Watkins - Jones: Jason Garrett a 'premier asset'

[Genghis Khan]

It's not any more of an opinion than saying that a weak DL makes the secondary worse.

A weak OL decreases your scoring offense.

Not an opinion, it's a demonstrable fact.

An opinion would be saying "I prefer to have a strong OL."

It's an absolute fact that Garrett's scoring offense numbers would be better if he had even an average OL. How much better might be subject to debate, but they'd be better for sure.

No, it's an absolute opinion.

But to get technical, you said "significantly higher." Your little adverb there removes all doubt as to whether your statement was fact or opinion.

 

[NoDak]

I don't believe you.

I'm not one that says he sucks. But didn't figure you'd follow through with what you said anyway.

 

[Smitty]

No, it's an absolute opinion.

No, it's not an opinion. It's not any more of an opinion than saying you need a QB to win in this league.

But to get technical, you said "significantly higher." Your little adverb there removes all doubt as to whether your statement was fact or opinion.

Eh... it's still not an opinion. Maybe you mean, the amount higher is open to debate and is not proven. That is true.

But it's not an opinion that it would go up (again, assuming everything else was static). It absolutely would. Like saying a running back would get more yards running behind the 1990s Cowboys line. Also a fact.

Speculative to a sense, but it's speculating like saying "If I put 10 gallons of gas in my car and it gets 20 miles a gallon it will drive for 200 miles." I mean, it hasn't happened yet in theory, but you know that is always the effect.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Honestly, I think Garrett has a chance to be a better HC than he is an OC, if he can get out of his own way and realize his job as the HC is to run the whole team, not the offense.

 

[Smitty]

I'm not one that says he sucks.

So what is your take then?

But didn't figure you'd follow through with what you said anyway.

I didn't figure you are here to do anything other than to stir up shit like you always do, so I don't consider myself under any kind of obligation to treat your posts with anything more than mild contempt on this subject.

 

[Smitty]

Honestly, I think Garrett has a chance to be a better HC than he is an OC, if he can get out of his own way and realize his job as the HC is to run the whole team, not the offense.

Agreed, but at the same time, his OC stats are, in terms of scoring, 2nd, 18th, 14th, 7th, 15th, and 15th, and the yardage stats are better, and most of those years came with really bad OLs. There is just no basis to say that he's horrible as an offensive coach.

If you felt like diving back into this thread, you will see that what kicked it off was someone saying "how many years will Jason Garrett have to continue to lose and still keep his job?" and "Is Jason Garrett the only coach in the league who doesn't have to win to keep his job" which is of course, more hyperbole that can't go unchallenged (in my own masochistic mind).

If something more reasonable was stated, like, "If Garrett can't get over the hump he's gonna have to go eventually" then this thread never happens. Instead, something that is blatantly false is fabricated by Clay, as if no other coach ever opened his career by missing the playoffs twice.

 

[Genghis Khan]

No, it's not an opinion. It's not any more of an opinion than saying you need a QB to win in this league.



Eh... it's still not an opinion. Maybe you mean, the amount higher is open to debate and is not proven. That is true.

But it's not an opinion that it would go up (again, assuming everything else was static). It absolutely would. Like saying a running back would get more yards running behind the 1990s Cowboys line. Also a fact.

Speculative to a sense, but it's speculating like saying "If I put 10 gallons of gas in my car and it gets 20 miles a gallon it will drive for 200 miles." I mean, it hasn't happened yet in theory, but you know that is always the effect.

Good Christ, I'm starting to think you actually don't know the difference.

Saying you need a QB in this league is also an opinion. I might agree with you, but the 2012 Broncos, 2000 Ravens, and a number of other teams might not. Technically, you don't even need a QB on the field at all (the Wildcat, for instance). Whether you can win ultimately win like that is debatable (I doubt you could), but it's simply not factual.

A fact is 2 + 2 = 4. A fact is that Obama is president. A fact is that I woke up this morning. A fact is that Obama, unless he dies, will be president tomorrow. That I will wake up tomorrow is not a fact (though I plan on it and have evidence to support it). If I take a bar prep course, it's not a fact that I will perform better on the bar (even though evidence suggests that I will).

And it's not a fact that Garrett will do better with a better offensive line (he probably would (btw, so would most coaches, so don't think that makes him special), but it's not a fact, despite whether you have evidence to support it).

 

[NoDak]

So what is your take then?



I didn't figure you are here to do anything other than to stir up shit like you always do, so I don't consider myself under any kind of obligation to treat your posts with anything more than mild contempt on this subject.

You smarmy prick. The whole thing was a joke. Unless of course you really were going to admit to wanting to felch Garrett if we "admitted Garrett doesn't suck"

And there is no point in trying to discuss ANYTHING Garrett with you. The guy has no faults in your eyes. You love to say you are objective about him. That you say he's average. Words. Nothing but hollow, useless words. Anybody with any sense at all can see what an apologist you are for him. We've had apologists for just about every coach and player. Myself being one of them. But the difference between them/me and you is you can't even be honest with yourself about it. Pretty pathetic, really. And the main reason why nobody takes you serious on anything regarding Garrett.

 

[Genghis Khan]

Agreed, but at the same time, his OC stats are, in terms of scoring, 2nd, 18th, 14th, 7th, 15th, and 15th, and the yardage stats are better, and most of those years came with really bad OLs. There is just no basis to say that he's horrible as an offensive coach.

I don't recall ever saying he's a horrible offensive coach. Not good enough, sure.

"how many years will Jason Garrett have to continue to lose and still keep his job?"

I think that's a legit question.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Average offensive minds are dime a dozen. Garrett as an is about in Rob Ryan's league as a coordinator, and that you can get any offseason. Guys like that are always available.

I could replace Garrett with Jim Fassel and probably lose nothing and Jim Fassel is unemployed.

Add to that Garrett's poor time management, and the fact that he has people like Wade Wilson, Wes Phillips, and Derek Dooley working for him and he has no particular eye for personnel, certainly not O-Linemen, I don't like what he brings as a gameday coach or as an administrator.

Taking those things into account, I don't see what he is supposed to add to the team.

 

[Smitty]

Good Christ, I'm starting to think you actually don't know the difference.

I'm thinking you and I might not agree on what a fact is, that is true.

Saying you need a QB in this league is also an opinion.

No, that is not an opinion. An opinion is like personal preference.

A fact is something that can be demonstrated. It can be very easily demonstrated that teams who have elite QBs win more than teams who do not. Therefore it's a fact.

There are always exceptions to the rule but that doesn't make it untrue.

I might agree with you, but the 2012 Broncos, 2000 Ravens, and a number of other teams might not. Technically, you don't even need a QB on the field at all (the Wildcat, for instance). Whether you can win ultimately win like that is debatable (I doubt you could), but it's simply not factual.

It is factual that those teams do not win as much as teams with elite QBs do.

A fact is 2 + 2 = 4. A fact is that Obama is president. A fact is that I woke up this morning. A fact is that Obama, unless he dies, will be president tomorrow. That I will wake up tomorrow is not a fact (though I plan on it and have evidence to support it). If I take a bar prep course, it's not a fact that I will perform better on the bar (even though evidence suggests that I will).

But there are facts that support the correlation to a strong enough level that you can predict it. Predicting something based on facts is not an opinion. Maybe "hypothesis" is the better word.

And it's not a fact that Garrett will do better with a better offensive line (he probably would (btw, so would most coaches, so don't think that makes him special), but it's not a fact, despite whether you have evidence to support it).

It almost always happens. I don't know what you want to call that; but it's not an opinion. An opinion is a preference. This isn't a preference we are talking about, we are talking about an established and proven pattern that has occasional exceptions.

And since I don't see a reason why Garrett would be an exception, I assume that his scoring stats will also go up, since it is factually demonstrable that teams with better OLs tend to score more than they would if they did not have good OLs.

 

[Clay_Allison]

Who cares if Garrett would do better with a better OL? He'll never have a better OL because he doesn't know what kind he needs. Unless he goes to work for or with another coach who does have a philosophy that works and he ends up borrowing it his offense will always be missing a line scheme and a running game.

 

[Smitty]

You smarmy prick. The whole thing was a joke. Unless of course you really were going to admit to wanting to felch Garrett if we "admitted Garrett doesn't suck"

I wasn't planning on it, but again, I wasn't really under the impression that you were making a legitimate deal with me. I interpreted your statements as more of a taunt.

And there is no point in trying to discuss ANYTHING Garrett with you. The guy has no faults in your eyes.

Except for the faults I've admitted he has, otherwise, great point.

You love to say you are objective about him.

I do like Garrett.

And it's very clear that there are posters on this board who do not like him for just as biased reasons. I see no reason why I'm less credible than they are.

The difference is, I actually do try to meet people half way on this subject. I do make attempts -- continually -- to agree to things, such as, yes, he does not have enough pull (or enough interest) to get this OL fixed. Yes, he is pass happy. Yes, he does make occasional blunders in terms of clock management that you could argue have cost us games. Yes, he does need to be replaced (unless he gets better on his own) -- with a clearly BETTER coach.

I admit to all that.

The flip side is that unless the opposition on this subject is willing to admit that he's not a bottom tier coach -- coordinator or otherwise -- and that switching out for another middle of the road coach will do nothing to help this franchise, we're going to continue to have these debates. I am not gonna bend in my arguments any more than that. The playcalling is simply not the issue, it's a convenient scapegoat for people who don't even know what plays are being called to pin the whole thing on the coach because the plays didn't work.

 

[Smitty]

Who cares if Garrett would do better with a better OL? He'll never have a better OL because he doesn't know what kind he needs. Unless he goes to work for or with another coach who does have a philosophy that works and he ends up borrowing it his offense will always be missing a line scheme and a running game.

That could be true. In a functional environment that has a GM to provide him with personnel direction, he would be fine. Like NY or Baltimore or something like that.

Here in Dallas we don't have that. We need the coach to be able to take up that slack. So you know what that means we need, right?

 

[Smitty]

Average offensive minds are dime a dozen.

Well, I'd say we have nothing to worry about then if we hadn't gone through a phase where we had Bruce Coslet as our coordinator.

We've talked about this before. He's about a Chan Gailey, both in terms of head coaching and coordinating. But a guy like that DOES know how to coach. He's a guy that isn't going to take a team with serious personnel flaws and turn them into a contender, but he could be a good enough helmsman on a team with good personnel direction. And no, not every coach can do that (in fact there are a good handful that can't and we've had some come through here under Jerry -- Campo, for one, and Wade who ruins everything, for another).

I think a guy like that needs some stability. You run him off and you could end up with Dave Campo.

Wait for the Bill Parcells instead. That's the better move.

Taking those things into account, I don't see what he is supposed to add to the team.

Well, because he's capable of fielding a top 10 offense (scoring-wise) with about 2 more solid (non-Pro Bowl) players added to this OL. Maybe less, maybe just development (though unexpected) of one or two of them. We have personnel here that is a good match for what Garrett has shown he can do, and could do better if he had an OL.

Not worth simply throwing away. Jerry is doing the coach picking. We are far more likely to end up with something worse than we have. Hold out for the obvious hire, the next big thing to come by and let Jerry throw the farm at an elite level coach, if Garrett hasn't grown by that time.

 

[NoDak]

Except for the faults I've admitted he has, otherwise, great point.

Well, since you so deftly edited out the other stuff I said regarding this point, sure. Yeah. You've admitted he has faults. Which is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at hiding your obsession for all things Garrett. Then fight like a rabid dog defending this average coach who has shown more faults than anything else. We all wait with baited breath for your 5k word dissertations in the defense of somebody like Orlando Scandrick. Or if you'd prefer to stay in the coaching ranks, when the defense shits the bed this year, I'll expect you to take up the defense of Kiffen. At least he has some skins on the wall unlike your golden child.

 

[Genghis Khan]

No, that is not an opinion. An opinion is like personal preference.

A fact is something that can be demonstrated. It can be very easily demonstrated that teams who have elite QBs win more than teams who do not. Therefore it's a fact.

There are always exceptions to the rule but that doesn't make it untrue.

This is actually not at all true.

An opinion is "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. " (Dictionary.com, emphasis mine)

It has nothing to do with a personal preference at all.

In other words, if I can show you a scenario where the offensive line improved and Garrett's performance as an OC does not improve (I won't even get into the "significantly" portion of your statement), and I can, then you do not have complete certainty and your statement is therefore not a fact. It is an opinion.

A fact is not something that can be demonstrated. I can have an opinion that I will pass the bar. I can demonstrate that my opinion is correct by passing the bar. Demonstrating that I passed the bar does not retroactively turn my opinion that I'd pass the bar into a fact.

A fact is basically something that happened (I woke up this morning), exists (Obama is president), or is observed (2 +2 = 4). (Dictionary.com)

 

[Smitty]

Well, since you so deftly edited out the other stuff I said regarding this point, sure. Yeah. You've admitted he has faults. Which is nothing but a thinly veiled attempt at hiding your obsession for all things Garrett. Then fight like a rabid dog defending this average coach who has shown more faults than anything else. We all wait with baited breath for your 5k word dissertations in the defense of somebody like Orlando Scandrick. Or if you'd prefer to stay in the coaching ranks, when the defense shits the bed this year, I'll expect you to take up the defense of Kiffen. At least he has some skins on the wall unlike your golden child.

I probably will take up for Kiffin, considering I said that Rob Ryan didn't really deserve to be fired.

I actually said that his CB problems (he didn't have anyone who could play at an NFL level in 2011) and his injury problems (we were missing like half our starters) were the reasons for his failures.

It's just that since he's no longer here, no one really talks about him much anymore.

Oh, and I disagree that Garrett has shown "more faults than anything else." This is the type of hyperbole that draws a response. That is simply not true.

And Scandrick, are you serious? I have stuck up for Scandrick many times. I've had a pages long debate with Texas Ace over Scandrick in the past. I absolutely have defended Scandrick -- vehemently. So yeah, I am being consistent actually.

 

[asklesko]

I wonder how the other assets on the team feel. Fuck, Jerry, you're stupid.

 

[Smitty]

This is actually not at all true.

An opinion is "a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty. " (Dictionary.com, emphasis mine)

It has nothing to do with a personal preference at all.

Well, if we're going to dictionary.com, the second entry says, "a personal view, attitude, or appraisal." So it is true a little that an opinion is a personal preference.

I mean, saying "I like the color purple" is an opinion. Preferences are opinions.

Conversely, your definition would mean that it's only an "opinion" that the sun will rise tomorrow. That is not how I use the word.

In other words, if I can show you a scenario where the offensive line improved and Garrett's performance as an OC does not improve (I won't even get into the "significantly" portion of your statement), and I can, then you do not have complete certainty and your statement is therefore not a fact. It is an opinion.

I still disagree that is an opinion, but we're arguing semantics.

I'll say it's factually provable that there is a correlation between improving OL and improving scoring, then, though there are rare exceptions.