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

[dfan32]

Losing six games in a row is not parity rearing its ugly head.

Save last year, Garrett's entire coaching record looks like Pete Rozelle's dream of parity, always "in it" until the end. But somebody has to lose and save last season, it was always that in the final game of the regular season.

I understand what your saying here but you are saying and I don't completely disagree. I just think that when you consider hiring and firing head coaches, there are sometimes good reason to look beyond the W/L record. I don't argue that Garrett should be nearing the end of his tenure but personally I think he should be given another year. He has improved the talent level on this team and he has instilled a fighting attitude in these guys. I just don't think last year was a fluke. I think it was a glimpse of what is coming. This year is a bag a of misfortune.
Sean Payton is an example that great coaches do not always have winning seasons. Especially in todays NFL.

 

[Risen Star]

I know what the retort is, "Oh yeah? Take a look at Zimmer and Payton, huh? They found success."

Well, they got out of this culture.

Right.

Which is why, no matter how tired people are of hearing it, I will focus on the real problem and not the symptoms of that problem.

 

[dallasdave]

Right.

Which is why, no matter how tired people are of hearing it, I will focus on the real problem and not the symptoms of that problem.

 

[dfan32]

I posted the exact transcript above.

Real "rediculous" .

When a coach says we were prepared and didn't execute, it is a cop out to me. He basically stated it worked before, it didn't this time because the players did not line up correctly.

So he is basically saying "not it".

That is a hell of a way to motivate a team.

He talks about teaching, then his real response to failure is they will continue to teach and they need to finally understand.

Pretty arrogant to me.

I think what he was trying to say is that th players were completely gassed and couldn't get back to their correct positions because of the exhaustion and the Eagles getting on the ball so quickly. It was not because they didn't know where to line up.

 

[Alexander]

I understand what your saying here but you are saying and I don't completely disagree. I just think that when you consider hiring and firing head coaches, there are sometimes good reason to look beyond the W/L record. I don't argue that Garrett should be nearing the end of his tenure but personally I think he should be given another year. He has improved the talent level on this team and he has instilled a fighting attitude in these guys. I just don't think last year was a fluke. I think it was a glimpse of what is coming. This year is a bag a of misfortune.
Sean Payton is an example that great coaches do not always have winning seasons. Especially in todays NFL.

You gave a reasonable response and I will reply in kind.

Firing Garrett is not an option. It is not practical for Jerry Jones' wallet, it won't happen because of his wallet, and until there is a better alternative, you might as well go forward.

I disagree that "he" improved the talent level on this team. If "he" is even responsible to begin with.

As far as the fightin' attitude, well, that can be manufactured and in some cases, imagined.

This is a results business.

To me, he's on the Marvin Lewis, give him ten years plan.

I guess that is okay, but until that plan, and not the Landry plan which worked in an era long ago, I will wait for that to show success first before endorsing it.

 

[dfan32]

Ok that's fine. Give him credit or give somebody else credit, I don't really care. After four years of Garrett, this team has more talent and depth, (except at QB) than Parcells had after his four years. Would you agree with that?

 

[Alexander]

Ok that's fine. Give him credit or give somebody else credit, I don't really care. After four years of Garrett, this team has more talent and depth, (except at QB) than Parcells had after his four years. Would you agree with that?

Not really. I don't think Garrett has nearly as much influence as you think he does.

 

[Idgit]

We also had people saying the same things about Campo and Wade.

There are people saying all sorts of things. You have to look at which people are consistently saying what.

 

[Alexander]

There are people saying all sorts of things. You have to look at which people are consistently saying what.

You sure can. Take a look at what you post.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Ok that's fine. Give him credit or give somebody else credit, I don't really care. After four years of Garrett, this team has more talent and depth, (except at QB) than Parcells had after his four years. Would you agree with that?

We have over valued talent. Miss one piece we have nothing.

 

[Idgit]

Now you are basically questioning the intellect of anyone on this board that can read.



Complete fabrication right now, when I directly challenged you on this. That was not your answer before. I could call you a liar, but I won't.



Since you are too lazy to back up your comments and now since I do indeed have the access to the device which you felt I had to have, here goes.

http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2015/11/09/garrett-thoughts-after-watching-eagles-film

From the 4:15 mark to the 12:51 mark.

Q: What's the biggest issue you had in stopping the running game last night?

A: I think the biggest issue on defense was not being ready. Not lined being up . Not being lined up where we needed to be. And when we were lined up, we played well, both defending the pass and defending the run. And when we have played well against these guys in the past, we've done that. It's a tempo offense and the most important thing to do is get lined up. Get in your stances, get in your positions, to play football. And, uh, when you look back at the plays that they made, we weren't lined up as well as we needed to be, we didn't execute our assignments the way we needed to and they took advantage of it.

Q: Why is that? Was it Sean's absence, was it late calls from the sidelines?

A; Sometimes it just happens, when you play against a team like that, just the i---when you play a team like that, that's that's playing that up-tempo style, that's always downhill at you, you need to get lined up, you need to get stops early in the drive. Go back and look back at the games where we have done well against them, that's what we were able to do. And they get you on your heels a little bit because they have had some success and it snowballs. And the drives last night where we stopped them, we did a good job of that. And drives where we didn't, we didn't do as good of a job as that, and they made us pay for it.

Q: So you feel like that problem is unique to this opponent or is it something that could be a little bigger.

A: It is specifically this opponent, there are other teams that will play this style, within the game, but this is what their style is. And we played them six times in the last three years and you can look at uh, some real clear examples of doing it well and getting lined up and getting ready to play, in our stances, hand on the ground, in our gaps, doing it the right way, we don't do that, they make you pay for it.

So, again, where is the "context"?

@Sydia answered before and thanks to him for that.

I wasn't 'too lazy' to back my comments up at all. I said it was worth a listen. You asked me to tell you what it said. I declined. I'm not here to dictate Jason Garrett's press conferences for you. And you can call me a liar in insincere if you care to. I won't mind, Alexander. It's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

As to the context, you provided it. Draw your own conclusions. What I think is interesting is that, in the context of the game, the drives where we stopped them early in the drive were the early drives. The drives where they had us on our heels were in the second half. He doesn't explicitly say it, but we either wore down physically, or we struggled getting people lined up after Lee/Hitchens went out. He then goes on to imply that it wasn't preparation, because we've had success in the past when we've executed it properly. He's saying it was an execution problem.

Which, of course, is why I'd commented that people ought to listen to the press conference if they thought the issue was the team not being prepared for the offense we were going up against.

I'm not really interested in trading barbs on the topic. Have a nice night, Alexander.

 

[Zman5]

There are people saying all sorts of things. You have to look at which people are consistently saying what.

Hmmm. OK. I guess.

 

[Alexander]

I wasn't 'too lazy' to back my comments up at all. I said it was worth a listen. You asked me to tell you what it said. I declined. I'm not here to dictate Jason Garrett's press conferences for you.

Nobody asked you to "dictate". You mentioned there was super duper ultra secret context that needed to be heard, but refused to explain.

And you can call me a liar in insincere if you care to. I won't mind, Alexander. It's your opinion, and you're entitled to it.

I will leave the name calling and insinuation to you, as you have made very evident here for everyone to read and see. You like to make comments, then not even answer a simple request to clarify them.

What I think is interesting is that, in the context of the game, the drives where we stopped them early in the drive were the early drives. The drives where they had us on our heels were in the second half. He doesn't explicitly say it, but we either wore down physically, or we struggled getting people lined up after Lee/Hitchens went out. He then goes on to imply that it wasn't preparation, because we've had success in the past when we've executed it properly. He's saying it was an execution problem.

Archer asked the question about Lee, he responded by avoiding answering the question directly. If anyone provided context, it was Todd Archer who asked the pointed question and then could only watch as Garrett danced around it.

Nothing interesting in what he said other than those darn players again, not executing. And hardly the context indicated. It existed in your head and until now, you did not even bother to explain it.

Par for the course. I could say that he "implied" that he has dumb or unconditioned players. But that would be putting words into his mouth, which apparently is what you seem to like to do because it serves your idea that there is zero accountability on him or his staff to field a team that can function.

If they wore down, who is accountable? If they cannot line up correctly because linebackers got injured, who is accountable for the reserves not being ready to step up?

For once, if he owned up to anything, he might be the glorious leader you think he is and so desperately want everyone else to think he is.

 

[Sydla]

So to get back to the real point here.

The fact this team couldn't get lined up properly quickly was a coaching problem. The excuse that because we have had some success in the past means it's not a coaching problem is so silly. Inconsistency is a hallmark of mediocre coaching. So the fact that we can't execute half the time we play the Eagles is a coaching/preparation issue.

 

[ShiningStar]

The funny part is over the summer everyone mocked Chip, whos been in the league less than Garrett, and Chip has Bradford, im just going to let leave that there so it sinks in.

 

[Alexander]

So to get back to the real point here.

The fact this team couldn't get lined up properly quickly was a coaching problem. The excuse that because we have had some success in the past means it's not a coaching problem is so silly. Inconsistency is a hallmark of mediocre coaching. So the fact that we can't execute half the time we play the Eagles is a coaching/preparation issue.

No, apparently not if you apply the proper "context".

It worked early, did not work late. Hey, they have lined up good before in some of the previous games with them, so who knows why they did not do it this time. Sometimes it happens.

In other words, "not it".

 

[jobberone]

Nobody asked you to "dictate". You mentioned there was super duper ultra secret context that needed to be heard, but refused to explain.



I will leave the name calling and insinuation to you, as you have made very evident here for everyone to read and see. You like to make comments, then not even answer a simple request to clarify them.



Archer asked the question about Lee, he responded by avoiding answering the question directly. If anyone provided context, it was Todd Archer who asked the pointed question and then could only watch as Garrett danced around it.

Nothing interesting in what he said other than those darn players again, not executing. And hardly the context indicated. It existed in your head and until now, you did not even bother to explain it.

Par for the course. I could say that he "implied" that he has dumb or unconditioned players. But that would be putting words into his mouth, which apparently is what you seem to like to do because it serves your idea that there is zero accountability on him or his staff to field a team that can function.

If they wore down, who is accountable? If they cannot line up correctly because linebackers got injured, who is accountable for the reserves not being ready to step up?

For once, if he owned up to anything, he might be the glorious leader you think he is and so desperately want everyone else to think he is.

There is a reason subs don't play as well as starters. To blame their faults entirely on the coach just shows an agenda. Starters go down and it almost always universally across the NFL weakens the entire unit...ie LBers etc... and the entire 11. It is partly the coaching but at least as much as a function of the cap and talent acquisition.

Wearing out an opponent is a function of the Eagles offensive scheme. If the OC is on his game and the players are executing properly then they can be a handful. Not getting the proper packages in rotation creates mismatches. That and wearing the defense out is problematic.

You can coach turnovers but coaches can't create them. They are a function of ball protection by the offense and opportunity and opportunism by the defense. 4 TOs in 8 games IS a statistical anomaly. Chance should give you more.

People knew this defense would be 10-20th ranked this year with outside flyers higher or lower. We knew our offense would have to cover in part for it. To expect anyone to coach their way out of this situation is unrealistic no matter how frustrated or angry one gets. People want accountability damn the consequences. Fine....remove the coaching staff and install a new offense and defense. Take a year or so to get it going and put Romo thru another coaching change when he obviously thrives in this offense. You'll be lucky to get 400+ points out of a new scenario...extremely lucky. Same applies to the defense.

It's the exception that a new coaching staff comes in an does very well...in our case SB contender...the first year. When it happens it is almost always taking over a ready made for success team.

The ENTIRE problem is the loss of Romo. I've seen countless members say if we lose Romo that's the season. Many are the same people constantly whining, crying, complaining and calling for heads to roll after that happens.

The FO and Garrett, Wilson and OC are responsible for having a backup who couldn't compete much less win a game or two. Romo's loss without a decent backup is the problem. We've had the opportunity to win all but one game. Don't tell me Romo wouldn't have gotten most of those. Yes, with the same coaching staff and despite the dismal TO differential.

This FO does seem to have the propensity of being complacent about possible future problems. We saw it with the team that led to Wade's demise. The OL and Barber. We're seeing it here with Weeden. There's genuine fault here but identify the correct culprits and then fix it....even with Jerry around.

 

[Alexander]

There is a reason subs don't play as well as starters. To blame their faults entirely on the coach just shows an agenda.

Most overused and grossly misused word on this board.

Yes, if you take a position, you have an agenda.

Everyone has an agenda.

That is kind of what you do when you have an opinion and establish a position.

Now if you are vague, wishy washy and noncommittal, you are without agenda. Not many posters around here like that.

Starters go down and it almost always universally across the NFL weakens the entire unit...ie LBers etc... and the entire 11. It is partly the coaching but at least as much as a function of the cap and talent acquisition.

Injuries happen all the time. When backups come in, they are usually less skilled. But when you see well coached teams shuffle entire units around, the effects can be minimized.

The Patriot OL has been a jumbled mess all season.

http://www.csnne.com/new-england-patriots/patriots-makeshift-offensive-line-follows-bradys-lead

I guess they are just made better by Brady? I feel quite confident in saying the same thing happens in Dallas, the results will not be the same, with or without Romo.

Wearing out an opponent is a function of the Eagles offensive scheme. If the OC is on his game and the players are executing properly then they can be a handful. Not getting the proper packages in rotation creates mismatches. That and wearing the defense out is problematic.

Who is responsible for the right packages in rotation? The players need to do that? Just curious.

You can coach turnovers but coaches can't create them. They are a function of ball protection by the offense and opportunity and opportunism by the defense. 4 TOs in 8 games IS a statistical anomaly. Chance should give you more.

People knew this defense would be 10-20th ranked this year with outside flyers higher or lower. We knew our offense would have to cover in part for it. To expect anyone to coach their way out of this situation is unrealistic no matter how frustrated or angry one gets. People want accountability damn the consequences. Fine....remove the coaching staff and install a new offense and defense. Take a year or so to get it going and put Romo thru another coaching change when he obviously thrives in this offense. You'll be lucky to get 400+ points out of a new scenario...extremely lucky. Same applies to the defense.

It's the exception that a new coaching staff comes in an does very well...in our case SB contender...the first year. When it happens it is almost always taking over a ready made for success team.

The ENTIRE problem is the loss of Romo. I've seen countless members say if we lose Romo that's the season. Many are the same people constantly whining, crying, complaining and calling for heads to roll after that happens.

I don't care about heads rolling. I know the coach is not going anywhere. I would just like him to take accountability for it and do something to stop an embarrassing six game losing streak that is about as embarrassing as we have had with a supposedly competent team. If you need the QB healthy every game and can't win even one game without him, players are not doing their job. And it is the coaching staffs responsibility to make them do their job, not throw their hands up and say they are trying like really really hard.

Had Dallas won a game or so, you would hear a lot less of the "whining, crying and complaining" that apparently bothers you.

What bothers people is that teams will win even some, not most, of their games with backup QBs. In fact, I don't think anyone that has started a reserve QB this year has been winless in their starting QBs for more than a game or two. So what does that tell you? They are more lucky? Or better prepared to not have the entire team fall apart, in a variety of different ways, because they can't come together and handle adversity?

The FO and Garrett, Wilson and OC are responsible for having a backup who couldn't compete much less win a game or two. Romo's loss without a decent backup is the problem. We've had the opportunity to win all but one game. Don't tell me Romo wouldn't have gotten most of those. Yes, with the same coaching staff and despite the dismal TO differential.

This FO does seem to have the propensity of being complacent about possible future problems. We saw it with the team that led to Wade's demise. The OL and Barber. We're seeing it here with Weeden. There's genuine fault here but identify the correct culprits and then fix it....even with Jerry around.

So you finally made some sense out of a post that honestly I do not know why you felt so compelled to compose.

The first rule of management is that it is always your fault. Team management, the front office and coaches, are responsible for this mess.

 

[Wolfpack]

Well Jason, the season is halfway done, don't you think that "playing the right way should have started game 1?" Just me thinking that if you're not "playing the right way" by game 8, it is probably too late to "start playing the right way."

If Jerry was to fire Jason, does anyone think he would ever get as much as an interview for another head coaching job in the NFL the next 5 years?

No, he'd be lucky to coach a div 3 school.

 

[Wolfpack]

I think the most interesting thing is that never in his time in Dallas, has Jason stood up and taken responsibility for something. He avoids it and always puts in on the players.

In this case, he should have said; "we didn't get lined up right, their tempo caused us confusion and as coaches, we take that blame for not getting our guys either lined up right or making adjustments to get them lined up right. We'll get this corrected."

Teflon Jason. He has a fat checking account and 4 more years and job security.