Do you guys remember when

[Genghis Khan]

People put way too much of wins and losses on a head coach. In my opinion the coordinators and play callers are more important when it comes to wins and losses. And frankly the biggest factor is talent. It's why the Ravens are mediocre even though they have the same head coach and QB that took them to a Superbowl.

Parcells 2003 should tell you everything you need to know about how much coaching matters.

 

[Genghis Khan]

It's because the HC sets the gameplan. What is practiced that week, etc. Which makes sense in those games we were getting smoked early, and Marinelli chucked the gameplan and adjusted to get us right.

Yep. Coaching is a big, big deal.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

Parcells 2003 should tell you everything you need to know about how much coaching matters.

And how do you explain 2004 then?

Or Brian Belichick who is supposedly one of the greatest coaches ever, when he was with the Browns.

 

[Genghis Khan]

And how do you explain 2004 then?

Or Brian Belichick who is supposedly one of the greatest coaches ever, when he was with the Browns.

Brian Bellichick is an imposter.

 

[townsend]

And how do you explain 2004 then?

Or 2005 or 2006. We lost a lot of winnable games, and had some pretty talented rosters too.

The gameplan that let us, (who had Glenn, Witten, and Owens), get defensively dominated in the playoffs by a Seattle team that that had no talent at DB and had to conscript Pete Hunter is pretty dumbfounding.

Our only other playoff appearance wasn't even a game. We got demolished by a team we had managed to beat in the regular season.

 

[NoDak]

I never referred to him as a choker or a stat compiler, so you're barking up the wrong tree.

I wasn't singling you out, or I would have quoted you. But if you're being honest, you know what I said is true. I remember you arguing against people saying those things and more. And the same shit has been spewed on this board, too.

He was shit when he played, but now he was a franchise QB. Funny how that changes depending on the agenda being pushed at the time.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

People put way too much of wins and losses on a head coach. In my opinion the coordinators and play callers are more important when it comes to wins and losses. And frankly the biggest factor is talent. It's why the Ravens are mediocre even though they have the same head coach and QB that took them to a Superbowl.

This is pretty much exactly what Jerry thinks: The talent/players are what really matter, the coordinators do the detailed coaching, so the head coach is easily replaceable. It's at the heart of his "500 coaches" Jimmy comment and what he's been trying to prove (save Parcells, who was a PR move for his new stadium) for 20 years.

 

[ravidubey]

People put way too much of wins and losses on a head coach. In my opinion the coordinators and play callers are more important when it comes to wins and losses. And frankly the biggest factor is talent. It's why the Ravens are mediocre even though they have the same head coach and QB that took them to a Superbowl.

The coordinators must do what their job title implies, and that requires everyone being on the same page. No one is more responsible for that than the head coach. The coordinators in a sense need coaching, and most importantly leadership.

Look at the difference a strong leader has made in Seattle. A lesser coach would have kept Matt Flynn or Tavaris Jackson in as starter instead of deferring to the rookie Russell Wilson given the contract Flynn had just signed with 9 million guaranteed and the experience both Flynn and Jackson had over Wilson. Now the Hawks have a Lombardi Trophy and Wilson is having a Hall Of Fame career.

As for the Ravens, obviously talent matters and they are seriously drained from their glory days.

Talent is a big deal. As for Garrett, he's struggled either with or without talent. Right or wrong, the impression is the Joneses hire the coordinators and that has undermined Garrett's ability to lead.

Garrett's keeping Dak in over Romo was his career signature non-gameday decision. Essentially all that's transpired before that move is immaterial, in a way Garrett's real head coaching career started at that pivotal moment.

 

[fortsbest]

Funny how Romo was consistently shit on for being a choker, stat compiler, etc... But when he's needed to help in the argument against Garrett, he's a franchise QB.

I kind of lump them in the same boat though. Romo was really good in most situations. And then throughout his career, in big moments, stuff just happened that put success out of his reach. May not have been his fault always, but in some instances it was. Just seemed never destined to get the ultimate prize. With Garrett I get the same vibe. He just isn't destined to get the ultimate prize. At least not here.

 

[DLK150]

Romo was a good but not great QB.

Man, all of this talk about his early years reminded me of the botched PK hold against Seattle. That stings to this day.


Flozell Adams' false starts because of his hearing issue. He switched tackle positions because he couldn't hear the snap count on the one side, I want to say LT.

 

[vince]

Romo was a good but not great QB.

Man, all of this talk about his early years reminded me of the botched PK hold against Seattle. That stings to this day.


Flozell Adams' false starts because of his hearing issue. He switched tackle positions because he couldn't hear the snap count on the one side, I want to say LT.

Interesting. I didn't know this.

 

[L.T. Fan]

I think if you take in his entire career of accomplishments as a Quarterback he is a great one. Right along side guys like Dan Marino. Super Bowls while a very worthwhile accomplishment is a team effort and doesn't define a QB one way or another. Romo has set position records with the Dallas organization that all before him didn't and again I am looking at position accomplishments. Super Bowls are hype materiel for PR purposes.

 

[data]

I think if you take in his entire career of accomplishments as a Quarterback he is a great one. Right along side guys like Dan Marino. Super Bowls while a very worthwhile accomplishment is a team effort and doesn't define a QB one way or another. Romo has set position records with the Dallas organization that all before him didn't and again I am looking at position accomplishments. Super Bowls are hype materiel for PR purposes.

In theory, comparing a QB's Super Bowl appearances aren't the best indicator, sure. Using this to say Tony Romo is 'right along side' Dan Marino? No.

Whether the Dolphins' sank/swam highly depended on Marino's performance (comparable to Romo), Marino was on a higher level.

 

[ravidubey]

In theory, comparing a QB's Super Bowl appearances aren't the best indicator, sure. Using this to say Tony Romo is 'right along side' Dan Marino? No.

Whether the Dolphins' sank/swam highly depended on Marino's performance (comparable to Romo), Marino was on a higher level.

Marino was, and especially earlier in his career when Clayton and Duper were in their prime. One of them was always open. People also began figuring them out, and when they declined, so did his outrageous production.

That was a "special" time in NFL history, though. The AFC was total shat, so a team that passed 72% of the time with no running game or defense to speak of worked fine to rack up all kinds of stats. But when they met an NFC power in the Superbowl they were blown out.

 

[ravidubey]

Romo was a good but not great QB.

Man, all of this talk about his early years reminded me of the botched PK hold against Seattle. That stings to this day.

That K-Ball was changed the following year because it got too slick in cold, wet weather.

I saw the Bengals miss a critical snap in snowy Denver a few weeks earlier because of the same thing.

 

[Cotton]

I would call Romo a great QB. He was better than good.

 

[townsend]

I would call Romo a great QB. He was better than good.

I think that at his best Romo was as good as any QB. His biggest flaw was durability. If he could have finished a couple more seasons at full health, I think his entire career would look different.

 

[Smitty]

Marvin Lewis is a great comparison. That is kind of what Garrett is. Why is that something to defend though? Lewis is pretty terrible and so is Garrett.

I'd rather have an upgrade. I'd rather have a coaching advantage on game day.

I guess if you want a mediocre coach that just hangs around for a decade plus and doesn't really do anything, Garrett or Lewis are probably great. Personally, I'd rather try to win some Super Bowls.

I "defend" it because people let their passions get away from them and make silly statements like "If we ever win a Super Bowl with Garrett here, it will be in spite of him."

Substitute Lewis's name in there, and it sounds pretty silly. Yeah, that guy has a career that you have to sometimes wonder why he's still there (being close to management is assuredly a big part of it), but if the Bengals rode an offensive explosion to a Super Bowl win this year, with Dalton and AJ Green turning in a Matt Ryan and Julio Jones encore performance, no one would put an asterisk by Lewis's name.

He'd go down in history a coach that was mediocre for a long time, but eventually got over the hump and got his team a championship. And he'd be revered in Bengals history for bringing them a championship. Same would apply to Garrett... well, except for those who would go to their graves swearing he just got lucky.

I would take an upgrade here if the opportunity presented itself. I am just not sold on the Doug Marrones of the world being upgrades. Yeah, of all the coordinators that get HC jobs every year, one or two of them may turn into better coaches. But for me to want to pull the trigger, I'm gonna want the sure thing. The Jim Harbaugh coming out of college, the Andy Reid switching NFL teams, or the Bill Belichick assistant coach that everyone knows is primed to be a great head coach. Those come along less often, but they do.

I'm reluctant to do a punitive firing (well, there's no chance I'm doing it coming off a 13-3 year with a rookie QB in which my coach somewhat deservedly won coach of the year) simply because I want to start fresh. I don't think this team needs a fresh start as others have stated. I think there is a good chance we have a couple nice years ahead of us with Garrett here.

 

[Smitty]

Parcells 2003 should tell you everything you need to know about how much coaching matters.

No doubt, but there are very few Parcells' around.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

No doubt, but there are very few Parcells' around.

Yep and even he went 6-10 in 2014 with "his QB."