The Garrett Thread

[DallasInDC]

I saw a huge hole right over the LG many, many times tonight. Not once, did they run in that direction.

That's mainly because we got away from the running game. I think had we stuck with it more than we had we would have gotten them to back off the blitz. all you need to do is get Murray to the second level (which you can do with an overly aggresive blitzing team).. He may not break it all th eway, but he will pick up yardage in large chunks.

 

[Tabascocat]

That's mainly because we got away from the running game. I think had we stuck with it more than we had we would have gotten them to back off the blitz. all you need to do is get Murray to the second level (which you can do with an overly aggresive blitzing team).. He may not break it all th eway, but he will pick up yardage in large chunks.

Exactly, that is why I am angry, they went away from what was working from weeks 2 to 7. Tonight looked like Garrett's playbook all over again.

 

[DallasInDC]

Exactly, that is why I am angry, they went away from what was working from weeks 2 to 7. Tonight looked like Garrett's playbook all over again.

As I mentioned in another post, the coaches (Linehan/JG) over thought this game plan. You ride the horse that got you there until they prove to you they can stop it regularly. When you have an OL like ours, you got a let em' play downhill (that also masks some of the weaknesses we have seen in the pass protection) [/SIZE]

 

[Tabascocat]

As I mentioned in another post, the coaches (Linehan/JG) over thought this game plan. You ride the horse that got you there until they prove to you they can stop it regularly. When you have an OL like ours, you got a let em' play downhill (that also masks some of the weaknesses we have seen in the pass protection) [/SIZE]

Yea, they did not wear them down like usual. We win games in the 2nd half because of the beating their front takes.

 

[DallasInDC]

I think there D was on the verge of getting wore down if we kept the pressure on them....The problem was we let them stick around due to our mistakes and their confidence level increased and they were jacked up.

 

[btcutter]

That about sums this one up.

8 yard run on 1st down in OT, followed by 3 straight passes with a gimpy QB and struggling O-Line.

Commanders bringing the house all game, completely inability to scheme a way to counteract it and stop getting your QB killed.

Outcoached.

Totally agree. As a head coach you get in the face of your coordinators and tell them exactly what you want!

 

[Beast_from_East]

how is that Garrett's fault? When did he become the play caller?

Head coach is responsible for the performance of the team bro...............did the team look ready to play to you?

 

[Zman5]

I wouldn't be surprised if Romo was little concussed as well. He looked dazed and confused.
He didn't even know how much time was left on the play clock. He definitely wasn't himself on the last series.

JG should have kept him out of the game.

 

[khiladi]

If Garrett actually coached this would matter. There are two things you can judge him on.

The stupid challenge...
Letting Romo come back in...

 

[BoysFan4ever]

I'm still wondering why they let Tony come back in. It wasn't as though he had had a good game to that point.

It seems reckless to expose him to further injury.

 

[rynochop]

Head coach is responsible for the performance of the team bro...............did the team look ready to play to you?

There has been a bunch of posts saying the reason they are winning is because of the coordinators, leaving garrett to clap and cheerlead. Am noy sure which is true

 

[sillycon]

Slants are the blitz killers

The only problem is that sometimes the blitz is just for show and they'd drop back some back. Romo would then throw a quick slant without realizing someone was covering that area. Romo was too jittery last night. He (and Murray) didn't recognize where the blitz was coming from. I just can't believe the coaching staff didn't find something to counter the blitz looks...

 

[heavyg]

I haven't read the entire thread so all I am going to say is.........Its only one game. We were flying high for 6 straight games and JG was being hailed as the second coming. This was a total team loss IMO. Just like the previous 6 wins were total team wins. The team was off last night PERIOD. Maybe they got to full of themselves I don't know. But I will wait and see how they play next week. I remember the teams of the 90's would come out and totally destroy the next opponent following and embarrassing loss like this. We will see what this team is made of next week

 

[Frosty]

You don't delegate responsibility. The HC has to insert himself at some point. He has to have an idea what he wants to do in that situation(s) and relay it to the OC and then live with it. You can't be a ******* clapping seal all game.

We were never going to go 15 and 1, we all know that, or at least we should. But at least give yourself the best chance to succeed.

POST OF THE DAY........

 

[lqmac1]

Head coach is responsible for the performance of the team bro...............did the team look ready to play to you?

When is the last time we have looked ready to play against Washington? It's hard to perform well on all levels when the opposing team is viewing the game as their Super Bowl. People want to praise Scott when the offense does good, but bash Garrett when they do bad. So Garrett was responsible for the missed tackles and awful covered by the secondary ,as well? I chalk this lose up to Scott and Rod. They did not have their units ready to play at all, and where out performed by the opposing coaching staff.

 

[zrinkill]

Same old Cowboys showed up. It was just a matter of when.

How many weeks have you been waiting to say that.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

It's amazing how much Jason Garrett forgot about coaching in just one week.

He'll learn it all back if we win next week.

But I gotta agree with the masses here. The call to bring Tony back is 100% Garrett. He's a genius if we win but if we lose, well, like I said, that's all on Garrett.

 

[Idgit]

He'll learn it all back if we win next week.

But I gotta agree with the masses here. The call to bring Tony back is 100% Garrett. He's a genius if we win but if we lose, well, like I said, that's all on Garrett.

Well, you and I disagree on the Romo v. Weeden debate. There's a 0% chance I'm rolling with the backup if Tony's willing and able to come back into the lineup. Honestly, I don't even think it's a consideration. Tony's your starter. If he can play, he plays. If you don't play your starter when he can go in, you get all sorts of trouble.

And we really want Weeden handling the RB exchanges back on our own goal line when he gets a fraction of the snaps in practice? You'd rather have him throwing into that zero coverage at the end of the game? Because he didn't see it on first down, and he didn't see it on the drives where Murray's putting the ball on the six yard line for him. But you better be prepared for them to blitz your backup with the game on the line once he's shown he can move the ball against your base defense. That blown pickup by Murray that knocked the ball out of Tony's hands is going to get to Weeden, too. That third down play in overtime that Witten dropped...you think Brandon makes that throw? The grounding call against the blitz at the end of regulation looked bad, but where's Brandon going to go with that? Because there's no time to get it downfield. Even buying time on 4th down on the last play of the game by moving around in the pocket, Brandon's not going to get you anything there.

I know we want to blame the coaches whenever we lose a game, but this was a case of us not protecting the ball playing against a fired up division rival who was willing to bet the house over and over and over again that we couldn't get the ball out or break a tackle against across-the-board single coverage of our play makers. It paid off, and hats off to them, but it's a very, very risky way to play NFL defense. Nine times out of ten it's going to get you blown out, but when you tackle well and your coverage players play over their heads and the other team doesn't hold onto the ball in the running game, it lets you get a rare road win over a better team who happens to be your biggest division rival.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, you and I disagree on the Romo v. Weeden debate. There's a 0% chance I'm rolling with the backup if Tony's willing and able to come back into the lineup. Honestly, I don't even think it's a consideration. Tony's your starter. If he can play, he plays. If you don't play your starter when he can go in, you get all sorts of trouble.

And we really want Weeden handling the RB exchanges back on our own goal line when he gets a fraction of the snaps in practice? You'd rather have him throwing into that zero coverage at the end of the game? Because he didn't see it on first down, and he didn't see it on the drives where Murray's putting the ball on the six yard line for him. But you better be prepared for them to blitz your backup with the game on the line once he's shown he can move the ball against your base defense. That blown pickup by Murray that knocked the ball out of Tony's hands is going to get to Weeden, too. That third down play in overtime that Witten dropped...you think Brandon makes that throw? The grounding call against the blitz at the end of regulation looked bad, but where's Brandon going to go with that? Because there's no time to get it downfield. Even buying time on 4th down on the last play of the game by moving around in the pocket, Brandon's not going to get you anything there.

I know we want to blame the coaches whenever we lose a game, but this was a case of us not protecting the ball playing against a fired up division rival who was willing to bet the house over and over and over again that we couldn't get the ball out or break a tackle against across-the-board single coverage of our play makers. It paid off, and hats off to them, but it's a very, very risky way to play NFL defense. Nine times out of ten it's going to get you blown out, but when you tackle well and your coverage players play over their heads and the other team doesn't hold onto the ball in the running game, it lets you get a rare road win over a better team who happens to be your biggest division rival.

Yep. I would rather have had Weeden in last night. No even a question in my mind on that one Idgit. Tony didn't have it to start the game and his effectiveness definitely didn't improve upon his return. Weeden was 4 for 6 last night with one TD dropped. Weeden wasn't the problem.

Not only do we want to blame the coaches but we do. We do it because they are to blame. The buck stops there. It's completely understandable and correct to do so. Skins couldn't cover our backs out of the backfield, they couldn't stop our run game and they couldn't stop short crossing routes over the middle. Yet, we didn't do any of those things very much last night. When we did, we were very successful with them. That's on the coaching staff IMO.

 

[Dave_in-NC]

Well, you and I disagree on the Romo v. Weeden debate. There's a 0% chance I'm rolling with the backup if Tony's willing and able to come back into the lineup. Honestly, I don't even think it's a consideration. Tony's your starter. If he can play, he plays. If you don't play your starter when he can go in, you get all sorts of trouble.

And we really want Weeden handling the RB exchanges back on our own goal line when he gets a fraction of the snaps in practice? You'd rather have him throwing into that zero coverage at the end of the game? Because he didn't see it on first down, and he didn't see it on the drives where Murray's putting the ball on the six yard line for him. But you better be prepared for them to blitz your backup with the game on the line once he's shown he can move the ball against your base defense. That blown pickup by Murray that knocked the ball out of Tony's hands is going to get to Weeden, too. That third down play in overtime that Witten dropped...you think Brandon makes that throw? The grounding call against the blitz at the end of regulation looked bad, but where's Brandon going to go with that? Because there's no time to get it downfield. Even buying time on 4th down on the last play of the game by moving around in the pocket, Brandon's not going to get you anything there.

I know we want to blame the coaches whenever we lose a game, but this was a case of us not protecting the ball playing against a fired up division rival who was willing to bet the house over and over and over again that we couldn't get the ball out or break a tackle against across-the-board single coverage of our play makers. It paid off, and hats off to them, but it's a very, very risky way to play NFL defense. Nine times out of ten it's going to get you blown out, but when you tackle well and your coverage players play over their heads and the other team doesn't hold onto the ball in the running game, it lets you get a rare road win over a better team who happens to be your biggest division rival.

You mean like last night when Romo went back in?