Something I didn't realize

[Stautner]

Jason instantly had them playing good. It really wasn't until we had been mathmatically eliminated from the playoffs where the play started to dip back down towards pathetic. And even still, that was during a major QB shuffle with Kitna going down and McGee having to come in, not to mention the absence of Dez and a hurt RW. And then who can forget the hobble show of Felix, the 2-3 time limp he'd exhibit each game having to go off the field- you can't tell me he was 100%. Add in Barber to the injured, an unsure OL playing for their Cowboy lives, and we won't even get into the DB probs we started having or the other defensive side troubles that arose around the end of the year.

Bottom line though, the mountain continued growing towards impossible, yet some how Jason kept that team focused enough and going straight to get all the way to 5-3. And like the OP said, a hair away from 8-0. Impressive if you ask me. All in all, it's no wonder to me why Garrett has been retained.

Even in those "pathetic" games we found a way to win, so I'm not sure the term pathetic is really fair.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Surely you aren't telling me that 17 points per half was your ongoing expectation for McGee after one half of football playing against the 5-11 Cardinals who were 29th in the NFL in yards allowed and 30th in points allowed per game?

And you keep telling me he was playing against a bunch of 3rd teamers and practice squad guys. What I heard was 7 starters didn't play for the Eagles. With Vick, Jackson, Maclin, McCoy and Celek not playing, that could have only left a maximum of 2 on the defense.

You didn't read correctly bro. I said while it isn't to be expected, its certainly possible to think that he could play and do well, especially against a team of backups and practice squad guys.

BTW.. 7 starters didn't dress. The others dressed, but only 2 started and played a couple drives. The rest were dressed in case of injury but didn't play.

 

[bbgun]

And it doesn't mean they didn't spend significant time on the field either.

The bottom line you can't nit pick every single factor as if it is THE factor - and you can't change the fact that even if there were some defensive players that didn't play much that it was a QB with even less experience that had to try and take advantage of it. Sure they had more people out than we did, but like I said, us having a QB that we aren't even sure is worthy of being a 2nd, or even a 3rd teamer counteracts a lot of that.

Wait a minute. Didn't the Arizona Cardinals win two games started by raw rookies (Max Hall & John Skelton) this year? Seems their coach was able to overcome their deficiencies and win games--games played against other teams' starters, not backups.

Face it, McGee was 11-27 for 127 yards, and that shouldn't have been a surprise to anyone regardless of who he was playing. It's absolutely ridiculous to suggest the standard expectation for any young NFL QB would be to step into his 1st start and be just fine, and that's especially true with a project player who had never even so much as had mop up work before the previous week. It would be ridiculous to expect anything less than a drop off.

So saddled with an alleged "stiff" like McGee, Garrett wisely decided to pound Philly's backups with our running game instead. After all, he had five healthy starting linemen at his disposal and all three running backs as well. Oh wait, that didn't happen either. I guess Garrett couldn't coach them up, either.

 

[Stautner]

You didn't read correctly bro. I said while it isn't to be expected, its certainly possible to think that he could play and do well, especially against a team of backups and practice squad guys.

BTW.. 7 starters didn't dress. The others dressed, but only 2 started and played a couple drives. The rest were dressed in case of injury but didn't play.

Of course it's "possible", but that isn't the point. Hell, it's "possible" that any rookie can excel at any time even if playing against the best competition in the NFL.

I never disputed that it was "possbile", only the notion that we "should have won easily" with a raw rookie project at QB. Being "possible" doesn't change the fact that the odds were very long that McGee would excel, or that the team would score a lot with him at QB, and his 11-27, 127 yard, 14 point performance was much more reasonable to expect than that he would put up 20-30 points.

Wait a minute. Didn't the Arizona Cardinals win two games started by raw rookies (Max Hall & John Skelton) this year? Seems their coach was able to overcome their deficiencies and win games--games played against other teams' starters, not backups.

You are just fabricating BS now. I never said a rookie couldn't win, and I never said McGee couldn't win. What I said was it was unreasonable to believe that a team should win "easily" with a raw rookie project without any experience, and that it is unreasonable to believe that if a team doesn't win "easily" they underacheived.

Try to keep up.

So saddled with an alleged "stiff" like McGee, Garrett wisely decided to pound Philly's backups with our running game instead. After all, he had five healthy starting linemen at his disposal and all three running backs as well. Oh wait, that didn't happen either. I guess Garrett couldn't coach them up, either.

And who said McGee was a stiff? I said he was a raw rookie project who understandably couldn't be expected to play so well that he should have won "easily". As I've said numerous times, it would be expected that any raw rookie QB would have troubles in his 1st start, much less one that was a 3rd string, 5th round project. That has nothing to do with him being a stiff, that only has to do with where he might be expected to be as a player.

By the way, we actually ran the ball on 56% of our plays and gained 157 yards on the ground.

 

[bbgun]

You are just fabricating BS now. I never said a rookie couldn't win, and I never said McGee couldn't win. What I said was it was unreasonable to believe that a team should win "easily" with a raw rookie project without any experience, and that it is unreasonable to believe that if a team doesn't win "easily" they underacheived.

Except that McGee was not a raw rookie (on the contrary, two years in our system), and he gained valuable snaps the previous weekend in Zona. The point remains that Zona had a much higher mountain to climb with real rookies under center compared to Jason Garrett's "predicament." Hell, Max Hall beat the defending SB champions, who last I checked played their starters.

Try to keep up.

Try not to move the goal posts.

And who said McGee was a stiff? I said he was a raw rookie project who understandably couldn't be expected to play so well that he should have won "easily". As I've said numerous times, it would be expected that any raw rookie QB would have troubles in his 1st start, much less one that was a 3rd string, 5th round project. That has nothing to do with him being a stiff, that only has to do with where he might be expected to be as a player.

Again, he wasn't a rookie. Since your premise is predicated on a lie, there's no point pursuing it. Garbage in, garbage out.

By the way, we actually ran the ball on 56% of our plays and gained 157 yards on the ground.

And zero touchdowns. That's football's equivalent of an empty victory.

 

[The Realist]

I never realized we had so many Wade apologists.

 

[Stautner]

Except that McGee was not a raw rookie (on the contrary, two years in our system), and he gained valuable snaps the previous weekend in Zona. The point remains that Zona had a much higher mountain to climb with real rookies under center compared to Jason Garrett's "predicament." Hell, Max Hall beat the defending SB champions, who last I checked played their starters.



Try not to move the goal posts.



Again, he wasn't a rookie. Since your premise is predicated on a lie, there's no point pursuing it. Garbage in, garbage out.



And zero touchdowns. That's football's equivalent of an empty victory.

Sorry, I mistakenly used the word "rookie". That was a slip up. Nevertheless, the words "raw" and "project" still apply.

Sure the week before provided some experience, but surely you aren't suggesting that a single half a game really made him fully functional for his 1st NFL start. That wouldn't be the case even for a top prospect QB much less a project QB who had been the 3rd teamer for a year and 1/2, and only moved up to 2nd team because of an injury.

As for my premise being predicated on a lie, that truly is balony. This thread went on a long time before i slipped and used the word "rookie". The premis is, and always has been, that he was a raw QB with no NFL starting experience, and it cannot be assumed that guys like that should "win easily".

If you really don't see that there is a difference between us using a 3rd string project player without a single NFL start and only 1/2 a game of NFL experience, and the Eagles using a guy that they had tabbed as their starting QB for years to come, and who has already had multiple 300+ yard games in his career, then you are walking around with blinders on.

Did you really expect the team to sail along with McGee the same way they would have with Romo or Kitna? Do you really think a young QB making his very 1st start with only a whisp of previous playing time in a single game wouldn't be expected to have struggles?

 

[wileedog]

I never realized we had so many Wade apologists.

Wade apologists? I couldn't be happier he is gone, and even called for Jason to take over weeks before it happened.

But the Garrett Walks On Water crowd is a bit irksome too.

Look, he did a good job and if you told me when he took over he would go 5-3 I would have been pretty happy with that (and am).

It doesn't change the fact the team ended the season with three pretty sloppy weeks against poor competition. A lot of that is because certain guys who sucked continued to suck, and I don't lay it all at Garrett's feet, but its still not all sunshine and roses.

Lets put the anointing oil away for a bit and see how he does with his players and coaches and system next year.

 

[Stautner]

Wade apologists? I couldn't be happier he is gone, and even called for Jason to take over weeks before it happened.

But the Garrett Walks On Water crowd is a bit irksome too.

Look, he did a good job and if you told me when he took over he would go 5-3 I would have been pretty happy with that (and am).

It doesn't change the fact the team ended the season with three pretty sloppy weeks against poor competition. A lot of that is because certain guys who sucked continued to suck, and I don't lay it all at Garrett's feet, but its still not all sunshine and roses.

Lets put the anointing oil away for a bit and see how he does with his players and coaches and system next year.

No, the overexaggeration crowd is the problem. You have been arguing with me and others and most are saying nothing like "Garrett walks on water". All I have said, and many others have said, is that the team clearly made strides after Garrett took over. I don't recall people talking about him being the surefire answer to all woes or working miracles, just that the team got on a much better track and played much better.

You can trash Garrett all you want and say he is a failure because you believe he should have "easily" won a couple of games with a 2rd string project QB seeing his very 1st NFL action, but I can't imagine any knowledgeable football person suggesting that a dropoff in play wouldn't be expected in that situation.

What do you think would happen if any other team in the NFL was forced to play with their 3rd string QB? Would you think expectations for the team would remain the same as if the team had their 1st or 2nd team player in the game?

 

[Apollo Creed]

I can't even enjoy this site anymore, Garrett couldve easily been 3-5 during his run. Wade couldve been 6-2.

Wish I could talk football objectively with realistic fans instead of eternal pessimists and Garrett super fans. Some of these guys, I won't say names, havent said one negative thing about RJ.

 

[The Realist]

Wade apologists? I couldn't be happier he is gone, and even called for Jason to take over weeks before it happened.

But the Garrett Walks On Water crowd is a bit irksome too.

Look, he did a good job and if you told me when he took over he would go 5-3 I would have been pretty happy with that (and am).

It doesn't change the fact the team ended the season with three pretty sloppy weeks against poor competition. A lot of that is because certain guys who sucked continued to suck, and I don't lay it all at Garrett's feet, but its still not all sunshine and roses.

Lets put the anointing oil away for a bit and see how he does with his players and coaches and system next year.

Garrett walks on water crowd?

Nobody was more anti-Garrett than me prior to him going 5-3 as interim HC.

Good think he was sandbagging all along to help get Wade fired.

 

[bbgun]

Sorry, I mistakenly used the word "rookie". That was a slip up. Nevertheless, the words "raw" and "project" still apply.

Hall and Skelton aren't "projects"? Hmmm.

Sure the week before provided some experience, but surely you aren't suggesting that a single half a game really made him fully functional for his 1st NFL start. That wouldn't be the case even for a top prospect QB much less a project QB who had been the 3rd teamer for a year and 1/2, and only moved up to 2nd team because of an injury.

So why didn't a "lack of experience" doom Hall and Skelton? Like McGee, they had only a handful of snaps before debuting as starters, and they emerged victorious. Matt Flynn, making his first NFL start, nearly knocked off the talent-laden Patriots in their own backyard. Your excuses are dwindling away.

As for my premise being predicated on a lie, that truly is balony. This thread went on a long time before i slipped and used the word "rookie". The premis is, and always has been, that he was a raw QB with no NFL starting experience, and it cannot be assumed that guys like that should "win easily".

Assuming the "raw QB" was facing starters, I'd agree with you, but that's not what transpired in Philly.

If you really don't see that there is a difference between us using a 3rd string project player without a single NFL start and only 1/2 a game of NFL experience, and the Eagles using a guy that they had tabbed as their starting QB for years to come, and who has already had multiple 300+ yard games in his career, then you are walking around with blinders on.

:laugh2:

Oh lordy. The futile campaign to make Kevin Kolb a "heavyweight to be reckoned with" continues apace. Even if what you say about his abilities is true (and Andy Reid seems to think otherwise), how was he supposed to pose a threat to us minus a quality supporting cast? What good is a BMW minus its wheels or an engine?

Did you really expect the team to sail along with McGee the same way they would have with Romo or Kitna?

McGee + starters on offense and defense >>>> Kolb and backups. McGee alone isn't enough to explain the 59 minutes of sheer ineptitude we witnessed that day. Not even close.

Do you really think a young QB making his very 1st start with only a whisp of previous playing time in a single game wouldn't be expected to have struggles?

Of course I did. Hall and Skelton's stats weren't that great either, but their coach found a way to win against starters, not backups. Conversely, Dallas needed a bad Philly punt to set up a last-gasp drive against scrubs. Apples, oranges.

 

[Stautner]

I can't even enjoy this site anymore, Garrett couldve easily been 3-5 during his run. Wade couldve been 6-2.

Wish I could talk football objectively with realistic fans instead of eternal pessimists and Garrett super fans. Some of these guys, I won't say names, havent said one negative thing about RJ.

The thing is, if you will read you will find that there aren't "Garrett Super fans". We are merely saying the team made some real improvement after Garrett took over. I don't see any flood of people suggesting he is a miracle worker with all the answers, just that he helped change the direction. I can't see how that is such an unreasonable outlook. Heck, it wouldn't have been a problem for me if Jones had seriously interviewed others. I don't see Garrett as remotely infallable.

As for it being possible Garrett could have been 3-5 instead of 5-3, that's true, but also he could have been 8-0. His 3 losses were by a combined total of 7 points.

Besides, people can go back and forth all day about what Wade had to deal with and what Garrett had to deal with and they would just end up butting their heads into the wall. The bottom line is you have to find a way to win.

 

[the kid 05]

You guys are making this WAY more complicated than it really is. It is very simple

Wade: 1-7
Jason: 5-3

End of discussion

Negative. thats like looking at a qb and saying "Oh he threw for 3xxx yards and 2x touchdowns...but he threw 14 picks..." You can't just evaluate players and coaches on stats alone

 

[Apollo Creed]

I can't wait for all the deep playoff runs and super bowls now that RJ has saved us.

Unless we make serious personel changes you're going to see a very similar team to that of Wade's. They always play well for new coaches, then fold on every one of them.

 

[Stautner]

Negative. thats like looking at a qb and saying "Oh he threw for 3xxx yards and 2x touchdowns...but he threw 14 picks..." You can't just evaluate players and coaches on stats alone

I can't wait for all the deep playoff runs and super bowls now that RJ has saved us.

Unless we make serious personel changes you're going to see a very similar team to that of Wade's. They always play well for new coaches, then fold on every one of them.

More of the same MO. Overexaggeration for the sake of finding something to post.

There is no flood of folks calling Garrett a savior. That's a fabrication.

People are just saying the team is headed in a better direction under Garrett. I don't see how anyone who watched the 1st half of the season and watch the 2nd half of the season could say otherwise.

Of course, if your assertion is that players always play well for a new coach and fold on every one of them, then I have to ask how anyone ever wins. I guess some play for a new coach long enough to win a Super Bowl ocassionally? I wonder how come the Pats didn't fold on Belicheck?

The fact is, we don't know what the future holds with Garrett. We only know the team looked better. Maybe some of it has to do with Garrett just being a new coach, maybe some has to do with Garrett's specific actions as coach, but it is undeniable that the team performed better. That's all i was ever arguing.

 

[Apollo Creed]

They have folded on each coach.

And many on this board have been suffering from a bad case of Gingervitus since the Giants game.

We'll see, he was still a coach on this team for 1-7, 44-6, and 34-3. Please let's not forget that.

 

[Stautner]

They have folded on each coach.

And many on this board have been suffering from a bad case of Gingervitus since the Giants game.

We'll see, he was still a coach on this team for 1-7, 44-6, and 34-3. Please let's not forget that.

Are you talking about Cowboy coaches, or just coaches in general? Are you saying that all teams play better for new coaches then fold, or is that just a Cowboy phenomenon?

I understand what you are saying about him being part of the 1-7 team, believe me, I haven't forgotten it. That's one of the reasons that I temper my enthusiasm about Garrett. I think he did a good job as the HC in his 8 games, but it's too early to make a definitive call about what kind of head coach he will be.

 

[Hostile]

I can't even enjoy this site anymore, Garrett couldve easily been 3-5 during his run. Wade couldve been 6-2.

Wish I could talk football objectively with realistic fans instead of eternal pessimists and Garrett super fans. Some of these guys, I won't say names, havent said one negative thing about RJ.

You need people to say negative things about him to enjoy the site?

He has red hair and an Ivy League degree. Try not to orgasm with delight at the revelation of these horrible traits.

 

[john van brocklin]

There was a lot of difference. Effort, results, attitude, and even performance.

With all of our starters and a full year of this kind of system we will be a very good football team.

Hope you are right Hos, the offesive line will need serious attention this offseason !