Would Pederson give us a better chance at the SB instead of Garrett?

[CowboyRoy]

I’m out of ways to point out that you’re overweighting the Superbowl run as the sole differentiator between the two coaches. I understand that you need that to be the sole differentiator for your argument to stand up, despite the other evidence to the contrary over the course of the last three seasons.

Tenure didn’t enter into my calculus, because its irrelevant to OP’s question. He’s asking about the coaches’ relative abilities today.

Take any measure you want when it comes to coaching. Let just look at the one that stands out huge. Garrett is the opposite of an innovative, offensive genius while Pederson shines in that regard.

Pederson won a SB with a backup QB. Not sure Garrett has won more than 5 games with a backup.

Sorry Mrs Garrett, but your hero is horrid.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I didn’t say “most of his success can be attributed to Reich.” I think you guys won a Superbowl with a good coach and a great roster. And some luck along the way in the postseason that year.

I would take Reich over Peterson as a HC, though.

You are the opposite of any kind of HC expert. In fact, when it comes to Garrett, you are the board punchline.

 

[CowboyRoy]

I’m not disputing your facts, since they’re obvious. I dispute you crediting the additional 2017 playoff success to HC differential, because there is enough other evidence over the last three years to suggest otherwise. Including overall wins v similar opponents and head to head matchups.

OR you could just ask ANYONE in the NFL which is a better coach. Like you do on here, people would laugh in your face if you tried to say that Garrett was a better coach then Pederson.

 

[nobody]

Nope. Eagles fans massively overrate Doug Pederson. So does the segment of Cowboys fans that for some bizarre reason have an inferiority complex about the Eagles franchise.

Pederson's more aggressive than Garrett is, which is cool. He's a good coach, too. His players seem to like him well enough. Neither guy is better at getting an injured team to play well, neither has a particular advantage in close games (I don't believe, but the data could show me I'm dead wrong about that). Garrett's better at building and developing players. He's good at keeping them focused. He's mediocre on gameday and he's a mediocre motivator, but those things aren't as important as everybody likes to think since the entire staff is wired in on gamedays and motivation is more a thing at the high school level.

Reich was the gem of a coach in PHI in 2017, which is showing up in BUF now, too. And Roseman is a witch when it comes to putting together a roster. That's the primary reason why the Eagles are strong.

Garrett's skillset is better suited for GM than HC tbh

 

[Idgit]

Garrett's skillset is better suited for GM than HC tbh

Maybe. He’s kind of a hybrid. But he’s been good at developing players and exceptional at keeping distractions from affecting his teams. I know it’s fun to hate him because we haven’t gotten over the hump, but he’s a lot better coach than he’s generally given credit for being around here.

 

[Sarge]

another trick question....

 

[Altestic]

Big Balls Doug >>>> Ginger

 

[TheMarathonContinues]

But he did get one SB first.....JG hasn’t even made it to the Conf champ game

This is true.

 

[CowboyRoy]

Garrett's skillset is better suited for GM than HC tbh

GM? Garretts skill set is figurehead and organization. You think Garrett is good at picking players and evaluating talent?

 

[Proof]

He probably would but that’s not giving him any credit. It’s just an indictment of Garettt

 

[OmerV]

And even if 2017 was a "fluke" for Pederson, he still had one good season. Garrett has had zero in 9.

That's true, but the question wasn't about who had the best single season in the past.

 

[Blue&Silver]

Having an interesting conversation with a few Eagle fans. They think that the best two NFC teams in terms of talent are our Boys and the Eagles. Two of them believe that if Pederson was our HC instead of Garrett that we would be Super Bowl winners. Their reasoning:

1) Pederson has been able to keep a badly injured team competitive due to adjustments made in game--they don't always win (we beat them twice last year) but they rarely get blown out and keep it close.
2) Pederson has shown that he is willing to change the system to fit the players better than Garrett has shown.
3) Pederson simply makes better in game adjustments. He puts his players in a better position to win.
4) Dallas might have the best personnel on paper. They should have more playoff success than they do. That points to coaching.

Both the past two years, the Eagles have been hit hard with injuries--I think only the Commanders have been hit harder on the injury front. During the Super Bowl year, Pederson looked at old game footage of Foles under Kelly when he had that 27/2 year. Pederson took what worked under Kelly and incorporated it into his offense for Foles. Result: Super Bowl victory.

So, would Pederson have a better chance to lead us back to Lombardi heaven over Garrett?

I don't think Pederson by any stretch of the imagination is a great coach, but I do agree he would give us a better chance to win a Super Bowl than Garrett.

Garrett is just too vanilla, it doesn't seem to adjust with the times

 

[Sydla]

That's true, but the question wasn't about who had the best single season in the past.

No the question was essentially which gives us the better shot at a SB. One has done it, even if you want to call it a fluke. One hasn't even made a conference champ game.

I'll take the guy who has done it in his first three years as a head coach (even if a fluke) compared to the guy who hasn't done squat in 8+.

I mean we have some people championing last season as some proof that Garrett is getting it together and yet the Eagles finished one game behind us, won a road playoff game and went as far as we did in the playoffs. In what world has Garrett shown more or enough to make one think, "You know what? That guy is more likely to win a SB than a guy who has already done it."

 

[CATCH17]

Garrett's skillset is better suited for GM than HC tbh

And we already have a better GMish guy then Garrett (McClay) so really there is no need for him at all.

 

[OmerV]

No the question was essentially which gives us the better shot at a SB. One has done it, even if you want to call it a fluke. One hasn't even made a conference champ game.

I'll take the guy who has done it in his first three years as a head coach (even if a fluke) compared to the guy who hasn't done squat in 8+.

I mean we have some people championing last season as some proof that Garrett is getting it together and yet the Eagles finished one game behind us, won a road playoff game and went as far as we did in the playoffs. In what world has Garrett shown more or enough to make one think, "You know what? That guy is more likely to win a SB than a guy who has already done it."

I didn't call it a fluke. In fact, I said I would give Pederson the edge because of the Super Bowl. Beyond that I merely indicated we really can't know for sure if Pederson is the real deal or if 2017 was a fluke because he has only been in the league 3 years, and 2 of the 3 were not particularly notable.

 

[Sydla]

I didn't call it a fluke. In fact, I said I would give Pederson the edge because of the Super Bowl. Beyond that I merely indicated we really can't know for sure if Pederson is the real deal or if 2017 was a fluke because he has only been in the league 3 years, and 2 of the 3 were not particularly notable.

No one is asking if Pederson is the real deal. It was which coach would give a team the better edge in terms of winning a SB?

It's Pederson. You basically admitted that. So I am not sure what you are even trying to debate at this point.

 

[IheartRomo]

Yes!!! Fly eagles fly. Always a Cowboy fan first but an Eagle fan second.

 

[Altestic]

I don't see why people are so squeamish about this. It's like the public attitude towards gay people in the 1950s.

 

[Sydla]

I don't see why people are so squeamish about this. It's like the public attitude towards gay people in the 1950s.

I don't know.

It's kind of strange that one is a Cowboys fan first and then a divisional rival fan 2nd. I mean I might get a guy being a Cowboys fan and then maybe a Browns fan......... different conferences, but being a Cowboys fan and an Eagles or Giants or Skins fan as well?

Yeah. Not getting it. Unless there's a personal connection there............ like someone you know or are related to plays for the Eagles.

 

[Altestic]

I don't know.

It's kind of strange that one is a Cowboys fan first and then a divisional rival fan 2nd. I mean I might get a guy being a Cowboys fan and then maybe a Browns fan......... different conferences, but being a Cowboys fan and an Eagles or Giants or Skins fan as well?

Yeah. Not getting it. Unless there's a personal connection there............ like someone you know or are related to plays for the Eagles.

My father's side all lives in Philly metro.

I guess Chiefs are my 3rd favorite due to me being a Mahomes fan and hating the Patriots.