Norv Turner versus Jason Garrett in Play Design

[Idgit]

I can honestly say this was the final straw for me as far as respecting Garrett and eliminated the possibility of ever being capable of being convinced he has a plan, knows what he is doing and is in control.

Because you hadn't realized prior that we hired a QB coach with the intention to groom him to be a long term head coach? Interesting.

 

[Alexander]

Because you hadn't realized prior that we hired a QB coach with the intention to groom him to be a long term head coach? Interesting.

Everyone knew exactly what Jones was doing when he hired Garrett and even considered him for head coach before hiring Phillips and starting the Jason Garrett head coach education program.

That does not make it any smarter than Al Davis hiring Lane Kiffin who had ten years of coaching experience.

It is not Garrett's fault he hired him for a prominent role with less coaching experience than average, but I value my football team a little more than to preach patience for nothing other than Jerry Jones' desire for his pet to eventually get it.

 

[Idgit]

Everyone knew exactly what Jones was doing when he hired Garrett and even considered him for head coach before hiring Phillips and starting the Jason Garrett head coach education program.

That does not make it any smarter than Al Davis hiring Lane Kiffin who had ten years of coaching experience.

It is not Garrett's fault he hired him for a prominent role with less coaching experience than average, but I value my football team a little more than to preach patience for nothing other than Jerry Jones' desire for his pet to eventually get it.

That's fine, I guess. I don't follow that chain of reasoning, but clearly it's what you'd like to believe. But if you knew that already, why does Jones publicly saying make it the last straw for you? It was obvious we hired a coach who was in demand at that time in order to groom him for the HC position. Saying so publicly doesn't show badly on him or on that decision in any way.

If the criticism were Jones' undermining Garrett with the comment, I'd agree completely. It was a stupid thing to say from a guy who says stupid things with some regularity. But it's not any reason to give up on the coach.

 

[Alexander]

That's fine, I guess. I don't follow that chain of reasoning, but clearly it's what you'd like to believe. But if you knew that already, why does Jones publicly saying make it the last straw for you?

Absolutely it was. Garrett sitting there and taking that kind of insult also showed me what he is all about. That kind of comment is unprecedented. And barely a peep from Garrett.

It was obvious we hired a coach who was in demand at that time in order to groom him for the HC position. Saying so publicly doesn't show badly on him or on that decision in any way.

Actually it does. It shows that despite Jones' glowing comments from time to time about Garrett's intellect, he clearly does not respect him and feels he is better to describe as a personal project than the head coach of this football team that he has entrusted fully to do his job.

If the criticism were Jones' undermining Garrett with the comment, I'd agree completely. It was a stupid thing to say from a guy who says stupid things with some regularity. But it's not any reason to give up on the coach.

It is two fold. Jones undermined him and Garrett does not seem to mind. It seems that he has seen Jones run over his head coaches before so he is fine with the "ambiguity".

 

[Idgit]

Absolutely it was. Garrett sitting there and taking that kind of insult also showed me what he is all about. That kind of comment is unprecedented. And barely a peep from Garrett.

Actually it does. It shows that despite Jones' glowing comments from time to time about Garrett's intellect, he clearly does not respect him and feels he is better to describe as a personal project than the head coach of this football team that he has entrusted fully to do his job.

It is two fold. Jones undermined him and Garrett does not seem to mind. It seems that he has seen Jones run over his head coaches before so he is fine with the "ambiguity".

He probably doesn't see the fact that he's had to develop his skills from a QB coach to a HC to be an insult. He probably sees it as obvious. Now, Jerry pointing it out again at this juncture isn't helpful. You're twisting it dramatically though, if you want to characterize it as disrespect.

And, it's been pointed out many times that the context here is the process for developing not just any coach, but one that's capable of building a team that would compete for championships. The fact that there aren't many of those around, because they are hard to develop makes it even less plausible that anyone should take Jones' comments as insulting or disrespectful.

And, finally, 'lol' at the idea that what JG should have done in response should have been to contradict Jerry publicly about the comment. 'Peeping' would have been the worst possible thing he could have done.

 

[Beast_from_East]

I actually like Garrett less involved in the offense now with Linehan coming on board

I see it as a positive

 

[jobberone]

I actually like Garrett less involved in the offense now with Linehan coming on board

I see it as a positive

Nicely said. You should be a politician. I like Garrett the leader and I like the fact he's bringing people in to try and improve the product. I see that as a positive as well although Garrett will be involved in the offense.

 

[PJTHEDOORS]

Garrett is such a great offensive mind that team management wants him to have nothing to do with the offense

A cook who is not allowed in the kitchen except to wash dishes

Makes perfect sense

And this is the guy who will lead this team to the promised land?

Yes, great in his mind.

 

[Zekeats]

I can honestly say this was the final straw for me as far as respecting Garrett and eliminated the possibility of ever being capable of being convinced he has a plan, knows what he is doing and is in control.

You had respect for Garrett?

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I don't have a problem with a walk around coach. It's been done for decades and is still the predominant way around the league. The only advantage of having a coach that calls plays is that you don't have to worry about finding a great play-calling mind and then having him get hired by another team.

Garrett's scheme is not out-dated. Anybody who thinks that doesn't really watch the NFL. The scheme is quite prevalent. He's just a lousy play-caller. He doesn't understand how to use the run to his advantage and if an opposing D-Coordinator stymies the offense in the first half, he struggles to adjust for the rest of the game.

I think the feeling around the league is that Garrett was supposed to be the next great coach. He was a former QB in the league that graduated from Princeton. His father was a long-time assistant coach and scout. He supposedly is a great interview for coaches and NFL executives. He's been praised by Nick Saban. But the fact remains is that he has been incredibly underwhelming as a head coach.

One could argue that he has a lack of experience, but you would think that somebody with his background would be much more advanced at this point in time.






YR

 

[Beast_from_East]

I don't have a problem with a walk around coach. It's been done for decades and is still the predominant way around the league. The only advantage of having a coach that calls plays is that you don't have to worry about finding a great play-calling mind and then having him get hired by another team.

Garrett's scheme is not out-dated. Anybody who thinks that doesn't really watch the NFL. The scheme is quite prevalent. He's just a lousy play-caller. He doesn't understand how to use the run to his advantage and if an opposing D-Coordinator stymies the offense in the first half, he struggles to adjust for the rest of the game.

I think the feeling around the league is that Garrett was supposed to be the next great coach. He was a former QB in the league that graduated from Princeton. His father was a long-time assistant coach and scout. He supposedly is a great interview for coaches and NFL executives. He's been praised by Nick Saban. But the fact remains is that he has been incredibly underwhelming as a head coach.

One could argue that he has a lack of experience, but you would think that somebody with his background would be much more advanced at this point in time.






YR

Good analysis YR..................I agree with everything you said.

I do think Garrett might be a victim of his own circumstances. Like you said, he was packaged and sold to the fan base as the next Tom Landry. The expectations were through the roof (probably unfairly so) but it is what it is. Now when Garrett started botching games and looking completely clueless, a lot of those expectations where shattered that folks had and the realization became clear that he is not the next Tom Landry, he is just a very inexperienced first time head coach.

 

[cml750]

I don't have a problem with a walk around coach. It's been done for decades and is still the predominant way around the league. The only advantage of having a coach that calls plays is that you don't have to worry about finding a great play-calling mind and then having him get hired by another team.

Garrett's scheme is not out-dated. Anybody who thinks that doesn't really watch the NFL. The scheme is quite prevalent. He's just a lousy play-caller. He doesn't understand how to use the run to his advantage and if an opposing D-Coordinator stymies the offense in the first half, he struggles to adjust for the rest of the game.

I think the feeling around the league is that Garrett was supposed to be the next great coach. He was a former QB in the league that graduated from Princeton. His father was a long-time assistant coach and scout. He supposedly is a great interview for coaches and NFL executives. He's been praised by Nick Saban. But the fact remains is that he has been incredibly underwhelming as a head coach.

One could argue that he has a lack of experience, but you would think that somebody with his background would be much more advanced at this point in time.

Good analysis YR..................I agree with everything you said.

I do think Garrett might be a victim of his own circumstances. Like you said, he was packaged and sold to the fan base as the next Tom Landry. The expectations were through the roof (probably unfairly so) but it is what it is. Now when Garrett started botching games and looking completely clueless, a lot of those expectations where shattered that folks had and the realization became clear that he is not the next Tom Landry, he is just a very inexperienced first time head coach.

Agree completely with both of you. I am also utterly flabbergasted at his numerous clock gaffes. You would think a guy who has been around football his entire life would have a small sense of how to operate a clock to either save time when they are behind or speed it up when they are ahead but Garrett is utterly clueless when it comes to clock management.

 

[khiladi]

I was told on this board that the Cowboys offense of the 90s with Norv was simple and they would just line them up and go. This was primarily to excuse Garrett's playbook and when teams were calling Garrett's play-calling as simple and everybody knowing what was coming. Those familiar with Norv were saying from the beginning that he could call multiple different looks from the same formation and Greg Jennings is telling us it's mind-numbing. What's the next excuse?

 

[Maxmadden]

I was told on this board that the Cowboys offense of the 90s with Norv was simple and they would just line them up and go. This was primarily to excuse Garrett's playbook and when teams were calling Garrett's play-calling as simple and everybody knowing what was coming. Those familiar with Norv were saying from the beginning that he could call multiple different looks from the same formation and Greg Jennings is telling us it's mind-numbing. What's the next excuse?

Because it always boils down to execution. Every play that is called is by design, supposed to work. You have to have the players to execute it.

 

[tantrix1969]

Because it always boils down to execution. Every play that is called is by design, supposed to work. You have to have the players to execute it.

You can say that about any play for any team, offense or defense. The good coaches call plays that have the best chance of being executed as designed by the personnel they have

 

[Wolfpack]

Because it always boils down to execution. Every play that is called is by design, supposed to work. You have to have the players to execute it.

It takes either superior talent or tactical surprise to out execute another team. Its the NFL, even the guys riding the pine are studs and have seen tons of football and it very hard in the current age of the NFL to assemble a team that can dominate. I think its a cop out to say "go beat your man deep every play" as a coach and it really comes off as just another scape goat for Red. He throws everyone under the bus but himself…thats the opposite of a leader.

Norv can get tactical surprise by his sets and calls, talent is another matter. Opie had his play calling taken away he was so bad with his game flow and situational calling…how many years of players calling him out as predictable does it take to see his pattern? Coach Jones benched him finally as a play caller. How bad is that?

 

[Maxmadden]

It takes either superior talent or tactical surprise to out execute another team. Its the NFL, even the guys riding the pine are studs and have seen tons of football and it very hard in the current age of the NFL to assemble a team that can dominate. I think its a cop out to say "go beat your man deep every play" as a coach and it really comes off as just another scape goat for Red. He throws everyone under the bus but himself…thats the opposite of a leader.

Norv can get tactical surprise by his sets and calls, talent is another matter. Opie had his play calling taken away he was so bad with his game flow and situational calling…how many years of players calling him out as predictable does it take to see his pattern? Coach Jones benched him finally as a play caller. How bad is that?

Norv was coaching one of the best teams of all time. He had a better QB, RB, WR, OL, DL, LB, DB, and special teams, and more depth.

Norv could call any play he wanted to because he knew more than likely his offense would execute and if they didn't they would trot the no. 1 defense out on the field to cover his arse.. I loved NV because he was truly unpredictable but my contention was that comparing Norv Turner to Jason Garrett is like comparing apples to oranges because they aren't playing on the same field.

 

[visionary]

I was told on this board that the Cowboys offense of the 90s with Norv was simple and they would just line them up and go. This was primarily to excuse Garrett's playbook and when teams were calling Garrett's play-calling as simple and everybody knowing what was coming. Those familiar with Norv were saying from the beginning that he could call multiple different looks from the same formation and Greg Jennings is telling us it's mind-numbing. What's the next excuse?

Great post

Excuse #2: players are too stupid

Well...... Who drafted those players?

Crickets

 

[visionary]

Because it always boils down to execution. Every play that is called is by design, supposed to work. You have to have the players to execute it.

Execution of plays requires discipline and accountability
Garrett's teams have neither

You know what they say about a bad workman..... Right?

He quarrels with his tools