Twitter: Jason Garrett PC Tweetcap - 11/9/15

[Alexander]

I'd suggest listening to the press conference re: that particular quote. There's quite a bit of context there that's important.

No speakers, so what was the missing context?

 

[Idgit]

No speakers, so what was the missing context?

I couldn't do it justice without listening to it again and transcribing it. But as a general rule it never hurts to actually listen to the explanations you're choosing not to accept.

Speakers, btw, at Amazon are about $12. Well worth picking up a cheap pair at some point.

 

[Alexander]

I couldn't do it justice without listening to it again and transcribing it. But as a general rule it never hurts to actually listen to the explanations you're choosing not to accept.

So you cannot give it justice? Must have really been a heck of a context shift, so overpowering and complex that you just can't appropriately put it into a few words.

Speakers, btw, at Amazon are about $12. Well worth picking up a cheap pair at some point.

Not going to break policy at work and have speakers running, but thanks for the handy shopping tip though.

 

[Idgit]

So you cannot give it justice? Must have really been a heck of a context shift, so overpowering and complex that you just can't appropriately put it into a few words.

Actually, I told a fib. I could do it justice, I'm just unwilling to do it for you because I don't believe you don't have access to the presser.

Not going to break policy at work and have speakers running, but thanks for the handy shopping tip though.

By all means, you should stick to policy in that case. What's the policy on posting on message boards during work hours? They're cool with it as long as you don't use speakers, I suppose.

 

[Sydla]

No, he is considering it the anomaly it is becoming increasingly apparent it was.

At this point, 2014 is the only thing Garrett defenders have left to cling to. As the mediocre seasons continue to pile up, though, even they'll realize the outlier that was 2014.

 

[CowboyChris]

my take on this is...he's trying to throw Marinelli under the bus...."we weren't lined up for their up tempo" " we havent been getting turnovers" I'm so tired of hearing about the right kind of guys approach, how in the world does Hardy and Gregory fit that mold? get rid of this clown!

 

[Sydla]

There was no context.

The question was essentially what happened in the game with regards to defending the run. Garrett said they just didn't get lined up in time certain plays. When they did line up they did OK but when they were rushed to line up, Philly exploited it.

So I am not sure exactly what special context there was that changes the fact that the team simply struggled at lining up against a team they knew was going to run a high pace on them.

 

[iceberg]

From a two year sample size you can ascertain what is an anomaly?

I don't think anomaly means what you think it does.

INCONCEIVABLE!!!!

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Misjudged the argument. I thought it was strictly about the record, 12-4, which is definitely an anomaly in the Garrett era. My apologies.

But if it is just about Marinelli, it helps to see that in three years in Detroit, 10th, 3rd and 26th in takeaways forced. Chicago's defense was excellent at it, but then again, it had professional strip artists like Tillman on it. So the question becomes since he teaches it, so they say, why is nobody responding? Dungy, Kiffin and Lovie Smith have had similar years where the turnovers simply bottom out inexplicably. I cannot understand the complete lack of forced fumbles. Last season they were ripping at the ball, nearly every play, you could tell that was a focus and it paid off. This year, they are just happy to get them on the ground.

We know he teaches it.

There is a lot of research that says turnovers are random and regress to the mean over time. Looks like that's what we're running into.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

It produced turnovers last year.

This year, it's incapable of doing so and that's just a fact. Bringing up what happened last year means absolutely nothing.

Again, professional coaches scheme and make adjustments which is something that you ignore.

It's pointless to bring up last year. Obviously the teams we play watched the tape of our successes last year and have adjusted their approach to how they attack our defense.

It's totally different.

Again, this defense has created 4 turnovers. We are embarrassingly last in the NFL in that category. The defense can't produce turnovers. It's a fact. It's reasonable to assume. It's ridiculous for anybody to refute it especially by using a sample size that was last year given the variables and complexities of the NFL.

You should stop doing that.

Look you said...

Rushing 4 down linemen all game, refusing to send any kind of blitz and not forcing the issue will lead to no takeaways.

Sitting back in zone, putting six men in the box and again, not forcing the issue on defense will result in no takeaways.

Which sounds all well and good until you remember last year we...

Rushed 4 down lineman all game, refused to send many blitzs and did not force the issue.

That we sat back in zone, put 6 men in the box and again didn't force the issue.

Doing those things last year resulted in takeaways. But somehow those strategies can't result in takeaways. If that sounds like it'd be a silly stance to take. It is. You should stop.

 

[CrownCowboy]

Look you said...



Which sounds all well and good until you remember last year we...

Rushed 4 down lineman all game, refused to send many blitzs and did not force the issue.

That we sat back in zone, put 6 men in the box and again didn't force the issue.

Doing those things last year resulted in takeaways. But somehow those strategies can't result in takeaways. If that sounds like it'd be a silly stance to take. It is. You should stop.

LOL yeah last year.

If this were 12 months ago, I'd be right there with you.

THIS YEAR, the strategy has not worked. No matter how many times you want to type last year it still doesn't change the fact that this year his strategy has not worked.

Not only has it not worked, it has horribly not worked.

Don't worry though. I'm sure our front office and the coaching staff will go with your philosophy. Hell, Jason Garrett said as much in his press conference.

We'll stick with something that is not working because eventually it has to right. I mean it did last year. It really doesn't matter if we have only committed 4 turnovers. Yeah 4. It worked last year. It's bound to at some point this year. We might be out of the playoff hunt but we all get a pass because of the injuries.

So yeah, last year look what we did.

Your comparison is ridiculous and your mindset is exactly why this team will be hard pressed to win a Super Bowl with this coaching staff. Their mindset is one that is incapable of changing things up and dailing something up different when what you have been doing is failing. There is no innovation, no real time game adjustments. That's why we are continually outcoached.

Just because something worked once or at one specific time or season, doesn't mean it will continue to work. This year is proof of that and that's just a fact. Whether or not you acknowledge that really doesn't mean much to me.

But hey.......






It worked last year.

 

[Sydla]

The NFL is about adjustments and altering schemes and game plans given how a season is progressing, etc.

There is definitely some luck in creating turnovers. And yes, the way we played defense last year resulted in a large number of turnovers.

But this year, we are not generating turnovers. In fact, we are on pace for a historic low. So why is it bizarre to suggest that maybe it's time to change it up? Maybe it's time to try to dictate here on defense and take some chances. Adjust to the fact that the way we are playing now is resulting in little to no sacks and no turnovers.

 

[CowboyGil]

And you are going to ignore the fact that the defense you are defending has created only 4 turnovers in 8 games so far this season?

One year is different from the next, especially in the NFL.

Let me remind you again in case you still want to compare things using last year's standard. We have created a total of 4, yes 4, turnovers!

If it worked last year, that's great. It sure as hell ain't working this year. I mean, I guess it really is illogical to think that professional football coaches can, will and have made adjustments to what we are running at them on defense.

So what exactly are you saying? If it worked last year then it should be working this year?

We have more talent on the field this year than we did last year, by a wide margin. The mere fact that you defend 4 turnovers and this defense is the only illogical thing going on here.

I bet you are the kind of guy that would bang your head against a brick wall because you saw someone on the internet do it and knock the wall down. Hey, it worked before, lets keep doing it.

I'll say it before and I'll say it again. Opposing teams are not taking chances on offense that lead to turnovers because they don't fear our offense scoring a bunch of points. They can play conservative and still win. No one fears this team without Romo. Offense or defense.

 

[Alexander]

Actually, I told a fib. I could do it justice, I'm just unwilling to do it for you because I don't believe you don't have access to the presser.



By all means, you should stick to policy in that case. What's the policy on posting on message boards during work hours? They're cool with it as long as you don't use speakers, I suppose.

LOL

I asked a simple question.

You decided to get snarky, didn't like my response, tap danced around it and then turned it back on me.

Look, I get it. You took my question personally for your own reasons, which are very transparent, and responded with snark.

But I guess it is A-Okay for you to call me a liar, especially when you have absolutely no idea what is acceptable at my job or not.

Good stuff though. Very original.

 

[Risen Star]

I'd sooner listen to a Roseann Barr sex tape than any press conference with Jerry, Stephen or the Ginger Bot.

 

[Idgit]

LOL

I asked a simple question.

You decided to get snarky, didn't like my response, tap danced around it and then turned it back on me.

Look, I get it. You took my question personally for your own reasons, which are very transparent, and responded with snark.

But I guess it is A-Okay for you to call me a liar, especially when you have absolutely no idea what is acceptable at my job or not.

Good stuff though. Very original.

I didn't take it personally. I didn't think you were seriously asking, either. I don't think most of what you post here is serious, so I didn't want to be in a position of transcribing for you something that's readily available, only to have you turn around and take pot-shots at the transcription. Which I thought (and think) was the most-likely outcome if I had been willing to invest the time.

I thought it was a good press conference. But then, I like most of the press conferences. Jason's got himself in a difficult position, and it's interesting to me to see how he responds to the challenge and how he's trying to motivate the team under the circumstances. That includes what he had to say about how they have and haven't handled the PHI tempo well over the last three seasons.

And I didn't meant to suggest you were outright lying. I don't know if you have speakers on your machine at work or not. If you don't, you've surely got them at home, though, right? So you'll be able to hear the presser at some point if it's really important to you. Then you can come back to the thread and tell us that you didn't think it was interesting or important, after all.

 

[Alexander]

And I didn't meant to suggest you were outright lying.

I'm just unwilling to do it for you because I don't believe you don't have access to the presser.

Of course you didn't.

 

[gmoney112]

More like TweetClap, am I right?

I'll be here all night.

 

[Idgit]

Of course you didn't.

I'm not calling you a liar. I don't know if you've got speakers or not. But by 'access to the presser' I was referring to at work or at home. Somewhere, I believe you have an internet device with a speaker on it. A phone, perhaps. Or a tablet. You can use that device to hear the press conference if you really care to, and make your derogatory comments that way. That saves me typing it up for you which I didn't want to do in the first place.

 

[Idgit]

More like TweetClap, am I right?

I'll be here all night.

Would you leave if we asked nicely?

Because that joke was TweetCrap.