The Case for Firing Jason Garrett and the coaching staff **merged**

[Dave_in-NC]

There kind of is right now. I hate it, but I have to admit, I'm befuddled by how this season has played out.

I look at it one way and say we lost the one player we couldn't afford to lose, at the position where we were probably backed up the poorest on the entire team. That part makes sense. But how we're also not getting pressure on opposing QBs and not getting the takeaways when we've added a lot of front-7 talent (Hardy and Gregory and getting Lee back is a lot of talent) is beyond me. I don't buy that it's because we had a team built to play with a lead. I just don't know what's going on there, honestly. And I'm not sure anybody does.

We have DBs with hands of stone. While we certainly should have better turn over numbers the DBs look allot like Twill at times.

 

[daveferr33]

The last place team in each division and the number of games in which they lost by more than one score (9 points or more):

Chargers--2
Lions--3
Cowboys--3
Titans--4
Dolphins--4
Saints--4
Browns--5
49ers--6

Make of it what you will

 

[Idgit]

How do we know if he is working well with Jerry or not?

How do we not know that he isn't a complete puppet?


I'm not sure Jason was all aboard with hiring Linehan.

I'm not sure he was all aboard signing a lot of these guys on the team.

I don't know that he wanted to fire Rob Ryan for Monte Kiffin.


This RKG and process malarkey have run it course with me.

Even when we're good it's not because of anything he is doing.

We know he's working well with Jerry, because Jerry and Stephen say so, and Jerry just gave him a big extension. We know he's not a puppet, because we can see the changes he brought in with how we operate after taking over for Wade, and we hear the things the players and staff say about him and what a great job he does with regularity.

Of course he was on board with the hiring of Linehan. Linehan was his connection. If you don't buy that, then you're not buying anything sensible and there's no point trying to sell it to you.

Honestly, Catch. I've seen your criticisms and know you're not about to change your opinion. I'll just say that none of the things you most often complain about hold a lot of water with me when it comes to Jason Garrett. I don't like his scheme very much myself, and I agree he's had to learn how to manage games because that's not something that was a strength of his. He's very conservative when he thinks he's got a bad hand, and I don't like that, but I do understand it. Other than that, though, and the occasional play calling or challenge mistakes literally every coach has, I think Jason does a good job. And that includes the 8-8 seasons. I think, for the most part, we've had a bad team which had to be rebuilt, and then when we finally rebuilt it, we got what we got handed this year, which has been a disaster but which is still personnel-related as far as I'm concerned.

My only concern about the coaching is that there's a shelf life to a coach's message and we're now in danger of that expiring if we can't cobble together some wins at the end of the year.

 

[texbumthelife]

In the traditional formation, the SE lines up to the left. The WR progression goes from right to left for a right handed QB because of body alignment. You are aware of the situation at QB and how they were having problems getting through their reads? I think you are misattributing cause here.

I am misattributing cause of design of plays? The fact of the matter is, whether it is the right or left side, the SE is running the same two routes with mind numbing regularity.

As far as the QB situation, that goes both ways. There is no way to know how frequently Romo checks out of the routes Linehan calls and into the more successful ones. Let's focus on what we can actually see.

As for your 75%, we both know you pulled that out of air. You did no counting.

Really? Was it the part where I admitted that, that gave it away? I watch every game and the All-22 for every game.

I also know that all of his receivers complement those routes with in and outs run at varying levels. I get that the 9 and comeback are also staples but your evaluation seems to completely ignore what Linehan tries to do. Most of the completions that we get from the position are from those in routes.

My evaluation doesn't ignore anything that anyone tries to do. It's based on visual evidence of what is actually done. Most of the completions from the SE are most assuredly not from "in" routes. Anyone watching the games can see that clear as day. The completions to in routes are going to be from one of the slots when in 3 and four wides or bunch, while they will come from slants in base or slants to the Z or flanker. Yes, you will see the deep in from the SE from time to time, but it is so few and far between it barely deserves merit. That's also the reason why when we do run it, it is so frequently open--because defenses don't respect it because we run is so rarely.

Mind you, the numbers I am appropriating myself, are solely in regards to the SE position.

 

[texbumthelife]

The last place team in each division and the number of games in which they lost by more than one score (9 points or more):

Chargers--2
Lions--3
Cowboys--3
Titans--4
Dolphins--4
Saints--4
Browns--5
49ers--6

Make of it what you will

The 9ers are really, REALLY bad. That's what I make of it.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

He's the HC no? He is responsible for all things on the field. He's the leader of all coaches. He must be fine with all of his coordinators because it's the same thing week in week out. He has the power to demand changes, yet we see none. While all the blame cannot be laid at his feet he is the final answer.

Unless he has no real power like some of us suspect.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Unless he has no real power like some of us suspect.

I like to give the believers more respect than that. I mean they have insiders and all.

 

[Idgit]

We have DBs with hands of stone. While we certainly should have better turn over numbers the DBs look allot like Twill at times.

Gah. Now I'm getting irritated all over again. Yes, the balls hitting Patmon in the hands multiple times. Or that damn fumble v. NE that went right at Church and then wobbled away. And those stupid strips where the knee was just down. And the ticky tacky blocking downfield call on Street v. the Giants. Or the ticky tacky push off on Williams v. PHI. Or the missed DPI on Dez v. Tampa. Or Dez's drop in Tampa.

So many damn games where we're just coming up one play short. Or the wins, where we made a play or two that shouldn't have been made. I kind of hate that we're in a place right now where the margin for error decides games, and that margin is basically in the hands of uneven officiating crews from week to week.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

I am misattributing cause of design of plays? The fact of the matter is, whether it is the right or left side, the SE is running the same two routes with mind numbing regularity.

As far as the QB situation, that goes both ways. There is no way to know how frequently Romo checks out of the routes Linehan calls and into the more successful ones. Let's focus on what we can actually see.



Really? Was it the part where I admitted that, that gave it away? I watch every game and the All-22 for every game.



My evaluation doesn't ignore anything that anyone tries to do. It's based on visual evidence of what is actually done. Most of the completions from the SE are most assuredly not from "in" routes. Anyone watching the games can see that clear as day. The completions to in routes are going to be from one of the slots when in 3 and four wides or bunch, while they will come from slants in base or slants to the Z or flanker. Yes, you will see the deep in from the SE from time to time, but it is so few and far between it barely deserves merit. That's also the reason why when we do run it, it is so frequently open--because defenses don't respect it because we run is so rarely.

Mind you, the numbers I am appropriating myself, are solely in regards to the SE position.

Don't read that word quick.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Gah. Now I'm getting irritated all over again. Yes, the balls hitting Patmon in the hands multiple times. Or that damn fumble v. NE that went right at Church and then wobbled away. And those stupid strips where the knee was just down. And the ticky tacky blocking downfield call on Street v. the Giants. Or the ticky tacky push off on Williams v. PHI. Or the missed DPI on Dez v. Tampa. Or Dez's drop in Tampa.

So many damn games where we're just coming up one play short. Or the wins, where we made a play or two that shouldn't have been made. I kind of hate that we're in a place right now where the margin for error decides games, and that margin is basically in the hands of uneven officiating crews from week to week.

I just wanted to suck you right back to the misery we all share together. Aint it grand?

 

[Junglist]

I like to give the believers more respect than that. I mean they have insiders and all.

What does the guy at the liquor store say?

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I am misattributing cause of design of plays? The fact of the matter is, whether it is the right or left side, the SE is running the same two routes with mind numbing regularity.

As far as the QB situation, that goes both ways. There is no way to know how frequently Romo checks out of the routes Linehan calls and into the more successful ones. Let's focus on what we can actually see.



Really? Was it the part where I admitted that, that gave it away? I watch every game and the All-22 for every game.



My evaluation doesn't ignore anything that anyone tries to do. It's based on visual evidence of what is actually done. Most of the completions from the SE are most assuredly not from "in" routes. Anyone watching the games can see that clear as day. The completions to in routes are going to be from one of the slots when in 3 and four wides or bunch, while they will come from slants in base or slants to the Z or flanker. Yes, you will see the deep in from the SE from time to time, but it is so few and far between it barely deserves merit. That's also the reason why when we do run it, it is so frequently open--because defenses don't respect it because we run is so rarely.

Mind you, the numbers I am appropriating myself, are solely in regards to the SE position.

If the QB is having trouble progressing through reads what do you want to do with the reads on the opposite side of the field?

You are misattributing cause as to what the limiting factor is. You're saying Linehan is calling those plays because his scheme is limited. I'm saying he is calling it simple on the backside because we have had the QBs we have had. It is also the simplest thing to see on the field from the booth view.

Most of the completions come off the slant you say? You do realize how saying that undermines your 9's and comebacks 75% right? Slants in that context would be rare and an in cut too. I just think you completely miss the point of what Linehan is trying to do when the slant and in/out is getting open all the time given the scenario you complain about.

 

[texbumthelife]

If the QB is having trouble progressing through reads what do you want to do with the reads on the opposite side of the field?

You are misattributing cause as to what the limiting factor is. You're saying Linehan is calling those plays because his scheme is limited. I'm saying he is calling it simple on the backside because we have had the QBs we have had. It is also the simplest thing to see on the field from the booth view.

Oh I see what you're saying. Unfortunately, I am not speaking just about this season, so that's not entirely accurate.

Most of the completions come off the slant you say? You do realize how saying that undermines your 9's and comebacks right? SLants in that context would be rare too. I just think you completely miss the point of what Linehan is trying to do when the slant and in/out is getting open all the time given the scenario you complain about.

I actually never said that. However, even if I had, it wouldn't be undermining because the number of completions is mutually exclusive to the number of plays called. If ther have 40 offensive plays, the SE runs 5 slants and 35 hook routes, they could complete all 5 slants and never throw the hook. Granted that's not a realistic number, just thrown out there for arguments sake. Then again, I didn't say most completions come on slants... Furthermore the slant/IN certainly isn't getting open all the time.

It's not a complaint as much as it's a criticism and a general observation. Just making conversation and healthy debate. No need to keep making it a personal thing.

 

[Alexander]

Marinelli is being asked to run a m2m defense and even if you go all the way back to their Vikings days he and Kiffin are known as zone innovators. He's not running his defense and is making do with what he has. Claiborne and Carr need to be replaced or Marinelli needs to be replaced. Looking at the market, zone corners are not the hard ones to find; we still have Scandrick. I say replace the two corners and let Marinelli run his defense. Defense isn't bad though despite unfavorable conditions.

There is no evidence that Marinelli is being forced to do anything. Nobody is keeping him from running his style.

Even Kiffin was talking about bringing "Seahawk" defense when he was hired.

 

[Apollo Creed]

Gah. Now I'm getting irritated all over again. Yes, the balls hitting Patmon in the hands multiple times. Or that damn fumble v. NE that went right at Church and then wobbled away. And those stupid strips where the knee was just down. And the ticky tacky blocking downfield call on Street v. the Giants. Or the ticky tacky push off on Williams v. PHI. Or the missed DPI on Dez v. Tampa. Or Dez's drop in Tampa.

So many damn games where we're just coming up one play short. Or the wins, where we made a play or two that shouldn't have been made. I kind of hate that we're in a place right now where the margin for error decides games, and that margin is basically in the hands of uneven officiating crews from week to week.

That's today's NFL, parity rules - and anyone can beat anyone on any given night. Which makes that 7 game losing streak really a testament to poor coaching. With such a slim margin for error, you can't afford to have a mediocre coaching staff.

You are what your record says you are. This team looks a lot more like 3-8 than 8-3.

What ifs and moral victories are for losers. Reality has set in for Cowboys nation, while we watched Romo lie on that stadium turf, again. We've officially wasted a franchise QBs career and health so an intern could learn how to be an NFL head coach.

There is a reason winners win and losers lose. Being mediocre has permeated through the Cowboys organization and ingrained itself in the culture. 3 straight years of 8-8 football, which was probably more like 4-12 football minus Romo carrying the team year in and year out.

That rhetorical propaganda coach-speak Garrett spews only sounds good when you're winning, or at least relevant - things are about to get ugly for your boy, like Wade Phillips in Green Bay ugly.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Oh I see what you're saying. Unfortunately, I am not speaking just about this season, so that's not entirely accurate.

I actually never said that. However, even if I had, it wouldn't be undermining because the number of completions is mutually exclusive to the number of plays called. If ther have 40 offensive plays, the SE runs 5 slants and 35 hook routes, they could complete all 5 slants and never throw the hook. Granted that's not a realistic number, just thrown out there for arguments sake. Then again, I didn't say most completions come on slants... Furthermore the slant/IN certainly isn't getting open all the time.

It's not a complaint as much as it's a criticism and a general observation. Just making conversation and healthy debate. No need to keep making it a personal thing.

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. You did say that most of the completions were based off slants and you did say that you think Linehan's scheme is too simple with how he calls the backside as evidence.

Anyone watching the games can see that clear as day. The completions to in routes are going to be from one of the slots when in 3 and four wides or bunch, while they will come from slants in base or slants to the Z or flanker.

I'm not making a single qualitative comment about you man. If you want me to make one, I can easily say that I respect you and appreciate your approach. I argue to win though and at the very least I hope you could see why I might be confused.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

There is no evidence that Marinelli is being forced to do anything. Nobody is keeping him from running his style.

Even Kiffin was talking about bringing "Seahawk" defense when he was hired.

Hi, peaches how are you. I'm glad you decided to argue on merit today.

I never said he was forced. I said asked because the front office gave him man corners. If you want me to guess as to his motivations I would guess that it is because he is trying to do the best he can with the personnel he has. The way he plays Claiborne leads me to believe he cannot ask him to do anything complicated and/or on the fly.

None of that detracts from the point that both he and Kiffin from Minny, TB, and Chi have been termed zone coverage gurus and he is currently running a primary man scheme with players who are best at man coverage. If you want to infinitely regress on uncertainty then have fun but I'm not going to play along.

 

[texbumthelife]

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from. You did say that most of the completions were based off slants and you did say that you think Linehan's scheme is too simple with how he calls the backside as evidence.



I'm not making a single qualitative comment about you man. If you want me to make one, I can easily say that I respect you and appreciate your approach. I argue to win though and at the very least I hope you could see why I might be confused.

I said:

Most of the completions from the SE are most assuredly not from "in" routes. Anyone watching the games can see that clear as day. The completions to in routes are going to be from one of the slots when in 3 and four wides or bunch, while they will come from slants in base or slants to the Z or flanker.

You're right, that was convoluted, I apologize. I simply meant slants to the Z in base alignment. When I said "or" I meant it in the sense as "otherwise known as". It was a repetitive.

I only made the comment about it being personal because terms like "complaint" and "retribution" which have a decidedly personal connotation. I know you're a good poster and know your stuff.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I do find it interesting that Alex took issue with the strawman 'forced.' Seems he is intent on keeping that blame where he wants it.

 

[texbumthelife]

I do find it interesting that Alex took issue with the strawman 'forced.' Seems he is intent on keeping that blame where he wants it.

Considering you specifically said, "being asked to" which is antonymous to "forced"