Garrett not a good coach?

[haleyrules]

No, Jason is not a good coach, I do not care if his record is 58-46, he just does not know how to win in the playoffs

Garrett has absolutely no feel for the game. He is the weakest link.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I never said or implied I was an expert on coaching.

You were the one that said my dad was a HS football coach and then backpedaled when I pointed out how the HC plays a role and influences the playcalling on every team.

And it's not all about running the ball on first down either such as the first Giants game when we had Dez run 23 go routes in 29 pass players he was a part of. The gameplan for the playcalling wasn't working in the first half and we kept having Dez run 9-routes.

Garrett is a conservative coach and it doesn't solely mean that he wants to run the ball a lot. He takes a conservative approach with the scheme, the gameplan and will keep his coordinators in check to prevent them from doing anything remotely exotic.

If you can't see how the HC is a major influence in playcalling, then that's a you problem...not a me problem.


YR

Linehan playcaller not Garrett.

And again you have no idea what or how Garrett influences playcalling. Saying that he influences is one thing. Blaming him for "Incredibly conservative playcalling mixed in with bizarre play calling" is quite another. And in doing so you at no point even acknowledge Linehan and treat it as a homogenous period.

Combine that with the whinging about clock management and basically I just see the exact same argument from 2013 as if nothing has changed. Meanwhile the "Incredibly conservative playcalling mixed in with bizarre play calling" got us top 5 in points per drive.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Garrett has absolutely no feel for the game. He is the weakest link.

Yeah the defense that struggles to rush the passer, cannot turn the ball over, and trotted out poor middle coverage for the past 5 years is nothing in comparison.

Those games last season against the Eagles and Bengals where we struggled early and the team turned it around. Yeah no feel at all whatsoever. smh.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Linehan playcaller not Garrett.

And again you have no idea what or how Garrett influences playcalling. Saying that he influences is one thing. Blaming him for "Incredibly conservative playcalling mixed in with bizarre play calling" is quite another. And in doing so you at no point even acknowledge Linehan and treat it as a homogenous period.

Combine that with the whinging about clock management and basically I just see the exact same argument from 2013 as if nothing has changed. Meanwhile the "Incredibly conservative playcalling mixed in with bizarre play calling" got us top 5 in points per drive.

And you have no idea how Garrett influences playcalling either. And clock management is still a problem with this team. Trying to act like it doesn't exist because we've had problems with it for so long is foolish.






YR

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

And you have no idea how Garrett influences playcalling either. And clock management is still a problem with this team. Trying to act like it doesn't exist because we've had problems with it for so long is foolish.

YR

There hasn't been a problem with the clock in years at this point. He iced his kicker more than 4 years ago.

And you are the one making the calim that he is responsible for the poor play calling. There is no reason to believe that and again if "poor" playcalling gets us the 5th most points per drive then that is not very "poor."

 

[Yakuza Rich]

There hasn't been a problem with the clock in years at this point. He iced his kicker more than 4 years ago.

And you are the one making the calim that he is responsible for the poor play calling. There is no reason to believe that and again if "poor" playcalling gets us the 5th most points per drive then that is not very "poor."

I don't think offensive efficiency is totally relegated to the quality of play calling.




YR

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I don't think offensive efficiency is totally relegated to the quality of play calling.




YR

Of course not but your narrative is that it's "holding the team back." When you look at actual performance that is nonsense. That "incredibly conservative playcalling held them back" to top 5 in points per drive.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

Of course not but your narrative is that it's "holding the team back." When you look at actual performance that is nonsense. That "incredibly conservative playcalling held them back" to top 5 in points per drive.

I think the offense could even be better with more aggressive play calling, particularly not kicking the field goal when it's 4th and 1 from your 35 yard line. Aggressive play calling, particularly with the offensive talent would be to go for the first down and the numbers show that is BY FAR the better play call.

And guess who decides if we kick a FG or go for it?

Hint: He went to 2 Ivy League Schools.





YR

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think the offense could even be better with more aggressive play calling, particularly not kicking the field goal when it's 4th and 1 from your 35 yard line. Aggressive play calling, particularly with the offensive talent would be to go for the first down and the numbers show that is BY FAR the better play call.

And guess who decides if we kick a FG or go for it?

Hint: He went to 2 Ivy League Schools.





YR

He went for it 7 times on 4th and short last year. 5 rushes and 2 passes.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/splits/_/name/dal/dallas-cowboys

What was the game situation when he kicked the FG? There is no one right call for 4th and short.

Reads like you are prejudiced against Ivy Leaguers as well.

And of course you have to reduce it down to one simple playcall and ignore the hundreds of others.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

He went for it 7 times on 4th and short last year. 5 rushes and 2 passes.

http://www.espn.com/nfl/team/splits/_/name/dal/dallas-cowboys

What was the game situation when he kicked the FG? There is no one right call for 4th and short.

Reads like you are prejudiced against Ivy Leaguers as well.

And of course you have to reduce it down to one simple playcall and ignore the hundreds of others.

I think running the ball 72% of the time on first down is conservative and it was a directive sent out by Garrett. I think having Dez run 23 go routes out of 29 routes ran against the Giants is conservative in nature and an unwillingness to adapt during the game which is a directive set by Garrett. I think that our only ‘gadget play’ being the Jet Sweep is very conservative and also set forth by Garrett.

I'm not prejudiced against Ivy League graduates simply because I mentioned that Garrett went to 2 different Ivy League schools. I could also say that the hint was his dad was a football scout...would that make me prejudiced against sons of football scouts?

There is certainly a 'right call' in 4th and short. It's called game theory and understanding probabilities. It's why Ron Rivera went from almost being fired to coaching in the Super Bowl and it's a trait of Bill Belichick. Why? Because the odds are in your favor to go for it instead of kicking the field goal the majority of the time.






YR

 

[Idgit]

Every play caller makes mistakes, just like every QB or every DB. Dallas has been better than most when it comes to fielding a productive offense (on a points/series basis) for the entire time Jason's been involved with the offense in a coaching capacity. For a time, that was because Tony ignored the plays that were actually called and did what he wanted. Then it was because Garrett was 'demoted' in favor of Linehan, then Garrett sucked at it again in 2015, and then he lucked into Dak (who was Linehan's find).

It doesn't matter. People who don't like him aren't going to like him. Nothing changes the fact that he was involved in the management decisions that turned a 1-7 floundering team into a young contender in good cap and draft shape. Really, if people want to think that happened despite Garrett and the Cowboys coincidentally had a 180 degree turn with all the same other personnel they had previously, well, ok.

If they want to think he could be doing an even better job if he were selectively more aggressive in very specific situations, I don't have a problem with that. Hindsight being 20/20 and all, it's almost definitely true. The only thing I care about is 'are we doing enough of the right things to eventually realistically win a Superbowl?'

I don't know the answer to that. But I do know this: what we're seeing now is the by product of what has been obvious for years. There's no longer any realistic doubt that Jason Garrett's at least a 'good' coach. Fans not wanting to admit it fall into the same category as fans not wanting to admit that Tony Romo was a good QB, as far as I'm concerned. People are going to believe what they want to believe. But there comes a time when everybody sees some of them are just propping up mistakes.

You guys want to look like Risen in a Dak Prescott debate on this topic, that's fine with me.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I think running the ball 72% of the time on first down is conservative and it was a directive sent out by Garrett. I think having Dez run 23 go routes out of 29 routes ran against the Giants is conservative in nature and an unwillingness to adapt during the game which is a directive set by Garrett. I think that our only ‘gadget play’ being the Jet Sweep is very conservative and also set forth by Garrett.

I'm not prejudiced against Ivy League graduates simply because I mentioned that Garrett went to 2 different Ivy League schools. I could also say that the hint was his dad was a football scout...would that make me prejudiced against sons of football scouts?

There is certainly a 'right call' in 4th and short. It's called game theory and understanding probabilities. It's why Ron Rivera went from almost being fired to coaching in the Super Bowl and it's a trait of Bill Belichick. Why? Because the odds are in your favor to go for it instead of kicking the field goal the majority of the time.

YR

It's amusing watching you be proven wrong and then move the goalposts.

You claim that he did not go for it on 4th and short. He did near every other game.

I ask you for game situations in which he did not and you have nothing.

I like how you oversimplify the success of the Panthers down to Rivera going for it on 4th down. Then of course there is the result they had last year which was hardly a Super Bowl run.

There are several mitigating factors that go into going for it on on 4th down being a good call. For example but certainly not limited to:

1) Game situation. At the end of halves and depending on score. If time is running out and you are already up a TD or more.
2) Team performance. Aggregate stats are nice but if you are struggling to run the ball or pass protect on a given gameday then it changes the probability matrix.
3) The talent of your kicker. Again league wide aggregate stats are nice but if your kicker is above league average on his 50 yarders it changes the probability matrix. The league average for 50 yard kicks is like 50%. Bailey is better.

As for running the ball 2/3 of the time on 1st down, you have to do that if you want to run a balanced attack. If you don't then incompletions on first down put you in quite the pickle. You want to run the ball but 2nd and 10 is not a good running down when the goal is either 3rd and short or a 1st down. Given that completion percentages are ~65% give or take that means you are shooting yourself in the foot every third set of downs. You end up in a lot of 3rd and long.

It's much better to force the issue on 1st down than it is on 2nd or 3rd. If you do neither then you can easily end up running the ball >15 times in a game. You must be a big Andy Reid fan.

And of course we were extremely efficient on first down running the ball at 5.2 YPC. IOW, our average 2nd down when we ran the ball was 2nd and 5 which is an extremely advantageous position. You can double down on the run, set up play action or just straight pass it. The defense cannot overplay in any way.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Every play caller makes mistakes, just like every QB or every DB. Dallas has been better than most when it comes to fielding a productive offense (on a points/series basis) for the entire time Jason's been involved with the offense in a coaching capacity. For a time, that was because Tony ignored the plays that were actually called and did what he wanted. Then it was because Garrett was 'demoted' in favor of Linehan, then Garrett sucked at it again in 2015, and then he lucked into Dak (who was Linehan's find).

It doesn't matter. People who don't like him aren't going to like him. Nothing changes the fact that he was involved in the management decisions that turned a 1-7 floundering team into a young contender in good cap and draft shape. Really, if people want to think that happened despite Garrett and the Cowboys coincidentally had a 180 degree turn with all the same other personnel they had previously, well, ok.

If they want to think he could be doing an even better job if he were selectively more aggressive in very specific situations, I don't have a problem with that. Hindsight being 20/20 and all, it's almost definitely true. The only thing I care about is 'are we doing enough of the right things to eventually realistically win a Superbowl?'

I don't know the answer to that. But I do know this: what we're seeing now is the by product of what has been obvious for years. There's no longer any realistic doubt that Jason Garrett's at least a 'good' coach. Fans not wanting to admit it fall into the same category as fans not wanting to admit that Tony Romo was a good QB, as far as I'm concerned. People are going to believe what they want to believe. But there comes a time when everybody sees some of them are just propping up mistakes.

You guys want to look like Risen in a Dak Prescott debate on this topic, that's fine with me.

The thing that always gets me is when I see the same arguments from 2013 as if things have not changed. Sure in the overall you see new arguments but for the most part you see the same things said over and over again regardless of changing circumstances.

Garrett gets CotY and it is the same old song and dance.

 

[Idgit]

The thing that always gets me is when I see the same arguments from 2013 as if things have not changed. Sure in the overall you see new arguments but for the most part you see the same things said over and over again regardless of changing circumstances.

Garrett gets CotY and it is the same old song and dance.

Until we get to or win a Superbowl, it's going to be said. It's just frustrating to watch the goal posts for what's 'good coaching' sliding back as the team gets steadily better.

It'd be a lot easier to take if they'd just say, collectively, "well, he's better than we thought, but we're still not sure if he's a guy who can win another Superbowl in Dallas or not." I'd get that. Instead, it's the insipid diet of second guessing play calls that didn't work or complaining the team 'wasn't ready' for the playoff games as if that's what a coach does, anyway: "get players ready." Whatever that's supposed to mean.

Our players were ready enough. The game plan was solid. They weren't good enough to stop Aaron Rodgers.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Until we get to or win a Superbowl, it's going to be said. It's just frustrating to watch the goal posts for what's 'good coaching' sliding back as the team gets steadily better.

It'd be a lot easier to take if they'd just say, collectively, "well, he's better than we thought, but we're still not sure if he's a guy who can win another Superbowl in Dallas or not." I'd get that. Instead, it's the insipid diet of second guessing play calls that didn't work or complaining the team 'wasn't ready' for the playoff games as if that's what a coach does, anyway: "get players ready." Whatever that's supposed to mean.

Our players were ready enough. The game plan was solid. They weren't good enough to stop Aaron Rodgers.

Dak and the offense came out slow. That is not unexpected given the rookies and the layoff. They came roaring back and took the lead. The pass rush was suspect but the game came down to the last two plays nonetheless. Garrett cannot will pass rush talent into existence.

I love the play call discussion.

I start asking them what plays the team runs and what they would like to see. Most of the time I get a big bag of nothing. At best I get something about trick plays or going for it on 4th down. That the the team goes for it and does run trick plays is inconsequential.

The team runs inside zones and outside zones be it off tackle or stretched with all the counters. OTOH, we also see power man leads, tosses and sweeps and those counters. They call that zone read action that Wilson made famous. It's all ambidextrous, balanced and executed well.

They move the pocket and use all the guys in the inner formation dynamically in pass pro. They run full route trees with changing depths of the routes dependent on how the defense plays them. They attack all areas of the field both deep and wide. They use 00, 01, 11, 12, 21, 31, and 32 formations and have the F, H, X, Y, and Z move around to give different looks and overload so as to flank the defense. they get a lot mileage out of the WR crashing inside on traps.

They simplified the jargon and gave a rookie QB the freedom to audible.

It's all executed with high level of consistency and performance. At the end of the day execution >>>>>>>> playcalling as you alluded to.

Blue font is for sarcasm btw.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

It's amusing watching you be proven wrong and then move the goalposts.

You claim that he did not go for it on 4th and short. He did near every other game.

I ask you for game situations in which he did not and you have nothing.

I like how you oversimplify the success of the Panthers down to Rivera going for it on 4th down. Then of course there is the result they had last year which was hardly a Super Bowl run.

There are several mitigating factors that go into going for it on on 4th down being a good call. For example but certainly not limited to:

1) Game situation. At the end of halves and depending on score. If time is running out and you are already up a TD or more.
2) Team performance. Aggregate stats are nice but if you are struggling to run the ball or pass protect on a given gameday then it changes the probability matrix.
3) The talent of your kicker. Again league wide aggregate stats are nice but if your kicker is above league average on his 50 yarders it changes the probability matrix. The league average for 50 yard kicks is like 50%. Bailey is better.

As for running the ball 2/3 of the time on 1st down, you have to do that if you want to run a balanced attack. If you don't then incompletions on first down put you in quite the pickle. You want to run the ball but 2nd and 10 is not a good running down when the goal is either 3rd and short or a 1st down. Given that completion percentages are ~65% give or take that means you are shooting yourself in the foot every third set of downs. You end up in a lot of 3rd and long.

It's much better to force the issue on 1st down than it is on 2nd or 3rd. If you do neither then you can easily end up running the ball >15 times in a game. You must be a big Andy Reid fan.

And of course we were extremely efficient on first down running the ball at 5.2 YPC. IOW, our average 2nd down when we ran the ball was 2nd and 5 which is an extremely advantageous position. You can double down on the run, set up play action or just straight pass it. The defense cannot overplay in any way.

You never prove me wrong because you don't understand the numbers and take anecdotal evidence as the truth. And he doesn't go for it on 4th down 'nearly every game.' He continually has Bailey kick extra long field goals on 4th and short because of his conservative nature. And the numbers continually show that going for it on 4th down and short is better than kicking the ball. Even with your 'mitigating factors', the data clearly shows that teams by and large are far better off going for it than kicking it on 4th and short.

And he wasn't running it on first down 2/3rds of the time. He was running it closer to 3/4 of the time on first down. I want the team to have a balanced attack, but running it 3/4 of the time on first down was not a balanced attack. Not to mention all of the other conservative aspects of our play calling such as how we use Dez, our lack of gadget plays, etc.

He's an extremely conservative coach and at times it is to the team's detriment.



YR

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You never prove me wrong because you don't understand the numbers and take anecdotal evidence as the truth. And he doesn't go for it on 4th down 'nearly every game.' He continually has Bailey kick extra long field goals on 4th and short because of his conservative nature. And the numbers continually show that going for it on 4th down and short is better than kicking the ball. Even with your 'mitigating factors', the data clearly shows that teams by and large are far better off going for it than kicking it on 4th and short.

And he wasn't running it on first down 2/3rds of the time. He was running it closer to 3/4 of the time on first down. I want the team to have a balanced attack, but running it 3/4 of the time on first down was not a balanced attack. Not to mention all of the other conservative aspects of our play calling such as how we use Dez, our lack of gadget plays, etc.

He's an extremely conservative coach and at times it is to the team's detriment.

YR

It's not for me to disprove your assertions. You don't get presumption just because you claim something

What anecdote did I use? I gave no incidents. I outlined parameters where your paradigm was not true and I showed how the reality of the Cowboys differed from league average that your aggregates assume.

Dan Bailey kicks his 50 yarders about 10% better than league average. That changes the calculus despite your insistence that they act based on league averages.

Time remaining and score differential are important factors in the decision. I asked you for the game situation where he elected to kick the FG on 4th and short at the 35. You've nary an example. Meanwhile, when it's under 2 minutes you are up a TD, a made FG ices the game.

Stating that you are not running the ball well or unable to pass protect is not an anecdote. It is a hypothetical circumstance. Your aggregate stats are assuming league average production. In the Vikings games and both Giants games we were struggling to run the ball and move the ball in general. Are you going to say that they should go for it on 4th and short despite the struggles of the offense when Bailey is a top 3 kicker in the league? Really?

And the fact of the matter is that he went for it on 4th and short 7 times. In contrast Belichick did it 9 times, Quinn 9 times, Arians 3, McCarthy 9, Reid 9, Timlin 6, Payton 12, Fisher 8, Carroll 5, etc. In that spectrum Garrett is in the fat part of the bell curve when the min and max are 3 and 12. That is not remotely "extremely conservative."

2/3 = .67 3/4 = .75. The difference between 70 and 67 is 3. The difference between 75 and 70 is 5. Do I need to hold your hand as to which number is closer moreso?

And the Cowboys passed the ball 483 times and ran the ball 499 times and that is with them going into the 4th up a TD or more for half their games. As I explained and you just ignored, if you don't run the ball on first down predominantly you have a high probability of either having to pass it more often than you run it or running the ball in disadvantageous situations.

They did run the ball at a 5.2 YPC clip on 1st and 10 and there is a huge difference between 2nd and 5 and 3rd and 5.

I will take empirical production over wishcasted ideology every day of the week and twice on Sundays

 

[Yakuza Rich]

It's not for me to disprove your assertions. You don't get presumption just because you claim something

What anecdote did I use? I gave no incidents. I outlined parameters where your paradigm was not true and I showed how the reality of the Cowboys differed from league average that your aggregates assume.

Dan Bailey kicks his 50 yarders about 10% better than league average. That changes the calculus despite your insistence that they act based on league averages.

Time remaining and score differential are important factors in the decision. I asked you for the game situation where he elected to kick the FG on 4th and short at the 35. You've nary an example. Meanwhile, when it's under 2 minutes you are up a TD, a made FG ices the game.

Stating that you are not running the ball well or unable to pass protect is not an anecdote. It is a hypothetical circumstance. Your aggregate stats are assuming league average production. In the Vikings games and both Giants games we were struggling to run the ball and move the ball in general. Are you going to say that they should go for it on 4th and short despite the struggles of the offense when Bailey is a top 3 kicker in the league? Really?

And the fact of the matter is that he went for it on 4th and short 7 times. In contrast Belichick did it 9 times, Quinn 9 times, Arians 3, McCarthy 9, Reid 9, Timlin 6, Payton 12, Fisher 8, Carroll 5, etc. In that spectrum Garrett is in the fat part of the bell curve when the min and max are 3 and 12. That is not remotely "extremely conservative."

2/3 = .67 3/4 = .75. The difference between 70 and 67 is 3. The difference between 75 and 70 is 5. Do I need to hold your hand as to which number is closer moreso?

And the Cowboys passed the ball 483 times and ran the ball 499 times and that is with them going into the 4th up a TD or more for half their games. As I explained and you just ignored, if you don't run the ball on first down predominantly you have a high probability of either having to pass it more often than you run it or running the ball in disadvantageous situations.

They did run the ball at a 5.2 YPC clip on 1st and 10 and there is a huge difference between 2nd and 5 and 3rd and 5.

I will take empirical production over wishcasted ideology every day of the week and twice on Sundays

They were running the ball 72% of the time on first down.

Here, I'll hold YOUR hand:

72-67 = 5

75-72 = 3

I know, it's doesn't fit your agenda, but it's math.

Dan Bailey kicking the ball better than 10% of the NFL from 50+ yards doesn't change the data enough that you are FAR better going for it than constantly kicking it away...even on FG's from 40+ yards. You also discount the effectiveness of this offense, particularly in short yardage situations which completely counters Bailey's ability to kick FG's from even 40+ yards out.

And why don't you take a look at the average yards per pass attempt on first down. Or do I have to explain how 10.2 yards per attempt is greater than 5.2 yards per carry?







YR

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They were running the ball 72% of the time on first down.

Here, I'll hold YOUR hand:

72-67 = 5

75-72 = 3

I know, it's doesn't fit your agenda, but it's math.

Dan Bailey kicking the ball better than 10% of the NFL from 50+ yards doesn't change the data enough that you are FAR better going for it than constantly kicking it away...even on FG's from 40+ yards. You also discount the effectiveness of this offense, particularly in short yardage situations which completely counters Bailey's ability to kick FG's from even 40+ yards out.

And why don't you take a look at the average yards per pass attempt on first down. Or do I have to explain how 10.2 yards per attempt is greater than 5.2 yards per carry?







YR

Link to the run percentage statistic please.

And you don't know if it changes it or not. You have not even presented the data in the first place. We have seen how often teams go for it on 4th and short. Your assertion has already been disproven on that front it also belies this more recent assertion as well.

If the average team goes for it on 4th short about 10 times a season then just on those attempts you would see ~1 extra field goal over league average with Bailey. The median points scored was ~360 and 8% of total points scored is significant. That also does not include all those 4th and shorts on the defense's side of the field where kicks were made either. He does better there too.

In short no single player affects scoring more directly than a kicker. To discount it out of hand as you do is asinine.

As you your last point, you ignored my discussion about the distribution. On average, teams that pass get incompletions for no gain ~40% of the time. Teams that run the ball get no gain ~15% of the time. 2nd and 10 is not a running down. Do I need to walk you through the distribution more?

You claim you want to be balanced but what you are asking for is to run the offense like Andy Reid and Sean Payton who are pass happy and hyper-aggressive. It's not that the Cowboys offense is extremely conservative but rather that your wants are hyper liberal relative to the NFL as a whole.

 

[CCBoy]

Link to the run percentage statistic please.

And you don't know if it changes it or not. You have not even presented the data in the first place. We have seen how often teams go for it on 4th and short. Your assertion has already been disproven on that front it also belies this more recent assertion as well.

If the average team goes for it on 4th short about 10 times a season then just on those attempts you would see ~1 extra field goal over league average with Bailey. The median points scored was ~360 and 8% of total points scored is significant. That also does not include all those 4th and shorts on the defense's side of the field where kicks were made either. He does better there too.

In short no single player affects scoring more directly than a kicker. To discount it out of hand as you do is asinine.

As you your last point, you ignored my discussion about the distribution. On average, teams that pass get incompletions for no gain ~40% of the time. Teams that run the ball get no gain ~15% of the time. 2nd and 10 is not a running down. Do I need to walk you through the distribution more?

You claim you want to be balanced but what you are asking for is to run the offense like Andy Reid and Sean Payton who are pass happy and hyper-aggressive. It's not that the Cowboys offense is extremely conservative but rather that your wants are hyper liberal relative to the NFL as a whole.

Lol, if a person continually links back to his own statement, he simply doesn't have to own up to a realistic discussion. He can thus hide behind continually redefining his original statement. Only, by an objective person, that is seen through from the very start.

By the way, Fuzzy...a ton of good stuff.