Tony Romo does make that much of a difference

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Easy tiger, I'm not sure I want to insult Campo by comparing him to Garrett....not yet anyway. And, by the way, I didn't invoke Campo in comparison to Garrett as much as I did in response to a comment made about close games we lost this year which was referenced in an earlier post. Don't get your red colored Garrett undies in a bunch.

You can try and distinguish between Garrett in close games and Garrett himself but it is what it is. You Garrett haters like to pull other coaches names that you've categorized as bad and make that the centerpiece of your arguments. Just the name really. It's bizarre and I am curious where it comes from. Is that from AM radio or something?

 

[Idgit]

Interesting. So you don't think if Campo had Aikman, Galloway and Rocket for the year that he may have finished better than 5 and 11 in 2000?

I don't really know. I just know those teams were bad, and I think they also had a bad coach.

 

[Dodger12]

I don't really know. I just know those teams were bad, and I think they also had a bad coach.

I don't doubt that Campo was a bad coach but he's not getting the benefit of the injury excuse like we're giving Garrett. Campo was a bad coach because he made some boneheaded decisions on the field, just like our current HC. Injuries are certainly a part of the story this year but it's not the whole story. When you lose int he fashion that we've lost under Garrett over the course of his tenure, at some point the light should shine on him.

 

[Idgit]

I don't doubt that Campo was a bad coach but he's not getting the benefit of the injury excuse like we're giving Garrett. Campo was a bad coach because he made some boneheaded decisions on the field, just like our current HC. Injuries are certainly a part of the story this year but it's not the whole story. When you lose int he fashion that we've lost under Garrett over the course of his tenure, at some point the light should shine on him.

Sure he does. You need both players *and* coaching to win. You can lose without either of them (among other things).

If Campo lost because of his personnel, I buy that. It doesn't follow that he'd then have won with better personnel.

 

[Dodger12]

You can try and distinguish between Garrett in close games and Garrett himself but it is what it is. You Garrett haters like to pull other coaches names that you've categorized as bad and make that the centerpiece of your arguments. Just the name really. It's bizarre and I am curious where it comes from. Is that from AM radio or something?

Again, I'm not comparing Garrett to Campo, per se as much as I was debating the "close" games comment as if it's some indicator of success. But I guess I can ask the same question to folks who compare Garrett to Johnson, Landry, Belichick, etc. That's far more comical and bizarre so maybe you need to look inward for your answers.

 

[Dodger12]

Sure he does. You need both players *and* coaching to win. You can lose without either of them (among other things).

If Campo lost because of his personnel, I buy that. It doesn't follow that he'd then have won with better personnel.

But you can't make that argument because in your scenario, a HC (ie: Garrett) is excused of culpability because he's missing key personnel, just like Campo. Where we don't agree is that they both had coaching decisions that (negatively) affected the outcome of games. I can take losing without the talent. I can't take the coaching gaffs and shortcomings that have a direct hand in those losses, all the while folks like you telling us that Garrett built a talented roster over the past few years which is the reason for 8 and 8 seasons with his #1 WR and franchise QB but he couldn't muster one win with all this talent. It's just a complete contradiction that doesn't add up.

 

[Zman5]

Franchise QB makes a difference? Yeh and water is wet.

 

[Zman5]

LOL all the JG fanboys on this thread. Guy loses 7 in a row and they still think he is the next Landry.

Coaching doesn't make a difference? Look at the game today.

What was ironic was Cambell did his best JG impersonation by punting on 4th down with 6 minutes left in the game being down 2 scores and JG actually had balls to go for it on 4th at our side of the field today.

Too bad it took him 7 losses to grow one. Had he had more guts in previous games, we would have most likely won a game of two.

 

[Blitzen32]

Romo and Garrett are joined at the hip. Always have been and always will be. You live in an alternate universe.

Actually in the real universe, Romo was scouted, drafted, and a starting playoff QB prior to Garrett.

Garrett brought in Brad Johnson and Brandon Weeden.

 

[Idgit]

But you can't make that argument because in your scenario, a HC (ie: Garrett) is excused of culpability because he's missing key personnel, just like Campo. Where we don't agree is that they both had coaching decisions that (negatively) affected the outcome of games. I can take losing without the talent. I can't take the coaching gaffs and shortcomings that have a direct hand in those losses, all the while folks like you telling us that Garrett built a talented roster over the past few years which is the reason for 8 and 8 seasons with his #1 WR and franchise QB but he couldn't muster one win with all this talent. It's just a complete contradiction that doesn't add up.

Of course I can make the argument. You're conflating two things that I've separated. You're right that I obviously don't agree that there have been a lot of coaching decisions that have negatively affected the outcomes of these games. The coaching decisions have been, for the most part, good. They've been conservative,w which is what you want when you don't trust your signal caller. What we have instead is people second-guessing outcomes that were inevitable when you turn the ball over and don't take it away and can'd score touchdowns passing the football.

And it adds up perfectly reasonably. He inherited a bad team, rebuilt it, made a run with the rebuilt roster last season. And then suffered a setback early this season when he lost several of his best players on both sides of the ball for multiple games and didn't have a backup option at QB. As the personnel went away, the team got worse. As it returned, the team got better. It's pretty clear.

 

[SuspectCorner]

Cool...but at the same time, don't put the rest of this season on Romo just because he came in. Romo just finished one game. He got banged up. His team won the game. The Panthers are going come in on Turkey day and make this defense look like a pee wee team. Wait for it....just sayin.

Well then, step off for the season if the Cowboys prevail. You make it sound like a forgone conclusion.

 

[Sportsbabe]

Actually in the real universe, Romo was scouted, drafted, and a starting playoff QB prior to Garrett.

Garrett brought in Brad Johnson and Brandon Weeden.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

JG sucks...why are we ruining a good TR thread by apologizing for JG? smh.

 

[Eddie]

LOL all the JG fanboys on this thread. Guy loses 7 in a row and they still think he is the next Landry.

Not a Garrett defender, but Landry didn't have a winning season in his first 5 years.

I'm just sayin ... maybe it's the players.

 

[CATCH17]

Listening to the Fan this morning interviewing Garrett.


The Fan hosts mention how good Romo was and Garrett went straight into talking about the 2 INT's.. LOL


This guy is so jealous. He knows he provides nothing to this football team and it's all about Romo.

 

[Staubacher]

Over the last several years there hasn't been a better QB in football than Tony Romo.

Now that statement would get laughed at outside of this fan base but I firmly believe it and my big brother @percyhoward can prove it.

Especially with the dreck he has to work with (Garrett and Co.)

 

[Zman5]

Not a Garrett defender, but Landry didn't have a winning season in his first 5 years.

I'm just sayin ... maybe it's the players.

Landry started as a HC on a expansion team. JG started out with an elite QB, TE, WR and DE.

Campo had 3 consecutive losing seasons. Using your logic, he must be another Landry too

 

[TheDude]

In Campo's first game of his head coaching career, he lost his #1 WR in the first game of the season, as well as Aikman who suffered a concussion; he'd suffer several more during the season which led to his retirement. The we lost Rocket the last 6 games in 2000 to a torn ACL as well so the injury excuse doesn't hold a lot of water when Camp lost his franchise QB and #1 WR as well. In 2001, we suffered injuries at the QB position which led us to starting guys like Stoerner and Leaf. In 2002, we only got 5 games out of Larry Allen, 7 out of QC, 8 out of Dat Nguyen and 10 out of Woodson who also missed time in 2000.

But I don't hear the injury excuse for Campo. Only Red loses his #1 QB and #1 WR and gets a pass with a roster that you admit is more talented.

There really are very few coaches that manage to lose 7 straight - outside of being yr 1 (terrible team) or a firing year - and be called top tier. In fact I dont know of any off the top of my head

 

[TheDude]

I'm not debating that Campo's team wasn't personnel challenged at all. If it sucked to start with, and injuries made it worse, or it just was bad becasue of injury doesn't matter to me. I'm saying Campo's teams stunk because they lacked both personnel and a quality HC. And that Garrett's streak this year was because of personnel. Either the limitation of the players or the coach is sufficient to explain a losing streak. It doesn't have to be both.

They lacked a QB. Jim Caldwell went 14-2 with Manning and 2-14 without. In todays NFL, if you dont have a QB you are challenged. Therefore, when a starting QB goes down and you manage to win games (Tomlin, McCarthy, Belichick) that has to be attributed to somewhat to coaching. If not, seems more akin to caldwell.

To me, anyone who thought Weeden was good enough last year - let alone after this offseason - is open to serious questioning when other teams are winning games with 40 year old QBs, Mike Vick and TJYates

 

[Dodger12]

There really are very few coaches that manage to lose 7 straight - outside of being yr 1 (terrible team) or a firing year - and be called top tier. In fact I dont know of any off the top of my head

Garrett had a 2 game head start to go 2 and 0 with Romo. Had Romo not come back for the season, it's questionable if we would have won another game and, if we did, I'm not sure we could pull out 5 and 11. I just think this season has shown that this rebuilding project and talent infusion people have laid at Garrett's feet has been a huge myth.