*** 2015 Cowboys Training Camp Thread ***

[Everlastingxxx]

Watching the games tonight.

QB Tyrod Taylor was impressive for the bills. The Bills D is going to be dangerous.

The Skins offensive line can run block but they had a hard time again the Lions pass rush. No surprise, Cowboys had problems with them too. RG3 got killed. I won’t lie, i enjoyed watching it lol.

 

[Everlastingxxx]

Don't like him as a coach (obviously) or a person. I don't like people who lack humility, demonstrate zero sense of humor, and who refuse to admit mistakes or take blame. As a leader you're supposed to accept blame and share glory, but this guy does the opposite. He's a good snake-oil salesman for sure and I guess a good public speaker, though he shows zero creativity or cleverness in doing so.

In his defense, I guess when your boss yanks responsibilty from you, you have to act like you're the one in charge just so your charges won't lose all faith in you.

Shame that it fools so many people, but hey, those cheeseball Sunday morning televangelists have a lot of suckers mail them their money, too.

You are an idiot.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

I think it's funny that you get so upset because I don't like Garrett. Why do you care if I don't like someone? Not everyone likes the same flavor of ice cream, you know. Nothing wrong with that. You can buy all the Garrett posters you want and it won't bother me at all.

 

[Dodger12]

I can't think of one occasion when Garrett was running the O where I left a game thinking he out-coached the opposing coach. Not one. Nothing creative. No using the skill/speed players in unique ways. No nothing. Think of guys like Payton, Belichick, Chip Kelly, etc. and they are innovative. Garrett gives us nothing. Absolutely nothing. Less Garrett is better for this team and that's painfully obvious.

 

[Dodger12]

I also find it comical that Garrett homers point to other (successful) NFL head coaches who had a rough run in their first HC job and then compare Garrett to them. Homers point to guys like Belichick and Carroll. One homer called Carroll a failure and used an exclamation point to emphasize his point. Yet, Pete Carroll went 10 and 6, 9 and 7 and 8 and 8 in NE with 2 playoff appearances and a shot at the playoffs in 1999 but slid in the second half of the season to finish 8 and 8. He "never had a losing season" and went to the playoffs twice in 3 years. yet Carroll is a failure but Garrett is doing something special here.

This is where the homers get lost. They lose all perspective and credibility. They don't see the sheer idiocy of calling Carroll a failure in NE and pimping Garrett at the same time. They're completely blinded.

 

[Midswat]

I think Garrett homers really really want Garrett to be great for two reasons:

1. He's one of us. A former player. Probably endeared himself in a lot of fans hearts after that miraculous Green Bay thanksgiving game in 93

2. They want so badly for the next Landry.

These two things prevent them from thinking objectively.

 

[dbair1967]

I'm actually not a Garrett homer and spent quite a bit of time on this board believing that he was going to (deservedly) be fired.

The only reason I want him to be great no is because he's the damn HC here. If he's "great" it means we're winning games, competing for championships and don't have to look for other coaches.

Even when we were 8-8 every season, the one thing nobody could question about them is they never quit and fought hard for 60 minutes. Last year was by far the most talented he had as a HC and its probably not a coincidence that they finished with their best record. This years team is quite a bit more talented than last years, so similar results should be expected. If they flop to 8-8 and miss the playoffs, there's no question that's a direct reflection on him (barring just a total catastrophic level of injuries)

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

I also find it comical that Garrett homers point to other (successful) NFL head coaches who had a rough run in their first HC job and then compare Garrett to them. Homers point to guys like Belichick and Carroll. One homer called Carroll a failure and used an exclamation point to emphasize his point. Yet, Pete Carroll went 10 and 6, 9 and 7 and 8 and 8 in NE with 2 playoff appearances and a shot at the playoffs in 1999 but slid in the second half of the season to finish 8 and 8. He "never had a losing season" and went to the playoffs twice in 3 years. yet Carroll is a failure but Garrett is doing something special here.

This is where the homers get lost. They lose all perspective and credibility. They don't see the sheer idiocy of calling Carroll a failure in NE and pimping Garrett at the same time. They're completely blinded.

Exactly. That Carroll-as-failure story is a great example of a lie told often enough that it becomes a truth. It's like Tony being a choker or always throwing INTs, when the facts show it isn't true. Things take on a life of their own and no one checks to see if they're even true, which is weird when we all have the internet and it takes about 0.5 seconds to find the truth. But people don't care about the truth.

 

[Dodger12]

Even when we were 8-8 every season, the one thing nobody could question about them is they never quit and fought hard for 60 minutes. Last year was by far the most talented he had as a HC and its probably not a coincidence that they finished with their best record. This years team is quite a bit more talented than last years, so similar results should be expected. If they flop to 8-8 and miss the playoffs, there's no question that's a direct reflection on him (barring just a total catastrophic level of injuries)

What does never quitting even mean and why is that something I should look at and be in awe about? My kids HS football team didn't quit. Big fucking deal. Having said that, why do you and others not mention that Spencer quit? He said as much. And how about Ratliff? And Ro McClain? I mean, guys have come out and said they gave up on plays. But it's a criteria for success that you really can't measure.

 

[ThoughtExperiment]

I'm actually not a Garrett homer and spent quite a bit of time on this board believing that he was going to (deservedly) be fired.

The only reason I want him to be great no is because he's the damn HC here. If he's "great" it means we're winning games, competing for championships and don't have to look for other coaches.

Well we do have a great setup here. We have two very good coordinators (especially Marinelli) who probably will never be head coaches again and a head coach who now knows his role and won't get in the way and screw it up. Plus Stephen and McClay are far better than Jerry and Lacey on the personnel side. But lets give credit where it's due, which isn't to Garrett. He's not a head coach in the same way a Parcells or Belichick is who is truly running everything.

I admit a big part of my problem with Garrett isn't even him so much as the fawning attention he gets from the local media. Many like him and root for him because they knew him from the glory days, and many are impressed with his press conferences and so on. If I didn't follow the team so closely and just turned the game on 10 minutes before kickoff every week, he wouldn't bug me as much.

 

[Dodger12]

I think Garrett homers really really want Garrett to be great for two reasons:

1. He's one of us. A former player. Probably endeared himself in a lot of fans hearts after that miraculous Green Bay thanksgiving game in 93

2. They want so badly for the next Landry.

These two things prevent them from thinking objectively.

I think you're giving people way too much credit Middy. Most of the rabid Garrett homers probably weren't even alive in 1993. Most of those guys have never experienced a SB win. To them, mediocrity is OK. It's the generation in which they were raised. And they're sheep so they follow along with the snake oil salesmen who post the pro-Garrett and front office propaganda.

The others have invested their internet cred in Garrett. They can't admit they were wrong. They're the professional posters; the internet scouts; the guys who's opinions mean more than yours. They're internet psychopaths (insert dbair's HS photo)........

 

[bbgun]

1. He's one of us. A former player. Probably endeared himself in a lot of fans hearts after that miraculous Green Bay thanksgiving game in 93

1994, actually.

#knowyourhistory

 

[dbair1967]

What does never quitting even mean and why is that something I should look at and be in awe about? My kids HS football team didn't quit. Big fucking deal. Having said that, why do you and others not mention that Spencer quit? He said as much. And how about Ratliff? And Ro McClain? I mean, guys have come out and said they gave up on plays. But it's a criteria for success that you really can't measure.

There are definitely teams (including ours in the past) where you could watch them and question their effort and lack of focus.

I think there is also no question they have rid themselves of most, if not all the guys who weren't putting forth 100% effort, wouldn't you agree?

 

[dbair1967]

1994, actually.

#knowyourhistory

He doesn't watch the games, so you can excuse his lack of knowing the history

 

[dbair1967]

He's not a head coach in the same way a Parcells or Belichick is who is truly running everything.

.

But that doesn't mean he isn't a good HC or not even worthy of being one at all. There's very few coaches who run EVERYTHING and end up actually being good at the entire thing. Look at Mike Holmgren, he was stripped of personnel duties in Seattle because he was so bad at it, but when he focused soley on the coaching aspect the team got better and they nearly won a Super Bowl.

Coaches who run everything like Jimmy did here or Belichick does in NE and have that level of success are very few and far between.

 

[LAZARUS_LOGAN]

I'm actually not a Garrett homer and spent quite a bit of time on this board believing that he was going to (deservedly) be fired.

The only reason I want him to be great no is because he's the damn HC here. If he's "great" it means we're winning games, competing for championships and don't have to look for other coaches.

Even when we were 8-8 every season, the one thing nobody could question about them is they never quit and fought hard for 60 minutes. Last year was by far the most talented he had as a HC and its probably not a coincidence that they finished with their best record. This years team is quite a bit more talented than last years, so similar results should be expected. If they flop to 8-8 and miss the playoffs, there's no question that's a direct reflection on him (barring just a total catastrophic level of injuries)

What also was not a coincidence, is that once the playcalling was removed from him, they finished with their best record.

 

[Omegasupreme]

You confirmed what I meant and thats fine with me, I could care less whether anyone likes him. I edited my post since it wasn't obvious to everyone I was referring to his coaching ability

I knew what you meant I was just piling on.

 

[ZeroClub]

I am open to the possibility that Garrett may become a good head coach before his time with the Cowboys is over.

In my opinion, he wasn't ready for the job when he got it. His first 3 1/2 years as head coach was a lot like on-the-job training (and very painful to sit through as a fan).

But just maybe he has learned enough now to do a good job, particularly with the support and input of experienced/talented coordinators.

 

[peplaw06]

But that doesn't mean he isn't a good HC or not even worthy of being one at all. There's very few coaches who run EVERYTHING and end up actually being good at the entire thing. Look at Mike Holmgren, he was stripped of personnel duties in Seattle because he was so bad at it, but when he focused soley on the coaching aspect the team got better and they nearly won a Super Bowl.

Coaches who run everything like Jimmy did here or Belichick does in NE and have that level of success are very few and far between.

Garrett clearly doesn't have personnel "control." He has input.

But even taking that away, I still think there's a big difference between game-day coaches like Parcells/Belichick and Garrett. Parcells and Belichick's input is felt in every area of their teams on gameday. Garrett's calling card was offense, and calling plays was taken away from him. His input is still there, but he's not running it. The team talks about him working more with the defense... you shitting me? I would give anything to hear Marinelli's inner monologue when Garrett hangs around the defense and throws his two cents in.

 

[Doomsday]

I would give anything to hear Marinelli's inner monologue when Garrett hangs around the defense and throws his two cents in.

Garrett: Remember boys, don't worry so much about the run. Running is passe'. Everyone's throwing it now so worry about that first. And why bother with a pass rush, in today's offenses the ball is out before you even get out of your stance. Just stand there and try to sort of throw your hands up if you see the quarterback try to throw.