Jerry on Garrett: Not Impressed

[phildadon86]

Me either.. Unless... He is desperate to win a Superbowl and goes for Sean Payton.


Sean Payton to Dallas... Can you imagine how great that would be. We might win a Superbowl in the Romo era with that move.

Can you imagine seeing Dez moving around and being utilized the right way? He may have 20+ TDs in that situation.

 

[Idgit]

Baltimore game when he did not call a TO after having all the receivers run long routes and Romo dumped it off.

Thereby leading to a long FG try that was missed leading to a loss in OT.

Also not calling a play to line Baily up on the right hash when his kicks had been drifting left all game.

Yep. I knew there was another one that had bugged me.

 

[Dodger12]

The Skins only had 2 timeouts left with only 1:13 on the clock, which means they can only stop the clock twice and would have left them with like 12 seconds on the clock after the FG. There's no way you score a TD there and allow them to keep their TO's with over a minute left in a game.

And what folks fail to realize is what if Gruden had gone for 2 and the win like the Steelers earlier this year? So saying the worst that could have happened is a tie game is inaccurate. It was a coaching blunder, just like calling a play just before the 2 minute warning when you could have just run your first play after the minute warning. Garrett gave the Skins another time out by running a play for nothing.

 

[tyke1doe]

Why did they call a running play that took McFadden towards the sidelines? I think that is probably what Jerry was thinking when he said "tactically". The ball should have been run up the middle, taking the sidelines out of play. I don't totally blame McFadden.

By the way, remember when Marion Barber III played for the Bears and did the same thing while playing against the Cowboys. The Cowboys ended up winning in amazing fashion, only because Barber ran out of bounds.

I thought that was against the Tebow-led Broncos.

 

[Smith22]

No doubt, we've seen a bunch of really bad attempts to blame Garrett for phantom time management issues, phantom play calling mistakes, and just second-guessing every decision that doesn't work in general.

He's had three significant time management issues in games in his tenure that I can remember. One was in the AZ game in 2011 (?). Not the 'icing,' which is a stupid argument, but he botched badly the time management that led up to that kick. The second was the GB game in 2013 where he sort of threw Callahan (and maybe Romo a little bit) under the bus and then took over the play calling. And then last night, where he should have drained the clock and timeouts before giving the ball back to Cousins and Company.

There may be a few more out there that I've forgotten, but for the most part, it's a fairly limited number of games. That said, those kinds of mistakes by coaches and offensive staffs cost games, and games can cost post-season opportunities. If I'm an owner, I'd have a zero-tolerance stance on them, too.

Garrett and hs staff screwed up the time management at the end of the game last night, and it almost cost him. I hate to see it, it's something that he's got to get better at. Sure, it's something other teams do, too, from time to time. But the really good ones don't.

game vs Ravens when we completed a pass with 26 seconds left and decided to wait until the final seconds to call timeout. Bailey missed the FG.

 

[Super_Kazuya]

You're a liar, no one is using hindsight, everyone was yelling when McFadden scored the TD without forcing the Skins to use any of their TO's and leaving over a minute left on the clock. You're just arguing just to argue at this point.

I don't have any idea what anyone is yelling at their TVs in their basement. You are judging a decision to be bad not because it wasn't sound, but because it didn't work. That is hindsight.

 

[Cowboys22]

Don't these two statements somewhat conflict? Just trying to figure out if you are faulting McFadden or Garrett.

I don't think any of us know what actually happened in terms of communication, that is one thing we all KNOW for certain.

Do you guys think a HC is supposed to somehow get his voice heard in the huddle in the 5 seconds that the play is being relayed to the QB? Does Garrett even have a direct voice feed override into Cassel's helmet? That sounds chaotic. I suppose he could interrupt the OC's thought process and take the 5 seconds to say "tell McFadden to get the 1st but not score a TD by any means" then that has to be relayed to Cassel and then to McFadden like some weird game of telephone.

Asking honestly, in a loud visitor's stadium how would this thought enter Garrett's mind and be conveyed to the RB in a reasonable amount of time between 1st and 2nd down?

NO, a head coach is supposed to have his team prepared for end of game scenarios and that is one that comes up all the time. A simple hand signal or have the play caller tell Cassell to remind the RB to stay in bounds or get the first but don't score. That exact situation should have been worked on numerous times in camp and McFadden should be prepared and know what to do. A Seattle RB did it to us just a few weeks ago in a very similar situation. His coach prepared him or got word to him but Garrett simply doesn't or can't.

 

[Idgit]

BTW, guys, let's see if we can't tone down the animosity in the thread here a little bit. This one's been a little bit bare knuckle for a bit here, but there are limits to what's cool and what's not.

I know tempers are hot after the disappointing win last night, but please at least try to be civil to each other.

 

[Staubacher]

So far in Garret's tenure Jerrah has explained away his mistakes as learning on the job, changed DC and OC coaches like underwear, changed line coaches and ST coaches. Everything but fire Garrett.

Even Jerrah is running out of other options besides can the idiot.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

That's called coaching. Situational awareness. Huddle Up "Guys, stay in bounds, the clock is our friend here."

in this case I agree. you don't assume the player knows. you remind him to stay in bounce. further more. DMac could have just gone done after the first down inside the 5. he should know where it is. a first down and game is over. because we get three new downs and they have two timeouts.

stupid game management at the end.

 

[CapnCook]

Don't these two statements somewhat conflict? Just trying to figure out if you are faulting McFadden or Garrett.

I don't think any of us know what actually happened in terms of communication, that is one thing we all KNOW for certain.

Do you guys think a HC is supposed to somehow get his voice heard in the huddle in the 5 seconds that the play is being relayed to the QB? Does Garrett even have a direct voice feed override into Cassel's helmet? That sounds chaotic. I suppose he could interrupt the OC's thought process and take the 5 seconds to say "tell McFadden to get the 1st but not score a TD by any means" then that has to be relayed to Cassel and then to McFadden like some weird game of telephone.

Asking honestly, in a loud visitor's stadium how would this thought enter Garrett's mind and be conveyed to the RB in a reasonable amount of time between 1st and 2nd down?

Its not conflicting. I am blaming McFadden for not knowing having the awareness on his own, and I am blaming Garrett for not ensuring another mental lapse happens again. I am making an assumption that the communication did not happen. Fair enough. There's two timeouts. After McFadden goes out of bounds, use one. It just like the Arizona game. He didn't ice his kicker. What he did do was not use one of his multiple timeouts after the 18 yard third down conversion to settle things down and make sure the players had the right mind set. Those are things I expect from a head coach.

So maybe lets split the difference and blame it on McFadden. He just didn't have the heads up mentality that we've seen so many other players have in similar situations. And THAT starts in the meeting rooms. And now we're all the way back around to coaching.

 

[Wayne02]

I don't have any idea what anyone is yelling at their TVs in their basement. You are judging a decision to be bad not because it wasn't sound, but because it didn't work. That is hindsight.

Go back and look at the game thread, many posters were saying that they shouldn't have scored, my self included, because the Skins had enough time to score with over a minute left and 2 TO's, that's not called hindsight, it's actually foresight. Stop creating this straw man and just admit that you're wrong for once.

 

[big dog cowboy]

Our head coach was hired as an offensive genius but proved he couldn't call plays and is now proving he doesn't know how to get the ball to his #1 WR

According to Broaddus:

6) We might not have been able to see it early, but I believe that because Dez Bryant physically felt better for the first time in a long time and was able to practice, that helped him get open with more frequency in this game. Offensive coordinator Scott Linehan moved him around and that was a good thing. Now the next trick is for Matt Cassel to see that on tape and realize that he had him open more than he did and needs to get him the ball in those situations. They need to take advantage of more of these matchups when they can get them.

 

[Smith22]

While on the subject of coaching and playcalling, I can't believe we struggle as much as we do trying to get Dez involved. Try using motion, bunch formation, etc. ANYTHING please.

 

[CowboysFaninHouston]

if you think he made a mistake by calling two running plays, what should he of done?

taken a knee three times and kicked a field goal?

that would of been stupid! a touchdown gave us the worst case scenario of overtime. playing for the field goal would of created the possibility of losing in regulation.

the Princeton guy is so much smarter then all of you!

wrong. that's what you do. take a knee. and leave them with 30 seconds or less.

worse yet. McFadden made a mistake and went out of bounce. then he ran up the middle for a TD. he knows where first down marker is. just kneel or go down as soon as you cross first down. that would have officially spelled the end of it. force them to use a time out. you get 4 new downs. you kneel, kneel, kneel and kick a field goal with nothing left on the clock.

and what if Washington went for two and converted? no over time.

you don't want to give the opponent the opportunity to win the game. end of story.

we gave them the opportunity.

 

[Daillest88]

According to Broaddus:

next week will be Dez big game of the year. i feel it coming, he did look healthy, and was open quite alot in the first half.

 

[Wayne02]

And what folks fail to realize is what if Gruden had gone for 2 and the win like the Steelers earlier this year? So saying the worst that could have happened is a tie game is inaccurate. It was a coaching blunder, just like calling a play just before the 2 minute warning when you could have just run your first play after the minute warning. Garrett gave the Skins another timne out by running a play for nothing.

Exactly, I was pulling my hair out when Cassel snapped the ball before the 2 minute warning. That goes directly on the coaches. I can't believe people are actually defending the many blunders at the end of that game.

 

[Dodger12]

LOL, nobody has heard his "expertise" opinion before?

What about his confidence in Randle?

Did Jerry not hire Weeden and then Cassell?

Wasn't Garrett's playcalling taken away and given to somebody else last season and then reacquired by Jason somehow?

Did Jason Garrett walk up to McFadden and say, "okay, we need you to make this a close game so I want you to fumble twice....but don't worry, you'll score far too quick at the end of the 4th quarter....

Jerry Jones has an opinion and we fans should be interested in it? Really?

The guy who could win without Emmitt in '93? The only GM in the history of the NFL not to retain the services of the season's leading rusher? The guy who spent three #1 picks and a #2 on WR's Joey Galloway and Roy Williams?

And then there is this?

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/football/nfl/cowboys/2006-10-26-owens-qb-change_x.htm

T.O. happy about QB change; Cowboys owner sorry it happened

IRVING, Texas (AP) — While Jerry Jones is disappointed the Dallas Cowboys are going to their backup quarterback, he won't get any complaints from Terrell Owens.
T.O. said Thursday he already feels better chemistry with Tony Romo than he ever did with deposed starter Drew Bledsoe. Owens even had an example, pointing out his 8-yard touchdown catch against New York Giants on Monday night.

"I looked across the formation and he looked at me and he knew what was going on," Owens said. "It's just two players making a play."

Did he and Bledsoe ever develop that bond?

"I honestly tried to do that time and time again," he said. "But for whatever reason it didn't happen."

What happened with Bledsoe were turnovers, far too many for coach Bill Parcells to tolerate. So he switched to the unproven Romo at halftime against the Giants, then on Wednesday announced that Romo would keep the job when Dallas (3-3) plays at Carolina on Sunday night.

Jones hinted Tuesday he wanted to stick with the veteran. He explained Thursday that he actually was clinging to his preseason belief that Bledsoe would lead Dallas to the playoffs.

"I'm disappointed at the reason we're having to make this change," Jones said.

The QB switch has forced Jones to lower his expectations for this season. He's no longer convinced this team could be "special," the code word he and Parcells used this summer instead of saying they expected a deep playoff run.

"I have to be a realist," Jones said. "I hadn't thought or hoped that we'd be sitting here after the sixth game making these adjustments. ... I did not want to this year go to an inexperienced quarterback. I wanted to have the benefit of Drew Bledsoe. It hasn't worked out as of today. It just hasn't worked out. That to me is a step back."

Romo is in his fourth year with the Cowboys, but had never thrown a pass until two games ago. In his relief appearance Monday night, the former Division I-AA player of the year was 14-of-25 for 227 yards and two touchdowns and ran for a 2-point conversion. He also threw three interceptions.

Interceptions were Bledsoe's undoing. He had three in each of Dallas' first two losses, then a costly one against New York on what became his final pass.

Parcells wasn't the only one on the Cowboys sideline disgusted by that play. Teammates were frustrated by the same old, same old, too.

It hadn't gotten to the point that players were lobbying for a change, but linebacker Bradie James said it was being discussed.

How strong was the support for Romo?

"I don't know if it was sizzling," he said. "It might've been lukewarm."

James said everyone is rallying around Romo "because that's who we need to believe in."

"It'd be that way if it was Matt Baker," said James, referring to the team's practice squad QB. "We're going to roll with Romo and get it going. This is the guy. He's the golden child right now."

Romo has been getting ready for a long time, having sat by while Quincy Carter, Vinny Testaverde, Drew Henson and Bledsoe all got their chances.

The organization liked his potential enough that he received a second contract extension, and a $2 million bonus, in the preseason, locking him up through 2007. Yet he was never trusted enough to throw the ball until recently.

"I saw him coming along. I saw things I liked in the player," Parcells said. "Now it's time. I guess I was ready now."

Parcells said he's not nervous about starting Romo. He said the better description is "anxious to see what is going to happen."

Confidence is not an issue with Romo. Neither is mobility, Bledsoe's biggest weakness. Romo also has a quicker release, all of which should lead to fewer sacks — and, as Owens hopes, more hookups to No. 81 on broken plays.

"Once he gets outside that pocket, he can make some things happen," Owens said. "He has some coaches who will be in his ear to just get the ball to the playmakers and everything will work out well."

The knocks on Romo are his lack of experience, obviously, as well average arm strength and a tendency to make what Parcells calls "impulse" throws.

But now Romo may have a chance to get comfortable. Each game will be an audition to see if he deserves to start the next one, and at the end of the season the Cowboys will have a better idea if he's their quarterback of the future. He's already set to become the ninth starter since Troy Aikman.

"I think Bill's expectations are for us to go 10-0. That would be ideal," Romo said. "You are going to lose in this league. That's going to happen. You just have to make sure you take it week by week and get yourself ready to go every week for a new challenge."

Jones has taken pride in "consciously tried not to go to the top of the draft to get a quarterback." However, he acknowledged Thursday that he might have to change that philosophy if things don't pan out with Romo.

"Part of the responsibility I have is how you address the long term situation at quarterback," said Jones, who also is the team's general manager. "My mind-set would be to say, positively, it's going to work. ... In my mind, we're going to see a player that makes some plays, makes some things happen."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

____________________________________________________________________

Yeah, we should care about his opinion......

What does this have anything to do with poor clock management?

 

[coult44]

I don't think your opinion is worth a damn

His opinion is worth as much as your is. I have a feeling if you keep this up, none of us will see you express your opinion much longer. C'mon man.

 

[Staubacher]

And what folks fail to realize is what if Gruden had gone for 2 and the win like the Steelers earlier this year? So saying the worst that could have happened is a tie game is inaccurate. It was a coaching blunder, just like calling a play just before the 2 minute warning when you could have just run your first play after the minute warning. Garrett gave the Skins another timne out by running a play for nothing.

What's apparent in watching the games live and on replay is you see Garrett not even being demonstrative while these things are happening! There are times when it is the players fault but you see good HCs screaming about it trying to get them to do it right or chastising them afterwards. Garrett looks clueless off into space. I remember two specific times Romo was screaming in his face practically shaking him during a timeout trying to get him to see what was going on.

I know people like Garrett in work and sports and life. They freeze when the bullets are flying. They have a preplanned script and are OCD about it. They cannot think quick in those situations that require it. Their reflex action is to hope it all works out and if not they didn't have to make the decision that made the difference. These are usually book smart people but not field general types.

That is Garrett to a T. He is not HC material plain and simple.