Garrett's Involvement/Impact on the Defense

[CowboyMcCoy]

This isn't true, at least not in Johnson's case. He knew very little about offensive football and let Turner do what he wanted to when he was here. Read any of the books about the 90s dynasties for more info.

I'm down on Garrett but I'm not about to knock him for not sticking his nose where it doesn't belong.

Did you ever watch Jimmy coach Irvin, Emmitt and Aikman? It doesn't sound like it. He may have handled the Xs and Os, but Jimmy used to do things like make Emmitt carry a football everywhere so he didn't fumble. He'd pull Aikman aside and coach him up, same with Irvin. He went after his players on all sides of the ball and ST. Garrett stands there and blushes with his doofus grin anytime the team does something positive.

 

[texbumthelife]

Oh, Lord, it's getting deep in here. I didn't say he should do his job for the DC. I said step in and make adjustments and motivate players, etc. Certainly, the head coach has some duties to both sides of the ball. You Garrett apologists will find anything or anyone to blame his shortcomings on rather than where they belong, which is squarely on him.

You're clearly just as confused as your original post made you seem. I have been calling for Garrett's head for weeks.

Your original post is just completely wrong and off base and your assumptions of other coaches abilities and roles is completely unfounded and fabricated to support your opinion based on faulty logic.

 

[texbumthelife]

Did you ever watch Jimmy coach Irvin, Emmitt and Aikman? It doesn't sound like it. He may have handled the Xs and Os, but Jimmy used to do things like make Emmitt carry a football everywhere so he didn't fumble. He'd pull Aikman aside and coach him up, same with Irvin. He went after his players on all sides of the ball and ST. Garrett stands there and blushes with his doofus grin anytime the team does something positive.

And what does any of that have to do with "developing this defense, making improvement and adjustments" in Garrett's case? Should he show more fire and passion on the sidelines? Maybe. Should he be more willing to confront players when they make dumb plays? Sure. Should he be telling the defensive coordinator what to do? No.

Maybe you misrepresented yourself and what you were trying to say in your first post. But the part I quoted is directly from your original post and its completely erroneous.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

You're clearly just as confused as your original post made you seem. I have been calling for Garrett's head for weeks.

Your original post is just completely wrong and off base and your assumptions of other coaches abilities and roles is completely unfounded and fabricated to support your opinion based on faulty logic.

You're making unfounded statements. You're saying the head coach has no business on both sides of the ball? That he should stick to one side? That's flipping asinine, dude.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

You're clearly just as confused as your original post made you seem. I have been calling for Garrett's head for weeks.

Your original post is just completely wrong and off base and your assumptions of other coaches abilities and roles is completely unfounded and fabricated to support your opinion based on faulty logic.

What is it, specifically, that I'm "confused" about?

 

[texbumthelife]

You're making unfounded statements. You're saying the head coach has no business on both sides of the ball? That he should stick to one side? That's flipping asinine, dude.

You are saying that Garrett should be sticking his nose in and making defensive adjustments. I am simply disagreeing with you, as is everyone else here.

I agree with player motivation and some improvement, but he has no business telling the DC what adjustments to make.

 

[texbumthelife]

What is it, specifically, that I'm "confused" about?

Well, you seem to think I am a "Garrett apologist" for one...

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

And what does any of that have to do with "developing this defense, making improvement and adjustments" in Garrett's case? Should he show more fire and passion on the sidelines? Maybe. Should he be more willing to confront players when they make dumb plays? Sure. Should he be telling the defensive coordinator what to do? No.

Yes, he should in some cases. If he has a feel for the game, which he doesn't, and an overall game plan, which if he has one it's not apparent, then there should be times when he intervenes to make adjustments. For instance, when Kiffin started playing more press coverage that was a simple adjustment that worked. It should have been done sooner. Many posters even recognized it before the team did. Look at the game thread. Those are the things I'm talking about. It's not like offensive guys are clueless about defenses. They design their unit to beat them. It's ironic that you sit there behind your screen and say these outrageously stupid things and actually believe them. Almost pathetic. I'm not attacking you, because you post good stuff. But this is a dumb notion you have. There's no way to say it without sounding like somewhat of a jerk. Think about it.

Maybe you misrepresented yourself and what you were trying to say in your first post. But the part I quoted is directly from your original post and its completely erroneous.

Again, ironic statement here.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

Well, you seem to think I am a "Garrett apologist" for one...

No, I know that you're not. Sorry that I included that in there.

 

[CowboyMcCoy]

You are saying that Garrett should be sticking his nose in and making defensive adjustments. I am simply disagreeing with you, as is everyone else here.

I agree with player motivation and some improvement, but he has no business telling the DC what adjustments to make.

When your DC is giving up record yardage, you do something that's not obvious to him but apparent to the rest of us. Even the fans were seeing this.

 

[Hoofbite]

I don't think Head Coaches with an offensive background ever have much input into the defense.

I haven't watched many Saints games but the defense that Rob had in Cleveland used a lot more of those exotic formations than Dallas ever used with Ryan as DC. Was it Garrett having him tame it down? Nobody can say for sure but I would imagine a coach would have some input regarding whether or not a team was going to play a little more conservative or a little more risky.

 

[texbumthelife]

Yes, he should in some cases. If he has a feel for the game, which he doesn't, and an overall game plan, which if he has one it's not apparent, then there should be times when he intervenes to make adjustments. For instance, when Kiffin started playing more press coverage that was a simple adjustment that worked. It should have been done sooner. Many posters even recognized it before the team did. Look at the game thread. Those are the things I'm talking about. It's not like offensive guys are clueless about defenses. They design their unit to beat them. It's ironic that you sit there behind your screen and say these outrageously stupid things and actually believe them. Almost pathetic. I'm not attacking you, because you post good stuff. But this is a dumb notion you have. There's no way to say it without sounding like somewhat of a jerk. Think about it.



Again, ironic statement here.

Yeah actually you did just attack me, but I can brush that off because I'm used to the dramatic bravado of the posters here.

You're making a couple different claims which make it difficult to argue.

First you're saying Garrett should throw in his hat on defensive adjustments. I am saying no, he shouldn't. The man can't even run the offense properly at the moment, he has no business sticking his nose in on defense.

Then you're saying that Garrett does't have the ability to do what you think he should be doing. That part I agree with.

So maybe we have a miscommunication here.

 

[texbumthelife]

Let me further clarify before this gets even uglier, I am saying Garrett, in particular, has absolutely no business putting his $.02 in on defense and I don't want it, because I don't think he brings anything new to the table. I don't think he is going to recommend anything or have a firmer grasp of a situation than Kiffin or his second in command, Marinelli.

 

[texbumthelife]

No, I know that you're not. Sorry that I included that in there.

That's just mean, man! Haha

 

[Tabascocat]

I don't like Garrett either, but I can't lay blame on him for the defense. They are injured, missing and banged up. He would do no better than what Kiffin and Marinelli are working with.

I don't know how much input he should have yet there is one aspect I don't understand..............being an OC, would he not have some experience working with defenses? He should know what offenses they are going against and recommend a plan of attack knowing what weaknesses are there.

Example...we play Seattle and they all study film. He should be highly involved in going over the defensive game-plan. If he knows offenses, then he should know what defensive schemes would wreak the most havoc on a particular offense.

 

[texbumthelife]

I don't like Garrett either, but I can't lay blame on him for the defense. They are injured, missing and banged up. He would do no better than what Kiffin and Marinelli are working with.

I don't know how much input he should have yet there is one aspect I don't understand..............being an OC, would he not have some experience working with defenses? He should know what offenses they are going against and recommend a plan of attack knowing what weaknesses are there.

Example...we play Seattle and they all study film. He should be highly involved in going over the defensive game-plan. If he knows offenses, then he should know what defensive schemes would wreak the most havoc on a particular offense.

I think he would be involved in talking about the game plan based on his position as head coach, but I think he would, and should in this case, absolutely defer to Kiffin and Marinelli as far as adjustments. You would hope he would have some insight into what other offenses will be doing based on formation/tendencies, but you also have to remember, he is decades junior to both Marinelli and Kiffin and hasn't really shown himself to be a savant of the game at this point.

The defense has been atrocious, but it has been exactly what Kiffin preaches. There is no way to know how much better the secondary would look if we had a consistent push and pressure from out front four.

The bottom line is, I appreciate what he has done as far as talent evaluation and being willing to play the younger guys, but Garrett really brings nothing to the table that is going to help this team turn the corner.

 

[Idgit]

You guys spend more time concocting possible explanations for things that aren't really broken, while ignoring discussions about stuff that actually is broken than I've ever seen. Every coach got his start on one side of the ball or another.

As for the OP, we do have a walk-around coach. My guess is that he's got a lot of input into how the defense was originally modified to fit the personnel he wants. And that he had a heavy hand in terms of how the implementation of the meetings, how and when the game plan is prepared and introduced, etc, and then he steps almost completely away and lets the experienced guys he brought in coach the way they want to coach it. Between games I'm sure he has a role in discussing the changes they want to make and how opposing offenses would likely adjust to them.

In other words, I imagine he plays a role similar to other head coaches who have experienced coordinators for offense, defense, and special teams.

 

[texbumthelife]

You guys spend more time concocting possible explanations for things that aren't really broken, while ignoring discussions about stuff that actually is broken than I've ever seen. Every coach got his start on one side of the ball or another.

As for the OP, we do have a walk-around coach. My guess is that he's got a lot of input into how the defense was originally modified to fit the personnel he wants. And that he had a heavy hand in terms of how the implementation of the meetings, how and when the game plan is prepared and introduced, etc, and then he steps almost completely away and lets the experienced guys he brought in coach the way they want to coach it. Between games I'm sure he has a role in discussing the changes they want to make and how opposing offenses would likely adjust to them.

In other words, I imagine he plays a role similar to other head coaches who have experienced coordinators for offense, defense, and special teams.

Thanks Idgit, well said.

What discussions are being ignored that need tending to so furiously?

 

[Tabascocat]

You guys spend more time concocting possible explanations for things that aren't really broken, while ignoring discussions about stuff that actually is broken than I've ever seen. Every coach got his start on one side of the ball or another.

As for the OP, we do have a walk-around coach. My guess is that he's got a lot of input into how the defense was originally modified to fit the personnel he wants. And that he had a heavy hand in terms of how the implementation of the meetings, how and when the game plan is prepared and introduced, etc, and then he steps almost completely away and lets the experienced guys he brought in coach the way they want to coach it. Between games I'm sure he has a role in discussing the changes they want to make and how opposing offenses would likely adjust to them.

In other words, I imagine he plays a role similar to other head coaches who have experienced coordinators for offense, defense, and special teams.

You spend just as much time playing tennis with our "concocted" explanations

 

[Idgit]

Thanks Idgit, well said.

What discussions are being ignored that need tending to so furiously?

Well, maybe not ignored, but under-complained about. Our CB and S health, both concern me right now in general, and especially so against the Saints this week. The underwhelming play of Bruce Carter in coverage is something that only gets mentioned in a context where people are complaining about Ernie Sims, but it's probably one of the top three disappointments for me with the defense this season. The play of our Safeties in pass coverage is still nothing to write home about, but the topic of maybe taking snaps from Barry Church to give some opportunities to one or both of the rookies is worth mentioning. As is the lift, or lack thereof we're likely to get when Demarcus Ware gets back into the lineup.

Basically, I'm interested in what we might do to improve the effectiveness of the pass defense for when we play the better teams in the league, because that's gotten us beat in the SD, DEN, and DET games (whereas the KC game was a very good defense that hampered our offensive effectiveness, and turnovers). Those are three good QBs who've just beaten us, and we've still got Brees, Rodgers, and then the prospect of improved play from the NFCE QBs to contend with the second half of the year.

The stuff about the number of runs that were called in a victory today, or about the play calling in general is, in my opinion, almost a non-issue. I did have a beef today with the play action on third and forever that ended in a sack that nobody's really mentioning, but, generally, I think it's silly that any significant people really believe two guys as experienced as Jason Garrett and Bill Callahan honestly don't know what they're doing in terms of putting together an offensive game plan. It's one thing to not like the plan. I'm personally not a big fan of the design of either our offense or our defense. But it's another, entirely, to pretend like they guys actually don't know what they're doing.