Archer: Jason Garrett ranks in middle of the pack among coaches

boozeman

28 Years And Counting...
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
121,746
Jason Garrett ranks in middle of the pack among coaches, but he has a chance to move up

11:48 AM ET
Todd Archer
ESPN Staff Writer

IRVING, Texas -- An offseason isn’t complete without some kind of rankings. You see them for teams, quarterbacks and coaches.

Last week USA Today offered up its rankings of the NFL head coaches and Dallas Cowboys coach Jason Garrett checked in at No. 21 overall. Last October, USA Today had Garrett at No. 15. The Cowboys were 2-3 at the time and would win only one game without Tony Romo as the starting quarterback to finish 4-12. So his reputation took quite a hit, especially after the 12-4 finish in 2015.

If you include Garrett’s 5-3 run as the interim head coach in 2010, he has a 45-43 record. He should be close to the middle of the pack.

The newest coaches in the division checked in at No. 30 (Doug Pederson of the Philadelphia Eagles) and No. 29 (Ben McAdoo of the New York Giants). Because they have never coached a game, their rankings should be relatively low.



Cowboys coach Jason Garrett was 21st in a recent ranking of NFL coaches. AP Photo/Brynn Anderson

Washington’s Jay Gruden was the highest-ranked NFC East coach at No. 17. Gruden gets the benefit of the doubt for the Redskins’ division title last year.

Garrett apparently gets no benefit of the doubt for having Romo for four games, Dez Bryant for nine games and Orlando Scandrick for no games.

Let’s just say this isn’t the same division when Tom Landry, Bill Parcells and Joe Gibbs were running the shows. (Quick aside: Don’t know how Chip Kelly comes in at No. 11 even if you excuse his ill-conceived roster.)

But Garrett has a chance to boost his stock this year, provided Romo, Bryant and Scandrick stay healthy. The Cowboys don’t view themselves as the typical 4-12 team, which can help Garrett and hurt him at the same time. Coming off a down year, teams generally don’t have such high expectations entering the following the season.

Normally the roster needs an overhaul, there isn’t a top-flight quarterback or there is a young quarterback growing into the position.

But that’s not the Cowboys. They view themselves as contenders, at least in the division, which technically makes them contenders in the playoffs.

If we are to believe these rankings, then there’s another reason Garrett can move up the list.

In the most-recent ESPN Power Rankings posted after the draft, the Cowboys checked in at No. 11. Washington was No. 16, followed by the Giants (No. 18) and Eagles (No. 22).
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,712
:yawnee
 

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,162
Garrett has to be held culpable for producing a mere 1 win without Romo in the lineup.

That's a ridiculous inability to adjust. I don't care how poor the defensive talent is or how average the backup WR's. 1 win?
 

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Garrett has to be held culpable for producing a mere 1 win without Romo in the lineup.

That's a ridiculous inability to adjust. I don't care how poor the defensive talent is or how average the backup WR's. 1 win?
Not to mention that it took him so long to produce a single winning season with Murray, Bryant, and Romo starting for him the whole time.

Wade had 3 winning seasons in 4 years. Garrett has managed 1 in 5.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,689
Wade was better than people give him credit for. He has been around high caliber football exposure all his life. Sad to say his demeanor didn't allow him to be hard nosed enough to make the next grade as HC.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,464
Wade was better than people give him credit for. He has been around high caliber football exposure all his life. Sad to say his demeanor didn't allow him to be hard nosed enough to make the next grade as HC.
Some guys are great assistants but shitty head coaches. Wade is one of those guys.
 

DLK150

DCC 4Life
Joined
May 16, 2014
Messages
8,789
Meh. There are coaches that make players look better than they are and there are players that make coaches look better than they are. Garrett basically falls into the latter category. His best season came when Dallas had a dominant offensive line, a dominant wide receiver and a dominant (Healthy) running back but almost every other season was pretty much mediocre at best. He's basically Dave Campo with better players. Not that Campo was a good head coach but you might be able to make the argument that he did more with less than Garrett. If they paid attention to his career trajectory, I'll bet Ravens fans are probably thankful the RHG wasn't hired back in 2008.
 

Genghis Khan

The worst version of myself
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
37,481
Garrett has to be held culpable for producing a mere 1 win without Romo in the lineup.

That's a ridiculous inability to adjust. I don't care how poor the defensive talent is or how average the backup WR's. 1 win?
Yep. The big problem with Garrett is we try to out-talent and out-try the opponent every week. That is a tenuous proposition to try to get by on unless you are significantly more talented than most of the league. We couldn't game plan or scheme our way out of a paper bag.
 

E_D_Guapo

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
3,158
This will makes sense to anyone familiar with advanced baseball statistics. I consider Garrett to be a 0 WAR coach at best. The only reason I don't consider him more like -1 or -2 is because I do believe the players still play hard for him for the most part. He has been the head coach for years now though and it is abundantly clear that the Cowboys don't win games because of their head coach. Actually when I think about it last year's failure to win a single goddamn game without Romo is probably enough to drop him down to more like a -2 WAR coach. Not only is he not special, he probably isn't even average.
 

data

Forbes #1
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
50,293
At least people can't say that a great OL turns shit into stars.
 

data

Forbes #1
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
50,293
You can't? Look at Darren McFadden.
If you think McFadden is a star, then Ezekiel Elliott's a benchwarmer.

Moreso, I just a random comment towards folks saying that bus-driving Aikman, Irvin and Emmitt were overrated and not special players in their own right.
 

ravidubey

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
20,162
You can't? Look at Darren McFadden.
Seriously? A star?

No offensive line in history has made an average back or QB into a star.

Lincoln Coleman, Derrick Lassic, Curvin Richards, Sherman Williams-- all still stunk behind the "Great Wall of Dallas".

Only Emmitt could seem to made it all click because he was an all-time talent, line or no line.

John Riggins, Eric Dickerson, Walter Payton-- all had great OL's at some point make them better, but they'd have all been great with or without them.
 

data

Forbes #1
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
50,293
If Zeke only gets 1300 combined yards like McFadden, I'll be Terence Newman disappointed.
 

1bigfan13

Your favorite player's favorite player
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
27,122
When I think of Garrett's inadequacies I always think back to that 2013 home game against the Packers that he completely botched. Against a scrub like Matt Flynn no less.

Every year you can count on him having 2 or 3 "WTF was he thinking" games. Which eventually results in Dallas having to roll into the final week of the season in win or go home mode. And as we all know, Garrett's Cowboys have pretty much always gone home in those situations.

With the amount of parity in the league today it's extremely difficult to overcome the 2 or 3 games that we literally give away each season due to just flat out dumb game management.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,488
Seriously? A star?

No offensive line in history has made an average back or QB into a star.

Lincoln Coleman, Derrick Lassic, Curvin Richards, Sherman Williams-- all still stunk behind the "Great Wall of Dallas".

Only Emmitt could seem to made it all click because he was an all-time talent, line or no line.

John Riggins, Eric Dickerson, Walter Payton-- all had great OL's at some point make them better, but they'd have all been great with or without them.
The term "star" is subjective. What it did is turn a player who was basically washed up in Oakland into a player who could have led the league in rushing if he had started all 16 games -- with some obvious talent flaws holding him back no less.

But I'd wager the league's leading rusher could be considered a "star." Now look, obviously Joseph Randle was floundering so no one is saying you can take any NFL walk-on level talent and turn him into a Pro Bowler but if you think the line isn't the more important factor then I don't know what to tell you. McFadden was on the trash heap and he produced ridiculous numbers. Murray is probably more like a 1200 yard back in this league and he put up 1800.

Elliott better put up massive numbers, and I think he will.
 

data

Forbes #1
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
50,293
With our OL, McFadden was, dare I say it, Sanders-like?
 

data

Forbes #1
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
50,293
The term "star" is subjective. What it did is turn a player who was basically washed up in Oakland into a player who could have led the league in rushing if he had started all 16 games -- with some obvious talent flaws holding him back no less.

But I'd wager the league's leading rusher could be considered a "star." Now look, obviously Joseph Randle was floundering so no one is saying you can take any NFL walk-on level talent and turn him into a Pro Bowler but if you think the line isn't the more important factor then I don't know what to tell you. McFadden was on the trash heap and he produced ridiculous numbers. Murray is probably more like a 1200 yard back in this league and he put up 1800.

Elliott better put up massive numbers, and I think he will.
if that's the way you put it, then why support Zeke's selection? What kind of numbers would Zeke have to put up to justify #4 selection?

it sounds like you think a decent 2nd day RB can be a star here, so we shouldve gone elsewhere with #4.
 

Cowboysrock55

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
52,464
if that's the way you put it, then why support Zeke's selection? What kind of numbers would Zeke have to put up to justify #4 selection?

it sounds like you think a decent 2nd day RB can be a star here, so we shouldve gone elsewhere with #4.
Well I think we should have gone a different direction at 4 but the argument other people use is that if a scrub can put up probowl numbers then a certified stud should be able to put up insane numbers. Of course now people are trying to temper those expectations but so be it. I think the real pitch on Elliott is that he brings other things besides just running ability. As a pass catcher, blitz pickup guy and runner you get the total package.
 
Top Bottom