2018 Random NFL Stuff thread . . .

[Smitty]

So, we just disregard the 4-12 year?

I don't know what you mean, "disregard it."

But 1big said "He'd rather win 7-9 games every year than take a shot on a big time coach."

Wrong. If Garrett had gone, for example, 9-7 in 2014, 7-9 in 2015, 9-7 in 2016 and 8-8 in 2017, yeah, I would have pulled the trigger on firing him. Averaging 8 wins per season that way indicates stagnation.

But that's not what happened.

Garrett went 12-4 with relative health in 2014. Then, he lost his starting QB and WR in 2014. You guys can wax machismo all you want about "winning with injuries" like teams go on deep playoff runs like the Eagles every year without their starting QBs, but the fact is, the Eagles were a fluke and most teams who lose their QBs end up with losing records. The following year, he takes a fourth round rookie after Romo gets hurt again (speaking of winning without your starting QB) and goes 13-3. Then they had a bit of a down year this year, though the Elliott thing was a huge distraction, of course, and losing Tyron and Lee hurt as well, and they went 9-7.

So the 4 year track record for Garrett looks like this:

12-4
4-12
13-3
9-7

instead of

7-9
9-7
9-7
8-8

So in reality, there have been two pretty big highs, a near playoff miss, and a down season. And in the context of his first 3 years where the OL was shit and the defense was average or poor as well, it indicates serious improvement over those 8-8 years.

You can argue till you are blue in the face that the highs should have been better, that the lows shouldn't have been so bad, that we should have been able to make the playoffs last year, whatever.

But my point is, there's a difference. Going 12-4 and 13-3, plus another year that I'm convinced we would have made the playoffs had we not lost our QB, that track record can not honestly and accurately be summarized by saying "He wins between 7-9 games every year," even if TECHNICALLY it averages that mathematically. You ever hear about lies, damned lies, and statistics? Well saying Garrett has averaged between 7-9 wins per season the last 4 years would be one of those true, but lying, statistics.

It's much more reasonable to stand by a coach who has won 12 wins, 13 wins, and 9 wins, but had a lost year due to extreme circumstances, than it is to stand by a guy who never cracks 9 wins.

And, one year was not "excellently coached". He got carried.

Yeah, no.

Anyone who can take a rookie QB and get to 13 wins did at least a pretty good job.

 

[Cotton]

I mean if you want to call his 4 win season an outlier then his 13 win season sure as shit is an outlier too.

Exactly.

 

[Rev]

I mean if you want to call his 4 win season an outlier then his 13 win season sure as shit is an outlier too.

which brings us to a 7-9 win coach.

 

[jsmith6919]

I don't know what you mean, "disregard it."

But 1big said "He'd rather win 7-9 games every year than take a shot on a big time coach."

Wrong. If Garrett had gone, for example, 9-7 in 2014, 7-9 in 2015, 9-7 in 2016 and 8-8 in 2017, yeah, I would have pulled the trigger on firing him. Averaging 8 wins per season that way indicates stagnation.

But that's not what happened.

Garrett went 12-4 with relative health in 2014. Then, he lost his starting QB and WR in 2014. You guys can wax machismo all you want about "winning with injuries" like teams go on deep playoff runs like the Eagles every year without their starting QBs, but the fact is, the Eagles were a fluke and most teams who lose their QBs end up with losing records. The following year, he takes a fourth round rookie after Romo gets hurt again (speaking of winning without your starting QB) and goes 13-3. Then they had a bit of a down year this year, though the Elliott thing was a huge distraction, of course, and losing Tyron and Lee hurt as well, and they went 9-7.

So the 4 year track record for Garrett looks like this:

12-4
4-12
13-3
9-7

instead of

7-9
9-7
9-7
8-8

So in reality, there have been two pretty big highs, a near playoff miss, and a down season. You can argue till you are blue in the face that the highs should have been better, that the lows shouldn't have been so bad, that we should have been able to make the playoffs last year, whatever.

But my point is, there's a difference. Going 12-4 and 13-3, plus another year that I'm convinced we would have made the playoffs had we not lost our QB, that track record can not honestly and accurately be summarized by saying "He wins between 7-9 games every year."

It's much more reasonable to stand by a coach who has won 12 wins, 13 wins, and 9 wins, but had a lost year due to extreme circumstances, than it is to stand by a guy who never cracks 9 wins.

And, one year was not "excellently coached". He got carried.

[/QUOTE]

I think what 1big meant was if it was anybody else that wasn't in the family portrait Jerry would have admitted it was a failure and moved on to our next chance at a good hc.

 

[jsmith6919]

Also fuck counting last year as 9-7, they barely won the last game with our starters vs Philly backups

 

[Smitty]

I think people are missing the point; no doubt in their haste to ferociously and immediately rebut the notion that anyone could think that Garrett may have any redeemable qualities.

I'm not disputing basic math that Garrett's win totals average between 7-9 per season.

There was a pretty specific statement that 1big made that said "He'd rather win between 7-9 games per season." That is the part that you have to stop and think about.

Again, if Garrett was actually winning between 7-9 games every year, and never passed that, he would have been fired long ago and I would have signed up for it.

But the improvement to 12 and 13 wins, brought down to a lower average by the 4 win season, show that he's capable of more than winning between 7-9 games.

At this point, Garrett's bigger issue is not winning in the playoffs.... not "missing the playoffs."

I think we would all agree, if we're being honest, that we kinda expect more like 9-11 wins out of a healthy Jason Garrett coached team (with this personnel), not 7-9 wins.

 

[Genghis Khan]

We don't win 7-9 games a year. We've had winning seasons 3 out of the last 4 years, including with a rookie QB, which is no small feat, and the year we didn't we had effectively lost our starting QB, starting RB, and starting WR pretty much the whole year. Two of those three years were 12 wins and 13 wins. Last year we lost our starting RT and starting RB for large portions of the time. Do some teams overcome injuries? Sure, but you can point to a whole lot of them who lose such players and end up derailed as well.

All with a GM that generally undermines the team and most coaches wouldn't work out with for more than ten minutes.

There has been plenty of disappointment with the Garrett era, but you guys don't see the forest for the trees sometimes with the "he's an awful coach" narrative that has taken hold.

If you'd rather roll the dice on an elite head coach, fine, but then acknowledge that it comes with the real possibility that we could do much worse as well, and own that possibility. Hey, I get it. It's like tanking in basketball. Sometimes you need to hit rock bottom before getting good.

Also, people like to portray this like I only have maybe 2-3 names I'd take as my "improvement" over Garrett. That isn't true; but I need obtainable names who will sign on the dotted line who I feel really good about before I fire Garrett for his track record, especially his pretty solid recent track record.



I'm not convinced that it is "clear" that Garrett doesn't have what it takes. Again, I don't think Jeff Fisher is anything better than Garrett and he went to a Super Bowl and almost won. Booze's assertion that pre-Rams Fisher had some sort of ridiculously better resume than Garrett is fiction other than his one run to the Super Bowl.

You make some good points here.

We've hit on a bit of a winning formula since 2014. Although it did coincide with the hiring of Linehan and the advent of Garrett as a walk around coach. I think we have enough evidence to deduce that game planning, play calling and game management aren't strengths for Garrett.

It isn't the end of the world, though, and in fact I think having a walk around head coach is much more preferable (Jimmy, Landry and Parcells as examples).

I think the talent level increased since 2014 also, and that can't be discounted. But at the same time, I don't think winning should require superior talent all the time, and that seems to be the case with Garrett. To wit, we could barely win a game without Romo in 2015. We could have won *some* games; Cassell has won games before, and Weeden won that very year with Houston.

Romo probably had a lot more to do with us winning as anything. And we should have won more with a QB as good as Romo, especially in the playoffs. Hell, Wade mustered a couple double digit win seasons also, and few would mistake him for a good HC.

This is Garrett's 8th full season. That's a long time for just two playoff seasons and 1 playoff win. He *should* be out of chances. We'll see what happens, but I'm honestly not optimistic about this season.

 

[boozeman]

Yeah. Schmitty is gonna die on that hill.

 

[data]

Wayne Fontes’ resume is more impressive.

 

[L.T. Fan]

Garrett claps good.

 

[Rev]

I dont care if you win 12 games every year if you constantly get outcoached in the playoffs. Same mistakes over and over. You shouldnt need all star talent at as many positions to win. You shouldnt require the injury excuse to bail you out when other teams (Pittsburgh 3rd string QB playing and still winning in 2015) can still excel. Not to mention players winning when they leave. Sometime the timer has to run out.

Ive come to the realization that its going to be after he has his bad season next year and his contract is up. I Will jist have to endure the same as I have with Jerry.

 

[mcnuttz]

Hue Jackson punished Antonio Calloway for his marijuana citation by making him play the entire preseason game the other night.

I don't want to hear about Garrett being soft anymore.

I hope Hue Jackson isn't the barometer of excellent coaching.

 

[Smitty]

I dont care if you win 12 games every year if you constantly get outcoached in the playoffs. Same mistakes over and over. You shouldnt need all star talent at as many positions to win. You shouldnt require the injury excuse to bail you out when other teams (Pittsburgh 3rd string QB playing and still winning in 2015) can still excel. Not to mention players winning when they leave. Sometime the timer has to run out.

Ive come to the realization that its going to be after he has his bad season next year and his contract is up. I Will jist have to endure the same as I have with Jerry.

Great, but none of that has anything to do with what I originally said ("I don't want to hear about Garrett being soft anymore,") nor the ensuing debate (Fisher has a better resume/Garrett wins between 7-9 games every year).

As I said before, people see a Garrett argument and they just jump on the bandwagon cause they don't like him and they want numbers on the "whatever is the anti-Garrett" side of the argument.

Glad you put on the record that you hate him again, though. He's not good enough in your eyes, got it.

 

[Smitty]

You make some good points here.

We've hit on a bit of a winning formula since 2014. Although it did coincide with the hiring of Linehan and the advent of Garrett as a walk around coach. I think we have enough evidence to deduce that game planning, play calling and game management aren't strengths for Garrett.

It isn't the end of the world, though, and in fact I think having a walk around head coach is much more preferable (Jimmy, Landry and Parcells as examples).

I think the talent level increased since 2014 also, and that can't be discounted. But at the same time, I don't think winning should require superior talent all the time, and that seems to be the case with Garrett. To wit, we could barely win a game without Romo in 2015. We could have won *some* games; Cassell has won games before, and Weeden won that very year with Houston.

Romo probably had a lot more to do with us winning as anything. And we should have won more with a QB as good as Romo, especially in the playoffs. Hell, Wade mustered a couple double digit win seasons also, and few would mistake him for a good HC.

This is Garrett's 8th full season. That's a long time for just two playoff seasons and 1 playoff win. He *should* be out of chances. We'll see what happens, but I'm honestly not optimistic about this season.

He would have been out of chances a long time ago if he hadn't had some well-timed 12-4 and 13-3 seasons, but it's really hard to fire a guy after that kind of year, and then it's also hard to fire him when YOU LOSE YOUR STARTING QB for the whole year.

That being said I think a backslide season without some sort of pretty significant valid excuse (like Prescott going down for the year in week 2), will end up costing him his job.

On the other hand, if we go 10-6, he's probably not getting fired.

Do we really have "superior talent"? I mean, for one, you and I would both agree that Prescott has a lot of room to grow. The WRs suck. The defense, before this year, has been atrociously average or worse.

Our talent probably falls mostly in line with the other teams that are averaging 9-10 wins a year over the past 4 years.

The two losses in the divisional round to Aaron Rodgers sting and he has to get over that hump at some point.

 

[Rev]

Great, but none of that has anything to do with what I originally said ("I don't want to hear about Garrett being soft anymore,") nor the ensuing debate (Fisher has a better resume/Garrett wins between 7-9 games every year).

As I said before, people see a Garrett argument and they just jump on the bandwagon cause they don't like him and they want numbers on the "whatever is the anti-Garrett" side of the argument.

Glad you put on the record that you hate him again, though. He's not good enough in your eyes, got it.

As long as you are then I think we all can.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

At this point, Garrett's bigger issue is not winning in the playoffs.... not "missing the playoffs."

Hasn't he missed the playoffs five out of seven years?

 

[Genghis Khan]

He would have been out of chances a long time ago if he hadn't had some well-timed 12-4 and 13-3 seasons, but it's really hard to fire a guy after that kind of year, and then it's also hard to fire him when YOU LOSE YOUR STARTING QB for the whole year.

That being said I think a backslide season without some sort of pretty significant valid excuse (like Prescott going down for the year in week 2), will end up costing him his job.

On the other hand, if we go 10-6, he's probably not getting fired.

Do we really have "superior talent"? I mean, for one, you and I would both agree that Prescott has a lot of room to grow. The WRs suck. The defense, before this year, has been atrociously average or worse.

Our talent probably falls mostly in line with the other teams that are averaging 9-10 wins a year over the past 4 years.

The two losses in the divisional round to Aaron Rodgers sting and he has to get over that hump at some point.

I'm not convinced we have superior talent this year generally; I was referring to the 2014 & 2016 seasons really. We do have superior talent in a few places even this year though. Particularly at RB, LB, and O-line.

I agree with you, in that I don't think Garrett is out of chances this season unless he wins less than 8 or 9 games. But unless we make a deep playoff run he should be.

Rodgers didn't make the super bowl either of those years so he's great of course but he's certainly beatable.

 

[Cotton]

 

[Rev]

Dodged a bullet there.

 

[Genghis Khan]

I would have hated the trade up for Lynch. Never understood the love for that guy.