Sturm's Morning After: Cowboys have a coaching mess; Garrett ignores reality of the underdog

[Sydla]

When Weed or Cassel are your QB you don't need excuses. It just reality that you are highly likely to loose.

Anybody would have said at the beginning of the season that the Cowboy would be unlikely to win if Romo didn't play regardless of the coaching.

Losing is difficult and it's easier to blame the coaches or somebody instead of just taking the losses like a man.

Actually it's probably easier to try to turn all these losses into moral victories.

 

[xwalker]

Yes, really. Shoot, you, yourself said that Garrett is likely a middle of the pack NFL coach. Which makes him average, mediocre, whatever word you want to use to describe middle of the pack.

A non-mediocre coach probably wins at least one of the last 5.

So frankly, you sound confused at this point.

You're grasping at straws.

Wade and Campo technically were not even in the top 32 coaches in terms of ability to be a head coach because there were many assistant coaches in the league that were more qualified.

Being middle of the pack does not indicate that a Head Coach is a bad coach. Most of them are very similar and are dependent on player talent and assistant coaches to differentiate themselves.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

What if 'conservative' is the best position to win, and it's still not working? Because that might be the case right now.

We'd have definitely beaten the Giants if not for the gaffes. That's not an argument for gaffes.

I don't think we played conservative against the Giants. Even with the mistakes we had our best chance of winning any game we have played since Romo went down. Then we suddenly change back to conservative, a loss is a loss but again, go down swinging.

 

[texbumthelife]

What if 'conservative' is the best position to win, and it's still not working? Because that might be the case right now.

We'd have definitely beaten the Giants if not for the gaffes. That's not an argument for gaffes.

For the record, I don't think 'conservative' is the issue and that's not my main problem with Garret. Conservative can work, but even conservative gives you room for flexibility. You can still make adjustments. You can still manage the clock.You can still look prepared as a team and as an offense. It's not any one thing, its just about everything. That's why I put so much on Garrett right now.

 

[Jarv]

You're grasping at straws.

Wade and Campo technically were not even in the top 32 coaches in terms of ability to be a head coach because there were many assistant coaches in the league that were more qualified.

Being middle of the pack does not indicate that a Head Coach is a bad coach. Most of them are very similar and are dependent on player talent and assistant coaches to differentiate themselves.

What would you say are Garrett's best attributes as a head coach that puts him into the middle of the pack and which head coaches are worse than him?

 

[xwalker]

Actually it's probably easier to try to turn all these losses into moral victories.

There are no moral victories. Take the losing like a grown man.

If people have some legit analysis to call out players/coaches fine, but the automatic expectation of winning or the coaches failed is silly.

 

[Idgit]

I don't think we played conservative against the Giants. Even with the mistakes we had our best chance of winning any game we have played since Romo went down. Then we suddenly change back to conservative, a loss is a loss but again, go down swinging.

Really? I thought we had a better chance this week than we did last. As soon as we threw the pick 6, I knew we were in trouble last week. I was still thinking we'd win this week up until the series after the blocked fg.

Same with the Saints game. I thought we were going to win the toss and close that one out. What an idiot.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Actually it's probably easier to try to turn all these losses into moral victories.

And that is where some are again. " We lost to the defending champs" Who cares? We lost another game. And they don't resemble champs to me.

 

[texbumthelife]

You're grasping at straws.

Wade and Campo technically were not even in the top 32 coaches in terms of ability to be a head coach because there were many assistant coaches in the league that were more qualified.

Being middle of the pack does not indicate that a Head Coach is a bad coach. Most of them are very similar and are dependent on player talent and assistant coaches to differentiate themselves.

I guess the argument is then, wouldn't you rather keep looking and find a good coach then stick with status quo and see the same thing year after year?

 

[Sydla]

You're grasping at straws.

Wade and Campo technically were not even in the top 32 coaches in terms of ability to be a head coach because there were many assistant coaches in the league that were more qualified.

Being middle of the pack does not indicate that a Head Coach is a bad coach. Most of them are very similar and are dependent on player talent and assistant coaches to differentiate themselves.

LOL. Who is grasping at straws here? You are bringing up two former coaches that most people agree weren't very good coaches. It's a bizarre attempt to try to defend Garrett. Really bizarre.

Yes, to me, being a middle of the pack coach is essentially a poor coach. And I know it's downright crazy, but I think a franchise like the Cowboys should try to get a coach that isn't "middle of the pack".

So let me get this straight. I need to understand your perverse logic here. Because Campo and Wade were truly awful coaches, Garrett is fine as head coach because he's not as bad as those two.

 

[xwalker]

What would you are Garrett's best attributes as a head coach that puts him into the middle of the pack and which head coaches are worse than him?

That is a very long response that would require a lot of documentation to make a point.

Who are the coaches that have had great success in all games they've coached with scrub level backup QBs?

 

[Sydla]

There are no moral victories. Take the losing like a grown man.

If people have some legit analysis to call out players/coaches fine, but the automatic expectation of winning or the coaches failed is silly.

And yet you keep talking about how we kept all these games close and that it's a sign of good coaching that we didn't get blown out. No offense, but that's trying to turn these losses into moral victories.

LOL.

 

[Sydla]

That is a very long response that would require a lot of documentation to make a point.

Who are the coaches that have had great success in all games they've coached with scrub level backup QBs?

I can't tell if you do this on purpose or are just not understanding what people are saying.

Not one person here has said or expected that Garrett had to win ALL GAMES they've coached with scrub level QBs.

What most people have said is that if Garrett was truly a competent head coach and this staff was truly a competent staff, that more than likely, they could have squeezed out a win in maybe just one of the 5 games they've played Romo-less.

 

[xwalker]

I guess the argument is then, wouldn't you rather keep looking and find a good coach then stick with status quo and see the same thing year after year?

We see many failures when teams change HCs. If there was a super duper HC waiting for a call then that's one thing but most assistants fail as HCs and many college college coaches fail in the NFL.

 

[JDSmith]

I guess the argument is then, wouldn't you rather keep looking and find a good coach then stick with status quo and see the same thing year after year?

How do we know when we have a good coach? Do we make them play with Weeden or Cassel and see who can win games?

This team won 13 games under this coaching staff last year, were they bad coaches then too?

 

[xwalker]

And yet you keep talking about how we kept all these games close and that it's a sign of good coaching that we didn't get blown out. No offense, but that's trying to turn these losses into moral victories.

LOL.

No, it's not. It is being realistic about the expected results with Weed/Cassel as the QB.

 

[texbumthelife]

How do we know when we have a good coach? Do we make them play with Weeden or Cassel and see who can win games?

This team won 13 games under this coaching staff last year, were they bad coaches then too?

And went 8-8 the previous 3 seasons and failed to win the final game to get into the playoffs twice.

 

[texbumthelife]

How do we know when we have a good coach? Do we make them play with Weeden or Cassel and see who can win games?

This team won 13 games under this coaching staff last year, were they bad coaches then too?

To use one of X's favorite coaches, Wade Phillips won 13 games his first year...

 

[dallasdave]

Maybe time to clean house ?

 

[JDSmith]

To use one of X's favorite coaches, Wade Phillips won 13 games his first year...

He did, but he was too soft and he didn't demand enough from his players so he lost the team. I haven't seen that with Garrett.