If you could have one current head coach

[Idgit]

And he wasn't as successful as Garrett up until that point.

My point is, the league is full of mediocre coaches that win. Mike Tomlin is a joke, and his teams have won. Pete Carroll never won anything until he started cheating at USC. You really think Mike McCarthy is anything special? What about Mike Ditka, who was pretty much a cutout cartoon character on the sideline who did almost nothing? Look at Shanahan since Elway retired.

In fact, some of the best coaches are the least successful. Circumstances dictate a lot. Tom Landry struggled for years before Meredith and Staubach arrived.

Well said.

 

[Alexander]

And he wasn't as successful as Garrett up until that point.

6-10, 7-9 and 7-9 before 11-5. Garrett has been significantly more successful? How?

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

6-10, 7-9 and 7-9 before 11-5. Garrett has been significantly more successful? How?

 

[Idgit]

6-10, 7-9 and 7-9 before 11-5. Garrett has been significantly more successful? How?

He didn't say significantly.

Belichick's in another league. The point remains that factors other than coaching play into a team's won/loss record, and there are good examples where it's taken even great coaches some time to overcome them.

 

[Alexander]

Well said.

Yes, the inevitable Landry name drop pretty much put it over the top.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

And he wasn't as successful as Garrett up until that point.

My point is, the league is full of mediocre coaches that win. Mike Tomlin is a joke, and his teams have won. Pete Carroll never won anything until he started cheating at USC. You really think Mike McCarthy is anything special? What about Mike Ditka, who was pretty much a cutout cartoon character on the sideline who did almost nothing? Look at Shanahan since Elway retired.

This is amazing. Tomlin, Carroll, McCarthy, Ditka... All average to bad coaches who were just lucky to win.

LOL.

 

[theSHOW]

I'm riding with Jason Garrett


Let's Go!

 

[Alexander]

This is amazing. Tomlin, Carroll, McCarthy, Ditka... All average to bad coaches who were just lucky to win.

LOL.

All horrible. If only they would have mastered the art of pacing the beginning of their careers with consecutive 8-8 seasons instead of winning Super Bowls and making the playoffs they would be appreciated a little more.

 

[erod]

This is amazing. Tomlin, Carroll, McCarthy, Ditka... All average to bad coaches who were just lucky to win.

LOL.

Roethlisberger and an established roster.

Carroll I give credit in Seattle, but he was a cheating fool at USC and never won before then.

Farve and Rodgers in Green Bay.

The greatest defense of all time and Buddy Ryan in Chicago, where Ditka didn't even attend defensive meetings or talk to Ryan.

 

[erod]

6-10, 7-9 and 7-9 before 11-5. Garrett has been significantly more successful? How?

You used the word significantly, not me.

Garrett 24-24
Belichick 20-28

We'll see this year.

I just hate the rush-to-judgment ways of fans these days without considering what a coach inherits when he takes the job. In this case, a decrepit offensive line and an aging defense in a terminal downspiral.

 

[Idgit]

Yes, the inevitable Landry name drop pretty much put it over the top.

Yeah, some of us tend to like that guy for some reason around here.

 

[Idgit]

Roethlisberger and an established roster.

Carroll I give credit in Seattle, but he was a cheating fool at USC and never won before then.

Farve and Rodgers in Green Bay.

The greatest defense of all time and Buddy Ryan in Chicago, where Ditka didn't even attend defensive meetings or talk to Ryan.

I get what you're saying, and agree. These guys were good enough to get it done--and Ditka is an icon, regardless. But they're not difference makers. And the league is littered with good coaches who never had success, too. It's a tough room to play in.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Roethlisberger and an established roster.

Carroll I give credit in Seattle, but he was a cheating fool at USC and never won before then.

Farve and Rodgers in Green Bay.

The greatest defense of all time and Buddy Ryan in Chicago, where Ditka didn't even attend defensive meetings or talk to Ryan.

Is your point that coaches need players to win? What a revelation.

That doesn't mean that coaching doesn't matter, or that those players would win the same way with a JAG coach like our red hero. Garrett would never win the Superbowl with the teams those coaches had.

I also love the fanciful narrative that Garrett took over a wreck of a team. That doesn't make any logical sense unless you believe the players turned into a pumpkin the second Garrett took it over.

But the Garrett fanboys will convince themselves of anything to protect him. It's the most amazing thing I've ever seen in sports fandom.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

The only time ANY comparison in about any manner between Landry and Garrett should be made is that both are male and both have been HC for the Dallas Cowboys.

Any other comparison to in any way defend Jason Garrett is a disservice the late great Tom Landry.

 

[Idgit]

The only time ANY comparison in about any manner between Landry and Garrett should be made is that both are male and both have been HC for the Dallas Cowboys.

Any other comparison to in any way defend Jason Garrett is a disservice the late great Tom Landry.

He wasn't comparing them- though I don't agree with your point there either. He was making a general point about the nature of coaching success in the league and used Landry as a reference.

 

[Alexander]

I just hate the rush-to-judgment ways of fans these days without considering what a coach inherits when he takes the job. In this case, a decrepit offensive line and an aging defense in a terminal downspiral.

So any consideration to Belichick who took over a team in worse shape than Garrett?

 

[Idgit]

Is your point that coaches need players to win? What a revelation.

That doesn't mean that coaching doesn't matter, or that those players would win the same way with a JAG coach like our red hero. Garrett would never win the Superbowl with the teams those coaches had.

I also love the fanciful narrative that Garrett took over a wreck of a team. That doesn't make any logical sense unless you believe the players turned into a pumpkin the second Garrett took it over.

But the Garrett fanboys will convince themselves of anything to protect him. It's the most amazing thing I've ever seen in sports fandom.

Fanboys? Really, CL?

 

[TheFinisher]

I don't think it is. And at best, it's contributed to some losses and not caused them.

Even then, a lot if that speculation is just regular old second guessing of play calls that happens to every single losing head coach ever. It's the exact same thing you see with the harsh criticism of Romo, and not an actual reflection on Garrett's coaching ability.

Not worth my time to go and list all the game management screw ups Garrett has orchestrated that have led to losses because they're well documented. If you want to pretend like it's speculation and second guessing that's ok, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously when you say that.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

The only time ANY comparison in about any manner between Landry and Garrett should be made is that both are male and both have been HC for the Dallas Cowboys.

Any other comparison to in any way defend Jason Garrett is a disservice the late great Tom Landry.

Wish I could like more that once.

The shameful thing is that some of these guys are old enough to know better. A younger fan who never saw Landry at all, maybe you could understand a misguided opinion on this. But if you watched Landry at all, you know he was greatness.

Hey, Dave Campo had a better winning percentage that Landry did his first three years, too. Guess he just needed more time.

 

[Alexander]

He wasn't comparing them- though I don't agree with your point there either. He was making a general point about the nature of coaching success in the league and used Landry as a reference.

Dropping Landry's name into the discussion is hardly just a "reference". It is used to pluck at the heartstrings in an attempt to continue the illusion that a lack of early success is not an indicator. There is very little reason to shove great coaches into the debate other than to make a thinly veiled comparison. Let's just cut the pretense.

If someone wants to drop in a relevant modern era coach that has had a career arc that compares to Garrett, why not use Marvin Lewis? We know that just does not have the desired effect.