Wade Phillips: My record was better than Jason Garrett’s

[boozeman]

Wade didn't have a thing to do with the offense. That team also quit on Garrett.

They pretty much quit after Romo broke his collarbone. And they were performing rough even before that.

All in all, it was a total team quit. I fail to see how you can say they quit on Wade, because let's be honest here....he ran the D, Red Pube ran the offense.

He was never a real head coach from the minute he walked in the door. Jones hired his HC in waiting before he ever took the damn job and it was no secret that he was the heir apparent.

 

[boozeman]

There's noway I can prove any of this, but I've always felt gingerfuck sandbagged Wade. You could see a definite change in the playcalling as soon as Wade was fired.

No matter what, it was clear that Garrett was never the subordinate. Phillips ran the D, he ran the O. There was no synchronicity.

 

[NoDak]

There's noway I can prove any of this, but I've always felt gingerfuck sandbagged Wade. You could see a definite change in the playcalling as soon as Wade was fired.

That wouldn't surprise me if it were true.

 

[Bob Roberts]

Oh yeah, they also lad down like dogs in the second half against the Chargers.

But they didn't 'quit', amirite?

 

[hstour]

Based on the points scored and the result, please show me where the offense quit on Garrett:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/team/schedule/_/name/dal/year/2010

 

[boozeman]

The main difference is that Garrett uses words like "battled" and "process" in press conferences and all Wade did was tug on his arm hair and play with his chin fat.

That is it.

In terms of an actual gameday coach, Phillips is superior. Hands down. Better coordinator as well, certainly understands the game of football more.

 

[NoDak]

Another Garrett apologist.

Yay.

 

[Bob Roberts]

If you ever want a laugh, check out the win probability charts under Garrett, like the GB game from last year:

 

[hstour]

Another Garrett apologist.

Yay.

Nope, just a guy that prefers to look at definable statistics.

I'm more willing to agree with you if you can SHOW me where that is the case.

But excuse me if I don't just take your word on it.

 

[boozeman]

Nope, just a guy that prefers to look at definable statistics.

I'm more willing to agree with you if you can SHOW me where that is the case.

But excuse me if I don't just take your word on it.

Statistics cannot show if a team quits. It can show if a team gets outscored, turns the ball over too many times, gets their QB injured, etc.

If you want to talk about definable statistics defining a coach, then there is no reason why Kiffin should still be on the payroll.

And while we are on the topic of quit, I cannot recall the team ever quitting on Campo. They "battled" for him too. Did not make him any more of an effective head coach.

 

[hstour]

Statistics cannot show if a team quits. It can show if a team gets outscored, turns the ball over too many times, gets their QB injured, etc.

If you want to talk about definable statistics defining a coach, then there is no reason why Kiffin should still be on the payroll.

And while we are on the topic of quit, I cannot recall the team ever quitting on Campo. They "battled" for him too. Did not make him any more of an effective head coach.

Actually they can in this situation. If a team loses 24-21, then the offense didn't quit. The defense failed to stop the opposing offense.

In this situation, Wade was responsible for the D and Garrett for the O.

According to the statement made, the team quit on Garrett too. So that should show up as low scoring offensive games. So we should have been blown out in most of the games (because the team quit on Garrett). But I propose that the opposite was true. That the offense continued to score and that the games were closer because of the offense.

I could further submit that the team went 1-7 under Wade, but under Garrett, they managed to turn around the season and finish 5-3 because the team didn't quit under Garrett. And that was despite losing their starting QB (a crippling blow to most teams).

That doesn't look like a team that quit.

 

[jsmith6919]

Actually they can in this situation. If a team loses 24-21, then the offense didn't quit. The defense failed to stop the opposing offense.

In this situation, Wade was responsible for the D and Garrett for the O.

According to the statement made, the team quit on Garrett too. So that should show up as low scoring offensive games. So we should have been blown out in most of the games (because the team quit on Garrett). But I propose that the opposite was true. That the offense continued to score and that the games were closer because of the offense.

I could further submit that the team went 1-7 under Wade, but under Garrett, they managed to turn around the season and finish 5-3 because the team didn't quit under Garrett. And that was despite losing their starting QB (a crippling blow to most teams).

That doesn't look like a team that quit.

Ok but what if the defense keeps getting the ball back for the offense and they just keep turning it over or go 3&out instead of capitalizing on the turnover, then it would be the inept offenses fault.

 

[boozeman]

In this situation, Wade was responsible for the D and Garrett for the O.

And, stop right there.

That was the problem. No head coach. No authority. Each guy doing their own thing.

How is that a fair situation for the head coach when the snotnose nobody has as much stroke as the accomplished former head coach/DC?

Serious question.

Are you really going to sit there and say, fact is, well, the defense quit.

Of course they quit.

The owner already cut his nuts off before he was hired.

Nobody had to answer to Wade and whether he was a weak head coach is irrelevant. He was neutered for the minute he agreed to take the job.

I hated him as a head coach, BTW. Thing is, he really was less of a head coach in Dallas than he was in Denver or Buffalo.

I just can't believe I feel compelled to defend the guy for a situation tailor made for Garrett to stab him in the back if he wanted to.

 

[Cotton]

Actually they can in this situation. If a team loses 24-21, then the offense didn't quit. The defense failed to stop the opposing offense.

In this situation, Wade was responsible for the D and Garrett for the O.

According to the statement made, the team quit on Garrett too. So that should show up as low scoring offensive games. So we should have been blown out in most of the games (because the team quit on Garrett). But I propose that the opposite was true. That the offense continued to score and that the games were closer because of the offense.

I could further submit that the team went 1-7 under Wade, but under Garrett, they managed to turn around the season and finish 5-3 because the team didn't quit under Garrett. And that was despite losing their starting QB (a crippling blow to most teams).

That doesn't look like a team that quit.

I would say that they did okay under Garrett because their was regime change more than Garrett suddenly changed the culture. And, it has become self-evident in the seasons that have followed.

I do believe they did shut down somewhat towards the end of the of the season and I think part of that is because of the games that Garrett gave away in the first half of the year, and the Packers game.

 

[jsmith6919]

And, stop right there.

That was the problem. No head coach. No authority. Each guy doing their own thing.

How is that a fair situation for the head coach when the snotnose nobody has as much stroke as the accomplished former head coach/DC?

Serious question.

Are you really going to sit there and say, fact is, well, the defense quit.

Of course they quit.

The owner already cut his nuts off before he was hired.

Nobody had to answer to Wade and whether he was a weak head coach is irrelevant. He was neutered for the minute he agreed to take the job.

I hated him as a head coach, BTW. Thing is, he really was less of a head coach in Dallas than he was in Denver or Buffalo.

I just can't believe I feel compelled to defend the guy for a situation tailor made for Garrett to stab him in the back if he wanted to.

Well said, it's always a surreal moment when you realize you're defending Wade Phillips

 

[hstour]

And, stop right there.

That was the problem. No head coach. No authority. Each guy doing their own thing.

How is that a fair situation for the head coach when the snotnose nobody has as much stroke as the accomplished former head coach/DC?

Serious question.

Are you really going to sit there and say, fact is, well, the defense quit.

Of course they quit.

The owner already cut his nuts off before he was hired.

Nobody had to answer to Wade and whether he was a weak head coach is irrelevant. He was neutered for the minute he agreed to take the job.

I hated him as a head coach, BTW. Thing is, he really was less of a head coach in Dallas than he was in Denver or Buffalo.

I just can't believe I feel compelled to defend the guy for a situation tailor made for Garrett to stab him in the back if he wanted to.

Jimmy let Turner run the offense and Wannstedt run the defense.

 

[jsmith6919]

Jimmy let Turner run the offense and Wannstedt run the defense.

yes and Jerry let gingerfuck run the offense and Wade the defense

 

[NoDak]

Jimmy let Turner run the offense and Wannstedt run the defense.

Are you really comparing the dynamic of Johnson's team with the clusterfuck that was the Phillips/Garrett mess?



And there was not one single doubt who was the boss in the former. The latter, not so much.

 

[Cotton]

yes and Jerry let gingerfuck run the offense and Wade the defense

HC dynamic shift.

 

[boozeman]

Jimmy let Turner run the offense and Wannstedt run the defense.

Dude, I do not know whether to complement you on your trolling skills or feel pity for you if you are being completely sincere.