Informal Poll Is Garrett a better Head Coach than Wade?

[jnday]

Yup, a better way to phrase the question : is Jerry/Jason better the Jerry/Wade? I'd say "Yes" because Jerry seems to be buying into the concept of building a young team with RKGs and that comes from Garrett. Still, I can't completely buy into Jerry's inner gremlin and OL attitude being a thing of the past,,,,

That is far from a sure thing.

I agree. If Garrett don't start getting results this season, he is gone. The heat was really on him for a couple of weeks after this last season if you remember. He has produced average teams with average results up to this point, nothing more. The question becomes "how much average will Jerry put up with without a change?". The pro-Garrett crowd mentions better drafts, better coaches, better locker room, and better players, but Garrett is lacking better results on the field. This season will decide everything.

 

[khiladi]

Call me when we get an offensive line.

So JG gets credit for yards total and the OL isn't to blame, but when they can't score, blame the OL? I'll tell you one thing.. that offense has been like this pre-Garrett, meaning the reason the ball even moves is because of Romo...

Who was picking the OL during Garrett's six years here? I mean, Houck was his guy...

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The team quit on Phillips. The team played 60 minutes and through a lot of adversity --admittedly to some degree due to himself-- for Garrett. Garrett has struggled on gameday in making snap decisions but when you have Jason Witten quitting on routes as he did in the GB game, Wade is the lesser in my book.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So JG gets credit for yards total and the OL isn't to blame, but when they can't score, blame the OL? I'll tell you one thing.. that offense has been like this pre-Garrett, meaning the reason the ball even moves is because of Romo...

Who was picking the OL during Garrett's six years here? I mean, Houck was his guy...

Houck was his guy? How do you know this?

 

[Rockport]

So JG gets credit for yards total and the OL isn't to blame, but when they can't score, blame the OL? I'll tell you one thing.. that offense has been like this pre-Garrett, meaning the reason the ball even moves is because of Romo...

Who was picking the OL during Garrett's six years here? I mean, Houck was his guy...

Yes. And your right, Romo was the reason for all the yards and JG took advantage of that as best he could. Jones chose not to put emphasis on the OL for the past few years.

 

[junk]

Wade never has been nor will he ever be a good HC.

Garrett....to be decided. He isn't good yet. I think he's a better HC than OC. His offenses leave a lot to be desired.

He's so green. He was made a HC way, way too early. He still needed about 7-8 years of seasoning as an assistant.

 

[ksadler1]

I think the better comparison would be to Sean Payton. I'd be curious to see if Garrett could have done (in NO) what Payton was able to do. Then again, would Payton have been able to do that in Dallas? I definitely do not think Jones would have given Payton the freedom that NO did so I'd have to say no. But I'd sure like to see what Garrett could do if Jones ever gets the hell out of the way.....

 

[Gaede]

Basing it strictly on record is a very naive and narrow minded way to look at who's the better coach.

I disagree. Basing your opinion strictly on subjective things such as the 'fight' in the team, or who built the team better, is naive and reeks of bias. And cannot be disproven.

At the end of the day, wins are what matter in football. Not how you did it. Not how hard you tried. Not how good the lesson was. Wins. That's not the only thing you can judge a head coach on, but it should be the most important factor.

 

[Rockport]

I disagree. Basing your opinion strictly on subjective things such as the 'fight' in the team, or who built the team better, is naive and reeks of bias. And cannot be disproven.

At the end of the day, wins are what matter in football. Not how you did it. Not how hard you tried. Not how good the lesson was. Wins. That's not the only thing you can judge a head coach on, but it should be the most important factor.

Put it this way, I'd rather have JG as the coach than Wade. You can have Wade, he was a horrible head coach who let his players rule the roost.

 

[Gaede]

See, I know Wade's weaknesses and Garrett's supposed strengths. But one style had success, and the other hasn't

Just cause I don't like the way the team was run by Wade, or because I like Garrett's style better, doesn't mean Wade was an inferior coach. Just means that I don't prefer his style of coaching. Garrett is obviously more fan and media friendly in the way he does things. But that doesn't equate to actual better coaching. It should, but it doesn't.

You are what you are. And at this point, Garrett is a head coach with mediocre results, while Wade was undoubtedly more successful in his time as head coach.

Garrett makes the playoffs this year, and even wins a game, then we can start discussing this question honestly. But not at this point. Results>hype.

 

[Rockport]

See, I know Wade's weaknesses and Garrett's supposed strengths. But one style had success, and the other hasn't

Just cause I don't like the way the team was run by Wade, or because I like Garrett's style better, doesn't mean Wade was an inferior coach. Just means that I don't prefer his style of coaching. Garrett is obviously more fan and media friendly in the way he does things. But that doesn't equate to actual better coaching. It should, but it doesn't.

You are what you are. And at this point, Garrett is a head coach with mediocre results, while Wade was undoubtedly more successful in his time as head coach.

Garrett makes the playoffs this year, and even wins a game, then we can start discussing this question honestly. But not at this point. Results>hype.

Who knows if JG is a better coach than Phillips. But one thing is for sure, Wade was a failure as the Cowboys HC.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Houck was his guy? How do you know this?

Everybody knew this. When Sparano left, Wade wanted Solari. Jerry hired Garrett's "best friend in coaching" (as said by Jason's BFF Laufenberg) Houck instead.

 

[Risen Star]

I agree with what you say here, to an extent. Parcells had a track record and demanded certain concessions from Jerry that Garrett could not and probably still can not to this day. That's the price of hiring a HC that was already a lock for the HOF as opposed to Hiring a HC who's highest achievement in Coaching has been the OC of the Dallas Cowboys for three seasons and two years as QB Coach for Miami, prior to being named HC of the Dallas Cowboys.

I don't agree with that. You shouldn't have to hire a future hall of fame proven coach for your owner to respect him and let him do his job. The fact that he felt like he was walking on egg shells when he was merely acting sane and letting his head coach run his own locker room should tell you all you need to know about that situation.

That blame doesn't fall on Jason Garrett. That's on Jerry. He'd have done the same thing to Jim Harbaugh and it wouldn't be his fault either.

I don't agree that Garrett is better then Wade. I think it's possible that he could eventually be better but I don't think that is the case right now. There have been a lot of great, great coaches in the NFL but I can only think of a handful that have been great from their very 1st posting. We were lucky enough to have had two of them but I'm not certain we will have three. I firmly believe that in order for Garrett to become a truly great coach, he will have to get fired and start again else where. I could be wrong but nothing I have seen, to date, suggests that to me.


That's just my opinion.

Well I have a much lower opinion of Wade than you do. He came in here at the perfect time. Parcells put together a nice core of players that were just entering their prime. The QB was finally ready. Wade's won/loss record with that group doesn't impress me. He's been in good situations before as a head coach. Or at least none that were truly doormats in need of a rebuild.

Jason Garrett at least has the mindset right. I think he'd be much better off away from Dallas where he could actually function as his own head coach whereas a guy like Wade would fail anywhere because he's just not a leader of men. He's a weak minded excuse maker.

 

[Eskimo]

I disagree. Basing your opinion strictly on subjective things such as the 'fight' in the team, or who built the team better, is naive and reeks of bias. And cannot be disproven.

At the end of the day, wins are what matter in football. Not how you did it. Not how hard you tried. Not how good the lesson was. Wins. That's not the only thing you can judge a head coach on, but it should be the most important factor.

So again, why not focus on the record when they coached the same players in 2010.

Wade: 1-7
Garrett: 5-3

Wade got Romo for 5 games and Kitna for 3

Garrett got Kitna for 6 games, McGee for 2.

Despite a huge advantage at the QB position, despite Garrett having to put a bad DC in charge after the existing one left, Garrett still won 5 times as many games. Wade had us on pace to be the worst team in the league and Garrett had us on a playoff berth pace. Wade got blown out 3 times, Garrett got blown out 0 times. There was a clear disparity between the two.

Or are you implying teams win only because of the coach and the players don't matter at all? Just want to be sure what point you are trying to argue about the record of two different coaches of different teams.

You do remember that Barry Switzer went to the NFC Championship Game his rookie NFL year and won the SB his second year - shouldn't that suggest he was poised to become the greatest coach of all-time since no one had ever done as much their first two years. Or could it have something to do with inheriting a young team that had just won back-to-back Super Bowls with its core still intact? Switzer didn't look like a great coach two years later when they went 6-10.

Or how about Jimmy Johnson. In his first year he went 1-15. He must have been one of the worst coaches in the league to only win one game. Heck, his second year they only won 7 games. Heck, 11 games into his 3rd year they were only 6-5. So over his first 43 games coached his record was 14-29. Over a similar stretch Garrett has been 21-19. Garrett has won 50% more games than Jimmy did in the same stretch - he must be the greatest but he pales in comparison to Switzer who was something like 29-11 over his first 2.5 years. So it then boils down to over their first 2.5 years:

Jimmy Johnson << Jason Garrett << Barry Switzer

Or could it be that only part of the success a team has is attributable to the coach and parts go to the organization like the scouts, GM, assistant coaches, coordinators and players?

 

[RSM94]

Wade is a great DC and lousy HC. He presided over the recent decline from 2007 - 2010. Wade's best year was with Parcell's team. Garrett has been maintaining the status quo, but I believe he is improving the team. I think this year will tell how much. So, I think JG is better so far and the coming years will tell how much.

 

[17yearsandcounting]

So again, why not focus on the record when they coached the same players in 2010.

Wade: 1-7
Garrett: 5-3

Wade got Romo for 5 games and Kitna for 3

Garrett got Kitna for 6 games, McGee for 2.

Despite a huge advantage at the QB position, despite Garrett having to put a bad DC in charge after the existing one left, Garrett still won 5 times as many games. Wade had us on pace to be the worst team in the league and Garrett had us on a playoff berth pace. Wade got blown out 3 times, Garrett got blown out 0 times. There was a clear disparity between the two.

Or are you implying teams win only because of the coach and the players don't matter at all? Just want to be sure what point you are trying to argue about the record of two different coaches of different teams.

You do remember that Barry Switzer went to the NFC Championship Game his rookie NFL year and won the SB his second year - shouldn't that suggest he was poised to become the greatest coach of all-time since no one had ever done as much their first two years. Or could it have something to do with inheriting a young team that had just won back-to-back Super Bowls with its core still intact? Switzer didn't look like a great coach two years later when they went 6-10.

Or how about Jimmy Johnson. In his first year he went 1-15. He must have been one of the worst coaches in the league to only win one game. Heck, his second year they only won 7 games. Heck, 11 games into his 3rd year they were only 6-5. So over his first 43 games coached his record was 14-29. Over a similar stretch Garrett has been 21-19. Garrett has won 50% more games than Jimmy did in the same stretch - he must be the greatest but he pales in comparison to Switzer who was something like 29-11 over his first 2.5 years. So it then boils down to over their first 2.5 years:

Jimmy Johnson << Jason Garrett << Barry Switzer

Or could it be that only part of the success a team has is attributable to the coach and parts go to the organization like the scouts, GM, assistant coaches, coordinators and players?

This is comical. Jason is closer to Campo than he is to Wade.

 

[TwoDeep3]

The real question should be does head coaching matter as much as the talent on the field that has to execute the designs of the head coach?

And in that nugget you have your answer about Garrett, Phillips, Parcels, Campo, Gailey....and most importantly, why Switzer won a championship.

Because this team is steeped in an attitude of entitlement with the players and they either do not have the talent to execute the designs, or they have the talent but are not motivated enough to actually come up big when big is what's called for.

Each year this team plays to a level that is not winning football. Some will argue that .500 is winning, but the snickers you hear in the back ground are the people who understand this is not some zero sum game.

This team is no longer the same type of team that is littered throughout the history books of the NFL as a winner.

It is designed in a way that .500 is acceptable, and now even the fans accept this.

Arguing over Garret vs Wade ignores the bigger picture that this may be the players, or the over-all culture of this franchise that continues to field a .500 team.

You do the math on what causes this problem with THIS TEAM.

But to be sure Callahan is not the answer. Nor is Kiffin and Maranelli, or Garrett if the entire franchise is based on a paradigm that not only fosters mediocre as acceptable, but strives for it.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Because this team is steeped in an attitude of entitlement with the players and they either do not have the talent to execute the designs, or they have the talent but are not motivated enough to actually come up big when big is what's called for.

Nice theory. Now what players are like this?

 

[jobberone]

I disagree. Basing your opinion strictly on subjective things such as the 'fight' in the team, or who built the team better, is naive and reeks of bias. And cannot be disproven.

At the end of the day, wins are what matter in football. Not how you did it. Not how hard you tried. Not how good the lesson was. Wins. That's not the only thing you can judge a head coach on, but it should be the most important factor.

There really isn't a completely objective way to decide whether a coach is getting the most out of the talent he has. If you based how good a coach was solely on wins Landry would have never gotten off pit road. The byproduct of a great coach is wins assuming he has the tools to compete.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Nice theory. Now what players are like this?

Which players are 8-8?