Jason Garrett and the Cowboys are not credible?

[Sydla]

The fact that he took over a 1-7 roster is not debatable. It wasn't essentially the 2009 team, it did unravel, and he did go about with a fairly dramatic overhaul in his first offseason as head coach. That was the season he jettisoned three OLs and Marion Barber, and brought in Tyron Smith and Demarco Murray, among other things.

I don't know how many different ways I can make the point that I don't wash away seasons, either. The difference in our perspectives is I don't blame a coach for getting .500 results from a sub-.500 roster. Nor do I expect a coach to beat the best teams in the league consistently without assembling one of the best rosters himself.

I reject the idea that a good coach gets you wins your roster doesn't deserve. A good coach builds a roster that can win. Sure, games get stolen here and there, and really great coaches have a track record for being able to do that. We don't have that. The good news is, we don't need it to win. We just need better defensive personnel.

And to be clear, I'm not crediting him for almost winning those GB games but for some bad calls. We lost them outright. That doesn't mean they weren't close losses. The point isn't that they weren't losses. The point is they were very close. That's a good thing. (On a sidetone, it sounds like we disagree the Hitchens face guarding penalty, too, but that's a discussion for another day).

It's never time to not be concerned with the construction of the roster. The NFL is about assembling talent, and always will be. That's what causes teams to lose close games to other contending teams. That's the reality, not an excuse. And it's the same reality I've been preaching for years now because I'm not the one who moves the goalposts on how we define success. I've never apologized for the progress we've made. I'm not the one trying to characterize how it's not, in fact, progress. It is what it is. We win more than most teams under Garrett. We win at a higher rate now under Garrett than we have previously because the roster is more talented. We're assembling talent at a faster rate than the rest of the league right now, and we're down to one specific area that needs attention. We've got extra draft picks to work with, and we've got the cap space to continue to improve. I'm not making excuses because there's nothing that needs to be excused. You don't apologize for being successful. And you don't need to bury your head in the sand trying to find reasons we're not even more successful than we are.

Just address the talent deficiency on defense, finally, and see where it takes you. If it's not good enough, we both agree that a coaching change will be in order.

There's our disagreement. I don't believe that he had sub .500 talent the years he was going 8-8. SB winning talent? No. But enough to make the playoffs? Absolutely.

 

[CCBoy]

Cowboys were 30th in passing attempts so 23rd in yardage make sense. It is not because we need to improve passing it is the offense centers around the run game.

Oh, this fan is expecting more passing production as well...

 

[Idgit]

set the excuse limit than we ll talk.

Again, there's nothing to excuse when your the team you're running consistently improves. All I'm doing is pointing out what you guys don't want to have to admit.

 

[Doomsday101]

You said they ran the ball a lot early. That's false.

Garrett's results to date are middling. 6 seasons, one playoff win. That's it.

I don't want him fired now. But enough of the excuse making for him. It's time to start performing when it counts starting this season.

It is not false Dallas looks to be balanced in their attack, they run and they throw this helps keep defense off balance and did that all season long. There is also down and distance situation that a team contends with. You get a holding call and now looking and 2nd/3rd and long you will likely throw to pick up the needed yardage for a 1st down. Fact is Dak went 24 or 38 and 3 TD's shows how effective he was being. Zeke still went over 100 yards rushing and offense put up 31.

As for excuses I make none, Garrett job is ultimately to help this team win a championship. If the offense fails, or defense or special teams that falls on Garrett no and's if's or but's he is the HC.
What I will argue unwarranted attacks. Dallas offense was not an issue in the game and while Zeke is an important weapon so is Dez, so is Beasley and Witten they are part of the offense and they went out and did their jobs which was to put points on the board. Defense on the other hand has a job which is to keep opposing teams from putting up more points they failed to do their job but guess what that too falls to the HC. He is responsible for what the team does

 

[Doomsday101]

Oh, this fan is expecting more passing production as well...

If we can do a better job of getting the ball back into the hands of the offense then we may see that. I think the Cowboys passing attack is fine. When they have had to open in up they have shown they can.

 

[CCBoy]

Again, there's nothing to excuse when your the team you're running consistently improves. All I'm doing is pointing out what you guys don't want to have to admit.

Oh, there is a definite comfort zone by someone always making another prove what is reasonable...and then just ignoring that.

 

[CCBoy]

If we can do a better job of getting the ball back into the hands of the offense then we may see that. I think the Cowboys passing attack is fine. When they have had to open in up they have shown they can.

I'm expecting the passing game to be even more productive, myself.

 

[ShiningStar]

Again, there's nothing to excuse when your the team you're running consistently improves. All I'm doing is pointing out what you guys don't want to have to admit.

i ll admit im wrong if someone can prove it. Is the state of football based off winning Sb trophies or claiming to have a better improved team? Some bad coaches can point to that. Who gets to define what improves are worhty and which ones are not

 

[Doomsday101]

Looks like "BS" on your claim that they "ran him quite a bit early". And then the goalposts get moved.

You've said a lot of good stuff in this thread, but that false claim wasn't one of them.

I expect Dallas to be balanced not run Zeke 20 times in the 1st half. We do have a WR making top 5 money and is considered a pretty damn good weapon. Dallas never gave up on the run but they did run their offense and given the fact they started getting behind they went to more passing. Going down 21-3 will do that but they also were able to get back into the game, they were able to get the game tied back up. You will not do that by only running the ball.

 

[ShiningStar]

To another point, which ones do you want to do say are "improvements' and which ones are not. Just show your formula and maybe we ll agree.

 

[ShiningStar]

I expect Dallas to be balanced not run Zeke 20 times in the 1st half. We do have a WR making top 5 money and is considered a pretty damn good weapon. Dallas never gave up on the run but they did run their offense and given the fact they started getting behind they went to more passing. Going down 21-3 will do that but they also were able to get back into the game, they were able to get the game tied back up. You will not do that by only running the ball.

Is being balanced more important than what it takes to win?

Would you rather be balanced or hit a team with something they cant stop. If Dallas is runnign on a team and that team cnt stop them, would you rather Dalals pass? Stick to the run and go for the TD. Trust me, they only tally wins one way.

 

[Idgit]

There's our disagreement. I don't believe that he had sub .500 talent the years he was going 8-8. SB winning talent? No. But enough to make the playoffs? Absolutely.

That's probably it, then. I think specifically those 2011 and 2012 rosters were pretty mediocre. We stole a few games we had no business winning, and gave up a few (and, yes, some of those included coaching blunders) we had no business giving up. But all in all, I believe competing for the NFCE with those teams was a reasonable accomplishment.

That 2013 team was actually a team that should have probably advanced. That was the year of the great game with Tony v. Peyton, and the bad road loss to GB where we lost the two MLBs and had the play calling problems. We also lost a close one early in the year to KC we could have won, and then lost the season-ender in PHI without Tony. That's a season were I actually get the criticism of the HC and his staff. It was also the season we made the stupid decision to make Monte Kiffin the defensive coordinator, which was patently dumb from the outset.

 

[Idgit]

i ll admit im wrong if someone can prove it. Is the state of football based off winning Sb trophies or claiming to have a better improved team? Some bad coaches can point to that. Who gets to define what improves are worhty and which ones are not

The threshold in this thread is not 'winning SB trophies.' The question was whether or not the HC and his staff had earned credibility based off of their performance to-date.

Bad coaches don't win Superbowls. Some coaches who have won them are better than others, but you don't get through 21 weeks of football and be the last one standing if you're not a good coach.

 

[Doomsday101]

i ll admit im wrong if someone can prove it. Is the state of football based off winning Sb trophies or claiming to have a better improved team? Some bad coaches can point to that. Who gets to define what improves are worhty and which ones are not

Put this way if the HC in Cleveland gets them to an 8-8 record that is an improvement the HC is making strides. Ultimately yes you have to compete for a championship but you have to look where a team was and if they are moving forward or not. If I did not see progress leading to the goal of winning a championship I would expect Dallas to fire Garrett. Personally I think this is a very important season coming up. Cowboys with what looks to be a hard schedule, high expectations heading into the season and the fact no team will take the Cowboys lightly is going to be a big challenge and if Garrett can continue to improve then yes I will continue to support.

 

[Sydla]

It is not false Dallas looks to be balanced in their attack, they run and they throw this helps keep defense off balance and did that all season long. There is also down and distance situation that a team contends with. You get a holding call and now looking and 2nd/3rd and long you will likely throw to pick up the needed yardage for a 1st down. Fact is Dak went 24 or 38 and 3 TD's shows how effective he was being. Zeke still went over 100 yards rushing and offense put up 31.

As for excuses I make none, Garrett job is ultimately to help this team win a championship. If the offense fails, or defense or special teams that falls on Garrett no and's if's or but's he is the HC.
What I will argue unwarranted attacks. Dallas offense was not an issue in the game and while Zeke is an important weapon so is Dez, so is Beasley and Witten they are part of the offense and they went out and did their jobs which was to put points on the board. Defense on the other hand has a job which is to keep opposing teams from putting up more points they failed to do their job but guess what that too falls to the HC. He is responsible for what the team does

I get all that.

But you said that they ran the ball "a lot" early in the game before they got down 21-3. That was false. They did not run the ball "a lot".

And yes, the Cowboys offense was a problem in that game. This isn't an either/or situation where you have to find one entity and lob all the blame at them. Yes, the defense was shoddy but the offense played a part in the loss too. The offense was largely inept early in the game, which allowed the Packers to build that 21-3 lead. Looking at the final boxscore and seeing 400 yards of offense and 31 points and concluding the offense was great that game is a bad way to look at it.

Further, in that game, even when the offense was working, there were some squirrely decisions. First and foremost, the Micah Hyde interception. That was a combination of a bad throw by Prescott and poor game planning by the coaching staff. You can't blame the defense for the fact the Packers knew what play was coming in that situation.

 

[ShiningStar]

The threshold in this thread is not 'winning SB trophies.' The question was whether or not the HC and his staff had earned credibility based off of their performance to-date.

Bad coaches don't win Superbowls. Some coaches who have won them are better than others, but you don't get through 21 weeks of football and be the last one standing if you're not a good coach.

thats fine to me the answer is no . His record convinces me its no. The facts convince me its no, The league not taking him serious tells me no. Last year convinced me it was no.
There is no credibility because there is no aspect that Garrett can strike fear into opposing teams without the knowledge that something negative is going to spring forth and rule the day. That has been something that has plagued Garrett through his tenure. If he dots his I's and crosses his "T"s there is still something that surfaces and ruins a good season.

 

[ShiningStar]

Put this way if the HC in Cleveland gets them to an 8-8 record that is an improvement the HC is making strides. Ultimately yes you have to compete for a championship but you have to look where a team was and if they are moving forward or not. If I did not see progress leading to the goal of winning a championship I would expect Dallas to fire Garrett. Personally I think this is a very important season coming up. Cowboys with what looks to be a hard schedule, high expectations heading into the season and the fact no team will take the Cowboys lightly is going to be a big challenge and if Garrett can continue to improve then yes I will continue to support.

Finaly, someone sets a parameter, I agree. Simple as that.

 

[Doomsday101]

Is being balanced more important than what it takes to win?

Would you rather be balanced or hit a team with something they cant stop. If Dallas is runnign on a team and that team cnt stop them, would you rather Dalals pass? Stick to the run and go for the TD. Trust me, they only tally wins one way.

If the offense put up 31 points they did their job. What is the goal of an offense? PUT UP POINTS they did that. Falling behind 21-3 only an idiot would run only and abandon the pass, no coach is his right mind would. Fans would to justify slamming Garrett. Seems some will go to any lengths to do just that. However again any offense putting up 31 damn well should win the game. Losing had nothing to do with Zeke getting 21 or 31 carries.

 

[Idgit]

thats fine to me the answer is no . His record convinces me its no. The facts convince me its no, The league not taking him serious tells me no. Last year convinced me it was no.
There is no credibility because there is no aspect that Garrett can strike fear into opposing teams without the knowledge that something negative is going to spring forth and rule the day. That has been something that has plagued Garrett through his tenure. If he dots his I's and crosses his "T"s there is still something that surfaces and ruins a good season.

Honestly, at the end of the day, I just want us to have a defense again where I expect us to come up with a big play or a key stop instead of one where I'm pleasantly surprised when we bend, but don't break. I'm so tired of watching it, I can't even tell you. It gets to the point for me where I'm not even surprised anymore when they conversion on 3rd and 20 with the game on the line. I just expect it.

But then, I really think that's on the personnel. We don't have many special players on that side of the field. In fact, we've got one right now. With a shot of having two if Jaylon develops. It's not good enough.

 

[Stash]

I expect Dallas to be balanced not run Zeke 20 times in the 1st half.

Nobody suggested that. Why is that being mentioned?

We do have a WR making top 5 money and is considered a pretty damn good weapon.

And? Does this mean things need to be forced to him? As I recall, the team won games when he didn't even play.

Dallas never gave up on the run but they did run their offense and given the fact they started getting behind they went to more passing.

And a reason why they got "behind" was getting away from what got them there, that running game and keeping the defense off the field.

Going down 21-3 will do that but they also were able to get back into the game, they were able to get the game tied back up. You will not do that by only running the ball.

And you won't get behind 21-3 if you stick with what you do well, and what won you 13 games.

It's funny that everyone praised "the plan" to go with the running game, control the clock and the ball, and to keep an undermanned defense off of the field. And "the plan" worked great, to the tune of 13 wins. But when these same folks deviate and go away from "the plan", we're supposed to just look the other way? I'm not doing that.