MacMahon: If Cowboys improve, Jerry might admit mistake

[Smitty]

And this were you lose all credibility once again

You've never had any to begin with.

That line blocked plenty well for Alfred Morris all year long. Tons better than ours did.

I'm not arguing that point any more because it's simple absurdity.

You never addressed the topic of why has Garrett never adjusted his play calling to fit his talent

I dunno, why couldn't Bill Parcells adjust his play calling to make up for his lack of having a QB? Huh? HUH?

He must have sucked.

 

[Smitty]

We all know Jones is handicapped because he is incapable of independent analysis on his own.

I think it is also clear that his coaches probably have more input than most across the league because he has that disability.

So why would you absolve the coaches for their role in the process?

Yeah, I get it Jerry should just hire a GM. But you know damn good and well, he only is as good as who is around him and that includes Garrett.

I love how we go around and around in this circle.

Yeah, ok. So we need a coach who can be a GM for Jerry and also coach at a high level.

You've already admitted it's not Gruden. I won't acknowledge that it's Lovie Smith.

Just as soon as we can get Andy Reid in here, we're golden.

In the meantime, I'm not going to fire Garrett for his failure to cover Jones' ass. It's not "absolving" Garrett to say he hasn't been able to bring in better guards than Livings and Bernadeau, that is a fact that we can all realize. But at the same time, we must recognize that the problem with the offense is the presence of Livings and Bernadeau more than it is what plays are called. Ten times more.

If you bring in Mike McCoy or Bruce Arians or Marc Trestman or Rob Chudzinski or Doug Marrone or Gus Bradley, you know, three-fourths of the other coaches who were hired this offseason, and hand them the same guards, you will get the same offensive rankings or worse. Probably worse, in fact.

I'd love to get a guy like Andy Reid. Unfortunately he makes up 1/8th of the coaching hires this offseason and is no longer available. There is no guarantee Jerry can get a guy like that.

If we do, it should be a "Jerry is meeting with him on the plane before firing Garrett" moment, so he is in the bag before we subject ourselves to a coaching search that comes down to Norv vs. Fatty.

 

[Cotton]

I'll stop correcting you.

There it is.

 

[Smitty]

There it is.

It was equal douchebaggery to say "Yes, we've all heard your opinion." I was responding in kind.

 

[Cotton]

It was equal douchebaggery to say "Yes, we've all heard your opinion." I was responding in kind.

You responded in kind and then added... I'M RIGHT AND YOU SUCK! AND I KNOW ITZ!

 

[junk]

Well we've heard everyone else's too. You guys can stop wrongly placing all the blame at Garrett's feet and I'll stop correcting you.

Who is placing "all the blame"? Dallas has plenty of dysfunction. Garrett happens to be part of it. Calling him blameless is where I have issue.

Jerry deserves plenty of blame and I've given him plenty when due.

Streetball wasn't particularly effective either compared to previous seasons, per Sturm. The whole year was a mess. Shocking... worst OL we've had here too last year.

Yes, what a mess. They actually scored more than the year before with the "worst OL we've had here".


2012: 23.5 ppg, 15th in the league
2011: 23.1 ppg, 15th in the league
2010: 24.6 ppg, 7th in the league
2009: 22.6 ppg, 14th in the league
2008: 22.6 ppg, 18th in the league
2007: 28.4 ppg, 2nd in the league

Notice a trend here? Garrett pretty much coordinates a middle of the pack scoring offense.

And as far as Sturm, this was the article I was referencing.

My point, would be this: In 2012, the Cowboys' would spend all week designing a game plan that they thought would best work against their opponents. Then, at game-time, they would find that their game plan was completely ineffective and scrap it. This would happen at halftime sometimes, 3rd Quarter other times, and even sometimes well before halftime. When they would scrap their game plan (a balanced attack with multiple personnel groupings and formations) and go exclusively to a 2-minute drill offense that was 100% shotgun and 100% 11 personnel, they would then find the ability to get yards and ultimately, points.

The score in the game here is interesting, but not the trigger. The trigger is that moment when Garrett and/or Romo says to the other, "this isn't working. Let's do what we know works

http://sturminator.blogspot.com/2013/02/garrett-overview-6-years-of-data.html

 

[Smitty]

Who is placing "all the blame"? Dallas has plenty of dysfunction. Garrett happens to be part of it. Calling him blameless is where I have issue.

Not calling him blameless.

I've said many times it's 75% personnel, 25% coaching.

The problem is, you can't get an accurate read on what really needs to be fixed with the coaching because getting even competent players at 4/5ths of our OL spots might cure a lot of the coaching issues, because Garrett wouldn't have to "adapt" to say, the spread offense that he is not comfortable calling, but he'd be able to trust his running game more and all phases of the offense would be more effective without even a single change to the plays that are called.

The same cannot really be said in reverse. You will never, ever, in a million years, coach Nate Livings-Phil Costa-Mackenzie Bernadeau into an interior OL that isn't one of the worst in football and a complete liability. You might -- MIGHT -- be able to playcall around it.... by running a spread/shotgun offense where the run is almost completely abandoned and the passes are so short that the rush can't get there.

Of course, we tried that approach against Atlanta, actually, and scored 13 points. So..... next idea.

Yes, what a mess. They actually scored more than the year before with the "worst OL we've had here".

2012: 23.5 ppg, 15th in the league
2011: 23.1 ppg, 15th in the league
2010: 24.6 ppg, 7th in the league
2009: 22.6 ppg, 14th in the league
2008: 22.6 ppg, 18th in the league
2007: 28.4 ppg, 2nd in the league

Notice a trend here? Garrett pretty much coordinates a middle of the pack scoring offense.

Yes, the trend I notice is that 2007 was the best OL we've had under Garrett and we scored like a well oiled machine, and since then the OL has gotten steadily worse and so have the results.

Maybe Garrett is getting dumber though. That's a logical explanation.

Good skill positions + lousy line talent = average offensive talent. Average results make sense.

And as far as Sturm, this was the article I was referencing.

I've read it. There's another one from Sturm that also pointed out how even when they said "This game plan isn't working, let's scrap it and go sandlot" that it wasn't nearly as efficient compared to previous years Garrett offenses either.

The whole thing was down. It certainty is an indictment that the game plans were not working, but Bob explicitly says "I'm not saying why they aren't working, just pointing out that they're not." (Verbatim, the quote is "This is a team that fell behind early almost every single home game. Why? Because their game-plan week after week was not working. Why? I could offer 100 ideas. But, the point is, they weren't working.")

I know why. It's 75% on the OL.

Some people were saying that we should just say F it and go spread/hurry up mode all the time, then. But again, in another article, Bob pointed out that even when we did in that 2012, it was more effective than Gameplanned 2012, but less effective than gameplanned 2007-2009. So that wasn't an answer either; its just that nothing was working.

 

[Smitty]

Actually, it was the same article. He says "The Cowboys simply must get back to an offense where they are using S11 as the frosting on their cake," because the shotgun/scrapped offense approach of 2012 was not as efficient as the gameplanned offenses in previous years.

And the only time in the article he does touch on how to fix it?

"How do you fix it? It starts with fixing your offensive line so that you can actually depend on them for something once in a while."

That's right. Because it's more personnel than coaching. He doesn't say "It starts with Garrett calling more spread offense" or "It starts with Garrett calling more runs" or "It starts with replacing Garrett with Callahan as playcaller."

It starts with the OL. Because that's the bigger problem.

Once you fix that (and I doubt we have, unless things come up aces on Frederick, Leary, and Free), then you see what is wrong with the playcalling. The problem is, vastly more properly called plays were ruined by poor execution than vice-versa last year.

 

[junk]

2007 is the anomaly when you look at Garrett's offensive performance. Garrett getting dumber isn't logical, but Garrett being mentored/tutored/hand held by Sparano is quite logical.

6 points per game once Sparano left. OL starters in 2007: Flo, Kosier, Gurode, Davis Colombo OL starters in 2008: Flo, Procter, Gurode, Davis and Colombo

No doubt Procter is a serious downgrade, but a 6 ppg downgrade? You said yourself he only needs 4 out 5 to be decent.

Good coaches can get better results out of lesser talent (see Bill Parcells 10-6 record with Quincy). However, Garrett has a pretty nice collection of talent (and has had a pretty nice collection of talent in his years in Dallas), yet remains a middle of the pack coordinator. I think the logical conclusion is that Garrett is a middle of the pack offensive coordinator.

The thing that hurt Garrett more than anything was spurning Dan Reeves. I'm pretty sure that time clock bullshit that Jerry came up with was a result of Garrett running to Daddy and telling him he didn't want another hand holder. But that is what he needed, he's still super green as a coach and having that veteran mentor would have been invaluable.

 

[junk]

Actually, it was the same article. He says "The Cowboys simply must get back to an offense where they are using S11 as the frosting on their cake," because the shotgun/scrapped offense approach of 2012 was not as efficient as the gameplanned offenses in previous years.

And the only time in the article he does touch on how to fix it?

"How do you fix it? It starts with fixing your offensive line so that you can actually depend on them for something once in a while."

That's right. Because it's more personnel than coaching. He doesn't say "It starts with Garrett calling more spread offense" or "It starts with Garrett calling more runs" or "It starts with replacing Garrett with Callahan as playcaller."

It starts with the OL. Because that's the bigger problem.

Once you fix that (and I doubt we have, unless things come up aces on Frederick, Leary, and Free), then you see what is wrong with the playcalling. The problem is, vastly more properly called plays were ruined by poor execution than vice-versa last year.

I won't argue the OL and player personnel acquisition aren't issues because they are.

I just think if you compare Garrett to other HCs and OCs around the league, he is what he is. A middle of the pack type of guy.

Coaching and player personnel need to be fixed.

 

[Bob Roberts]

Garrett got replaced as a playcaller because he was just so awesome at it.

 

[Smitty]

2007 is the anomaly when you look at Garrett's offensive performance. Garrett getting dumber isn't logical, but Garrett being mentored/tutored/hand held by Sparano is quite logical.

6 points per game once Sparano left. OL starters in 2007: Flo, Kosier, Gurode, Davis Colombo OL starters in 2008: Flo, Procter, Gurode, Davis and Colombo

No doubt Procter is a serious downgrade, but a 6 ppg downgrade? You said yourself he only needs 4 out 5 to be decent.

The entire line was in a free fall. By 2009 they were completely washed up. Proctor wasn't the only player who was worse.... they all were worse versions of themselves.

Good coaches can get better results out of lesser talent (see Bill Parcells 10-6 record with Quincy).

Bill Parcells is a Hall of Fame coach. But yes, many elite coaches can do that. Of the 8 that were hired this offseason, only one of them falls into that category -- Andy Reid -- and I actually went on record saying I'd support firing Garrett for Reid.

The rest of them? You're delusional if you think they'd "coach more out of the OL."

As for a guy like Lovie Smith, well... the Bears are one of the only teams with a WORSE track record than Jerry Jones at finding offensive talent, both skill positions and OLs. So he would be fixing none of those issues. He'd be a good defensive coach, but then, we just hired his boss Monte Kiffin.

However, Garrett has a pretty nice collection of talent (and has had a pretty nice collection of talent in his years in Dallas), yet remains a middle of the pack coordinator.

Garrett's had a great QB (though some might argue that), a great TE, and usually a pretty good WR or three. His RBs have bounced between solid and inconsistent (health, largely) and his offensive line has been overwhelmingly poor, uniformly so since 2009.

That's average talent. Better at the skill positions, bad on the line. Averages out to middle of the road.

I think the logical conclusion is that Garrett is a middle of the pack offensive coordinator.

He's probably somewhere in that range both as a head coach and coordinator. It's impossible to do a straight ranking 1-32, but I'd say he's outside the top 10 somewhere in the soft middle of guys who could have better or worse seasons depending on the roll of the dice.

What I like about Garrett is that he says and does the right things and has the potential to improve.

But I'd fire him if I could get one of those top 10 guys.

The thing that hurt Garrett more than anything was spurning Dan Reeves. I'm pretty sure that time clock bullshit that Jerry came up with was a result of Garrett running to Daddy and telling him he didn't want another hand holder.

Really? Because that felt to me more like Jerry not wanting to meet some of Reeves demands for input on personnel. He wasn't going to be a coach, he was going to be a "consultant." That says more on the management side of things to me.

 

[Smitty]

I won't argue the OL and player personnel acquisition aren't issues because they are.

I just think if you compare Garrett to other HCs and OCs around the league, he is what he is. A middle of the pack type of guy.

Coaching and player personnel need to be fixed.

I won't argue that Garrett doesn't need to get better -- he does.

But I stand by the statement that more plays were ruined last year from poor execution of a good situational playcall than vice-versa.

 

[Genghis Khan]

The fact that it's "never been better than average" and most of the time worse, is definitely a drawback.

Average isn't doing any favors, either.

And is average QB play a drawback? I'd say yes. So why isn't average OL play a drawback? It's the second most important position group to get good play from, behind QB.

First, the difference in importance between QB and offensive line or any other other position on the field is significant. Second, the difference in quality between an average QB and a great QB is much larger than the difference between an average offensive line and a great offensive line.

If you have an average QB your offense will probably struggle. An average offensive line is still enough make your offense work. There simply isn't that large of a gap in talent among the top half of offensive linemen.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Mostly the GM's.



That's true, but at the end of the day, it's not Garrett's job to bring in the right players. Nor are most coaches capable of doing both. Most of the time you see a coach try to coach and be GM, they fail at it. Even a guy we all love in Holmgren.... eh.... mostly mixed bag without Ron Wolf around.

Oh wow. I couldn't disagree more. It isn't the HC coach's job to bring in talent? Of course it is. If a HC isn't telling the GM where the problem area on the roster are and how he'd like to solve it, he's not doing his job.

Most good HCs at least partially shop for the groceries.

Garrett is absolutely unquestionably jointly responsible for this roster.

 

[Genghis Khan]

You've never had any to begin with.

That line blocked plenty well for Alfred Morris all year long. Tons better than ours did.

I'm not arguing that point any more because it's simple absurdity.



I dunno, why couldn't Bill Parcells adjust his play calling to make up for his lack of having a QB? Huh? HUH?

He must have sucked.

It is a completely untenable argument to suggest that QB is remotely comparable to any other position on the field.

 

[Smitty]

It is a completely untenable argument to suggest that QB is remotely comparable to any other position on the field.

While true, it's also completely untenable to argue that in 6 years never having better than an average offensive line, and often times worse, is not a disadvantage.

 

[Smitty]

Most good HCs at least partially shop for the groceries.

Which is why I said "mostly" the GM's fault. All coaches have a responsibility to help the GM know what they want.

It's also the GM's responsibility to make decisions and overrule the coach when the coach is wrong about what player is best for the team. And most coaches usually are not infrequently wrong, which is why they have a GM to begin with. Otherwise coaches would all just do both.

 

[boozeman]

While true, it's also completely untenable to argue that in 6 years never having better than an average offensive line, and often times worse, is not a disadvantage.

Your argument would make much more sense if Garrett valued the OL.

He doesn't. He would rather keep requesting change of pace RBs, TEs and WRs.

Jerry doesn't come up with this shit on his own.

 

[Smitty]

Your argument would make much more sense if Garrett valued the OL.

He doesn't. He would rather keep requesting change of pace RBs, TEs and WRs.

Jerry doesn't come up with this shit on his own.

It's a disadvantage when it comes to playcalling and gameplanning whether he is responsible for the personnel or not, that's a separate issue.

And as I have said, get me an Andy Reid type and I'll fire Garrett tomorrow.