Archer: Like Pats, Cowboys have to do more with less

[Smitty]

Ol' Punchline is workin' it!

It's funny how you're like, the only person laughing at your own jokes right now.

 

[Smitty]

So you have Philbin, Allen and Trestman left. I don't agree on judging Trestman yet and honestly seeing how his offense worked with a backup QB for multiple games I came away impressed. But even if we leave him on the list, you're saying only 3 current coaches are worse than Garrett?

We don't know about where any of the new guys fall; there were 12 on my list last year.

If Garrett wins a playoff game next year, does he automatically vault ahead of Marvin Lewis, who hasn't won one?

 

[midswat]

I can if you don't qualify-out every other coach in the league.

I read this like 5 times and I don't know what it means.

Are there any other coaches in the league who took over a team under these exact same circumstances?

No, likely not. Just illustrating there are coaches who take over teams in woeful situations. All things considered, the Dallas job was set up for success.

It's not like you swap out coaches and have an automatic deep playoff team.

No, but we're not talking about a deep playoff run. We haven't even been able to get TO the playoffs.


Basically, my thinking is this.... in the NFL, more than any other league or association, coaching matters. There's a reason Dallas goes 5-11 three straight years and then in Parcells first season we go 10-6 with roughly the same roster.

You see it fairly regularly where a new coach is capable of turning a team around.

Second to coaching, you need a quarterback.

Those two things - quality coaching and a franchise QB, and you ought to win a lot of games. Dallas had a QB in place. But Garretts coaching is and has been woeful.

Last year I would have said Frazier, Philbin, Allen, McCoy, Trestman, Marrone, Schwartz, Schiano, Munchak, Chudzinski, Arians, Ron Rivera, etc. Many of those names got fired, and McCoy proved me wrong to an extent by winning a playoff game (though I'd say he took a team that is probably a little more talented only about 2 games further). Arians also looked pretty good despite not making the playoffs. Rivera I don't know what to think. His team got hot but it wouldn't surprise me to see them go 4-12 next year either.

You're literally just naming names of guys who had losing records it seems. Don't look solely at win loss records. I know that might not make sense as this is a results oriented business. But again, as we've said, not everyone is granted the same situation. Some have better, some have worse.

Instead look at game management, situational awareness, half time adjustments, initial gameplans, player/assett utilization, etc......

We're talking about in Jason Garrett, a head coach who ices his own kicker, has lost I think I read four games over the past three years when the win probability was north of 85% going into the 2nd half, has no feel for the flow of the game, looks confused and generally has to be prompted as to when to challenge a play or not, etc etc etc.

This isn't directly his fault - he was given a head coaching job after what, three years total coaching experience? Thats ludicrous.

Without question, I'd say he's one of, if not THE, worst coaches in the league.

The rest of those names stand, I'd say, as either clearly worse or clearly not demonstrably better. I'd say most of the guys hired to replace any of the fired guys also fall into that category.[/QUOTE]

 

[Genghis Khan]

Completely incorrect, actually.

nuh uh.

 

[Smitty]

No, likely not. Just illustrating there are coaches who take over teams in woeful situations. All things considered, the Dallas job was set up for success.

I don't really agree. It had a franchise QB in place, which is usually the #1 thing lacking.

But it is missing a lot of other components needed, namely, it had poor lines and a meddlesome GM who screws things up personnel-wise and creates an atmosphere of distraction.

No, but we're not talking about a deep playoff run. We haven't even been able to get TO the playoffs.

We also haven't been truly bad. We're kinda average, not good enough to win big, not bad enough to bottom out.

Basically, my thinking is this.... in the NFL, more than any other league or association, coaching matters. There's a reason Dallas goes 5-11 three straight years and then in Parcells first season we go 10-6 with roughly the same roster.

You see it fairly regularly where a new coach is capable of turning a team around.

Second to coaching, you need a quarterback.

I agree with you on this. It's one of the reasons I've said that we shouldn't fire Garrett without having a name we like lined up, like we did when we fired Campo (we had already been secretly meeting with Parcells).

If he had just been fired after the season ended, and then we begin interviewing the usual suspects (Whisenhunt, Zimmer, Caldwell, etc), that's a horrible idea for us.

You're literally just naming names of guys who had losing records it seems. Don't look solely at win loss records. I know that might not make sense as this is a results oriented business. But again, as we've said, not everyone is granted the same situation. Some have better, some have worse.

Can we filter out coaches then who had success years ago but then haven't succeeded lately? Or coaches who may have made the playoffs but never do anything? I can start bringing Marvin Lewis into the equation too.

Instead look at game management, situational awareness, half time adjustments, initial gameplans, player/assett utilization, etc......

Ok, but I'm also going to look at, the guy generally has a decent offense, and has done so in the recent past despite having shit on the OL. This year we improved the OL, the offense left some to be desired, but was actually still ranked what, 5th in scoring?

I don't know what it is if you remove the defensive scores but it seems like it was solid in that regard.

There are things he does well.

We're talking about in Jason Garrett, a head coach who ices his own kicker, has lost I think I read four games over the past three years when the win probability was north of 85% going into the 2nd half, has no feel for the flow of the game, looks confused and generally has to be prompted as to when to challenge a play or not, etc etc etc.

I don't think he looks confused. And a lot of coaches use booth guys to tell them when to challenge plays.

His biggest problem is that he's too pass happy and that he's made too many clock blunders. That has cost us a handful of games and doesn't seem to be getting better. So, he's gotta go.

 

[Genghis Khan]

what Smitty calls "qualify-out", the rest of us call comparing apples to apples.

 

[midswat]

There are things he does well.

Oh yeah... that whole being on time thing and wearing suits.

His biggest problem is that he's too pass happy and that he's made too many clock blunders. That has cost us a handful of games and doesn't seem to be getting better. So, he's gotta go.

If you agree he's costing us games and isn't getting better, then I don't understand why you're okay with him sticking around just because there isn't a Parcells ready to replace him.

It's like eating a cheese sandwhich for lunch everyday that you detest, but refusing to eat something else just because you don't see a steak laying around.

Because for my money, it'd be real real hard for whatever coach that came in next to do worse. The head coach should not be costing us games like Garrett does. When the head coach is a liability, he's got to go.

 

[Smitty]

If you agree he's costing us games and isn't getting better, then I don't understand why you're okay with him sticking around just because there isn't a Parcells ready to replace him.

Doesn't have to be a Parcells, but I believe Gshock said it pretty well in this post.

http://dccforums.com/showthread.php?2040-Archer-Like-Pats-Cowboys-have-to-do-more-with-less&p=79366&viewfull=1#post79366

But replace average with a hotshot coordinator, or Caldwell, Zimmer, Jay Gruden, or Lovie Smith just to do this again in three years? Meh.

It means very little to me to get a coach in here who is "better" and still loses in the first round every year.

I'd say every other year or so, a truly good coach prospect comes along, a kind of "can't miss" type guy. 2013 saw Andy Reid. 2011 saw Jim Harbaugh. 2009 saw Rex Ryan. They've panned out to different degrees, other coaches have come along that are good as well, but those are three names that, when they were on the market, everyone knew they would succeed.

If you look at the list of guys interviewing and getting hired right now, the list sucks. I'm fairly confident that none of those guys would come in here and be able to make this team a consistent contender. The fact is that none of them have the pull to make Jerry back off. That will thus entail them being undermined, poor personnel decisions, and continued underachievement.

I'm fine with replacing Garrett. But I need names that are not these guys. And I think it might be fine to wait another year. Not to "give Garrett another chance" per se, but rather because if you lock yourself in with Jim Caldwell now, and then next year a guy like Rex Ryan was to shake free, or David Shaw was to become a hot commodity that everyone in the league was pissing their pants for, well, you aren't really free to go get him, because you're locked into Jim Caldwell. Yawn. He's not going to get fired after a year.

Meanwhile, Jason Garrett could go 9-7, get a wild card spot, and you could still decide not enough progress is being made after now FOUR full chances, and you could terminate him.

Everyone's counter to this is "But no one here is advocating ___________ (Jim Caldwell, Jay Gruden, Mike Zimmer, any of the other shitty coaches getting hired right now)!!!".

Ok... then give me names. There may be a guy I'd replace Garrett with.... then again maybe I'd wait. The main point is that it needs to be a quality hire, someone we KNOW is good. Not just another shot in the dark on, as Gshock says, another hot coordinator who will flop here so that we can do it all over again in another 3 years.

If Garrett really was the worst coach in the league (like Wade was), then yes, any Mike Zimmer or Jay Gruden would be better. But I don't believe he is, so you need to be selective to do better and get the right guy.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Part of it is that I don't really consider a guy like Marvin Lewis, who has made the playoffs while Garrett has not, to be "better."

That is exactly your problem. Marvin Lewis has taken a less talented team and made the playoffs. He is 100% a clear upgrade to what we have. Yet because he isn't the next coming of Jesus he must be no better then Garrett.

 

[midswat]

Doesn't have to be a Parcells, but I believe Gshock said it pretty well in this post.

http://dccforums.com/showthread.php?2040-Archer-Like-Pats-Cowboys-have-to-do-more-with-less&p=79366&viewfull=1#post79366

But replace average with a hotshot coordinator, or Caldwell, Zimmer, Jay Gruden, or Lovie Smith just to do this again in three years? Meh.

It means very little to me to get a coach in here who is "better" and still loses in the first round every year.

I'd say every other year or so, a truly good coach prospect comes along, a kind of "can't miss" type guy. 2013 saw Andy Reid. 2011 saw Jim Harbaugh. 2009 saw Rex Ryan. They've panned out to different degrees, other coaches have come along that are good as well, but those are three names that, when they were on the market, everyone knew they would succeed.

If you look at the list of guys interviewing and getting hired right now, the list sucks. I'm fairly confident that none of those guys would come in here and be able to make this team a consistent contender. The fact is that none of them have the pull to make Jerry back off. That will thus entail them being undermined, poor personnel decisions, and continued underachievement.

I'm fine with replacing Garrett. But I need names that are not these guys. And I think it might be fine to wait another year. Not to "give Garrett another chance" per se, but rather because if you lock yourself in with Jim Caldwell now, and then next year a guy like Rex Ryan was to shake free, or David Shaw was to become a hot commodity that everyone in the league was pissing their pants for, well, you aren't really free to go get him, because you're locked into Jim Caldwell. Yawn. He's not going to get fired after a year.

Meanwhile, Jason Garrett could go 9-7, get a wild card spot, and you could still decide not enough progress is being made after now FOUR full chances, and you could terminate him.

Everyone's counter to this is "But no one here is advocating ___________ (Jim Caldwell, Jay Gruden, Mike Zimmer, any of the other shitty coaches getting hired right now)!!!".

Ok... then give me names. There may be a guy I'd replace Garrett with.... then again maybe I'd wait. The main point is that it needs to be a quality hire, someone we KNOW is good. Not just another shot in the dark on, as Gshock says, another hot coordinator who will flop here so that we can do it all over again in another 3 years.

If Garrett really was the worst coach in the league (like Wade was), then yes, any Mike Zimmer or Jay Gruden would be better. But I don't believe he is, so you need to be selective to do better and get the right guy.

I'm sure this is full of a lot of really good points, but I got ADHD so please stick to readers digest versions when responding to me.

 

[Deuce]

That is exactly your problem. Marvin Lewis has taken a less talented team and made the playoffs. He is 100% a clear upgrade to what we have. Yet because he isn't the next coming of Jesus he must be no better then Garrett.

Not to mention, he's taken his unit (defense) and made it excel. Garrett took a Cowboys offense already rolling and has done nothing to make it better. They already scored a lot of points ever since Romo took over at QB. The only real change I've seen to that unit since Garrett came in is fail to close out games with a lead.

 

[Angrymesscan]

Well, after seeing guys like Switzer and Campo not make them do that, uh, no, not every coach in the league does it.

Didn't Campo even make them punch the clock...?

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Not to mention, he's taken his unit (defense) and made it excel. Garrett took a Cowboys offense already rolling and has done nothing to make it better. They already scored a lot of points ever since Romo took over at QB. The only real change I've seen to that unit since Garrett came in is fail to close out games with a lead.

He has made the run game worse and the passing game less aggressive. That has led to less turnovers by Romo but overall the offense hasn't shown to be any better. I do think people nitpick Garrett too much but the guy is just a terrible game manager. On game day I don't want him as my coach deciding timeouts, what plays to call, what to challenge and what players to use.

Also using Jerry as an excuse is lame. "No coach can win with Jerry" is just an excuse to not even try. By that logic we might as well not bother using draft picks, watching games, or having a coach at all in the first place. Jerry creates a circus atmosphere but he isn't the reason Garrett didn't make the playoffs this year.

 

[Angrymesscan]

I agree with you on this. It's one of the reasons I've said that we shouldn't fire Garrett without having a name we like lined up, like we did when we fired Campo (we had already been secretly meeting with Parcells).

Does this mean you think it would have been wrong to fire the poodle if they didn't have Parcells???

 

[Smitty]

Does this mean you think it would have been wrong to fire the poodle if they didn't have Parcells???

Nope.

 

[Smitty]

Also using Jerry as an excuse is lame. "No coach can win with Jerry" is just an excuse to not even try. By that logic we might as well not bother using draft picks, watching games, or having a coach at all in the first place. Jerry creates a circus atmosphere but he isn't the reason Garrett didn't make the playoffs this year.

Well, he might have been. Who knows how much better off we'd be with a functional environment?

It's tough to predict though, and I'm not saying we shouldn't try.

What I am saying, though, is that yes, it's pretty much pointless unless you get a franchise-leader type in here. A Ken Whisenhunt just isn't going to make enough of a difference. You get Chan Gailey.

 

[Angrymesscan]

I'm pretty sure you thought the Pats were idiots for giving the team to Biellicheat, I mean he had stunk it up in Cleveland so he was no proven commodity...

 

[ravidubey]

I'm pretty sure you thought the Pats were idiots for giving the team to Biellicheat, I mean he had stunk it up in Cleveland so he was no proven commodity...

I was shocked they made that move, trading draft picks to get Billichick. He came in and stunk as usual. All that changed with Brady and it will change back once Brady leaves.

 

[GShock]

I'm pretty sure you thought the Pats were idiots for giving the team to Biellicheat, I mean he had stunk it up in Cleveland so he was no proven commodity...

This (and Carroll, to a lesser extent) is why I am secretly rooting for Saban. He's had his mulligan.

 

[GShock]

Because for my money, it'd be real real hard for whatever coach that came in next to do worse.

I hold no illusions about Garrett, but I don't believe that it would be hard for the next coach to do worse.

This team is spit and bailing wire at this point. Yes a football Jesus gets them to 11-5 somehow, but I don't think many of them are lying around, or the 4 other teams that have been looking would have picked one up. Jerry much more likely makes a Switzer, Campo, Phillips hire, and we sit around talking fondly of lasting to week 17 to be eliminated.