[Mick]

Garrett took over a 1-7 Cowboys team, went 5-3 the rest of the way, went 8-8 for three straight seasons, then went 12-4, 4-12 and 13-3. He then went 9-7 and 10-6, got fired after 8-8. His replacement , Mike McCarthy, went 6-10.

I suspect Garrett would do very well at Stanford. He played QB at Princeton, then Columbia (his dad coached there), then returned to Princeton when his dad got fired.

[Mick]

Garrett took over a 1-7 Cowboys team, went 5-3 the rest of the way, went 8-8 for three straight seasons, then went 12-4, 4-12 and 13-3. He then went 9-7 and 10-6, got fired after 8-8. His replacement , Mike McCarthy, went 6-10.

I suspect Garrett would do very well at Stanford. He played QB at Princeton, then Columbia (his dad coached there), then returned to Princeton when his dad got fired.

[Chupacabra]

We're saying Shaw wasn't a good coach? Got stale, yes. Bad coach? I would strongly disagree.

I would add that in 10 years as head coach at Dallas, he had an 85-69 record (.559), and wound up winning the NFC East three times.  He had only one losing season (4-12 in 2015, a year when Tony Romo and Dez Bryant were injured during the season), and a bunch of 8-8 years (2011-2013, 2019).  He was NFL coach of the year in 2016.

So, while he didn't set the NFL on fire or bring multiple Super Bowl's to Dallas, he wasn't a failure, either.

BC

I mean Shaw also had crazy accomplishments but we know it wasn't mainly because he was a good coach. The national media is saying the same about Jason Garrett. What's led us to believe otherwise?

[Chupacabra]

We're saying Shaw wasn't a good coach? Got stale, yes. Bad coach? I would strongly disagree.

I would add that in 10 years as head coach at Dallas, he had an 85-69 record (.559), and wound up winning the NFC East three times.  He had only one losing season (4-12 in 2015, a year when Tony Romo and Dez Bryant were injured during the season), and a bunch of 8-8 years (2011-2013, 2019).  He was NFL coach of the year in 2016.

So, while he didn't set the NFL on fire or bring multiple Super Bowl's to Dallas, he wasn't a failure, either.

BC

I mean Shaw also had crazy accomplishments but we know it wasn't mainly because he was a good coach. The national media is saying the same about Jason Garrett. What's led us to believe otherwise?

[Brickcity]

We're saying Shaw wasn't a good coach? Got stale, yes. Bad coach? I would strongly disagree.

I would add that in 10 years as head coach at Dallas, he had an 85-69 record (.559), and wound up winning the NFC East three times.  He had only one losing season (4-12 in 2015, a year when Tony Romo and Dez Bryant were injured during the season), and a bunch of 8-8 years (2011-2013, 2019).  He was NFL coach of the year in 2016.

So, while he didn't set the NFL on fire or bring multiple Super Bowl's to Dallas, he wasn't a failure, either.

BC

I mean Shaw also had crazy accomplishments but we know it wasn't mainly because he was a good coach. The national media is saying the same about Jason Garrett. What's led us to believe otherwise?

Uh yes, we're saying Shaw was a bad coach. Many of us felt that way as far back as 2011. Can you say "Fiasco Bowl"?

[Brickcity]

We're saying Shaw wasn't a good coach? Got stale, yes. Bad coach? I would strongly disagree.

I would add that in 10 years as head coach at Dallas, he had an 85-69 record (.559), and wound up winning the NFC East three times.  He had only one losing season (4-12 in 2015, a year when Tony Romo and Dez Bryant were injured during the season), and a bunch of 8-8 years (2011-2013, 2019).  He was NFL coach of the year in 2016.

So, while he didn't set the NFL on fire or bring multiple Super Bowl's to Dallas, he wasn't a failure, either.

BC

I mean Shaw also had crazy accomplishments but we know it wasn't mainly because he was a good coach. The national media is saying the same about Jason Garrett. What's led us to believe otherwise?

Uh yes, we're saying Shaw was a bad coach. Many of us felt that way as far back as 2011. Can you say "Fiasco Bowl"?

[BostonCard]

Or take Pete Carroll, the example that's third-to-last on your list. His college record barely needs elucidating, but then again he's .593 as an NFL coach with a Super Bowl ring. I think the most natural reading of the evidence is that a pretty good NFL coach turned out to be an all-timer college football coach (albeit nearly twenty years ago. Pin that point.) 

At the time of his hire into USC, he had a 33-31 record at the Jets and Patriots (52% winning percentage).  He had gone to the playoffs twice in four years, and his worst season was 6-10.

Most of his .593 record and the Super Bowl came from a .619 winning percentage in a dozen seasons in Seattle.  But, none of this could have possibly been foreseen at the time of his hiring into USC.  Sure, you can retrospectively look at his record and say he was a great NFL head coach, but you could not possibly have known that or foreseen it at the time.  I mean, if Garrett is hired and is successful at Stanford, bolts to the NFL, and wins a Super Bowl, then retrospectively it would seem like a no-brainer hire.

BC

[BostonCard]

Or take Pete Carroll, the example that's third-to-last on your list. His college record barely needs elucidating, but then again he's .593 as an NFL coach with a Super Bowl ring. I think the most natural reading of the evidence is that a pretty good NFL coach turned out to be an all-timer college football coach (albeit nearly twenty years ago. Pin that point.) 

At the time of his hire into USC, he had a 33-31 record at the Jets and Patriots (52% winning percentage).  He had gone to the playoffs twice in four years, and his worst season was 6-10.

Most of his .593 record and the Super Bowl came from a .619 winning percentage in a dozen seasons in Seattle.  But, none of this could have possibly been foreseen at the time of his hiring into USC.  Sure, you can retrospectively look at his record and say he was a great NFL head coach, but you could not possibly have known that or foreseen it at the time.  I mean, if Garrett is hired and is successful at Stanford, bolts to the NFL, and wins a Super Bowl, then retrospectively it would seem like a no-brainer hire.

BC

[TinderForMidgets]

I think you are extremely wrong and it mainly boils down to your misapprehension with regard to #1. NFL head coaches translate spectacularly to college, or at least as well as any cohort of candidate. There of course will always be inherent uncertainty, fit issues, season of life issues, and so forth. No such thing as a sure thing. But somebody like Jason Garrett is MUCH more of a sure thing than somebody like Troy Taylor or Brent Brennan, and the most basic reason is that you are wrong NFL doesn't translate to college.

Those who can even get to mediocre in the men's league find it child's play to exceed their NFL success in college. For every Lovie Smith who fails in college, there's Pete Carroll, Jim Mora, Chip Kelly, Matt Rhule, Butch Davis, Steve Spurrier, and Rich Brooks who find college much easier. Because it is. When you have the street cred of having been an NFL head coach, the cachet you have in living rooms on the recruiting trail is indescribable. The rolodex (and name recognition that draws people to you) you can leverage in building a staff far outstrips your competitors. The egos you have to deal with seem quaint. The game day and Xs and Os machinations are like Neo operating in the matrix.

Those who think a coach's level of success in the NFL even comes close to approximating his upside in college don't understand the difference between the men's league and college. Look at Carroll. Or Saban. Or Mora. Or....ummm just about everybody.

Well, I think it's you who are wrong, but it's worth breaking down the reasons why. It's worth noting that most of the pro-Garrett arguments on this thread are premised on a very strong version of NFL superiority -- that you can take a pretty average NFL coach (which is what Garrett's .556 record and mediocre offensive coordination jobs say he is) and that person will easily exceed their college success. But that's unsupported by either the empirical record or indeed basic logic. 

Let's take the empirical record. Take Jim Mora, the last example on your list. Another average NFL coach -- .476 record. In college? His .605 record  as a Bruin is barely above UCLA's historical .579 winning percentage. Or take Pete Carroll, the example that's third-to-last on your list. His college record barely needs elucidating, but then again he's .593 as an NFL coach with a Super Bowl ring. I think the most natural reading of the evidence is that a pretty good NFL coach turned out to be an all-timer college football coach (albeit nearly twenty years ago. Pin that point.) 

"That's exactly my point," an NFL supremacist might say. Well, it's also exactly mine. Insofar as Pete's a good, not great, NFL coach, it's for specific reasons: he's pretty good defensive coach with some antediluvian offensive tastes. But NFL rewards specific qualities and doesn't some specific others. Would you say, in general, NFL coaches have sparkling personalities? The answer, of course, is no. Pete is a charismatic guy -- a quality college tends to handsomely reward. And he also hires very well. 

Not an accident at least four head coaches -- one of whom won a CFB national championship -- emerged from his USC staff. But that's the benefit of going from the NFL (generally a parity-driven culture, with some semi-exceptions. Again, pin this point) to one of the primo college jobs. Carroll went from a culture that doesn't necessarily reward all of his strengths to a spot that lavishly prizes his strengths. 

It's also worth noting that Carroll -- the example literally everyone brings up first when discussing pro-to-college transition -- is like a decade-old example at this point. Anyone who watches a lot of football on both Saturdays and Sundays these days is struck by one thing: these offenses run by Pat Mahomes and Lamar Jackson these days...look awfully similar to the offenses we were watching in college in 2017. It's not a secret to anyone seriously reading press coverage or following the sport that intellectual ideas travel from college to the pros -- not the opposite direction. Of course, pros have their advantages and rigors, but it's hardly the case that the big braniacs in the NFL are running rings around the college yokels. Just the opposite. 

So let's turn from the empirical record -- considerably more mixed than you present -- to basic logic. It doesn't follow that just because an arbitrary group is good at something that individual members are good at something. A venture capitalist might be pretty successful at investing in "college dropouts" before writing a big check on this Elizabeth Holmes character. 

Garrett is no Elizabeth Holmes, of course, but it's nevertheless worth considering Jason Garrett, specifically, and why Jason Garrett, specifically, would be good at coaching specifically, Stanford University. How did Jason Garrett get jobs? Well, in Dallas, he rather famously knew Jerry Jones through his dad. With the New York Giants, the owner foisted him upon a new coach. (The coach wanted to fire Jason Garrett four games into his first season, reportedly. Perhaps not coincidentally the Giants' QB been slightly-above-average when not under Garrett's care and below-average when he is.) To be fair, managing upwards might be a helpful quality in getting transfer, NIL, etc., rules changed. 

Then it's worth considering the specific situations Garrett's moving from. He's not an NFL coach; he's a former Dallas Cowboys coach. He won't be a college coach; he'll be a Stanford University coach. That is, Garrett will be moving from possibly the richest and most aggressive sports organization in the planet to Stanford. Under Jones, Garrett benefitted from an owner who's willing to pay $3 million a year for an assistant. Garrett used that generosity to hire, so far as I can tell, exactly one future head coach -- Derek Dooley. At Stanford, with fewer resources, will he be able to hire better or worse? 

In the NFL, Garrett enjoyed a reputation of predictable offenses -- especially an inability to get the plays in on-time -- poor special teams, poor game-management. Most of these qualities annoyed Stanford fans about Shaw. (Well, except for special teams.) 

It's also fair to question his cachet. I concede some recruits may find the mere fact of an NFL resume to be appealing. But reputations are two-edged. A Texan recruit has likely heard for most of his boyhood that Garrett is a of immense proportions moron. Garrett doesn't enjoy a strong reputation among Cowboys fans (or really any other fans). 

So even if you have strongly-held NFL supremacist views, you have to concede that there's variation. And once you concede that point, there's little reason to believe Jason Garrett, specifically, is a wonderful fit for Stanford or the college game generally. I think the most likely outcome of a Garrett hire is a Jerod Haase-type tenure.

You're a damn good writer. Start a blog with this type of stuff and you'd be big time.

P.S. I never thought I would have to use a dictionary for a college sports forum.

[TinderForMidgets]

I think you are extremely wrong and it mainly boils down to your misapprehension with regard to #1. NFL head coaches translate spectacularly to college, or at least as well as any cohort of candidate. There of course will always be inherent uncertainty, fit issues, season of life issues, and so forth. No such thing as a sure thing. But somebody like Jason Garrett is MUCH more of a sure thing than somebody like Troy Taylor or Brent Brennan, and the most basic reason is that you are wrong NFL doesn't translate to college.

Those who can even get to mediocre in the men's league find it child's play to exceed their NFL success in college. For every Lovie Smith who fails in college, there's Pete Carroll, Jim Mora, Chip Kelly, Matt Rhule, Butch Davis, Steve Spurrier, and Rich Brooks who find college much easier. Because it is. When you have the street cred of having been an NFL head coach, the cachet you have in living rooms on the recruiting trail is indescribable. The rolodex (and name recognition that draws people to you) you can leverage in building a staff far outstrips your competitors. The egos you have to deal with seem quaint. The game day and Xs and Os machinations are like Neo operating in the matrix.

Those who think a coach's level of success in the NFL even comes close to approximating his upside in college don't understand the difference between the men's league and college. Look at Carroll. Or Saban. Or Mora. Or....ummm just about everybody.

Well, I think it's you who are wrong, but it's worth breaking down the reasons why. It's worth noting that most of the pro-Garrett arguments on this thread are premised on a very strong version of NFL superiority -- that you can take a pretty average NFL coach (which is what Garrett's .556 record and mediocre offensive coordination jobs say he is) and that person will easily exceed their college success. But that's unsupported by either the empirical record or indeed basic logic. 

Let's take the empirical record. Take Jim Mora, the last example on your list. Another average NFL coach -- .476 record. In college? His .605 record  as a Bruin is barely above UCLA's historical .579 winning percentage. Or take Pete Carroll, the example that's third-to-last on your list. His college record barely needs elucidating, but then again he's .593 as an NFL coach with a Super Bowl ring. I think the most natural reading of the evidence is that a pretty good NFL coach turned out to be an all-timer college football coach (albeit nearly twenty years ago. Pin that point.) 

"That's exactly my point," an NFL supremacist might say. Well, it's also exactly mine. Insofar as Pete's a good, not great, NFL coach, it's for specific reasons: he's pretty good defensive coach with some antediluvian offensive tastes. But NFL rewards specific qualities and doesn't some specific others. Would you say, in general, NFL coaches have sparkling personalities? The answer, of course, is no. Pete is a charismatic guy -- a quality college tends to handsomely reward. And he also hires very well. 

Not an accident at least four head coaches -- one of whom won a CFB national championship -- emerged from his USC staff. But that's the benefit of going from the NFL (generally a parity-driven culture, with some semi-exceptions. Again, pin this point) to one of the primo college jobs. Carroll went from a culture that doesn't necessarily reward all of his strengths to a spot that lavishly prizes his strengths. 

It's also worth noting that Carroll -- the example literally everyone brings up first when discussing pro-to-college transition -- is like a decade-old example at this point. Anyone who watches a lot of football on both Saturdays and Sundays these days is struck by one thing: these offenses run by Pat Mahomes and Lamar Jackson these days...look awfully similar to the offenses we were watching in college in 2017. It's not a secret to anyone seriously reading press coverage or following the sport that intellectual ideas travel from college to the pros -- not the opposite direction. Of course, pros have their advantages and rigors, but it's hardly the case that the big braniacs in the NFL are running rings around the college yokels. Just the opposite. 

So let's turn from the empirical record -- considerably more mixed than you present -- to basic logic. It doesn't follow that just because an arbitrary group is good at something that individual members are good at something. A venture capitalist might be pretty successful at investing in "college dropouts" before writing a big check on this Elizabeth Holmes character. 

Garrett is no Elizabeth Holmes, of course, but it's nevertheless worth considering Jason Garrett, specifically, and why Jason Garrett, specifically, would be good at coaching specifically, Stanford University. How did Jason Garrett get jobs? Well, in Dallas, he rather famously knew Jerry Jones through his dad. With the New York Giants, the owner foisted him upon a new coach. (The coach wanted to fire Jason Garrett four games into his first season, reportedly. Perhaps not coincidentally the Giants' QB been slightly-above-average when not under Garrett's care and below-average when he is.) To be fair, managing upwards might be a helpful quality in getting transfer, NIL, etc., rules changed. 

Then it's worth considering the specific situations Garrett's moving from. He's not an NFL coach; he's a former Dallas Cowboys coach. He won't be a college coach; he'll be a Stanford University coach. That is, Garrett will be moving from possibly the richest and most aggressive sports organization in the planet to Stanford. Under Jones, Garrett benefitted from an owner who's willing to pay $3 million a year for an assistant. Garrett used that generosity to hire, so far as I can tell, exactly one future head coach -- Derek Dooley. At Stanford, with fewer resources, will he be able to hire better or worse? 

In the NFL, Garrett enjoyed a reputation of predictable offenses -- especially an inability to get the plays in on-time -- poor special teams, poor game-management. Most of these qualities annoyed Stanford fans about Shaw. (Well, except for special teams.) 

It's also fair to question his cachet. I concede some recruits may find the mere fact of an NFL resume to be appealing. But reputations are two-edged. A Texan recruit has likely heard for most of his boyhood that Garrett is a of immense proportions moron. Garrett doesn't enjoy a strong reputation among Cowboys fans (or really any other fans). 

So even if you have strongly-held NFL supremacist views, you have to concede that there's variation. And once you concede that point, there's little reason to believe Jason Garrett, specifically, is a wonderful fit for Stanford or the college game generally. I think the most likely outcome of a Garrett hire is a Jerod Haase-type tenure.

You're a damn good writer. Start a blog with this type of stuff and you'd be big time.

P.S. I never thought I would have to use a dictionary for a college sports forum.

[yvonne]

Garrett's wife's name is Brill.

It's Garrett.

[yvonne]

Garrett's wife's name is Brill.

It's Garrett.

[washingtonismoney]

Or take Pete Carroll, the example that's third-to-last on your list. His college record barely needs elucidating, but then again he's .593 as an NFL coach with a Super Bowl ring. I think the most natural reading of the evidence is that a pretty good NFL coach turned out to be an all-timer college football coach (albeit nearly twenty years ago. Pin that point.) 

At the time of his hire into USC, he had a 33-31 record at the Jets and Patriots (52% winning percentage).  He had gone to the playoffs twice in four years, and his worst season was 6-10.

Most of his .593 record and the Super Bowl came from a .619 winning percentage in a dozen seasons in Seattle.  But, none of this could have possibly been foreseen at the time of his hiring into USC.  Sure, you can retrospectively look at his record and say he was a great NFL head coach, but you could not possibly have known that or foreseen it at the time.  I mean, if Garrett is hired and is successful at Stanford, bolts to the NFL, and wins a Super Bowl, then retrospectively it would seem like a no-brainer hire.

BC

I agree we couldn't've known it retrospectively. But neither are we required to ignore new evidence as it comes in. If we look at all the evidence from Pete Carroll's career, the notion that he was an ineffectual NFL coach who then romped his way through the kids' playpen of college seems a bit fanciful. Perhaps Carroll was a bad NFL coach after his first couple of tenures, he learned a bunch, and then became a good one, or perhaps Carroll was always a good coach who had some unlucky years for whatever reason.* 

*(for example, one famous way for an NFL coach to be unlucky is to be stuck with a bad or unstable QB situation. For example I think most NFL fans think Frank Reich is a reasonably good coach who suffered from upheaval at the QB position. Fortunately this also describes Jason Garrett, who coached notably bad QBs Tony Romo and Dak Prescott.)

[washingtonismoney]

Or take Pete Carroll, the example that's third-to-last on your list. His college record barely needs elucidating, but then again he's .593 as an NFL coach with a Super Bowl ring. I think the most natural reading of the evidence is that a pretty good NFL coach turned out to be an all-timer college football coach (albeit nearly twenty years ago. Pin that point.) 

At the time of his hire into USC, he had a 33-31 record at the Jets and Patriots (52% winning percentage).  He had gone to the playoffs twice in four years, and his worst season was 6-10.

Most of his .593 record and the Super Bowl came from a .619 winning percentage in a dozen seasons in Seattle.  But, none of this could have possibly been foreseen at the time of his hiring into USC.  Sure, you can retrospectively look at his record and say he was a great NFL head coach, but you could not possibly have known that or foreseen it at the time.  I mean, if Garrett is hired and is successful at Stanford, bolts to the NFL, and wins a Super Bowl, then retrospectively it would seem like a no-brainer hire.

BC

I agree we couldn't've known it retrospectively. But neither are we required to ignore new evidence as it comes in. If we look at all the evidence from Pete Carroll's career, the notion that he was an ineffectual NFL coach who then romped his way through the kids' playpen of college seems a bit fanciful. Perhaps Carroll was a bad NFL coach after his first couple of tenures, he learned a bunch, and then became a good one, or perhaps Carroll was always a good coach who had some unlucky years for whatever reason.* 

*(for example, one famous way for an NFL coach to be unlucky is to be stuck with a bad or unstable QB situation. For example I think most NFL fans think Frank Reich is a reasonably good coach who suffered from upheaval at the QB position. Fortunately this also describes Jason Garrett, who coached notably bad QBs Tony Romo and Dak Prescott.)

[dabigv13]

WIM and msqueri are both obviously intelligent, observant, and eloquent posters here and that they are disagreeing on this topic is I think demonstrative of how much of a crapshoot coaching hires can be.

I think Garrett is a bit meh, but he's a far sight better than Wlat at least, and honestly better than I expected we would/could hire. I would prefer Taylor because I am an NFL retread skeptic but I am looking forward to msqueri's response here.

[dabigv13]

WIM and msqueri are both obviously intelligent, observant, and eloquent posters here and that they are disagreeing on this topic is I think demonstrative of how much of a crapshoot coaching hires can be.

I think Garrett is a bit meh, but he's a far sight better than Wlat at least, and honestly better than I expected we would/could hire. I would prefer Taylor because I am an NFL retread skeptic but I am looking forward to msqueri's response here.

[BostonCard]

Or take Pete Carroll, the example that's third-to-last on your list. His college record barely needs elucidating, but then again he's .593 as an NFL coach with a Super Bowl ring. I think the most natural reading of the evidence is that a pretty good NFL coach turned out to be an all-timer college football coach (albeit nearly twenty years ago. Pin that point.) 

At the time of his hire into USC, he had a 33-31 record at the Jets and Patriots (52% winning percentage).  He had gone to the playoffs twice in four years, and his worst season was 6-10.

Most of his .593 record and the Super Bowl came from a .619 winning percentage in a dozen seasons in Seattle.  But, none of this could have possibly been foreseen at the time of his hiring into USC.  Sure, you can retrospectively look at his record and say he was a great NFL head coach, but you could not possibly have known that or foreseen it at the time.  I mean, if Garrett is hired and is successful at Stanford, bolts to the NFL, and wins a Super Bowl, then retrospectively it would seem like a no-brainer hire.

BC

I agree we couldn't've known it retrospectively. But neither are we required to ignore new evidence as it comes in. If we look at all the evidence from Pete Carroll's career, the notion that he was an ineffectual NFL coach who then romped his way through the kids' playpen of college seems a bit fanciful. Perhaps Carroll was a bad NFL coach after his first couple of tenures, he learned a bunch, and then became a good one, or perhaps Carroll was always a good coach who had some unlucky years for whatever reason.* 

*(for example, one famous way for an NFL coach to be unlucky is to be stuck with a bad or unstable QB situation. For example I think most NFL fans think Frank Reich is a reasonably good coach who suffered from upheaval at the QB position. Fortunately this also describes Jason Garrett, who coached notably bad QBs Tony Romo and Dak Prescott.)

But Garrett could get rehired by the NFL after Stanford, have a substantially better second round, and then we might be looking back at his career and say "of course he was destined for success at Stanford, look at how great his NFL career turned out".

More to the point, as a whole, the track record of NFL head coaches in college is pretty good to great.  Matt did a fairly deep analysis looking at pretty much every coaching hire in the 21st century, and, as a group, former NFL head coaches were far and away the most successful.

As you point out, that is NFL head coaches as a whole, and not Garrett at Stanford.  One easily could craft a story about why Garrett won't work out, and I think you've made a case.  But a lot of that is a "just so" story. It is really tough to know just what will translate and what won't, and whether the things one worries about will wind up making a difference or not.  His lack of experience recruiting might make him awful in that regard, but maybe the combination of having been an Ivy League QB and an NFL head coach will resonate with recruits looking to go to the NFL but who have the academic chops to get into a school like Stanford.  Maybe his offense is complicated and stale and can't be run effectively in college, or maybe he is able to attract coordinators who like his NFL connections and he can implement a great offense at Stanford.

Hiring a coach is, at best, an iffy proposition.  When Willingham left, it took three tries before we found the right coach.  To this day (and in this thread) we are arguing over whether Shaw was ever a "good coach".  There are strong undercurrents in college football, and our success or failure may not even depend on who we hire as a coach.

If Garrett is it (or if it is Taylor), I will give him the benefit of the doubt and hope for the best.  If Garrett is a Harris redux (to a Teevensesque end of Shaw's career), then I will hope we get it right the next time.

BC

---

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kj_costello/status/1601000405969694720?s=20&t=abaItNDV7dtOI3rMltXcCA[/tweet]

BC

---

Not much new here, but the Prescott endorsement is worth noting.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-finalists

BC

---

The Athetic has an interesting article with a potential list. Is it ok to link?

Yes, it is fine to link articles.  If it is in The Athletic, I'd recommend a warning that it might be behind a paywall.

BC

---

I think another poster meant to paste these in:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Michele_Tafoya/status/1600949423894306843?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MacEngelProf/status/1600956432358047744[/tweet]

BC

[BostonCard]

Or take Pete Carroll, the example that's third-to-last on your list. His college record barely needs elucidating, but then again he's .593 as an NFL coach with a Super Bowl ring. I think the most natural reading of the evidence is that a pretty good NFL coach turned out to be an all-timer college football coach (albeit nearly twenty years ago. Pin that point.) 

At the time of his hire into USC, he had a 33-31 record at the Jets and Patriots (52% winning percentage).  He had gone to the playoffs twice in four years, and his worst season was 6-10.

Most of his .593 record and the Super Bowl came from a .619 winning percentage in a dozen seasons in Seattle.  But, none of this could have possibly been foreseen at the time of his hiring into USC.  Sure, you can retrospectively look at his record and say he was a great NFL head coach, but you could not possibly have known that or foreseen it at the time.  I mean, if Garrett is hired and is successful at Stanford, bolts to the NFL, and wins a Super Bowl, then retrospectively it would seem like a no-brainer hire.

BC

I agree we couldn't've known it retrospectively. But neither are we required to ignore new evidence as it comes in. If we look at all the evidence from Pete Carroll's career, the notion that he was an ineffectual NFL coach who then romped his way through the kids' playpen of college seems a bit fanciful. Perhaps Carroll was a bad NFL coach after his first couple of tenures, he learned a bunch, and then became a good one, or perhaps Carroll was always a good coach who had some unlucky years for whatever reason.* 

*(for example, one famous way for an NFL coach to be unlucky is to be stuck with a bad or unstable QB situation. For example I think most NFL fans think Frank Reich is a reasonably good coach who suffered from upheaval at the QB position. Fortunately this also describes Jason Garrett, who coached notably bad QBs Tony Romo and Dak Prescott.)

But Garrett could get rehired by the NFL after Stanford, have a substantially better second round, and then we might be looking back at his career and say "of course he was destined for success at Stanford, look at how great his NFL career turned out".

More to the point, as a whole, the track record of NFL head coaches in college is pretty good to great.  Matt did a fairly deep analysis looking at pretty much every coaching hire in the 21st century, and, as a group, former NFL head coaches were far and away the most successful.

As you point out, that is NFL head coaches as a whole, and not Garrett at Stanford.  One easily could craft a story about why Garrett won't work out, and I think you've made a case.  But a lot of that is a "just so" story. It is really tough to know just what will translate and what won't, and whether the things one worries about will wind up making a difference or not.  His lack of experience recruiting might make him awful in that regard, but maybe the combination of having been an Ivy League QB and an NFL head coach will resonate with recruits looking to go to the NFL but who have the academic chops to get into a school like Stanford.  Maybe his offense is complicated and stale and can't be run effectively in college, or maybe he is able to attract coordinators who like his NFL connections and he can implement a great offense at Stanford.

Hiring a coach is, at best, an iffy proposition.  When Willingham left, it took three tries before we found the right coach.  To this day (and in this thread) we are arguing over whether Shaw was ever a "good coach".  There are strong undercurrents in college football, and our success or failure may not even depend on who we hire as a coach.

If Garrett is it (or if it is Taylor), I will give him the benefit of the doubt and hope for the best.  If Garrett is a Harris redux (to a Teevensesque end of Shaw's career), then I will hope we get it right the next time.

BC

---

[tweet]https://twitter.com/kj_costello/status/1601000405969694720?s=20&t=abaItNDV7dtOI3rMltXcCA[/tweet]

BC

---

Not much new here, but the Prescott endorsement is worth noting.

https://www.espn.com/college-football/st...-finalists

BC

---

The Athetic has an interesting article with a potential list. Is it ok to link?

Yes, it is fine to link articles.  If it is in The Athletic, I'd recommend a warning that it might be behind a paywall.

BC

---

I think another poster meant to paste these in:

[tweet]https://twitter.com/Michele_Tafoya/status/1600949423894306843?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw[/tweet]
[tweet]https://twitter.com/MacEngelProf/status/1600956432358047744[/tweet]

BC

[jacket3ree]

A splashy hire like Garrett signals an institutional commitment to fielding a competitive team.

At least can we all agree this is an upgrade over Shaw?

Don't know about that. Feels like Chan Gailey redux rather than Pete Carroll, Trojan Conqueror.  

Chan took over from George O'Leary at GT, when O'Leary fumbled the Notre Dame job to Willingham in 2001. We had the Chan Gailey Equilibrium ™. Never lost more than six games, but never lost fewer than five games. Lost to Weak Florist 9-6 in the ACC Championship when he had Megatron.  Couldn't beat UGA, which ultimately did him in.  Feels eerily similar to Garrett. Mid-level Cowboys coach that is pretty mid-level in college. 

Doesn't Garrett do the NBC Sunday Night Football studio show? What a strange pull for Muir.

If he gets it, I'll have to ask the Marine. He has a pulse on what works and what doesn't.  His triple parlay Navy-Tech-Stanford over-under this year was 12 wins total, and we sit a 12 with one to play on Saturday. He's hit the triple three years running. He took the under; I took the over.

Go Navy. Beat Army!!

---

P.S.  What about "among"?  Maybe Among would kill it at Stanford.

A Troy Taylor announcement would register on the seismograph at Berkeley.

[jacket3ree]

A splashy hire like Garrett signals an institutional commitment to fielding a competitive team.

At least can we all agree this is an upgrade over Shaw?

Don't know about that. Feels like Chan Gailey redux rather than Pete Carroll, Trojan Conqueror.  

Chan took over from George O'Leary at GT, when O'Leary fumbled the Notre Dame job to Willingham in 2001. We had the Chan Gailey Equilibrium ™. Never lost more than six games, but never lost fewer than five games. Lost to Weak Florist 9-6 in the ACC Championship when he had Megatron.  Couldn't beat UGA, which ultimately did him in.  Feels eerily similar to Garrett. Mid-level Cowboys coach that is pretty mid-level in college. 

Doesn't Garrett do the NBC Sunday Night Football studio show? What a strange pull for Muir.

If he gets it, I'll have to ask the Marine. He has a pulse on what works and what doesn't.  His triple parlay Navy-Tech-Stanford over-under this year was 12 wins total, and we sit a 12 with one to play on Saturday. He's hit the triple three years running. He took the under; I took the over.

Go Navy. Beat Army!!

---

P.S.  What about "among"?  Maybe Among would kill it at Stanford.

A Troy Taylor announcement would register on the seismograph at Berkeley.

[cardcrimson]

Garrett on campus today. . . .

https://twitter.com/ByPatForde/status/16...-vQ91S8qdw

[cardcrimson]

Garrett on campus today. . . .

https://twitter.com/ByPatForde/status/16...-vQ91S8qdw

[jacket3ree]

Uh yes, we're saying Shaw was a bad coach. Many of us felt that way as far back as 2011. Can you say "Fiasco Bowl"?

You mean the BCS bowl that could have been a national semifinal game in which Stanford went toe to toe into overtime with the #3 team in the country?  Calling that a "fiasco" is a narrative that needs to die a painful death.

[jacket3ree]

Uh yes, we're saying Shaw was a bad coach. Many of us felt that way as far back as 2011. Can you say "Fiasco Bowl"?

You mean the BCS bowl that could have been a national semifinal game in which Stanford went toe to toe into overtime with the #3 team in the country?  Calling that a "fiasco" is a narrative that needs to die a painful death.

[Brickcity]

Uh yes, we're saying Shaw was a bad coach. Many of us felt that way as far back as 2011. Can you say "Fiasco Bowl"?

You mean the BCS bowl that could have been a national semifinal game in which Stanford went toe to toe into overtime with the #3 team in the country?  Calling that a "fiasco" is a narrative that needs to die a painful death.

My guess is that you could have coached that Stanford team to a New Year's Day bowl. This was largely the same team that pounded Virginia Tech the year prior in the Orange Bowl. A program and roster, I might add, that was constructed by Jim Harbaugh.

And yes, Shaw's utterly stupid move to bring in the kicker at game's end resulted in Stanford losing. I remember watching the game in a bar with the music playing and no other football fans around to influence my reaction...which took the form of me - and probably most Stanford fans.... screaming "nooooo!" when Shaw called in the kicker. "Fiasco" is an apt description of what happened next.

[Brickcity]

Uh yes, we're saying Shaw was a bad coach. Many of us felt that way as far back as 2011. Can you say "Fiasco Bowl"?

You mean the BCS bowl that could have been a national semifinal game in which Stanford went toe to toe into overtime with the #3 team in the country?  Calling that a "fiasco" is a narrative that needs to die a painful death.

My guess is that you could have coached that Stanford team to a New Year's Day bowl. This was largely the same team that pounded Virginia Tech the year prior in the Orange Bowl. A program and roster, I might add, that was constructed by Jim Harbaugh.

And yes, Shaw's utterly stupid move to bring in the kicker at game's end resulted in Stanford losing. I remember watching the game in a bar with the music playing and no other football fans around to influence my reaction...which took the form of me - and probably most Stanford fans.... screaming "nooooo!" when Shaw called in the kicker. "Fiasco" is an apt description of what happened next.

[cardcrimson]

Uh yes, we're saying Shaw was a bad coach. Many of us felt that way as far back as 2011. Can you say "Fiasco Bowl"?

And yes, Shaw's utterly stupid move to bring in the kicker at game's end resulted in Stanford losing. I remember watching the game in a bar with the music playing and no other football fans around to influence my reaction...which took the form of me - and probably most Stanford fans.... screaming "nooooo!" when Shaw called in the kicker.  "Fiasco" is an apt description of what happened next.

Come on Brick. The Fiasco Bowl wasn't nearly as bad as the "It's what we do" Bowl in Pasadena. . . .

[cardcrimson]

Uh yes, we're saying Shaw was a bad coach. Many of us felt that way as far back as 2011. Can you say "Fiasco Bowl"?

And yes, Shaw's utterly stupid move to bring in the kicker at game's end resulted in Stanford losing. I remember watching the game in a bar with the music playing and no other football fans around to influence my reaction...which took the form of me - and probably most Stanford fans.... screaming "nooooo!" when Shaw called in the kicker.  "Fiasco" is an apt description of what happened next.

Come on Brick. The Fiasco Bowl wasn't nearly as bad as the "It's what we do" Bowl in Pasadena. . . .

[BostonCard]

Shaw's record in bowl games was 5-3.  His record in BCS bowls was 2-2.  Before Shaw, the last time we had won a Rose Bowl, I wasn't even alive.  For every loss to Michigan State, there's a demolishing of Iowa. The other team has a say too, and Oklahoma State was an elite team (BCS #3 in the country), while Michigan State had an elite defense (second best in the country by FEI).

BC

[BostonCard]

Shaw's record in bowl games was 5-3.  His record in BCS bowls was 2-2.  Before Shaw, the last time we had won a Rose Bowl, I wasn't even alive.  For every loss to Michigan State, there's a demolishing of Iowa. The other team has a say too, and Oklahoma State was an elite team (BCS #3 in the country), while Michigan State had an elite defense (second best in the country by FEI).

BC

[Phogge]

No the Fiasco Bowl was worse because Luck was moving the team and OSU kept on not covering Stephan in the flat. Pitch and catch two more times and then kick it inside the 10.

[Phogge]

No the Fiasco Bowl was worse because Luck was moving the team and OSU kept on not covering Stephan in the flat. Pitch and catch two more times and then kick it inside the 10.

[MV72018]

No the Fiasco Bowl was worse because Luck was moving the team and OSU kept on not covering Stephan in the flat. Pitch and catch two more times and then kick it inside the 10.

I agree with the Fogmeister 100%. Shaw's decision to have the frosh (who had been having trouble with his kicking earlier) kick was one of the worst decisions in major college football history.

[MV72018]

No the Fiasco Bowl was worse because Luck was moving the team and OSU kept on not covering Stephan in the flat. Pitch and catch two more times and then kick it inside the 10.

I agree with the Fogmeister 100%. Shaw's decision to have the frosh (who had been having trouble with his kicking earlier) kick was one of the worst decisions in major college football history.

[Spiny_Norman]

No the Fiasco Bowl was worse because Luck was moving the team and OSU kept on not covering Stephan in the flat. Pitch and catch two more times and then kick it inside the 10.

I agree with the Fogmeister 100%. Shaw's decision to have the frosh (who had been having trouble with his kicking earlier) kick was one of the worst decisions in major college football history.

Williamson tore his groin practicing onside kicks just before the USC game. Whitaker filled in. Williamson was not recovered by the time of the bowl game. It was a poor decision to put the game on him.

[Spiny_Norman]

No the Fiasco Bowl was worse because Luck was moving the team and OSU kept on not covering Stephan in the flat. Pitch and catch two more times and then kick it inside the 10.

I agree with the Fogmeister 100%. Shaw's decision to have the frosh (who had been having trouble with his kicking earlier) kick was one of the worst decisions in major college football history.

Williamson tore his groin practicing onside kicks just before the USC game. Whitaker filled in. Williamson was not recovered by the time of the bowl game. It was a poor decision to put the game on him.

[washingtonismoney]

Looks like it's *not* Garrett: https://twitter.com/JasonGarrett/status/...4224270336

[washingtonismoney]

Looks like it's *not* Garrett: https://twitter.com/JasonGarrett/status/...4224270336

[martyup]

Looks like it's *not* Garrett: https://twitter.com/JasonGarrett/status/...4224270336

That means it's Taylor, right?

[martyup]

Looks like it's *not* Garrett: https://twitter.com/JasonGarrett/status/...4224270336

That means it's Taylor, right?