Garrett surpassed Wade, is now No. 4 in Cowboys coaching victories

[WoodysGirl]

It was how he did it not that he did it.

I've heard various stories surrounding how Landry was fired and that there are several individuals responsible for the way it turned out, including Landry. So while Jerry has faults, many of them, I can't hold that against him.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

I've heard various stories surrounding how Landry was fired and that there are several individuals responsible for the way it turned out, including Landry. So while Jerry has faults, many of them, I can't hold that against him.

I hold global warming against Jerry so..................

 

[Idgit]

I can't tell if you are agreeing with me or being sarcastic. Interesting debating style. lol

Anyway, it gets "trotted" out a lot b/c it happens to be true. Wade had absolutely nothing to do with the offensive side of the ball. Jerry ran the post-parcels cowboys like offensive and defensive fiefdoms.............actually not much has changed. The fact some people like to trot out the recent draft successes is a testament to how bad things were in years prior. But, wait, Garret had nothing to do with personnel prior to 2010 right? Now, he's a freaking genius............. or was that him with his head in hands during the 2013 draft management debacle? Maybe another guy with orange hair in the war room? Maybe?

It was sarcasm. It gets trotted out because it happens to be negative, not because it happens to be true. By all means, though, if you have anything to support your contention that Wade had no say in how we handled scouting and drafting offensive players during his tenure, I'm happy to hear it. Everything I've heard on that topic to-date has been supposition. I should note, that Wade's tenure included a pretty good offensive player in Dez Bryant, too.

Re: 2013, that was the year we drafted Frederic, Williams, Wilcox, Escobar, Randle, Holloman right? *That* disaster? Yeah, Jason Garrett was the ginger with his head in his hands during that debacle. He's been living down the shame of that weekend, ever since.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

Whatever Garret "inherited" in 2010, he had a huge hand in. Garret didn't arrive in Dallas in 2010 and probably should have been fired along with Wade.

so does garrett get credit for the people he has added to the team since? or is the credit goes to the coordinators?

also, what garrett inherited, he took them 5-3, vs. 1-7.

 

[Idgit]

so does garrett get credit for the people he has added to the team since? or is the credit goes to the coordinators?

also, what garrett inherited, he took them 5-3, vs. 1-7.

I believe the credit goes to the coordinators, which, in his own way, is entirely--bizarrely--consistent with him giving Garrett the credit when he was an assistant under Wade.

As head coach, Garrett apparently only gets credit (and by 'credit,' I mean 'blame') for the guys he *didn't* take. In this case, Shariff Floyd.

 

[atlantacowboy]

It was sarcasm. It gets trotted out because it happens to be negative, not because it happens to be true. By all means, though, if you have anything to support your contention that Wade had no say in how we handled scouting and drafting offensive players during his tenure, I'm happy to hear it. Everything I've heard on that topic to-date has been supposition. I should note, that Wade's tenure included a pretty good offensive player in Dez Bryant, too.

Re: 2013, that was the year we drafted Frederic, Williams, Wilcox, Escobar, Randle, Holloman right? *That* disaster? Yeah, Jason Garrett was the ginger with his head in his hands during that debacle. He's been living down the shame of that weekend, ever since.

I watched the war room cam and ginger man was not happy. It was so embarrassing that they blacked out the war room cam this past draft while the cowboys were on the clock...... which was a first. Frederick wasn't plan A,B, or C in round 1. Fortunately for all involved, he worked out.

Wilcox is one of the lowest ranked safeties in the league. Escobar hasn't done squat and Williams, randle, and hollomon haven't exactly lit up the league. So, i'm not sure where the chest puff comes on that draft.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

I believe the credit goes to the coordinators, which, in his own way, is entirely--bizarrely--consistent with him giving Garrett the credit when he was an assistant under Wade.

Garrett apparently only gets credit (and by 'credit,' I mean 'blame') for the guys he *didn't* take. In this case, Shariff Floyd.

the credit goes to the head coach because of the direction he wants to build a team. does he make all the decisions? no. no coach does. he surrounds himself with the right people in his organization and trusts them As head coach. All good leaders do that. and they make corrections and move forward because there is no leader that has ever been perfect but stupid ones insist on doing it the same way and never changing their ways.

under wade we had too many bad drafts picking the wrong players and not having a "process" to make sure right players are picked. same with campo and switzer. under parcells we did. under garrett we do. its not a coincidence. there has to be a plan. the org has to buy into it. the coordinators, scouts, etc. have to understand it and the entire group executing it. when you constantly change the plan or have an unclear plan, then we end up with wasted drafts during wade era.

so for garrett this is a case of damned if you. damned if you don't.

 

[Idgit]

I watched the war room cam and ginger man was not happy. It was so embarrassing that they blacked out the war room cam this past draft while the cowboys were on the clock...... which was a first. Frederick wasn't plan A,B, or C in round 1. Fortunately for all involved, he worked out.

Wilcox is one of the lowest ranked safeties in the league. Escobar hasn't done squat and Williams, randle, and hollomon haven't exactly lit up the league. So, i'm not sure where the chest puff comes on that draft.

Oh! You watched the war room cam and figured it out that way. And then you were able to see on the war room cam, I take it, what plans A, B, and C were in round one and that they were something other than what we decided to do, because it makes sense that the plan we went with actually wasn't what we wanted to do. It all seems so sensible when you explain it that way and then just act like you're sure you're right.

If you don't think finding three starters and two key role players in a draft is good drafting, I don't know what to tell you. We don't really need to puff out our chests about it, but then I wasn't puffing anything out. I was replying to your comment "that was him with his head in hands during the 2013 draft management debacle." Because you obviously confused the phrase 'successful draft' with the world 'debacle.'

 

[Red Dragon]

PS: Thanks greatly for the factual info.

You're welcome. I love stats, so I'm often crunching numbers.

 

[Red Dragon]

"You are what your record says you are" was always an incredibly lazy argument. It fails to take circumstances into account.

Was Dave Campo made of better coaching material in 2000 than Jimmy Johnson in 1989, because Campo went 5-11 and Johnson went 1-15?

 

[atlantacowboy]

Oh! You watched the war room cam and figured it out that way. And then you were able to see on the war room cam, I take it, what plans A, B, and C were in round one and that they were something other than what we decided to do, because it makes sense that the plan we went with actually wasn't what we wanted to do. It all seems so sensible when you explain it that way and then just act like you're sure you're right.

If you don't think finding three starters and two key role players in a draft is good drafting, I don't know what to tell you. We don't really need to puff out our chests about it, but then I wasn't puffing anything out. I was replying to your comment "that was him with his head in hands during the 2013 draft management debacle." Because you obviously confused the phrase 'successful draft' with the world 'debacle.'

Did you read anything about the 2013 draft or is this all news to you?

http://www.***BANNED-URL***/sports/...an-do-to-avoid-2013-s-draft-day-confusion.ece

Escobar is a "key role player" and how would we be 7-3 without Wilcox and the underwear thief. LMAO.

Keep them coming funny boy.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

And?

He was there 5 times.

Not 2.

And not one of those losses was 60 something to 7.

2-0 is better than 2-3. Unless of course you are arguing that Marv Levy is better than Johnson as he went to four straight.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

"You are what your record says you are" was always an incredibly lazy argument. It fails to take circumstances into account.

Was Dave Campo made of better coaching material in 2000 than Jimmy Johnson in 1989, because Campo went 5-11 and Johnson went 1-15?

it also only applies when you have a losing record it seems

 

[JD_KaPow]

2-0 is better than 2-3.

Seriously? Not getting to the Super Bowl is better than getting to the Super Bowl? That's a new one.

If you want to make the argument, it's more like this: 2-3 (2 SB appearances, 3 years not reaching) is arguably better than 5-24 (5 SB appearances, 24 years not reaching). But of course it's a completely apples-to-oranges comparison. Landry was there through multiple generations of Cowboys teams. Johnson built a winning group and left at the peak, before he had to try and maintain it or transition to the next group. Could he have done that successfully? What would a 10- or 15-year Jimmy tenure have looked like? I have no idea, and neither do you.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

2-0 is better than 2-3. Unless of course you are arguing that Marv Levy is better than Johnson as he went to four straight.

No, 2-0 is not better than 2-3 when counting championships. Why? Because every year you don't win a championship goes in the loss column as well. You are basically holding success against someone, when you knock them for a super bowl loss. As if losing the week prior would've been better.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

Seriously? Not getting to the Super Bowl is better than getting to the Super Bowl? That's a new one.

If you want to make the argument, it's more like this: 2-3 (2 SB appearances, 3 years not reaching) is arguably better than 5-24 (5 SB appearances, 24 years not reaching). But of course it's a completely apples-to-oranges comparison. Landry was there through multiple generations of Cowboys teams. Johnson built a winning group and left at the peak, before he had to try and maintain it or transition to the next group. Could he have done that successfully? What would a 10- or 15-year Jimmy tenure have looked like? I have no idea, and neither do you.

Therefore you would agree then that Levy is a better coach than Johnson as he went to four SBs, even though he lost all four?

 

[JD_KaPow]

Therefore you would agree then that Levy is a better coach than Johnson as he went to four SBs, even though he lost all four?

No, I would never make such a claim based on a single number (SB appearances). Distilling the evaluation of a coach, or a player, or a team down to the outcome of 3 or 4 games over a long stretch of years is absurd.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

However, you would agree that going to four SBs and losing all four is better than going to two and winning both.

 

[JD_KaPow]

However, you would agree that going to four SBs and losing all four is better than going to two and winning both.

No, and I can't imagine how you would draw such a conclusion from anything I've said.

Winning a SB is better than losing an SB. Getting to the SB and losing is better than not getting to the SB at all. I never said anything about the relative value of each of those things. But let's suppose I did. This is all silly and made up, but maybe it will get the idea across:

Let's say a season where we win the SB nets me 100 points of fan bliss.
A season where we get to the SB but lose it nets me 40 points of fan bliss.
A season where we lose the NFCCG nets me 30 points of fan bliss.

So, two SB wins + two years not making it = 260.
Four SB losses = 160.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

You stated that going to them even if you lose is better than not going, ergo you stated Landry's 2-3 in SBs was better than Johnson's 2-0 iirc.