Jerry on Garrett: Not Impressed

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuzzy, I have no issue with you and as far as I remember we've always gotten along and I've enjoyed the talk so I'm not sure where your taking this. My initial thread and the talk had no hidden agenda. It's news that Jerry actually spoke up and said something negative about the coaching.

As far as Garrett he won some with Wades team and had one winning season. I didn't put Kubiaks two winning seasons in the post either. I've watched football since the 70s. So when I watch other teams, players, coaches I compare. I compare how football was played over decades just like people compare Romo, Aikman, etc. So yeah I compare what I saw with Kubiaks mediocre rise and Garrett. Much mirrors it. If you want me to go through all my issues over the years regarding JG Id be willing to...from horrible time management to blowing games early in his stint to Jerry saying he had made mistakes and was a coach in training to getting stripped of duties to being conservative...but no one wants to hear rehash. The funny part is I've yet to hear you make one legit argument for the guy or why what Jerry said wasn't legit or true. You just stuck me with some false narrative that never existed

Of course we're cool man. Please don't take me being confrontational personally. The nature of these threads is what it is.

Jerry said they won through willpower and not tactics. Garrett doesn't call the plays for the offense or defense. His mantra is mental toughness and execution under adverse circumstances. They did make plays in the second half. The defense hung in there despite still being unable to generate turnovers.

The tea leaves to me tell me to be more concerned about Marinelli or perhaps Linehan. Now I could really hope that his solution to that is Sean Payton. That would be outstanding but fire Garrett is not the wavelength i was getting from VR brass.

Then Stephen goes to bat for Linehan on the fan. That place is all over the place and inferring stuff from their comments requires all manner of salt.

That is my argument against the OP's interpretation of "not impressed" I think Jones got all manner of impression from that game.

 

[LocimusPrime]

Can i get a whopper please. I see all these burger king references in the posts. Makes me hungry

 

[Zman5]

He should have been pissed by it. Garrett blew it, and it could have ended up costing the game.

Somebody must have hacked into Idgit's account.

 

[Zman5]

Just saw the JJ's interview after the game. I think JJ actually said "..that was high schoolish at the end.."
then caught himself and says "...on both sides..". Wow. Did I hear that right?

 

[Idgit]

Somebody must have hacked into Idgit's account.

Hey, I call it like I see it.

Most of the time that puts me almost alone on an island when people are angry and looking for blood. But when the guy messes up, he messes up.

 

[Idgit]

Or a coach that knows how to use him

Exactly. He's really stuck in a dead end here in Dallas, and it's hurting his career.

 

[Tommy]

He should have been pissed by it. Garrett blew it, and it could have ended up costing the game.

Garrett blew because we have assumed that he didn't tell McFadden to fall down between the one and four yard line?

Teams make decisions all the time that we don't always understand or agree with which is no big deal but this place has gotten out of control with the weekly Garrett failure storylines.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

So my math is now correct its my "football wares" that the math is off...

You dont run out on first down, that was mistake #1....Just like Marion Barber for the bears a couple years ago. precedence. Everything after was changed. The clock could have been run out falling at the 1 on 2nd down. like Maurice Jones Drew when trailing by 1.


Two mistakes. Yet you want to argue that the ability to try a 54 yard FG was the best move

I've met Burger King employees with more wit and rational then this, so I wouldnt be so quick to be elitist.

Math will always be math. Happening maybe 1 time out of 200 is always >>>>>>>>>>10 times out of 200. Let me know if you set up any poker games

I have no idea what you are babbling about. You seem to think you have the ability to predict alternate outcomes of plays based on your imagination. I'll explain it to you one more time: there was no scenario where the Cowboys could run out the clock and then kick a field goal.

 

[Amy50632]

Link to interview
http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2015/12/08/jerry-jones-cowboys-fortunate-get-win-vs-skins

 

[Amy50632]

Is there any where to see Jerry's interview?

http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2015/12/08/jerry-jones-cowboys-fortunate-get-win-vs-skins

 

[Rogerthat12]

Of course we're cool man. Please don't take me being confrontational personally. The nature of these threads is what it is.

Jerry said they won through willpower and not tactics. Garrett doesn't call the plays for the offense or defense. His mantra is mental toughness and execution under adverse circumstances. They did make plays in the second half. The defense hung in there despite still being unable to generate turnovers.

The tea leaves to me tell me to be more concerned about Marinelli or perhaps Linehan. Now I could really hope that his solution to that is Sean Payton. That would be outstanding but fire Garrett is not the wavelength i was getting from VR brass.

Then Stephen goes to bat for Linehan on the fan. That place is all over the place and inferring stuff from their comments requires all manner of salt.

That is my argument against the OP's interpretation of "not impressed" I think Jones got all manner of impression from that game.

http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/jerry-jones-laugh.jpg

http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/Jerry-Jones1-466x700.jpg

http://i1133.***BLOCKED***/albums/m600/DWAREZIZ/images.jpg

 

[gmoney112]

Of course we're cool man. Please don't take me being confrontational personally. The nature of these threads is what it is.

Jerry said they won through willpower and not tactics. Garrett doesn't call the plays for the offense or defense. His mantra is mental toughness and execution under adverse circumstances. They did make plays in the second half. The defense hung in there despite still being unable to generate turnovers.

The tea leaves to me tell me to be more concerned about Marinelli or perhaps Linehan. Now I could really hope that his solution to that is Sean Payton. That would be outstanding but fire Garrett is not the wavelength i was getting from VR brass.

Then Stephen goes to bat for Linehan on the fan. That place is all over the place and inferring stuff from their comments requires all manner of salt.

That is my argument against the OP's interpretation of "not impressed" I think Jones got all manner of impression from that game.

Put me down for Payton as OC. Probably a pipe dream but man that'd be sweet.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

http://www.dallascowboys.com/video/2015/12/08/jerry-jones-cowboys-fortunate-get-win-vs-skins

Thanks

 

[TheDude]

I have no idea what you are babbling about. You seem to think you have the ability to predict alternate outcomes of plays based on your imagination. I'll explain it to you one more time: there was no scenario where the Cowboys could run out the clock and then kick a field goal.

wrong

stay in bounds on first down run - TO#2. stay in bounds on second run...TO#3. ball game. theres one scenario.

this isnt the first time the nfl has seen this - many times in the last 5 years

 

[plymkr]

It is true, McFadden gets the first down at 1:10 and the Skins would be forced to use a timeout. You run again or take a knee on 2nd down and the Skins would be forced to use their last timeout with about 1:00 left. You take a knee on 3rd down, and run the clock all the way down with abut 20 seconds or so left on the clock and call a timeout. You then kick the FG, leaving the Skins with about 17 seconds left with no TO's. Game is essentially over.

You don't allow them to get the ball back with over a minute left with 2 TO's with a guy like Jackson waiting to make a big play.

Good breakdown. Here's something I have been thinking in my head all day. I wonder what you guys think. If we go with option, running out the clock and kicking a Field Goal and leaving them 10-15 seconds to go the length of the field to tie; would that be playing to win or playing not to lose?

I've wrestled with this question all day. One side of me thinks that it was the safer move and when watching the game I wanted them to just take a knee and go that option. I was frustrated when D-Mac scored cuz I felt this defense was due to for a letdown play after holding them in check for 59 mins. I wanted no part of the Commanders getting the ball back.

So I have been very adamant about Garret sucking because of his conservative decisions. So is it hypocritical of me to want them to play it conservative in that moment.

Or back to my original question. If playing for the field goal and giving them the ball back with 10-15 seconds would that be considered playing not to lose. As opposed to getting the TD would obviously be playing to win, or would it?

Thoughts

 

[Super_Kazuya]

wrong

stay in bounds on first down run - TO#2. stay in bounds on second run...TO#3. ball game. theres one scenario.

this isnt the first time the nfl has seen this - many times in the last 5 years

Either you are making a lot of assumptions or you're far worse at math than I could have possibly imagined. Does this work when replacing runs with kneel downs?

 

[ghst187]

i'm one of the loudest folks here to criticize Garrett's constant mismanagement of games and how it has cost us a number of wins. However, I don't blame him for last night. I'm quite sure he didn't call a play for DMC to run out of bounds like an idiot and hard to argue with going ahead and scoring a TD since you NEVER know what might happen entrusting the game to a FG attempt. Snap could be bad, fumbled, blocked, etc. JG also couldn't have expected the skins to rip off a 40 yard return topped off by a 15-yard facemark penalty AWAY from the ball. The only other option was to take a knee three times, which would have used up both of Wash's remaining timeouts and burnt the clock down to just a handful of seconds left. One could make the argument that was a better, safer option and they certainly wouldn't be wrong. However, I was okay with how we played it. Fortunately, it just worked out for us that we got our own 40 yard return and a few completed passes along with the best kicker in the game.

 

[TheDude]

Either you are making a lot of assumptions or you're far worse at math than I could have possibly imagined. Does this work when replacing runs with kneel downs?

I never mentioned kneel downs - keep up

Oh BTW, what did your coveted 95% WPA turn into at 0:44

https://live.numberfire.com/nfl/6313?play=177

Was that swing as achievable if kicking a a FG at :03? 0:21?

Oh and that all risky 33 yd FG / XP under this sites methodolgy......worth 1bp. Or 0.01% for those mathematically challenged. Wash goes from 47.61% WPA to 47.62%.

The take away, .01% unit of risk at 33 yards Kick < 5% risk of giving Wash the ball back with 1:14. So a FG basically was riskless compared to your "best in class"
Keep going

 

[Redball Express]

I see why all the outcry about giving the Commanders a sliver of hope at the end of the game.

I also think you can't micromanage things like DMAC running for a touchdown.

Or to hit the ground when he has a shot at a TD.

It's like the debate going on here where some say it's better to lose on purpose to get a higher draft pick.

You don't ask players to tank.

It not in their DNA.

So stop the silliness.

Frankly..the defense should have held and the Commanders should have been closed out by the defense.

Not on a questionable call by the special teams to get a fumble.

It was the Miracle at the FedEx if you ask me.

I don't blame Jerrah for being prickly about what he saw.

Another game like that against GB and it's all but over.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

I never mentioned kneel downs - keep up

Exactly. You are making up outcomes. Zero credibility. What a joke.