Twitter: Interesting Jason Garrett W-L stat

[lqmac1]

“@Edwerderespn: In Jason Garrett's full seasons as HC, Cowboys 16-1 vs teams finishing below .500 (T1-NFL) but 4-19 vs teams finishing .500 or better (T28)”

 

[StarBoyz83]

Good thing garretts here another 2 seasons! oh wait

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

What happens when you add 1st and close to last together and take the average. You get AVERAGE. You get the middle. You get 8-8. And guess what...SURPRISE SURPRISE....that is what we are!

 

[CATCH17]

It's because we're so basic that when we can't out-athlete a team we're sure as heck are not going to out scheme a team.

 

[Stash]

What happens when you add 1st and close to last together and take the average. You get AVERAGE. You get the middle. You get 8-8. And guess what...SURPRISE SURPRISE....that is what we are!

Yeah. Glad Werder has caught up to what we've been saying around here for over a year now.

That's why he gets paid the big bucks!

Well, that and the mustache...

 

[Stash]

It's because we're so basic that when we can't out-athlete a team we're sure as heck are not going to out scheme a team.

Great deal of truth here.

 

[Denim Chicken]

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/another-jason-garrett-stat.271879/unread

http://cowboyszone.com/threads/are-the-cowboys-a-bully-team.272197/unread

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

It's because we're so basic that when we can't out-athlete a team we're sure as heck are not going to out scheme a team.

You are right about that. It worked in the 90s...Irvin was just bigger and more physical than anyone who tried to cover him. The OL was bigger than everyone they blocked. And it did not take much to score points. If you think about it....when guys catch the football in Dallas....they are rarely wide open. There no busted coverages. The coverage teams employ on us are to simple for them to bust. Which means Romo has to fit the ball in tight windows. Which also means are receivers are going to have to make a tough catch AND endure a physical beating becaue multiple defenders are in the vicinity of every catch.

 

[AdamJT13]

Stats like this are skewed because many teams are in the 7-9 win category each year. If you beat them, it's more difficult for them to finish above .500. If you lose to them, they're more likely to finish .500 or better. In other words, two of your opponents could be equal and go 7-8 against the rest of the league, but which one of the categories they end up in depends only on whether you beat them.

 

[dallasdave]

Stats like this are skewed because many teams are in the 7-9 win category each year. If you beat them, it's more difficult for them to finish above .500. If you lose to them, they're more likely to finish .500 or better. In other words, two of your opponents could be equal and go 7-8 against the rest of the league, but which one of the categories they end up in depends only on whether you beat them.

Hey Adam, when are you going to post some more cap info?

 

[Frosty]

“@Edwerderespn: In Jason Garrett's full seasons as HC, Cowboys 16-1 vs teams finishing below .500 (T1-NFL) but 4-19 vs teams finishing .500 or better (T28)”

That screams on BIG obvious thing......the Cowboys Coach is not in the same league with the big boys.... Wonder how long can the Cowboys wait in developing their Coach.....

 

[CT Dal Fan]

Not a surprising stat. The Cowboys now define mediocrity. Way, way better than the worst teams in the league; but not talented, smart, or disciplined enough to consistently beat the best teams.

Which is why we fans get teased by a big win or two per year only to get kicked in the stomach in the end.

 

[Idgit]

It's because we're so basic that when we can't out-athlete a team we're sure as heck are not going to out scheme a team.

We're not better athletically. We lose to the good teams because we don't slow down good QBs sufficiently to beat them with our own good QB. This is why we've tried to fix the takeaway problem, and tried to improve the secondary. We succeeded at one of those things, but still get carved up by good QBs and beat the teams who don't have them (unless, like the Chiefs, they play outstanding pass defense). We'll beat MIN as a result, and we're going to get throttled by the Saints. And that's going to continue to be the case until the problem isn't just addressed, but it's addressed and solved.

And, surprise, surprise, this has little to do with play calling, or with OGs, or with variation in the play of Tony Romo.

 

[CowboyStar88]

Not impressed with him as a HC and I solely blame him for ruining Romo's career and turning this fan base on Romo.

 

[Frosty]

We're not better athletically. We lose to the good teams because we don't slow down good QBs sufficiently to beat them with our own good QB. This is why we've tried to fix the takeaway problem, and tried to improve the secondary. We succeeded at one of those things, but still get carved up by good QBs and beat the teams who don't have them (unless, like the Chiefs, they play outstanding pass defense). We'll beat MIN as a result, and we're going to get throttled by the Saints. And that's going to continue to be the case until the problem isn't just addressed, but it's addressed and solved.

And, surprise, surprise, this has little to do with play calling, or with OGs, or with variation in the play of Tony Romo.

But everything to do with Game Planning....

 

[JD_KaPow]

Stats like this are skewed because many teams are in the 7-9 win category each year. If you beat them, it's more difficult for them to finish above .500. If you lose to them, they're more likely to finish .500 or better. In other words, two of your opponents could be equal and go 7-8 against the rest of the league, but which one of the categories they end up in depends only on whether you beat them.

Excellent point.

Here are the numbers, using the Cowboys' opponents' end-of-season records, with the Cowboys games excluded. (For 2013, I'm using current records).

vs. teams above .500: 7-14
vs. teams at .500: 0-3 (swept by the 9-7 Giants in 2011, plus the loss to the 4-3 Chargers this year)
vs. teams below .500: 18-6

Suddenly, the numbers aren't all that striking.

 

[Doomsday]

That pretty much sums it up.

 

[cml750]

But everything to do with Game Planning....

and clock management, and playing to win instead of playing "not to lose", etc.......................

 

[CATCH17]

We're not better athletically. We lose to the good teams because we don't slow down good QBs sufficiently to beat them with our own good QB. This is why we've tried to fix the takeaway problem, and tried to improve the secondary. We succeeded at one of those things, but still get carved up by good QBs and beat the teams who don't have them (unless, like the Chiefs, they play outstanding pass defense). We'll beat MIN as a result, and we're going to get throttled by the Saints. And that's going to continue to be the case until the problem isn't just addressed, but it's addressed and solved.

And, surprise, surprise, this has little to do with play calling, or with OGs, or with variation in the play of Tony Romo.

Every team gets carved up by great QBs.

Our conservative play not to lose style costs us more games than anything since Jason hAs been here.

Last season I can think of maybe 1 game that we actually looked prepared for.

Washington couldn't even throw a forward pass and they beat us.


Btw the Saints will not throttle us. The Cowboys play to their opponents level but choke in the end. Plus the Saints aren't much different than us. They just have wayyyy better coaching.

 

[Hoofbite]

Stats like this are skewed because many teams are in the 7-9 win category each year. If you beat them, it's more difficult for them to finish above .500. If you lose to them, they're more likely to finish .500 or better. In other words, two of your opponents could be equal and go 7-8 against the rest of the league, but which one of the categories they end up in depends only on whether you beat them.

You could isolate any game from the season and do the same thing.

7-8 and having won/lost to your team with the difference maker being the game they played against the Broncos. The category they fall into depends on the outcome of that Bronco game.

7-8 and having won/lost to your team with the difference maker being the game they played against the Jaguars. The category they fall into depends on the outcome of that Jaguar game.

Also, I don't think the likelihood of getting to .500 or better is increased or decreased by the outcome of your team's games against them any more than it is against any other team. Wins and losses aren't just odds. Teams are either good enough to get to .500 or they aren't.

Ultimately it is what it is and this would factor in for all teams, including the 27 who have better records than Dallas against teams above .500.