Dak Watch Thread...

[Smitty]

Get out of here with this. We aren't talking about scathing. We are talking about a ridiculous proposition that you think Garrett could be a better head coach than Pederson. Don't pretend like you don't realize what you're saying is preposterous.

It's no different then someone on here saying Campo was a better coach than Garrett. It would throw you into a tizzy.

It's completely different. Garrett had a winning record against Pederson.

Here's an article summing up your misinformation:

Jason Garrett has out-coached Doug Pederson when Cowboys have faced the Eagles

Despite what it may look like in the media, one head coach has clearly been better when these two divisional rivals battle it out.

www.bloggingtheboys.com

Prior to that final matchup which ended in Cowboy meltdown, which agreed, better coaching would have won for us, Garrett won 5 out of 7 against Pederson on the backs of some gutsy calls that are the definition of coaching discretion.

Again.... not using this as ammo that Garrett is some all world coach.

But the discredit campaign is in full effect to make it seem that Garrett never did a single worthwhile thing, and that is simply false.

And again... I do not think Pederson is very good.

In your rush to demean anything Garrett has ever done, you are missing the larger point here, which is not that Garrett is great, it's that Pederson is one of the more lousy coaches to ever win a Super Bowl and we shouldn't be fearing him at all now that McCarthy is here.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

It's completely different. Garrett had a winning record against Pederson.

Here's an article summing up your misinformation:

Jason Garrett has out-coached Doug Pederson when Cowboys have faced the Eagles

Despite what it may look like in the media, one head coach has clearly been better when these two divisional rivals battle it out.

www.bloggingtheboys.com

Prior to that final matchup which ended in Cowboy meltdown, which agreed, better coaching would have won for us, Garrett won 5 out of 7 against Pederson on the backs of some gutsy calls that are the definition of coaching discretion.

Again.... not using this as ammo that Garrett is some all world coach.

But the discredit campaign is in full effect to make it seem that Garrett never did a single worthwhile thing, and that is simply false.

And again... I do not think Pederson is very good.

In your rush to demean anything Garrett has ever done, you are missing the larger point here, which is not that Garrett is great, it's that Pederson is one of the more lousy coaches to ever win a Super Bowl and we shouldn't be fearing him at all now that McCarthy is here.

It's not discrediting a guy to say he is a worse coach than a head coach who won a Superbowl with a less talented team. And you can give all the credit to his assistant all you want. But great coaches hire great assistants around them.

You're being intentionally obtuse if you think head to head career records between the coaches mean shit. The only way that matters is if at the end of the season all you care about is beating the Eagles. I think winning a Superbowl is far more important. And in that Pederson has proven to be a far better coach. Frankly Pederson has done far better than Garrett with far less talent. The fact that you even think this is debatable just shows what blinders you have. This isn't some piss on Garrett thing for me. This is just a painfully obvious fact that you can't seem to see which is crazy to me.

That Eagles team last year was decimated by injuries and had guys off the street playing for them and they still made the playoffs over a far more talented Cowboys roster. This isn't even a debate. You're just wrong.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

How does one of the lousiest coaches to ever win a Superbowl beat an all-time dynasty with a backup career spare QB?

 

[data]

How does one of the lousiest coaches to ever win a Superbowl beat an all-time dynasty with a backup career spare QB?

It was all Frank Reich, backup TE Trey Burton, the IT intern, office assistant and whoever else left after the Super Bowl.

 

[Genghis Khan]

It was all Frank Reich, backup TE Trey Burton, the IT intern, office assistant and whoever else left after the Super Bowl.

All of whom are better coaches than Garrett.

 

[Smitty]

All of whom are better coaches than Garrett.

Fantastic, but none of that was said nor is anyone trying to prop Garrett up here despite you and other posters being unduly sensitive about anything that sounds remotely positive about him.

I said, I am not convinced that Pederson is particularly better than Garrett, and I base that on a clear track record of Garrett .... yeah, kinda outcoaching Pederson on a head to head basis.

This is not lodged into evidence as some treatment of Garrett being an awesome coach; but Pederson flat up got beat by Garrett, and not simply because we overwhelmed them with talent. Pederson mismanaged a few of those games and Garrett made bold calls that won the games.

This is an indictment of Pederson. I do not think he's that good.

It's not an attempt to elevate Garrett into equal footing with Super Bowl winners; it's an attempt to depress the consideration of Pederson.

 

[Smitty]

You're being intentionally obtuse if you think head to head career records between the coaches mean shit.

Ok then. Head to head means "shit."

That Eagles team last year was decimated by injuries and had guys off the street playing for them and they still made the playoffs over a far more talented Cowboys roster. This isn't even a debate. You're just wrong.

You are deliberately ignoring some of Garrett's seasons where he faced injuries and adversity and got his team to the playoffs. What, because Pederson won one incredibly weak NFC East, that's a trump card? No, it isn't.

No one thing is determinative; however, head to head matchups are certainly relevant because that's when you see each coach squaring off against the other straight up.

That's fine, though. You can go to bat for Pederson.

I'm not. I think he is pretty average (or worse). Just like Garrett was.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Fantastic, but none of that was said nor is anyone trying to prop Garrett up here despite you and other posters being unduly sensitive about anything that sounds remotely positive about him.

I said, I am not convinced that Pederson is particularly better than Garrett, and I base that on a clear track record of Garrett .... yeah, kinda outcoaching Pederson on a head to head basis.

This is not lodged into evidence as some treatment of Garrett being an awesome coach; but Pederson flat up got beat by Garrett, and not simply because we overwhelmed them with talent. Pederson mismanaged a few of those games and Garrett made bold calls that won the games.

This is an indictment of Pederson. I do not think he's that good.

It's not an attempt to elevate Garrett into equal footing with Super Bowl winners; it's an attempt to depress the consideration of Pederson.

Saying an IT intern and office assistant are better coaches than Garrett is an obvious joke.

Jesus you are obsessed with defending the guy.

 

[Smitty]

Saying an IT intern and office assistant are better coaches than Garrett is an obvious joke.

Jesus you are obsessed with defending the guy.

I mean, I was glossing over that. I meant Reich.

 

[Cotton]

 

[data]

I said, I am not convinced that Pederson is particularly better than Garrett, and I base that on a clear track record of Garrett .... yeah, kinda outcoaching Pederson on a head to head basis.

Prescott is 4-2 vs Wentz

 

[Cowboysrock55]

That's fine, though. You can go to bat for Pederson.

I'm not. I think he is pretty average (or worse). Just like Garrett was.

I wouldn't call it going to bat for Pederson. But yes I think he is a good coach who elevates his talent. When the bar is set fairly low and Garrett level coach it's not really that hard to beat. Still winning a Superbowl with Foles or taking a team last year to the playoffs while missing basically everyone with talent on offense is pretty impressive. The guy has proven he can win with his scheme and pretty mediocre talent.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Prescott is 4-2 vs Wentz

Pshh, it only counts when he wants it to count. Besides, that's not Dak. That was all Garrett and his great coaching.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I wouldn't call it going to bat for Pederson. But yes I think he is a good coach who elevates his talent. When the bar is set fairly low and Garrett level coach it's not really that hard to beat. Still winning a Superbowl with Foles or taking a team last year to the playoffs while missing basically everyone with talent on offense is pretty impressive. The guy has proven he can win with his scheme and pretty mediocre talent.

I don’t nave an opinion either way about the coaches but the Eagles would have been slitting up the creek if Foles wasn’t there to play a really good game.

 

[Smitty]

Prescott is 4-2 vs Wentz

Prescott doesn't actually perform AGAINST Wentz, though, as coaches specifically call plays and react to each other.

 

[data]

Prescott doesn't actually perform AGAINST Wentz, though, as coaches specifically call plays and react to each other.

Garrett and Pederson called defensive plays against each other?

 

[Smitty]

I wouldn't call it going to bat for Pederson. But yes I think he is a good coach who elevates his talent. When the bar is set fairly low and Garrett level coach it's not really that hard to beat. Still winning a Superbowl with Foles or taking a team last year to the playoffs while missing basically everyone with talent on offense is pretty impressive. The guy has proven he can win with his scheme and pretty mediocre talent.

I don't really agree the Eagles have mediocre talent in regards to us, other than going 9-7 with a decimated WR corps.

Yes, that one Super Bowl run was impressive, and completely besides my point. The guy shits the bed as a coach with just as much regularity as one that everyone loves to hate. And I think that run was largely attributable to an assistant who is no longer there.

I'm not splitting hairs as to "Well, lets rank them and if Garrett comes in at 27 and Pederson 26 that means Pederson is better."

I don't regard either of them as substantially different than the other. I think Pederson is getting highly overrated on this board at the moment, and I suspect if it was a different thread that didn't involve the name "Garrett" then we'd be all too eager to shit on Pederson as overrated as well.

 

[data]

I don't really agree the Eagles have mediocre talent in regards to us, other than going 9-7 with a decimated WR corps.

Yes, that one Super Bowl run was impressive, and completely besides my point. The guy shits the bed as a coach with just as much regularity as one that everyone loves to hate. And I think that run was largely attributable to an assistant who is no longer there.

I'm not splitting hairs as to "Well, lets rank them and if Garrett comes in at 27 and Pederson 26 that means Pederson is better."

I don't regard either of them as substantially different than the other. I think Pederson is getting highly overrated on this board at the moment, and I suspect if it was a different thread that didn't involve the name "Garrett" then we'd be all too eager to shit on Pederson as overrated as well.

As long as we're not splitting hairs, then Pederson is similar to Marvin Lewis?

 

[Cowboysrock55]

As long as we're not splitting hairs, then Pederson is similar to Marvin Lewis?

Pederson is probably a top 10 NFL coach. Garrett was probably bottom 5. Which is why he no longer has a job. Pederson would have a job if he was let go as a head coach. No question in my mind.

 

[Smitty]

Pederson is probably a top 10 NFL coach.

Wow, yeah, do not agree.