Mike Lombardi Rips Jason Garrett's Coaching Ability

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Our fans will bend over backwards to keep from acknowledging the issues with defensive personnel for some reason. And it's not just the head coach they'll blame for it. For years, Tony Romo was the one who couldn't get it done with that anchor of a defense. Now that he's gone, the problem is obviously the coaches. I don't get it.

I get it: scapegoats are simple and don't require proof or much thought in general. Point the finger and pretend the solution is easy.

 

[odog422]

We scored on our first drive. The 2nd I believe was the one effectively ended by the unsportsmanlike conduct call on Butler. Other than Dak's pick on the Beasly screen and the last Rodgers pass, that penalty might have been the third biggest play of the game.

We were down 21-3 before we even blinked.

It wasn't coaching. It was our inability to stop Rodgers.

That's the thing, it's never his fault. We stopped Rodgers in Green Bay. Why not at home?

Another poster had it in the other garrett thread:

I think he's towards the bottom because the things that make coaches great is their preparation and game planning, then game management. Too many times, esp in the playoffs, I see our team come out flat, get abused by inferior talent, not take advantage of favorable matchups, and then show horrible in game management, i.e. wrong play calling based on clock, situation, and controlling momentum. I think Romo going down showed our true colors as a staff. They couldn't win a game without Romo...yet both QBs we end up cutting to elsewhere and win a few games.
I honestly feel like we have to have talent on par with 1992 and 1995 to overcome Garretts shortcomings and win in the postseason kind like we did with Barry Switzer. For these reasons, I rank him towards the bottom. I keep hoping he proves me wrong but he put a resounding exclamation point on it last years playoffs.

We didn't stop him because we tried to do the exact same thing defensively we did previously and it didn't work. GB changed their attack, why did it take until the second half for us to adjust? Couldn't our HC recognize this?

Why did we come out flat? When you have the back we have, why are we using Dunbar on third down? Was not one of the skills raved about Zeke the fact that he was a 3-down complete back with extraordinary blocking skills and above average receiving skills? Was he not virtually unstoppable in short yardage? So why would you not use him in your home playoff game and going forward in those situations when you "rested" him for the playoffs? That's a head coaching decision. That's preparation, game planning, game management.

By your logic, we haven't and won't win, in the playoffs and beyond, until we field a virtual all-star team. Period. Yet, in today's NFL, other coaches are doing it and have done it. You say that you attribute "some" in-game coaching mistakes to garrett that were so horrid they could not be denied, but other than that, its seems you believe that he's done a bang-up job and you point to people moving goal posts etc. to not give him the credit. The facts are that as we have acquired more talent and taken more direct responsibility from him, the team has produced better results on the field. And no, I don't give him 'credit" for the talent as the only instances where we have seen his direct known input were guys who are no longer here or negligible impact. The OL overhaul was a necessity. We had old guys with big contracts and injuries. That overhaul and the addition of Linehan led to, when successful, an offense that was the antithesis of what was installed when garrett was brought in and what he's always been about, particularly as a play caller, the pass heavy Romo offense. An offense that failed unless Romo was there to make magic. The biggest "credit" I see, really the only consistent thing people try to attribute to him is that the team "doesn't quit." Weak sauce. Romo drove the team previously and Dak has now stepped in and is doing the same. I give the credit to the guys that deserve it, the players. Also, we've got a young team. Young guys are way less likely to quit than long-time veterans.

Personally, I don't care for him because I think it speaks to his character the way he never steps up and takes the blame when things go wrong, what appeared to me his willingness to sabotage Wade, and most of all, to have the man who hired him publically refer to him as being "in training" and to just going along. That's unbelievable to me that a HC in the NFL would just take his owner as referring to him as a "coach in training." Of course, he really couldn't refute it either. It's not like he could point to some extensive coaching history. Ultimately, what jason has proven to me is that he is not HC material. Period. Preparation, game planning, game management - time after time when the lights are brightest, he fails in these areas and it is shown by the results on the field. Some guys learn, improve and get better. Some get laser focused when the pressure rises. He seems to repeat the same mistakes and not meet the raised bar of the postseason.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Garrett will never get a fair shot in this league being he has to do what no other coach in this league has to do which is coach under Jerry Jones. The great Bill Parcells couldn't do it and neither could Jimmy.


it took Garret far less than "decades" to build this current team he had.......and he had to do it with a meddling owner who thinks he's head coach/gm.

Garrett is a joke, its that simple. And Garrett doesnt roster build.

 

[Miller]

That doesn't equate to a fair shot. A fair shot would be letting him have full control of this team and Jerry collecting checks and being a spectator.

I get what your trying to say about JJ but it IS a fair shot when you have almost no coordinator experience and are made coach in waiting behind a coach just because JJ thinks of you and your family highly. There was nothing justifying a future with his experience and he proved it with his in game moves the first 3 yrs. The long term experiment may work but in coaching alone I'm not sure what we've seen so far.

 

[cowboyblue22]

with all the suspensions and trouble with this team there is something not right someone I don't know who needs to get some sort of control over the players for the cowboys

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That's the thing, it's never his fault. We stopped Rodgers in Green Bay. Why not at home?

Another poster had it in the other garrett thread:



We didn't stop him because we tried to do the exact same thing defensively we did previously and it didn't work. GB changed their attack, why did it take until the second half for us to adjust? Couldn't our HC recognize this?

Why did we come out flat? When you have the back we have, why are we using Dunbar on third down? Was not one of the skills raved about Zeke the fact that he was a 3-down complete back with extraordinary blocking skills and above average receiving skills? Was he not virtually unstoppable in short yardage? So why would you not use him in your home playoff game and going forward in those situations when you "rested" him for the playoffs? That's a head coaching decision. That's preparation, game planning, game management.

By your logic, we haven't and won't win, in the playoffs and beyond, until we field a virtual all-star team. Period. Yet, in today's NFL, other coaches are doing it and have done it. You say that you attribute "some" in-game coaching mistakes to garrett that were so horrid they could not be denied, but other than that, its seems you believe that he's done a bang-up job and you point to people moving goal posts etc. to not give him the credit. The facts are that as we have acquired more talent and taken more direct responsibility from him, the team has produced better results on the field. And no, I don't give him 'credit" for the talent as the only instances where we have seen his direct known input were guys who are no longer here or negligible impact. The OL overhaul was a necessity. We had old guys with big contracts and injuries. That overhaul and the addition of Linehan led to, when successful, an offense that was the antithesis of what was installed when garrett was brought in and what he's always been about, particularly as a play caller, the pass heavy Romo offense. An offense that failed unless Romo was there to make magic. The biggest "credit" I see, really the only consistent thing people try to attribute to him is that the team "doesn't quit." Weak sauce. Romo drove the team previously and Dak has now stepped in and is doing the same. I give the credit to the guys that deserve it, the players. Also, we've got a young team. Young guys are way less likely to quit than long-time veterans.

Personally, I don't care for him because I think it speaks to his character the way he never steps up and takes the blame when things go wrong, what appeared to me his willingness to sabotage Wade, and most of all, to have the man who hired him publically refer to him as being "in training" and to just going along. That's unbelievable to me that a HC in the NFL would just take his owner as referring to him as a "coach in training." Of course, he really couldn't refute it either. It's not like he could point to some extensive coaching history. Ultimately, what jason has proven to me is that he is not HC material. Period. Preparation, game planning, game management - time after time when the lights are brightest, he fails in these areas and it is shown by the results on the field. Some guys learn, improve and get better. Some get laser focused when the pressure rises. He seems to repeat the same mistakes and not meet the raised bar of the postseason.

On offense, we exploited Dez against their corners and were able to run the ball 20+ times to great effect despite being down 3 scores in the early second quarter. In general the offense is predicated on getting mismatches with Dez, Beasley, Witten, and the massive offensive line and exploiting single or open coverage for everyone else. I can go farther about how they adjust routes in terms of depth to attack defenses as well.

On defense, when our DE were ineffective for the most part particularly the second unit we went to the 3 man fronts and got a ton of stops for the meat of the game. In general Marinelli is a conservative playcaller but we were blitzing frequently after adjustments were made in the second half of the season.

That is both exploiting mismatches and covering them respectively. We did it game after game after game and have done so since Murray emerged as a running threat 3 years ago.

The hypothesis that Garrett does not exploit mismatches or is mindlessly conservative does not bear out. He is even around league average in attempts on 4th down and gadget plays. Half our passes are playaction yet I frequently hear we don't do that.

As for players not improving and the same mistakes being made over and again that is just absurd. He was icing his kicker and using TO like a ninny 5 years ago not last season, his roster is a who's who of player development, and player acquisition in both the draft and FA has morphed under he and Stephen's watch.

 

[Idgit]

That's the thing, it's never his fault. We stopped Rodgers in Green Bay. Why not at home?

Another poster had it in the other garrett thread:

We didn't stop him because we tried to do the exact same thing defensively we did previously and it didn't work. GB changed their attack, why did it take until the second half for us to adjust? Couldn't our HC recognize this?

Why did we come out flat? When you have the back we have, why are we using Dunbar on third down? Was not one of the skills raved about Zeke the fact that he was a 3-down complete back with extraordinary blocking skills and above average receiving skills? Was he not virtually unstoppable in short yardage? So why would you not use him in your home playoff game and going forward in those situations when you "rested" him for the playoffs? That's a head coaching decision...

It's not that it's never his fault. It's sometimes it's fault, but he's always getting blamed by somebody whether it's his fault, or not.

If you want to blame him for that GB game, blame he and Marinelli both for thinking they could substitute on Aaron Rodgers. That's something they definitely decided to do, practiced doing it quickly throughout the week, and then blew it almost immediately because their hyped-up players were celebrating tackles instead of doing what they were supposed to do. You've got Sean Lee 25 yards downfield singled up on a TE in the end zone? That's a mismatch. Pile on the staff for it.

"He didn't have them ready to play" is a platitude that sounds good, but doesn't actually mean anything. Players aren't wind-up toys. You put together a game plan during the week, emphasize the same things you emphasize all year long. The playoffs aren't any different. What's different is the guys you're playing are better. If they stall a drive with a great PD on Dez on 3rd down, and you do not match it the first three drives, you're down 21-3. A coach chewing out your *** on the sidelines or giving a pep-talk isn't going to change things. What changes things is hitting the QB or covering longer and better on the back end of plays.

We have cut corners and taken risks on defense for a long time. We have a bunch of solid players who understand the relatively simple scheme we run, but we lack actual playmakers on that side of the football. We have one. Until we have more, we're going to be at a disadvantage against offenses who have more than one playmaker. That's all there is to it, and it's not something we're going to be able to coach around. Maybe Belichick could, but that's not an option for us. So it comes down to outscoring them. Easy to do against bad teams. Easy enough to do against mediocre ones. Against elite teams, you're in a crap shoot. One where a drive-killing penalty or a breakdown in coverage can get you beat, even at home.

The good news is, we draft and develop better than most teams right now. And we have a clear cap. Which means we should be closing that talent gap each year going forward. *That* means *****ing about a 13-3 team that's in position to compete is misguided. These are salad days. Our fans should be enjoying them. Instead, we get 20 page threads about how the NFL HCotY is actually one of the very worst coaches in the entire league and anybody who doesn't see it is a homer. You know, rational discussions using available evidence.

 

[SlammedZero]

And yet a week later Green Bay got shut down by an Atlanta defense that was statistically inferior to ours. They were hardly some sort of juggernaut.

Last I looked Atlanta had the NFL sack leader on their defensive line. I could start there and hardly call that inferior.

 

[odog422]

It's not that it's never his fault. It's sometimes it's fault, but he's always getting blamed by somebody whether it's his fault, or not.

If you want to blame him for that GB game, blame he and Marinelli both for thinking they could substitute on Aaron Rodgers. That's something they definitely decided to do, practiced doing it quickly throughout the week, and then blew it almost immediately because their hyped-up players were celebrating tackles instead of doing what they were supposed to do. You've got Sean Lee 25 yards downfield singled up on a TE in the end zone? That's a mismatch. Pile on the staff for it.

"He didn't have them ready to play" is a platitude that sounds good, but doesn't actually mean anything. Players aren't wind-up toys. You put together a game plan during the week, emphasize the same things you emphasize all year long. The playoffs aren't any different. What's different is the guys you're playing are better. If they stall a drive with a great PD on Dez on 3rd down, and you do not match it the first three drives, you're down 21-3. A coach chewing out your *** on the sidelines or giving a pep-talk isn't going to change things. What changes things is hitting the QB or covering longer and better on the back end of plays.

We have cut corners and taken risks on defense for a long time. We have a bunch of solid players who understand the relatively simple scheme we run, but we lack actual playmakers on that side of the football. We have one. Until we have more, we're going to be at a disadvantage against offenses who have more than one playmaker. That's all there is to it, and it's not something we're going to be able to coach around. Maybe Belichick could, but that's not an option for us. So it comes down to outscoring them. Easy to do against bad teams. Easy enough to do against mediocre ones. Against elite teams, you're in a crap shoot. One where a drive-killing penalty or a breakdown in coverage can get you beat, even at home.

The good news is, we draft and develop better than most teams right now. And we have a clear cap. Which means we should be closing that talent gap each year going forward. *That* means *****ing about a 13-3 team that's in position to compete is misguided. These are salad days. Our fans should be enjoying them. Instead, we get 20 page threads about how the NFL HCotY is actually one of the very worst coaches in the entire league and anybody who doesn't see it is a homer. You know, rational discussions using available evidence.

I really don't see where you assess blame to him for anything other than some really bad game management decisions. But all successes you seem to want to tie to him. Seems inconsistent to me.

The example you provide for the GB game is a good example. Marinelli answers to garrett, or is supposed to, anyway. That game is one where the HC should say to his DC "that won't work this week because that's what Rodger's does," or, as HC, you instill the discipline in your players to keep their heads in the game for that very reason. Same as the end game completion - you're the HC and you've seen your defense claw back in the game how? By bringing pressure. So last play and they need 20+ yard for a first so what do you do? You tell your DC to bring the house because not once have you had success playing zone and giving Rodgers time. These are key decisions where the HC steps in and asserts his authority and knowledge. Just doesn't seem to happen. He seems to be along for the ride and then diverting blame if it blows up.

You may want to dismiss "not ready to play" and point to better competition. I say that means that your team has to up its level of play. So your argument is then, that, we are good but not playoff material because the competition is better? The down big or not playing well is not new on that stage under garrett.

Again, Belichick is not the only coach to make it to the super bowl since garrett has been head coach and there have been no dominant teams like there used to be, not since the advent of the cap. That's where coaching comes in - highlight your strengths and minimize your weaknesses. Not once have I felt we were at a coaching advantage, heard any commentator talk about some sort of advantage garrett brings or the like. It's unfortunate. Yes, I know CoY award but others have pointed out the politics behind that award as well as provided past winners to indicate how it certainly is not an indicator of some sort of coaching hotshot, or even top notch coach. Its a kind of defacto award is the point, not necessarily an indicator of coaching prowess.

I agree that we are drafting better and managing the cap better - not because of garrett mind you - and maybe one day we'll be able to field almost as many pro bowlers on defense as we have on offense and then garrett, or any other person who happens to be coach at that time, will be successful.

By the way, you're way off about me and my team. I'm not *****ing about my team. I love and support my team and love watching them play. I've been a Cowboys fan long before Jerry Jones and will be until I'm 6 feet under. I'm disappointed that my team has an owner who is more interested in proving that his pick of unqualified yes man for OC/HC is correct than hiring someone who could've maximized the opportunities for success that were available for his team with the hire of a qualified and experienced OC/HC. I get it that the horse has left the barn etc., and it gives me acid burn when I see what I believe to be lack of success in certain situations by my team because of it. I just believe Lombardi was on point in what he described as to what is not brought to the table, and hasn't been, by the current HC of my Cowboys.

 

[Idgit]

I really don't see where you assess blame to him for anything other than some really bad game management decisions. But all successes you seem to want to tie to him. Seems inconsistent to me.

The example you provide for the GB game is a good example. Marinelli answers to garrett, or is supposed to, anyway. That game is one where the HC should say to his DC "that won't work this week because that's what Rodger's does," or, as HC, you instill the discipline in your players to keep their heads in the game for that very reason. Same as the end game completion - you're the HC and you've seen your defense claw back in the game how? By bringing pressure. So last play and they need 20+ yard for a first so what do you do? You tell your DC to bring the house because not once have you had success playing zone and giving Rodgers time. These are key decisions where the HC steps in and asserts his authority and knowledge. Just doesn't seem to happen. He seems to be along for the ride and then diverting blame if it blows up.

You may want to dismiss "not ready to play" and point to better competition. I say that means that your team has to up its level of play. So your argument is then, that, we are good but not playoff material because the competition is better? The down big or not playing well is not new on that stage under garrett.

Again, Belichick is not the only coach to make it to the super bowl since garrett has been head coach and there have been no dominant teams like there used to be, not since the advent of the cap. That's where coaching comes in - highlight your strengths and minimize your weaknesses. Not once have I felt we were at a coaching advantage, heard any commentator talk about some sort of advantage garrett brings or the like. It's unfortunate. Yes, I know CoY award but others have pointed out the politics behind that award as well as provided past winners to indicate how it certainly is not an indicator of some sort of coaching hotshot, or even top notch coach. Its a kind of defacto award is the point, not necessarily an indicator of coaching prowess.

I agree that we are drafting better and managing the cap better - not because of garrett mind you - and maybe one day we'll be able to field almost as many pro bowlers on defense as we have on offense and then garrett, or any other person who happens to be coach at that time, will be successful.

By the way, you're way off about me and my team. I'm not *****ing about my team. I love and support my team and love watching them play. I've been a Cowboys fan long before Jerry Jones and will be until I'm 6 feet under. I'm disappointed that my team has an owner who is more interested in proving that his pick of unqualified yes man for OC/HC is correct than hiring someone who could've maximized the opportunities for success that were available for his team with the hire of a qualified and experienced OC/HC. I get it that the horse has left the barn etc., and it gives me acid burn when I see what I believe to be lack of success in certain situations by my team because of it. I just believe Lombardi was on point in what he described as to what is not brought to the table, and hasn't been, by the current HC of my Cowboys.

I mentioned the decision to try to substitute specifically because it's an area where Garrett was responsible and it was a bad decision. There are other specific examples. There's a lot that can go wrong in a football game. But the point is that much of what gets complained about instead is either squishy stuff like 'he didn't have his team ready to play,' (which is code for 'we lost, but I'm not sure why') or its second guessing of play outcomes that didn't work and assuming a different call would have been successful instead. The reality is that our offense is usually really successful relative to the rest of the league. Our defense is not.

And I'm sure you're a loyal fan. I didn't suggest otherwise. Thousands of loyal fans ***** about their favorite teams. Even after successful seasons.

If you really think Garrett is unqualified to be a HC in this league, there's little point in debating it. That's so far from what I consider a reasonable argument, there's no getting back to reality easily from here.

 

[CyberB0b]

I haven't really ever felt like we went into a game with a big Xs and Os advantage. He's a good motivator, but terrible at game management and football strategy. He still makes gross game management errors, even after his OC duties were stripped from him.

 

[MileyDancer]

If you really think Garrett is unqualified to be a HC in this league, there's little point in debating it. That's so far from what I consider a reasonable argument, there's no getting back to reality easily from here.

Then quit debating it.

 

[Idgit]

Then quit debating it.

I think this is the only exchange I've had with odog on the topic, and the post you quoted was me saying there was no reason to debate it with him further.

I might debate specific criticism of coaching as they come up, since they come up multiple times a day in multiple threads. But there's no point trying to have a constructive conversation with somebody who doesn't believe he's qualified to coach in the league at all. He's won 58 games and has a .558 win percentage in six full seasons. I mean, at some point some of you guys have to realize how overboard and completely indefensible some of the criticism is.

In the mean time, there are a lot of us who enjoy reasonable debates about the topic in general.

 

[odog422]

I mentioned the decision to try to substitute specifically because it's an area where Garrett was responsible and it was a bad decision. There are other specific examples. There's a lot that can go wrong in a football game. But the point is that much of what gets complained about instead is either squishy stuff like 'he didn't have his team ready to play,' (which is code for 'we lost, but I'm not sure why') or its second guessing of play outcomes that didn't work and assuming a different call would have been successful instead. The reality is that our offense is usually really successful relative to the rest of the league. Our defense is not.

And I'm sure you're a loyal fan. I didn't suggest otherwise. Thousands of loyal fans ***** about their favorite teams. Even after successful seasons.

If you really think Garrett is unqualified to be a HC in this league, there's little point in debating it. That's so far from what I consider a reasonable argument, there's no getting back to reality easily from here.

Appreciate the acknowledgement that garrett made a bad decision. Agreed, there is lots that can go wrong in a football game. However, Lombardi's post spoke to generalities about what Jason brings, or doesn't bring, to the sideline. I referred back to that in my post and stayed away from specific examples because I agreed with his overall premise.

When I talked about him being qualified, I was speaking to when Jerry hired him as OC/HC. He was definitely not qualified based strictly on his coaching resume, if you want to call a couple years as a QB coach a "resume." As for your premise that the fact that he's still coaching in the league as now making him qualified, I say that's more about who hired him and why they hired him than anything that he has done.

I think, objectively speaking, if he was the HC of another team and had made the exact same gaffes that he's made to date he would've been fired by now. Most of all, as I said before, because he repeats the same mistakes and doesn't seem to be get his team to rise when the stakes do.

Attribute it to what you like, but I really can't remember when we went into a game and I felt like we were way overmatched from the beginning. Funny part is, when expectations are lowest, we seem to do well (at GB last year, in Seattle 2014). I put that on the coach. Or lack of a good one.

Appreciate the last comment that my difference of opinion represents me not living in reality. Don't think I suggested you were delusional for your opinion but, hey, that's me. It's just not that serious.

 

[Idgit]

Appreciate the acknowledgement that garrett made a bad decision. Agreed, there is lots that can go wrong in a football game. However, Lombardi's post spoke to generalities about what Jason brings, or doesn't bring, to the sideline. I referred back to that in my post and stayed away from specific examples because I agreed with his overall premise.

When I talked about him being qualified, I was speaking to when Jerry hired him as OC/HC. He was definitely not qualified based strictly on his coaching resume, if you want to call a couple years as a QB coach a "resume." As for your premise that the fact that he's still coaching in the league as now making him qualified, I say that's more about who hired him and why they hired him than anything that he has done.

I think, objectively speaking, if he was the HC of another team and had made the exact same gaffes that he's made to date he would've been fired by now. Most of all, as I said before, because he repeats the same mistakes and doesn't seem to be get his team to rise when the stakes do.

Attribute it to what you like, but I really can't remember when we went into a game and I felt like we were way overmatched from the beginning. Funny part is, when expectations are lowest, we seem to do well (at GB last year, in Seattle 2014). I put that on the coach. Or lack of a good one.

Appreciate the last comment that my difference of opinion represents me not living in reality. Don't think I suggested you were delusional for your opinion but, hey, that's me. It's just not that serious.

Jason does lots of things wrong. He said in a press conference after one of his early seasons back when he was calling plays that there are 4-5 calls every game he wishes he had back. He's straight up bungled game management, too, though he's improved in that regard over time. That comes with the territory when you make enough calls.

The Lombardi criticism was click-fluff. He's entitled to his opinion, but if it's not specific, it's just a guy taking shots at the coach of a 13-3 team because he knows fans will read and react to it.

I disagree that JG wasn't qualified when he was hired. And submit as evidence what I always submit that BAL, ATL, and the Rams were all reported to have interest in him at one point or another as their head coach. He hadn't held the position previously, but more than one GM considered him qualified, and all it really ought to take is one.

And, if you took my comment about your difference of opinion personally, it wasn't what I intended. You qualified your argument, and I don't think it's delusional at all. Though I also won't get offended if you told me one of my points was not worth arguing for a similar reason.