Gosselin: Jason Garrett, staff let Cowboys down when they were needed most

[dfense]

Like Gosslin said, if you have to have a superstar QB to win games, then you really don't have much of a coach.

If that doesn't describe Garrett to a T, I really don't know what would.

Yeah, I guess a SB winning coach like Harbaugh of the Ravens would agree with that. Except he's on his third string QB and just lost the last two games 69-19. But he's been to superbowls, right? Must be something else....

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

And if Garrett doesn't get credit for last season, shouldn't he also receive no blame for this season? Can't have it both ways.

garret gets credit for 5 seasons below .500 and 1 season above .500

bad record so far. not to mention his lack of situational awareness and his many game management/clock management blunders. too many to count.

any other coach in the NFL would have been fired already.

 

[Dodger12]

Consistency is overrrated. You have no idea what my point is because you cannot see past your binary simplification. I'm not sure how you get that I'm flip flopping when I describe him as average yet here you are with it anyway.

There are more way of looking at things than the opposite of your opinion.

Then just say what Garrett is without the underlying BS. Everyone knows what Jerry is. At the end of the day, Garrett was too overwhelmed with game and clock management that Jerry had nothing to do with. We've all had years of his substandard game plans and piss poor coaching which was covered up to the blind eye by Romo. He built nothing even though folks like you touted his multi-year reclamation project, stayed competitive and never had a losing season while he was "building" the team, etc. Problem is, what he "built" here is on display so there goes that excuse. So now you have the old fall back option.....Jerry.

 

[waving monkey]

Cliche

Tuna Lite was semi retired when he got here, he was only here to recoup on the riches he lost in his divorce settlement.

Don't believe the fallen pebble okie dole

Parcells time in Dallas was much a do about nothing.

pretty much ,The Wade debacle was Parcels doing

 

[cml750]

Some day soon the few remaining Garrett supporters will see the light. It is inevitable.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

Some day soon the few remaining Garrett supporters will see the light. It is inevitable.

i think JG could go 5 more seasons below .500 and he would still have one or two guys on the zone who find a reason to support him. It's bizarre i tell you.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

After this disaster of a season, Garrett still has supporters ?

not sure why this is even happening. He has had 6 seasons so far and multiple and countless chances to get his process and game tapes evaluated and cleaned up but we still end up in the same place.

 

[cml750]

[

i think JG could go 5 more seasons below .500 and he would still have one or two guys on the zone who find a reason to support him. It's bizarre i tell you.

I agree but those are the types that think the team can do no wrong no matter what so they will jump right on board on the next coaches bandwagon. Their rose colored vision will not allow anything else.

 

[Nav22]

After 2013: "FIRE GARRETT!!!"

After 2014: "PHEW!!! Good thing we didn't fire Garrett!"

After 2015: "FIRE GARRETT!!!"


Successful teams stick with the guy they believed in, even after a down year ruined by injuries.

Unsuccessful teams worry about appeasing the emotional fanbase and fire coaches every other year. How often are 1st-year-with-their-current-team head coaches successful???

Successful teams realize that a 36 year-old franchise QB who's grown very comfortable in this system and with this coaching staff should NOT be asked to learn a brand new system heading into his last few NFL seasons. Especially considering the work he'll already have to put in just to rehab and try staying healthy.

Unsuccessful teams would say, "Screw it", fire the coach and shut Tony Romo's Super Bowl window by starting from scratch.

 

[Dodger12]

After 2013: "FIRE GARRETT!!!"

After 2014: "PHEW!!! Good thing we didn't fire Garrett!"

After 2015: "FIRE GARRETT!!!"


Successful teams stick with the guy they believed in, even after a down year ruined by injuries.

Unsuccessful teams worry about appeasing the emotional fanbase and fire coaches every other year. How often are 1st-year-with-their-current-team head coaches successful???

Successful teams realize that a 36 year-old franchise QB who's grown very comfortable in this system and with this coaching staff should NOT be asked to learn a brand new system heading into his last few NFL seasons. Especially considering the work he'll already have to put in just to rehab and try staying healthy.

Unsuccessful teams would say, "Screw it", fire the coach and shut Tony Romo's Super Bowl window by starting from scratch.

Successful teams are, well, you know, successful. 5 years and 1 playoff berth with 1 playoff win is not really successful. Now, I know....I know....Garrett was building something here. Except he just can't seem to win with the team he built.

 

[DallasCowboys2080]

BUT ONE WIN WITH A BACKUP QB OUT OF

After 2013: "FIRE GARRETT!!!"

After 2014: "PHEW!!! Good thing we didn't fire Garrett!"

After 2015: "FIRE GARRETT!!!"

JG was exposed this year. One win with a backup QB. 9 losses with a backup QB.

JG needs things near perfect for him to reach above .500

He can't put his team in positions to win.

2014 was cool and I thought he would carry it over to this season. I thought he finally turned the corner.

 

[endersdragon]

After this disaster of a season, Garrett still has supporters ?

I supported Kirk Ferentz after last year as well, was I wrong to?

 

[Nav22]

Successful teams are, well, you know, successful. 5 years and 1 playoff berth with 1 playoff win is not really successful. Now, I know....I know....Garrett was building something here. Except he just can't seem to win with the team he built.

He won last year with the team he built. He went 3-1 this year with the team he built, in games in which he had his starting QB.

He's 15-4 (plus a playoff win) in the last 2 years with the team he built and his starting QB. Looks like we've been tasting some of that success when #9 is under center.

But no, let's blow it up and shut Tony Romo's Super Bowl window in the process by starting from SCRATCH with a brand new coach and a brand new offense. That sounds like a winning plan!

I don't put much stock in the close losses this year with crap at QB. We could've won some more of those close games but we didn't. Even Parcells went 6-10 when Vinny Testaverde was his QB. It happens.

 

[Dodger12]

He won last year with the team he built. He went 3-1 this year with the team he built, in games in which he had his starting QB.

He's 15-4 (plus a playoff win) in the last 2 years with the team he built and his starting QB. Looks like we've been tasting some of that success when #9 is under center.

But no, let's blow it up and shut Tony Romo's Super Bowl window in the process by starting from SCRATCH with a brand new coach and a brand new offense. That sounds like a winning plan!

I don't put much stock in the close losses this year with crap at QB. We could've won some more of those close games but we didn't. Even Parcells went 6-10 when Vinny Testaverde was his QB. It happens.

So Garrett build a team that can't win a couple of games without a Pro Bowl QB. Got it. He's done a fine job......

 

[Nav22]

So Garrett build a team that can't win a couple of games without a Pro Bowl QB. Got it. He's done a fine job......

And 15-4 since last season with his starting QB. The same starting QB who will be our guy for a few more years, health willing.

Tony Romo and Jason Witten love Garrett, by the way. Go tell them that they're wrong and that it's best for them to learn a brand new system in their mid 30's as they're trying to end their careers with Super Bowl glory.

 

[_sturt_]

Your defense of Garrett here is based completely on a hypothetical scenario.

Perhaps we need to re-visit what "hypothetical" means.

Fact #1: The offense is designed around optimizing the QB asset that is expected to play most games. (And has.)

Fact #2: Weeden, turns out, was a bad choice for this offense.

Fact #3: Turns out his replacement wasn't much better.

Fact #4: But when they finally got a more mobile and much quicker release guy playing back there, it gave them a shot.

Fact #4.5: But when they finally got a more mobile and much quicker release guy playing back there, it gave them a shot against one of the best defenses in the entire NFL (!).

(Who knew.)

Fact #5: The new kid isn't actually all that good. He's just brings the right set of skills.

CONCLUSION... (i.e., that thing that all of those facts points toward...) What might happen if we actually get someone with those skills who is good? I say we find out.

Kinda sucks because your reply seemed so slick at first, at least to some.

But, no. Just empty schtick. Empty emotional, reactive schtick.

 

[Dodger12]

And 15-4 since last season with his starting QB. The same starting QB who will be our guy for a few more years, health willing.

Tony Romo and Jason Witten love Garrett, by the way. Go tell them that they're wrong and that it's best for them to learn a brand new system in their mid 30's as they're trying to end their careers with Super Bowl glory.

Yes, keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel better while another playoff caliber team (Cincy) won with their back-up QB again today. You know, because no one can win with a back-up QB.

 

[jobberone]

Most of the debate even if spirited has been fine. Good points both sides. Don't start getting personal and end up riding the pine.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Perhaps we need to re-visit what "hypothetical" means.

Fact #1: The offense is designed around optimizing the QB asset that is expected to play most games. (And has.)

Fact #2: Weeden, turns out, was a bad choice for this offense.

Fact #3: Turns out his replacement wasn't much better.

Fact #4: But when they finally got a more mobile and much quicker release guy playing back there, it gave them a shot.

Fact #4.5: But when they finally got a more mobile and much quicker release guy playing back there, it gave them a shot against one of the best defenses in the entire NFL (!).

(Who knew.)

Fact #5: The new kid isn't actually all that good. He's just brings the right set of skills.

CONCLUSION... (i.e., that thing that all of those facts points toward...) What might happen if we actually get someone with those skills who is good? I say we find out.

Kinda sucks because your reply seemed so slick at first, at least to some.

But, no. Just empty schtick. Empty emotional, reactive schtick.

You said, "What might happen if we actually get someone with those skills who is good?"

That's a hypothetical because it presents a circumstance that does not currently exist.

Now, predictably, you'll ask, "what about Romo?" This is where your hypothetical collapses under the weight of its own pretentiousness. Romo meets your sole criterion here: He's good. In fact, he's historically good. The end, real world result of putting a historically good quarterback in Garrett's system has been one playoff appearance and one playoff win in five years. That's an empirical reality. It has nothing to do with emotion. My suggestion is you stop confusing emotion with successful and logical and systematic analysis of your assertion.

Have a good night, playa.

 

[endersdragon]

Yes, keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel better while another playoff caliber team (Cincy) won with their back-up QB again today. You know, because no one can win with a back-up QB.

Did their backup QB toss 4 INTs? Most of them random with no WRs in the area?