Watkins - Jones: Jason Garrett a 'premier asset'

[Genghis Khan]

Well, if we're going to dictionary.com, the second entry says, "a personal view, attitude, or appraisal." So it is true a little that an opinion is a personal preference.

I mean, saying "I like the color purple" is an opinion. Preferences are opinions.

Conversely, your definition would mean that it's only an "opinion" that the sun will rise tomorrow. That is not how I use the word.



I still disagree that is an opinion, but we're arguing semantics.

I'll say it's factually provable that there is a correlation between improving OL and improving scoring, then, though there are rare exceptions.

No, saying you like the color purple is not an opinion. It is factual. If you like the color purple, then saying you like the color purple is a fact.

The second entry on dictionary.com for "opinion" is talking about beliefs (which are opinions), not personal preference. Saying that Garrett's performance would improve with an improvement in the offensive line is a belief - it is a personal view or appraisal. It is an opinion.

 

[Smitty]

No, saying you like the color purple is not an opinion. It is factual. If you like the color purple, then saying you like the color purple is a fact.

Hmmm... bad example. Let me amend.

Saying "Purple is the best color," is an opinion because it literally can't be proven factually, and is entirely a matter of preference or belief.

The second entry on dictionary.com for "opinion" is talking about beliefs (which are opinions), not personal preference. Saying that Garrett's performance would improve with an improvement in the offensive line is a belief - it is a personal view or appraisal. It is an opinion.

There is still a difference between predicting something based on factual patterns, and pure opinion. You are not taking that difference into account. Once again, under your definition, saying "the sun will rise tomorrow" is thus an opinion.

If that's technically an opinion, then yes, saying "giving Garrett a better OL will improve his scoring" is an opinion in the same sense that saying "the sun will rise tomorrow" is an opinion.

I would also think, then, that it would be fact, then, to say "The sun has risen every day since the earth was created and will rise again tomorrow unless something changes." Because it is a fact that the earth revolves around the sun and turns on its axis.

In any case... like I said, it's still semantics. Doesn't change the argument at all.

 

[NoDak]

Oh, and I disagree that Garrett has shown "more faults than anything else." This is the type of hyperbole that draws a response. That is simply not true. .

Really. Please, give us some examples of his coaching strengths. There has already been numerous faults of his listed. Lets see enough to tip the scales in his favor. Then I'll agree with you claim it's hyperbole. If not, well I guess it simply IS true.

 

[Smitty]

Really. Please, give us some examples of his coaching strengths.

He's able to run an offense that is top 10 in yardage nearly every year and is average in scoring every year despite the fact he's working with a tremendous handicap along the OL.

The fact that he can do that means he's getting solid production despite his flaws, and that he actually has gameplans that do get results. If you fixed the OL issue, his scoring stats would go up to match the yardage. The occasional timeclock blunder, or having a pass happy gameplan that occasionally costs us a game, doesn't outweigh putting together a top 10 scoring offense.

PS... for you to say that his faults outweigh his strengths would really have to mean he sucks, it would mean he was not running a top offense. Which you already said you were not claiming: "I'm not one that says he sucks," pg. 7.

There has already been numerous faults of his listed. Lets see enough to tip the scales in his favor. Then I'll agree with you claim it's hyperbole. If not, well I guess it simply IS true.

As boozeman admitted long ago in a previous iteration of this board, the issues are about 75% personnel, 25% coaching.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Well, I'd say we have nothing to worry about then if we hadn't gone through a phase where we had Bruce Coslet as our coordinator.

We've talked about this before. He's about a Chan Gailey, both in terms of head coaching and coordinating. But a guy like that DOES know how to coach. He's a guy that isn't going to take a team with serious personnel flaws and turn them into a contender, but he could be a good enough helmsman on a team with good personnel direction. And no, not every coach can do that (in fact there are a good handful that can't and we've had some come through here under Jerry -- Campo, for one, and Wade who ruins everything, for another).

I think a guy like that needs some stability. You run him off and you could end up with Dave Campo.

Wait for the Bill Parcells instead. That's the better move.



Well, because he's capable of fielding a top 10 offense (scoring-wise) with about 2 more solid (non-Pro Bowl) players added to this OL. Maybe less, maybe just development (though unexpected) of one or two of them. We have personnel here that is a good match for what Garrett has shown he can do, and could do better if he had an OL.

Not worth simply throwing away. Jerry is doing the coach picking. We are far more likely to end up with something worse than we have. Hold out for the obvious hire, the next big thing to come by and let Jerry throw the farm at an elite level coach, if Garrett hasn't grown by that time.

You know what Chan Gailey is? Unemployed. Chan Gaileys are dime a dozen.

Also if there had never been a Dave Campo there would never have been a Bill Parcells. If Gailey had been replaced with another Gailey then he in turn would have been replaced with another Gailey. Rather not have to go through it but I'm certainly not scared to take my chances.

 

[Smitty]

You know what Chan Gailey is? Unemployed. Chan Gaileys are dime a dozen.

Yeah, I notice Ken Whisenhunt and Lovie Smith got fired too. But yes, there are lots of average coaches out there. Garrett is one of them on that level.

Also if there had never been a Dave Campo there would never have been a Bill Parcells. If Gailey had been replaced with another Gailey then he in turn would have been replaced with another Gailey. Rather not have to go through it but I'm certainly not scared to take my chances.

Well that is exactly what you are saying to do, replace Gailey with Gailey.

I'm saying let's stick with Gailey until Football Jesus becomes available. That way we can skip the risk of the whole Campo thing. I liked Gailey and I didn't think he should have been fired because I think he was doing well with the flawed talent he had (his main problem was that he had Troy Aikman but no WRs to throw to by the end). He wasn't going to be able to coach 'em up over the hump, ultimately, but they would have been a lot better than they were under Campo.

 

[NoDak]

And I say those yardage numbers are inflated. Continuous poor game plans and preparation have us scrapping things and going sandlot. Not very conducive for winning consistantly, but nice for the stats. As we've all seen. How long is our streak of scoring less than 10 pts in the first half now?

 

[Smitty]

And I say those yardage numbers are inflated. Continuous poor game plans and preparation have us scrapping things and going sandlot.

And I say they are not. The only year where that has been a real problem was 2012.

In 2011, we were trailing by more than a TD at halftime just TWICE.

In 2010, it was 5 times, but three of them happened under Wade, and two of them came in the middle of the Wade meltdown where the team basically quit (Jacksonville and Green Bay), so in those instances it wasn't necessarily the offensive gameplan at fault (the other time under Wade that year was the season opener against Washington, the famous fumble before halftime, that one has to be blamed on Garrett, though I still don't think that pass before halftime was a bad idea ). So that would really make it three legit times in 2010.

In 2009, it happened not a single time (except for the playoff loss to Minnesota, but that wasn't the gameplan, that was the OL assraping, what a shock).

So going back to 2009-2011, that means really 5 times in 3 years we were trailing by more than a TD at halftime where you could argue the gameplan was the reason our offense was causing us to fall behind big.

So I'm not seeing the evidence that the yardage is a product of scrapping a gameplan that's not working. There is simply not any record to support a history of losing big at halftime in any previous seasons to 2012 that would require us to scrap our plans and go sandlot.

How long is our streak of scoring less than 10 pts in the first half now?

The streak of scoring less than 10 points in a half is currently at a grand total of one game right now. In fact in our last 5 games of the season, it only happened once, the season finale at Washington. Killer point dude.

It did happen I believe 6 times during the season but we won a couple of those games too.

 

[Smitty]

Here's another fun exercise.

Admittedly in 2012, the Cowboys were failing to score early in a lot of games, it was the worst by far (of course it was also the worst OL year by far). How many times did they score less than 10 by the half? 8 times. Seems like a lot?

Yes. It was, comparatively.

But how many times did they score less than 10 in the half in 2011 and 2010?

2011: 6 times
2010: 6 times (though once was with a third string QB who couldn't move the ball, a meaningless finale against Philly, kinda doesn't count).

Total times in 3 years: 20 times.

So a couple less each in 2010 and 2011. Definitely, 2012 was the worst.

.................................................................

But how many times did the Giants score less than 10 by halftime in those years?

2012: 5 times
2011: 7 times (including twice in the playoffs)
2010: 5 times

17 times. Pretty much a similar rate especially if you are figuring that I admit that 2012 we were, in fact, throwing out our gameplans.

But the evidence doesn't show that we were doing it at a higher rate than the Giants in 2011 or 2010. In fact we had it happen the same exact number of times (12 each). On top of that... the Giants have a better OL than ours yet similar skill position talent, which partially explains that discrepancy.

So, to sum up, I'm not buying that 6 years of top yardage production is all a product of us throwing away our gameplans at halftime and going sandlot. I believe we've been compromising what we want to call for years, but I think the yardage in previous years is still a product of actual calls, not improvising by the QB. I didn't look at every team, but it happens to the Giants just as often as it happens to us in previous years. So unless they are "scrapping their gameplans" too, then I don't believe it.

So I once again reject that argument as having nothing to back it up.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Yeah, I notice Ken Whisenhunt and Lovie Smith got fired too. But yes, there are lots of average coaches out there. Garrett is one of them on that level.

Both of those coaches have been to the Super Bowl. Ken was basically dragged there by Kurt Warner and Larry Fitzgerald so I won't defend him, but Lovie managed to drag Rex Grossman there with his defense. That's impressive. And Lovie isn't a "handed the keys to a SB team" fluke like Mike Martz. That team was awful when he took it over.

Besides the cold hard facts of his having a better record as a head coach, what Lovie Smith would bring is something we've lacked forever: identity. He has a philosophy, you know what his teams will hang their hats on and it's been enough to keep an organization just as poor as ours consistently in the hunt despite terrible QB play.

With a Lovie Smith team you know you're getting aggressive opportunistic turnover creating defense and a ball control offense when he doesn't have Mike Martz hung around his neck like a millstone.

 

[townsend]

Both of those coaches have been to the Super Bowl. Ken was basically dragged there by Kurt Warner and Larry Fitzgerald so I won't defend him, but Lovie managed to drag Rex Grossman there with his defense. That's impressive. And Lovie isn't a "handed the keys to a SB team" fluke like Mike Martz. That team was awful when he took it over.

Besides the cold hard facts of his having a better record as a head coach, what Lovie Smith would bring is something we've lacked forever: identity. He has a philosophy, you know what his teams will hang their hats on and it's been enough to keep an organization just as poor as ours consistently in the hunt despite terrible QB play.

With a Lovie Smith team you know you're getting aggressive opportunistic turnover creating defense and a ball control offense when he doesn't have Mike Martz hung around his neck like a millstone.

Lovie and Whisenhunt have both won superbowls with the Rams and Steelers respectively.

Also dismissing Whisenhunt because Warner and Fitzgerald doesn't make sense, since Denny Green had them and didn't do shit.

Also Rex Grossman actually helped push the team there with what was a pretty damn productive offense.

 

[Smitty]

Both of those coaches have been to the Super Bowl. Ken was basically dragged there by Kurt Warner and Larry Fitzgerald so I won't defend him, but Lovie managed to drag Rex Grossman there with his defense. That's impressive.

It was also years ago. I haven't seen anything in the last half decade to make me think Smith is still that good.

Besides the cold hard facts of his having a better record as a head coach, what Lovie Smith would bring is something we've lacked forever: identity. He has a philosophy, you know what his teams will hang their hats on and it's been enough to keep an organization just as poor as ours consistently in the hunt despite terrible QB play.

Ehm, they haven't been consistently in the hunt. They haven't made the playoffs in 5 out of the last 6 years.

Is "in the hunt" meaning in the running for the playoffs bust just missing? Because then Garrett has been in the hunt too.

 

[townsend]

Lovie did make it to a NFC championship, and stifle an otherwise perfect Aaron Rodgers in 2010, if it hadn't been for Cutler tearing his MCL, they might have made it to the Superbowl.

 

[Clay_Allison]

It was also years ago. I haven't seen anything in the last half decade to make me think Smith is still that good.

Ehm, they haven't been consistently in the hunt. They haven't made the playoffs in 5 out of the last 6 years.

Is "in the hunt" meaning in the running for the playoffs bust just missing? Because then Garrett has been in the hunt too.

He's had a better record than Garrett over the last 3 years and an appearance in the NFC title game. That's clearly better than Garrett over the time frame that Garrett has been a head coach.

 

[EZ22]

Ehm,

Wtf does this mean?

 

[p1_]

"We've been disappointing the last two years," Jones said. "8-8 won't get it. Nobody more so than him.


I interpret this to mean this year is it for RHG.

 

[Genghis Khan]

He's had a better record than Garrett over the last 3 years and an appearance in the NFC title game. That's clearly better than Garrett over the time frame that Garrett has been a head coach.

Plus you have to give lovie a pass for missing the playoffs 2 years ago when they went 7-3 or whatever it was before Cutler got hurt.

 

[Smitty]

He's had a better record than Garrett over the last 3 years and an appearance in the NFC title game. That's clearly better than Garrett over the time frame that Garrett has been a head coach.

Well if you were to literally rank all 32 coaches in order then it would warrant listing Lovie somewhere above Garrett.

But that is not my point when I say they are they same (which has become shorthand for saying "in the same tier" by the way).

The fact that Lovie cannot consistently put it together anymore means the same thing would happen here. We'd end up out of the playoffs far more than we'd be in them. I suspect if you gave Garrett 6 tries he could get a playoff win as well, but the fact is that the track record in that time frame is simply not good enough to claim Lovie is going to turn this team around. Unless you think missing the playoffs 5 out of 6 years is turning the team around.

So I don't really care if one guy goes 9-7 and misses the playoffs and the other goes 7-9. That's the same tier to me. It's not 4-12 disaster bad, and it's not a consistent competitor.

 

[NoDak]

The fact that Lovie cannot consistently put it together anymore means the same thing would happen here. We'd end up out of the playoffs far more than we'd be in them. I suspect if you gave Garrett 6 tries he could get a playoff win as well, but the fact is that the track record in that time frame is simply not good enough to claim Lovie is going to turn this team around. Unless you think missing the playoffs 5 out of 6 years is turning the team around.

Hey, Geng. Looks like schmitty forgot the difference between a fact and an opinion again.

It's been a few hours. Could you explain it to him again?

 

[Smitty]

Hey, Geng. Looks like schmitty forgot the difference between a fact and an opinion again.

It's been a few hours. Could you explain it to him again?

Not fact, projection based on facts that demonstrate near certainty, sorry. My bad.