Should we have been 11-5?

[CoCo]

There are some who accuse Garrett of blowing the Detroit, NE & AZ games. To a lesser degree, the Giants game at home where we had the late lead (12?).

If those 3 are games that Garrett "cost us" does it necessarily follow that the team had 11-5 talent that was squandered to become 8-8?

With all the crying over the horrible O-line, Newman and the secondary do those holding Garrett responsible for the 3 forementioned losses still believe 11-5 is what we SHOULD have been even with the weaknesses that everyone agrees exist?

I'm not sure that all adds up.

 

[Tabascocat]

I am a firm believer you are what your record says you are. We also could have easily lost to SF, Wash, etc, so they balance out IMO.

Yes, they have that kind of talent but unless you can't close games, you will be an average (.500) team.

 

[Stash]

I think that's a bit of oversimplification.

If everything bounced our way? It's possible the team could have been 11-5, sure.

But I would not describe the team as having 11-5 talent.

The 2010 Giants won the Super Bowl, but I don't consider them a 'great team'.

 

[Nation]

There is always some luck involved in NFL games where the final score is within a touchdown. Sometimes it is how a fumbled ball lands, sometimes it is just who has possession last, but that's always been the case. We lost 5 games by less than a touchdown and we won 4 game by less than a touchdown. That's the sport.

 

[RS12]

I am a firm believer you are what your record says you are. We also could have easily lost to SF, Wash, etc, so they balance out IMO.

Yes, they have that kind of talent but unless you can't close games, you will be an average (.500) team.

Hello!

 

[Hagman]

With our pathetic secondary, old slow linebackers, and weak offensive line, we were not an 11-5 team and we did not have 11-5 talent. We were what we were, a .500 team.

And it isn't Garret's fault. He didn't have all that much of a hand to play.

 

[DFWJC]

The argument could be made that we could have been 5-11 too.

I do think w/o injuries we would have won more than we did. As for bad plays, decsions, play bad calls, etc....that happens every year to every team.

 

[CoCo]

I'm trying to understand how people can blame Garrett for 3 lossess, but at the same time claim our O-line & secondary are horrible and also say, no we really weren't "11-5" talented.

I am NOT suggesting Garrett didn't make mistakes and doesn't need to improve. He did & does. I just don't count those mistakes as costly as some claim.

 

[CoCo]

I am a firm believer you are what your record says you are. We also could have easily lost to SF, Wash, etc, so they balance out IMO.

Yes, they have that kind of talent but unless you can't close games, you will be an average (.500) team.

So if I understand your position, you might say that if this team knew how to close out games, then yes, we have 11-5 talent, despite the O-line and secondary?

 

[DFWJC]

I'm trying to understand how people can blame Garrett for 3 lossess, but at the same time claim our O-line & secondary are horrible and also say, no we really weren't "11-5" talented.

I am NOT suggesting Garrett didn't make mistakes and doesn't need to improve. He did & does. I just don't count those mistakes as costly as some claim.

Probably true.

We easily could have lost the SF, Washington, and several other games without anything clearly odd going on from JG.

 

[Stash]

I'm trying to understand how people can blame Garrett for 3 lossess, but at the same time claim our O-line & secondary are horrible and also say, no we really weren't "11-5" talented.

I am NOT suggesting Garrett didn't make mistakes and doesn't need to improve. He did & does. I just don't count those mistakes as costly as some claim.

Well I guess it's merely a matter of both opinion and perception.

I'm willing to give him a mulligan for Arizona, but when I look at how he managed the Detroit and New England games, I can't help but point my finger of blame at him.

Looking at playcalls, game management, etc., it was embarrassing.

I'm hopeful for the future while not sweeping away the blatant mistakes of the past.

 

[Doomsday101]

I don't know if we should have been 11-5 but I do think we should have closed the deal and made the post season. Dallas was in prime position to with a lead in the divison late in the season with a chance to close the deal and blew it.

 

[Stash]

I don't know if we should have been 11-5 but I do think we should have closed the deal and made the post season. Dallas was in prime position to with a lead in the divison late in the season with a chance to close the deal and blew it.

No doubt about that!

 

[Apollo Creed]

Chil. Could have been 5-11.

Both Washington games and San Fran.

You are what your record says you are.

 

[DFWJC]

Well I guess it's merely a matter of both opinion and perception.

I'm willing to give him a mulligan for Arizona, but when I look at how he managed the Detroit and New England games, I can't help but point my finger of blame at him.

Looking at playcalls, game management, etc., it was embarrassing.

I'm hopeful for the future while not sweeping away the blatant mistakes of the past.

I thought the NE game was more odd than Detroit.

Most good offenses keep the pedal to the medal when there is still nearly half the game to go and their QB is on fire. And they were playing a very prolific offense too.
But even though his QB was lights out up to that point, they said that in second halfs of games Romos pain meds were starting to wear off. The guy was playing with broken ribs afterall. Once he made a couple of brain farts (which amazingly were converted to scores) I can see where it may have been time to pull back some.

But Garrett then overreacted at New Enland the next week.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

Probably 10-6. Even if we should've won those three, we were fortunate to beat the Niners and Skins.

But 9-7 at the very least.

 

[Doomsday101]

No doubt about that!

I was very disappointed as well but I also think this team can bounce back. I think we will see more take charge additude from Ware and especially Lee.

Want a vocal leader? Look no further than Sean Lee. The inside linebacker has yelled for players to get in the huddle during 11-on-11 drills and has been routinely barking out instructions in other situations. In early May, Lee said he has no problem addressing an issue vocally if it’s needed. Judging by his actions during OTAs and mini-camp, I can see that being true.

“That’s the Sean Lee of old,” inside linebacker and Lee’s former Penn State teammate Dan Connor said. “I’ve seen Sean doing that since he was 18 years old. It was probably the first camp at Penn State and he was getting in fights, yelling at himself on the field, smashing his helmet like Bobby Boucher.”

http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...e-a-vocal-leader-rob-ryan-keeping-quiet.html/

Now that Lee is a more established player I think you will a more vocal take charge guy on defense. In my book before you can expect men to follow you, you must earn their respect and I think Lee has done that.

 

[Stash]

I thought the NE game was more odd than Detroit.

Most good offenses keep the pedal to the medal when there is still nearly half the game to go. They were playing a very prolific offense too.
But even though his QB was lights out up to that point, they said that in second halfs of games Romos pain meds were starting to wear off. The guy was playing with broken ribs afterall. Once he made a couple of brain farts (which amazingly were converted to scores) I can see where it may have been time to pull back some.

Oh, Garrett did that - but it took until after the second pick 6 and then the overreaction only contributed to the problem, it didn't help it. You can literally see Garrett the playcaller go into a shell after the second one.

He then overreacted at New Enland the next week.

And yes, New Englad was simply more clear evidence of Garrett going into a shell, despite the fact that he was going up against arguably the league's worst pass defense at that point.

For me, it's a matter of poor play selection against Detroit and a serious pattern of predictability in play-calling. "3rd and 2 or less? It's a pass fellas!"

Garrett's passing game was working great, but he fell in love with it and forgot about playing smart football until it was too late. He then compounded the first error by going into a shell.

And I think he was still 'shell-shocked' the following week against New England - at the worst possible time. And I think he robbed Rob Ryan and his defensive unit out of a defensive victory along the way.

Again, just the way I see it.

 

[Stash]

I was very disappointed as well but I also think this team can bounce back. I think we will see more take charge additude from Ware and especially Lee.

Want a vocal leader? Look no further than Sean Lee. The inside linebacker has yelled for players to get in the huddle during 11-on-11 drills and has been routinely barking out instructions in other situations. In early May, Lee said he has no problem addressing an issue vocally if it’s needed. Judging by his actions during OTAs and mini-camp, I can see that being true.

“That’s the Sean Lee of old,” inside linebacker and Lee’s former Penn State teammate Dan Connor said. “I’ve seen Sean doing that since he was 18 years old. It was probably the first camp at Penn State and he was getting in fights, yelling at himself on the field, smashing his helmet like Bobby Boucher.”

http://cowboysblog.***BANNED-URL***...e-a-vocal-leader-rob-ryan-keeping-quiet.html/

Now that Lee is a more established player I think you will a more vocal take charge guy on defense. In my book before you can expect men to follow you, you must earn their respect and I think Lee has done that.

I completely agree with you here!

 

[CoCo]

As Stash suggested it is probably a matter of perception and opinion. I agree. And I know many will hate my view.

I did not start this thread to do apologetics for Garrett. I don't want to do that. And I respect the opinions of those in this thread that frankly are quite different than mine. And again I'll always agree that Garrett in AZ froze after that first down catch.

But I am taken back by how harsh some are on the Detroit & NE games. Too aggressive on the pick sixes and then too conservative thereafter (if I followed that right). Well, ok.

Then versus NE there is no credit for having the eventual AFC Champion on the ropes late at their place. And the 3 runs in a single series bear all the blame for that loss. Robbed the defense of THEIR win, even though it was that defense that couldn't hold the lead. Not sure how that would have been THEIR win if the offense had stepped up to play keep away in crunch time. Dismiss the NE pass defense entirely because of its low ranking at the time. But somewhere along the way it got better apparently cause they made it to the SB.

I don't for a second believe that fans would have been placated in that game had Garrett thrown versus run on that last series or any other mixture. They'd have adamantly second-guessed no matter what if we turned it back on downs.

It's honestly hard for me to give the playcall second-guessing any credence at all because it so comes across as "wrong call" if the game was a loss. I can't buy this perception that seems very extreme for some around playcalling.