OK, while I was lurking I read some posts over here from people who actually defended Jason Garrett. And there are a couple of points I want to address:
1. One of the things I saw mentioned repeatedly is people blaming the players for "not executing." Do you guys really not see that this is circular reasoning?
If you're going to make that argument, there is no such scenario where a coach would EVER be to blame for a team's struggles.
Because if the players were executing, the team would be successful, and then you really wouldn't want to fire the coach, now would you?
2. So what exactly is the purpose of a head coach again? Because let me remind you some things about Garrett:
Garrett was so bad at play calling that Jerry actually removed his play calling duties, and he hasn't had them since. He was so bad at play calling that Tony Romo publicly called him out at the end of the 2008 season, prompting Garrett to meet with Romo and declare, basically, that they "understand each other now" (Garrett made Romo aware of the fact that he has pictures of Jerry in bed with a sheep and if Romo didn't toe the line, he would be out). He was so bad at play calling that Jerry brought in Dan Reeves after the 2008 off-season to oversee Garrett's offensive game planning, only for Reeves to nope the **** out within a few days after getting a sense of how things worked around there.
So what we have here is a coach who doesn't call the plays (because he sucks at it), doesn't do the offensive game plans, doesn't do the defense, doesn't do special teams, and doesn't even have much say in personnel.
He's a "motivational speaker."
Let me tell you a little about "motivational speakers," folks. If you aren't already motivated, nothing is going to motivate you.
And let me ask you: Where was the sign of this team being motivated to play this year?
Was it when Zeke and Amari removed themselves from games?
Did this look like a team that was laying it all on the line, win, lose, or draw?
Please.
This team looks almost as robotic as their phony robot of a head coach.
And that's the other thing I wanted to mention about Garrett: Everything about him is fake. His smile is fake. His platitudes are fake. His accent is fake. He grew up in Ohio in the wealthiest neighborhood in the state, and went to an Ivy League school, but once he got to the Cowboys and started holding the clipboard, he started talking with a southern accent.
He's one of the bawwws now, don't you know? He's a good 'ole football bawww now.
I suspect he managed to fool Jerry and others that he was some prodigy during those clipboard-holding days in the 90s, but what they missed was that that team didn't really rely on anything fancy in terms of offensive scheme. That offense's success was about as close to being based on pure raw ability as any you will ever see. You had big, powerful offensive linemen with multiple guys with 500+ pound bench presses (and in the last SB year, arguably the greatest guard to ever play the game). You had the greatest FB in NFL history. You had a short, powerful RB with insane durability. You had a big, tough, super-competitive, dominant WR on the outside. You had a freakish athlete at WR on the other side for the first 2 SBs. You had a big, strong-armed, pinpoint accurate QB.
It didn't take a bunch of complex scheming and play calling to make that offense work. What was Garrett learning while he was holding the clipboard?
"Well, we're gonna run Emmitt inside some, and then we'll probably throw a slant to Irvin. He'll shield the corner from the ball. Then we'll throw an outlet to Novacek, then more Emmitt, and then we'll maybe take a deep shot to Harper and let him out-leap the corner. Then we'll throw it up for Irvin."
I guess what Garrett learned is you need like 10 All Pros to have a good offense.