Pederson said what

[Dre11]

No, they're stupid.

Were they stupid last season?

 

[Bobhaze]

I thought it was a process.

The sad thing is that “process” includes some bad habits and decisions at the top of this organization. Right now “the process” is to repeat the same mistakes.

 

[cern]

So it took a good qb (a player) to execute his plays, right? It took the Eagles to spend in Free agency on "players" . The year before that, they were calling Pederson the worst hire and ready to run him out of philly. Of course you value a good coach, but ultimately it's on the players.

by your line of thought, why have coaches at all. just a good gm and the players should be enough.

 

[Direwolf63]

It's the coaches job to put players in position to succeed through schemes and tactics. Then it's up to the players to execute.

We have neither.

 

[Sydla]

They were, right? Or it was a case where he's a great fit for their offense due to his connections with Pederson. There's no denying he's played great in the NFCCG. But I pointed out the big plays for you. A terrific throw downfield on a trick play (and a great call) design to suck in the over-the-top coverage, and a huge bomb on a play where the WR was wide open because the coverage fell down. I'm not making it up. He still had to make the throws, and Cowboys fans know better than most that's not always easy to get a QB to do, but that's not the same thing as saying he's successful because of the coaching.

They actually altered the offense for Foles to take advantage of what he does well and doesn't do well.

It's called "coaching".

 

[G2]

That's BS.

Coaches can absolutely affect the outcome of a play soley based on the play they call to begin with.

Agreed. 1st and goal WITH Elliott inside the 5 yard line and we pass every play. Sorry, but if your OC is too stupid to run the ball regardless of how obvious, the players can't always be held responsible for not "executing."

 

[CATCH17]

Were they stupid last season?

Yes..

They overcome their stupidness with guys up front that impose their will.

 

[jazzcat22]

So we've had stupid players for 23 years?

Yes, have you seen some of the stupid plays and penalties that have cost us games over this time period...but still comes down to some coaching and discipline.

 

[Sydla]

Agreed. 1st and goal WITH Elliott inside the 5 yard line and we pass every play. Sorry, but if your OC is too stupid to run the ball regardless of how obvious, the players can't always be held responsible for not "executing."

And again, execution of plays falls on a coaching staff as it does the players. It's no surprise that the better teams in the league, year in and year out, tend to execute at a much higher level than other teams. Because, largely, of coaching and weekly prep, etc.

The extent of the coaches' responsibility isn't just calling the right play, their responsibility goes well beyond that.......... execution, adjustments, adaptability to the players at their disposal. All areas that Garrett and his staff have struggled at times.

It's patently obvious that this belief that as soon as the play is called it's all the players' fault is a predictable response from those that have long been defensive of Garrett.

 

[cern]

Right! And then ironically, they started building the O line because Romo was getting his *** kicked.

according to some of the local dfw sports reporters, that was a demand made by tony as he negotiated a new deal. nagy, Kowalski, livings, costa and bernadeau just weren't getting the job done.

 

[Dre11]

First of all, what does the fact Garrett could have had a job in Baltimore matter at this point? They are not an infallible organization. Although I guess there's a good chance they'd have crap canned Garrett well before we did if he had the same level of success he's had here.

The end result is all that matters and not one coach Jones hired has gone onto be a better HC somewhere else. So it's not like Gailey was jut stunted by Jones and once he got free from Jones' clutches, he proved to be a great HC. Jerry hires crappy head coaches. That's pretty obvious at this point.

That's quite a cop out on the execution commentary. The reality is this......... teams with good head coaches often out "execute" and often out-scheme other coaches. So this constant movement here by some to try to minimize the importance of a good head coach is laughable.

Him having a job in B-more an organization that has been praised for having a good/great DO also felt Garrett was good for the job. Isn't that what we're talking about, competent Dos?

It's not a cop out, players make plays, there's no way around it. The coach has no control of that. Belichick went to Cleveland, had no players,couldn't win. Jimmy to Miami, no players, couldn't win, Jon Gruden Oakland,no players ,couldn't win.

 

[cern]

So why weren't they laughing last season? When Zeke wasn't there, it was easy to laugh then, they knew they had a wounded duck.

they were. that's exactly to what I was referring.

 

[Proof]

Lol I’m sure Garrett feels the same way, would just say it to throw players under the bus rather than to give them credit

 

[cern]

Him having a job in B-more an organization that has been praised for having a good/great DO also felt Garrett was good for the job. Isn't that what we're talking about, competent Dos?

It's not a cop out, players make plays, there's no way around it. The coach has no control of that. Belichick went to Cleveland, had no players,couldn't win. Jimmy to Miami, no players, couldn't win, Jon Gruden Oakland,no players ,couldn't win.

if i'm not mistaken, jimmy's team's in Miami went to the playoffs every year he was there. if not for Huizinga refusing to let jimmy make a deal for marino, it might have been even better. gruden was winning at Oakland. but he had a riff with al davis. that's why he left. new England was not a talent rich team when belichik went there. he is arguably the best hc ever in the nfl.

 

[Dre11]

That's BS.

Coaches can absolutely affect the outcome of a play soley based on the play they call to begin with.

Lol...you're crazy if you believe that. It takes every player to do their job in sync to make a play work. It's execution and you'll here every coach say that.

 

[Idgit]

It's hyperbole to prove a point. You clearly are trying to mitigate the importance of high quality coaching. I mean your examination of the Eagles game is laughable. When Robinson returned that pick, it only made the game 7-7. From then on, the Eagles offense steamrolled the Vikes defense, with a BACK UP QB. Doesn't matter if Foles was new or not, their coaching staff drew up a game plan that exploited a Vikes D and did it with a backup QB........ oh and a backup LT that somehow didn't implode against a ferocious pass rush because Philly slid protections, etc.

Its embarrassing at this point that some of you are now going into the coaching is that important tank to defend Garrett.

Laughable. Ha. I pointed out three giant plays in that game that had a runaway impact on the outcome. The pick-6 was the first of 24 unanswered points and maybe the single biggest play in that game. I might also have mentioned the Barnett's (new player) strip sack on the series after the Blount TD where the Vikes were driving to tie it up again. The series after that was the Jeffries play where Newman fell down and it was 21-7 on the road with the Vikes down 0-2 in TOs and had already given up a defensive score. Teams don't come back from that.

So let's put aside your claim that what I said was 'laughable.' And let's also agree that I'm not trying to 'mitigate' the role of game day coaching and am simply correcting you for overvaluing it. So. You think it's coaching we should be looking at. I'm totally open to hearing about how that's the case. Do you have anything to support your argument besides the point you've made previously that their injury replacements played well? Since that can be a by-product of either coaching or personnel, it's not persuasive. So what else do you got? You like the game plan they drew up where the plays all worked? You want to reiterate again the point about the backups and use ALL CAPS so we know how much you mean it?

Give me something to really sink my teeth into here as to why you're convinced that--despite the fact that new players have accounted for *100% of the Eagles postseason scoring so far,* the actual difference is the head coach who took them to 7-9 the season before has gotten so much better this year. If it's embarrassing that what I'm saying is just to defend Jason Garrett, it ought to be easy to show me just how wrong I am.

 

[Dre11]

by your line of thought, why have coaches at all. just a good gm and the players should be enough.

I never said you didn't need coaches, what I said was it's the execution that makes a play work or determine success.

 

[Whyjerry]

The sad thing is that “process” includes some bad habits and decisions at the top of this organization. Right now “the process” is to repeat the same mistakes.

I think you just described the clinical definition of insanity...

 

[Dre11]

Yes..

They overcome their stupidness with guys up front that impose their will.

Lol...that is stupid, before Zeke suspension this year the offense was putting points on the board. Last season they were doing it with rookies....lol

 

[cern]

I never said you didn't need coaches, what I said was it's the execution that makes a play work or determine success.

and that execution is taught, on the chalk board and on the practice field by the coaches. do you think it is coincidental that dez, Beasley, t.will and butler all regressed this past season? of was it attributable to poor coaching? I say the latter. belichik would have gotten much more out of them and dak.