Â
|
|
Quote: |
Garrett was also more effective as an offensive coordinator than critics are willing to concede. The Cowboys finished second in scoring and third in yards during Garrett’s first season as a coordinator in ’07. Dallas finished in the top seven three times and was never lower than No. 13 in his four-plus seasons as coordinator. |
Quote: |
Garrett, 53, provides the head coaching experience Judge lacks. He makes ownership a little more comfortable. Garrett was a long-time quarterback in this league who can help develop Daniel Jones. |
Quote: |
If Saquon Barkley remains healthy for the entire season, is there any doubt the running back will lead the NFL in yards from scrimmage with Garrett as the offensive coordinator? |
Yankees fans came to the same cynical view of George Steinbrenner's constant meddling on behalf of winning..
Everyone's stock goes down and went down when they are around Georges Steinbrenner and Jerry Jones constant swirls...its all goes gossipville
imo, the last 30 days for the NYG presents competitive fans bases with evidence of a long lost dormat finally waking up.
So they give disparagement more space in empty heads as if comments affect competitive outcomes.
Hard to be patient and wait for results to start to show up in the second half of next year
They would have mocked us if he was hired as HC, sure. But as OC? Come on now. Just stop.
It is so easy to mock the Giants, but it has nothing to do with the hiring of Jason Garrett. More to the point: The Dallas Cowboys own us almost as much as Philly owns us.
And that's just for starters.
The Giants have the worst NFL record over the last three years, and the team is simply NOT competitive against any half-way decent opponent.
Add to that an offensive line that we haven't been able to fix in over half a dozen years, and a current defense that has ZERO play-makers. The Giants just plain suck, and that's what makes a mockery of the team, and a mockery of trying to root for such an inept franchise.
Quote:
Most Cowboy fans will mock us for this hiring. Many blame Garrett for their lack,of playoff success.
It is so easy to mock the Giants, but it has nothing to do with the hiring of Jason Garrett. More to the point: The Dallas Cowboys own us almost as much as Philly owns us.
And that's just for starters.
The Giants have the worst NFL record over the last three years, and the team is simply NOT competitive against any half-way decent opponent.
Add to that an offensive line that we haven't been able to fix in over half a dozen years, and a current defense that has ZERO play-makers. The Giants just plain suck, and that's what makes a mockery of the team, and a mockery of trying to root for such an inept franchise.
Wow, I hope you feel better getting that all out of your system.
Hit the return button too fast:
I will add this to my otherwise pessimistic view of the team: We are now starting anew with Joe Judge, who I think is assembling a good coaching staff. They should be able to squeeze more out of the current team than Pat Shurmur. Add to that a lot of cap space and another high Draft choice, and maybe we can get this bad boy turned around and headed in the right direction!!!
GO GIANTS!
Quote:
Most Cowboy fans will mock us for this hiring. Many blame Garrett for their lack,of playoff success.
It is so easy to mock the Giants, but it has nothing to do with the hiring of Jason Garrett. More to the point: The Dallas Cowboys own us almost as much as Philly owns us.
And that's just for starters.
The Giants have the worst NFL record over the last three years, and the team is simply NOT competitive against any half-way decent opponent.
Add to that an offensive line that we haven't been able to fix in over half a dozen years, and a current defense that has ZERO play-makers. The Giants just plain suck, and that's what makes a mockery of the team, and a mockery of trying to root for such an inept franchise.
Grrrrr! You mad, bro?
You do realize that you didn’t say anything that hasn’t been said here a billion times, right?
He has 10 years of experience as a head coach, and just 1 year with a losing record (good). But because of that he hasn't called plays in several years (bad).
He won at a high profile job, with a meddling owner who calls himself GM, in the NFC East (good). But his teams never won in the playoffs or achieved an elite performance the way Brady seemingly impacted Burrow/LSU this year (bad).
He was on Saban's staff coaching QBs for 2 years (good). He did well coaching 2 later round QB's in Dallas (good). His experience probably gives him some better relationships with assistant coaches (like Callahan) or at least insight into their importance (good). But all of his experience may or may not make him more moldable to how Judge wants to do things (bad).
So net-net, if you start with what I believe is a fair premise that there should be at least 1 former HC on staff to help any first time HC, a hire like Garrett was much more likely than an inexperienced wunderkind. We all know that's a somewhat short list (Gruden, Caldwell, Linehan, Callahan, Turner). Garrett isn't my favorite choice among those options but you can make a credible case his track record is the best and his experience both in this org and with Saban certainly made him the most known quantity. I'd have likely preferred Turner or Gruden bc I view them as better offensive schemers, but I do like that Garrett brings better success as a HC and an understanding of the importance of a great OL.
He has 10 years of experience as a head coach, and just 1 year with a losing record (good). But because of that he hasn't called plays in several years (bad).
He won at a high profile job, with a meddling owner who calls himself GM, in the NFC East (good). But his teams never won in the playoffs or achieved an elite performance the way Brady seemingly impacted Burrow/LSU this year (bad).
He was on Saban's staff coaching QBs for 2 years (good). He did well coaching 2 later round QB's in Dallas (good). His experience probably gives him some better relationships with assistant coaches (like Callahan) or at least insight into their importance (good). But all of his experience may or may not make him more moldable to how Judge wants to do things (bad).
So net-net, if you start with what I believe is a fair premise that there should be at least 1 former HC on staff to help any first time HC, a hire like Garrett was much more likely than an inexperienced wunderkind. We all know that's a somewhat short list (Gruden, Caldwell, Linehan, Callahan, Turner). Garrett isn't my favorite choice among those options but you can make a credible case his track record is the best and his experience both in this org and with Saban certainly made him the most known quantity. I'd have likely preferred Turner or Gruden bc I view them as better offensive schemers, but I do like that Garrett brings better success as a HC and an understanding of the importance of a great OL.
And despite some attempt to diminish his input with QB development, he was certainly around for Romo and Dak
They are already mocking us. Who really cares though. I don’t see McCarthy putting them over the top.
As HC he at minimum deserves recognition for setting the conditions for success though it is reasonable to wonder how much direct involvement he had vs. other coaches. Specifically when it comes to playcalling at least.
He has 10 years of experience as a head coach, and just 1 year with a losing record (good). But because of that he hasn't called plays in several years (bad).
He won at a high profile job, with a meddling owner who calls himself GM, in the NFC East (good). But his teams never won in the playoffs or achieved an elite performance the way Brady seemingly impacted Burrow/LSU this year (bad).
He was on Saban's staff coaching QBs for 2 years (good). He did well coaching 2 later round QB's in Dallas (good). His experience probably gives him some better relationships with assistant coaches (like Callahan) or at least insight into their importance (good). But all of his experience may or may not make him more moldable to how Judge wants to do things (bad).
So net-net, if you start with what I believe is a fair premise that there should be at least 1 former HC on staff to help any first time HC, a hire like Garrett was much more likely than an inexperienced wunderkind. We all know that's a somewhat short list (Gruden, Caldwell, Linehan, Callahan, Turner). Garrett isn't my favorite choice among those options but you can make a credible case his track record is the best and his experience both in this org and with Saban certainly made him the most known quantity. I'd have likely preferred Turner or Gruden bc I view them as better offensive schemers, but I do like that Garrett brings better success as a HC and an understanding of the importance of a great OL.
I hope this works but it smacks of that Giant specialty, the institutional compromise and hedge and is not without its potential for issues.
It's like appointing a guy fresh from the executive training program as the CEO and then hiring the CEO from a competitor to run one of the company's divisions. Who will take orders from whom? How will conflict be addressed? What happens the first time the rookie CEO who has no experience at all with what that division starts asking questions or issuing orders about it or questioning what the division head is doing? Is the CEO being brought in an intriguer who will undermine the rookie or will he be a good lieutenant? Who will the workers look to when the going gets tough?
I see this as the kind of set up that will work so long as all goes well out of the gate and has the potential for palace intrigue and assassinations if it doesn't.
He is the Offensive Coord who needs to build offensive gameplans, call plays and get the guys to execute. And he reports and answers to the Head Coach.
moving on...
Quote:
he is the exact opposite of Joe Brady - both good and bad.
He has 10 years of experience as a head coach, and just 1 year with a losing record (good). But because of that he hasn't called plays in several years (bad).
He won at a high profile job, with a meddling owner who calls himself GM, in the NFC East (good). But his teams never won in the playoffs or achieved an elite performance the way Brady seemingly impacted Burrow/LSU this year (bad).
He was on Saban's staff coaching QBs for 2 years (good). He did well coaching 2 later round QB's in Dallas (good). His experience probably gives him some better relationships with assistant coaches (like Callahan) or at least insight into their importance (good). But all of his experience may or may not make him more moldable to how Judge wants to do things (bad).
So net-net, if you start with what I believe is a fair premise that there should be at least 1 former HC on staff to help any first time HC, a hire like Garrett was much more likely than an inexperienced wunderkind. We all know that's a somewhat short list (Gruden, Caldwell, Linehan, Callahan, Turner). Garrett isn't my favorite choice among those options but you can make a credible case his track record is the best and his experience both in this org and with Saban certainly made him the most known quantity. I'd have likely preferred Turner or Gruden bc I view them as better offensive schemers, but I do like that Garrett brings better success as a HC and an understanding of the importance of a great OL.
No, it wasn't. Garrett is the de facto HC of the offense by virtue of his training, Judge's total lack of experience with offense and Garrett's experience
I hope this works but it smacks of that Giant specialty, the institutional compromise and hedge and is not without its potential for issues.
It's like appointing a guy fresh from the executive training program as the CEO and then hiring the CEO from a competitor to run one of the company's divisions. Who will take orders from whom? How will conflict be addressed? What happens the first time the rookie CEO who has no experience at all with what that division starts asking questions or issuing orders about it or questioning what the division head is doing? Is the CEO being brought in an intriguer who will undermine the rookie or will he be a good lieutenant? Who will the workers look to when the going gets tough?
I see this as the kind of set up that will work so long as all goes well out of the gate and has the potential for palace intrigue and assassinations if it doesn't.
It's not a perfect hire. But neither was the Joe Brady hire for Carolina. Garrett is a very smart guy who can give some guidance to Judge if and when Judge needs it. But it is important to know that Garrett's issues as a HC will not be an issue as an OC. He is not in charge of managing the clock or deciding when to go for it on 4th down. Instead, he will call the plays and run the offense, and I don't think people can credibly question him on that front. Sure, he is not the young, new hire that is popular in today's NFL,
It is similarly naive to believe that Garrett had no hand in designing the offense or developing the players on that team, even if he wasn't calling plays. He got the most anyone was going to get out of Dak, I believe. I don't think Dak is a franchise guy, and I doubt he is going to take some sort of leap now that Garrett is gone.
Again, Brady was my No. 1 choice for OC. I just think the way he transformed that LSU offense was crazy. Hopefully Garrett can prove he can get the most out of the players here. But it's hard not to view his signing as a positive for Jones, Barkley, Slayton, and Engram. He developed Dak, Elliott, Pollard, and Gallup in Dallas.
But I do see your kinds of speculative questions as the kind hot take seeking media and internet posters can get a whole season out of while adding old tropes into the mix as well and still not getting convincing proof from the field that the conspiracy theory du jour is more drummed up than real.
Its a hard sport to root for in hyperdrive for it take awhile between decisions and results. And unlike baseball, the results take a long time to accumulate into a sample size that's strong enough to resist the most common forms of bias and emotion.
Quote:
he is the exact opposite of Joe Brady - both good and bad.
He has 10 years of experience as a head coach, and just 1 year with a losing record (good). But because of that he hasn't called plays in several years (bad).
He won at a high profile job, with a meddling owner who calls himself GM, in the NFC East (good). But his teams never won in the playoffs or achieved an elite performance the way Brady seemingly impacted Burrow/LSU this year (bad).
He was on Saban's staff coaching QBs for 2 years (good). He did well coaching 2 later round QB's in Dallas (good). His experience probably gives him some better relationships with assistant coaches (like Callahan) or at least insight into their importance (good). But all of his experience may or may not make him more moldable to how Judge wants to do things (bad).
So net-net, if you start with what I believe is a fair premise that there should be at least 1 former HC on staff to help any first time HC, a hire like Garrett was much more likely than an inexperienced wunderkind. We all know that's a somewhat short list (Gruden, Caldwell, Linehan, Callahan, Turner). Garrett isn't my favorite choice among those options but you can make a credible case his track record is the best and his experience both in this org and with Saban certainly made him the most known quantity. I'd have likely preferred Turner or Gruden bc I view them as better offensive schemers, but I do like that Garrett brings better success as a HC and an understanding of the importance of a great OL.
No, it wasn't. Garrett is the de facto HC of the offense by virtue of his training, Judge's total lack of experience with offense and Garrett's experience
I hope this works but it smacks of that Giant specialty, the institutional compromise and hedge and is not without its potential for issues.
It's like appointing a guy fresh from the executive training program as the CEO and then hiring the CEO from a competitor to run one of the company's divisions. Who will take orders from whom? How will conflict be addressed? What happens the first time the rookie CEO who has no experience at all with what that division starts asking questions or issuing orders about it or questioning what the division head is doing? Is the CEO being brought in an intriguer who will undermine the rookie or will he be a good lieutenant? Who will the workers look to when the going gets tough?
I see this as the kind of set up that will work so long as all goes well out of the gate and has the potential for palace intrigue and assassinations if it doesn't.
Didn't you just say this on another thread?
Quote:
he is the exact opposite of Joe Brady - both good and bad.
He has 10 years of experience as a head coach, and just 1 year with a losing record (good). But because of that he hasn't called plays in several years (bad).
He won at a high profile job, with a meddling owner who calls himself GM, in the NFC East (good). But his teams never won in the playoffs or achieved an elite performance the way Brady seemingly impacted Burrow/LSU this year (bad).
He was on Saban's staff coaching QBs for 2 years (good). He did well coaching 2 later round QB's in Dallas (good). His experience probably gives him some better relationships with assistant coaches (like Callahan) or at least insight into their importance (good). But all of his experience may or may not make him more moldable to how Judge wants to do things (bad).
So net-net, if you start with what I believe is a fair premise that there should be at least 1 former HC on staff to help any first time HC, a hire like Garrett was much more likely than an inexperienced wunderkind. We all know that's a somewhat short list (Gruden, Caldwell, Linehan, Callahan, Turner). Garrett isn't my favorite choice among those options but you can make a credible case his track record is the best and his experience both in this org and with Saban certainly made him the most known quantity. I'd have likely preferred Turner or Gruden bc I view them as better offensive schemers, but I do like that Garrett brings better success as a HC and an understanding of the importance of a great OL.
No, it wasn't. Garrett is the de facto HC of the offense by virtue of his training, Judge's total lack of experience with offense and Garrett's experience
I hope this works but it smacks of that Giant specialty, the institutional compromise and hedge and is not without its potential for issues.
It's like appointing a guy fresh from the executive training program as the CEO and then hiring the CEO from a competitor to run one of the company's divisions. Who will take orders from whom? How will conflict be addressed? What happens the first time the rookie CEO who has no experience at all with what that division starts asking questions or issuing orders about it or questioning what the division head is doing? Is the CEO being brought in an intriguer who will undermine the rookie or will he be a good lieutenant? Who will the workers look to when the going gets tough?
I see this as the kind of set up that will work so long as all goes well out of the gate and has the potential for palace intrigue and assassinations if it doesn't.
Didn't you just say this on another thread?
DG's FA picks have been underwhelming while his draft picks have been pretty good for the most part.
JInts have a ton of FA money to spend this offseason and they need to do so wisely given the number of holes that need to be filled.
Garrett's insights and opinion could be invaluable here
If Judge wasn’t intimidated by Belichick (from all I’ve read) who will he be intimidated by?
However, talking to him last night, had nothing but positive things to say about him as a coordinator. Seems to feel exactly how we feel about Shurmur: really good coordinator, but a horrible head coach.
However, talking to him last night, had nothing but positive things to say about him as a coordinator. Seems to feel exactly how we feel about Shurmur: really good coordinator, but a horrible head coach.
Except Garrett was not a “horrible” HC. I’d say Shurmur turned out to be.
Quote:
He absolutely HATED Garrett as a head coach. Was counting down the days until he was gone.
However, talking to him last night, had nothing but positive things to say about him as a coordinator. Seems to feel exactly how we feel about Shurmur: really good coordinator, but a horrible head coach.
Except Garrett was not a “horrible” HC. I’d say Shurmur turned out to be.
Exactly. The guy is an above .500 coach after a ten year stint. I’d say that’s light years better than Shurmur. And now he’s our OC. I’ll take it.
Let’s not forget he was OC in Dallas while Romo was at his best. Maybe Garett had something to do with that?