Sporting News ranks NFL head coaches - JG 23rd

[Idgit]

Yep, being consistently mediocre and beaten like a drum by good team is "so not the problem" and in fact is a good thing

Lol

Well, that's unsurprisingly out of context. In this case, it was a given that we'd lost 8 games. Given that, wouldn't you agree it's better to be losing to good teams and for the same reason most of the time? I would think that would be obvious, but you never know around here.

SilverStar has dodged this same direct question twice now because he doesn't want to admit it makes sense. He's posting gifs in a weak attempt to deflect the point, but I think he knows I'm right.

 

[Beast_from_East]

Yet somehow he won 7 other games besides the Oakland game last year with an ungodly amount of injuries on defense.


J/K

I know you are joking, but we did have only 1 win against a team that finished above 500 last year. That was at Philly where Foles got knocked out of the game with a concussion.

Other than that Philly game, we lost to every team we played that finished above 500 last year. That was my point, that Garrett will never get the reputation of being a good head coach (among both the fans and the media) until we start beating good teams.

 

[Beast_from_East]

This is *so* not a problem. Beating the teams you should beat, and losing to teams that are better than you is a good sign, and not a bad one. I'd be more on the fence about the team's performance if we were all over the place in terms of how we played.

Another thing I like about Jason's teams is that we're so obviously losing games because of the pass defense. It's pretty consistent, and yes, for the hundredth time it's his responsibility to fix it. But I like that our weaknesses are obvious and well defined and that it's not little things all over the place that keep cropping up to bite us. At least we can throw resources at defense until Tony Romo's too old to help us win anything.

Fair post my friend.

While I may not agree with you about Garrett, you do argu your point well and I enjoy going back and forth with you.

 

[Idgit]

I know you are joking, but we did have only 1 win against a team that finished above 500 last year. That was at Philly where Foles got knocked out of the game with a concussion.

Other than that Philly game, we lost to every team we played that finished above 500 last year. That was my point, that Garrett will never get the reputation of being a good head coach (among both the fans and the media) until we start beating good teams.

And no coach is going to coach you to victories in games where you consistently lose the passing game differential. It's not something you coach around in a game plan. You address it by getting a team that's harder to throw against.

 

[Idgit]

Fair post my friend.

While I may not agree with you about Garrett, you do argu your point well and I enjoy going back and forth with you.

Thanks. You, too.

And, hey, if you want to beat the HC up for fumbling on improving the defense in three and a half years, that's a criticism I can get behind.

 

[Beast_from_East]

And no coach is going to coach you to victories in games where you consistently lose the passing game differential. It's not something you coach around in a game plan. You address it by getting a team that's harder to throw against.

The 32nd ranked defense overall has to get better, especially the pass defense. That is something you and me are in compete agreement on.

 

[big dog cowboy]

The 32nd ranked defense overall has to get better, especially the pass defense. That is something you and me are in compete agreement on.

Might as well include anyone who breathes air.

 

[visionary]

Well, that's unsurprisingly out of context. In this case, it was a given that we'd lost 8 games. Given that, wouldn't you agree it's better to be losing to good teams and for the same reason most of the time? I would think that would be obvious, but you never know around here.

SilverStar has dodged this same direct question twice now because he doesn't want to admit it makes sense. He's posting gifs in a weak attempt to deflect the point, but I think he knows I'm right.

'Unsurprisingly' you are resorting to your tired schtick when you don't have a response
Maybe it is not an 'out of context' problem on the part of many of us but a comprehension issue on your part

Let me try to simplify this for you

We lost to every team above .500 except Philly last year
If teams above .500 keep beating us and that is "not a problem" for you then we will never win anything

Saying this is "so not the problem" just to try and distract from Garrett's incompetence and pathetic record as HC is also 'unsurprising' coming from you
The problem you have is that you have painted yourself into a corner by your constant excuse making and have nowhere to go

 

[Section446]

He's #1 in our hearts.

 

[DallasEast]

Somewhere, a writer is compiling a ranking of assistant coaches. Which site will publish it? ESPN? Bleacher Report? I don't know. Fantasy info is popular (and obviously very profitable).

Still, for the life of me, I do not understand what's taking so long. When WILL the punter ranking get posted? It's just begging to be dissected...

 

[cml750]

23 is WAY too generous for a guy who cost his team at least two games a ear with piss poor clock management. Gil must be a little sentimental toward the Cowboys ranking Garrett that high.

 

[jnday]

Well, that's unsurprisingly out of context. In this case, it was a given that we'd lost 8 games. Given that, wouldn't you agree it's better to be losing to good teams and for the same reason most of the time? I would think that would be obvious, but you never know around here.

SilverStar has dodged this same direct question twice now because he doesn't want to admit it makes sense. He's posting gifs in a weak attempt to deflect the point, but I think he knows I'm right.

I will take a shot at answering your question. I don't know if losing due to the same reasons is a good thing, but it tells me that the GM, coaches and players recognize the problem and they are too stupid to fix it. Is that a good thing?

 

[Setackin]

23 is to high... think bout those stupid in game decisions that costed us timeouts and possibly games.... he doesn't seem very creditable. I'd say 28 or 29.

 

[Idgit]

'Unsurprisingly' you are resorting to your tired schtick when you don't have a response
Maybe it is not an 'out of context' problem on the part of many of us but a comprehension issue on your part

Let me try to simplify this for you

We lost to every team above .500 except Philly last year
If teams above .500 keep beating us and that is "not a problem" for you then we will never win anything

Saying this is "so not the problem" just to try and distract from Garrett's incompetence and pathetic record as HC is also 'unsurprising' coming from you
The problem you have is that you have painted yourself into a corner by your constant excuse making and have nowhere to go

Wow. You really just won't answer this question in context. Yes, this team lost 8 games. That's given. The question is, of the games that you lost, it's better that you're getting beat by good teams than by bad teams because that means you're probably playing at a level near your ability. And it's better that you get beat by the same liability each time because that means it's clearer what your liability probably is.

So, yes, the fact that our .500 team is beating the teams we should beat and losing to ones that should beat us is so not the problem. The problem is that we're losing the 8 games in the first place because the team has liabilities on defense.

So whatever it is you think you're painting by just missing the point, well, it's not me into a corner, visionary.

And I'm not 'making excuses' because, as I've said dozens of times on these topics now: it's Jason Garrett's job to have fixed the defense, too, and he hasn't done it. If you can't distinguish between making an excuse and trying to determine what Jason's challenge in Dallas actually is, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Idgit]

I will take a shot at answering your question. I don't know if losing due to the same reasons is a good thing, but it tells me that the GM, coaches and players recognize the problem and they are too stupid to fix it. Is that a good thing?

See, now, that I agree with, and, no, it's not a good thing.

I don't know that they're too stupid to fix it...they have been spending resources addressing other liabilities like the OL....but they've definitely blown it the last three years on defense. It was a mistake to bring in Ryan in the first place, then the Kiffin hire was weird. The Ratliff extension was an obvious mistake the day it was signed. The Ware extension I think was necessary, but it turned out to bite when his play fell off a cliff. Franchising Spencer and losing him immediately was painful. It's been a combination of not have the right strategy defensively overall, bad bets, and a really bad string of injuries. But, yeah, there's plenty of criticism to go around when it comes to how Jason and Jerry have handled the defense the last three and a half years or so.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

This team isn't going anywhere until it starts beating good teams and that doesn't mean losing to awful ones.

 

[Idgit]

This team isn't going anywhere until it starts beating good teams and that doesn't mean losing to awful ones.

Yep. The question is, though, what needs to change for this to happen? And you can't just say 'everything.'

 

[iceberg]

This team isn't going anywhere until it starts beating good teams and that doesn't mean losing to awful ones.

Whoah. Capt obvious in the hizzy

 

[Bullflop]

Publications don't rank head coaches favorably unless their season records indicate they should. Unfortunately, that hasn't been the case in terms of the Cowboys' season records during Garrett's tenure. His 23'rd ranking isn't surprising by any means. What he's done in terms of being Jerry's GM by proxy apparently doesn't enter into the picture here, as helpful as it may be.

 

[visionary]

Wow. You really just won't answer this question in context. Yes, this team lost 8 games. That's given. The question is, of the games that you lost, it's better that you're getting beat by good teams than by bad teams because that means you're probably playing at a level near your ability. And it's better that you get beat by the same liability each time because that means it's clearer what your liability probably is.

So, yes, the fact that our .500 team is beating the teams we should beat and losing to ones that should beat us is so not the problem. The problem is that we're losing the 8 games in the first place because the team has liabilities on defense.

So whatever it is you think you're painting by just missing the point, well, it's not me into a corner, visionary.

And I'm not 'making excuses' because, as I've said dozens of times on these topics now: it's Jason Garrett's job to have fixed the defense, too, and he hasn't done it. If you can't distinguish between making an excuse and trying to determine what Jason's challenge in Dallas actually is, I don't know what to tell you.

Unfortunately your view of our deficiencies is warped
Firstly, getting beat because of a bad pass defense related not just to our CBs, it relates to our entire defense because DL , LB s bad safeties also figure prominently as glaring deficiencies . So it is not a simple fix, it points to a multitude of huge problems and attests to years of bad planning by our GM and our HC

Also, unlike what you think, our offense also had deficiencies for years including the short yardage running game

So in short , it is NOT "so not the problem " that we have a pretend GM and a high school level HC , it is in fact "so the problem "