that's pretty much going to happen in the next 2-3 seasons or we'll have stalled. There are a lot of coaches who topped out at 'building a contender' and never got past that. Garrett could well be one of those.

There are already fans (not Sydia) who don't like Garrett who are quietly paving the way for an argument that we could win a Superbowl with a clueless HC, btw. I take that as a sure sign that they know we're actually doing the right things right now or else they wouldn't be buying the insurance in advance. The writing might be on the wall, even if they want to pretend that they can't read it. I can't wait for those threads, because they're coming if we're fortunate enough to win. You know they are.

 

[Sydla]

Many fans will never admit that Garrett is a great coach until he wins a Super Bowl. Even then, some of them will refuse because they would have to admit they're wrong. It's easy to argue that he is not because of the playoff record. They know you have no come back to that. But that's a very naive stance to take and it's the easy way out and shows a lack of effort to understand what is happening with what Garrrett is doing to the organization.

Well for one, he's not a great now. Are you suggesting he is?

 

[Sydla]

This topic's being covered in a couple other threads on the board already, so I won't duplicate what I've already said again here, but I don't buy for a second we have one of the least disciplined teams in the league. The opposite is actually true. We also happen to take a lot more chances on troubled players than other organizations do.

We dwarf the next team in terms of games lost to player discipline. So yeah, we are one of the least disciplined teams when it comes to off the field issues. It's foolish to argue otherwise when we have had more players suspended by a wide margin for off the field mistakes, including drug suspensions.

What else would you call it? Bad luck?

FWIW, I don't blame Garrett for it. Because I don't believe Garrett has a ton of input on the roster anyway. But if people want to give him credit for the revamped roster and player personnel decisions, then you can't just pick and choose what to give him credit for in those areas.

 

[DFWJC]

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.

Garrett DID cost them a few times, I'm in your camp for that part.
But those teams were dreadful....with absolutely putrid defenses.
Fro example, I think once scored 49 points, punted only once...and STILL lost a game in that span.

Those offenses--even with porous olines for two of the years--drug those teams kicking and screaming to .500. Those were 2-14 type defenses.

 

[Idgit]

We dwarf the next team in terms of games lost to player discipline. So yeah, we are one of the least disciplined teams when it comes to off the field issues. It's foolish to argue otherwise when we have had more players suspended by a wide margin for off the field mistakes, including drug suspensions.

What else would you call it? Bad luck?

FWIW, I don't blame Garrett for it. Because I don't believe Garrett has a ton of input on the roster anyway. But if people want to give him credit for the revamped roster and player personnel decisions, then you can't just pick and choose what to give him credit for in those areas.

We dwarf the next team in terms of games lost to suspensions, since 2014, if you're referring to the data from the other thread. It doesn't follow that there's a discipline problem, especially when we know the bulk of the suspensions are coming from players we added to the roster or kept on the roster specifically because we had a support system in place to rehabilitate their careers.

I think we have more suspended players than other teams because we make a point of trying to work with players who have issues most teams would not tolerate. 10 games for Josh Brent when most teams would have cut him. 30 games for Randy Gregory when we drafted him with a medical/emotional condition. 14 for McClain because we wanted to go after some of the money we'd guaranteed him and he needed to be on the roster for that. 4 for Hardy for something that had nothing to do with his time here because we needed a pass rusher. It's not bad luck. It's Jerry's willingness to wildcat. I don't like it any more than you do, but it is what it is. And what it is is not a sign of a discipline problem. It's a team that thinks it's got a strong enough culture in the locker room to take some of these chances, and then the chances blowing up on them because the players are not reliable.

Meanwhile, though, they're winning more football games at a faster rate than most of the league. That doesn't happen on teams that lack discipline.

 

[Sydla]

Did we get our trophy for winning 13 games last year yet?

 

[Rockport]

Well for one, he's not a great now. Are you suggesting he is?

I'm not suggesting he is, I'm saying he is. The proof is everywhere for one to see if you choose to look. Idgit has covered the proof very well.

 

[Idgit]

Did we get our trophy for winning 13 games last year yet?

The question wasn't 'did we get a trophy.' The question was 'is Garrett a good coach.' We got our evidence he's a good coach winning 13 games last year. It's just you and a handful of others who think it ought to be '13 games and a trophy' before it counts.

 

[Sydla]

The question wasn't 'did we get a trophy.' The question was 'is Garrett a good coach.' We got our evidence he's a good coach winning 13 games last year. It's just you and a handful of others who think it ought to be '13 games and a trophy' before it counts.

Actually, 13 games and just one playoff win would have been sufficient when you were the #1 seed at home. People are parading around a 13 win season as proof at how awesome he is, forgetting that it's the postseason that counts and we got booted right away.

6 years. One playoff win. I am not sure how anyone can spin that as "good".

If he wins 11, 11 and 12 games the next three years and doesn't win a playoff game over that period, is he "good" still?

 

[Idgit]

Actually, 13 games and just one playoff win would have been sufficient when you were the #1 seed at home. People are parading around a 13 win season as proof at how awesome he is, forgetting that it's the postseason that counts and we got booted right away.

6 years. One playoff win. I am not sure how anyone can spin that as "good".

If he wins 11, 11 and 12 games the next three years and doesn't win a playoff game over that period, is he "good" still?

You're fixating on the postseason, forgetting you need to win a lot of games to even get there in the first place.

Let me ask it this way: what other not-good coach has taken a team he built--not inherited-- to two or more 12+ win seasons in a three year span?

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

Many fans will never admit that Garrett is a great coach until he wins a Super Bowl. Even then, some of them will refuse because they would have to admit they're wrong. It's easy to argue that he is not because of the playoff record. They know you have no come back to that. But that's a very naive stance to take and it's the easy way out and shows a lack of effort to understand what is happening with what Garrrett is doing to the organization.

I'd be satisfied with a championship game appearance. Until he starts to win consistently he's mediocre. We'll see what he does this year. I expect this team to contend. Tired of his process. It's time to win now.

 

[haleyrules]

You're fixating on the postseason, forgetting you need to win a lot of games to even get there in the first place.

Let me ask it this way: what other not-good coach has taken a team he built--not inherited-- to two or more 12+ win seasons in a three year span?

This is the year! Conference Championship game.

 

[Trouty]

This is the year! Conference Championship game.

At least, Boxer!!!

 

[haleyrules]

At least, Boxer!!!

Honestly Josh. This club goes as far as the Defense takes it. This Defense could surprise...both ways. I have a good feeling going into the season.

 

[cml750]

I'm not suggesting he is, I'm saying he is. The proof is everywhere for one to see if you choose to look. Idgit has covered the proof very well.

The only proof I see if we are basing this on Garrett's ACTUAL history as a head coach is we are due to go 3 - 13 this year. Up until last season he was a .500 coach and we saw how the next season turned out. He has to prove he can have two winning seasons in a row. Now I am not suggesting we will go 3 - 13 but if Dak goes down it is a very real possibility. He has already proven he can't win without a superstar QB and last time I checked we only got one of those now and we still have to wait and see if Dak goes through a sophomore slump this season. Good coaches find ways to win at least a few games even when key people are injured.

 

[cml750]

Garrett DID cost them a few times, I'm in your camp for that part.
But those teams were dreadful....with absolutely putrid defenses.
Fro example, I think once scored 49 points, punted only once...and STILL lost a game in that span.

Those offenses--even with porous olines for two of the years--drug those teams kicking and screaming to .500. Those were 2-14 type defenses.

Well even with "2 - 14 defenses" as you put it, if Garrett didn't cost those team at least two games a season we would have been 10 - 6 and in the playoffs three years in row.

 

[cml750]

Many fans will never admit that Garrett is a great coach until he wins a Super Bowl. Even then, some of them will refuse because they would have to admit they're wrong. It's easy to argue that he is not because of the playoff record. They know you have no come back to that. But that's a very naive stance to take and it's the easy way out and shows a lack of effort to understand what is happening with what Garrrett is doing to the organization.

He has to prove he can have two winning seasons in a row before we ever consider a Superbowl.

 

[Rockport]

He has to prove he can have two winning seasons in a row before we ever consider a Superbowl.

Says who and why?