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

[big dog cowboy]

Yes, keep telling yourself whatever makes you feel better while another playoff caliber team (Cincy) won with their back-up QB again today.

Cincy beat a 4-10 team. Big accompllishment there.

 

[jobberone]

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

True. The flip is why did YOUR backup throw 4 INTs? The flip is it was his first significant action including practice....with the first team. The flip to that is you put him in a game where your starter wasn't injured so that's on you.

It all goes back to allowing Romo to get hurt because you didn't protect him on the blitz well nor coach him to throw it away or how to take a sack better....although QBs DO get hurt no matter what. Never has had an OL that played the blitz really well consistently.

Then you had an inadequate backup..(s).

 

[ElGatoGrande]

So all of a sudden Linehan and Marinelli, the two most important resignings of the team this offseason according to the broad consensus of reporters and Garrett haters alike, cannot coach either,,, interesting reversal.

 

[Dodger12]

Cincy beat a 4-10 team. Big accompllishment there.

The excuse that Garrett didn't win because of a back-up QB is ludicrous. The Falcons (7 and 7), Bucs (6 and 8) and Saints (5 and 8) are not juggernauts. If we could have beaten those teams, we'd still be int he hunt which is the point of the article/thread. At some point, folks are going to run out of excuses for this guy.

 

[_sturt_]

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.

Correction. That's a conclusion that I happened to choose to state in the form of a hypothetical question.

Let me spell it out for you since that distracts you from the point:

Based on the litany of facts presented, we have before us two choices:

(a) abandon the offense that we've built around Romo and his skill set for one that is better suited to players like Weeden and Cassel, or

(b) acquire a back-up QB for next season whose skill set better mirrors Romo's and Moore's.

Yes, I know... you think it's a great idea to just scrap the whole coaching staff.

And yes, you know, I consider that an emotional reactionary over-reach. We have a very, very competent coaching staff who has put into place what we need to be successful.

All we need is a QB who fits the profile--a QB who brings the mobility and quick release that Romo and Moore possess, and yet, one who brings a better arm and, obviously, better decision making than Moore specifically.

You want to overhaul the engine. I want to replace the spark plug for one that actually is made for the engine.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

Yes, I know... you think it's a great idea to just scrap the whole coaching staff.

Whoa, whoa. I'm gonna stop you right here, home skillet. Where did I say "scrap the whole coaching staff"? In fact, where did I say "fire Garrett"? Go ahead. Search the thread. I'll wait...



Did you find it? No, of course not. Because I've said no such thing. The biggest mistake with Garrett has already been made -- that is, hiring him in the first place. When Garrett was hired, there was already a historically good franchise quarterback in place -- in the prime of his career, no less. Quarterback is literally the most difficult position to fill in all of professional sports, and it was handed to Garrett on a silver platter. Once you fill it, the going becomes much easier. Unfortunately, Garrett required significant on-the-job training (by Jerry's own admission) and was too inexperienced to take advantage of it. In essence, we squandered the prime years of the most statistically brilliant quarterback this franchise has ever seen for no reason other than developing a coach who, even after five years, remains mediocre -- this is an empirical reality. It's a mistake that's already been made. Firing Garrett won't fix it.

Now, back to your unfounded, emotionally-driven accusation that I want him fired. I try to avoid heated rhetoric whenever I can, and claiming someone should be fired certainly fits that bill. The decision to fire a coach is largely subjective and arbitrary. Yes, it incorporates facts and empirical data. Ultimately, however, those facts address what happened in the past and past performance is no guarantee of future performance. In other words, past success is no guarantee of future success, and past failures are no guarantee of future failures. Coaches are fired when front offices decide they've reached their potential for growth and results are still inadequate. I have no idea if Garrett has reached his potential for growth. I'm merely explaining what his current record and performance reflects: mediocrity.

 

[cowboyblue22]

I don't think garret will ever win a super bowl with the boys tony is almost done now and really good qbs are sohard to find and if you don't have one the rest of the team really don't matter. I personally have no faith in garret or his staff or the front office to do any thing different than they have done for the last 6 years. So this next year with me there will be no high expectations that they will be better than 8 and 8 and not in the playoffs. this is a team of mediocrity and has been for years starts at the top and goes all the way down rotten to the core.

 

[_sturt_]

Whoa, whoa. I'm gonna stop you right here, home skillet. Where did I say "scrap the whole coaching staff"? In fact, where did I say "fire Garrett"? Go ahead. Search the thread. I'll wait...



Did you find it? No, of course not. Because I've said no such thing. The biggest mistake with Garrett has already been made -- that is, hiring him in the first place. When Garrett was hired, there was already a historically good franchise quarterback in place -- in the prime of his career, no less. Quarterback is literally the most difficult position to fill in all of professional sports, and it was handed to Garrett on a silver platter. Once you fill it, the going becomes much easier. Unfortunately, Garrett required significant on-the-job training (by Jerry's own admission) and was too inexperienced to take advantage of it. In essence, we squandered the prime years of the most statistically brilliant quarterback this franchise has ever seen for no reason other than developing a coach who, even after five years, remains mediocre -- this is an empirical reality. It's a mistake that's already been made. Firing Garrett won't fix it.

Now, back to your unfounded, emotionally-driven accusation that I want him fired. I try to avoid heated rhetoric whenever I can, and claiming someone should be fired certainly fits that bill. The decision to fire a coach is largely subjective and arbitrary. Yes, it incorporates facts and empirical data. Ultimately, however, those facts address what happened in the past and past performance is no guarantee of future performance. In other words, past success is no guarantee of future success, and past failures are no guarantee of future failures. Coaches are fired when front offices decide they've reached their potential for growth and results are still inadequate. I have no idea if Garrett has reached his potential for growth. I'm merely explaining what his current record and performance reflects: mediocrity.

So, after all that, you're telling me that all I really should have taken from your original post is that Garrett's record supports the assertion that he is a mediocre coach.

You tell me to stop there, because you haven't offered an opinion as to what the next step is.

Okay. I'll take you at face value.

But let's continue down that path... if none of that is actually indicative of where you think things should go from here, pray tell now, where do you think things should go from here?

While you're deliberating that with yourself (and pardon my skepticism that there's much actual deliberating you have yet to do, but rather that there's a distinct possibility that you're attempting to be rhetorically clever by avoiding the natural assumption based on your conclusion)....

Indulge me as I back up to where I began, and actually, isn't so distant from your assertion that past results do not predict future results. I would assert that that's correct, and further, how one interprets past results is a subjective venture... probably often related to whether a given observer leans toward optimism or pessimism.

What you appear to be saying that got my attention is that good coaches win with back-up QBs.

What I am saying is that good coaches win with back-up QBs who are adequate fits for the system that team employs. It's not just any back-up QB with any system. It's more precise than you seem to want to acknowledge.

What I am saying is that Weeden appears (for now, at least) to be a better fit for the Texans' system.

What I am saying is that Moore appears to be a better fit for the Cowboys' system than Weeden or Cassel, though he's clearly not possessing the arm, nor the judgment that QBs drafted higher than him bring.

What I am saying is that the inventory of QBs that will be playing in 2016 contains guys that bring what Moore has, yet that also bring stronger arms and better judgment. What is hypothetical is that we can obtain one of those... I don't know that we can. I strongly suspect we can. But then again, I'm one who leans toward optimism, so I admit the subjectivity that I bring to the topic.

 

[Gameover]

pretty much ,The Wade debacle was Parcels doing

Don't think Wade was a debacle. Wade has a short shelf life as the head coach. And it didn't help him that he was never good enough for the local media, and they beat him down from day 1.

Wade was anchored down by Jerry's hand picked genius.

 

[ScipioCowboy]

So, after all that, you're telling me that all I really should have taken from your original post is that Garrett's record supports the assertion that he is a mediocre coach.

You tell me to stop there, because you haven't offered an opinion as to what the next step is.

Okay. I'll take you at face value.

But let's continue down that path... if none of that is actually indicative of where you think things should go from here, pray tell now, where do you think things should go from here?

While you're deliberating that with yourself (and pardon my skepticism that there's much actual deliberating you have yet to do, but rather that there's a distinct possibility that you're attempting to be rhetorically clever by avoiding the natural assumption based on your conclusion)....

Indulge me as I back up to where I began, and actually, isn't so distant from your assertion that past results do not predict future results. I would assert that that's correct, and further, how one interprets past results is a subjective venture... probably often related to whether a given observer leans toward optimism or pessimism.

What you appear to be saying that got my attention is that good coaches win with back-up QBs.

What I am saying is that good coaches win with back-up QBs who are adequate fits for the system that team employs. It's not just any back-up QB with any system. It's more precise than you seem to want to acknowledge.

What I am saying is that Weeden appears (for now, at least) to be a better fit for the Texans' system.

What I am saying is that Moore appears to be a better fit for the Cowboys' system than Weeden or Cassel, though he's clearly not possessing the arm, nor the judgment that QBs drafted higher than him bring.

What I am saying is that the inventory of QBs that will be playing in 2016 contains guys that bring what Moore has, yet that also bring stronger arms and better judgment. What is hypothetical is that we can obtain one of those... I don't know that we can. I strongly suspect we can. But then again, I'm one who leans toward optimism, so I admit the subjectivity that I bring to the topic.

If you are looking for something the coaching staff can improve on, how about the design of the offense? Since 2008, opponents have remarked on how predictable it is. While predictability does not doom you to failure, it does create obstacles that would not otherwise be there. Because the offense relies so heavily on players winning individual match ups, it needs overwhelming individual performances to be successful. In the modern parity driven cap-Strapped NFL, it is difficult to amass that much talent. And heaven forbid you suffer any injuries.

Consider the circumstances during Garrett's only playoff season:

1) relatively good health on offense
2) highest rated passer in the NFL
3) leading rusher by a wide margin

That is a trifecta you don't see very often, and the fact we only made it to the divisional round with all of those things falling into place is disheartening.

I'm not saying Garrett should be fired. I'm saying we need to find a way to modernize the Coryell variant we run.

 

[_sturt_]

Not sure what "modernize" means... as-if there's anything actually new in football, but okay, whatever. Not sure why one would call our offense another edition of Air Coryell, either. But okay, again, whatever. You (rightfully) bemoan that in a year when we enjoyed paramount success on offense, it was disheartening to see us lose w/o making the conference championship... as-if, though, it's the lack of unpredictability on offense that resulted in that loss when everyone from his brother to his second cousin saw our D-line's lack of pass rush as key to that circumstance.

I'm glad you're not saying Garrett should be fired. Kudos. But if I'm reading correctly, you think the offensive scheme needs serious work.

I don't mean to seem to be disagreeable for the sake of being disagreeable, but I'm struck immediately by the fact that when Romo is there and running it, the offense hums along for the most part. I don't want to redesign the offense in any major way on the chance that a 2nd string QB may have to come in at some point and run something more aligned with his talents. As stated, I'd rather go out and find someone with a skill set more aligned with the offense.

Where did we go wrong?

I think the player assessment staff swung and missed on Weeden... or, alternatively, it was one of those occasions when Jerry got infatuated with a guy against the better judgment of the staff.

So, my take is that I'm looking for us to acquire a mobile, quick release QB this off-season... but one with the average or better arm that Moore doesn't have. I see that as a very simple and reasonable way to correct what blew up the 2015 season for us.

 

[LucaBrasi]

Garrett's a dope, but I'd have to ask Goose if Lindy Infante was such a tactical master why was his team 0-10 in the first place? Seems the late great Lindy Infante didn't give his team much through the first 10 weeks in 1997.

Garrett's a joke, but Gosselin acts like he invented football. Get over yourself Rick, you aren't much of a writer.

 

[waving monkey]

Don't think Wade was a debacle. Wade has a short shelf life as the head coach. And it didn't help him that he was never good enough for the local media, and they beat him down from day 1.

Wade was anchored down by Jerry's hand picked genius.

we get to disagree

 

[waving monkey]

So all of a sudden Linehan and Marinelli, the two most important resignings of the team this offseason according to the broad consensus of reporters and Garrett haters alike, cannot coach either,,, interesting reversal.

all the Red supporters that were gushing over Red last year now what to fire him, humorous

 

[khiladi]

Romo was proven to be a horrible QB in December and January, so last year a lot of people wanted to cut him or trade him preseason so we could move up in the draft and pick Manziel... should we make that trade now?

With Garrett calling the plays and him playing street ball, of course he folded.. When you have that much pressure on your back, your eventually going to have a bad game..

Then Jerry benched him for Linehan abd Callahan and he played MVP football into the play-offs..

And the people that were calling our Romo in 2012, were guys that argued that Romo was checking out of Garrett's running play.. And Dez didn't know his routes and Garrett was saddled by an awful OL.. They blamed Romo, before they blamed Garrett..

Hell some of them said Orton played better than Romo against Philly, and should be starting..

Now they see what it's like without Romo.. Trash..

 

[khiladi]

NOW some of the media is calling out Garrett... That's what makes it hilarious, because even they don't have anymore excuses... Even JJT is..

Now we got Garrett homers asking people why they are quoting the same mediots that called out Romo to prove their stupidity, as if these same homers didn't quote articles from these mediots that praised Garrett..

 

[khiladi]

i always wanted someone to make a video of different clips of JG saying "it's a process" and "we will go back to study the tape and clean things up" or "we will look at the tape and get better", or that 3 phases of the game comment that he always makes. you know those qoutes of him saying the same stuff over and over and over and over again. he has said it so much for so long its mind numbing coupled with the fact that the changes havent been made.

yeah great its nice to say you are going to go back and look at the tape and clean things up and get better but the fact that you don't get better is the issue.

i think he said it again after the recent Jets game LOL

anyways if anyone has any spare time! make that video you have a lot of material to dig through and use. 5 to 7 years worth.

Remember when Wade was talking about getting back to the basics and he was getting hammered, yet Garrett has been regurgitating garbage ad nauseum and he's supposedly a brilliant motivator..

 

[khiladi]

LOL! Wonderful illustration of the point I made.

Say... why were Payton's 2 MOST RECENT seasons omitted?

Oh right, because the Saints have been pure trash. Even with a healthy starting QB.

He had a rotator cuff injury the beginning of the season.. Why are you using only the last two years, particularly since the Saints are clearly in a rebuilding year with close to half of their roster the first year in the team..

When did Garrett ever get to 11-5 with Rob Ryan as DC? Hell Payton has a year taken away from him and he couldn't even make any decisions..

 

[khiladi]

Oh yeah and Romo is here because of Sean Payton.. So even Garrett's 'success' here is because of Sean Payton..

Even Drew Brees was an unknown and Payton took him, after trying to bring Romo with him to the Saints.. So it was him that developed and guided Brees as well.. San Diego went the direction of Rivers, because they didn't believe in Brees..

So it's really about who would you have to find your QB of the future as well.. Brees or Garrett, the guys whose track record is guys like Brad Johnson, Jon Kitna, McGee, Weeden and Cassell..

 

[khiladi]

Don't think Wade was a debacle. Wade has a short shelf life as the head coach. And it didn't help him that he was never good enough for the local media, and they beat him down from day 1.

Wade was anchored down by Jerry's hand picked genius.

The year he was fired, Garrett's offense after the 8th game had 19 TOs and Wade's defense, despite having to compensate for that pressure, produced 10 TOs...

Wade was a scapegoat.. The year Sparano left, Garrett led offense dropped from 2nd in scoring to 18th the first year. So they maintained yardage as a top 5 offense, but couldn't put the ball in the end zone. Teams just played cover 2 deep and gave up the underneath and stopped them when the field shortened..

Oh yeah and we were a highly penalized offense..