Something I didn't realize

[RoyTheHammer]

Like I said, maybe watching more football would be good for you.

Your just blatantly wrong if you feel there wasnt a dramatic difference in the level of play. The fact is the results were dramatically different. We won more and we did it with more backups playing against a more difficult schedule.

The team look organized and well prepared under Garrett, they never did under Wade. The blocking and tackling were both noticeably better. We scored more points offensively in spite of a backup playing QB because the execution was better.

If Garrett would have coached this team for 16 games this yr we'd have won 10 or 11 games and been in the playoffs. If Wade would have coached the entire season we'd have the #1 or #2 pick.

Your making an argument that makes absolutely zero sense.

Honestly.. WoodysGirl isn't that far off.

I think the truth in this discussion lies somewhere in the middle of your two perspectives.

In games under Wade and Garrett alike, we were pretty much always in the game the majority of the time. It wasn't until Romo went down in the last two games under Wade that this team completely fell apart.

However, under Garrett the team did seem to come out with more effort. I don't attribute that completely to JG, because anytime there is a shakeup and a coaching change, and your boss tells you you better shape up or be shipped out.. there's going to be a change in your mindset and your effort.

Garrett helped get the penalty situation in check for the first couple games he coached, but the refs at practice may have helped with this as well.

Though if you look at the entire body of work since JG took over, we still played alot of sloppy, unfocused football.. and still made alot of the little, stupid mistakes that we were making under Wade.

7 fumbles against the Saints, ill timed penalties, the missed extra point at Zona, etc..

I've said before, i think Garrett showed enough to warrent us giving him a chance as our HC, and letting him do things his way.. however, im not quite sold that he will be a highly successful HC in this league. There's still some things he has to show, imo.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

They were "better" losses, we had genuine chances to win all of those games. Garrett could easily be 8-0 or 7-1


HUH? 5-3 is better than 1-7, and the quality of the football being played was VASTLY better. And Garrett got the toughest part of the schedule, without a single snap from Romo.



There was alot more to it than penalties going down, if you think thats the only difference in the games, you need to watch more football.

:laugh1:

Ok dbair.. after this post you should lay off a little bit.

Come on now.. "better" losses. You're really reaching right now.

The quality of football was not VASTLY better.

You mention how we could have easily been 8-0 or 7-1 under Garrett, well 5 of our 7 losses under Wade we could have easily won too since we lost by 7 points or less.

So by that logic we could have easily been 6-2 under Wade.

The point is, under Wade, and under Garrett.. we saw sloppy play, ill timed penalties, drops by the WR's, too many fumbles and botched snaps, missed extra points and chip shot FG's, celebration penalties, etc..

If you think this team played with alot more discipline and alot more attention to detail under Garrett than you're mistaken. I'd encourage you to go back and watch the games again, because under both coaches there were alot of stupid little mistakes that simply can't happen.

 

[dbair1967]

:laugh1:

Ok dbair.. after this post you should lay off a little bit.

Come on now.. "better" losses. You're really reaching right now.

The quality of football was not VASTLY better.

You mention how we could have easily been 8-0 or 7-1 under Garrett, well 5 of our 7 losses under Wade we could have easily won too since we lost by 7 points or less.

So by that logic we could have easily been 6-2 under Wade.

The point is, under Wade, and under Garrett.. we saw sloppy play, ill timed penalties, drops by the WR's, too many fumbles and botched snaps, missed extra points and chip shot FG's, celebration penalties, etc..

If you think this team played with alot more discipline and alot more attention to detail under Garrett than you're mistaken. I'd encourage you to go back and watch the games again, because under both coaches there were alot of stupid little mistakes that simply can't happen.

Pts scored went up. Time of possession went up. Rushing yds per game went up. Turnovers went down, turnovers forced went up. Rushing defense was better. Wins went up.

And it wasnt like there were just slight differences in the above.

So I'd describe that as "vastly" better.

 

[Cowboyslife]

More than the wins and losses, just look at how the Cowboys played with Garrett at the helm. Crikey, they overcame an 18 point disparity in a game! That never would have been possible under Wade, who would have been too busy holding his head in his hands to coach the Cowboys to that type of turnaround. The players never quit under Garrett, while they most assuredly quit under Wade.

Maybe it was all just because people were playing for their jobs or not, on that we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[The Realist]

You have to be pretty slow to think I was just referring to just the point differential.

Only one person missed it.

Total still means total.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Pts scored went up. Time of possession went up. Rushing yds per game went up. Turnovers went down, turnovers forced went up. Rushing defense was better. Wins went up.

And it wasnt like there were just slight differences in the above.

So I'd describe that as "vastly" better.

We also still got lit up on the scoreboard every week, and still saw alot of the same sloppy play that got Wade run out of town.

We did play harder, and i never said Garrett didn't do anything better, clearly he did.. that's why we won more games.

The truth though, imo, is that while Garrett had us playing harder, more physical football.. not much else changed.

Two of his big selling points were his discipline and attention to detail, yet we still saw alot of sloppy, undisciplined play after he took over, and we also saw alot of play that looked like we weren't focused out there either.

All those little silly mistakes need to stop next year under Garrett. I believe he'll be able to get the job done, and ultimately, alot of the mistakes we've had this entire season.. just come from having dumb players on this team.

 

[jjktkk]

For an interim coach to post a winning record is a achievement, no matter the circumstances. Throw in the fact that Garrett won a game using a 3rd string qb is even more impressive.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

For an interim coach to post a winning record is a achievement, no matter the circumstances. Throw in the fact that Garrett won a game using a 3rd string qb is even more impressive.

That 3rd string QB was surrounded by a group of starters, playing against a team of 3rd stringers and practice squad types..

Just to keep it in perspective.

I agree though, there were definately some good changes made. It'll be an exciting offseason for sure.

 

[EPL0c0]

Not really. 5 of the 7 losses under Wade were by 7pts or less.

The two games that ppl point to where Wade lost the team was in the Jax and GB games.

Penalty issues improved after Wade brought the refs to practice.

Def turnovers increased after Wade was fired and offensive turnovers decreased.

those 5 losses were by an averaage of 4.8pts.

I think there's no doubt that effort improved, but the same limitations the players had under Wade were still there under Garrett. Hopefully that's something that can be improved upon with personnel changes.

 

[jjktkk]

That 3rd string QB was surrounded by a group of starters, playing against a team of 3rd stringers and practice squad types..

Just to keep it in perspective.

I agree though, there were definately some good changes made. It'll be an exciting offseason for sure.

Of course. I like what I've seen of Garrett as a HC, but next year will really tell me more about him, since he will of hired his own coaching staff and his fingerprints will be on the draft and other personnel moves.

 

[aikemirv]

There is not a lot of difference between winning and losing in the NFL. The little things done during the week can make that difference especially if you don't have a dominant Defense.

For example if you look at the Pack-Eagle game last week. What was the difference in that game?

Missed FG's by a kicker who NEVER misses big ones and on the other side one of the easiest catches dropped by a wide open WR for a TD. Those plays, 3 of them made the difference between a W and a L.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Of course. I like what I've seen of Garrett as a HC, but next year will really tell me more about him, since he will of hired his own coaching staff and his fingerprints will be on the draft and other personnel moves.

I agree there. Will be an exciting year upcoming.

 

[TVMan]

Wade's 2010 version was soft, coddled and overly penalized.
Garrett's 2010 version was aggressive, focused and more disciplined.

You can't argue with the results.

No accountability leads to losing no matter the profession.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Wade's 2010 version was soft, coddled and overly penalized.
Garrett's 2010 version was aggressive, focused and more disciplined.

You can't argue with the results.

No accountability leads to losing no matter the profession.

I can argue with the "more focused" and "more disciplined" part under JG.

I think alot of our better play simply had to do with being more physical as a team. Playing harder than we had been. I don't think we played much more focused or disciplined though. Still saw way too much sloppy play and too many little, stupid mistakes.

 

[Stautner]

Except for two games, the level of play was the same as it was under Wade without the penalties and snakebitten offensive turnovers. You can't win with the number of penalties and turnovers they had under Wade. That along with the defensive collapse is what cost Wade his job.

Don't you think the penalties are part of the level of play? What I mean is, if somehow the penalty problem that we have had the last few years improved after Garrett took over, wouldn't that equate to the level of play improving? After all, level of play isn't just about individual ability to make a play, its about the overall ability to consistently do the job.

I also have a hard time believing that a team that was 1-7 with Wade and playing mostly bottom teams that didn't even sniff the playoffs didn't have to raise their level of play to go 5-3 against mostly playoff level teams.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I also have a hard time believing that a team that was 1-7 with Wade and playing mostly bottom teams that didn't even sniff the playoffs didn't have to raise their level of play to go 5-3 against mostly playoff level teams.

Not sure that strength of schedule analysis is accurate at all...

 

[wileedog]

I also have a hard time believing that a team that was 1-7 with Wade and playing mostly bottom teams that didn't even sniff the playoffs didn't have to raise their level of play to go 5-3 against mostly playoff level teams.

Arguably the 3 worst games the team played under Garrett were the Cardinals, Commanders, and Eagles JV squad.

Look, there's no question the team was better under Garrett, but to say they didn't fade down the stretch is also putting too rosy a picture on it. A team that beat the Colts and hung with the Saints should not have had trouble with the Skins, Cardinals and Philly bench.

But lets see what Garrett can do with a year to install his system and players.

 

[Stautner]

Not sure that strength of schedule analysis is accurate at all...

We played 3 games against playoff teams in the 1st 8 games, and 6 games against playoff teams in the last 8 games.

We lost to the Skins and Giants under Wade, and beat the Skins and Giants under JG.

We scored 161 points in 8 games under Wade (20 ppg), and 233 points in 8 games under JG (29 ppg).

We could only find a way to win 1 game the 1st 8 games (12.5% winning percetage), and we found a way to win 5 games the last 8 games 62.5% winning percentage).

I just don't see how this can't be seen as an elevated level of play in the 2nd half of the year.

 

[Stautner]

Arguably the 3 worst games the team played under Garrett were the Cardinals, Commanders, and Eagles JV squad.

Look, there's no question the team was better under Garrett, but to say they didn't fade down the stretch is also putting too rosy a picture on it. A team that beat the Colts and hung with the Saints should not have had trouble with the Skins, Cardinals and Philly bench.

But lets see what Garrett can do with a year to install his system and players.

The Eagles JV? Because they didn't play Vick? The Eagles still had an experienced veteran QB at the helm who had known some NFL success, and the Cowboys had a 1st time starter at the helm. Kind of hard to act as if we should have played like we would have with Romo or Kitna at the helm. Plus, because of injuries we were relying on WR's like Manny Johnson to help us through that game.

I certainly admit they could have played better down the stretch, but that wasn't the point I was disputing or discussing. The point of discussion was whether the team raised it's level of play after Garrett took over, and it appears you agree with me on that.

 

[wileedog]

We played 3 games against playoff teams in the 1st 8 games, and 6 games against playoff teams in the last 8 games..

2nd half:

Giants
Indy
Saints
Philly
Philly Bench.

That's only 5 playoff teams, and really technically 4.