Question about Garrett

[bysbox1]

I wouldn't hate having Cowher here in the least bit. I'm not sure if he wants to get into coaching. A lot of people will say that he doesn't want to come here, but that's hogwash. You pay the guy, he'll be here. Parcells wrote a book and stated he would never coach for Jerry Jones and Parcells fans would steadfastly point to that and Jerry got him rather easily.

If a coach wants to be a HC, they'll take the job. The only team that has a hard time getting a HC is Oakland because of Al Davis and they pay their coaches pretty lousy by NFL standards.

But Cowher's personnel situation in Pittsburgh was pretty similar to what we have here in the collaborative effort. In fact, I know that Cowher wanted some FA's during his tenure in Pittsburgh, but the Rooney family would turn him down and at one point that really ticked him off. But they stuck it out and it worked the best for everybody involved over there. There's no doubt in my mind that he's a great coach if he's motivated to be one still. The only thing that held him back was the QB position and he still did very well with guys like O'Donnel, Tomczak, Kordell and Maddox. He went thru numerous O-Coordinators and D-Coordinators and still was very successful.

But, I'd have to be convinced that he's in it for the *long haul* again. The 'I'll be in it for 4-5 years and expect to win a Super Bowl and then I'll hand the reigns over' really doesn't work. Didn't work for Parcells, didn't work for Gibbs and won't work for anybody else. We need somebody who wouldn't have a problem working here for 15 years if need be. I highly doubt that will happen, but that's the attitude we need.

As far as Garrett goes, the only thing I see that he has going for him is his age and he knows the personnel here. Other than that, I don't see how he's more qualified to be the HC here than Rivera is, who had dominating defenses in Chicago that were turnover happy and has now turned around the San Diego defense and is making Kevin Burnett look like an All-Pro.

I wish I didn't feel that way, but I don't see why Garrett should be considered more qualified than Rivera based on results and Rivera has done it for 2 teams where for the most part, Garrett has only coached for 1 team.

I think Norv is really an excellent playcaller. As a team preperation and toughness guy, I probably call that into question. But Chudzinski is learning from Norv and Garrett has not. So that's a big reason why I think Chudzinski should be the O-Coordinator.

The guy turned the Browns into one of the top offenses in the league in '07 with Derrick Anderson at QB, Braylon Edwards, Kellen Winslow, Joe Jurevicius, and Jamal Lewis. I think Edwards and Winslow are dynamic talents, but we have multiple of those dynamic talents at those positions and we are far better at QB and RB.

I wish I could see the validity of Garrett, but most alarming for me is that he is regressing more than anything else.


YR

ost:


You have put into words everything I have been trying to say.

I just don't see the man love around Garrett. And I have yet to see one post that would convince me he's the person to be HC here.

And I just don't see why you would want to promote a guy who has no grasp on his current position. You can post stats all you want, but the bottom line is wins and losses. His play calling is predictable and atrocious.

I think you are onto something with the Ron Rivera/Rod Chudzinski pairing. Rivera knows the 3-4 defense, and Chudzinski knows our style of offense since he's working under Norv. It would be a great fit for our personel.

 

[Stash]

I didn't want Parcels, either, for that very same reason.

But I don't think you would say that overall Parcells wasn't a good thing for this organization, would you?

And we can agree to disagree, but it's not necessarily a sound decision to hire a retread coach who's already had his greatest impact on the league in another conference where he had the benefit of an all-time great coordinator.

He's had plenty of great coordinators, no slight to Lebeau. But no other candidate could get Lebeau either so if you're holding that against Cowher, you'd have to hold it against everyone else too. In Cowher's favor, he saw the talent in Lebeau when few others did. Year after year, Cowher continued to assemble quality coaching staffs.

Nobody's getting Lebeau, that's the truth. Whether or not Keith Butler is the next best thing has yet to be determined.

Agreed. Plenty of 'heir apparents' turned out to be disappointments. I just prefer his chances to someone else's.

 

[superpunk]

Chuck Cecil holla!

 

[Idgit]

It's my understanding that Garrett was hired to be the Cowboys' offensive coordinator - at minimum.

The team needed to do that at the least to get him from the Dolphins and there was talk that he may have succeeded Parcells as head coach.

But rather than continue our back and forth, we can agree to disagree.

IIRC, it was QB coach, at the minimum. And Miami did Dallas and Garrett a professional favor by allowing the lateral move.

And to answer your earlier question, yes, I think Wade could have his own coordinator if for some reason he didn't want Jason Garrett.

I will truly never understand your feelings on Garrett.

I have no idea what he has done as a coach to instill the level of confidence he receives around here.

Here's my take on Garrett: we'd have to be blind to not appreciate the design of his offense. Most of what gets called 'bad play calling' on this site is actually either good play calling, or acceptable play calling that's second-guessed because a player failed to execute properly. Most fans don't know or care enough, and the ones that do, like YR, make reasonable arguments that more or less revolve around JG's tendencies. From my perspective, since the plays aren't being executed properly, the discussions about his tendencies aren't that enlightening because we're not getting the full benefit of the design of the offense.

Yes, the execution problems are on him, and here's where I'll admit to being a bit of a shill, but I do thing JG's somewhat handicapped when it comes to instilling the attention to detail needed for his complex system. Wade's a great DC and a pretty good coach, but attention to detail isn't exactly one of his strengths. I say this because the scuttlebut is that that's a minor point of contention between Garrett and Wade, and because Wade comes out and says things like 'gameday penalties are on me' which are well-intentioned, but indicate that he's not a stickler for precision. I believe, based off of player interviews and watching the design of the offense, that JG probably is.

I'd also much prefer the next coach come from the offensive side of the ball.

I think Jerry'd have a hard time selling JG at this point, but I hope it's something he's strongly considering. Harbaugh at Stanford is someone else you'd have to take a look at. Beyond that, I'd look for an outstanding assistant somewhere and surround him with an experienced set of coordinators.

 

[theogt]

Here's my take on Garrett: we'd have to be blind to not appreciate the design of his offense. Most of what gets called 'bad play calling' on this site is actually either good play calling, or acceptable play calling that's second-guessed because a player failed to execute properly. Most fans don't know or care enough, and the ones that do, like YR, make reasonable arguments that more or less revolve around JG's tendencies. From my perspective, since the plays aren't being executed properly, the discussions about his tendencies aren't that enlightening because we're not getting the full benefit of the design of the offense.

I don't have much patience for arguments that personnel (i.e., Witten, Romo, Austin, Roy, Felix, Marion, Dez, etc.) is holding Garrett back.

People make reasoned arguments on a daily basis. It's just easy for some people to dismiss it by saying "we don't really know what was going on" or "it's all about execution."

 

[Idgit]

But I don't think you would say that overall Parcells wasn't a good thing for this organization, would you?

The net-effect was positive, for a reason I'd never anticipated: Parcels taught Jerry an awful lot about how to approach building a team, and that's pretty obvious from the moves Jerry's made subsequently.

On the field, it was a positive, too, but I don't know that he did a better job than another good coach would have. I think Wade's done a better job coaching than Parcels did, for instance. The best thing Parcels did on the field was bring in a really good coaching staff. It's the staff that separates a successful coach from an unsuccessful one.

He's had plenty of great coordinators, no slight to Lebeau. But no other candidate could get Lebeau either so if you're holding that against Cowher, you'd have to hold it against everyone else too. In Cowher's favor, he saw the talent in Lebeau when few others did. Year after year, Cowher continued to assemble quality coaching staffs.

Agreed. Plenty of 'heir apparents' turned out to be disappointments. I just prefer his chances to someone else's.

Chuck Cecil holla!

I don't want to slight Cowher's accomplishments, because I think he's a good coach. I'm not knocking him for not being able to get Lebeau. I just don't want him if he can't bring Lebeau along. Honestly, I don't want him period, but mostly because I hate the idea of a team known for offensive innovation being run by a retread defensively-minded castoff from the AFC.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

I think you are onto something with the Ron Rivera/Rod Chudzinski pairing. Rivera knows the 3-4 defense, and Chudzinski knows our style of offense since he's working under Norv. It would be a great fit for our personel.

I know a family member of Chudzinksi's pretty well. Known this person since I was 15 years old.

But I don't have a bias towards him for that.

However, when I found that he was the O-Coordinator for the Browns in '07, I started watching a lot of Browns games.

One of the big things I saw was he was very creative, but smart.

Creative coaches can often do some imaginative things, but lose sight of the big picture or the small details or even worse, both. Chud liked to be creative and work with what he had with different personnel and formations and then play the percentages and maximize the most out of the offense.

One thing he used to do was move then-rookie LT Joe Thomas and RT Kevin Shaffer around, both guys known for their run blocking. They'd just overload the line a lot because if the defense didn't respond, they could run the tailback behind these two guys and gain massive yards. If the defense responded too much, then they'd either take their chances running Lewis to the opposite side if they felt their weakside O-Line could handle it or go with play action.

Then they had a myriad of problems in '08 with O-Line injuries and Derrick Anderson, who always struggled with accuracy, just fell off the earth with his accuracy. They had issues with KWII and Edwards had a really bad dropped pass problems. Still, the offense was no worse in '08 than it was in all of the other years since the Browns came back to Cleveland. Just that '07 season when things went pretty well for them the offense was a dynamic offense despite not having a lot of dynamic talent.

I'm not 100% sold on Rivera-Chudzinski either. I'd have to hear their thoughts on how they would approach the team philosophy, how they would deal with situations, etc.

I hate to say it, but I think Rex Ryan would've been the best possible coach for this team because he seemingly thrives on all of the hype, hooplah and controversy in New York and whether we like it or not, we need a coach who can handle that here in Dallas.








YR

 

[Stash]

IIRC, it was QB coach, at the minimum. And Miami did Dallas and Garrett a professional favor by allowing the lateral move.

I believe you are mistaken.

And to answer your earlier question, yes, I think Wade could have his own coordinator if for some reason he didn't want Jason Garrett.

So Jerry would have fired the guy he had just hired in order to get Wade Phillips? You can actually see that happening?

Here's my take on Garrett: we'd have to be blind to not appreciate the design of his offense. Most of what gets called 'bad play calling' on this site is actually either good play calling, or acceptable play calling that's second-guessed because a player failed to execute properly. Most fans don't know or care enough, and the ones that do, like YR, make reasonable arguments that more or less revolve around JG's tendencies. From my perspective, since the plays aren't being executed properly, the discussions about his tendencies aren't that enlightening because we're not getting the full benefit of the design of the offense.

70-30 pass-run ratio is unacceptable. I don't care what your name is. You won't find a knowledgeable football person who would say otherwise. That criticism of Garrett is universal.

And whose job is it to make sure that those plays ARE 'executed properly'?
Why does Garrett get a free pass in that area whil the blame shifts to 'dumb players'?

Yes, the execution problems are on him, and here's where I'll admit to being a bit of a shill, but I do thing JG's somewhat handicapped when it comes to instilling the attention to detail needed for his complex system. Wade's a great DC and a pretty good coach, but attention to detail isn't exactly one of his strengths. I say this because the scuttlebut is that that's a minor point of contention between Garrett and Wade, and because Wade comes out and says things like 'gameday penalties are on me' which are well-intentioned, but indicate that he's not a stickler for precision. I believe, based off of player interviews and watching the design of the offense, that JG probably is.

That doesn't explain why the offense continues to make mistakes. If Garrett is preaching attention to detail in his offense, why isn't it happening? And if Garrett's system is so highbrow and complex, how can a couch scout like me see its' tendencies? He's half a coach who can call a good passing game with the best receivers in the league. He still doesn't know the run game.

I'd also much prefer the next coach come from the offensive side of the ball.

I go the other way because I think a priority needs to be made in keeping the 3-4 intact considering the considerable invetsment made in it.

I think Jerry'd have a hard time selling JG at this point, but I hope it's something he's strongly considering. Harbaugh at Stanford is someone else you'd have to take a look at. Beyond that, I'd look for an outstanding assistant somewhere and surround him with an experienced set of coordinators.

Surround him with assistants?

That sounds eerily like something you'd want Jones to do.

Say it ain't so.

 

[theogt]

I believe you are mistaken.

He's right. He was brought in to interview for HC, OC, and QB coach.

 

[Idgit]

I don't have much patience for arguments that personnel (i.e., Witten, Romo, Austin, Roy, Felix, Marion, Dez, etc.) is holding Garrett back.

People make reasoned arguments on a daily basis. It's just easy for some people to dismiss it by saying "we don't really know what was going on" or "it's all about execution."

Maybe. But when you see a pulling guard blow past a linebacker from the two yard line and give up an otherwise sure touchdown, how do you not understand how our inability to execute some of the simplest plays in our playbook handicaps what a coordinator is going to do in calling a game? And it wasn't just last weekend. Barron's hold on the game winning touchdown in Washington, or Barber's failure to chip Orakpo on that same play is another example of a game lost by being unable to execute. Or Dez running the wrong route and letting his CB peel off and strip the ball from Austin when he's prone? Or Austin jump offsides when he's basically uncovered on a called blitz? How many times have we seen our interior lineman pick up the wrong man on a simple stunt?

It's not like watching previous teams where our guys are just outmatched. And it's not like the plays don't work when they're executed properly. Our yardage numbers make that pretty apparent. It's that we can't execute properly often enough to score points in the quantity we should be able to score them. Some of that execution goes on the OC, to be sure. But there are other factors that come into play that make it hard to evaluate what's really to blame. Is it the players? Do we have weak position coaches (I don't think so), is there anything that can be improved in our preparation (this is where I think the issue probably lies, but that's idle speculation).

Either way, if we see the problem is execution, but we like the design of the offense and the development of the players, how can you not call it out? Saying the problem is 'execution' isn't the same thing as saying the problem is with the level of talent.

 

[Stash]

The net-effect was positive, for a reason I'd never anticipated: Parcels taught Jerry an awful lot about how to approach building a team, and that's pretty obvious from the moves Jerry's made subsequently.

On the field, it was a positive, too, but I don't know that he did a better job than another good coach would have. I think Wade's done a better job coaching than Parcels did, for instance. The best thing Parcels did on the field was bring in a really good coaching staff. It's the staff that separates a successful coach from an unsuccessful one.

Couldn't agree more. And that's a big reason why I want Cowher. He's done that time and time again.

I don't want to slight Cowher's accomplishments, because I think he's a good coach. I'm not knocking him for not being able to get Lebeau. I just don't want him if he can't bring Lebeau along. Honestly, I don't want him period, but mostly because I hate the idea of a team known for offensive innovation being run by a retread defensively-minded castoff from the AFC.

If you research it, you'll see that Pittsburgh had plenty of offensive innovation under Cowher. Creative minds like Chan Gailey, Mike Mularkey and Ken Whisenhunt flourished there.

Methinks you are letting anti-Steelers bias cloud your judgement a bit.

 

[bysbox1]

Most of what gets called 'bad play calling' on this site is actually either good play calling, or acceptable play calling that's second-guessed because a player failed to execute properly.[/B] Most fans don't know or care enough, and the ones that do, like YR, make reasonable arguments that more or less revolve around JG's tendencies. From my perspective, since the plays aren't being executed properly, the discussions about his tendencies aren't that enlightening because we're not getting the full benefit of the design of the offense.

70 percent pass is a tendency you do not want your team to have. And while I don't deny he can design great plays, he has no grasp for the fell of a game as it wears on. And I don't care how much you can design and offense, if you can't execute playcalling, then it really does not matter.

 

[Stash]

He's right. He was brought in to interview for HC, OC, and QB coach.

My info says that Dallas needed to guarantee him a promotion to get Miami to allow the interview.

That means no lateral move to QB coach.

 

[theogt]

Maybe. But when you see a pulling guard blow past a linebacker from the two yard line and give up an otherwise sure touchdown, how do you not understand how our inability to execute some of the simplest plays in our playbook handicaps what a coordinator is going to do in calling a game? And it wasn't just last weekend. Barron's hold on the game winning touchdown in Washington, or Barber's failure to chip Orakpo on that same play is another example of a game lost by being unable to execute. Or Dez running the wrong route and letting his CB peel off and strip the ball from Austin when he's prone? Or Austin jump offsides when he's basically uncovered on a called blitz? How many times have we seen our interior lineman pick up the wrong man on a simple stunt?

It's not like watching previous teams where our guys are just outmatched. And it's not like the plays don't work when they're executed properly. Our yardage numbers make that pretty apparent. It's that we can't execute properly often enough to score points in the quantity we should be able to score them. Some of that execution goes on the OC, to be sure. But there are other factors that come into play that make it hard to evaluate what's really to blame. Is it the players? Do we have weak position coaches (I don't think so), is there anything that can be improved in our preparation (this is where I think the issue probably lies, but that's idle speculation).

Either way, if we see the problem is execution, but we like the design of the offense and the development of the players, how can you not call it out? Saying the problem is 'execution' isn't the same thing as saying the problem is with the level of talent.

I'm not going to give Garrett (and Houck) a pass for our offensive line issues. Apparently they need pro bowlers at every single position to make his genius system work.

One other issue is this persistent redzone problem. It's gone from coincidence to obviously something bigger being wrong. A lot of it is boneheaded mistakes, but that can't explain why it's persisted for so long.

You look at things like Norv saying he wasn't ready. You have Tony, in a rare moment of honesty, throwing him under the bus. You have Wade bringing in people to "help." And you have his best season being the one where he didn't actually design the offense (i.e., with Sparano here). The circumstantial evidence is there. You have statistical arguments leveled against the guy on a constant basis. And we can sit here and throw out tons of examples of boneheaded play calls where he just doesn't seem to have any feel for the game.

For me, to get a pass on all this, the guy has to have something to ball back on. He has to have something to point to that can show that he's actually done it and it worked. But he's got nothing -- nothing except the sheer hope that he's some mad genius who will one day get the players to execute his higher order scheme.

 

[Apollo Creed]

Red's problem is he's always getting too cute. Our players aren't smart, therefore run simpler plays that don't make them have to think 'what am I supposed to do here again?' before every play.

I'm not going to give Garrett (and Houck) a pass for our offensive line issues. Apparently they need pro bowlers at every single position to make his genius system work.

One other issue is this persistent redzone problem. It's gone from coincidence to obviously something bigger being wrong. A lot of it is boneheaded mistakes, but that can't explain why it's persisted for so long.

You look at things like Norv saying he wasn't ready. You have Tony, in a rare moment of honesty, throwing him under the bus. You have Wade bringing in people to "help." And you have his best season being the one where he didn't actually design the offense (i.e., with Sparano here). The circumstantial evidence is there. You have statistical arguments leveled against the guy on a constant basis. And we can sit here and throw out tons of examples of boneheaded play calls where he just doesn't seem to have any feel for the game.

For me, to get a pass on all this, the guy has to have something to ball back on. He has to have something to point to that can show that he's actually done it and it worked. But he's got nothing -- nothing except the sheer hope that he's some mad genius who will one day get the players to execute his higher order scheme.

When was this?

 

[craig71]

I think that neither side can make enough of an argument to sway the other sides opinion. I would consider myself a "Pro- Garrett" guy, but I understand why others have their particular reservations about them.

Craig

 

[Stash]

Maybe. But when you see a pulling guard blow past a linebacker from the two yard line and give up an otherwise sure touchdown, how do you not understand how our inability to execute some of the simplest plays in our playbook handicaps what a coordinator is going to do in calling a game?

Who's the guy mistakenly calling plays for the immobile Leonard Davis to pull at the goalline? Haven't we all seen enough evidence that he can't do it?

How do you not undersnat that a key part of an offensive coordinator's job is to put the player he has in the best position to succeed?

It's not like watching previous teams where our guys are just outmatched. And it's not like the plays don't work when they're executed properly. Our yardage numbers make that pretty apparent. It's that we can't execute properly often enough to score points in the quantity we should be able to score them. Some of that execution goes on the OC, to be sure. But there are other factors that come into play that make it hard to evaluate what's really to blame. Is it the players? Do we have weak position coaches (I don't think so), is there anything that can be improved in our preparation (this is where I think the issue probably lies, but that's idle speculation).

No offense, but yardage smardage! You can keep all the yards, give me the points, the rest is only good for fantasy football. Yardage has simply equated to losses. If you don't score points, nothing else matters. And Garrett's problem with scoring has only grown more apparent.

Either way, if we see the problem is execution, but we like the design of the offense and the development of the players, how can you not call it out? Saying the problem is 'execution' isn't the same thing as saying the problem is with the level of talent.

It's not lack of execution when you're misusing the talent you do have. As I said earlier, a big part of Garrett's job is to understand what his players do and don't do well and then to tailor his playcalling to fit that.

I think he's failed to do that on many levels.

 

[theogt]

When was this?

I can't recall if it was at the end of the 2008 or 2009 season. Basically said our system was too simple and that defenses could figure it out.

Garrett immediately ran to the media for damage control. Some in the media blamed Tony's comments for Garrett not going head coaching offers that year.

 

[craig71]

I can't recall if it was at the end of the 2008 or 2009 season. Basically said our system was too simple and that defenses could figure it out.

Garrett immediately ran to the media for damage control. Some in the media blamed Tony's comments for Garrett not going head coaching offers that year.

2008 after the Eagles game. 44-6 or whatever the score was.

Craig

 

[Idgit]

I'm not going to give Garrett (and Houck) a pass for our offensive line issues. Apparently they need pro bowlers at every single position to make his genius system work.

One other issue is this persistent redzone problem. It's gone from coincidence to obviously something bigger being wrong. A lot of it is boneheaded mistakes, but that can't explain why it's persisted for so long.

You look at things like Norv saying he wasn't ready. You have Tony, in a rare moment of honesty, throwing him under the bus. You have Wade bringing in people to "help." And you have his best season being the one where he didn't actually design the offense (i.e., with Sparano here). The circumstantial evidence is there. You have statistical arguments leveled against the guy on a constant basis. And we can sit here and throw out tons of examples of boneheaded play calls where he just doesn't seem to have any feel for the game.

For me, to get a pass on all this, the guy has to have something to ball back on. He has to have something to point to that can show that he's actually done it and it worked. But he's got nothing -- nothing except the sheer hope that he's some mad genius who will one day get the players to execute his higher order scheme.

The red zone stuff is a good point. I should have covered it earlier, but there's an obvious and legitimate problem with his red zone play calling.

The statistical arguments against the guy, I don't generally find very persuasive. I don't see how you can say he's got nothing to show for his time here when his offense has been as productive as it has been. He's had issues, but that's not the same thing as saying he has nothing to show for his efforts.

I remember the Tony Romo comments, and remember thinking at the time that it was a tempest in a teapot. Maybe that would change in retrospect, but I don't think you can discount the volume of good things Tony's said about Garrett over the years and at the same time call the one questionably critical comment he made after a tough loss 'a rare moment of honesty.'

Re: the OL, we don't need probowlers everywhere. We need a RG who can both run and pass block, and we need to develop our next center. And we might need our developmental RT to finish developing, real fast.