If you could have one current head coach

[BrAinPaiNt]

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.

I say he was. When you are making a point about coaching success in the league while defending one coach by using other coaches...I say he was comparing them. I even said ANY comparisons of ANY manner.

 

[Alexander]

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

This very message board at that time had very few Campo supporters and nobody was intellectually dishonest enough to even try that kind of argument using legendary coaches.

 

[TheFinisher]

The only thing Garrett supporters have to hang their hat on is that they point to other coaches who didn't win early on but eventually found success. Never do you hear them talk about the positive traits that Garrett brings to the table as a head coach.

And apparently they have either selective memory or have no comprehension of what game management is.

 

[Idgit]

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.

I'm sure I've already replied in each if the threads you'd dig up, anyway, and my opinion hasn't changed.

As far as my opinion goes, I care more about being accurate than I do about it being popular, but from my experience, most posters here will take you seriously, even if they don't agree.

 

[Idgit]

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.

Please. No. Let's just go by what he wrote and not your interpretation of its emotional subtext.

The fact that some good coaches had success after starting slowly is not an argument for starting slowly. It's an argument that judging the job a HC does is more nuanced than just looking at the three year won/loss record.

 

[erod]

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.

They were 1-7 when he took over and playing some of the worst football I've ever seen. That was a fatally flawed roster, of which exactly three players remain.

In this day of multimillion-dollar athletes, coaches wield little power in most cases, unless they've already won big before. It took Bill Cowher FOREVER to win a championship, but the Steelers stuck with him.

Garrett has shown the ability to get Jerry to do things that are against his nature. He's gotten Jerry to take a Parcells approach to the roster. THAT is an achievement in itself.

I'm willing to let this play out, rather than just bringing in more fall guys and going through the same thing over and over.

 

[Idgit]

The only thing Garrett supporters have to hang their hat on is that they point to other coaches who didn't win early on but eventually found success. Never do you hear them talk about the positive traits that Garrett brings to the table as a head coach.

And apparently they have either selective memory or have no comprehension of what game management is.

And this is patently untrue and unsupported, so I think we can just disregard its merit as an argument.

 

[erod]

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

Apparently the point was lost on you.

Today, Landry would be viewed as Rich Kotite. He would have never had a chance.

 

[TheFinisher]

And this is patently untrue and unsupported, so I think we can just disregard its merit as an argument.

List them

 

[TheFinisher]

I'm sure I've already replied in each if the threads you'd dig up, anyway, and my opinion hasn't changed.

As far as my opinion goes, I care more about being accurate than I do about it being popular, but from my experience, most posters here will take you seriously, even if they don't agree.

That's noble. Plenty of people throughout history have maintained that their opinion is accurate even when everything within evidence and logic points to the contrary.

"If I say it enough maybe others will believe it"

 

[Idgit]

List them

No thanks. It's a long list. But the point wasn't whether or not I was willing to list them yet again. Your point is that Garrett supporters never do list them, and it's untrue. That argument falls into the old 'what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence' category as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Idgit]

That's noble. Plenty of people throughout history have maintained that their opinion is accurate even when everything within evidence and logic points to the contrary.

"If I say it enough maybe others will believe it"

I'm sure they have. That doesn't have bearing on whether my opinion had merit in this case, though, one way or another.

And I think the point is that not all evidence and not all logic points to the contrary here, otherwise, there wouldn't be much room for a reasonable debate.

 

[TheFinisher]

No thanks. It's a long list. But the point wasn't whether or not I was willing to list them yet again. Your point is that Garrett supporters never do list them, and it's untrue. That argument falls into the old 'what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence' category as far as I'm concerned.

I'm sure your list is very long.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

The only thing Garrett supporters have to hang their hat on is that they point to other coaches who didn't win early on but eventually found success. Never do you hear them talk about the positive traits that Garrett brings to the table as a head coach.

And apparently they have either selective memory or have no comprehension of what game management is.

You would be wrong...and I am not a garrett supporter but have been in enough threads between garrett lovers and garrett haters to see other reasons they like him listed.

 

[TheFinisher]

I'm sure they have. That doesn't have bearing on whether my opinion had merit in this case, though, one way or another.

And I think the point is that not all evidence and not all logic points to the contrary here, otherwise, there wouldn't be much room for a reasonable debate.

There has never been reasonable debate on the topic of Garrett's game management. Universally accepted that he's had unfathomable gaffes, but it must be nice to pretend his decisions had merit.

 

[TheFinisher]

You would be wrong...and I am not a garrett supporter but have been in enough threads between garrett lovers and garrett haters to see other reasons they like him listed.

Yes, he gets them to "play hard" and is a wonderful public speaker. Could run for president if he wanted to, and is thought of highly by other GMs and 'football people'. Did you know he went to Princeton?

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Yes, he gets them to "play hard"

Wait...you said

The only thing Garrett supporters have to hang their hat on is that they point to other coaches who didn't win early on but eventually found success. Never do you hear them talk about the positive traits that Garrett brings to the table as a head coach.

So you now appear to be going against your own argument.

 

[TheFinisher]

Wait...you said


So you now appear to be going against your own argument.

Yes, I was to referring to "actual" positive traits.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

They were 1-7 when he took over and playing some of the worst football I've ever seen. That was a fatally flawed roster, of which exactly three players remain.

So you were claiming that going into the 2010 year, right? Just a few months after the second NFCE win in three years and the first playoff win in over a decade, you were saying that no one could win with that terrible roster?

Right.

 

[Idgit]

There has never been reasonable debate on the topic of Garrett's game management. Universally accepted that he's had unfathomable gaffes, but it must be nice to pretend his decisions had merit.

If there's to be an interesting discussion here, at some point you're going to have to make an actual argument. Nobody wants to hear me keep replying that you're just making things up you don't feel strongly enough about to actually support.