The team not quitting does not matter

[CATCH17]

I see this all the time as some sort of silver lining for Garrett.

The standard should not be whether the team quits or doesn't quit. The standard should be winning.

Let the Bengals or Browns have a standard as low as not quitting but the Dallas Cowboys coach should be judged on Wins and Losses.


I do not care if the team played hard in Atlanta. The coaching was some of the worst I've ever seen.

Jason Garrett is a yo yo coach that ignores the chess side of football.

 

[Aven8]

I just don't know how Jerry won't be embarrassed if we lose tonight, at home, on national TV again. Ridiculous

 

[MileyDancer]

I just don't know how Jerry won't be embarrassed if we lose tonight, at home, on national TV again. Ridiculous

Isn't it on NFL network?

 

[Zman5]

I just don't know how Jerry won't be embarrassed if we lose tonight, at home, on national TV again. Ridiculous

Jerry might actually be glad we got flexed for the the Gints game. Imagine how embarrassing it would be to get spanked by Geno Smith lead Gints.

 

[Deep_South]

Isn't it on NFL network?

It's on NBC, too.

 

[BrassCowboy]

I see this all the time as some sort of silver lining for Garrett.

The standard should not be whether the team quits or doesn't quit. The standard should be winning.

Let the Bengals or Browns have a standard as low as not quitting but the Dallas Cowboys coach should be judged on Wins and Losses.


I do not care if the team played hard in Atlanta. The coaching was some of the worst I've ever seen.

Jason Garrett is a yo yo coach that ignores the chess side of football.

 

[Idgit]

If the standard for judging a coach were winning, that can be argued to play in his favor. Relative to the rest of the league, Garrett wins at a reasonable rate. His issue has been the up and down seasons. Problem is, people won't credit him for the wins, and blame him for the losses.

Do people really think the quality of coaching is what's see-sawing back and forth in Dallas in recent years? Because the coaching has been pretty consistent. And yet the results have carried wildly. That suggests to me the problems are actually elsewhere, though nobody wants to hear that.

More than anything, people want change because they thing that represents progress. I understand the reaction, and as much as I support him generally, it's hard not to be swayed by that when the blowout pile up. But it's Fools Gold.

Jerry Jones created a situation that makes it very difficult to win in Dallas. But like it always does, it comes down to the players. You build a team around an identity, take a bunch of hits in free agency, whiff on your own signings, and you have a net talent loss. Then you lose 4 all pro players for significant time and your good team becomes an average one. That's how the league is setup to work.

 

[CWR]

Absolutely, NOT quiting is the minimum expectation. A team that quits is an indictment on a coach who has completely lost his team.

By no means is NOT quiting enough.

 

[Doomsday]

I just don't know how Jerry won't be embarrassed if we lose tonight, at home, on national TV again. Ridiculous

He should be use to it by now.

 

[MileyDancer]

It's on NBC, too.

Oh, ok.

 

[MileyDancer]

Agreed, OP. I DO NOT celebrate moral victories, and I never will.

 

[links18]

What does quitting mean anyway? What are the empirical signs on the field?

 

[NoLuv4Jerry]

If the standard for judging a coach were winning, that can be argued to play in his favor. Relative to the rest of the league, Garrett wins at a reasonable rate. His issue has been the up and down seasons. Problem is, people won't credit him for the wins, and blame him for the losses.

Do people really think the quality of coaching is what's see-sawing back and forth in Dallas in recent years? Because the coaching has been pretty consistent. And yet the results have carried wildly. That suggests to me the problems are actually elsewhere, though nobody wants to hear that.

More than anything, people want change because they thing that represents progress. I understand the reaction, and as much as I support him generally, it's hard not to be swayed by that when the blowout pile up. But it's Fools Gold.

Jerry Jones created a situation that makes it very difficult to win in Dallas. But like it always does, it comes down to the players. You build a team around an identity, take a bunch of hits in free agency, whiff on your own signings, and you have a net talent loss. Then you lose 4 all pro players for significant time and your good team becomes an average one. That's how the league is setup to work.

There is an element of truth to this...but what we schematically are doing is a BIG issue. In 2015...we could not get first downs. Over and over and over again. The loss of one player should not relegate us to a high school team. Fast forward to this year...we lose Zeke on offense....and we cannot score points. Worst 3 game stretch in franchise history I think I heard. Again...that points to scheme. I have lowered the bar to where I don't expect to win without Romo or Zeke. But can we at least look competitive. If Zeke is the reason our offense and defense look so inept...why are ANY of these coaches collecting a pay check?

 

[diefree666]

If the standard for judging a coach were winning, that can be argued to play in his favor. Relative to the rest of the league, Garrett wins at a reasonable rate. His issue has been the up and down seasons. Problem is, people won't credit him for the wins, and blame him for the losses.

Do people really think the quality of coaching is what's see-sawing back and forth in Dallas in recent years? Because the coaching has been pretty consistent. And yet the results have carried wildly. That suggests to me the problems are actually elsewhere, though nobody wants to hear that.

More than anything, people want change because they thing that represents progress. I understand the reaction, and as much as I support him generally, it's hard not to be swayed by that when the blowout pile up. But it's Fools Gold.

Jerry Jones created a situation that makes it very difficult to win in Dallas. But like it always does, it comes down to the players. You build a team around an identity, take a bunch of hits in free agency, whiff on your own signings, and you have a net talent loss. Then you lose 4 all pro players for significant time and your good team becomes an average one. That's how the league is setup to work.

so you are satisfied with winning at a reasonable rate. 90% here do not agree.

 

[The Natural]

What does quitting mean anyway? What are the empirical signs on the field?

look for more of this

 

[Idgit]

There is an element of truth to this...but what we schematically are doing is a BIG issue. In 2015...we could not get first downs. Over and over and over again. The loss of one player should not relegate us to a high school team. Fast forward to this year...we lose Zeke on offense....and we cannot score points. Worst 3 game stretch in franchise history I think I heard. Again...that points to scheme. I have lowered the bar to where I don't expect to win without Romo or Zeke. But can we at least look competitive. If Zeke is the reason our offense and defense look so inept...why are ANY of these coaches collecting a pay check?

This is all largely true. I'd argue in each case the injuries took the entire team out of what it did best at that point, and what was left of the center couldn't hold. 2015, at least, the losses were close. And it hasn't just been Elliott this season. The OL has really struggled. And that's the real heart of this offense.

Our defense has been a poor complement to a high powered, high scoring offense for years. We got caught retooling this year, and when the offense cannot produce, the lack of talent on defense gets exposed.

 

[Idgit]

so you are satisfied with winning at a reasonable rate. 90% here do not agree.

That is not what I said.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The way that the team plays hard for 60 minutes sure did matter when we were coming back against the Bengals, SF, Pitt, and GB last year.

There are other things that matter too but this notion that all coaches get their teams to play as hard as Garrett's do through adversity is just false. We know this after watching Wade, Campo, Switzer and others here in our own backyard.

It is interesting watching the mob use mental gymnastics to try to justify getting rid of Garrett without any notion of a plan and at all costs. It is also unsurprising that Catch would be the one to pull this argument out of the other Garrett rant thread and consider it a trump card.

 

[diefree666]

That is not what I said.

Relative to the rest of the league, Garrett wins at a reasonable rate.

those are your words and nowhere did you say that was not enough= so you own it now

 

[diefree666]

The way that the team plays hard for 60 minutes sure did matter when we were coming back against the Bengals, SF, Pitt, and GB last year.

There are other things that matter too but this notion that all coaches get their teams to play as hard as Garrett's do through adversity is just false. We know this after watching Wade, Campo, Switzer and others here in our own backyard.

It is interesting watching the mob use mental gymnastics to try to justify getting rid of Garrett without any notion of a plan and at all costs. It is also unsurprising that Catch would be the one to pull this argument out of the other Garrett rant thread and consider it a trump card.

its even more amusing watching the mental gymnastics you use to keep defending him