Which Head Coach that is available is better than Garrett right now?

[gimmesix]

The fact that coaches don’t often get long tenures without winning a Superbowl earlier in their careers isn’t actually evidence that it’s harder to do so later in your tenure. The hurdle is getting the runway in the first place.

That's a fair criticism, I guess, although there are few Tom Landrys in the league. My personal thought in this day and age of free agency is that if you can't do it early in your career, it isn't likely that you can do it later because few coaches can change who they are as a coach, which means that success is completely dependent upon a talent infusion or the addition of great coordinators. The overwhelming amount of Super Bowl success of head coaches within those first five years would seem to show that, although I admit that the number of coaches who get to stay with a team as long as Garrett has without winning one is few.

 

[Captain43Crash]

21!

I bet this monkey would have chipped for Chaz Green and not just clapped sack after sack. The monkey would have clapped!!, but at least he gives Green some help!!!

 

[Idgit]

That's a fair criticism, I guess, although there are few Tom Landrys in the league. My personal thought in this day and age of free agency is that if you can't do it early in your career, it isn't likely that you can do it later because few coaches can change who they are as a coach, which means that success is completely dependent upon a talent infusion or the addition of great coordinators. The overwhelming amount of Super Bowl success of head coaches within those first five years would seem to show that, although I admit that the number of coaches who get to stay with a team as long as Garrett has without winning one is few.

That presumes the trains for not winning early were related to coaching.

Garrett’s been really lucky to get such a long runway for a guy whose teams haven’t been competitive in the post season, for sure. Very few coaches get that luxury.

 

[gimmesix]

That presumes the trains for not winning early were related to coaching.

Garrett’s been really lucky to get such a long runway for a guy whose teams haven’t been competitive in the post season, for sure. Very few coaches get that luxury.

Obviously, winning has a lot to do with having better talent, since even the best coaches have said that. And getting to the Super Bowl also has a certain element of luck, or everything falling in place at the right time. However, I believe we've seen the limitations coaching can put on a team as well, not just with Garrett.

I think Bill Parcells played overly conservative against a Seattle team with a decimated secondary in Romo's first year in the playoffs. That, to me, is a good example of a coach making a difference in a negative way.

With Garrett, failure has been a combination of bad luck, not enough talent (on defense) and not being clever enough as a coach to overcome the team's deficiencies IMO. He relies too much on his team to out-talent the opponent and when you get to the playoffs, you just can't do that. For example, as good as this offense has been at its best, it's not better than Green Bay's, so you need an edge from coaching. As long as we don't have that edge, unless we just acquire better talent than all the playoff-caliber teams, then building a good record primarily by beating average or mediocre teams and making the playoffs is going to be the best we can do.

 

[CowboyRoy]

There’s only 3 ways to look at this, either you’re dense or just want to go in circles, or you truly don’t understand team sports. I’m not going to tell you what I think. But for the last time , they didn’t go 5-3, they went 6-10(also a bad team) but to break it down for you for the 50th time, at 1-7 they were bad I don’t care how they got there, they were bad, any football person will tell you that, then they got new leadership,fresh ideas, and fear. They rode that to 5-3, but in the end ultimately ended at 6-10 and no playoffs. That’s bad.

The team Garrett took over went 5-3. Hence proof it was not really a 1-7 team. And again, without Romo. So you can keep cursing, ranting, and insulting, but the facts are killing you.

 

[TwentyOne]

Dick Crum

Well...

Can he throw a challenge flag ?

 

[Idgit]

The 2010 team was both 1-7 and then 6-10. It was what it was, and what it was was 'not a good team.' They let Marion Barber, Roy Williams (WR), Sam Hurd, Marc Colombo, Leonard Davis, and Stephen Bowen walk in the offseason after 2010, and then cut Andre Gurode late in camp in Garrrett's first offseason. Good luck making the case that any of that turnover was unnecessary, and the team you're left with after all that was a far cry from the team we had in 2007 at its peak.

We undertook a major rebuilding project when we switched from Wade to Garrett. It also happened to coincide with the new CBA which lowered the cap a good $10MM on what teams had been expecting which was especially tough on the Cowboys who were pretty leveraged there at the time because that's how we did business back then and because we'd been on the tail-end of some of the good player contracts we'd added under Parcells. We also had the $10MM cap penalty for the Austin contract in 2011 (?).

Hate on Garrett all you want, because I know that's a popular pastime around here, but getting to 6-10 with the team he took over was an accomplishment. As was staying competitive during the rebuild in 2011 and 2012. Those were some bad teams that looked better than they were because they had a fantastic QB and some good offensive playmakers. It's ok to admit it.

 

[Dre11]

The team Garrett took over went 5-3. Hence proof it was not really a 1-7 team. And again, without Romo. So you can keep cursing, ranting, and insulting, but the facts are killing you.

Lol...just as you fail to understand football, you fail to comprehend...lol
Where have you seen cursing,ranting, or insults....lol
The facts are a 1-7 record is a bad record, 5-3 is just above average, and 6-10 is a bad team...lol those are the facts, and what any real football person would understand.

 

[Dre11]

The 2010 team was both 1-7 and then 6-10. It was what it was, and what it was was 'not a good team.' They let Marion Barber, Roy Williams (WR), Sam Hurd, Marc Colombo, Leonard Davis, and Stephen Bowen walk in the offseason after 2010, and then cut Andre Gurode late in camp in Garrrett's first offseason. Good luck making the case that any of that turnover was unnecessary, and the team you're left with after all that was a far cry from the team we had in 2007 at its peak.

We undertook a major rebuilding project when we switched from Wade to Garrett. It also happened to coincide with the new CBA which lowered the cap a good $10MM on what teams had been expecting which was especially tough on the Cowboys who were pretty leveraged there at the time because that's how we did business back then and because we'd been on the tail-end of some of the good player contracts we'd added under Parcells. We also had the $10MM cap penalty for the Austin contract in 2011 (?).

Hate on Garrett all you want, because I know that's a popular pastime around here, but getting to 6-10 with the team he took over was an accomplishment. As was staying competitive during the rebuild in 2011 and 2012. Those were some bad teams that looked better than they were because they had a fantastic QB and some good offensive playmakers. It's ok to admit it.

Lol....they just don’t understand...lol

 

[Aviano90]

Those were some bad teams that looked better than they were because they had a fantastic QB and some good offensive playmakers

That's what good players do, they make the team better than they would be without them. Those good players are the reason why the team was supposed to have a shot, especially having a top QB in a league void of QB talent. And by shot, I mean playoffs. I don't think they were good enough for the SB.

 

[CPanther95]

Lol...just as you fail to understand football, you fail to comprehend...lol
Where have you seen cursing,ranting, or insults....lol
The facts are a 1-7 record is a bad record, 5-3 is just above average, and 6-10 is a bad team...lol those are the facts, and what any real football person would understand.

They hit 5-3 in 2010 the exact same way they hit 9-7 last year.

 

[silvrNblue]

Another pretty useless post about a subject we all know the answer to... Clapper isn't going anywhere. And NO solid, quality HC is coming to coach under Jerruh.

 

[Idgit]

That's what good players do, they make the team better than they would be without them. Those good players are the reason why the team was supposed to have a shot, especially having a top QB in a league void of QB talent. And by shot, I mean playoffs. I don't think they were good enough for the SB.

You’re overstating the quality of the rest of the team. Those defenses were worse than the QB was good in 2011 and 2012. It was an accomplishment to have something to play for in week 17 those seasons.

The 2013 team, I’d maybe agree with you.

 

[Aviano90]

You’re overstating the quality of the rest of the team. Those defenses were worse than the QB was good in 2011 and 2012. It was an accomplishment to have something to play for in week 17 those seasons.

The 2013 team, I’d maybe agree with you.

Or maybe I realize that our competition didn't have great teams either. Washington, NY, and Philly were also lucky to be playing in week 17 along with us.

 

[Idgit]

Or maybe I realize that our competition didn't have great teams either. Washington, NY, and Philly were also lucky to be playing in week 17 along with us.

It's all relative. Still pretty tough to look at those 2011 and 2012 teams with a straight face and say they were playoff teams. They did pretty much what they should have done: contend for post season. So being irritated with the HC for not actually getting them there doesn't make a lot of sense.

 

[kevm3]

If the eagles took that approach with Chip Kelly, they wouldn't have hoisted up a superbowl trophy this past season. The rams would still be mired in 8 and 8 mediocrity and Goff would look like a bust if they took that approach with Fisher. Garrett needs to at least get to the conference finals or it's time to search for new blood. There's no 'lack of talent' excuses after nearly 8 years and complete roster turnovers,

 

[Idgit]

If the eagles took that approach with Chip Kelly, they wouldn't have hoisted up a superbowl trophy this past season. The rams would still be mired in 8 and 8 mediocrity and Goff would look like a bust if they took that approach with Fisher. Garrett needs to at least get to the conference finals or it's time to search for new blood. There's no 'lack of talent' excuses after nearly 8 years and complete roster turnovers,

Eagles got to the Superbowl because they added a bunch of new talent, though Chip Kelley had a .444 winning percentage, to-boot. You'll give the Rams' McVay credit for 11-5 with the number one pick overall, but ding Garrett for going 13-3 with a bottom-4th rounder the year before?

And there's a 'lack of talent' excuse when it's the defensive talent that's still getting you beat in the post season. As long as it's the obvious issue, there's no point burying your head in the sand and blaming something else. Fix what's broke.

 

[Aviano90]

It's all relative. Still pretty tough to look at those 2011 and 2012 teams with a straight face and say they were playoff teams. They did pretty much what they should have done: contend for post season. So being irritated with the HC for not actually getting them there doesn't make a lot of sense.

The 2011 team definitely should have made the playoffs. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory against the Jets and Lions. We had NE on the ropes in Foxboro and would have won if we could have gotten one first down late in the 4th or made one more defensive stop. We had the Giants season on the ropes in week 15 with a double digit 4th quarter lead and Miles Austin lost a ball in the lights on a wide open pass that he could have walked in for the touchdown if he didn’t pull a hammy because the defender fell down. We also missed a game winning kick against Arizona to blow that game and we didn’t even try to win in week 16 because the team already knew week 17 was for the division. No way in the world do I believe that team would have been lucky to make the playoffs. They were very unlucky to have missed the playoffs that year and we should have eliminated the SB champs from making the playoffs prior to our week 17 match up.

 

[Idgit]

The 2011 team definitely should have made the playoffs. They snatched defeat from the jaws of victory against the Jets and Lions. We had NE on the ropes in Foxboro and would have won if we could have gotten one first down late in the 4th or made one more defensive stop. We had the Giants season on the ropes in week 15 with a double digit 4th quarter lead and Miles Austin lost a ball in the lights on a wide open pass that he could have walked in for the touchdown if he didn’t pull a hammy because the defender fell down. We also missed a game winning kick against Arizona to blow that game and we didn’t even try to win in week 16 because the team already knew week 17 was for the division. No way in the world do I believe that team would have been lucky to make the playoffs. They were very unlucky to have missed the playoffs that year and we should have eliminated the SB champs from making the playoffs prior to our week 17 match up.

Agree to disagree. The league is setup specifically to get games like the ones you’re describing. Form everybody.

We won our fair share of them, and lost our share of them. But that 2011 squad was pretty mediocre overall. Just look at the longevity of the bulk of those players for an indication how talented they were. Or weren’t.

 

[Diehardblues]

Doesn't apply. And I agree that kind of coaching change can make a difference. But you said we had an 1-7 team. Which means the players are simply bad. And you don't go 5-3 without your franchise QB if the talent isn't good enough to do it. Talent was there obviously. Just needed a fresh start. And then there is the evidence that the team went 11-6 the year before.

Those are speculative situations often difficult to determine with absolute certainty.

We can all spin the facts to support our narrative.

My hunch is the 11-6 team was depleting after several years of poor drafts under Wade and 2011 was probably a closer measurement to the team we had with Romo playing entire season.